Floor Statements

Mr. President, almost two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, democracy and the rule of law have become firmly entrenched in many Central and Eastern European nations. We must be forthright and firm in our support for the continued independence and territorial integrity of the still fledgling CEE democracies.

The political and economic transformation of the region is nothing short of breathtaking. After years of untold suffering under Soviet rule, these countries have boldly embraced common transatlantic values of liberty and democracy with profound and positive consequences.

Internal reforms, including increased government accountability and efforts to eradicate corruption, have spurred economic transformations reaching deep within each country. Respect for human rights and democratic reforms have invigorated civil society. The progress and achievements in the region are inspirational, and I join with the 22 million Americans of Central and Eastern European heritage in taking great pride in the democratization of these former Soviet bloc countries.

But the great strides in freedom and democracy in the region are under threat. Russia's recent military incursion into the neighboring country of Georgia was a dramatic wake-up call. Some have suggested the incursion is a harbinger of Russian desires to limit the sovereignty and pro-Western orientation of vulnerable neighboring countries. I hope that is not the case.

Just last month, the leaders of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine stood together with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to demonstrate solidarity in the face of Russia's incursion. The United States pledged its support for the democratically elected Government of Georgia and for Georgia's territorial integrity and sovereignty. European leaders helped broker a cease-fire agreement. The United States, Europe, and the CEE nations must continue to stand together in the face of Russian aggression and interference in the region.

Nevertheless, as disturbing as Russia's behavior has been, we must we must find a way to step back from the path of confrontation with Russia. It makes better sense to find common ground than to engage in confrontation. This does not mean indulgence of Russia's recent actions. On the contrary, we must find a way to work with Russia without ceding freedom and democracy in the region.

Let me be clear. I am deeply committed to the continued freedom, democracy, and independence of the Central and Eastern European nations. At the same time, I fully support the democratization of Russia. Ultimately, we need to find a way to improve relations with Russia, but the effort cannot be one-sided.

It is in Russia's own economic interest to step up to the plate and be a positive member of the international community. Our relationship with Russia may be complicated, but we can find common ground in working together to strengthen global security, economic stability, and democracy. Moreover, the United States needs Russia as a partner in building a peaceful and prosperous Europe.

The United States does not have to choose between the Central and Eastern European countries and Russia. We should be able to form real partnerships with both.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object and I will object, but I wish to make a comment too. First, without stating whether I would be for or against such a resolution--I have not seen the language--there are Members on the other side--on my side of the aisle who do object and on their behalf I am objecting.

I would say this to my colleague. It would seem to me whether one supports the idea of making sure the death penalty extends to rapists, that the best place, when we are dealing with the Supreme Court, is an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, making the legal arguments--because obviously the Supreme Court is not supposed to just listen to what a body such as this believes but, rather, look at the law.

So that might be the appropriate way to go. But having said that, without taking my own personal position on this, I will object.

All I can tell my colleague is more than one Member. And under the rules, I guess that has to be disclosed within 5 days.

First, before I get into the substance of my remarks, I apologize to my colleague from Louisiana. It is 6 days after which objectors are known, not 5. So that was my mistake.

Today I rise to discuss the recent turmoil in our financial markets. Over the past few days the upheaval in New York has been extreme, as we have witnessed the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, one of the oldest and most well-respected financial institutions in the world, the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, and the Government takeover of AIG, America's largest insurance company.

Those stunning developments followed closely on the heels of the Government takeover of Fannie and Freddie a mere 10 days ago. And I watched with great sadness those lining up at some of these companies to take their belongings away after years and years of work and heard the tales of woe from my constituents.

Our job here is to cushion the blow for those who are innocent of any wrongdoing and have lost their jobs. I am trying to do all I can to minimize job loss in New York. But it is also to prevent this from happening again. That is why I rise to speak today, to lay out an outline of principles, and a broad-brush plan that might help us deal with this crisis.

These unprecedented events have made it clear to the country what many of us have been saying for some time. We are in the midst of the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. After 8 years of deregulatory zeal by the Bush administration, an attitude of ``the market can do no wrong'' has led it down a short path to economic recession.

From the unregulated mortgage brokers to the opaque credit default swaps market to aggressive short sellers who are driving down prices of even healthy financial institutions based on innuendo, this administration has failed to take the steps necessary to protect both Main Street and Wall Street.

There may not be a silver bullet to fix what is currently dragging down the economy, but we can take steps to mitigate the costs and ensure that the impact of this crisis will be short term. We need to offer a smart, targeted, and timely solution that will help our economy weather this storm and keep as many families from losing their homes in the process as we can.

Every minute matters, and the future competitiveness of the U.S. economy depends on the administration's response. The series of ad hoc interventions in the market over the past 10 days were important to avoid a systemic disaster, but we cannot continue to act in such an uncoordinated and ad hoc fashion.

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve is being asked to do things that go far beyond its mission. I represent 19 million New Yorkers, many of who live on Main Street and work on Wall Street. So I know better than most that our response has to be aimed at both areas. It must protect the downstate economy, and the upstate economy. And

the two--whatever one feels or wants to say--are intrinsically linked. Make no mistake about it. The reckless lending practices and irresponsible risk taking conducted by many of our financial institutions during this era of deregulation have proven costly for the U.S. economy and its taxpayers.

The Federal Government cannot and should not write a blank check to the institutions that have exacerbated this crisis. The U.S. taxpayers have already extended $300 billion worth of capital to troubled banks and financial institutions, asking for nothing in return.

So starting today we need to condition the Federal Government's financial lifeline on the institutions' firm commitment to take actions to get us out of our immediate economic crisis. If the Federal Government is going to continue to support the economy, its new formal lending program with financial institutions must address both the need for restoring stability and confidence in the U.S. financial market, and the need to set a floor in our plummeting housing market.

Some people focus on one, some people focus on the other. The fact is we need both. We are not going to get out of this great mess unless we deal with the mortgage crisis and the homeowner, and we deal with the cycles in our financial system which not only affect Wall Street and its jobs, of course, and my constituency, but affect all of America, because lending is the lifeline of the economy.

Someone from Chrysler told me that right now you need a FICO score of 720--that is a credit rating that is very high--to get an auto loan. If that continues, we would only sell 10 million cars in America next year as opposed to the 15 or 16 million we sell now. That shows you the interrelationship right there. The auto worker is related to the financial institutions. We must fix both in a practical, nonideological solution aimed at getting our economy back on its feet.

The rapid deterioration of the financial sector is fueled by the steep rise in delinquencies and the foreclosure of risky mortgages that have been sliced and diced and sold in complex instruments that are becoming rapidly toxic waste on the balance sheet of our largest financial institutions.

The best way to stop the bleeding is to turn these mortgages into viable assets on a large scale. But the combination of an economic downturn, tumbling home prices, complex mortgage security, and irresponsible underwriting by unregulated mortgage brokers has made this a daunting and so far insurmountable challenge.

Over the past few years we have heard many discussions of a so-called RTC, Resolution Trust Corporation, and RTC-like proposals modeled after the Government-owned asset management company charged with liquidating assets after the 1980s S&L crisis.

Today, Senator McCain made a similar proposal. And before I address that, let me speak for a minute on Senator McCain. He has been a leading advocate for deregulation for a very long time. All of a sudden, he sounds almost like a populist. He seems to reverse course day in and day out.

Two days ago he said: AIG should not be aided by the Government and should go bankrupt. And today he is calling for large Government intervention in the financial markets. It is no wonder that Senator McCain said he does not understand economics. His erratic behavior in the last 2 days is inconsistent--saying one thing on Tuesday and another thing almost directly opposite on Thursday--makes you understand why people would not trust him with the economy.

Today he called for the firing of Chris Cox of the SEC. Well, I have a lot of differences with Chris Cox and with the SEC. They have been far too deregulatory to me. But where does Senator McCain differ in policies with Chris Cox? Does he have a different view on short selling? Does he have a different view on holding company regulations? Who knows? Maybe he will replace Chris Cox with Phil Gramm who considers someone who lost his job a whiner, and considers all of us hurting in this economy a ``nation of whiners.''

It is hard to take the proposals by Senator McCain very seriously unless he backs them up, not only with detail, but with consistency and a philosophy.

But getting back to his proposal today, something of an RTC-like company, the central challenge with that approach, and anyone who is advocating the RTC--and my colleague Senator Dodd has outlined this very well recently--is that the Federal Government would take on all of the risk of the bank's troubled assets without addressing the root of the problem, the housing market.

Proposals such as Senator McCain's may help Wall Street but they will do nothing for Main Street. Two major problems exist. First, troubled mortgages have been sold into complex mortgage-backed securities which have themselves been split into pieces and sold to thousands of investors around the world.

In order for an RTC to be able to modify the mortgages, it would have to gather up all of the pieces of every security and put the proverbial puzzle back together. This would be incredibly difficult and virtually impossible. That is why the proposals by Secretary Paulson, as well intentioned as they are, have done very little in the foreclosure area. Because if one investor of the hundreds who hold a piece of a mortgage says ``no,'' there can be no refinancing, no reformulation. It is a huge problem.

Second, even if it were possible for borrowers to have piggyback loans on second mortgages, which is an estimated 50 or 60 percent of the troubled mortgages, the RTC would have to go back and buy the second lines as well in order to work out the loan.

In other words, even with the first mortgage, if you could get all of those hundreds of pieces together, there is a second mortgage in 50 to 60 percent of these troubled mortgages and the second mortgagors or mortgagees are not going to stand for--the first mortgagors are not going to stand for reducing their mortgage while the second mortgage is as large as ever.

In short, the complex structure of the most troubled mortgages underwritten over the past several years would prevent an RTC from being able to help most homeowners. Furthermore, it seems like the RTC is Rashoman these days.

Some propose the name ``RTC'', like the Wall Street Journal financial page, to buy financial instruments; some propose it to deal with the mortgage situation, which is difficult, as I mentioned. And I think when we look at the specifics, the RTC model is not the best way to go. In fact, it might not work at all.

Therefore, I am proposing that we examine a two-part approach that will help suffering homeowners across the country keep their home and restore stability to Wall Street.

First, we must get banks and other financial institutions to drop their fierce opposition to judicial loan modification in exchange for any additional assistance from the Federal Government.

This year my colleague, Senator Durbin, led legislation in the Senate that many of us cosponsored that would make a simple change to current law to allow judges the authority to modify harmful mortgages on primary residences. The industry adamantly lobbied against this legislation, arguing it would harm the secondary mortgage market. Simply put, this is wrong. Between 1978 and 1993, when such modifications were allowed, the evidence is clear. It had no impact on the secondary mortgage market whatsoever. What is even more absurd, a judge can already modify a mortgage on a second home. So if you own two homes--or seven homes--the bankruptcy court can help. But if you are like Joe and Eileen Bailey and most of us and you only have one home, which is, by the way, also your largest and most important asset, and you find yourself in trouble, there is nothing a bankruptcy judge can do.

This critical solution is achieved by simply removing the bankruptcy law's language that denies relief to homeowners for their primary residence. Court-supervised loan modification is the simplest, fairest, and least expensive way to get all the parties of a mortgage together and modify the loan down to the fair market value of the home with no cost to the U.S. Treasury. This provision also guarantees the lenders at least the value they would obtain through foreclosure, since a foreclosure sale can only recover the market value of the home. In addition, it saves lenders the high cost and significant delays of foreclosure. Because

bankruptcy is enshrined in the Constitution and because the bankruptcy judge has the power, unlike the mortgage processor, to require all the parties to come together, this can work and, again, at no cost to the Federal Government.

Second, to restore confidence in financial markets and institutions, rather than continuing to intervene on an ad hoc basis as additional companies face problems, we should look at options to formalize ways for the Federal Government to provide capital injections and secured loans for banks that are struggling. This will give financial institutions the capability to de-lever their balance sheets and write down their bad assets over time. The rapid failure of a large number of financial institutions would have a disastrous long-term effect on the American economy, a situation we must avoid at all cost. The Government could establish a new agency similar to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation or RFC-like model employed during the Depression. The RFC is far preferable to RTC. But we must condition the development of this formal structure on the agreement of banks to abandon their opposition to judicial loan modifications, and not only banks but others who hold pieces of mortgages as well. An RFC-like agency would receive equity and possibly secured debt from the banks in return for providing capital or liquidity. The equity received by the Government would allow the Government to share in any upside appreciation of the banks and minimize taxpayer costs in the process. The RFC would also get some degree of oversight lending activities of banks it has invested in, and the Government would come first. The Government would get repaid before others in the financial chain.

I represent the State of New York where many of my constituents live on Main Street and many work on Wall Street. Both are in dire trouble. We have the largest city in the country, and we are the financial capital of the world. We have upstate New York which would be the seventh or eighth largest State in the country. In addition, we have the third largest rural population. Right now all are in trouble because in this complicated economy all are interrelated. We have a responsibility to address the problems faced by both homeowners and financial markets. Attempts to solve only one side of the equation will not get us out of this crisis. Without a comprehensive solution that helps keep people in their homes, no amount of money advanced by Uncle Sam will restore the fundamental strengths of the American economy.

Chairman Bernanke has said it over and over again: Until we solve the mortgage problem, we are not going to solve our economic or even our financial problem. But unless we also solve our financial problem, the economy will not recover, and the housing problem will get worse. So we need to do both. Those who say just do one or the other, for ideological or policy reasons, will not come up with a solution. The solution I have proposed does both, and it links the two. To those who say the Government can't get involved in these institutions for no cost, we are making sure there actually is a cost, not only in the repayment plan but in the fact that they will have to treat mortgages differently and help beleaguered homeowners. By doing that, they will help the economy.

To those who propose a plan of just helping the homeowner, worthy as that is and as much as I have worked hard and believe in it, if our financial institutions and our financial lifeblood continues to be brittle, frozen, and sparse, it will be far more difficult to solve the homeowner problem because the economy will get worse, housing prices will go down, and the cost and ability to keep mortgagors in their home will be less.

This solution represents the best way to get us out of our financial crisis in a comprehensive way. It should have appeal to those on both sides of the aisle. Most importantly, it is a solution that deals with the entirety of the problem in a comprehensive way.

Given our economy hurtling southward, given the horrible stories we read in the newspapers every day about those who work on both Main and Wall Streets hurting, we cannot afford not to act.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized and speak for a moment on this day, 9/11.

Mr. President, we just commemorated a moment of silence for those who were lost on 9/11. Of course, for the husbands and wives, sons and daughters, fathers and mothers and friends, that moment of silence, in a sense, lasts every day, every moment.

In New York, of course, we lost close to 3,000 people. Some people I knew--a person I played basketball with in high school; a firefighter I was close to and worked with to encourage people to donate blood; a business man who helped me on the way up; the range of people who were lost in every walk of life, every ethnic group, every profession, in every way of thinking. The enormity still, 7 years later, is hard to have it sink in. Furthermore, when one thinks of just the uselessness of this tragedy, it is even more confounding.

There are many things to say in the advent of 9/11 that would be relevant on this floor, but today is not the day for that. Today we just think and remember and try to do everything we can to give solace to those we know who mourn and will mourn for the rest of their lives the senselessness of this tragedy that took loved ones from them.

So I just wish to say to those who do walk around with holes in their hearts as a result of 9/11: We will never forget.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am going to speak about a proposal that has been at the desk for a period of time and was put together by Senator Bingaman which deals in a very real way with the issues about which so many of our colleagues on the other side of the floor have talked.

First, it does increase domestic production by giving the Secretary of the Interior the authority to shorten lease terms and raise rental rates, requiring oil companies to comply with benchmarks. It would require the oil companies to drill rather than just hold property for decade after decade and not produce.

It would also bring down prices immediately by selling about 70 million barrels of high-quality light crude in the SPR, replacing it later with low-quality heavier crude.

Mr. President, 90 percent of sales would be invested in LIHEAP. Even more importantly, it reduces demand. First, building codes, 40 percent of our energy is used by cooling and heating buildings. Certain States have put in building codes for decades and dramatically reduced demand. We also have research for batteries, so we might have electric cars and many other provisions.

I cannot go into all of them because time is narrow. Why do my colleagues oppose something so rational? The bottom line is because they want to do what the oil companies want: give them record profits.

What do the oil companies do with those profits? Do they promote alternative energy? Absolutely not. Do they drill domestically? We are hearing all this talk about drill. Look what the oil companies do with their profits. They buy back stock. That is very good if you are a big shareholder in ExxonMobil. It is very bad if you are a homeowner heating your home or a commuter driving your car.

It does no one any good except a handful of people, mostly very well off, to raise ExxonMobil stock, raise Chevron stock, raise BP stock, and not put that money into production.

Our proposal doesn't do what the oil companies want, but it increases production, domestic production, and reduces demand, exactly the slogan that my colleagues are talking about on the other side of the aisle. But it does it in a way not that the oil companies want but that America wants.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill authored by Senator Bingaman, the Energy Price Reduction and Security Act of 2008, which is at the desk; that the bill be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record, as if read.

Mr. President, I ask today to speak on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.

I commend the conferees for ironing out the differences between the House and Senate passed versions of this bill that will deliver to the American people strong and much needed reform to consumer product oversight. I was proud to be a cosponsor of the Senate version, and I would like to thank and congratulate Chairman Inouye for his leadership and Senator Pryor for his extraordinary work in crafting this outstanding, bipartisan bill.

Over the last several years the Consumer Product Safety Commission has become a shell of its former self, with a noticeable void in leadership. Dangerous goods and toys have fallen into

the hands of our most vulnerable population while the CPSC has looked the other way. This act, however will prevent the CPSC from shirking its responsibility and ignoring its obligation to make America safe.

This act will provide the Consumer Product Safety Commission with the authority an resources it needs to be more effective in its critical mission to protect consumers. Quite frankly, the current product safety system is broken, and the CPSC is in desperate need of reform. Too many unsafe goods are reaching the shores of the United States. Too many dangerous products are finding their way into the hands of American consumers, and all too often, young children.

We worry about our kids when they are in class, when they are walking or driving home alone, even when they surf the Internet. We should not have to worry that the toys they play with might be hazardous to their health, or god forbid, even fatal.

The effectiveness of the CPSC has been severely undermined by years of budget and personnel cuts and, as a result, has been unable to keep up with globalization of the marketplace. This bill will reverse those trends and give the CPSC the budget and the tools it desperately needs to again become an effective force for consumer protection.

Protecting consumers, and especially children, is a priority, and the bill takes a tough approach to products that might threaten their health and safety. Imports of untested children's products will be prohibited, and mandatory third-party testing of children's products will be implemented. Tracking labels for children's products will help parents tie safety recalls and alerts to prior purchases. Children's products containing lead and certain plastic additives will be banned. A new Chronic Health Advisory Panel will be created. Finally, the sale of recalled products will be prohibited.

The CPSC must do a better job of getting hazardous products off the shelves and out of consumers' reach and these provisions will give the CPSC the tools to do just that. Manufacturers, importers, and retailers will be required to do their part as well or face serious consequences. The bill provides for increased criminal and civil penalties for those who knowingly and willingly violate product safety laws. It also gives State attorneys general the means to enforce Federal safety standards and get dangerous products off the shelf. Protections for whistleblowers are also included in the bill, so that employees who identify dangerous products along the supply chain can come forward with vital health and safety information without fear of reprisal.

These and other provisions of the CPSC Reform Act represent commonsense solutions to keeping consumers informed and safe from dangerous products. The bill will also ban industry-sponsored trips, which have the perception of unduly influencing CPSC officials.

Passage of this bill is vital if we hope to rebuild, reform, and revitalize the CPSC. The CPSC must be re-equipped to do its job of enhancing product safety and protecting kids and consumers from unsafe products.

The Federal Government must again become an effective force for consumer protection. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act is a first step--and a vital one at that.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of S. 2035, the Free Flow of Information Act.

This legislation is truly a product of bipartisan effort during this Congress. Senator Specter and I have worked closely together to craft a careful bill that protects both the freedom of the press and the safety of our citizens.

In a free and democratic country, we should be able to do both, and this bill does.

Other Senators--including Senators Lugar, Dodd, and Graham--have been instrumental in moving the bill to this point, and I wanted to thank our chair, Senator Leahy, for being not only a sponsor of the bill but somebody who helped bring it to the floor.

S. 2035--a product of lengthy compromise and negotiation--is ripe for passage. In fact, it is long overdue.

There is now overwhelming support for a Federal law that gives a qualified--I repeat, qualified--privilege to allow journalists to honor promises of confidentiality to their sources unless a judge finds that compelling disclosure better serves the public interest.

How widespread is support for this legislation?

The presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, Barack Obama, supports this bill. The presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, supports this bill. Forty-two State attorneys general--both Democratic and Republican--support this bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee, as evidenced by a vote of 15 to 4, supports this bill. The House of Representatives, as evidenced by a vote of 398 to 21, supports a similar bill. And, of course, over 100 newspaper editorials support this bill.

Conservative voices, such as former Solicitor General Ted Olson and the editorial page of the Washington Times, support this bill, as well as the Washington Post. So it does have broad support.

Given some of the ill-founded handwringing by the current administration over this bill, it is worth listening to what former Justice officials such as Mr. Olson say. Here is what Ted Olson recently wrote:

A free society depends on access to information and on a

free and robust press willing to dig out the truth. This

requires some ability to deal from time to time with sources

who require the capacity to speak freely but anonymously. . .

. [The Free Flow of Information Act] is well balanced and

long overdue, and it should be enacted.

That is Ted Olson, so it is surprising the administration is opposed to the bill. There is similar support from both liberal and conservative sides.

Here is how the conservative Washington Times put it:

A sound shield law guards not ``the media'' but something

much more vital--the public's right to know . . . A measured

law would not shield sources who perpetrate demonstrable and

articulable harm to the country's national security

interests. But it would rightly shield most others. Such a

bill awaits Senate action now. It should be passed.

That is from an editorial of July 25, 2008.

Unfortunately, given the broad and bipartisan support of this legislation, a minority of critics have taken to attacks that are overwrought and overstated.

Every criticism is either wrong or is effectively addressed in the substitute bill, which I spoke about last night on the floor and is in the Record as of last night, so my colleagues can see it. Senator Specter and Senator Lugar and I have worked to meet every one of these objections.

Fundamentally, critics have suggested the bill would represent a radical change in the law. Nothing is further from the truth. It even tracks this Justice Department's own guidelines. All we are saying is that given recent events and Government actions, a judge should be the final arbiter when it comes to subpoenas to journalists for sensitive information. It is not an absolute law. It doesn't say ``never.'' It doesn't say ``always.'' Some on the press side wanted ``always.'' Some on the administration side wanted ``never.'' It is a careful, balancing test. Moreover, a majority of Federal circuits now recognize some privileges for journalists in, of course, 49 States, plus the District of Columbia recognizes those protections.

However, because of some of the recent comments about the bill, Senator Specter and I have undertaken to address a series of other concerns, and should we move to proceed, the substitute measure will be on the floor. I outlined last night on the floor the changes that I think meet the concerns of the critics in two places in particular: one, making sure classified information does not get out and is protected, and, two, the definition of who is a journalist so we make sure that those who just casually criticize or whatever do not get the protection, as would professional journalists.

So the text of the substitute is here, and I hope my colleagues--I hope we will move to this. I know we have disputes on other issues, but this is the Senate working: broad, bipartisan, carefully thought out legislation that can move forward with an overwhelming vote. I hope we will move forward today.

On the other bill coming before us, the extenders bill, just one point before I yield the floor.

If you care about reducing gasoline prices, the bill on the floor today, with tax incentives for alternative energy,

will do far more than any amount of drilling to free our dependence on foreign oil and to reduce prices. I hope my colleagues will support that bill as well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President I rise in support of the comments of my colleague from New Mexico, who has done an excellent job, along with the Senator from Montana, in putting this together.

We have heard a lot of talk on the floor about drilling. That has gotten a lot of the heat, but the light is right here with the extenders. I say to my colleagues, these tax extenders, which are focused on energy alternatives, are far more important to reducing gas prices than drilling. Whether you are for drilling or against it, we all know you cannot drill your way out of this problem; that just by drilling, by focusing on drilling, we are telling both Saudi Arabia and ExxonMobil that they are going to continue to control our destiny for decades to come. And look what that has brought us to now--$4-a-gallon gasoline.

The only solution is to wean ourselves from oil and, to a lesser extent, natural gas and to move to alternatives such as wind and solar for electricity, and battery-powered cars, electric cars, and gas- powered cars to deal with automobiles, and other kinds of efficiency- enhancing measures. If we ever want to be free of big oil, this is the place to go.

So for all the speeches we are hearing from the other side about drilling, which won't bring any more oil for 7 to 10 years--and, of course, we are for a plan of increasing our domestic production and drilling that is more efficient and quicker, but no amount of drilling is going to solve our problem.

We know why they want drilling. Big oil wants drilling. Well, I say that the American people don't want ExxonMobil or OPEC or Saudi Arabia controlling our destiny any longer because that brought us $4-a-gallon gasoline. We want alternatives. We want a car that can run by electricity--just as powerful, just as long a ride, just as smooth, if not a smoother ride, than gasoline-driven cars and a heck of a lot cheaper. We want our homes powered--heated and cooled--by wind power and solar power and biomass and so many of the other alternatives-- cellulosic ethanol--and this bill takes the first large step to doing that. The tax extender bill will increase focus on solar.

Talk to the people who do these alternatives. They say that unless we extend the tax cuts, particularly for a longer period of time, they cannot make an investment. Germany is way ahead of us in this area, as is France, and China is leaping ahead of us in this area, and all because my colleagues don't want to close some tax loopholes primarily dealing with people who put their money overseas and defer their taxes, which no American should have the right to do.

So I say to my colleagues, you want to bring down gasoline prices? You want to bring down the cost of home heating oil? The best thing to do is move this extender package. It is far better than drilling-- whatever your view on drilling. Let's see what happens when we vote on these proposals this afternoon and tomorrow. All the talk about $4-a- gallon gasoline--less important than defending those who hide their money overseas and won't pay taxes. That is what the votes are going to show here.

This bill is a vital bill. This bill has so many good provisions in it that will wean us from oil.

I say to my colleagues once again, we know we cannot drill our way out of the problem. We have twiddled our thumbs for 7 years. It is about time we started giving the tax incentives to alternative energy and freeing our country of OPEC, of Saudi Arabia, of ExxonMobil, and of $4 gasoline.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will be brief. I know Senator Grassley has been waiting as well. I will not speak for very long.

I rise to speak about S. 2035, the Free Flow of Information Act, a bill that Senator Specter and I have spent a lot of time on, worked on, and is cosponsored by many in the House and notably Senators Dodd and Lugar who had a previous bill, as well as, of course, Senator Leahy who led the charge on so many different issues and has been very helpful in us moving this legislation forward.

I am going to speak tomorrow when we address the bill, but I wanted to let my colleagues know of a substitute amendment that Senator Specter, I, and others will offer because it will modify the bill and meet some of the objections.

First let me say the bill is very much needed. We have to find the right balance between the free flow of information and the ability of reporters to get that information from those in Government and, at the same time, not be so far in that direction that we allow people to either break the law or harm the security of the United States.

This has been much more difficult than it appears to achieve, but we are very close. The bill codifies and standardizes existing tests used by Federal courts so that journalists, say, in Illinois are not subject to different treatment than journalists in California.

It certainly allows whistleblowers to be protected when they tell somebody about something untoward. We certainly don't want, if a test is being fixed in the FDA because a drug company wants it, to prevent some public servant in the Government from letting a reporter know to prevent harm. But at the same time, there is no absolute privilege and there are exceptions in terms of harming national security, acts of terrorism, and other matters, such as kidnaping or murder.

Again, I will talk about this bill at some length tomorrow. But I do want to go over some of the changes we have made so my colleagues are aware of them before we vote.

As I said, Senator Specter and I have put together a substitute which if we adopt the motion to proceed--and I hope we will--we will immediately offer, and that will be the base bill we will discuss. Let me talk about the changes made.

First, the intelligence community had concern that it would be too difficult to prosecute leaks of classified information. The new bill moves consideration of leaks of classified information from section 2 of the bill to section 5, and that removes two major hurdles for Federal prosecutors.

Under the new law, prosecutors will not have to prove any longer that they have exhausted all options for finding the information or that the information is essential to their investigation. These hurdles still remain in the Department of Justice internal guidelines, but the bill is not as strict in that regard.

The bill also no longer requires that the person who leaked the information was authorized to have it.

This substitute clarifies that the act will have zero impact on intelligence gathering under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. This bill does not affect FISA.

Third, the substitute explicitly provides that sensitive Government information will not be disclosed in open court. There was worry that under a whistleblower law, that might happen. We make it clear that security has to come first, but there also has to be balance in the test.

Four, the definition of a covered person--and this has been one of two areas of some controversy--has been narrowed to ensure that it protects only legitimate journalists, first used in the Second Circuit case of von Bulow v. von Bulow to determine who qualifies as a covered person. Someone who blogs occasionally is not going to get the protection here. Of course, someone on a blog who is a regular journalist but happens to use the blog as a medium will be protected. And that is how it ought to be.

Five, the substitute creates an expedited appeals process ensuring that litigation regarding whether the protection applies will be resolved as quickly as possible. In section 8, we expedite the appeals process.

These are the changes made. They make the bill better. The bill has the support of the journalistic community. It has the support of 41 sitting States attorneys general, both Democrats and Republicans. It is one of those rare bipartisan moments. It has the support of Senator Obama and Senator McCain and, of course, passed out of the Judiciary Committee 15 to 4. A similar bill passed out of the House by 398 to 21 and, obviously, it has been endorsed by 100 newspapers. That is easy to say, but in this town both the Washington Post, a more liberal paper, and the Washington Times, a more conservative paper, have endorsed it.

This bill has taken lots of time and lots of work to achieve a careful balance. This is a rare moment, praise God, a broad consensus, and I hope we can move this bill forward tomorrow.

Madam President, I will speak at greater length tomorrow when we are on the bill, but I wanted to let my colleagues know the substitute changes which we will publish in the Record this evening so people will have a chance to look at it.

I yield the floor so that my colleague from Iowa can speak.

I believe our side now has the next half hour. I yield myself 20 minutes and 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.

I request the Chair to alert me when I am halfway through.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on two issues, both pending before us, both vitally important to the economy. One is energy, one is housing.

We all know the pain Americans experience. We all know the price of gasoline. In New York, people are already anticipating, with fear in their hearts, the price of home heating oil to heat their homes in winter. Everywhere else the costs of energy are driving prices higher, creating a middle-class squeeze.

We had a hearing at the Joint Economic Committee yesterday. Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard, outlined that squeeze. The average middle-class person is hurting. They have built up a good life for themselves. Now they are hurting because, on the one hand, their income is not going up--productivity is but income is not--and at the same time their costs are going much higher than the rate of inflation. So they are caught in a vise--income declining, prices increasing.

This Friday night, there will be millions of Americans who, after dinner, husband and wife, will be sitting around the table talking about the things they care about, their children and their futures, their health. But probably the No. 1 topic will be, how the heck are we going to pay the bills.

Democrats are here to try and finally, after 7\1/2\ years of being dominated on the energy debate by oil, oil companies, oilmen in the White House, change the debate. The other side has a simple solution. It gets modified every couple of years, but it is basically the same. Do what big oil wants. When the price is low, give them subsidies. When the price is high, make sure they don't pay much in taxes. All throughout, focus our energy economy on oil, because that is what the big oil companies want.

Rex Tillerson, the head of ExxonMobil, came before the Judiciary Committee a year and a half ago and said: ExxonMobil does not believe in alternative energy. I guess if I were ExxonMobil, I wouldn't either. Because as demand goes up and supply stays relatively flat, the price goes up and the profits go up. I have been asking, what do the big oil companies do with their profits. A huge percentage goes not into new exploration. They say they want to explore, but a majority of the money, in some cases, and a plurality, in most, goes to buying back their stock to raise the share price for themselves and their shareholders. This idea that oil companies are eager to explore is belied when we look at their financial statements. They are buying back their stock. It doesn't create one drop of oil. For the limited number of people who have ExxonMobil stock, that is a godsend. For the rest of us, it squeezes us even more. Chevron does it. BP does it. They all do it, with billions and billions of dollars. I believe last year ExxonMobil took $29 billion to buy back their stock.

I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they are so eager for exploration, why aren't they putting that $29 billion into exploration? But they are not. Again, we have the answer from the other side: Big oil today, big oil forever.

The American people know we are not going to drill our way out of this crisis. Even if the oil companies wanted to--and statistics show they do not--we don't have enough oil to prevent the price from going up, because demand worldwide is dramatically increasing, in China, in India, in the Middle East. The number of new cars in China and India in a short while will exceed the total number of cars in America, in 10 years, 15 years. Imagine that, new cars in China and India competing with us to buy gasoline. Obviously, the price will go up.

When our majority leader repeats over and over that we have 3 percent of the reserves and 25 percent of the consumption, there is no way to reduce prices significantly in the long term other than to get off our dependency on oil. So drilling is not the answer. Yes, in certain places, it may help. We are not opposed to that. I proudly went to the Republican majority, got Democrats to vote for drilling in the gulf. But it is not going to solve our problem. It will ameliorate it a tiny little bit in certain places, if you drill in the gulf and places near refineries.

The answer is to ween our dependence from foreign oil and tell OPEC and Chavez in Venezuela and Iran to take a hike because we don't need them anymore. They can't have their hands around our necks any longer-- economically, politically, or geographically.

The good news is, we can do that. We can do that on both sides of supply and demand. That is what we Democrats are attempting to do. We are attempting to help get an electric car. Electric cars, no gasoline, will ride as smoothly and as well but much more cheaply than our present cars. They are not these little golf carts you drive around. You can have a big SUV with a battery that goes 250, 300 miles, same as a tank of gasoline, and drives with the same speed and the same power and the same torque. We are not too many years away from that, if we help create the battery. They have the battery. It just has to be mass produced. We need some research to get that done in a cheap enough way so that the price of cars stays the same while the price of fueling the cars goes down.

Senator Bingaman will be here shortly. He put one of my proposals in the Democratic proposal for housing conservation when you build. Forty percent of our energy is consumed not driving cars but cooling and heating homes, air conditioning and heating. If we were to adapt conservation measures, that could dramatically drop. One State has done it, California. California's energy consumption is lower than just about any other State, even though they are a car culture. Why? Because in 1978, under Governor Jerry Brown, whom many regarded as ``Governor Moonbeam,'' this was an excellent idea that has proven successful; they put conservation in building standards for homes and offices. Now, in terms of buildings, their per capita consumption of energy is about what Denmark's is. Why don't we do it nationwide?

Then there is alternative energy. There was an op-ed in the Washington Post by an oilman, someone I know named Jim Tisch, who said that now it is profitable to do wind power, solar power and other kinds of power and take our dependency off oil and gas.

We can both increase supply and decrease demand, reduce the price, if we embark now on a program of change. When we have tried to do this, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said no. Why? The big oil companies don't like it. Some of the big utilities don't like it. The big special interests don't like it. But they are doing great. It is the average middle-class person who needs the help.

The equation is simple. I will put it in stark terms, but I think it has to be put that way: Republicans, big oil, the past; Democrats, alternatives, the future. Let me repeat that. Republicans, big oil and the past; Democrats, alternatives and the future. Every American knows which side we want to be on.

I am sorry they have decided not to accept Majority Leader Reid's generous offer and take their proposal and our proposal and debate them. We will do that any day of the week. I am sure Senator Obama is eager to debate Senator McCain, who is following in the big oil footsteps of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

I thank the Chair.

I am sure he is eager to have that debate. When you ask people in polling, should we drill, they say sure. Then when you ask, can we drill our way of the problem, they know we can't. We are going to continue to push. I hope and pray we don't have to wait for the next President to do this. I would like to see it done now, because we have waited 7 years. We have had bills on the floor in the past: bills to raise mileage standards of cars, stopped by the auto companies; bills for alternative fuels, stopped by the oil companies; bills to make sure utilities are more efficient, stopped by the utilities. When the price was low, no one paid much attention. But now we are all paying the awful price. Let us change once and for all. There are short-term solutions, whether with the SPR or tamping down speculation. But the only long-term, real answer is to reduce our dependence on oil, move to alternatives and conserve more, consume more efficiently. I hope my colleagues will do that. I hope we will look forward to the future and not delay the future any longer and not look back at the past.

Housing

The other bill that is before us now and upon which we will vote shortly is the housing bill. I urge my colleagues to support it. Unlike the energy issue, I think we do have broad bipartisan support. I was delighted to hear yesterday that the President changed his view and will now support the bill Chairman Dodd and Congressman Frank have put together. I am very glad of that. It is a good bill. I have had some significant input into it, for which I thank both of them.

Housing is at the nub of the recession. Housing prices go down and people don't have the money to do other things. That hurts. Homes are foreclosed upon and neighborhoods suffer. Even if you keep your home and even if your housing price is flat, mortgage rates go up. Since so many people have adjustable rate mortgages, that hurts us as well. But housing has been the bull's-eye of the economic crisis. For too long, Washington has twiddled its thumbs, despite the efforts of those on our side who want to do something and who have smart, rational, and targeted plans. But now finally, because the crisis is screaming at us, the President has agreed to support our legislation, and many on the other side, hopefully, will vote for it, as they did last week.

The housing bill has many important components. It has a plan that will set a floor for some home prices. It is not a panacea, but it will help reduce the decline in home prices in many places, which is desperately needed, and reduce the rate of foreclosure for several hundred thousand homes, which is also desperately needed. I would have liked to have seen that part of the bill be stronger. I would have liked to have seen the bankruptcy provisions put in there which would have been a club and made them work a little better. They are not there, but this is still good.

We also have in the proposal CDBG money. We held a hearing of the Joint Economic Committee where, from the community in Slavik Village, people testified how empty and vacant homes were killing their neighborhood. I don't know what entity Slavik Village is in, what town, whether it is Cleveland or somewhere else, but no local community has the ability to deal with all these foreclosed homes. The only entity that can is the Federal Government.

The CDBG money, which, thank God, now the President has dropped his opposition to, will buy up those homes and prevent the market from getting worse and communities from deteriorating. Because when you have an abandoned house and some vandals come in and pull out the plumbing and electricity, and then it becomes a haven for drug dealers and criminals, it ruins the whole neighborhood. The person living down the street, who has paid his or her mortgage and does not even have a mortgage anymore, suffers as well.

So this CDBG money, as well as the whole program we are putting together, is not simply aimed at those who cannot pay their mortgages. It is actually aimed at the millions of homeowners who are hurt because even though they pay their mortgages, and even though they may have finished paying their entire mortgage, their home prices decline because there are foreclosures in the community.

Then there is the part about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think this is necessary. It is unfortunate we are at this stage but necessary. Fannie and Freddie are at the center of our housing market, and the housing market is at the center of our declining economy. If you are simply going to say: Well, let Fannie and Freddie fail, let's learn the moral hazard, you are hurting tens of millions of innocent people along the way as you teach that lesson. That is why I do not think we should do it.

Do we need tougher regulation for Fannie and Freddie? Yes. And in the bill is a much strengthened regulator. I supported that from the get- go. But to allow Fannie and Freddie to deteriorate, and deteriorate as dramatically as they might have without a possible Government backstop, would do far more damage than the Government backstop itself. The odds are, we will never have to use it. And when you add to that the odds that we will use it but it will not cost all that much, they are overwhelming. But the alternative, the risk of looking into the abyss and letting the economy roll down--because if Fannie and Freddie were to go under, Lord knows what would happen in this economy--is not worth it.

I have spoken at length to Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, both appointees of the President, and they believe this is desperately needed. I was surprised so few of our House colleagues voted for this proposal. Ideologs do not usually solve problems. They have a narrow way of looking at things. So if you say Government is always the answer, you are going to mess things up. But just as equally, if you say Government is never the answer, you will mess things up as badly. We have a whole lot of people, at least in the House, who said: Don't get the Government involved at all. Let people suffer. That is for their overall good.

It reminds me of the old days when the Adam Smith theory said: Well, let anyone sell any medicine they want, and if it is a bad medicine, and you die from it, your family will learn from it and you won't buy it again. It is an awfully harsh view of the world, and not a view most Americans agree with.

In a somewhat less serious but serious note, this is the same thing with housing. If you let the housing market go in the tank, so much suffering will occur that the risk is not worth it. So this is a good package. Is it what we would have done? No. Is it what Mr. Paulson would have done on his own? No. But it is a fair and workable compromise, and unlike the Energy bill, it is a place where we can all come together and do something for the good of the economy.

I also do want to mention there is more money for mortgage counselors. The Senator from Washington, you, I say to the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I have been working hard to get more mortgage counselors in the bill, and there is $180 million more for that, as well as $10 billion in mortgage revenue bond authority, which will help States and localities to develop refinancing programs--very important in my State. It is something the Presiding Officer has supported, and I am glad it is in the bill.

In conclusion, Mr. President, on energy, let's look forward to the future. Let's hope some of our colleagues will join us and not cling to the answer: oil today, more oil tomorrow. We do not have it, given the increase in demand.

On housing, let us move this bill forward quickly. Both are vital to the future prosperity of our country, and both ought to become law without further delay.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we are at a seminal moment in America. American consumers are being battered by high oil prices, high home heating oil prices, all high energy prices. The average middle-class person is squeezed more than ever before. People are not going to college, people are not taking jobs, people are not visiting grandkids, and it is all because of high oil prices. It is changing the way we live--and not for the better. Americans are crying out.

What is the answer? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are stuck in the past. They talk about drilling more. Of course they do; they always do what big oil wants. Big oil now, big oil forever. That is the Republican motto. Do what they want and nothing else, while consumers foot the energy bill.

We cannot drill our way out of this problem, we know that. We have 3 percent of the oil and 25 percent of the consumption. We cannot drill our way out of the problem. Are there good, constructive ways we can, in the short term, increase domestic production? Absolutely.

I was one of the Democrats who rallied us to drill in the gulf on a large tract of oil. There are plenty of places, as my colleague from North Dakota talked about, in Alaska, but make no mistake about it, the price of oil will not come down until we reduce our dependence on it.

Democrats are fighting for a new future, not looking at the past, finding one little bit of oil here, one little bit of oil there, and praying it will solve our problems. We are looking for alternative and renewable sources of energy to play a major role in our energy supply, freeing us from oil: No more OPEC. The Republican plan would reduce dependence on OPEC from 50 percent to 45 or from 60 percent to 55. It is not going to do a darn thing. Particularly, every bit of new oil we find here--and I hope my colleagues will say all the new oil we find here should be used only in the United States. But China and India will consume far more than we find in the next 10 or 15 years.

Let me say this: There will be more new cars in China and India in the next decade or so than we have cars in America. We cannot drill our way out of the problem.

I understand my colleagues' desire for their program. It helps big oil. That is what we have done all along when the Republicans have been in charge. Big oil now, big oil forever. America knows that is not going to work. We are in a new world where there is not enough oil to meet our needs.

What are we doing on our side? We are for increasing domestic production in the short term in a rational way, but we are not depending on it. It is not the main part of what we are talking about because we know that will simply lead to higher oil prices. It will never reduce the cost of oil enough to bring relief to the American family.

What should we be doing? What are Democrats proposing? We are proposing reducing our dependence on oil and foreign oil in particular. We are proposing incentives for alternative energy--wind and solar. T. Boone Pickens, a big oilman, says we cannot drill our way out of the problem.

We are proposing dramatic changes in our automobiles. You can have an electric car that drives just as far and long as a gasoline-driven car and rides more smoothly with the same power and the same torque. Why aren't we pushing that? Big oil companies don't want it. They won't be selling those batteries. The big oil companies don't want wind power or solar power. They are not involved in those issues.

The head of ExxonMobil told our Judiciary Committee a year and a half ago that they do not believe in alternative energy. Of course they don't. They are making record profits, and the greater demand and the less supply, the higher their profitability.

We have tried in the past to reduce dependence on oil. We have a renewable portfolio standard so our utilities will not just depend on oil and fossil fuels. We have tried to push tax changes, take the tax breaks away from big oil and give them to wind, solar, bio, thermal, and cellulosic ethanol. Again, we are blocked by the other side of the aisle. In other words, if big oil wants it, that is good, says our colleagues. If big oil is against it, we are against it. We will come up with some reason.

But what we will be doing on this Energy bill is looking at the future, not at the past. What we will be doing on this Energy bill is recognizing that 10 years from now, demand in America should go up for energy because we have to grow, but it cannot come from oil. What we are looking at is a future where our cars do not need gasoline. We are looking at a future where our homes are powered by the Sun and the wind and other more natural forces. We are looking at a future where we conserve, an issue of passion to me.

In 1978, California passed building standards to increase energy efficiency in homes and buildings. Do you know California has the lowest per capita consumption of energy--even with all their car use-- in these United States? It is not New York with our mass transit; it is California because so many of their buildings are now efficient. Forty percent of the energy we consume goes into heating and cooling buildings, 35 percent into gasoline, of total energy consumption.

I have been advocating that we adopt California standards nationwide. It is a rather painless way to go. Where are we? It is not going to produce results in 6 months, but it sure will in the next several years. California has led the way.

Why don't we do the same for appliances? Why don't we do the same for utilities and require them to be more efficient? We cannot be profligate. We can grow and live better and consume less energy at the same time.

There are so many breakthroughs about to occur, and we should be encouraging them with Government policies and tax breaks, and instead we hear from the other side: Do what big oil wants; just drill.

The bottom line is we cannot drill our way out of the problem, I say to my colleagues, we cannot, and we must have an energy policy that looks at the future.

In conclusion, I say this: Republicans equal big oil equals the past. Democrats equal alternative energy. We are the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 94 submitted earlier today by Senator Brown.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record at the appropriate place, as if read.

Mr. President, I rise in support of two nominees to be district judges in the Southern and Northern Districts of New York.

I was pleased last week that the Senate voted unanimously to confirm two other excellent New York nominees, Kiyo Matsumoto and Paul Gardephe.

Like last week's candidates, both of the nominees before us today-- Cathy Seibel and Glenn Suddaby--were rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association, and both were unanimously recommended out of the Judiciary Committee.

I am particularly pleased to support Ms. Seibel to be a judge in the Southern District of New York because I personally recommended her to the President.

The Judges in her district respect her, the defense bar knows her to be fair and reasonable. and I myself found her to be thoughtful, modest, and blessed with a perfect judicial temperament.

These are the qualities that compelled me to recommend her to the bench.

Ms. Seibel has been a Federal prosecutor for 21 years and has long ties to the Southern District of New York where she has served as both the deputy U.S. attorney and the first assistant.

During her time as a prosecutor, she has earned a reputation for fairness and effectiveness.

Indeed, she is described as the very model of grace under pressure.

And while at the Southern District, she has trained several generations of young prosecutors, who also sing her praises.

She has prosecuted a number of high-profile tax fraud cases, as well as the very first case where the Violence Against Women Act was used for a murder charge--a subject obviously very close to my heart since I was the chief author of the Violence Against Women Act when I was in the House.

She is the recipient of numerous well-deserved honors, including the prestigious Stimson Medal for federal prosecutors in New York.

Despite the demands on her time as a prosecutor, Ms. Seibel has also found time to teach a course on trial practice at Columbia Law School, and previously has taught courses at Fordham.

Ms. Seibel graduated magna cum laude from Princeton and received her J.D. cum laude from Fordham University, where she was editor-in-chief of the Fordham Law Review. Ms. Seibel also clerked for Judge Joseph McLaughlin in the Eastern District after graduation.

Additionally, Ms. Seibel's confirmation will help to rectify the serious underrepresentation of women in our Federal judiciary.

In the Southern District today, only a paltry 25 percent of district court judges--11 of 44--are women. I believe that our Federal bench should reflect the same broad diversity of experience as America writ large.

Glass ceilings are abhorrent, but they especially have no place in our Federal courthouses, where every citizen is held as equal before the law.

Ms. Seibel's confirmation will be an important step to remedying an unfortunate gender gap in one of the country's most important courts.

Finally I would like to say a few words in favor of Mr. Glenn Suddaby, a nominee for the Northern District of New York.

Mr. Suddaby has been a U.S. attorney since 2002, but his ties to the Northern District go back much further than that. He received his B.A. from State University of New York at Plattsburgh, then received his law degree from Syracuse University. Mr. Suddaby then began his long career as a prosecutor in Onondaga County before joining the U.S. attorney's office.

Between college and law school, Mr. Suddaby even spent time as a legislative aide in the New York State Assembly, so he also has experience shaping the law from inside the halls of a legislature. I think its a good idea to have more judges with a little experience writing the law, and not only enforcing it and interpreting it.

Mr. Suddaby has worked especially hard to target corruption in his district, and has demonstrated his commitment to placing the rule of law ahead of ideology.

Both of these nominees will make excellent judges who will be impartial and thoughtful guardians of our legal tradition. I urge my colleagues to support them.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about two judicial nominees who were approved by this Chamber a few hours ago, both from my home State of New York. Happily, earlier today, they were confirmed by voice vote to be district judges in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Both of these nominees, Magistrate Judge Kiyo Matsumoto and Paul

Gardephe, were rated unanimously ``well qualified'' by the American Bar Association, and both were unanimously reported out of the Judiciary Committee before they were confirmed today.

In New York, we have actually worked out a wonderful system for nominating judges to the district and circuit courts in which the President and I have worked extremely well together to name mainstream, consensus candidates to the Federal bench such as these two nominees.

Some of my Republican friends were here on the floor earlier making all kinds of assertions about the judicial nominations process. Undoubtedly, there has been rancor when it comes to judges from other parts of the country, but it doesn't have to be that way. When the administration works closely and cooperatively with home State Senators, as we have done in New York, things work out extremely well. Highly qualified, mainstream judges, not too far on either side, are approved--some nominated by the President and some nominated by the Senators from New York. In my State, we work well together. The results are not only mainstream consensus nominees but mainstream consensus nominees without the acrimony. Two of the consensus nominees were before us earlier today.

I am particularly pleased to support Judge Matsumoto in the Eastern District to be judge because I personally recommended her to the President. When I interviewed her, I was deeply impressed by her poise, intellect, temperament, and thoughtfulness. The sitting judges in the district speak extremely highly of her, and her record of public service and accomplishment speaks for itself. Her confirmation, moreover, is historic. She now becomes only the second Asian-American woman ever to be confirmed to the Federal bench. We hope another and another and another will come soon.

Judge Matsumoto graduated with high honors from the University of California at Berkeley and received her J.D. from Georgetown. Her distinguished career has included work in the private sector, in academia, and public service. For years, Judge Matsumoto has been a well-respected Federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District. In fact, on only one occasion has a reviewing district court judge declined to adopt Judge Matsumoto's report or recommendations. That is an extremely impressive record.

I am not only proud to support the nomination of Judge Matsumoto because of her integrity and qualifications but also because I believe she will contribute to a diversity of perspectives on the Federal bench. I have always believed that our Federal bench should reflect the same broad diversity of experience as America writ large. I have endeavored to add minorities to the benches of New York State. I am endeavoring now to add women as well because fewer than one-third of sitting judges in the Eastern District are women, and Judge Matsumoto will help narrow the gap. I have also nominated a woman to sit in the Southern District whom, hopefully, we will nominate next week, as she was approved by the Judiciary Committee unanimously.

Of course, there is an unfortunate underrepresentation of Asian Americans on the bench. With her confirmation, Judge Matsumoto becomes only the third Asian-American Federal judge outside of the Ninth Circuit and only the second ever in New York. The only other, Denny Chin, was confirmed to the Southern District bench 14 years ago.

Judge Matsumoto has received the enthusiastic support of other groups, including the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. They call Judge Matsumoto's nomination ``a potential milestone for the Asian Pacific American community.'' I couldn't agree more.

Judge Matsumoto's father and mother, merely because they were of Japanese descent, were forcibly removed to an internment camp during World War II. Fifty years later, their daughter ascends to the Federal bench. This shows that in America, we make our mistakes, but we also have greatness. Judge Matsumoto's life and career show the greatness of those who believe in America and push our Nation to its best potential. The woman whose family was subject to the worst injustice under law, now, as a result of her own talent and hard work, has a seat of legal power to judge others with intellectual excellence and fairness. God bless America for these kinds of things that happen.

Finally, I would like to say a few words in favor of Judge Paul Gardephe, who was earlier confirmed as a judge in the Southern District of New York. Mr. Gardephe has an impressive and eclectic legal resume that includes work in both the public and private sector, work on criminal prosecution, criminal defense, civil litigation, and corporate law. He is a magna cum laude graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia Law School. He served as a law clerk to Judge Engel on the Sixth Circuit, has spent 9 years as a prosecutor in the Southern District, and worked as deputy general counsel for Time, Inc. Mr. Gardephe also worked for the inspector general in the Department of Justice, where he was involved in the review of the Department's performance in the Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames spying cases. Mr. Gardephe was also honored with the Thurgood Marshall Award for his work representing a death row inmate pro bono.

When I decide whether to support a nominee to the Federal bench, the most important criteria to me is this: Is the nominee an ideologue or will the nominee place the rule of law ahead of his or her own personal ideological views? I believe both of these nominees will make excellent judges who will be impartial and thoughtful guardians of the rule of law. I am pleased that my colleagues voted to confirm both of them. I heartily congratulate the nominees and their families.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.