Floor Statements

Mr. President, first, I thank Majority Leader Reid for trying to move this bill forward.

Second, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I have tremendous respect for my friend from Oklahoma. I regard him truly as a friend. We traveled to China together. He is a gentleman, and I don't think anybody doubts the sincerity of his conviction and his desire to save and not waste money.

Similar to Senator Reid, I am not familiar with the particulars of this provision the Senator wishes to put into the bill, but it seems reasonable. I have to tell my friend from Oklahoma, I don't want to see money wasted. I can tell him that in New York City, we are not wasting the money. In fact, the taxpayers of New York, the city where his one daughter and two of mine reside, as well as my wife and my parents and most of my family, we in New York don't like to see the money wasted. We think too much of it is spread all over the place.

I will tell him this: That the money that goes to New York is not wasted, No. 1. No. 2, there are areas that affect the whole country that will be held up. Port security--God forbid a nuclear weapon is smuggled into this country and exploded, God forbid. The more we delay on port security, the worse off we will be. Rail security, truck security, and cyber security are all part of this bill.

Similar to Senator Reid, it seems to me the proposal the Senator from Oklahoma is making sounds good. Why not have review? Money wasted on this vital area--it is akin to money from the DOD wasted because it is our defense, even though it is our homeland defense as opposed to our military defense--hurts all of us.

But I can tell him this: I have known Senator Reid a long time. The Senator from Oklahoma has known him a little less longer than I. When he makes a commitment to be serious about this issue and to look at it carefully and to give a colleague, such as the Senator from Oklahoma, a bird's-eye view of what happens in the conference and the ability to push and make changes, he is sincere. He is not trying to put one over and push this aside.

Also, I am not on the committee, but I will join my colleague from Oklahoma in wanting a review process. I would like to speak with Chairman Lieberman and other members of the committee as to why they didn't put this in. I don't know the reason for that. But I can assure him, as somebody who is involved in many parts of the Homeland Security bill because of the city and State from which I come, I will work with him because I hate seeing the money wasted. I hate it.

In New York City, we are spending money. New York City taxpayers and New York State taxpayers are spending money because we don't think there is enough. I will give one example.

I live in Brooklyn. There is the Brooklyn Bridge. Intelligence reports

targeted the Brooklyn Bridge several years ago, and they know how they would try to blow up the bridge, which is by the two towers, the cables. It is a suspension bridge, the first one ever built. Every day there are two police officers at each end of the bridge. That is four police officers 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. We can't do it part time if terrorists are going to go after this bridge. So that is 20 police officers per week. It is five shifts to do it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That money is coming out of the pockets not of my friend from Nevada or my friend from Oklahoma but the daughter of the Senator from Oklahoma, my family, me, city residents. It is not fair.

This bill, in terms of helping deal with some of those issues, is important. In making our homeland secure, it is important.

So I make a plea to my friend from Oklahoma--and he is my friend and I think every bit of his intentions are honorable, as they almost always are--to let this bill go forward, to take the majority leader's word that he will look at this issue himself carefully and make sure the Senator from Oklahoma has the ability to look at it carefully because this bill has been delayed long enough and the heartfelt pleas of the people who Senator Reid mentioned--I know most of them personally, I know about their losses, I know their families a little bit--are for real, as are the pleas of everybody else who is involved.

So I ask my colleague to consider lifting his objection and letting us move forward. There will be plenty of time to object if the conference committee doesn't treat him fairly. He can slow this place down and slow the bill down at that point and have the same effect as doing it now, and we might be able to move forward with the legislation.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield?

Is that the Senator's only objection?

Mr. President, I want to speak about the bill I am introducing today with Senator Crapo, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007. Our bill tries to address a very important question: How should States tax businesses that locate their operations in a few States, but have customers and earn income in many States? This issue has grown in importance in recent years, and the Supreme Court's decision last week not to get involved in the issue raises the stakes even further.

The crux of the issue is this: A majority of States impose corporate income and other so-called ``business activity taxes'' only when companies have ``physical presence,'' such as employees or property, in their States. However, some States contend that the mere presence of a business's customers, or an ``economic presence,'' is all that is necessary to impose a business activity tax. These companies are facing a confusing and costly assortment of State and local tax rules, some enacted by legislatures and others imposed upon them by State revenue authorities and upheld by State courts.

Senator Crapo and I introduced similar legislation in the 109th Congress to try to address this problem of double taxation and tax practices that vary from State to State. That bill came close to passing the House, but some last-minute objections were raised. Now, the need for legislation and congressional action has taken on new urgency, and we have revised the bill to address many of the concerns expressed last year.

Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in two cases that challenged the constitutionality of State taxation of out-of-State companies with no physical presence in a State. The States involved in these cases, West Virginia and New Jersey, asserted theories of economic nexus to tax out-of-State corporations. They claimed that because some customers of such corporations reside in the State, even though the corporation is not physically present, they are subject to business activity taxes.

The first case involves a credit card company headquartered in Delaware. The bank issued credit cards nationwide, including credit cards issued to West Virginia customers. The bank had no property or employees, no office or any other physical presence, in the State. The second case involves a Delaware holding company that licensed intellectual property trademarks and trade names to a customer that does business in New Jersey. The holding company itself had no offices, employees, or property in New Jersey, and did not otherwise have a physical presence in the State. In both cases, the State courts ruled that the out-of-State corporation was taxable.

What is so disappointing about the Supreme Court's silence on this issue is the fact that these State court decisions conflict with an earlier Supreme Court ruling. In 1992, in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court prohibited States from forcing out-of-State corporations from collecting sales and use tax, unless the corporation has a physical presence in the taxing State. However, some State courts have held that the physical presence test established by Quill creates no such limitations on the imposition of business activity taxes.

Currently, 19 States take the position that a State has the right to tax a business merely because it has a customer within the State, even if the business has no physical presence in the State whatsoever.

These States' actions in pursuing these taxes have caused uncertainty and widespread litigation, so much so that it has created a chilling effect on foreign and interstate commerce. I have spoken out against double taxation on many issues in the past, and the double tax in these cases, while not as large, is just as wrong.

Let me be clear about this: I know that several Governors and State revenue commissioners have spoken out against the legislation because they don't like the Federal Government telling them what they can and cannot tax. They are also concerned about any revenue they might lose as a result. But if the States are collecting a tax they shouldn't be collecting in the first place, the fact that they might lose a small amount of revenue is not the most persuasive argument, in my view.

I believe Congress has a responsibility to create a uniform nexus standard for tax purposes so that goods and services can flow freely between the States. Firm guidance on what activities can be conducted within a State will provide certainty to tax administrators and businesses, reduce multiple taxation or the same income, and will reduce compliance and enforcement costs for States and businesses alike.

The last time Congress acted on this issue was in 1959, when Public Law 86-272 was enacted to prohibit States from imposing ``income taxes'' on sales of ``tangible personal property'' by a business whose sole activity within a State

was soliciting sales. No one can deny that in the almost 50 years since, interstate commerce has taken on a whole new character. New technologies allow companies headquartered in one State to provide services to consumers across the country. The Internet is replacing bricks-and-mortar stores. Companies and consumers are increasingly linked across State lines.

The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007 addresses these changes over the last 48 years both modernizing Public Law 86-272 and codifying the physical presence standard. Our bill extends the protections of the 1959 law to include solicitation activities performed in connection with all sales and transactions, not just sales of tangible personal property. The bill protects the free flow of information, including broadcast signals from outside the State, from becoming the basis for taxation of out-of-State businesses.

BATSA also protects activities where the business is a consumer in the State. It makes little sense to impose tax on out-of-State businesses that purchases goods or services from an in-State company. Obviously, in this very common scenario, the out-of-State business is not using these goods or services to generate any revenue in the State. Why should they be subject to tax?

Most importantly, BATSA codifies the physical presence standard. States and localities can only impose business activity taxes on businesses within their jurisdiction that have employees in the State, or real or tangible personal property that is either leased or owned. It is consistent with current law and sound tax policy, which holds that a tax should not be imposed by a State unless that State provides benefits or protections to the taxpayer. Further, the physical presence standard is the basis for each and every one of our treaties with foreign nations--adoption of a more nebulous standard by the States undermines these international treaties.

We need to act now. Already, State legislatures are interpreting the court's denial of cert as an affirmation of their position that they are free to enact whatever policies affecting interstate commerce that are beneficial to their particular State revenue needs, regardless of the national impact. Because the court will not review their nexus standard and Congress has not acted, States now have an ideal opportunity to raise revenues from out-of-State corporations regardless of the national impact.

Only 3 days after the Supreme Court denied cert, the New Hampshire Assembly added an amendment to the State budget at 3:40 a.m. to allow the State to collect revenue from out-of-State businesses. The denial of cert thereby resulted almost immediately in a $10 million to $100 million windfall for New Hampshire. No one can deny that this was an extremely aggressive action; why else would the legislature have taken such drastic measures to tack on this amendment it? the wee hours of the morning?

States are clearly overreaching in their efforts to collect these taxes, and it creates a difficult situation for businesses. It is laughable to think that a company would decide to cut off all transactions with individuals within a certain State to avoid similar laws. And so they will have to start paying taxes to States where they start generating no revenue, hiring no employees, and contributing nothing to the State's economy from their phantom presence aside from these taxes. But these companies are not going to stand idly by and be double-taxed; they will simply declare less income in their home States as a result.

I know that my legislation with Senator Crapo has raised concerns in the past. The States have argued that BAT legislation represents an intrusion into their authority to govern. But I believe the contrary: A fundamental aspect of American federalism is that Congress has the authority and responsibility under the commerce clause to ensure that interstate commerce is not burdened by State actions.

In fact, the exercise of such congressional power is necessary in order to prevent excessive burdens from being placed on businesses engaged on interstate activity by virtue of their customer's residing in a particular State. Congress must act to ensure certainty, predictability, and fairness of taxation of multistate corporations. The lack of a bright-line physical presence standard encourages each State to act in its own self interest by taking action to maximize its revenues, regardless of the potential double taxation that results.

Let me address a few concerns that have been raised about the bill. Opponents claim that BATSA includes so many exceptions to the physical presence standard that large, multistate companies will utilize the legislation to ensure they pay minimum State tax nationwide. But our bill explicitly States that it preserves States' authority to adopt or continue to use their own tax compliance tools.

In response to those who say that this legislation will be a huge hit to State budgets, the figures just don't add up. There have been a number of studies done, but even the highest revenue estimate represents only a very small percentage of the total amount of business activity taxes collected by the States. The studies leave out one important fact, however: Companies affected by double-taxation are going to declare less income in their home States, if they have to pay taxes on that same income to another State.

Let me cite just one example from a company in my State. In 2005, Citigroup paid 63 percent of all it State and local taxes to New York State and New York City, all based on physical presence in the State and the city. As more States follow the lead of New Hampshire, the city and State of New York will be getting less from Citibank, one way or another, as they won't want to be double taxed, once by New York because of our physical presence and again in New Hampshire and other States because they have customers in those States. This is why any revenue loss estimates from any city or State are overblown.

In short, this is no longer a theoretical discussion. Federal legislation is required to stop this food fight.

I believe that Congress has a duty to prevent some States from impeding the free flow and development of interstate commerce and to prevent double taxation. That is why I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, to carefully consider this legislation.

Mr. President, I want to speak about the bill I am introducing today with Senator Crapo, the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007. Our bill tries to address a very important question: How should States tax businesses that locate their operations in a few States, but have customers and earn income in many States? This issue has grown in importance in recent years, and the Supreme Court's decision last week not to get involved in the issue raises the stakes even further.

The crux of the issue is this: A majority of States impose corporate income and other so-called ``business activity taxes'' only when companies have ``physical presence,'' such as employees or property, in their States. However, some States contend that the mere presence of a business's customers, or an ``economic presence,'' is all that is necessary to impose a business activity tax. These companies are facing a confusing and costly assortment of State and local tax rules, some enacted by legislatures and others imposed upon them by State revenue authorities and upheld by State courts.

Senator Crapo and I introduced similar legislation in the 109th Congress to try to address this problem of double taxation and tax practices that vary from State to State. That bill came close to passing the House, but some last-minute objections were raised. Now, the need for legislation and congressional action has taken on new urgency, and we have revised the bill to address many of the concerns expressed last year.

Just last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in two cases that challenged the constitutionality of State taxation of out-of-State companies with no physical presence in a State. The States involved in these cases, West Virginia and New Jersey, asserted theories of economic nexus to tax out-of-State corporations. They claimed that because some customers of such corporations reside in the State, even though the corporation is not physically present, they are subject to business activity taxes.

The first case involves a credit card company headquartered in Delaware. The bank issued credit cards nationwide, including credit cards issued to West Virginia customers. The bank had no property or employees, no office or any other physical presence, in the State. The second case involves a Delaware holding company that licensed intellectual property trademarks and trade names to a customer that does business in New Jersey. The holding company itself had no offices, employees, or property in New Jersey, and did not otherwise have a physical presence in the State. In both cases, the State courts ruled that the out-of-State corporation was taxable.

What is so disappointing about the Supreme Court's silence on this issue is the fact that these State court decisions conflict with an earlier Supreme Court ruling. In 1992, in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court prohibited States from forcing out-of-State corporations from collecting sales and use tax, unless the corporation has a physical presence in the taxing State. However, some State courts have held that the physical presence test established by Quill creates no such limitations on the imposition of business activity taxes.

Currently, 19 States take the position that a State has the right to tax a business merely because it has a customer within the State, even if the business has no physical presence in the State whatsoever.

These States' actions in pursuing these taxes have caused uncertainty and widespread litigation, so much so that it has created a chilling effect on foreign and interstate commerce. I have spoken out against double taxation on many issues in the past, and the double tax in these cases, while not as large, is just as wrong.

Let me be clear about this: I know that several Governors and State revenue commissioners have spoken out against the legislation because they don't like the Federal Government telling them what they can and cannot tax. They are also concerned about any revenue they might lose as a result. But if the States are collecting a tax they shouldn't be collecting in the first place, the fact that they might lose a small amount of revenue is not the most persuasive argument, in my view.

I believe Congress has a responsibility to create a uniform nexus standard for tax purposes so that goods and services can flow freely between the States. Firm guidance on what activities can be conducted within a State will provide certainty to tax administrators and businesses, reduce multiple taxation or the same income, and will reduce compliance and enforcement costs for States and businesses alike.

The last time Congress acted on this issue was in 1959, when Public Law 86-272 was enacted to prohibit States from imposing ``income taxes'' on sales of ``tangible personal property'' by a business whose sole activity within a State

was soliciting sales. No one can deny that in the almost 50 years since, interstate commerce has taken on a whole new character. New technologies allow companies headquartered in one State to provide services to consumers across the country. The Internet is replacing bricks-and-mortar stores. Companies and consumers are increasingly linked across State lines.

The Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2007 addresses these changes over the last 48 years both modernizing Public Law 86-272 and codifying the physical presence standard. Our bill extends the protections of the 1959 law to include solicitation activities performed in connection with all sales and transactions, not just sales of tangible personal property. The bill protects the free flow of information, including broadcast signals from outside the State, from becoming the basis for taxation of out-of-State businesses.

BATSA also protects activities where the business is a consumer in the State. It makes little sense to impose tax on out-of-State businesses that purchases goods or services from an in-State company. Obviously, in this very common scenario, the out-of-State business is not using these goods or services to generate any revenue in the State. Why should they be subject to tax?

Most importantly, BATSA codifies the physical presence standard. States and localities can only impose business activity taxes on businesses within their jurisdiction that have employees in the State, or real or tangible personal property that is either leased or owned. It is consistent with current law and sound tax policy, which holds that a tax should not be imposed by a State unless that State provides benefits or protections to the taxpayer. Further, the physical presence standard is the basis for each and every one of our treaties with foreign nations--adoption of a more nebulous standard by the States undermines these international treaties.

We need to act now. Already, State legislatures are interpreting the court's denial of cert as an affirmation of their position that they are free to enact whatever policies affecting interstate commerce that are beneficial to their particular State revenue needs, regardless of the national impact. Because the court will not review their nexus standard and Congress has not acted, States now have an ideal opportunity to raise revenues from out-of-State corporations regardless of the national impact.

Only 3 days after the Supreme Court denied cert, the New Hampshire Assembly added an amendment to the State budget at 3:40 a.m. to allow the State to collect revenue from out-of-State businesses. The denial of cert thereby resulted almost immediately in a $10 million to $100 million windfall for New Hampshire. No one can deny that this was an extremely aggressive action; why else would the legislature have taken such drastic measures to tack on this amendment it? the wee hours of the morning?

States are clearly overreaching in their efforts to collect these taxes, and it creates a difficult situation for businesses. It is laughable to think that a company would decide to cut off all transactions with individuals within a certain State to avoid similar laws. And so they will have to start paying taxes to States where they start generating no revenue, hiring no employees, and contributing nothing to the State's economy from their phantom presence aside from these taxes. But these companies are not going to stand idly by and be double-taxed; they will simply declare less income in their home States as a result.

I know that my legislation with Senator Crapo has raised concerns in the past. The States have argued that BAT legislation represents an intrusion into their authority to govern. But I believe the contrary: A fundamental aspect of American federalism is that Congress has the authority and responsibility under the commerce clause to ensure that interstate commerce is not burdened by State actions.

In fact, the exercise of such congressional power is necessary in order to prevent excessive burdens from being placed on businesses engaged on interstate activity by virtue of their customer's residing in a particular State. Congress must act to ensure certainty, predictability, and fairness of taxation of multistate corporations. The lack of a bright-line physical presence standard encourages each State to act in its own self interest by taking action to maximize its revenues, regardless of the potential double taxation that results.

Let me address a few concerns that have been raised about the bill. Opponents claim that BATSA includes so many exceptions to the physical presence standard that large, multistate companies will utilize the legislation to ensure they pay minimum State tax nationwide. But our bill explicitly States that it preserves States' authority to adopt or continue to use their own tax compliance tools.

In response to those who say that this legislation will be a huge hit to State budgets, the figures just don't add up. There have been a number of studies done, but even the highest revenue estimate represents only a very small percentage of the total amount of business activity taxes collected by the States. The studies leave out one important fact, however: Companies affected by double-taxation are going to declare less income in their home States, if they have to pay taxes on that same income to another State.

Let me cite just one example from a company in my State. In 2005, Citigroup paid 63 percent of all it State and local taxes to New York State and New York City, all based on physical presence in the State and the city. As more States follow the lead of New Hampshire, the city and State of New York will be getting less from Citibank, one way or another, as they won't want to be double taxed, once by New York because of our physical presence and again in New Hampshire and other States because they have customers in those States. This is why any revenue loss estimates from any city or State are overblown.

In short, this is no longer a theoretical discussion. Federal legislation is required to stop this food fight.

I believe that Congress has a duty to prevent some States from impeding the free flow and development of interstate commerce and to prevent double taxation. That is why I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee, to carefully consider this legislation.

Mr. President, I would ask one thing of my colleagues. We wouldn't want this--certainly, I wouldn't, and I believe most of my colleagues wouldn't--want to let this bill be delayed because of the cuts of a thousand deaths. We have dealt with the first objection--TSA. We did something many of us thought we shouldn't do in an effort to move the bill forward. The majority leader has said he will deal with Senator Coburn's objection. But if then tomorrow something else comes down and they make another objection and next week another objection and another objection, that would not be fair.

So I would ask my colleagues, anyone else who has objections, to bring them forward tomorrow so maybe we can try to resolve them and move this bill forward.

Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, I thank him for that. If we can accept the amendment, I don't have to debate it. Are we able to do that or are we still able to match up?

I thank the Senator.

I thank both my colleagues from New Mexico. They put a big burden on me to make a good explanation. I will do my best.

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up my amendment which would then be set aside when I am through.

Then I withdraw the request, and I will speak about the amendment without bringing it up.

The amendment we are speaking about here would raise the level of building standards so that our buildings across America would be more green. There has been tremendous focus on automobiles--of course, there should be--in raising their mileage standards. But what is forgotten is that a huge percentage of energy consumption and greenhouse gases come from buildings and, more importantly, the heating and cooling of our structures, both residential and commercial. The bottom line is, if everybody in America were to adopt green building standards, we could greatly reduce--and these are prospective, not retrospective--the amount of greenhouse gases and energy consumption.

For instance, according to the Alliance to Save Energy, the amendment I wish to offer could save our country 5 percent of its total energy use, save consumers $50 billion a year, and--listen to this, this is an amazing statistic--reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to taking 70 million cars off the road.

You say: Can this work? Yes, because a good number of States have started doing this already. California has taken the lead. California increased its energy efficiency in buildings in the late 1970s, and now they, in terms of greenhouse gases, are at the level of some European countries, even though California is a car culture. There are lists of States that have already moved forward in this regard. They are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, and other States are on the road to doing so. The bottom line is, by making our buildings more efficient, we can reduce gases.

Let me tell you what the amendment does. The organizations that draft commercial and residential building codes will be required to meet specific energy use targets. We don't tell them how. Obviously, it is different in Minnesota than it would be in Florida or Arizona. They will be required to meet specific energy use targets. They must be more efficient by 30 percent than the 2006 codes by 2015 and 50 percent more efficient by 2022. Because this affects new buildings, obviously people are given a timeline. You can't start this next year. But, again, California did this in the 1970s, and they are reaping the benefits now.

Since energy independence and since global warming are long-term issues--we all know we are not going to solve them in a year--acting now is important. We give the States time to change their building codes in the way they wish, and we would greatly reduce the amount of greenhouse gases.

My mayor is in the news today but for other matters. The mayor of New York City, for instance, has proposed that the city do this on its own. We give credit to specific cities that would do this as well. They would have the same benefits and responsibilities under the bill as States would, when States did it. If your State didn't but your city did, you would still be able to get the benefits and meet the requirements of the legislation. But it is estimated that it will reduce the amount of energy consumption in New York City by 40 percent. Is that incredible?

We have a lot of debate, as we should, on automobiles, on renewables, on coal to gas, but there is a quiet little secret out there that this amendment sort of makes public. That is that conservation--conservation of things that are much easier and much less controversial than, say, automobiles--is where the real bang for the buck is in terms of energy independence, reducing greenhouse gases, and in terms of lowering the cost to the average consumer of electricity and gasoline, because when we are more efficient in terms of our buildings, petroleum is used for other purposes, and supply and demand would even reduce the price for gasoline.

One of the environmentalists I know put it well. He said: Alternative fuels are the sizzle and conservation is the steak. They are both important. When you barbecue, you like to have the sizzle. It is fun. But you also like to eat the steak.

I have two other amendments, one that does the same on appliances. The bill has good provisions on appliances, but we move them further in terms of California, although I am not talking about that one here right now.

If we were to do it for utilities, where we would require them to be more efficient--and they could choose the way--we could do dramatic things in this bill just on its own. The cost for most energy conservation, the cost for reducing the consumption of petroleum, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, is about one-quarter what it is for producing new alternative fuels.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is not controversial, I do not think. It does not have universal support, but it has great support. The Department of Energy has looked favorably upon it. I do not know if they are officially in favor of it, but we talked to them, and they know we have to move in this direction.

I hope the amendment can be adopted. I hope I have convinced my colleague from New Mexico, if not with eloquence--which I am sure I do not have--at least with the facts and the structure of this amendment.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield back the floor, unless my colleague wishes me to go on further about this amendment.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: Do I have 5 minutes?

It is my lucky day, Mr. President.

I rise to speak against the amendment offered by my good friend from Arizona which will restore many of the tax breaks for big oil we voted to eliminate in the Finance Committee just yesterday.

After a wave of mergers in the industry over the past two decades, we now have an elite group of five very large integrated oil companies dominating our domestic petroleum market. These companies are price leadership. They all seem to set the same price. They don't get in a room and do it. One leads and the others follow. They wink at each other. It shouldn't be legal, but it is.

They have the power to block alternative fuels, such as E85, at their branded stations and, as we all know, they have the political power to secure billions of dollars in tax breaks they don't need and we can ill-afford.

It is time to get serious about our energy policy and stop giving away taxpayers' dollars that just end up in the pockets of big oil rather than going to renewable energy alternatives or curbing the cost of gasoline at the pump.

On the surface, it seems that big oil is pumping cash rather than pumping petrol. They don't try to find much new oil, and ExxonMobile alone bought back $29 billion of its stock in the last year. The bottom line is, if they have all this extra money to buy back their stock, why are we giving them tax breaks?

When the head of ExxonMobile, one of the big oil companies, came to us in the Judiciary Committee, he said he didn't believe in alternative fuels. I wouldn't either if I were the head of one of the five big oil companies that had an oligopolistic stranglehold on the market. I wouldn't want an alternative. So they are not going to do what most other businesses, where there was a semblance of competition, would do: find a new product because they know their old product is getting expensive and may run out someday.

So that is our job. We are taking back these taxes. We are not just putting them into the Treasury. It is not taxing for taxing sake. We are putting them into tax breaks for alternative fuels. Since the oil companies would not look at alternatives, we are going to take the money that we have given them in taxes, and never should have, and give it to other companies that will invest in alternative fuels.

This is a mature industry by any standard and no longer does it need tax breaks. I have actually introduced a bill to repeal every special tax break received by the major oil and gas companies.

The policy of giving them breaks has failed. Despite ever-increasing petroleum products and general Federal tax giveaways, the oil companies don't believe they need to compete. The oil companies believe they don't need to compete to create new domestic gasoline supply. We haven't had a new refinery built in 30 years. When they have merged, they have closed refineries. So it hasn't worked.

While ExxonMobile doled out $29 billion, or 60 percent of its cashflow, on stock buyback alone, their overall production has barely budged since the 1999 merger. Exxon never should have been allowed to merge with Mobile. On the Joint Economic Committee, we are looking it over, seeing if we can look into undoing some of those unfortunate mergers, which occurred, by the way, under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. But at the same time, we have to get moving on alternative fuels.

The Finance Committee chairman and ranking member--bipartisan--were right to scale back the tax breaks that go to this very profitable industry and instead target them to renewable energy in a way that ensures technology will succeed.

The finance amendment extends tax breaks for alternative fuels by several additional years. When we were at our issues conference in New York City, DPC, Democratic Policy Committee, we heard a brilliant presentation by an investment banker from Goldman Sachs who said we are great at developing new technologies, but we are not very good at commercializing them, implementing them. That is because the tax breaks we give go for a year, 2

years, and no business wants to invest when they are not sure these breaks will continue.

The proposal in the bill, which I was proud to cosponsor, says the tax breaks will be extended for 5 years and longer so that companies will know they do keep those tax breaks and have an incentive to invest. So it makes eminent sense. Take the money away from taxes for the oil companies which refuse to engage in finding alternatives and give them to new companies that will. It is a policy that makes sense for the good of the consumer because, in the long run, it will lower prices; for the good of our foreign policy because it will decrease our dependence on dictators and potentates we don't like, such as the heads of Iran and Venezuela; and it is good for our climate because as we move to alternative fuels, less CO2 will be put in the atmosphere.

For the first time in 6 years, this Congress is willing to stand up to the oil companies. I know many on the other side of the aisle aren't. The previous energy bills reflect what the Bush administration believes: What is good for the oil companies is good for our energy policy is good for America. They are wrong, as the price at the pump, as the increase of CO2 in our air reveals, and as our increasing imports of oil show. We are changing that policy.

I know others on the other side of the aisle are blocking us because of obeisance to big oil, but we will succeed because the American people are behind us, and our country needs no less.

Mr. President, I rise to first speak briefly about the Employee Free Choice Act, which is a very important piece of legislation. In fact, I introduced the original bill 4 years ago, worked hard to persuade many of my colleagues in the labor movement that this should be a top priority. I am so glad it is. I wish to salute the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, who has taken leadership on this issue. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill.

Let me say this: Before the union movement in America, we had a few wealthy people and a lot of poor people and not much of a middle class. The great thing about the union movement is it created a middle class. Through struggles of laboring men and women from about 1870 to 1960, America became a country that was about 30 or 35 percent unionized.

What that meant was that wages rose, benefits rose, health care rose, and America was a prosperous country. Without a middle class, America would not have prospered. Then, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, many employers who wished to prevent unions or beat back unions found new ways to basically thwart what was the original thrust of the NLRB, which was to freely allow men and women to organize.

They hired lawyers. There are law firms with hundreds of people whose whole job is to prevent unionization. They basically succeeded. So as old industries closed, new industries that have as much reason to organize did not. Factories closed, office towers came about, but the union jobs did not follow from the factories to the office towers, with the exception of the public sector.

So now we are in this situation where fewer than 10 percent of American workers are organized. That hurts America. That means that men and women are not able to bargain collectively for rights. When you talk about declining wages of the middle class, when you talk about declining health benefits of the middle class, one--not the only but one of the reasons is we do not have unions.

Fewer and fewer Americans are organized. What the legislation does, what the Employee Free Choice Act does, is very simply restore the balance so it would be as easy to organize a factory in an office tower in 2007 as it was to organize a factory in the 1930s or 1940s or 1950s.

To show you the law works, Canada has basically the same economic structure as America. Canada is over 30 percent organized and America is 8 percent organized. One reason, they have a law such as the Employee Free Choice Act which allows a majority of employees to sign a card and then a union takes effect.

One of the great problems in the new America is income inequality. The top 1 percent of America represents 9 percent of the income in 1980, 16 percent in 2001, and now it is over 20 percent by the latest statistics. One of the many ways to overcome that inequality is to make it a little easier for people to organize.

So I think this legislation is extremely important to the basic fabric of America. If we want middle-class people to continue to have wage growth and benefit growth, unions are basically essential. So I am proud to support this legislation.

I understand there are employers who fight it tooth and nail. I have seen some of the ads. There is one today in one of the papers, particularly vicious, with a picture of a union leader and then of two dictators. I thought it was the kind of cheap shot we shouldn't see in this country.

The bottom line is simple. This legislation is vital to the health, economic health of working men and women and vital to keeping a middle class in America and not reverting to the old days, when you had very few wealthy people and a large number of struggling people. I support the legislation.

Amendments Nos. 1604, 1605, 1606, and 1656 to H.R. 6

Second, I would like to speak about amendments 1604, 1605, 1606, and 1656, amendments I will be offering to H.R. 6. I am not going to offer them tonight because none of my colleagues from

the opposing side are here. But they are important.

This is an energy bill that is vital to the country. We all want to curb the emission of CO2, we want to curb our dependence on foreign oil, and we want to bring down the prices of gasoline, electricity, and all the other commodities that are petroleum dependent. There has been a great deal of talk and focus on alternative fuels. That is very good. But alternative fuels are the ``sizzle'' and conservation is the ``steak'' when it comes to reducing our dependence on oil and particularly foreign oil

It costs about a quarter as much to conserve as it does to create an alternative. So these amendments are very simple. I wish to thank the Finance Committee, first, for drafting a provision that will take billions of dollars in tax breaks and other benefits from the oil industry to create new, improved incentives to promote solar power and wind power and cellulosic ethanol.

But we also have to do energy efficiency. You do not have to be Thomas Edison to know that better energy efficiency is a win-win for American families. The Federal Government, thus far, has failed to take the lead in promoting commercializing or deploying energy efficiency technologies despite their cost-effectiveness and reliability.

Unlike the development of cutting new alternative and renewable fuel sources, we do not have to wait for new technologies to reap the benefits of energy efficiency in our homes. An excellent example is our largest State in population, California. Over the past 30 years, it has demonstrated significant efficiency gains that can be achieved through various energy efficiency measures, especially by increasing the efficiency of utilities, buildings, and appliances.

With these measures, California has generated more than 20 percent of energy savings since 1975. California's energy use, per capita, is similar to many countries in Europe because they did this 30 years ago. So if California can do it, so can America.

The four amendments I have mentioned, one on buildings, two on appliances, and one on electric generation, take the California legislation and basically apply it to America. I am going to discuss each.

The first amendment will create a national energy efficiency resource standard that would require utilities to achieve a small percentage of energy savings every year based on their annual sales.

Under my amendment, utilities can generate energy savings through a variety of ways, including helping their customers save energy through energy-efficient programs, improving energy efficiency in their own distribution systems or credit trading.

Energy savings requirements are phased in in small increments each year, which will give the utilities enough time to boost their energy savings program.

This is not a new idea. Many States already successfully have implemented EERS standards--not only California but Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

Several States, including my State of New York, as well as New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, are actively working to implement the standard. Since the States are moving forward on this standard, it makes sense for Congress to create a national standard so all Americans can reap the benefit of increased energy savings.

According to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, by 2020 a national EERS will reduce peak electric demand by 130,000 megawatts, saving enough to power 40 million households and reduce CO2 emissions by more than 300 million metric tons. That is equivalent to taking 70 million cars off the road. Is that not incredible? By simply requiring our utilities to be efficient, it is equivalent to taking 70 million cars off the road. I hope we are going to do it. It would save U.S. consumers $26 billion from their utility bills. So this is a huge amendment that can do a great deal.

Now, my second amendment deals with buildings. Buildings account for 37 percent of the total energy used in the United States and two-thirds of the electricity. We all focus on cars. We are going to have a fight on CAFE standards. But buildings are as important as cars in producing efficiency. There is much less controversy and we can get it done more easily.

California has demonstrated that significant energy gains can be achieved through State building codes that are well designed and implemented. But despite the great savings made by California, many States have inadequate State building codes or none at all.

Again, the Federal Government has lagged behind the States in setting aggressive energy saving building codes. Under my amendment, commercial and residential building codes will be required to meet specific energy use targets. Both must be 30 percent more efficient by 2015 and 50 percent more efficient by 2022.

States will be deemed compliant once they adopt an acceptable code and as long as 90 percent of all new buildings comply with the States's code. Even if a State is not in compliance, each city that meets the criteria will be in compliance.

I wish to salute the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, for taking the lead in imposing such standards on the city of New York.

Finally, my amendment will authorize funding for technical assistance, training, and to help States ensure they are in compliance with these energy-efficient targets. Again, according to the Alliance to Save Energy, this amendment--listen to this--could save our country 5 percent of its total energy use. That simple amendment, done now in California, could be done here--5 percent of our total energy use. It would save consumers $50 billion a year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an equivalent of taking another 70 million cars off the road. So it is obvious we should do these things.

Finally, the amendments on appliances. Again, California took the lead in improving energy efficiency standards for appliances. However, Federal law has restricted the ability of States in favor of lower Federal standards that, in many cases, have languished at DOE. For example, earlier this year, the GAO found that DOE had missed 34 out of--guess how many--34--34 out of 34--Congressionally set deadlines for reviewing and updating appliance and equipment standards.

GAO found that delays on four of the overdue standards will cost consumers $28 billion in energy savings by 2030. In addition, even when DOE finally gets around to setting the new standards, these standards fail to meet the very real energy needs of our country.

My amendment also fixes these problems in the bill. First, they will strengthen the process through which the States can apply to DOE to set higher standards for appliances that are currently regulated by the Federal Government; second, to restore authority for efficiency standards--that is the second amendment--to the States when DOE misses legal deadlines for setting or revising standards.

My amendment states that if DOE misses legal deadlines for setting up updated efficiency standards, States may create higher standards that allow them to address their energy needs more effectively.

By cutting our energy use through these energy efficiency measures, while also increasing the use of clean, renewable alternative fuels, we can make a huge difference and begin to address our energy problems, from ending our dependence on unstable foreign sources of oil to helping consumers lower their rising energy bills. I urge adoption of these four commonsense efficiency measures and look forward to working with the managers of the bill as we go forward.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 137, H.R. 1429, the Head Start authorization bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the Senate insist upon its amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; and that the HELP Committee be appointed as conferees, with the above occurring without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, June 20; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved

to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day; that the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 6 and resume consideration of the DeMint amendment No. 1546 and that there be 30 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators DeMint and Bingaman or their designees; that no amendment be in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, without further intervening action or debate.

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

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: The Republican leader controls the time from 5:10 to 5:20, as I understand?

I ask unanimous consent that those of us in favor of this resolution be given a half hour to debate.

Mr. President, I understand there is a misunderstanding. They weren't supposed to start until 5:10, but the order says 5 o'clock, which would only give us 10 minutes to debate this motion.

Let me begin and not waste any further time. I rise in support of the motion to proceed to a vote of no confidence on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It is a fair measure. I know it is one with few precedents, but it is called for today because the dire situation at the Department of Justice is also without precedent. The level of disarray and dysfunction, the crisis of credibility, and the failure of leadership are all without precedent. It is a simple measure we have before us. Let me read it.

It is the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto

Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of

the American people.

Are there any Members here who don't agree with that sentiment? If so, I haven't heard them. Senators are not a shy lot. Their silence on this point is deafening. So if Senators cast their votes with their conscience, they would speak with near unanimity that there is no confidence in the Attorney General. Their united voice would undoubtedly dislodge the Attorney General from a post he should no longer hold. But we may not have a unanimous vote here today, I am told. That is a puzzle because no matter what standard one applies, no matter what criteria one uses, the Attorney General cannot enjoy the confidence of the Senate. He certainly doesn't of the American people.

The bill of particulars against the Attorney General is staggering. On the question of the Attorney General's credibility, the record speaks for itself. Repeatedly, the Attorney General has misled the Congress, misled the American people, and given incredible explanations for the U.S. attorney firings. The Attorney General's comments have been a series of shifting reactions and restatements. Is this confidence-inspiring conduct from the Nation's chief law enforcement officer?

We learned that Attorney General Gonzales was personally involved in the firing plan after being told he wasn't. We learned that the White House was involved after being told it wasn't. We learned that Karl Rove was involved after being told he wasn't. We learned that political considerations were paramount after being told they weren't. Then, when the Attorney General finally had the opportunity to set the record straight on April 19, 2007, what did he do? More than 70 times he answered ``I don't know'' when asked the most basic questions about how he came to fire 10 percent of the Nation's U.S. attorneys. The Attorney General admitted he didn't know the reasons why several U.S. attorneys were fired but insisted in the very next breath that he knew they were not fired for improper reasons. Does that inspire confidence? One of our most mild-mannered Members, Senator Pryor, believes he was lied to directly by the Attorney General, and he has good reason to think so.

Time after time, the Attorney General has shown he doesn't have the credibility to lead the Department. This is not a liberal or conservative assessment. This is not a Democratic or Republican assessment. It is a universal one. Listen to the words of the conservative National Review magazine, which wrote on March 28:

What little credibility Gonzales had is gone . . . Alberto

Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh

start.

That is on credibility.

On the Attorney General's lack of commitment to independence and the rule of law, the record is also disturbingly clear. The Attorney General has long shown that he misperceives his role. He forgets that he is the people's lawyer, not just the President's. If one needs a single image to symbolize the Attorney General's contempt for the rule of law, it is that of Alberto Gonzales bending over John Ashcroft's sickbed on the night of March 10, 2004. It is the picture of then-White House Counsel Gonzales trying to take advantage of a very ill man who didn't even have the powers of the Attorney General to approve a program that the Department of Justice could not certify was legal.

That example, unfortunately, has plenty of company. Consider the image of Attorney General Gonzales in March of this year making Mrs. Goodling feel ``uncomfortable''--her word--by going through the sequence of events related to the U.S. attorney firings. How often do people comfort someone by reviewing their recollection of events that are subject to congressional investigation? Add to those examples the documented violations with respect to national security letters and other admitted abuses in connection with the PATRIOT Act. How can such leadership inspire confidence?

Rule of law in the Gonzales regime, sadly, has apparently been an afterthought rather than a bedrock principle. Again, there is no liberal or conservative or Democratic or Republican position on the Attorney General's lack of independence and commitment to rule of law; it is virtually unanimous. Consider the words of the conservative group the American Freedom Agenda:

Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward

of the law and should resign for the good of the country.

On the question of whether the Department has been improperly politicized, the record is again clear.

Attorney General Gonzales has presided over perhaps the most politicized Department in history. We have learned that under Alberto Gonzales, being a ``loyal Bushie'' was more important than being a consummate professional. We have learned that U.S. attorneys who were performing their duties admirably were apparently dismissed because of unfounded allegations by political figures, allegations that were never investigated or never proven. We have learned that an unprecedented voter fraud case was brought in Missouri on the eve of an election in clear violation of the Department's own policy. We have learned that deep suspicions about improper politicizing even at the entry level of the professional ranks were correct. We have learned from the Attorney General's own former senior counselor Monica Goodling that she

``crossed the line'' in considering partisan affiliation in filling career positions at the Justice Department--career positions, not political positions.

The Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General have now opened investigations relating to the hiring of immigration judges, civil rights lawyers, and Honors Program attorneys. All of this, of course, occurred under the Attorney General's watch. Either the Attorney General knew about these potentially illegal activities and did nothing or he was oblivious to what was going on beneath his own nose. Either way, Mr. Gonzales is responsible for a deeply political culture at the Department, unprecedented in modern times. As former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey has said, these kinds of blows to the reputation of the Department will be hard to overcome. Does that kind of leadership inspire confidence?

Finally, given all of this, on the basic question of competence and effectiveness, the Attorney General has proven himself to lack the leadership ability needed to right the Department. By every account, the Attorney General's handling of the U.S. attorney firings has been catastrophic. Morale at the Department is at an alltime low. How can we have confidence in an Attorney General who can't get his story straight? How can we have confidence in an Attorney General who still can't tell us why 10 percent of the Nation's U.S. attorneys were fired? How can we have confidence in an Attorney General who would allow his top staff to take the fall for his own failings? How can we have confidence in an Attorney General who allowed improper and possibly illegal political hiring to take place?

Given the crisis of confidence and credibility, given the abysmal record of trampling the rule of law and longtime standards of nonpolitical hiring, the vote today should be an easy one. Some will claim they are opposing the motion because they say this vote was called for political reasons. This vote is not about politics. If this were all about politics, it would be easy to sit back, let the Attorney General remain, cast aspersions on him for the next 18 months, and reap the political benefits. But the Department of Justice is too important, and we have an obligation to do everything we can in a bipartisan way to demand new leadership.

Madam President, we have had some timing difficulties. We have only had about 10 minutes to debate this resolution.

Might I ask the minority leader a question? What is his pleasure? I had been told he was coming at 5:10, but the agreement says 5.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the minority leader be given his 15 minutes now, that then I be given another 10 minutes to finish my remarks, and the Senator from Rhode Island be given 10 minutes to speak, and that we vote immediately thereafter.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would add to the request--Senator Reid wishes 10 minutes at the conclusion of the debate. So adding the 15 minutes for the minority leader, divided with the minority whip from Mississippi, and 4 minutes for the Senator from Texas, 10 minutes for myself, 10 minutes for the Senator from Rhode Island, and 10 minutes for the Senator from Nevada, I ask that we have that time and then we vote.

Madam President, first, in regard to my good friend from Texas, I think there is a little bit too much protestation here. We have spent less than 2 hours on this issue--just 2 hours--and now we are being told we don't have enough time to debate whether one of the most important Cabinet officers is up to the job. That doesn't hold water. They are not upset we are taking 2 hours away from debate. They have spent much more time on many more things that are of less consequence to this country.

But let me say this: The minority leader and the minority whip have made my case better than I ever could. They failed to utter the words: We have faith in Attorney General Gonzales. They failed to state: We have confidence in Attorney General Gonzales. In fact, in the entire speech of both the minority leader and the minority whip, there was not a single word uttered in defense of the Attorney General. No wonder the other side doesn't want this resolution brought up. They know the Attorney General has failed miserably in his job. They know the President has clung stubbornly to keeping a man who virtually no one in America thinks is up to the job, who overwhelmingly has lost his credibility in his answers and nonanswers and ``don't knows.'' They can't defend him. So they do what somebody does when they don't have much of an argument--they seek diversions. We will not be diverted. The rule of law is too important. The rule of law is too sacred.

Is it unusual to have a no-confidence resolution? Yes. But it is just as unusual--more unusual--to have an Attorney General not in charge of his department on a major issue facing his department--the firing of U.S. attorneys--to say he didn't know what was happening 70 times; to have an Attorney General contradict himself time after time after time. For me, it is unusual in whatever airport I go to around this country to have people come up to me--it has happened five or six times now-- and say: I work in the Justice Department. I am a civil service employee. Keep it up, Senator. Our Department is demeaned--one of them used the word ``disgraced''--by the fact that Alberto Gonzales is still Attorney General.

So, yes, a no-confidence resolution is unusual, but this is not simply a policy disagreement. Oh, no. This is a major scandal. This is a series of inappropriate behaviors by a Cabinet officer. I don't have a single bit of doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle would be complaining more loudly, more quickly than we have.

What do you do when there is someone in an office who we all know doesn't deserve to be in that office, and not a word--except for Senator Hatch--not a word of confidence has been spoken by the other side? We heard 19 minutes of speeches a minute ago. We don't hear the words: We support the Attorney General; we have confidence in the Attorney General; the Attorney General should be able to stay. It is because his record is indefensible.

So, yes, this no-confidence resolution is unusual, but it rises to the highest calling of the Senate, to seek rule of law over politics, to seek rationality and fairness over stubbornness and political games. This is what we are supposed to do. We have a function of oversight. There is no question Attorney General Gonzales has failed on credibility, on competence, on upholding the rule of law.

The Nation has been shocked by what he has done. He urged an ill John Ashcroft, on John Ashcroft's sickbed, to sign a statement that the Justice Department itself thought was not justified by the law in terms of wiretaps, and he is still Attorney General. John Ashcroft, who is hardly a liberal, hardly a Democrat, threatened to resign because of what then Counsel Gonzales attempted to do, and he is still in office.

The bottom line is very simple. We have a sacred, noble obligation in this country to defend the rule of law. There was an article in the New York Times the other day about how some people are using elections to try to justify themselves staying in office in some less developed countries. But the public wasn't falling for it, because without rule of law, without democracy, without law being applied without fear of favor, there is no freedom. Our job is to be vigilant in protecting that freedom.

Some of my friends tossed off charges of ``political''--to vote ``no'' when one, in fact, agrees with the sentiment in the resolution is to cast a vote for the worst political reasons. A ``no'' vote ratifies the President's support for the Attorney General. A ``no'' vote condones the conduct of the Attorney General. A ``no'' vote condemns the Department to a prolonged vacuum in leadership and a crisis of morale.

It is politics simply to cover for the President when you know on this issue he is wrong. It is politics to put blind loyalty to a political leader over the sacred century after century tradition of rule of law. It is politics to voice opposition to the Attorney General and then refuse to back one's conviction with one's vote. It is politics to know that Alberto Gonzales should not, must not, remain as Attorney General and then quietly, meekly cast your vote to keep him.

I yield the floor, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor the service and memory of my friend, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming. His exemplary service in the Congress over the past 18 years is a shining example of the good that can be accomplished for the public benefit. A 1955 graduate of the University of Wyoming, Senator Craig demonstrated considerable leadership early in his life; he entered the Marine Corps soon after graduation and rose in rank from private to captain in just 4 years. Following his service, Senator Thomas returned to Wyoming to make a difference in his native State, serving as executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau and later as general manager of the Wyoming Rural Electric Association. In 1984, Senator Thomas first entered public service as a State representative, was elected to the House of Representatives in 1989, and finally ascended to the Senate in 1995.

It was my honor to work with Senator Thomas during his Senate career. He was a firm believer in compromise and bipartisanship. This was no more evident than when he and I introduced legislation to protect taxpayer privacy. We worked together on a broad range of issues from protecting consumers to stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran. Senator Thomas and I shared a belief in this body and what it can achieve. I am very saddened by this tremendous loss, but the memory of Senator Thomas and his good deeds remind us all of a long, rich life that should be celebrated, and I respectfully request that this statement be entered into the Record.

Thank you, Madam President.

First, I salute my colleague from Massachusetts for his undaunted, courageous, and effective leadership on this issue, which is one of the most difficult issues we face. I think he has the respect of everybody in this body for that--the Senator from Massachusetts does--whether they agree or disagree with the bill.

Now, I rise in opposition to the Cornyn amendment and in support of the Kennedy alternative amendment No. 1333. There certainly are attractive parts of the Cornyn amendment, but the good parts of the amendment are buried in complicated language that strikes at the heart of the comprehensive immigration bill many of us are working hard to pass. At a minimum, my colleague's amendment would have the effect of stripping the path to citizenship, one of the mainstays of the compromise--one of the two mainstays of the compromise--out of the bill altogether. This body has already rejected that approach outright. It ought not do it now by stealth. It is a Trojan horse--nothing short of an attempt to kill the whole bill in the guise of tough enforcement.

My colleagues know when it comes to tough enforcement, whether it is on immigrants, citizens, or anyone else, I don't yield to anybody. I am a tough-on-crime guy. I come from an area that was ravaged by crime, and the works of the Federal Government, State government, and city government helped make the communities I represent much safer.

What we do in the Kennedy amendment is keep the tough enforcement without killing the bill. Let me repeat that. What we do in this amendment is keep the tough enforcement--it is all there--but we don't kill the bill. We don't eliminate the path to citizenship which is, of course, what the Cornyn amendment does and may well be intended to do.

If we are serious about passing the best possible bill and passing a bill that makes good sense, we should support the Kennedy amendment and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. We all want a bill that is tough on people who have broken the law, and we all want a bill that keeps people who should not be let into the United States in the first place from coming here.

Senator Kennedy's amendment is both tough and smart. It changes the law to prevent the worst criminals from getting into the country and kicks out people who shouldn't be here, and it picks out the best parts of the Cornyn amendment and leaves out the worst.

Like Senator Cornyn's amendment, Senator Kennedy's amendment says any new immigrant who has participated in a criminal gang in any way, shape, or form can't come live in the United States, period. It doesn't wait for a felony conviction or anything else. If you are in a gang, you can't come in, and you can't become a citizen. Any immigrant in the United States who has been a member of a gang can be deported. That is how it should be. Also, Senator Kennedy's amendment cracks down on gang members who violate our gun laws.

Under Senator Kennedy's amendment, aliens who have committed the horrible crimes of domestic violence--stalking, child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment, and who have been sent to jail for a year--are barred from moving to the country or from attempting to naturalize as citizens. The amendment provides that sex offenders who don't register can't immigrate or come work here, and convicted sex offenders who don't register get deported.

The amendment would keep drunk drivers from immigrating to the United States. Just one felony conviction for drunk driving and you are out. People who try to sneak into the country, illegally cross the border, or lie to immigration agents will face steep fines and jail time, as the bill provides, as this body ratified last week.

The amendment has tough penalties for repeat offenders. An alien who tries

to enter the country after being convicted of a serious penalty can face up to 20 years in jail under the amendment.

So this is one tough amendment. But, again, it doesn't seek by stealth, as the Cornyn amendment does, to eliminate the bill altogether. Some of the things in this amendment are exactly like the language in Senator Cornyn's amendment. Senator Kennedy's amendment takes the best of the Cornyn amendment and leaves out the parts that will gut or decapitate the bill. A vote for the Kennedy alternative is a vote for tough enforcement but also smart policy.

Madam President, I yield back the remaining time to my colleague and friend from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, make no mistake about it, with many good intentions which were covered in the Kennedy amendment, this guts the bill because it not only eliminates--it not only says that felons should not become citizens, and we agree with that, it says that anyone who has filed an illegal paper should not become a citizen. That is every immigrant who would be on the path to citizenship. This body voted against eliminating that provision overtly a few weeks ago. Now they are trying to do the same thing covertly because if you vote for this amendment, you will say no one will have a path to citizenship, no one who works, because everyone who has worked had to file a Social Security paper or something like that.

Anyone who wants to keep this bill going at the moment should vote against the Cornyn amendment. The Kennedy amendment dealt with felons. This is a stealth, Trojan horse amendment to kill the bill by saying no one--no one--who has ever worked shall have the path to citizenship.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.