Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object, could I speak, before we set it aside, on this amendment?

I commend my colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Oklahoma for their lone battle on this issue. It is an issue we all agree with and very much appreciate their hard work.

Amendment No. 2959 to Amendment No. 2944

Second, I will say a word on another issue that is pending in the House of Representatives. At this point, I offer an amendment at the desk as a second degree to Mr. Wyden's amendment.

I object.

Mr. President, before he leaves the Chamber, I wish to thank my colleague from Virginia. I am not sure we see exactly eye to eye on this proposal, but no one doubts the sincerity, the integrity, and the intelligence and fervor with which our chairman of the Armed Services Committee seeks to do good for following through on what he believes is necessary for this country. I hope we can work together and come to an amiable arrangement. Obviously, because of his work, our two sides are closer together today than we were a week ago.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I certainly agree. I have talked to a good number of people in the business community and in the ports community of New York. The issue is a complicated one but one that is hardly clear-cut. But I will continue to pursue that.

I also will make just one other point; that is, the worry many of us have is not that the head of this company would be wanting to facilitate terrorism but, rather, that terrorists might too easily infiltrate such an organization. I will get to that in a little bit of time.

(The remarks of Mr. Schumer pertaining to the introduction of S. 2333 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today first to announce introduction of legislation, S. 2333, which would deal with the Dubai Ports issue. The legislation is bipartisan. It has five Democratic and five Republican sponsors, although the number is growing. The lead Republican sponsor is my friend from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, who had hoped to be here today, but I believe his flight was delayed, and he is just arriving about now.

First, I would like to speak about the recent developments in Dubai Ports World's takeover of several major ports. I believe the bipartisan legislation which I and others will introduce today is the path forward with respect to this deal and securing our Nation's ports and making sure that homeland security is the No. 1 priority.

As we know, the administration and DP World executives reached an agreement yesterday to allow for a 45-day investigation of security concerns raised by this deal. That is good news. I salute the administration and President Bush for doing so.

The bottom line is that many of us have called for this 45-day investigation--many of us from both parties over the last week and a half--and the fact that the President is doing it is very good news. To dig in one's heels doesn't make much sense, particularly when it comes to homeland security. So the new agreement is a major step forward, and it is a key part of what many of us have been asking for in recent weeks. But there are still some outstanding questions. That is why we will be introducing our legislation this afternoon. The devil is in the details. It is plain and simple.

Here are some of the questions that have yet be to answered.

First, we must make sure that the CFIUS Committee conducts a full, thorough, and independent investigation. We can ask for no less, given that the security of our homeland is at stake. Reports that I and others have received have been that the previous investigation was cursory, was casual, was not as thorough as it might be. There are reports, for instance, that people simply looked in the record books to see if there was something wrong that DP World had done. That is not the kind of investigation you need when for the first time they are going to operate the ports here in the United States. And because the committee has already taken a position, even if it is in a casual and cursory way, we have to make sure they are able to approach this with an open mind. We need real independence here.

Make no mistake about it; the CFIUS Committee in the past has too often made economic and diplomatic considerations at a greater level than homeland security consideration. That is buttressed by the fact that there are reports in the newspapers that the homeland security representative on the committee first objected and then withdrew his objection.

Again, we have to make sure there is a broader question; that is, whether the CFIUS Committee is the right committee to begin with to do this. Are they structured properly in a post-9/ll world?

When they were first set up more than 20 years ago, part of the purpose was almost to provide a security justification for economic deals that had to go through. But even in the confines of present law, we have to make sure that the investigation is thorough, complete, and independent.

Let me mention one point in this regard. I had been very perturbed when I learned that the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey, in charge of our ports, was not even consulted about this deal. Had they been consulted, they would have talked about all kinds of problems that they saw, and as a result they are now suing to block the deal. But how thorough could an investigation be if the governmental agency in charge of running the ports, in charge of security in the ports, in our largest port on the east coast, was not even consulted?

So the first question is, will the investigation be thorough, will it be complete, and will it be independent? Will those who have already brushed aside any complaints or worries be able now to have an open mind? I hope so. I am not prejudging, but it is a question that has to be asked as the investigation proceeds.

The second question is, what will happen with the report once it is completed? If the report is kept secret and only given to the President, then what good was the new 45-day investigation? After all, the President has already said he is for this, and I would like to hear the President say that if new concerns are brought up by the report, he would reconsider his support of this merger. We have not heard that yet. So at that point, we are sort of in a position where it is almost like Alice in Wonderland, where you first have the verdict and then the trial. For this 45-day investigation to have real merit, since it does go to the President by law and he gets the right to say ``yes'' or ``no,'' it would help with the American people to say he has an open mind as well; he is not locked into a position.

My belief is this: I think the report should be made available to the Senate

and the House, to any Member of the Senate and House who wishes to see it, and should be made public, at least the nonclassified parts of the report. It can be done on a redacted basis.

Why? First of all, we do need independent judgment. Again, because the President has come out so firmly for this proposal, to allow the House and Senate to see the full report makes a great deal of sense and because the American people have so many concerns. Go to any street corner in any city or town or suburb in this country and you will hear questions asked about this. Every time I have been on an airplane--and I have been on airplanes in various parts of the country--people actually get out of their seats and come over to me and say: What is going on here? So making the report public, at least in a redacted way, so the classified parts are not obviously exposed, makes a great deal of sense. So that is our second question.

The third question is evaluation. It seems to me that in this particular area where there has been such concern, there ought to be, in a constitutionally and legislatively proper way, an ability for this body and the other body to disapprove the deal. And that is what our legislation calls for. It calls for a 30-day period after the report is issued before any merger is consummated so that Congress can disapprove the deal. As you know, Mr. President, there are strict laws on how Congress can approve and disapprove administrative actions, and we have consulted those documents and our disapproval is in keeping with the way you should structure such a disapproval.

So those are the three major questions that our legislation asks. The legislation, S. 2333, which 10 of us, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, are introducing this afternoon, deals not only with the 45-day review which the President has already agreed to but the giving of the final report to the House and Senate and to the public in a nonclassified way and gives the Congress the 30-day right for disapproval.

Now, there is one other question not engaged by our legislation that has to be answered and that is this: Because this is a voluntary agreement between the administration and DP World, I have concerns about, because the merger is going to go forward, how securely walled off is the American part of this new enterprise from the rest. If you read the document that has been made public, it is sort of contradictory, in a certain sense. We want to make sure that those walls are thick, that nobody in the Dubai Ports World organization can influence decisions made here, at least while the investigation is going forward. These will be other questions that I think we should ask.

Now, what is the status, what will we do with this legislation? Well, the President's agreeing to a 45-day investigation obviates the need to ask for a vote in this Chamber immediately, although I am confident that if the legislation were brought to the floor, it would receive an overwhe1ming vote, probably a veto-proof majority. However, we will keep this legislation at the ready as we follow the investigation. If the investigation should falter or it should not be made public, then the legislation might well be brought to the floor again. The bottom line is, those of us who have great concern about this deal are in a period of watchful waiting. We are hopeful that the bipartisan compromise we have put together will sort of spread. We are hopeful that the President's going along with the 45-day investigation is an indication that we can continue to work together. None of us relishes the occasion to bring this legislation to the floor. It would be much better if the President would agree to all of its terms. But at the moment, we will carefully watch and wait, doing our best to make sure that the investigation is complete, thorough, and independent, doing our best to make sure that Members of Congress and the public can see all the appropriate parts of the investigation and then, should the need arise, have an opportunity to disapprove of this merger.

One other point, larger point. Whatever happens with this merger, in terms of its effect on the United States and its ports, there is one bit of good that can come out of this sorry mess; namely, that this Congress, that this administration focus much more on port security. There is no question that we have not done enough in terms of port security. In the air, we have done a pretty good job. We have spent about $8 billion, and while not all of it was spent perfectly, we are a lot safer from terrorism in the air than we were before. But in our ports, which are perhaps more vulnerable and wide open, we haven't done enough. Amendment after amendment after amendment that I and others have brought up over the last 4 years has been defeated, oftentimes on party-line votes. There is a need to do many things. There is a need to make sure that every container that comes into this country can be inspected, can be done mechanically for nuclear material. There is a need to make sure that those containers do not contain biological or chemical weapons. There is a need to make sure that the containers are far more tamperproof than they are today--not all of them are; far too many are not--so that there can't be something slipped into that container while it is on board ship or has already been loaded or checked out at the port of embarkation. There is a need to make sure that personnel both on our side of the ocean and on the other side of either ocean have been thoroughly checked out, in terms of their background, so that terrorist organizations cannot infiltrate because we all know in terrorism handbook 101, infiltration is probably the best way to smuggle some terrible weapons onto our shores.

We also have to make sure that we have greater personnel, greater machinery, greater computers and technology so that a higher percentage of containers, not just the 1 in 20, can be inspected; 1 in 20 is too great a gamble and too great a risk.

As we move forward, I hope that these will happen. And one other thing that ought to be done. We ought to take a look at the CFIUS committee, which in the past has too often taken the path of least resistance and doesn't give foreign takeovers the critical national security review they deserve.

According to a 2005 report, ``The manner in which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States implements Exon-Florio may limit its effectiveness. For example, Treasury in its role as Chair and some others narrowly define what constitutes a threat to national security.''

This week, the Banking Committee will hold hearings on CFIUS reform, and I look forward to working with Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes to carefully examine the CFIUS process, something I have had trouble with in the past.

In conclusion, the last 2 weeks have been extraordinary. Rarely do we see these days a bipartisan, bicameral unity to ensure our Nation is protected, and those of us who worked hard at this, I say to my colleagues, can be proud that we have already seen some major progress. The 45-day investigation will commence. We must keep our vigilance and make sure the rest of the process is done fairly and carefully and independently because the security of our country depends upon it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today first to announce introduction of legislation, S. 2333, which would deal with the Dubai Ports issue. The legislation is bipartisan. It has five Democratic and five Republican sponsors, although the number is growing. The lead Republican sponsor is my friend from Minnesota, Mr. Coleman, who had hoped to be here today, but I believe his flight was delayed, and he is just arriving about now.

First, I would like to speak about the recent developments in Dubai Ports World's takeover of several major ports. I believe the bipartisan legislation which I and others will introduce today is the path forward with respect to this deal and securing our Nation's ports and making sure that homeland security is the No. 1 priority.

As we know, the administration and DP World executives reached an agreement yesterday to allow for a 45-day investigation of security concerns raised by this deal. That is good news. I salute the administration and President Bush for doing so.

The bottom line is that many of us have called for this 45-day investigation--many of us from both parties over the last week and a half--and the fact that the President is doing it is very good news. To dig in one's heels doesn't make much sense, particularly when it comes to homeland security. So the new agreement is a major step forward, and it is a key part of what many of us have been asking for in recent weeks. But there are still some outstanding questions. That is why we will be introducing our legislation this afternoon. The devil is in the details. It is plain and simple.

Here are some of the questions that have yet be to answered.

First, we must make sure that the CFIUS Committee conducts a full, thorough, and independent investigation. We can ask for no less, given that the security of our homeland is at stake. Reports that I and others have received have been that the previous investigation was cursory, was casual, was not as thorough as it might be. There are reports, for instance, that people simply looked in the record books to see if there was something wrong that DP World had done. That is not the kind of investigation you need when for the first time they are going to operate the ports here in the United States. And because the committee has already taken a position, even if it is in a casual and cursory way, we have to make sure they are able to approach this with an open mind. We need real independence here.

Make no mistake about it; the CFIUS Committee in the past has too often made economic and diplomatic considerations at a greater level than homeland security consideration. That is buttressed by the fact that there are reports in the newspapers that the homeland security representative on the committee first objected and then withdrew his objection.

Again, we have to make sure there is a broader question; that is, whether the CFIUS Committee is the right committee to begin with to do this. Are they structured properly in a post-9/ll world?

When they were first set up more than 20 years ago, part of the purpose was almost to provide a security justification for economic deals that had to go through. But even in the confines of present law, we have to make sure that the investigation is thorough, complete, and independent.

Let me mention one point in this regard. I had been very perturbed when I learned that the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey, in charge of our ports, was not even consulted about this deal. Had they been consulted, they would have talked about all kinds of problems that they saw, and as a result they are now suing to block the deal. But how thorough could an investigation be if the governmental agency in charge of running the ports, in charge of security in the ports, in our largest port on the east coast, was not even consulted?

So the first question is, will the investigation be thorough, will it be complete, and will it be independent? Will those who have already brushed aside any complaints or worries be able now to have an open mind? I hope so. I am not prejudging, but it is a question that has to be asked as the investigation proceeds.

The second question is, what will happen with the report once it is completed? If the report is kept secret and only given to the President, then what good was the new 45-day investigation? After all, the President has already said he is for this, and I would like to hear the President say that if new concerns are brought up by the report, he would reconsider his support of this merger. We have not heard that yet. So at that point, we are sort of in a position where it is almost like Alice in Wonderland, where you first have the verdict and then the trial. For this 45-day investigation to have real merit, since it does go to the President by law and he gets the right to say ``yes'' or ``no,'' it would help with the American people to say he has an open mind as well; he is not locked into a position.

My belief is this: I think the report should be made available to the Senate

and the House, to any Member of the Senate and House who wishes to see it, and should be made public, at least the nonclassified parts of the report. It can be done on a redacted basis.

Why? First of all, we do need independent judgment. Again, because the President has come out so firmly for this proposal, to allow the House and Senate to see the full report makes a great deal of sense and because the American people have so many concerns. Go to any street corner in any city or town or suburb in this country and you will hear questions asked about this. Every time I have been on an airplane--and I have been on airplanes in various parts of the country--people actually get out of their seats and come over to me and say: What is going on here? So making the report public, at least in a redacted way, so the classified parts are not obviously exposed, makes a great deal of sense. So that is our second question.

The third question is evaluation. It seems to me that in this particular area where there has been such concern, there ought to be, in a constitutionally and legislatively proper way, an ability for this body and the other body to disapprove the deal. And that is what our legislation calls for. It calls for a 30-day period after the report is issued before any merger is consummated so that Congress can disapprove the deal. As you know, Mr. President, there are strict laws on how Congress can approve and disapprove administrative actions, and we have consulted those documents and our disapproval is in keeping with the way you should structure such a disapproval.

So those are the three major questions that our legislation asks. The legislation, S. 2333, which 10 of us, 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, are introducing this afternoon, deals not only with the 45-day review which the President has already agreed to but the giving of the final report to the House and Senate and to the public in a nonclassified way and gives the Congress the 30-day right for disapproval.

Now, there is one other question not engaged by our legislation that has to be answered and that is this: Because this is a voluntary agreement between the administration and DP World, I have concerns about, because the merger is going to go forward, how securely walled off is the American part of this new enterprise from the rest. If you read the document that has been made public, it is sort of contradictory, in a certain sense. We want to make sure that those walls are thick, that nobody in the Dubai Ports World organization can influence decisions made here, at least while the investigation is going forward. These will be other questions that I think we should ask.

Now, what is the status, what will we do with this legislation? Well, the President's agreeing to a 45-day investigation obviates the need to ask for a vote in this Chamber immediately, although I am confident that if the legislation were brought to the floor, it would receive an overwhe1ming vote, probably a veto-proof majority. However, we will keep this legislation at the ready as we follow the investigation. If the investigation should falter or it should not be made public, then the legislation might well be brought to the floor again. The bottom line is, those of us who have great concern about this deal are in a period of watchful waiting. We are hopeful that the bipartisan compromise we have put together will sort of spread. We are hopeful that the President's going along with the 45-day investigation is an indication that we can continue to work together. None of us relishes the occasion to bring this legislation to the floor. It would be much better if the President would agree to all of its terms. But at the moment, we will carefully watch and wait, doing our best to make sure that the investigation is complete, thorough, and independent, doing our best to make sure that Members of Congress and the public can see all the appropriate parts of the investigation and then, should the need arise, have an opportunity to disapprove of this merger.

One other point, larger point. Whatever happens with this merger, in terms of its effect on the United States and its ports, there is one bit of good that can come out of this sorry mess; namely, that this Congress, that this administration focus much more on port security. There is no question that we have not done enough in terms of port security. In the air, we have done a pretty good job. We have spent about $8 billion, and while not all of it was spent perfectly, we are a lot safer from terrorism in the air than we were before. But in our ports, which are perhaps more vulnerable and wide open, we haven't done enough. Amendment after amendment after amendment that I and others have brought up over the last 4 years has been defeated, oftentimes on party-line votes. There is a need to do many things. There is a need to make sure that every container that comes into this country can be inspected, can be done mechanically for nuclear material. There is a need to make sure that those containers do not contain biological or chemical weapons. There is a need to make sure that the containers are far more tamperproof than they are today--not all of them are; far too many are not--so that there can't be something slipped into that container while it is on board ship or has already been loaded or checked out at the port of embarkation. There is a need to make sure that personnel both on our side of the ocean and on the other side of either ocean have been thoroughly checked out, in terms of their background, so that terrorist organizations cannot infiltrate because we all know in terrorism handbook 101, infiltration is probably the best way to smuggle some terrible weapons onto our shores.

We also have to make sure that we have greater personnel, greater machinery, greater computers and technology so that a higher percentage of containers, not just the 1 in 20, can be inspected; 1 in 20 is too great a gamble and too great a risk.

As we move forward, I hope that these will happen. And one other thing that ought to be done. We ought to take a look at the CFIUS committee, which in the past has too often taken the path of least resistance and doesn't give foreign takeovers the critical national security review they deserve.

According to a 2005 report, ``The manner in which the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States implements Exon-Florio may limit its effectiveness. For example, Treasury in its role as Chair and some others narrowly define what constitutes a threat to national security.''

This week, the Banking Committee will hold hearings on CFIUS reform, and I look forward to working with Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes to carefully examine the CFIUS process, something I have had trouble with in the past.

In conclusion, the last 2 weeks have been extraordinary. Rarely do we see these days a bipartisan, bicameral unity to ensure our Nation is protected, and those of us who worked hard at this, I say to my colleagues, can be proud that we have already seen some major progress. The 45-day investigation will commence. We must keep our vigilance and make sure the rest of the process is done fairly and carefully and independently because the security of our country depends upon it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I wish to offer a motion.

Mr. President, in the Senate-passed tax reconciliation bill, we have recognized the importance of the tax deduction for college tuition, and the bill we are sending to conference extends it for 4 additional years, through 2009. Unless extended by the 109th Congress, the deduction will not be available to taxpayers filing 2006 returns. It is urgent that the provision be extended in this bill, so families can plan for their kids' education.

The House bill, in sharp contrast with the bill that the Senate passed with 66 votes, extends this common-sense, middle-class tax relief for only 1 year. Given that we face choices and budget limitations, and we can't do it all, this motion instructs the Senate conferees to insist that the conference report should include the Senate-passed 4-year extension of the tuition deduction, rather than extending the tax cuts for dividends and capital gains that will not expire for nearly 3 years.

That is the gist of my motion. We simply do not need to take action on dividends and capital gains today, but on issues such as the college tuition deduction and the alternative minimum tax, Congress must act now. If we can not do it all under the reconciliation limits, then the tax cuts for the middle class that have already expired should take priority.

The supply-siders who insist that cutting taxes for millionaires in 2009 is more important than cutting taxes for middle-class families this year argue that low tax rates on investments are central to our economic well-being.

Like many of my colleagues, I agree that lower taxes are generally preferable to higher taxes. That is not a controversial position. The question is, when we have large budget deficits, what are our highest priorities?

We have to make choices. And in today's information-driven economy, a college degree is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity.

In terms of long-term economic growth and developing this country's human capital--which is ultimately the true source of innovation and competitive advantage--we could make few better investments than ensuring that future generations have access to an affordable college education.

And talk about a tax cut that pays for itself over time. According to the Census Bureau, workers 18 and over with a bachelor's degree earn an average of $51,206 a year, while those with a high school diploma earn $27,915, and the disparity has been growing over time. College graduates make more money, and they will pay more in taxes as a result. Making college easier to afford is a real investment, and you don't need so-called dynamic scoring to make the case.

The challenge for American families is that the cost of college tuition has increased faster than any other major consumer item, including health care, over the last 20 years. It has skyrocketed from $5,156 in 1981 to $29,026 in 2005, an increase of 462 percent.

Even in real, inflation-adjusted dollars, the price of a 4-year public or private college education has almost doubled over the past two decades.

While many of my colleagues talk about lower taxes on investment, when a family spends money on college tuition, they are investing too. These families may not have a lot of money in taxable financial investments--more than three-quarters of U.S. households earn less than $1,000 in taxable income from investments, such as capital gains and dividends--but they are investing a lot in their kids' education.

In today's global, interconnected world, who is to say that these investments in human capital are not just as important, if not more so, than the buying and selling of stocks?

I urge each of my colleagues to think about how quickly tuition costs are rising in their States and consider whether the majority of taxpaying

families in their States really need an extension of capital gains relief or whether they really need relief from the AMT and college tuition costs.

Here are just a few examples from my State:

At Adelphi University on Long Island, tuition cost $5,114 in 1983 and $17,800 in 2003-2004, a more than three-fold increase.

At SUNY Purchase in Westchester County, tuition increased from $1,005 in 1980 to $4,079 in 2003-2004, or 4 times as much.

At Niagara University outside Buffalo, tuition has nearly quadrupled, from $3,300 in 1983 to $17,380 in 2003-2004.

I am sure each of us has similar stories to tell. I urge my colleagues to support my motion, and keep the college tuition deduction in place for at least 4 more years.

The skyrocketing rise of college tuition is not the only trap ensnaring an unsuspecting, and undeserving, American middle class. The individual Alternative Minimum tax is another, and I would like to speak for a moment on the motion to be offered by the minority leader.

Unless we act, the alternative minimum tax's crushing burden will be felt by 17 million more middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers this year than in 2005, and millions more in the years to come. AMT relief is a critical part of the Senate's version of this bill and we all must do everything we can to ensure that this tax--which affects middle- and upper-middle class taxpayers--is addressed this year.

It would be nearly impossible to overstate the AMT issue in its importance and urgency. By the end of the decade, the AMT will ensnare more than 30 million taxpayers, the majority of which will have incomes below $100,000, and the National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS has identified the alternative minimum tax as the most serious problem facing individual taxpayers.

Here are a few statistics I want to reinforce for my colleagues, which I mentioned on the floor earlier this month:

The year 2006 is the tipping point for the AMT, as the number of taxpayers affected nationally will explode from 3.6 million to more than 20 million, if the Congress fails to act;

A family with two children will become subject to the AMT at about $67,500 of income in 2006; and a family with five children will start owing AMT at about $54,000 of income this year, if the Congress fails to act;

In 2004, only 6.2 percent of families earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year were subject to the AMT, and that number will explode to nearly 50 percent this year, if the Congress fails to act; and

Starting in 2008, the average married couple with two children earning $75,000 or more will find that more than half of the tax cuts they have been expecting from the various laws passed since 2001 will be taken back via the AMT, if the Congress fails to act.

If AMT relief is extended through 2006, about two-thirds of the benefits will be realized by families earning under $200,000, with more than half of the total benefits going to families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000. In New York and many other States, particularly in or near major cities, a combined income of $100,000 or $150,000 does not make you rich.

Contrast this with the tax relief for dividends and capital gains, where more than half of the total benefit goes to families with income over $1 million. This is more than 50 percent of the benefit going to less than one-half of one percent of all taxpayers in the country.

It was for these reasons that 73 Senators voted earlier this month to support a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that AMT relief should be a higher priority for this Congress than a dividend and capital gains tax cut. The American people now expect us, and our conferees, to follow through on that pledge.

When you consider the statistics I mentioned, about who will become subject to the AMT this year if we fail to act, it becomes pretty obvious that addressing the AMT problem--or extending the college tuition tax cut--should be far more important than extending a tax cut on investment income that doesn't expire for nearly 3 more years. That is common sense, and it is an entirely separate question from who benefits from which tax cut, or what your ideology may be.

In conclusion, we need a bill back from conference that mirrors the previous Senate versions of reconciliation. We passed a bipartisan bill that excluded the dividends and capital gains cuts and provided generous AMT relief for 2006. That bill passed the Senate with 64 votes. Two weeks ago, a modified version of the bill received 66 votes. I strongly encourage our conferees to bring a similarly bipartisan bill back from conference.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, in recognition of the beginning of Black History Month, in support of a bill to posthumously award a congressional gold medal to Constance Baker Motley, an American hero who, sadly, passed away on September 28, 2005, after having lived an extraordinary and exemplary life. I am pleased to introduce this bill along with my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton.

Constance Baker Motley was the first African-American woman, and only the fifth woman, to serve on the Federal judiciary. Before becoming a judge, she was a renowned civil rights lawyer, public servant, and trailblazer. Her remarkable career reads like a civil rights history book.

After earning her bachelor of arts degree in Economics from New York University and her law degree from Columbia University, Judge Motley joined Thurgood Marshall at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. For two decades, Judge Motley worked closely with Marshall and other leading civil rights lawyers to dismantle desegregation throughout the country.

As a Black woman practicing law in the South, Judge Motley endured gawking and physical threats. But she was not deterred.

She won cases that ended segregation in Memphis restaurants and at Whites-only lunch counters in Birmingham, AL. She fought for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s right to march in Albany, GA, and visited him in jail whenever he was arrested.

Judge Motley was the only woman on the legal team that won the landmark desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education. She went on to argue 10 major civil rights cases before the Supreme Court, winning all but one of them, including James Meredith's fight to gain admission to the University of Mississippi.

Before she died, Judge Motley would grin when she told people that she actually won 20 years later the only Supreme Court case that she lost, when the Court eventually agreed with her position and adopted her reasoning in holding that it was a violation of equal protection for prosecutors to use their peremptory challenges to strike Blacks from a jury because of their race.

In 1964, Judge Motley became the first African-American woman elected to the New York State Senate, and in 1965, she became the first African-American woman, and first woman, to serve as a city borough president. During this time, Judge Motley worked tirelessly to revitalize the inner city and improve urban housing and public schools.

In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Judge Motley to the Southern District of New York. She was confirmed 9 months later, over the strong opposition of Southern Senators. As a judge, Motley continued her commitment to social justice.

She rose to the position of Chief Judge in 1982, and assumed senior status 4 years later. Judge Motley served with distinction for nearly four decades, until she passed away last fall, at the age of 84. At that time, I was pleased to introduce a Senate resolution, which passed by unanimous consent with 27 Democrat and Republican cosponsors, to honor her life and achievements.

Since then, our country has lost two other great civil rights heroes, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King. Both of these remarkable women were awarded congressional gold medals for their leadership and contributions to American society while they were alive. I deeply regret that Judge Motley was not. But it is not too late for us to show our national appreciation to her friends and family. Congressional gold medals are reserved expressly for that purpose, and Judge Motley's lifelong commitment to the advancement of civil rights and social justice, and her lengthy career in public service, is worthy of just that.

The Senate Banking Committee requires 67 cosponsors before it will consider legislation to award a congressional gold medal. I am pleased to introduce this bill with 16 other original cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I now call on all of my Senate colleagues to join us this Black History Month to give thanks on behalf of the country to one of our greatest civil rights leaders and public servants, Judge Constance Baker Motley.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank our leader on the Democratic side on this committee for his leadership on this issue and so many others. I thank also my colleague from Iowa, the chairman of the committee, who always tries to work things in a bipartisan way. In fact, on this issue which I will be speaking about, the alternative minimum tax, we have tried in the Senate to work in a bipartisan way on a proposal that passed earlier.

I rise in support of two amendments that I have filed with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Menendez, on the important issue of the alternative minimum tax.

It is unclear right now when the majority will let us bring up either of these amendments for a vote. But the issue is an extremely important one. It cannot be swept under the rug. I want to alert my colleagues to what we will do.

AMT relief is a critical part of the Senate's version of this bill, and we all must do everything we can to ensure that this tax--which affects middle-class and upper-middle-class taxpayers, above all--is addressed this year.

In fact, this body will have a choice: whether we take the money we can use for tax cuts and give it to the person who is in the middle class or slightly above middle class or give it to people whose income is above $1 million. That is the choice that faces us.

Our first amendment would substitute the Senate-passed AMT relief for the 2-year extension of the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains which were signed into law in 2003 but do not expire until the end of 2008. The amendment contains the necessary offsets so that the overall bill stays within the parameters in the budget resolution.

The second amendment is a sense of the Senate. Senator Menendez and I will be joined, I believe, by Senators Feinstein and Kerry on that one as well. It simply states that providing relief from the alternative minimum tax should be a higher priority for the Congress than providing a tax cut on dividends and capital gains in 2009.

It is simple, straightforward, and, in my view, should hardly be controversial because whatever your views are on the preference of which tax, the alternative minimum tax will go up this coming fiscal year; whereas, the dividends and capital gains do not expire until 2009.

Now, it would be nearly impossible to overstate the AMT issue in its importance and its urgency. The individual alternative minimum tax was enacted in 1969 as a supplemental tax on wealthy tax evaders, but, unfortunately, as incomes have risen, it has evolved into a tax on millions of middle-class working families, particularly families in which both parents work and families with two or more children--hardly people we would want to penalize.

Some people say it has evolved from a ``class tax'' into a ``mass tax.'' Other people say it has evolved from a ``wealth tax'' into a ``stealth tax.'' But whatever you call it, it is something that catches unsuspecting middle-class families by surprise. And starting next year, it will explode in significance if Congress fails to act.

In fact, by the end of the decade, the AMT will ensnare more than 30 million taxpayers, the majority of whom will have incomes below $100,000. The National Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS has identified the alternative minimum tax as the most serious problem facing individual taxpayers.

There is an important point I want to make for my colleagues. The AMT is often portrayed as a tax that is most problematic for residents of so-called blue States, such as New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey. It certainly affects my State. But that is not the truth, the whole truth, that it just affects ``blue'' States. There are a whole lot of ``red'' States or ``purple'' States that have a significant percentage of taxpayers affected by the AMT, including States of colleagues from across the aisle: Oregon, Virginia, Minnesota, Ohio, Maine, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. So this problem is not a ``red'' State or ``blue'' State issue or a partisan issue. It is simply an issue of national importance.

Here are a few statistics I want to mention to my colleagues. They are quite astounding. The year 2006 is the ``tipping point'' for the AMT. The number of taxpayers affected will explode from 3.6 million to more than 19 million, if the Congress fails to act. A family with two children will become subject to the AMT at about $67,500 of income in 2006. That is hardly anybody who is wealthy. People with that income often struggle. I know many of them myself. And a family with five children will start owing in the AMT at about $54,000 of income this year, if Congress does not act.

In 2004, only 6.2 percent of families earning between $100,000 and $200,000 a year were subject to the AMT. It will explode to 50 percent this year. Half of all people making above $100,000 but below $200,000 will be affected. They are hardly rich.

And starting in 2008, the average married couple with two children earning $75,000 will find that more than half of the tax cuts they have been expecting from the laws passed since George Bush became President will be taken back via the AMT, if Congress fails to act.

There are two main reasons why the AMT relief should be a high priority for the Congress rather than extending the cuts on dividends and capital gains. The first has to do with fairness, the second with timing.

If the AMT relief is extended through 2006, about two-thirds of the benefits will be realized by families earning under $200,000. It affects people whose income is between $50,000 and $200,000--not the poorest people in our society but people who get clobbered by taxes, by large expenses, and who do not simply have the necessary income.

More than half of the total benefits will go to families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000. In New York, and many other States, particularly in or near major cities, a combined income of $100,000 or $150,000 does not make you rich.

Contrast this with the tax relief for dividends and capital gains, where more than half of the total benefit goes to families with over $1 million in income. This is more than 50 percent of the benefit going to less than one-half of 1 percent of all the taxpayers in the country. So we are faced with a choice here. This is not our classic tax cuts versus spending. This is, rather, tax cuts for the very wealthy versus tax cuts for the middle- and upper-middle-income range.

Now, some Members say some people do not like it when we point out these lopsided statistics. They say it is ``class warfare.'' This is not class warfare. This is just the obvious truth of prioritizing tax cuts. And a dividend and capital gains cut put ahead of AMT relief hurts the hard-working middle class. No amount of rhetoric can change that.

I want my colleagues to think about what it means for the AMT to start hitting families with children making $75,000 or $100,000. These are the same families facing higher health care costs, higher tuition costs, higher energy costs. And they will soon start to lose their tax cuts to the AMT.

A police officer and a schoolteacher in my city of New York will almost certainly be pushed into the AMT, if they have not been already. A Georgia family, maybe a marine biologist at the new Atlanta aquarium and her insurance broker husband, will pay the AMT, if we do nothing. A computer programmer in Virginia, married to a firefighter; or a professor in Oregon, married to a vintner that makes some of the State's great pinot noir; or two factory workers in Ohio--all these families would be subject to the AMT if we fail to act.

There is something else these families likely have in common; and that is, the dividends and the capital gains cuts passed in 2003 helped them very little, if at all. The reason for this is most middle-class families who own stocks, bonds, or mutual funds have them in either a retirement plan or a savings plan for their kid's education. That is where my family's savings go right now.

These middle-class families probably own very little in terms of taxable investments. Their savings are already growing tax free. So they get very little benefit from the lower rates on dividends and capital gains. That is why these tax cuts benefit the very wealthy. It is because most of the stocks and bonds owned by the middle class--and that is a lot--but they are shielded from tax already.

I know my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about the so- called investor class and point out, correctly, how, for the first time, more than half of all Americans own stock. Senator Kyl made this point a moment ago. But the truth is, most middle-class families own very little in the way of taxable investments. More than three-quarters of Americans earn less than $1,000 a year in taxable income from dividends and capital gains.

Let me repeat this because it may be a surprise to some. More than three-quarters of American families earn less than $1,000 in taxable income from dividends and capital gains.

So in terms of priorities, in terms of whom it affects, we should prefer the AMT, whatever we feel about dividends and capital gains cuts. And I am not averse to those cuts in a nonbudget-deficit situation.

How about timing? This is even more obvious. Consider the statistics I mentioned and who will become subject to the AMT this year if we fail to act. Now consider when each tax takes effect, when it bites. Capital gains, dividends, not until 2009. AMT, immediately, in the next fiscal year. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle make the argument we need to extend the relief now since the market is counting on it. They say it is ``built'' into the market, and the stock market will decline if we do not extend those cuts today. That is simply not true.

If there's one thing I know about investing--and a lot of people in my State make a living at it--it's this: People who are really affected by these rates who buy and sell significant amounts of stocks and bonds are sophisticated investors, and they follow politics. They know that Congress changes tax laws all the time. It is hard to believe people are investing their money today based on what the tax rate might be years from now when they finally sell that investment. Smart businesspeople, smart investors make their investment decisions based on market factors, not on what Congress might or might not do, particularly in this type of situation where it is simply this year or next year.

And, of course, there is the obvious argument that if making all of these tax laws consistent and permanent was so important, then the leadership on the other side should not have pushed for reconciliation protection in the first place. They should have compromised back in 2001 and 2003 and passed less ideological legislation within the Senate's normal rules of procedure.

In conclusion, Mr. President, the Senate was right the first time. After some initial debate in the Finance Committee, we passed out a bipartisan bill that excluded the dividends and capital gains cuts and provided generous AMT relief for 2006 that will keep nearly 8 million families out of the AMT this year. That bill passed the Senate with 64 votes, and I encourage Chairman Grassley to bring a similar bipartisan bill back from conference.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how much time remains before I begin?

Would it be possible to ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes? I also ask unanimous consent that an additional 2 minutes be given to the other side.

Mr. President, in a few minutes, we will vote on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. In a few hours, we will hear the President tell us about his view of the state of the Union. Without doubt, Judge Alito today has the votes to win confirmation. Without doubt, the President tonight will boast of his nominee's victory in this vote. But I must say that I wish the President were in a position to do more than claim partisan victory tonight. The Union would be better and stronger and more unified if we were confirming a different nominee--a nominee who would have united us more than divided us. Had he chosen such a person, the President could have taken the lectern this evening and rightfully claimed the mantle of leadership in the United States of America. Instead, this is not a day of triumph for anybody except the conservative minority who caused the President to capitulate to their demands when Harriet Miers was not to their liking. There will be more votes against this nominee than on any since Clarence Thomas, who was hardly a unifying figure.

Tonight, when the President announces, to applause, the fact of Judge Alito's confirmation, what he should really hear, because of the partisan nature of his choice, is the sound of one hand clapping. While some may rejoice at Judge Alito's success, millions of Americans will come to know that the lasting legacy of this day will be ever more power for the President and less autonomy for the individual.

While some may exalt at the packing of the Court with yet another reliable, extreme voice in the mold of Scalia and Thomas, millions of Americans will be at risk of losing their day in court when they suffer the yoke of discrimination. Some may celebrate the elevation of a Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, but millions of Americans will suffer the consequences of a jurisprudence that would strip Congress of the power to make their lives better in countless ways.

Why, then, with so many Americans at risk, so many rights at jeopardy, will Judge Alito win confirmation? What does his confirmation mean for the future of the Supreme Court? I have been thinking about this long and hard. It is an important question, and I don't have an easy answer, but I believe several things are clear.

For one thing, even though Judge Alito has demonstrated a record of being well out of the mainstream on a host of issues, my friends from across the aisle dutifully march in rigid lockstep when the President nominates one of their choosing but oppose those who do not share their values and visions. Republican Senators should be aghast at Judge Alito's endorsement of vast Executive power, and they should be alarmed at his rejection of a woman's right to choose.

The hill will be steeper when a nominee evades, as Judge Alito did, answering questions about his core judicial beliefs. All evidence points to the fact that he will still hold his constitutional view that the right to choose is not protected in the Constitution, that he will still believe the Federal Government doesn't have the power to regulate machine guns, and the evidence supported the conclusion that he will turn back the clock on civil rights. But he was clever enough not to say so directly. So that, too, has been a factor.

In the end, there is one more thing at work here. The American people have grown accustomed to the umbrella of protection they have under the Constitution. They are loathe to believe that those rights could, with one nominee, evaporate into thin air. Who can believe it? Who wants to believe it? Even though no nominee since Robert Bork has such a clear record of being opposed to so many things the American people hold dear, the public doesn't want to believe that Judge Alito will remove those protections, even when the record is clear. Who wants to believe that after 40 years, a single nominee to the Supreme Court could eviscerate title VII? Yet that is just what his colleagues on the Third Circuit accused him of attempting to do. Who wants to believe that a single nominee, one so seemingly soft-spoken and erudite, would, with the stroke of a pen, take average Americans' rights away and not give them their day in court?

People naturally don't want to believe the worst. Perhaps people think of Earl Warren and David Souter, who defied their President and did not stroke as hard a line as their benefactors might have hoped. But I say to the American people, the days of Warren and Souter are over. The days of stealth nominees whose views may not match the President are over. That is clear when a small minority pushed the President to withdraw Harriet Miers.

In the coming months and years, we will be watching the Court. We will be watching the votes. We will be watching our two newest Justices. And make no mistake, we will make sure the American people understand the implication of these votes today. Elections do have consequences. But votes such as these also have consequences on future elections, and I believe that when the American people see the actual Court decisions which are rendered by the new Court, they will have a strong and countervailing reaction.

Again, I wish President Bush could tonight claim to lead a united country, but with this nominee and with this vote, sadly, he cannot.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Alabama.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of the nomination of Mr. Bernanke to become Chairman of the Federal Reserve. First, I would be remiss if I didn't say a few words of congratulations to Alan Greenspan, who has truly been a giant in the field. He will be missed. He hovered over our economy similar to a caring guardian and has done an incredibly fine job. Every American of every political stripe should be grateful that Alan Greenspan served so well and so long. I called him yesterday to wish him well. He will do just fine. He is 79 and he is entitled to retire. I, for one, with no aspersions on Mr. Bernanke, wish he would have even stayed a little longer.

I think Mr. Bernanke is extremely well qualified for the job for a number of reasons. That is why I strongly support his nomination. He is erudite, he is smart, and he is one of those rare people who has made monetary policy his life's work. Many of us would not choose to do that, but he did and he has done it very well.

Second, Mr. Bernanke has assured us that he will follow the policies of Chairman Greenspan. That bespeaks well of his wisdom because Chairman Greenspan did such a superb job managing monetary policy. Anybody who says that starts with a leg up.

Third, he is not an ideologue. He is a solid, thoughtful person. He does not go to the extreme. He does not have a narrow theory that governs the way economic policy should be made. He assured us, despite some rumors to the contrary, for instance, that he would not follow a mechanistic, formulaic monetary policy. That is very important because our economy is so complicated and there are so many international considerations that you cannot be mechanistic in this changing new world, and he is not.

He is also not an ideologue in terms of general economic policy. He is not one of these people who advocate tax cuts above all, even if it plunges us into greater deficits. He is a thoughtful, moderate man. He is the right choice for the job.

Senator Graham and I have been very concerned about the balance of trade with China and them pegging their currency at a low rate. He showed sympathy--in fact, greater sympathy than many--when we talked about that with him.

There are great challenges for Chairman Bernanke. There is the internationalization of the economy. That affects monetary policy because, as I said, there are loopbacks. What happens with the yen and the yuan and the Euro affects the dollar in ways that did not occur before when so little of our economy was based on international trade.

He has to deal with another problem in our society--the agglomeration of wealth to the top. Our society cannot continue with the top 10 percent that glomerates most of the wealth. I hope he will speak out on issues beyond monetary policy because we don't have any respected voices who do that without a partisan edge, other than the Chairman of the Fed.

I make one final point. Contrast the nomination of Dr. Bernanke and Judge Alito. Dr. Bernanke is a moderate. There was consultation, and he is getting every Democratic vote. Judge Alito was a partisan nomination. There was no consultation. He is regarded by many of us on key issues at the extreme, and we had a divided vote. I hope and pray that in the future, the President will follow the nomination process more like he did with Dr. Bernanke, a unifying choice, rather than like Judge Alito, a partisan choice.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the extension of a program that has provided vital support to our Nation's

dairy farmers, helped to maintain the milk supply, and perhaps more importantly has helped to preserve an important way of life in rural America. The program I speak of is the Milk Income Loss Contract, MILC, Program, which since its inception in the 2002 farm bill has provided a crucial buffer between our Nation's hard-working dairy farmers and the rollercoaster ups and downs of the milk market.

America's farmers are the backbone of its rural communities, and as markets, weather, and other challenges become more daunting we must make every effort to support them when they are in need. It is not just for the benefit of our farmers, who work hard year-round, often in the face of unforgiving circumstances, and their families, but for the towns that they help to support and for the health of the land that they steward. Small farms are the big business of rural America, and if it becomes too hard for them to survive, the communities where they are lost will suffer, both economically and culturally. Likewise, as the economic pressure to develop grows, more and more open space will be lost to suburban sprawl if small farms disappear. Allowing these farms to go under by failing to extend sensible supports like the MILC Program would be bad for the economy, bad for our environment, and bad for consumers.

In very few places across the country are the stakes of the MILC Program's survival more starkly apparent than in my State of New York. Agriculture is a dominant industry in New York, and dairy farmers are the bulwark of New York's agricultural economy. In light of dramatic price swings and development pressures that are more severe than almost anywhere else in the country, the dairy farmers of my State need the type of support provided by the MILC Program when prices hit rock bottom. New York's farmers have received millions of dollars under the program, and I can tell you that that money has made a real difference in helping small family farms pull back from the brink and stay in business.

Let me be clear about one thing. While this program provides crucial and timely support, it is not simply a big-dollar bonanza for America's dairy farmers. Payments under the program only kick in when prices dip below the trigger price of $16.94 per hundredweight, when they are most needed. In fact, in the almost 4 years covered by the program, there were only 26 months in which USDA had to issue payments. There was an entire year, from May of 2004 to May of 2005, where prices were fortunately high enough that support was not necessary. I raise these facts simply to say that anyone who would oppose this program, which provides crucial, targeted assistance to small dairy farms, on the grounds that it is a budget buster or boondoggle is way off the mark.

The MILC Program expired at the end of September, so the need to extend it is pressing and vital. As we enter the New Year, milk prices may once again drop below the trigger price, and we need to make sure that the MILC Program is in place to do its job should our dairy farmers find themselves in need. The MILC Program is very important to New York, but not just to New York. The fact that the extension of this program has drawn strong support from Democrats and Republicans from multiple regions demonstrates its importance to our entire Nation.

While I have serious misgivings with other provisions contained in this budget reconciliation conference report, the 2-year extension of the MILC Program is one item that I am glad to see is included. The MILC Program has shown itself to be an effective and vital part of our Government's commitment to support America's farmers, and I strongly support its extension.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota for extending the courtesy to me.

I rise today to talk about the U.S. PATRIOT Act. There has been a lot of talk on the subject. With all the smoke and mirrors, let's go to the simple facts.

First, every single Democratic Senator wants to extend the present PATRIOT Act for 3 months. Every single Democratic Senator, in fact, has cosponsored or supports--everyone but one, and Senator Feingold supports--the legislation introduced by the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Hampshire, that extends the PATRIOT Act by 3 months. We also have a number of Republican Senators, led by Senator Sununu of New Hampshire, who also want to extend the act for 3 months. In fact, no Member of the Senate wants the PATRIOT Act to expire. That is why 100 Senators supported a measure to reauthorize the act this summer. It spanned the gap from the most conservative Republican to the most liberal Democrat, which shows the consensus on this very important issue is very achievable.

The simple fact is if we extend the PATRIOT Act for 3 months, it won't end. So the act's fate is in the President's hands. We say to the President: Extend it, don't end it. It is as simple as that. Let me repeat: Extend it, don't end it. That is our position on the PATRIOT Act.

Lately, based on the comments of some of my friends across the aisle, I feel we are characters in the book ``1984.'' It is vintage Orwellian doublespeak to say when 49 Senators from both parties, a near majority, are eager to extend the PATRIOT Act, that they are causing it to expire. In fact, if either the President or the majority leader of the Senate today were to say they are for extending the act for 3 months, my guess is it would get an overwhelming majority of both parties in the Senate.

These Senators have agreed to extend the PATRIOT Act in its current form so we can take 3 months to get it in better form. On the one hand, I want to give a lot of credit to my colleagues from Pennsylvania and Vermont. Their compromise and the bill before the Senate is an improvement over present law. It is a significant improvement over the House bill. It comes a lot closer to the Senate bill than many of my colleagues even on my side of the aisle, at least in my opinion, are giving it credit for.

I have two principal problems related to the conference report. First and foremost, I have real concerns we did not correct the formula in terms of distributing aid, which hurts my State of New York. We have to give law enforcement not just judicial tools and prosecutorial tools but financial tools, as well. Every day when I ride over the Brooklyn Bridge, whether by car or on my bicycle, I see police cars at either end. New York has an undue burden in terms of security. New York and other places that are at greater risk should get a greater share of the funding. The House bill readjusted the formula, much to the relief of New Yorkers, but the Senate bill did not.

If we took 3 months, we could keep the present PATRIOT Act on the books and make a real attempt to adjust the formula on the basis of need.

Second, the revelations from last week about warrantless wiretapping have also given me pause. If this Government will discard a law that has worked well for over 30 years without a whit of discussion or notice, for sure we better be certain we have safeguards on that Government. I am extremely troubled the administration, which claims to value strict construction of the laws and Constitution, has used the September 11, 2001, congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force to justify secret wiretapping of Americans.

I have not read the whole record, but I daresay the word ``wiretapping'' never came up in that debate. Certainly I, who voted for that resolution, never thought it applied to wiretapping. I don't think anyone else did as well. To say when we authorized the President to use force, that allows him to wiretap American citizens without a warrant is stretching it, to say the least.

The balance between security and liberty is a delicate one. I agree with the President. Most Americans put security first. It has to be. But liberty and privacy, in particular, are very important to Americans, as well. It is very high on the list. Therefore, this Senate and the Government should make every effort to have both security and liberty.

We came very close. The Senate bill, as I said, had a 100-to-0 vote, from the most liberal Democrat to the most conservative Republican. The compromise Senator Specter shepherded through was a good attempt. But in these crucial areas we can do better. If we simply extend the PATRIOT Act--not end

it, extend it--we can try to make it better.

I tend to be fairly hawkish on these types of things. However, there is one thing for sure: When you are dealing with the delicate balance between liberty and security, there ought to be discussion. There ought to be debate. The President, whether he be a Democrat or a Republican, should not simply appropriate it to himself to change the law with the flick of a pen. That is what our Nation stands for.

In light of these problems and concerns, let me say again, when it comes to the PATRIOT Act, my position and that of every Member of the Democratic Party in the Senate and a good number of our Republican colleagues is extend it, don't end it.

Why are we talking about ending it if we have so many people who want to extend it? The majority leader has opposed extending the present PATRIOT Act. The President has threatened to veto an extension of the PATRIOT Act.

So here we are, on the brink, with 16 important provisions about to sunset. If that happens, make no mistake about it, it will be because the distinguished Republican leader has allowed it to happen. It will be because the President has allowed it to happen. The choice is not the present compromise or no PATRIOT Act. There are three choices: The present compromise, which does not have enough support in the Senate to pass as of now, with bipartisan opposition, letting it lapse, or extending it for 3 months.

If even in the President's and the majority leader's eyes, they cannot get the first, isn't extending it better than ending it? The choice is in their hands. So if it does happen, if the PATRIOT Act is allowed to sunset, despite unanimous support for its extension in one form or another, I would ask the President to explain why we are without the PATRIOT Act, why he would not allow a bipartisan measure to extend it. It is almost surreal.

Can it be that the majority leader of the Senate, the President of the United States, who at every turn has talked about the importance of security, who has talked about the importance of the sunsetting PATRIOT Act provisions, will force its expiration?

Certainly, they have the option of extending it for 3 months so that disagreements, which I say can be resolved, will be. And if they then persist in opposition to the 3-month extension and complain, it will be similar to the child who killed his parents and then complained that he was an orphan.

So let us all be reasonable for a day, as we approach our citizens' most sacred time of year, and do the mature thing, the logical thing, the right thing.

Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 2082, the 3- month extension of the PATRIOT Act, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Well, it is something I would consider. I think 1 month would be--right now we have support--

I understand. Right now we have support for 3 months. It is something that could probably be negotiated. My point is, we should extend it.

Will my colleague yield?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 minute to respond to my colleague from New Hampshire.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The point is, we do have large numbers of people who want to extend the PATRIOT Act, not end it, whether it is 3 months or something more than 3 months. That is the point that I think is salient. I would hope my colleague would support 3 months, as his colleague from New Hampshire--he and his colleague from New Hampshire generally see things the same way--has asked for. But the idea stated by the President and the majority leader, that they would not be for any extension--1 year, 3 months or anything in between--is what is stymieing us here.

The bottom line is very simple. The choice is a simple one. Right now we cannot get the PATRIOT Act through the way the Senator from New Hampshire would like it. There are not enough votes by the rules of the Senate. Do you take your marbles and go home and let it expire or do you try to work out an extension, as opposed to saying: I am upset. I am going to end it. We are urging an extension. Right now, the Senator from New Hampshire, who has led the charge on this--not my colleague who is managing this bill, but the Presiding Officer, Senator Sununu-- has suggested 3 months. I, for one, am not locked into a specific time. But I am locked in and very eager to see us extend the act, not kill it, simply because the compromise does not have the votes to prevail.

Will my colleague yield for a question?

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business and that following my remarks Senator Levin be recognized for up to 10 minutes and that the time not be charged against the bill.

Mr. President, I rise to read a quote that I thought my colleagues might be interested in. Let me first read the quote. It says:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by

the way, any time you hear the United States government

talking about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a

court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. So when we're

talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about

getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our

fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act,

constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing

what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value

the Constitution.

Now, that sounds like something that would come from somebody saying, of course, we ought to have court orders before we wiretap our citizens. Well, let me tell my colleagues who made this statement. It was President Bush in 2004, on April 20, in my home State of New York, in the great city of Buffalo.

Let me read what the President said while we are talking about this new revelation about wiretaps. He says again, this is a quote from President Bush, April 20, 2004:

. . . any time you hear the United States government talking

about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order.

Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about

chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court

order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens

to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional

guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is

necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the

Constitution.

So I have a question for the President: Sir, with all due respect, what has changed? If, on April 20, 2004, you said we needed a court order to do wiretaps when we listen in on our citizens, why is it now that you are out there busy saying we do not need a court order; that the law does not require it?

On April 20, 2004, I would say to the President, you obviously knew that this program of wiretapping citizens was in effect. Why did you say we always need a court order, that that is what the Constitution says, ``because we value the Constitution,'' ``constitutional guarantees,'' your words?

I think this shows the speciousness of the argument that has been made by those in the White House, including the President, that, of course, wiretapping citizens without a court order is perfectly allowed by the law. The President himself stated something that you learn in law school, that you probably even learn in a civics class in high school or a constitutional law class in college, that a wiretap for an American citizen requires a court order.

The President of the United States stated:

. . . any time you hear the United States government talking

about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap requires a court order

. . .

I could not have stated it any better myself. That is the law. That has been

the law for a long time in this country and many believe that the Constitution, the fourth amendment, so requires.

So I would ask the President now to admit that in the heat of the aftermath of 9/11, something we all felt, that a mistake was made; that the Government went ahead and wiretapped American citizens without a court order. That was a mistake and should not be repeated or defended. We Americans realize that we need security as well as liberty and, in fact, in the Pantheon of values, I guess security might come a little bit above liberty, but as the President is implying, when it comes to wiretaps we can have both. So for all the sturm und drang, for all the fuss that has been made, oh, of course, everyone knows the law does not require us to get a court order for wiretaps, the President's basic knowledge--and by the way, from what I am told, this is from the President's archives. He went off the script and just said this on his own, that he knew that a wiretap requires a court order.

So I would ask the President to reconsider his words of the last few days. I would ask the President to join the vast majority of Americans who know that if you are going to wiretap an American citizen, of course, you have to go to court. And if it is unwieldy to do so, that you go to Congress and change the law. You do not change it with the flick of a pen.

You compare this statement, what the President said in Buffalo, NY, on April 20, 2004, to what the President is saying in the last few days, it is a 180-degree turn.

Mr. President, which one do you really mean? Which one do you really believe? Please, no one should be playing political games on something as serious as the delicate balance between security and liberty.

So I ask my colleagues, as we consider possibly renewing the PATRIOT Act, to read what the President has said. The view that we have had on this side of the aisle, that it was sort of beyond discussion; that if one is going to wiretap an American citizen, they needed court permission--in emergencies, of course, it is allowed 72 hours after it is done--that that was more or less the consensus in this country, and it was a consensus the President was part of at least as of a year and a half ago.

What made the President change his views? What made him reverse the universally accepted view that a wiretap requires a court order is beyond me. But let us move forward here. Let us come together, realize that we must protect ourselves but that we can protect ourselves and protect our liberties at the same time.

I urge the President to explain why he said what he did on April 20 and why what he is saying now is so different and to return to the position that most Americans accept, the position he had on April 20 but has since vanished, and that is that to wiretap an American citizen requires a court order.

I yield my remaining time and yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. President, first I want to thank both my colleagues from Pennsylvania and from Vermont for their fine efforts on this legislation. I went to bed last night unsure of how to vote on this legislation. I want to give a lot of credit to my colleague from Pennsylvania. This is a significant improvement over present law. It is a significant improvement over the House bill and comes a lot closer to the Senate bill than many are giving it credit for. On the other hand, even before last night, I had real doubts that we did not correct the formula in terms of distributing aid which definitely hurts my State of New York. But as I said, I went to bed undecided.

Today's revelation that the Government listened in on thousands of phone conversations without getting a warrant is shocking and has greatly influenced my vote. If this Government will discard a law that has worked well for over 30 years, without a whit of discussion or notice, then for sure we better be certain that we have safeguards on that Government. The balance between security and liberty is a delicate one, and there is great room for disagreement as to where that ought to come down.

I do not question the motives of anybody. I tend to be fairly hawkish on these types of things, as my colleagues know. But there is one thing for sure: there ought to be discussion, there ought to be debate. Whenever there is discussion and debate, we usually come out right, and that is true on the wiretap law. When J. Edgar Hoover and other leaders of the FBI had unchecked power, there were abuses. We put in an independent arbiter, a judge. We put in a standard, probable cause, and neither the prosecutor community nor the defense community has complained.

So then why, with the flick of a wrist, did this administration ignore those laws and listen in on conversations of hundreds of people when it would have been so easy to obey the law? Today's revelation makes it crystal clear that we have to be very careful, and Senator Leahy's suggestion that we renew the present law for 3 months and come to an agreement like we did in the Senate that all can live with is eminently sensible.

One final point. My good friend from Arizona and I respect the sincerity on this issue. We have written parts of this law together, particularly the lone wolf provision. But he says that we will have no law if we do not vote for cloture.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Thirty minutes, I will take that.

I thank the chair for his generosity.

If cloture is not invoked and the opportunity to renew this law for 3 months or 6 months comes before us, and the President vetoes it, it will be crystal clear that he is putting politics above safety because the bottom line is, the present law is, if anything, tougher than the law that is on the books.

Let us not invoke the threat that the President will not extend the PATRIOT Act. It would be a dereliction of his duty as Commander in Chief and chief law enforcement officer of this land.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I express my unwavering support for S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision Act of 2005, introduced by my friend, Senator Dodd of Connecticut.

I would like to commend Senators Dodd, Bennett, Shelby, and Sarbanes for getting a bill done that we can all stand here and be proud to support. A bill that is good for this country and good for the State of New York.

At long last builders and insurers of major projects in large cities, particularly New York, can breathe a sigh of relief; terrorism insurance will be renewed. It never should have taken this long, but at least we know this protection will be available for another 2 years.

We still live in America, and particularly in my city of New York, in the shadow of 9/11, of the terrorism that occurred. Obviously, the thousands of families who have had a loved one taken from their midst live with it every moment of their remaining lives, but the rest of us live with it too, not only in empathy for them but also in terms of the economic consequences of terrorism.

The bottom line is very simple, and that is, because of terrorism, the insurance industry, in terms of insuring risk of large structures in America--whether it be large buildings that make us so proud of the Manhattan skyline, or large arenas such as the football stadiums that dot America, or larger facilities such as Disneyland, Disney World, and amusement parks--all have difficulty getting insurance.

Insurers are worried that if, God forbid, another terrorist act occurs it will be so devastating that it will put them out of business.

So 2 years ago, the Senate, House, and the President got together at sort of the end of the day, just like today, and passed terrorism risk insurance.

It has been a large success. That no one can dispute.

Insurance rates have come down, terrorism insurance is available, and insurance companies know if, God forbid, the worst happens there will be a backstop, and they are willing to issue policies.

In turn, that meant developers, builders who wanted to build new large structures in America, did so, employing thousands and thousands of people, creating profits and new businesses as well.

Well today we are all here to do the right thing. Yesterday, the Banking Committee, of which I am member, passed unanimously a bill to extend the TRIA. In this bill we have kept the trigger levels manageable for the policyholder community. We kept the retention levels at a responsible level for the private market, retaining the public/ private nature of the program.

The bottom line is that we have made some necessary modifications to the program without losing the major protections. We did not all agree what should have been in the bill. Many of us felt strongly about including Group Life and protections against nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks. But the beauty of the process is that it is a negotiation where we all give and take.

This bill is a good compromise.

The continuation of this program is vital to our Nation's economic stability. By passing this bill on the floor today, we will be sending a message to the world that our financial markets will be protected. That our country will be able to bounce back in the event of any disruptions or financial dislocation caused by another possible terrorist attack.

It is still my strong belief that there needs to be a long-term solution--a permanent program. The President has continued to say that we are fighting a war on terrorism.

The bombing in Jordan last week, the London bombings this past July, and the recent threat to the New York subway system are a few examples of why we must continue fighting this war on terrorism.

It would have been my preference to get a bill that extended beyond 2 years. But I am at least pleased to know that there was a serious effort to address this concern by including a provision to create a commission that would begin to analyze the long-term availability and affordability of insurance for terrorism risk.

I would particularly like to thank Senators Dodd and Shelby for specifically including the language I requested which directs the President's Working Group to analyze the long-term affordability and availability of coverage for chemical, nuclear, biological and radiological events.

This is an issue of great importance to many New Yorkers. Many retailers and business owners in Lower Manhattan are afraid of a possible dirty bombs attack and the availability of insurance for such an event. This must be addressed and right away.

The bottom line is that financial dislocation caused by another possible terrorist attack--God forbid--is too much for our country to risk. I urge the entire Senate to pass this legislation today. It is only right that we let the markets, let the insurance world, and, most of all, let jobs and construction go forth.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, before I offer my amendment, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Warner, Santorum, and Coleman be added as cosponsors of amendment No. 2624, the Leahy amendment, of which I am a lead cosponsor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2635.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment which will help balance the oil markets and help families balance their budgets this winter by pulling some of the money out of the gas pumps and putting it back in people's pockets. It would do so by instituting a windfall profit levy on the oil companies and transferring those proceeds back to where they came from, the consumer.

I am going to not use all the rhetoric. We have talked about a windfall levy before. But this one is considerably different than the one that was offered before in a number of ways. I would like to outline those ways.

First, the revenues go directly to the individual's pockets. It does not go through the Government. It does not go through any agency. It simply adds a tax credit of $100 for every person. That means the money goes to everyone. Big families will get more than small families, and it will certainly help taxpayers at the lower end.

The temporary levy we are talking about is also different. The previous one just taxed oil when it was above $40 a barrel. My worry about that is that it could raise the price at the pump. What we are doing is using a method that puts this levy on profits. It means that that happens after the companies have brought in their cash and, therefore, is quite different than an amendment that just goes on to taxes.

Let me describe the amendment. We create a temporary levy on the excess profits of U.S. oil companies and foreign companies that do substantial business in the United States, in order to provide every taxpayer with a nonrefundable tax credit of $100 for 2005 for every person in their household. The temporary levy applies to major integrated oil companies, plus any refiners or producers with more than $100 million in sales. The revenue mechanism is an actual tax on windfall profits in 2005 that exceed a 3-year historic average. It will be very easy for the companies to calculate this based on the numbers they have previously reported on their tax returns. So no one can argue it is administratively difficult.

The proposal is intended to be a complement to the other windfall proposals. It is different. For those who argue against the other proposals on grounds that such levees will increase production costs and thereby fuel costs, this amendment addresses those concerns because it is an actual tax on profits, not production. In other words, those who say they object to windfall profit levees on these grounds will have to show their real colors. Those who don't want to force the oil companies to give up anything under any circumstances will, of course, not vote for this amendment. But for those who have come to the floor to argue against other proposals simply because they say they will increase production costs, this amendment would not. You should vote for it.

As I mentioned, the revenue goes to provide every U.S. taxpayer with a nonrefundable tax credit of $100. The amendment is designed to be revenue neutral. The excess profit tax rate will be adjusted, as necessary, to ensure there will be no net budget impact that violates the reconciliation instructions.

Bottom line: different than the other proposal; money goes directly to the taxpayer; money is levied on profits so it doesn't raise costs or interfere with production because it is after the line.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment only singles out two companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have an important mission: homeownership in our States, moving out regional imbalances in the mortgage supply, integrating regional mortgage markets. If this amendment is passed, here is what happens: The housing markets are hurt. At a time when we are worried about our housing markets, we are worried about a housing bubble that may burst, we are worried about so many parts of the housing market, to pull the rug out from under Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have done an incredible job, would make no sense whatsoever.

All the other corporations are not talked about here, just Fannie and Freddie. Therefore, I think this amendment deserves to be defeated.

Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I raise a point of order pursuant to sections 305(b)(2) and 310(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, this amendment creates a temporary levy on the excess profits of U.S. oil companies and it does it in a different way. It takes that money and provides a nonrefundable tax credit of $100 in 2005 for every person in the household. The revenue mechanism in my amendment is an actual tax on windfall profits that exceed a 3-year historic average. That makes it easy for companies to calculate. Unlike the other windfall profits tax amendments that have come forward, this one will not increase production costs and fuel costs for American consumers. That is because it is levied on profits, not production; not on profits when oil is above $40 a barrel but only when the band of profits exceeds a set level.

This was the same mechanism that Senator Reed used for LIHEAP, and it did get a good number of votes--50. The revenue of the amendment goes back to the U.S. taxpayer, not to any program, not to the Government, with a nonrefundable credit of $100 for every person in their household, and that is for 2005 only. It is revenue neutral.

I move to waive the relevant portions of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my unwavering support for S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005, introduced by my friend, Senator Dodd of Connecticut.

I would like to commend Senators Dodd, Bennett, Shelby and Sarbanes for getting a bill done that we can all stand here and be proud to support. A bill that is good for this country and good for the State of New York.

We still live in America, and particularly in my city of New York, in the shadow of 9/11, of the terrorism that occurred. Obviously, the thousands of families who have had a loved one taken from their midst live with it every moment of their remaining lives, but the rest of us live with it, too, not only in empathy for them but also in terms of the economic consequences of terrorism.

The bottom line is very simple, and that is, because of terrorism, the insurance industry, in terms of insuring risk of large structures in America--whether it be large buildings that make us so proud of the Manhattan skyline or large arenas such as the football stadiums that dot America or larger facilities such as Disneyland, Disney World, and amusement parks--all have difficulty getting insurance.

Insurers are worried that if, God forbid, another terrorist act occurs, it will be so devastating that it will put them out of business.

So 2 years ago, the Senate, House, and the President got together at sort of the end of the day, just like today, and passed terrorism risk insurance.

It has been a large success. That, no one can dispute.

Insurance rates have come down, terrorism insurance is available, and insurance companies know, if, God forbid, the worst happens, there will be a backstop, and they are willing to issue policies.

In turn, that meant developers, builders who wanted to build new large structures in America, did so, employing thousands and thousands of people, creating profits and new businesses as well.

Well, today we are all here to do the right thing. Yesterday, the Banking Committee, of which I am member, passed unanimously a bill to extend the TRIA. In this bill, we have kept the trigger levels manageable for the policyholder community. We kept the retention levels at a responsible level for the private market, retaining the public/ private nature of the program.

The bottom line is that we have made some necessary modifications to the program without losing the major protections. We did not all agree what should have been in the bill. Many of us felt strongly about including group life and protections against nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological attacks. But the beauty of the process is that it is a negotiation where we all give and take.

This bill is a good compromise.

The continuation of this program is vital to our Nation's economic stability. By passing this bill on the floor today, we will be sending a message to the world that our financial markets will be protected, that our country will be able to bounce back in the event of any disruptions or financial dislocation caused by another possible terrorist attack.

It is still my strong belief that there needs to be a long-term solution--a permanent program. The President has continued to say that we are fighting a war on terrorism.

The bombing in Jordan last week, the London bombings this past July, and the recent threat to the New York subway system are a few examples of why we must continue fighting this war on terrorism.

So it would have been my preference to get a bill that extended beyond 2 years. But I am at least pleased to know that there was a serious effort to address this concern by including a provision to create a commission that would begin to analyze the long-term availability and affordability of insurance for terrorism risk.

I would particularly like to thank Chairman Dodd and Shelby for specifically including the language I requested which directs the President's working group to analyze the long-term affordability and availability of coverage for chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological events.

This is an issue of great importance to many New Yorkers. Many retailers and business owners in Lower Manhattan are afraid of a possible dirty bombs attack and the availability of insurance for such an event. This must be addressed and right away.

The bottom line is that financial dislocation caused by another possible terrorist attack--God forbid--is too much for our country to risk. I urge the entire Senate to pass this legislation today. It is only right that we let the markets, let the insurance world, and, most of all, let jobs and construction go forth.