Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 4600.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 20 minutes, which I will divide between myself and my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton. I believe then the Senator from New Hampshire will have 15 minutes, and, at some point, we will vote on this legislation, probably around 2:30.

Mr. President, today, I rise to offer this amendment to restore more than $300 million in funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief account. This

is the amount that the President had requested in his budget. So this is hardly an outlandish fee or a fee that came up out of our heads.

As we all know too well, our country has been visited by disaster far too many times in the last year. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, devastating wildfires in Texas, Arizona, and California, and now the recent flooding in the Northeast, devastating New York as well as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, Maryland, and Virginia. Some of my staff people, and I know many others, have had flooding in their homes in the Washington area because of that.

Unfortunately, FEMA has come up short every time. The Agency always seems to be on its heels when it needs to be on its toes.

With all of the trouble that FEMA has, we should not be cutting the funding that goes directly to the people who are victims of these terrible disasters.

We have seen the disaster. We have seen the terrible flooding. We know it is all too real. A week ago Friday, Senator Clinton and I toured the affected regions in upstate New York and saw the enormity of the flood and the work it is going to take to get it clean.

I will share this with you. We met a businessperson who started out a new business and lived in the Catskill Mountains. He had been flooded twice in previous years. The disaster relief official on the ground said the first two floods were 100-year floods, meaning that level of flood only occurred once every hundred years. This was a 500-year flood. This businessperson--dedicated like all small business people, but they are sweating through all of this--was already loaned up and needed more money quickly.

We met another business leader in St. Johnsville in the Mohawk Valley in Montgomery County, who started a new business and was the hope of the county, with 100 new jobs. They had announced they were going to have another 65 new jobs, but they were flooded out.

The Beechnut plant, the largest employer, suffered huge damage, and the plant that makes baby food is not able to open. We visited the Canajoharie town hall, where all of the equipment was flooded and gone, including computers, phones, police department and fire department records--gone.

We were in Binghamton and Conklin, which was totally flooded, as was Hancock and other places. We were told in one area in the Delaware Valley that the rain cloud stayed and never moved for 16 hours at the top of the mountain and the rain kept coming down.

We met an older gentlemen whose 15-year-old daughter was in their house by the creek bank. The creek turned its course and pushed the house into the water, and she died. We saw that damage firsthand.

The damages are going to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Just alone, the sewage plant in Binghamton was destroyed, a brandnew $20 million plant, gone.

The physical damage to farms is enormous. As we flew over the Catskill Mountains, in the Delaware Valley and the Mohawk Valley, you could see farms flooded--the whole farm. The corn was gone. We saw dead cows, which is the life blood of these farms, including the dairy. Crop losses are estimated to be $20 million.

So the damage was enormous. The damage was everywhere. It is unlike anything we have ever seen in New York.

Our amendment is very simple. It restores more than $300 million in funding for FEMA's disaster relief account, bringing it back up to the President's request of $1.9 billion. Under this program, FEMA gives three types of assistance desperately needed: Individual assistance goes to individuals and households. This helps disaster victims find temporary housing, pay for rent, home repair, and even home replacement costs.

In these three areas, the Susquehana Valley, Delaware Valley and its tributaries, and the Mohawk Valley, there are still homes being condemned as we speak. The people who lived in those homes for decades or for generations will never be able to go back. This assistance is so important to them.

Second is public assistance, which is aid to public entities for reimbursement for emergency services and the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged public facilities such as roads, bridges, and water facilities. One town supervisor told us that their whole budget for roads--the whole yearly budget--was gone in 3 days. They don't know how they are going to repair the roads that are still broken and damaged.

It didn't just occur to smaller roads. I-88, one of the most important lanes of commerce in our State, running from Albany to Binghamton, had a huge chasm in it. That was on the front page of most newspapers. Some truck drivers died as they fell into that chasm. We need that to help our towns, villages, and counties, get back.

Third, there is hazard mitigation assistance which helps local governments protect against future disasters and reduce future losses to public and private property. In this era of changing climate, when we have had disasters afflicting us year after year, hazard mitigation assistance is very important.

In our State, as in our neighboring States, people are struggling. There is nothing like seeing that damage firsthand and looking into the eyes of people who have lost loved ones or homes or businesses. You see that the only hope they have is that the Federal Government will come forward.

We know that FEMA didn't do the job in New Orleans. We know it is going to be difficult for FEMA to get the money quickly and in large amounts to the areas in our State where they are needed. But the one thing we also know is that FEMA should not be able to say they don't have the dollars. Right now, with the cuts that are proposed in this budget, we cannot be sure of that.

So many people are struggling in New York and around the country and we should be mobilizing the full resources and wherewithal of the Federal Government, not cutting back. This is one area where there is virtually universal agreement that it is the Federal Government's responsibility--disaster relief.

Today, it is raining again in upstate New York. People are worried about the flood waters rising once again. We have to do everything in our power to help them and give them the assistance they need to rebuild stronger than ever.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays, and I yield the remaining time to my colleague from New York.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, this amendment is one which I believe would be supported by George Bush because it restores the amount of funding for FEMA by $300 million. That is what the President requested.

We have had unprecedented disasters in the Northeast and in so many other places in other parts of the country as well. We have had disaster after disaster in this country. FEMA should not be underfunded. We should not have the people who have been wiped out by floods and drought and hurricanes sitting on tenterhooks in the hopes that maybe we will pass a supplemental 6 or 8 months from now.

This simply restores the President's request for FEMA. It would hardly be a profligate request. So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, particularly those from the Northeast, to support this amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

I call up my amendment No. 4587.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleagues from New York and New Jersey. We are doing three amendments together. One, Senator Clinton's amendment, increases the threat money. The second, the amendment of Senator Menendez, which I believe will be offered within the hour or shortly thereafter, will change the wording in the formula. My amendment increases money for transit homeland Security by $300 million. All of these amendments are important to our New York-New Jersey area.

We have seen, in the last few months, two things. First, the New York-New Jersey area, of course, continues to be, unfortunately, a target of choice. When terrorists talk about creating devastation to our homeland, unfortunately, New York comes first to their minds. It means that our city has to be extra vigilant. Our State has to be extra vigilant. Our friends across the river have to be extra vigilant.

Frankly, while there are threats everywhere, New York has to be more vigilant than anywhere else. Yet in a deep disappointment that still wounds us, the Homeland Security Department dramatically cut back on our funding.

The amendment Senator Clinton is offering with which I am proud to be her partner, along with Senator Menendez and Senator Mikulski, basically increases the overall pot because we have two problems. The pie is not large enough, and the way the pie is distributed, maldistributes the money. Senator Menendez' amendment deals with how the money is distributed.

It is an outrage that the Secretary of Homeland Security, who promised Congress before he was nominated that he would be fair to New York, has cut back so dramatically. He has used the most foolish of formulas. He had a peer review process. I have great respect for the sheriff of a small town in the Rocky Mountain States, but in all due respect to that sheriff, he should not be the judge of how New York needs money.

Today we saw the list of terrorist sites. It reaches the point of absurdity. The Old McDonald Petting Zoo is a target for terrorists. I have been to petting zoos when I was a kid. I took my children to petting zoos, but I never saw a terrorist hiding behind one of the sheep in Little Bo' Peep's flock. Then they have the Amish Popcorn Factory as a terrorist site.

Why did this happen? It is because of the careless and sloppy attitude at Homeland Security that reflected itself in the formula by which our city and our State were dramatically cut.

The amendments we are talking about would both increase the size of the pie desperately needed when we know the war on terror is real and the threat to our homeland is not subsiding. It is desperately needed because we are one Nation. Just as the mayor of New York City is not on some peer review panel to determine whether New York City should get corn subsidies, the small town officials, who are very good people in defending their city, are not the folks to determine how much New York needs and where it needs it. We will be having other amendments later that deal with some of the specific issues.

My amendment is the third leg of this stool. New York has been targeted repeatedly, whether it is releasing cyanide on a New York City subway car or trying to blow up the PATH that Senator Lautenberg talked about that brings millions of commuters during the course of each year across the river from New Jersey to New York.

The terrorists know what we are doing. The Internet allows them to know it. They look for our weakest pressure point.

We have done virtually nothing on rail security. Nothing. We spend a couple of pennies for each mass transit rider while we spend $7 or $8 on each person who flies. And I am glad we spend the $7 or $8 on the people who fly. But mark my words, the terrorists know if air travel is pretty well protected they will look somewhere else.

The most logical place they look, unfortunately, is to the rails, where millions of people are in unguarded entrances, coming together. We saw it in Madrid. We saw it in London. Unfortunately, once again, we saw it in Mumbai yesterday. We will see it again. I wish that were not true. God forbid, but it will happen.

This is a modest amendment. My colleague, Senator Biden, asked for a large amount of money. This is just $300 million, but it will go a long way. Right now we only spend $150 million. What we would do in our amendment is double, add $200 million, grants on rail security, the personnel, the dogs. Talk to terrorist experts. They say dogs that can smell explosives or biological or chemical weapons are the best anecdote. This would pay for things like that.

We also put aside $50 million to develop detection devices. Technology allowed terrorism to occur. Technology can protect us. But we are not availing ourselves of that technology. One of the things I have been pushing for for years is the money to develop a detection device, much like a smoke detector, that could sit on the ceiling of a subway car or in the entrance of a railroad station. When someone came by with a great deal of explosives or biological or chemical or nuclear material on their bodies, it would go ``beep,

beep, beep,'' and the police would be able to make an arrest before damage was done.

This amendment sets aside a modest $50 million to begin that research.

Finally, the amendment provides $50 million for overtime reimbursement. Every time we hear of a threat in a different part of the world, the New York City police department must put men and women on overtime to guard the subways and the dog squads and everyone else. This is a Federal responsibility.

The bottom line is, the soft underbelly of subways, buses, and tunnels are highly vulnerable to the kinds of terrorist attacks we have seen in London and Madrid and Mumbai. Unless we take real steps to beef up mass transit security immediately, the bottom line is, we spend more than $7 per airline passenger on air security but little more than a penny per mass transit rider.

In the wake of these most recent threats and yesterday's tragic attacks in India, we need to be doing a lot more to even the score. This week, we have increased funding for border security and port security. I ask my colleagues to do the same for rail systems. I will ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment at an appropriate time.

I yield back the remainder of my time to my friend and colleague from New York.

Mr. President, this amendment is simple. It adds $300 million to probably the most woefully neglected area of homeland security, and that is security on the rails, whether it be mass transit, whether it be long-term passenger rail, or freight.

We have seen in the last year that transit rails are a target of choice for terrorists. We saw it in London, we saw it in Madrid, and we saw it just yesterday, unfortunately, once again in Mumbai. Our rails are very vulnerable. We spend over $7 per air traveler for homeland security; we spend about a penny for mass transit. And the terrorists always look for our vulnerability. Transit is vulnerable. Passenger rail is vulnerable. Freight rail is vulnerable. There are miles and miles of unguarded track and thousands of people entering unguarded entrances. If there were ever a place we needed help, this is it.

There are, obviously, things we are doing on port security. The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia increased that funding. It makes no sense, given that the rails have been the target of the last three major terrorist attacks around the world, to have a paltry $150 million for rail security.

I thought it was 2. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?

Thirty-four seconds. In the interest of moving things along, I yield back the remainder of my time and urge an ``aye'' vote on this important amendment.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce mine and Senator Gordon Smith's bill, The Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2006. Our bill provides a solution to preserve federally assisted affordable multifamily housing.

I want to thank all of our colleagues-- Senators Bond, Reed, Murray, and Sarbanes--for realizing the importance of this issue and agreeing to cosponsor our legislation.

I have often said that few Federal programs have helped mothers and fathers keep their families together more than our low income and public housing programs. And while I always fight to make sure New York and the country at large gets all the money it can from Washington, frankly I am not the kind of elected official who believes that all government programs are equally good. But low income housing programs are some of the best things our government has ever done to help families, mothers, the elderly, and the disabled.

Unfortunately--the current housing climate has reached a crisis point and the good that we are doing just is not enough anymore. Consider that in 2001, 95 million people--a whopping one third of the nation-- had housing problems: ranging from high cost burden, to overcrowding, to poor quality, or worse to homelessness.

In the same year, 41 million people, 14.6 percent of the U.S. population, were without health insurance and 12 percent of all people in the U.S.--33.6 million--lacked food security. These are all interrelated. If rent is too high--you go without health insurance. Maybe you trim down spending on groceries.

Sixty-five million Americans with housing problems are low income, and 87 percent of them face high housing cost burdens. In New York, the numbers are even worse. New York State ranks 47th out of the 50 States in renter affordability.

Across the board, housing problems are plaguing low income people who live in both renter and owner households, and by people in all age groups, including children and seniors.

The bottom line is that twice as many people who lack health insurance and three times more people who struggle on a regular basis to put food on their table have housing problems.

But for whatever reason, the housing issue does not attract the same level of public concern and political attention as other programs. And that's why housing programs have been cut back by more than just about any other program over the last decade.

Whenever I speak to New Yorkers--there is a common refrain: from gas prices to milk costs to rent hikes, the cost of living in New York keeps going up and up.

It is a demonstrated pattern and we have worked diligently to try to defend every penny. We have had some successes but it is a yearly battle and I unfortunately have no doubt that we will continue to fight to defend every penny of funding for housing programs.

But scraping our pockets for money is not enough. I served on the Housing Subcommittee for my entire 25 years in Congress and I'm tired of just playing defense and preventing things from happening.

If we want to actually get something done to improve the housing market and prospects for millions of low income families we've got to not just be satisfied with a good defense.

What we need right now is a good offense. As the newest member on the Senate Finance Committee in addition to my current post on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, I intend to use this position to help fight for housing and particularly new funding for housing for New York and America.

Today I am introducing legislation with my fellow Finance Committee member, Senator Gordon Smith--proposing that we bring this fight to a playing field many more are comfortable on. We should focus on housing tax incentives rather than just relying solely on new spending to expand the number of affordable housing units.

Since its inception the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the low-income housing tax credit, for example, has helped build and convert 1.6 million apartments with rents affordable to low income families, by providing investors in affordable housing developments with a dollar- for-dollar reduction in their Federal tax liability.

We anticipate that the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2006 will afford renters and developers similar benefits. Our legislation will work to ensure that we can preserve the current supply of affordable housing by providing tax relief to owners.

At the moment the inadequate present stock of affordable housing might shrink even further--much of it was built in the 60s and 70s and is aging and needs to be rehabilitated.

Under normal circumstances--developers who own this housing and have no interest in rehabilitating it themselves would sell it to another developer who would refinance and rehabilitate it for affordable housing.

But because a so called ``exit tax'' is placed on any developer who plans to sell their subsidized property--more and more are deciding not to sell and to just sit on the property until they die.

Let's say back in the 70s Developer Dan purchased a plot of land in Queens for $200,000 and built $800,000 worth of affordable housing on it--for a total investment of $1 million.

At the time, Developer Dan was able to secure tax benefits as part of the accelerated tax depreciation program and was able to deduct 70 cents on every dollar invested in affordable housing over a 15-year period.

So now in 2004 his accelerated depreciation has expired and Dan is getting on in his years and wants to sell the property--simply to break even and get out of the business.

But he can't do it very easily. If Dan sells the property for $1 million he must then pay an exit tax. The exit tax for Dan will be 25 percent applied to the building that was subsidized. So Dan must pay a $200,000 tax when he sells the building. That is not a very appealing situation for our friend Dan.

So Dan entertains two other options--instead of keeping the units as affordable housing he sells his property into the traditional housing market where he can garner a greater price which includes the amount of the exit tax but removes the units from the affordable housing market.

Or even more likely, Dan holds onto the property and neglects its upkeep at a detriment to his tenants and waits until he dies because then the tax consequence is erased. The property is likely sold in the traditional market and lost to the affordable housing community.

The Local Initiatives Support Coalition estimates that there are 1 million housing units held in this manner because owners are unwilling to sell and take on the new tax burden.

That is 1 million housing units--many of which are rapidly deteriorating and not providing good homes for the people who are living in them and one million units that will eventually be removed from the affordable market if we don't do something to make it easier and more attractive for affordable housing owners to sell their properties to other affordable housing developers.

So today, we are proposing a plan to waive exit taxes for owners who sell their properties to buyers who agree to keep the properties affordable for no less than 30 years. It is a simple fix--and one that could save us 1 million affordable housing units.

While we await a full scoring of our proposal from the CBO, our back of the envelope estimate shows that waiving the exit taxes to preserve this supply of affordable housing represents a $422 million incentive program over a 10-year period.

We hope this bill will move quickly, especially since we have clear support in both the House and the Senate. Congressman Jim Ramstad has introduced a similar bill on the House side. In addition, we have widespread support from the housing, real estate and investment community

Before I close I want to make clear--this and similar types of housing tax proposals are not meant to replace funding for current housing programs. We will still fight for full funding of every housing program--from section 8 to CDBG. We just need to modify our strategy and operate more on the offense rather than the defense.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce mine and Senator Gordon Smith's bill, The Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2006. Our bill provides a solution to preserve federally assisted affordable multifamily housing.

I want to thank all of our colleagues-- Senators Bond, Reed, Murray, and Sarbanes--for realizing the importance of this issue and agreeing to cosponsor our legislation.

I have often said that few Federal programs have helped mothers and fathers keep their families together more than our low income and public housing programs. And while I always fight to make sure New York and the country at large gets all the money it can from Washington, frankly I am not the kind of elected official who believes that all government programs are equally good. But low income housing programs are some of the best things our government has ever done to help families, mothers, the elderly, and the disabled.

Unfortunately--the current housing climate has reached a crisis point and the good that we are doing just is not enough anymore. Consider that in 2001, 95 million people--a whopping one third of the nation-- had housing problems: ranging from high cost burden, to overcrowding, to poor quality, or worse to homelessness.

In the same year, 41 million people, 14.6 percent of the U.S. population, were without health insurance and 12 percent of all people in the U.S.--33.6 million--lacked food security. These are all interrelated. If rent is too high--you go without health insurance. Maybe you trim down spending on groceries.

Sixty-five million Americans with housing problems are low income, and 87 percent of them face high housing cost burdens. In New York, the numbers are even worse. New York State ranks 47th out of the 50 States in renter affordability.

Across the board, housing problems are plaguing low income people who live in both renter and owner households, and by people in all age groups, including children and seniors.

The bottom line is that twice as many people who lack health insurance and three times more people who struggle on a regular basis to put food on their table have housing problems.

But for whatever reason, the housing issue does not attract the same level of public concern and political attention as other programs. And that's why housing programs have been cut back by more than just about any other program over the last decade.

Whenever I speak to New Yorkers--there is a common refrain: from gas prices to milk costs to rent hikes, the cost of living in New York keeps going up and up.

It is a demonstrated pattern and we have worked diligently to try to defend every penny. We have had some successes but it is a yearly battle and I unfortunately have no doubt that we will continue to fight to defend every penny of funding for housing programs.

But scraping our pockets for money is not enough. I served on the Housing Subcommittee for my entire 25 years in Congress and I'm tired of just playing defense and preventing things from happening.

If we want to actually get something done to improve the housing market and prospects for millions of low income families we've got to not just be satisfied with a good defense.

What we need right now is a good offense. As the newest member on the Senate Finance Committee in addition to my current post on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, I intend to use this position to help fight for housing and particularly new funding for housing for New York and America.

Today I am introducing legislation with my fellow Finance Committee member, Senator Gordon Smith--proposing that we bring this fight to a playing field many more are comfortable on. We should focus on housing tax incentives rather than just relying solely on new spending to expand the number of affordable housing units.

Since its inception the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the low-income housing tax credit, for example, has helped build and convert 1.6 million apartments with rents affordable to low income families, by providing investors in affordable housing developments with a dollar- for-dollar reduction in their Federal tax liability.

We anticipate that the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2006 will afford renters and developers similar benefits. Our legislation will work to ensure that we can preserve the current supply of affordable housing by providing tax relief to owners.

At the moment the inadequate present stock of affordable housing might shrink even further--much of it was built in the 60s and 70s and is aging and needs to be rehabilitated.

Under normal circumstances--developers who own this housing and have no interest in rehabilitating it themselves would sell it to another developer who would refinance and rehabilitate it for affordable housing.

But because a so called ``exit tax'' is placed on any developer who plans to sell their subsidized property--more and more are deciding not to sell and to just sit on the property until they die.

Let's say back in the 70s Developer Dan purchased a plot of land in Queens for $200,000 and built $800,000 worth of affordable housing on it--for a total investment of $1 million.

At the time, Developer Dan was able to secure tax benefits as part of the accelerated tax depreciation program and was able to deduct 70 cents on every dollar invested in affordable housing over a 15-year period.

So now in 2004 his accelerated depreciation has expired and Dan is getting on in his years and wants to sell the property--simply to break even and get out of the business.

But he can't do it very easily. If Dan sells the property for $1 million he must then pay an exit tax. The exit tax for Dan will be 25 percent applied to the building that was subsidized. So Dan must pay a $200,000 tax when he sells the building. That is not a very appealing situation for our friend Dan.

So Dan entertains two other options--instead of keeping the units as affordable housing he sells his property into the traditional housing market where he can garner a greater price which includes the amount of the exit tax but removes the units from the affordable housing market.

Or even more likely, Dan holds onto the property and neglects its upkeep at a detriment to his tenants and waits until he dies because then the tax consequence is erased. The property is likely sold in the traditional market and lost to the affordable housing community.

The Local Initiatives Support Coalition estimates that there are 1 million housing units held in this manner because owners are unwilling to sell and take on the new tax burden.

That is 1 million housing units--many of which are rapidly deteriorating and not providing good homes for the people who are living in them and one million units that will eventually be removed from the affordable market if we don't do something to make it easier and more attractive for affordable housing owners to sell their properties to other affordable housing developers.

So today, we are proposing a plan to waive exit taxes for owners who sell their properties to buyers who agree to keep the properties affordable for no less than 30 years. It is a simple fix--and one that could save us 1 million affordable housing units.

While we await a full scoring of our proposal from the CBO, our back of the envelope estimate shows that waiving the exit taxes to preserve this supply of affordable housing represents a $422 million incentive program over a 10-year period.

We hope this bill will move quickly, especially since we have clear support in both the House and the Senate. Congressman Jim Ramstad has introduced a similar bill on the House side. In addition, we have widespread support from the housing, real estate and investment community

Before I close I want to make clear--this and similar types of housing tax proposals are not meant to replace funding for current housing programs. We will still fight for full funding of every housing program--from section 8 to CDBG. We just need to modify our strategy and operate more on the offense rather than the defense.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in enthusiastic support of the nomination of Henry Hank Paulson to be the 74th Treasury Secretary.

I have known Hank Paulson for 15 years. I recommend him to my colleagues wholeheartedly and without reservation. He is one of those great New Yorkers who come from somewhere else--in this case, the heartland of America--come to our city and become part of its life and a vital part of

this country and actually this world's economy.

Mr. President, Hank is an extraordinary leader, a great financial thinker, a businessman, a father, and, as I said, an adopted son of New York. Hank has excelled in every area of life--from the classroom to the football field to the boardroom and everywhere in between.

One of the things I like best about Hank is he is a straight shooter. He gives you direct answers to direct questions. We sure need somebody like that now.

He graduated from Dartmouth in 1968 and received his MBA from Harvard. He worked at the Defense Department, the Nixon White House, and then found his true calling at Goldman Sachs where he worked for 32 years. He became chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman in 1999, and should he be confirmed, he will continue a long history, a great tradition of leaders from Goldman serving in the Government, including Bob Rubin, one of the great Treasury Secretaries, and Jon Corzine, our former colleague, now Governor of New Jersey, and John Whitehead, who served honorably and well as Deputy Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan.

But the issue Hank really goes off the charts about, I say to my colleagues--particularly my colleagues on this side of the aisle will be happy to know--is the environment. Sometimes he would call me up and I would be sure he was talking to me about swaps or banking or some esoteric financial issue, and he would be talking to me about an environmental policy. I don't think he ever gets more enthusiastic than when he is talking about some rare bird that he saw on one of his bird- watching jaunts. He is an avid environmentalist and lover of all things in nature. I hope a few of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will not hold that against him.

He is also one of those unique, good people who could fill any number of Cabinet posts. For instance, given his environmental proclivities, he would be a great Secretary of the Interior. But financial issues and the health of the global economy are his passions, that is mostly where he is needed, and I am glad the President has nominated him for this post.

In the world of finance and international markets, there is simply no equal to Hank. At this critical point in our economy's history, we need Hank's expertise and experience to lead the way.

The bottom line, Mr. President--you know it because we traveled to China together--we are at an amazing time economically. The world economy is becoming integrated, closer and closer every year. There is almost a one world labor market. Capital flows freely to every corner of the world. These circumstances present tremendous challenges for our Nation, in our desire to remain the world's economic leader, and for the world as we try to integrate this system. One of the great challenges we face is we are converging into one economic system, but we don't have one political system, and the bumps and grinds which that causes are large.

So we need someone who understands markets. We need someone who has great experience traveling the world and knowing how the rest of the world's economic system works. Hank Paulson has all of those qualities. I am particularly glad that he knows a whole lot about China--I think he has been there over 70 times--because I believe the most important bilateral economic relationship in the next decade or two will be the American-Chinese relationship. Hank has the ability to understand the economies of both countries and figure out how we can work together.

I have been very concerned about China playing by the rules. I have been very concerned that China doesn't simply seek the advantages of free trade but not the responsibilities. I have related these concerns to Hank Paulson.

On currency, Senator Graham and I have worked closely with his predecessor, and you, Mr. President, have been involved in those issues as well as we traveled to China together. And we have worked to push and prod China to allow its currency to float based on international market forces. We have made some progress, but the progress since July has been too little, particularly in light of the fact that the Chinese assured us they know they have to get to a place where their currency floats.

Hank's extensive experience in China, his personal relationships with both the Government and business side--where, incidentally, there is quite a dichotomy. Most of the businesspeople and people even on the economic side of Government understand the need for free markets. That is in China's interests--not just America's--that China open up its markets. But a lot of people on the Government side are afraid of that. They don't like change. They don't like giving up control.

I think Hank Paulson is the right man at the right place at the right time to tackle the issue of persuading China to open up its markets more quickly. I believe that he is going to be able to show the Chinese that it is not only in our interest but in their interest as well to allow the yuan to float freely and to open up China's vast economic markets to American financial firms.

On financial services liberalization, I know Hank will work closely with Ambassador Schwab, who was just confirmed, to make sure that China lives up to its WTO commitments. This is going to be very important in the next few months because on December 11 of this year, many of the current restrictions faced by American financial firms that want to do business in China, such as purchase Chinese companies or open up branches in China, will be lifted. Hank is the perfect person to monitor China's progress and, more importantly, to prod the Chinese to go further than they have already promised.

In short, Mr. President, Henry Paulson is a thoughtful, dedicated, and renowned financial leader. I think this country will greatly benefit from his leadership. I am not at all shy about criticizing the President's nominees when I don't think they measure up to the job. I have done that in the judicial area repeatedly. But when the President nominates a sterling person, that person deserves praise and credit and, in my judgment, unanimous support in this body, and I believe that Hank Paulson is such a person.

I will be proud to vote aye when his name is offered on this floor in a few hours.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues from Michigan and Virginia for their graciousness. I am about to speak at a hearing that is occurring across the hall in the House on homeland security funds.

As you know, Madam President, homeland security funds were struck a cruel blow against the city and State of New York. Despite the fact that we are the epicenter of terrorism, despite the fact that every day the New York Police and Fire Departments have to go all out to protect us, our funding was cut by 40 percent in the city funding and 36 percent in New York State funding. It came as a total shock and surprise to all of us, particularly since Secretary Chertoff had promised that he was going to rectify the funding inadequacies and restore New York to full funding. He did that for 1 year, but then we went right back to receiving an inadequate amount.

Just recently we learned from Mr. Suskind's book that New York subways were targeted with cyanide by al-Qaida. The bottom line is very simple. There are threats against New York regularly, and every week and every day the brave police officers and firefighters and others in New York are on vigilance to make sure we are not struck by terror. All of a sudden the funding is cut--a slap in the face to this Nation's promise for New York.

At today's hearing, there is a gentleman who is missing: Secretary Chertoff. He should be testifying and answering questions, not sending a subaltern to answer those questions, but he should be there himself because he made commitments to New York, commitments that have not been lived up to by the Department of Homeland Security.

There are so many questions about why funding was cut. Just take the rationale that they want to fund systems more than they want to fund personnel. First, against cyanide, there are no systems to be funded. Cyanide can be made easily. We don't have any kind of detector. The only way to guard against the threat that occurred in 2003 is better training and more personnel on the subways. That is what New York City did.

Second, New York did apply for funding in terms of equipment. The so- called ring of steel, which would have protected downtown, was part of New York's grant. Yet the funding was cut. Secretary Chertoff bounces from rationale to rationale to rationale as to why our funding was cut, but none of them are satisfactory.

Unfortunately, there is terrorism in the world. Unfortunately, New York City has always been, is today, and will continue to be the No. 1 target of terrorists. And for this Department of Homeland Security and this Government to abdicate its responsibility and not provide New York with the funding that it needs is an absolute disgrace. The funding cut, the percentage that we went down is just unpardonable.

I am urging Secretary Chertoff to come clean and to testify before the House and the Senate and to answer the questions that New Yorkers and all Americans of goodwill have. He is not there today. He should be. But make no mistake about it. As a united delegation, Democrats and Republicans together, we will press the issue to both try and get the kind of funding we deserve this year out of other pots of money and change the formula for next year so that this kind of poor treatment of the No. 1 target of terrorists in America--New York--will not continue.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their graciousness, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Marriage Protection Amendment. This poorly conceived, divisive proposal does not belong in the U.S. Constitution. To me, the Constitution is a sacred document, one that protects rights and preserves liberties, and we should not amend it lightly. Never once has our Constitution been amended to deny rights to a group of Americans. And we should not do it now.

This divisive and unnecessary amendment--which failed overwhelmingly when last brought before the Senate--would undermine rights like civil unions now enjoyed by people in many States throughout the Nation. This amendment would override State laws that grant fundamental protections such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and health care benefits.

Unfortunately, the White House and some Members of Congress think it is more important to attempt to divide our Nation over an amendment that they know has no chance of passing than to actually govern. The timing of this marriage debate and vote--just months before a heated midterm election--proves that this amendment is a political ploy to distract the American people from the issues that the President and his party are failing to address, like skyrocketing oil prices, the war in Iraq, and the lack of affordable prescription drugs.

Therefore, Mr. President, I join a broad range of opponents to the amendment, including former Republican Representative Bob Barr, various clergy groups, and countless voters in my State and across the country in opposing this amendment.

Mr. President, I read, as many did, in the newspapers this morning that the Prime Minister of Iraq has proposed giving amnesty to those incarcerated by the Iraqi Government who have killed or maimed Americans. It was stated that if Iraqis killed Iraqis they would not be given amnesty, but if Iraqis killed Americans, they would.

That is an outrageous statement. For the Prime Minister of Iraq to offer a ``get out of jail free'' card to those who have killed American soldiers is an insult to the soldiers, their families, and every American.

Just 2 days ago, the Prime Minister stood with President Bush, and President Bush said he looked in his eyes

and saw that he was a good man. We are urging that President Bush call up the Prime Minister of Iraq immediately and get him to retract this pernicious, nasty statement which basically abdicates the great sacrifices that have been made by American soldiers for the people of Iraq.

It is just mind-boggling to believe that the Iraqi Prime Minister would decide that it would be OK to give amnesty to those who hurt Americans. What kind of ally is this? Will he turn on us in 2 months or 6 months? He seems to be the new hope of the new government, and within 24 hours after President Bush leaves Iraqi soil, he defames the sacrifices of American soldiers and their families.

President Bush, you should call your friend the Prime Minister and get him to retract this evil statement immediately. How can we ask America's young men and women to risk their lives in Iraq if those who seek to shoot at them are then absolved of any blame?

This is a statement which should really go down in infamy, and I hope and plead with the President to urge the Iraqi Prime Minister to withdraw the statement and figure out what consequences should follow if the Prime Minister refuses.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4192, withdrawn

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

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

Mr. President, you can imagine the surprise, the consternation of so many who woke up this morning and read on the front page of the Washington Post that the Prime Minister of Iraq suggested he would grant amnesty to those who killed, maimed, hurt Americans. This was just appalling.

I rise in support of the resolution offered by my colleagues from Florida and New Jersey to, first, condemn those despicable remarks, and, second, to importune our President, President Bush, to make sure the Prime Minister of Iraq retracts those remarks and registers the strong disapproval of this Senate and of our Nation about what happened.

To give those who shot at, sometimes killed, often maimed Americans a get-out-of-jail-free card is nothing short of despicable and a slap in the face to all Americans. We have been told we are in Iraq for the noblest of purposes--to bring peace and democracy. When the head of state of that country says it is okay if you shot at American troops, it defies belief, it defies credibility.

The bottom line is our President stood with Prime Minister Maliki just a day or two ago and said he looked him in the eye and saw he was a good man. President Bush must have missed something. Clearly, no one can be a good man and state that it would be okay to give amnesty to those who shot at our soldiers.

This is something which calls into question the whole endeavor in Iraq. If this is the man we are relying on to get us out of the morass, to lead a government, and he is able to say that those who shot at our soldiers should be given amnesty while those who shot at Iraqis should not, something is dramatically wrong.

I will never forget when our President said he met President Putin, looked in his eye, and found he was a good man. Yet we have had trouble with President Putin ever since.

Something is desperately the matter. We need to do a few things. We need to pass this resolution immediately and register our condemnation of the remarks.

President Bush, America is asking you to demand a retraction from the Prime Minister of Iraq of these despicable words or America can no longer support sending soldiers to defend Iraqi freedom, to defend Iraqi peace. How can we, our soldiers, and their families go over to Iraq if, when they are shot at by renegade Iraqis, those Iraqis may be given amnesty and a pat on the back? That is despicable. It is so wrong.

I have spent time with families who have lost loved ones in Iraq. I have spent hours seeing our soldiers off to victory, watching as their families, their wives, their husbands, and their children, with tears in their eyes, watched them board the planes and the transports. For these families, while their beloved men and women are over there, to read that the Prime Minister of Iraq would grant amnesty to someone who tried to kill that soldier who is bravely serving, how would they feel?

President Bush must get on the phone, if he has not already, with the Iraqi Prime Minister and demand a retraction. If not, the American people, and particularly the soldiers and their families, deserve an explanation about what is going on over there. Again, to give a get- out-of-jail-free card to those who shoot at American soldiers while those soldiers are trying to defend freedom and peace in Iraq boggles the mind.

Another question: How can we rely on this man, this new Prime Minister Maliki, as an ally if he says this? My faith in him is shaken to the core. What will happen 2 months from now or 6 months from now?

This is a serious issue. I hope my colleagues will pay attention. It is serious

because of the honor of our soldiers. It is serious because it casts doubt on the future of whatever plan there is in Iraq. It is serious mostly because it is an inhumane and nasty comment that negativizes all the sacrifices our people have made.

I hope our President will act. He has been silent today. There is no clarification. There is no discussion of a phone call. There is no expression of outrage from the White House. I hope that will change and change soon. If it doesn't, it has to call into doubt everything we are trying to do over there. This was not a happy day for what is going on in Iraq because of that awful newspaper story this morning and what it reported. I hope, I pray, things will change.

I certainly urge my colleagues to support unanimously the resolution offered by my colleague from Florida and my colleague from New Jersey, that I am proud to support, asking for that change.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 5 minutes before the Senator from Michigan speaks--he has graciously agreed to allow me to do that--and then he be given as much time as he needs.

Thank you, Mr. President. I want to first, again, thank Senator Carl Levin, who I know has been graciously acceding all night. So he will be the last person to speak here, but I very much appreciate it. And I know all of my colleagues do.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

This court is too important, its jurisdiction too broad, and its decisions too final, for a lifetime seat to be entrusted to someone with such limited nonpartisan experience--even someone as bright as Mr. Kavanaugh clearly is.

First, let me say that I am continually frustrated by the nature of the debate that takes place in the Senate and in the public about the so-called politicization of the judicial nomination and confirmation process. We are often told--with a straight face--that politics and ideology play no part in the President's thinking when it comes to judicial nominations.

But, as anyone who is paying attention knows full well: It is the President who too often picks judicial nominees with politics and ideology squarely in mind.

It is the President who too often picks judicial nominees with an eye towards shoring up his conservative political base. It is the President who too often selects judicial nominees with an eye towards picking a political fight. And, of course, on at least one occasion--in the case of Harriet Miers--it was the President who withdrew a nominee with an eye towards mitigating political damage.

So, those who complain that the process has become politicized and that ideology shouldn't matter should take their quarrel to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

In this case--especially after Mr. Kavanaugh's second hearing--I continue to believe that his nomination is too infused with politics and that Mr. Kavanaugh himself is neither seasoned enough nor independent enough at this early stage of his career to merit a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land.

Let me say a word about how deeply important the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is.

But there are serious questions as to why, at barely 40, having never tried a case, and with a record of service almost exclusively to highly partisan political matters, he is being nominated to a seat on the second most important court in America.

Why is the DC Circuit so important?

The Supreme Court currently takes fewer than 100 cases a year. That means that the lower courts resolve the tens of thousands a cases a year brought by Americans seeking to vindicate their rights. All the other Federal appellate courts handle just those cases arising from within its boundaries. So, for example, the Second Circuit, where I am from, takes cases coming out of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

But the DC Circuit doesn't just take cases brought by residents of Washington, DC. Congress has decided there is value in vesting one court with the power to review certain decisions of administrative agencies.

We have given plaintiffs the power to choose the DC Circuit--and in come cases we have forced them to go to the DC Circuit--because we have decided for better or worse, that when it comes to these administrative decisions one court should decide what the law is for the whole Nation.

When it comes to regulations adopted under the Clean Air Act by the EPA, labor decisions made by the NLRB and rules propounded by OSHA, gas prices regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and many other administrative matters, the decisions are usually made by the judges on the DC Circuit, to which Mr. Kavanaugh aspires.

To most, it seems like this is the ``Alphabet Soup Court,'' since virtually every case involves an agency with an unintelligible acronym--EPA, NLRA, FCC, SEC, FTC, FERC, and so on, and so on.

But the letters that make up this ``Alphabet Soup'' are what make our Government tick. They are the agencies that write and enforce the rules that determine how much ``reform'' there will be in campaign finance reform. They determine how clean the water has to be for it to be safe for our families to drink. They establish the rights workers have when negotiating with corporate powers.

The DC Circuit is important because its decisions determine how these Federal agencies go about doing their jobs. And, in so doing, it directly impacts the daily lives of all Americans more than any other court in the country, with the exception of the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, there is so much at stake when considering nominees to the DC Circuit--how their ideological predilections will impact the decisions coming out of the court--and why it is vital for Senators to consider how nominees will impact the delicate ideological balance on the court when deciding how to vote.

Given the importance of that court, I cannot vote to confirm Mr. Kavanaugh. Although Mr. Kavanaugh has held several important and influential positions in Government, they have been almost exclusively political. While his academic credentials are undeniably top-notch, he has largely devoted his legal talents to helping notch political victories for his party. While his resume is laden with high-profile political assignments, it is light on the kinds of professional and nonpartisan accomplishments typical of recent nominees to this important court.

Mr. Kavanaugh has been one of the point people among young Republican lawyers, appearing at the epicenter of so many high-profile controversial issues in a relatively short career. That is not in itself dispositive, but that is all there is. There is not much more we can rely on to offset this experience.

Notwithstanding his legal credentials, he is younger than, and has less relevant experience than, almost everyone else who has joined the DC Circuit in modern times.

If this were a nominee for the district court, where it belongs, there would not be opposition. But it seems as if Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination is repayment for services rendered to the political operation of the White House and the Republican Party. He does not have a long list of articles. He does not have a long list of judicial experience, or even of legal experience outside of the political realm. And it shows you the brazenness of this administration, frankly, that he would be nominated to the second highest court in the land. It shows you that they value ideology and political service above judicial experience and depth.

The bottom line is this, that Mr. Kavanaugh does not belong on this court. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were not so apt to just rubberstamp every single nominee that this administration puts forward, he would not get to this court. But the reason we are unable to block this nomination is not because of the merits--I wish we could because America will regret, I believe, having Mr. Kavanaugh on the court for decades to come--but it is because, again, we have seen fewer than a handful of times any Republican Member vote against any nominee who this White House nominates.

Mr. Kavanaugh is intelligent; no question. Intelligence alone is hardly a criteria for the second most important court in the land.

Mr. Kavanaugh, when I met him, told me one way to make a judgment about him would be to talk to the people who know him, to talk to colleagues and judges and others familiar with his work. That is what the American Bar Association actually did in preparing his evaluation. And I have rarely seen an evaluation that has comments such as these: One lawyer said that Mr. Kavanaugh was ``sanctimonious'' and inexperienced. A lawyer in a different proceeding said: Mr. Kavanaugh did not handle the case well as an advocate and dissembled. Another said he was ``inexperienced in the practice of law.'' Others characterized him as ``insulated.'' One lawyer who worked with him questioned his ability ``to be balanced and fair should he assume a federal judgeship.''

Unfortunately, I think that is the reason he was chosen. The administration on this DC Court of Appeals wants people who will not be balanced and fair. They want people who have an ideological ax to grind, to undo the work of Government which this court oversees.

It is true that this is the second most important court in the land. It is also true to say that there cannot be a single person in this body, if they were being honest, who does not recognize that there are many more qualified people in Washington to be on this bench.

So, Mr. President, I must vote against this nomination, with the full conviction that we could do a lot better.

Mr. Kavanaugh, if confirmed, would be the youngest person on the D.C. Circuit since his mentor, Ken Starr.

By a quick review of the preconfirmation accomplishments of the active judges who currently sit on the D.C. Circuit, the nominee's

achievements--though impressive--are simply not on a par.

Every active judge had significant professional and nonpartisan experience to help persuade us that they merited confirmation.

I remind my colleagues that in recent months, I voted for two Republican nominees who were deeply involved in the impeachment of President Clinton--Tom Griffith for the very court to which Mr. Kavanaugh has been nominated and Paul McNulty to the second highest position in the Justice Department.

Now let me come to the ABA report released recently. Some of my friends across the aisle have fallen over themselves to dismiss, dilute, and denigrate that report. This, of course, despite the fact that last time around, Mr. Kavanaugh and several Senators frequently repeatedly boasted about his original, higher ABA rating.

Here is why the observations noted in that report are important. When he and I met recently, I asked Mr. Kavanaugh how we are to judge someone with his scant record. He has very few writings. He is younger than almost everyone who has been nominated to the D.C. Circuit. He has never been a judge.

Mr. Kavanaugh told me that one way to make a judgment about him would be to talk to the people who know him, to talk to colleagues and judges and others who are familiar with him and his work.

Well, that is one of the things the American Bar Association actually did in preparing its evaluation. They talked--as Mr. Kavanaugh himself suggested--with people who are familiar with his work.

What is more, they do it under a promise of confidentiality, so that they will be likely to obtain the most honest and candid appraisals-- rather than the expected plaudits from peers and previous employers.

Many of those interviewed echoed precisely the concerns that I and others have raised--his lack of relevant experience and the effect the insularity of his political experience might have on his ability to be a neutral judge.

Now, I understand that none of the 14 committee members found Mr. Kavanaugh flatly ``not qualified.''

But I ask my colleagues, shouldn't we give substantial weight to these statements from people who are familiar with his work--not isolated remarks, but a multitude of them, from different quarters, commenting about different court appearances and interactions with him?

Given the importance of the D.C. Circuit, we have a duty to closely scrutinize the nominees who come before us seeking lifetime appointment to this court.

And it is no insult to Mr. Kavanaugh, to say that there can't be a single person in this room, if they were being honest, who doesn't recognize that there are scores of lawyers in Washington and around the country who are of equally high intellectual ability, but who have much more significant judicial, legal, and academic experience to recommend them for this post.

So I would say that many of my colleagues and I have a sincere and good-faith concern that this nominee is not apolitical enough, not seasoned enough, not independent enough, and has not been forthcoming enough. The hearing did not alleviate those concerns.

Indeed, Mr. Kavanaugh was evasive when he should have been forthright; he sidestepped questions when he should have met them head on.

During an extended exchange with me, he repeatedly refused to answer a simple question--whether he had ever expressed opposition to a potential judicial nominee within the White House, even though there is no conceivable earthly privilege that should have prevented him from answering.

On another occasion, it took Senator Leahy four tries before Mr. Kavanaugh would answer the simple question: Why did you take 7 months to respond to the Judiciary Committee's written questions in 2004?

On yet another occasion, he continued to refuse to tell us whether he is in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, even though he has spent several years selecting and vetting highly ideological judges for the President who has repeatedly promised to nominate judges in ``the mold of Scalia and Thomas.''

If the President can say repeatedly at campaign stops and speeches that he wants judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, and if those statements are not just meaningless, empty rhetoric, why can't we Senators find out in some meaningful way whether there is any truth in advertising?

In short, if the nominee had spent the last several years on a lower court or in a nonpolitical position proving his independence from politics, I could view his nomination in a different light.

But he has not. Instead, his resume is almost unambiguously political. Perhaps with more time, and different experience, we would have greater comfort imagining Mr. Kavanaugh on this court. But that day is not yet here.

Therefore, I vote nay on the nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same.

With that, I yield the floor and, once again, thank my colleague from Michigan.

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

I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I see my good friend from New Hampshire coming to the floor to offer his amendment. I must rise in opposition to the soon to be pending amendment, which would essentially do away with the original purpose of the diversity visa program.

As a Member of the House, I helped create this program, which my colleague, Senator Kennedy, created in the Senate in 1990. It had a very simple purpose, and that was this. Our immigration laws were based on family reunification and certain other qualifications, so there were whole ranges of countries from which people could not get visas. They tended to be European and African, even though the vast majority of Americans are descendents of Europeans and Africans. But because for several generations no people had come from those countries--the people were either third cousins or unrelated to people here--the family unification, a very noble purpose, took predominance and the overwhelming majority of immigrants came from the Caribbean, Latin America, and Asia. This diversity program was a small program, and it was intended to allow some from other countries to come. In fact, my city of New York has dramatically benefited from this program, and diverse countries such as Ireland, Poland, and Nigeria have had large numbers of immigrants to be able to come, set roots, and help the diversity of New York and of America.

So this is an excellent program. Nobody has said it has done a bad job. It is small. There are only about 50,000 visas a year. It is really based on the idea of new seed. I believe every immigrant is special because they, or all of us who descend from them, come from a special group of people who had the guts and the gumption to get off their butts and basically come to America. They said: I don't want to lead this disease-ridden, impoverished life. I am willing to come here and take a risk. That is one of the reasons America is a special place--the idea of bringing new seed to this country, people who are willing to risk everything, is great.

I have one example. I met a man named Napoleon Barragan, who probably would not qualify under this program. He founded 1-800-Mattress. It employs about a thousand people in Queens. I went to his office and saw this picture in which there were grass huts with kids playing in the front. He said: That is the village in which I was born in Ecuador. He said: Of all those kids, only one had the gumption, the guts to leave that impoverished, disease-ridden life and come to America. He said: Do you know who that was? I said no, but I had an idea. He said: Me. He went on to found a company that employs a thousand people.

My friend from New Hampshire and colleague from Washington say let's have more visas for highly educated people. I am all for that. But this bill puts a whole lot of visas in for that, and that is why groups as diverse not only as the NAACP and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops but the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and I am even told that Microsoft opposes this amendment because they are very happy with the much needed increase in people who have certain skills and certain education. I think America should admit many more of those people but not at the expense of this small, successful program that guarantees that other countries, such as the Irelands, the Polands, and the Nigerias that are unable to have immigrants come in for family reasons, can get people to come into this country. So why can't we have both?

If you believe that immigrants are good for America, as I do, and you believe both highly educated people and new seed people are good for America, why do we have to rob Peter to pay Paul? As I said, Microsoft, which has led the charge for more highly educated people, such as engineers and scientists, to be allowed into this country, is not asking that this program be changed. These companies recognize, as Senator Kennedy did in the Senate and as I did in the House a long time ago, that this country is better served by bringing immigrants from all over the world at all levels. We certainly need more scientists and engineers, but we also need new immigrants like Napoleon Barragan-- ambitious people without money and a family connection--to come here and start new businesses.

The great thing about America is when you work hard, you benefit yourself, your family and, in that way, you benefit America. My own ancestors were immigrants. They didn't come here with advanced degrees. My father was an exterminator. I am a U.S. Senator. That says something great about America. But one of the things great about America is, again, we allow people from all over the world to come here.

So I plead with my colleagues, keep the diversity visa program. It is small, 50,000 a year. From all the groups that want more educated immigrants to come to America, we do not hear any need to take away from this program to add more. They are very happy with what Senator Specter has done in the bill, as am I, which is increase the numbers of H-1Bs and other visas for these folks. We can have both. We do not have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

As I ride my bike around New York City on the weekends, I see what immigrants do for America. This program has dramatically helped. Neighborhoods such as Woodlawn and Greenpoint have been revitalized by new Irish and Polish immigrants. Neighborhoods such as East Flatbush and Harlem have been revitalized by West African immigrants. We don't have to stop this program.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on a well-intentioned but misguided amendment and preserve the diversity program as well as other parts of the bill that allow more educated immigrants to come to this country.

I yield the floor.

I was just going to speak for 5 minutes on the amendment that Senator Clinton and I and others have introduced.

I would ask for 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent I speak for 5 minutes, and Senator Kennedy proceed for 1 minute immediately thereafter.

I will take 3\1/2\ minutes. I don't mind.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment sponsored by my colleague, Senator Clinton, cosponsored by a number of us on this side. I commend her efforts to address a very important component of the immigration debate.

This amendment is going to provide some much needed and overdue relief to States and localities that have had to bear a disproportionate share of the burden when they have been host to a large number of undocumented immigrants. Too many of our State and local governments are overwhelmed and underfinanced. As the number of undocumented immigrants goes up in a community, so do the costs of services that the local governments provide to them--including increased costs for law enforcement, health care, and education.

These localities are not to blame for the Federal Government's failure to adequately secure our borders or to enforce the immigration laws against employers who do not play by the rules. But more and more, they had to devote already scarce resources to deal with the rising numbers of undocumented immigrants.

They have done the right thing. They have provided medical care, education, other public services. But it has all come at the expense of local taxpayers who are already stretched too thin, and that is not fair.

As we work toward comprehensive reform, we in the Federal Government owe them our help. We need to make sure the flood of new immigrants does not drown out our local governments. We need to make sure that while we embrace our new immigrants we don't give the local communities the cold shoulder.

This is not just a problem on the southern border. In Suffolk County on Long Island there are about 40,000 undocumented immigrants. Total estimates for all of Long Island are about 100,000. In Suffolk, the annual cost of meeting the needs of undocumented immigrants is estimated to be $24 million. Of course, property taxes are too high. The counties are strapped for cash. This amendment will offer some much needed relief to localities such as Suffolk County that have had to go it alone for too long. And it will not require finding new sources of revenue. It will take some of the fees already in the bill and give the bulk of that money for reimbursement of health care and educational costs paid out by the States and localities, and the rest goes to SCAAP, to pay for the costs of detaining noncitizens, a program I have been much involved with in the past.

These funds will be targeted toward States that have seen the sharpest rise in their noncitizen populations, and we are going to get the money from the States to their localities fast because they are feeling the strain now. States will have to get most of the money to the localities within 180 days once the money is allocated.

Taxpayers in our country are already being pushed to the limit. They didn't cause the problems, but they far too often have to bear the financial consequences, and they should not be left holding the bag.

This financial assistance will not solve every problem associated with undocumented immigration, but it will go a long way toward lifting the financial strain in our States and localities all over the country.

I yield. If my colleague from Massachusetts wants, I yield my remaining time to my colleague from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I join as a cosponsor of the bill just introduced because I think it really cuts the Gordian knot. There has been a deadlock on improving the shield law for the very reason that not all disclosures by Government officials to members of the press are equal. We certainly want to protect a whistleblower. We certainly want a person, if they work at the FDA and see that tests are being short- circuited and they go to higher-ups and get nowhere, to be able to go to the press and expose it. It is a far different matter when something is prohibited by statute from being made public, such as with grand jury minutes. Frankly, that dealt with the Plame case. In both cases making that information public was a violation of law. There was a public policy against disclosure, which there is not in the typical whistleblower case.

I believe the reason that the legislation my colleagues from Indiana and Connecticut put in didn't get as much support is that it failed to distinguish that difference. We need to protect the press, especially with a large Government that keeps things secret more and more. But we also have to have some respect for the fact that there are certain things that should not be made public by statute in open debate.

As I said, this legislation cuts the Gordian knot. It protects those matters that should not be made public and doesn't put them under the shield of law but strengthens the protections for whistleblowers and others who might want to expose Government wrongdoing when there is no other way to expose it.

This is a large step forward. It is legislation I am proud to cosponsor. I am very glad that the deadlock has been broken by this thoughtful legislation, which I now believe will garner enough support to become law. Whereas, the previous legislation, as sweeping as it was, would not.

I compliment my colleagues from Indiana, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, with whom I join as lead cosponsors because it is going to make our country a better place.