Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Reid from Nevada be added as a cosponsor of S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005, introduced by my friend, Senator Dodd of Connecticut.

Mr. President, 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 they either provide no insurance or provide it at such a high rate because of the downside risk. Small as it may be--and we hope it is--it is still possible that an act so enormous that if, God forbid, it occurs, they do not want to be involved.

So 2 years ago, the Senate, House, and the President got together at sort of the end of the day and passed terrorism risk insurance. It has been a large success. 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 means developers, builders who want to build new large structures in America, will do so, employing thousands and thousands of people, creating profits and new businesses as well.

We now come to the fact that this legislation expires--it was passed as an experiment; those who were dubious of it said, Let's see how it works--in December. But the urgency to act is much sooner than December because policies are not written for 6 months. If right now you are a business and you want to renew your insurance against risk for 1 year or 2 years or 3 years, that policy would go beyond December.

What the insurers say to many is, ``I will raise your rate dramatically'', which will raise costs and shut down construction, or ``I will not insure you at all'', which certainly shuts down construction. It means nothing will get built. So we should move this legislation quickly.

I stress we do not need to repeat last year by delaying and delaying. Last year, we began to witness, when we delayed a great deal, a loss in economic activity in the larger cities of this country in particular, even though we were well aware that ultimately this had to be done.

There are really only two alternatives. One is going to be no terrorism insurance. The private market will not fill the gap. That will prevent tens of billions in projects from going forward this summer and this fall, not next year but right now.

The second is that the market will fill the gap but only at such extraordinary prices and only in unique situations that the same thing would happen.

Why are we sitting in the Senate and in the House twiddling our thumbs? Our economy is squishy, oil prices are up, other economies outside of Asia are down, including Japan's actually, and, therefore, we are worried about the economy, and here we are putting another log on the tracks in the way of economic recovery.

There can be no dispute that terrorism insurance works, and there can be no dispute that if we do not renew it, there will be trouble. The ratings agencies have said in no uncertain terms that come December 31, if there is no terrorism insurance, they are not going to be able to give any kind of decent rating to any insurance offer.

These guys are insurers. They look for risk. They live with risk. They wake up in the morning thinking a risk, they go to sleep at night thinking a risk. We can say, oh, well, and have an ideological debate about how much should the Government be involved, or we can say, actually, people are not as worried about terrorism. It does not matter what you think, Mr. President, or what I think, it is what these insurers think. If the rating agencies say they are not going to give a decent rate to insurers, it is over, and we will not have it.

Moody's noted in an insurance brokers report that up to 75 percent of the policies written since January 1 have adopted a conditional endorsement that voids terrorism coverage if TRIA is not renewed. As we go through the year, the number of endorsements, they said, is expected to increase.

The report specifically stated these conditional endorsements appear to be an indication that unless terrorism insurance is renewed, premium spikes or a sharp reduction in the availability of coverage may result.

The report warns--this is very important--that Moody's is unaware of any viable private market initiative that would take the place of TRIA.

There are some who say: Let it expire and let's see what the market does. That is taking a huge risk because if the market does not come in, then we have hurt construction workers, laborers, and all those who would work in these buildings.

Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is a very well- respected voice around here, as he should be, in my opinion. He is a free-market guy. He does not like Government involvement. Right now, I am going toe to toe with him about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He would like to curb their role because he does not like the Government involved. I think they are needed in the housing market. But on

terrorism insurance, even Alan Greenspan admits it is needed. Here is what he said:

This is a very difficult issue, because remember that the

private markets work exceptionally efficiently in a civilized

society in which domestic violence or violence coming from

abroad is not a central factor.

You cannot have a voluntary market system and the creation

of markets, especially insurance markets, in a society

subject to unanticipated violence. And as a consequence,

there are certain types of costs, which is what we have the

Defense Department protecting us from, which we essentially

choose to socialize.

The less of that we have, the better off society is.

Of course, this is his view, and he wants to make sure you know he does not want us to do this everywhere.

There are, nonetheless, regrettable instances in which

markets do not work, cannot work. And while I think you can

get some semblance of terrorism insurance, I have not been

persuaded that this market works terribly well.

It is pretty clear, we need to renew this legislation, and it is likely we will renew it. What is so incredible is we are waiting and waiting, and every day we wait causes damage to jobs and the economy.

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 quickly. It is cosponsored by 25 of my colleagues, and we should move it without delay and let the markets, let the insurance world, and, most of all, let jobs and construction go forth.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be laid aside.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 674, which I believe is at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I will be brief. This amendment raises the tax-free mass transit benefit from $155 to $200 per month by the end of the life of the Transportation bill. I, first, thank my colleagues on the Finance Committee, Mr. Grassley and Mr. Baucus, for raising the amount to $155. That is already in the bill. What this amendment does is raise the remainder over the course of the bill to $200. What it will do is equalize the benefit offered by employers for transit expenses with the current benefit offered for parking expenses.

I understand that Senators Baucus and Grassley are working with the Budget Committee to get this amendment approved. So I hope we will not have to vote on it or debate it much longer than this. I greatly appreciate their efforts.

Basically, we give people a $200 deduction when they drive to work. It is obviously a business expense if they have to pay for parking, but mass transit has always been discriminated against. We do not give people that deduction for mass transit. This makes it equal. It does not favor one, does not favor the other. It does not take from highways to give to mass transit. It is a win-win-win.

Now, mass transit ridership is at an all-time high nationwide. It continues to rise in New York and across the country. For millions of transit riders, this increase will save them hundreds of dollars every year. Raising the transit benefit will simultaneously reduce traffic, congestion, and smog while saving commuters in New York and across the country hundreds of dollars every year.

The existing disparity between the two benefit levels has also created a financial incentive for employees to drive to and from work alone rather than utilize transit or a vanpool. The amendment eliminates this disparity. The transit benefit provides a low-cost way to get more cars off the road. In the New York metropolitan area alone, commuters save over $150 million, thanks to the transit benefit. Employers have saved significantly as well, over $35 million. And that amount can be multiplied for benefits throughout the country.

By taking cars off the road, increasing the transit benefit is sound environmentally as well. It reduces emissions, which leads to cleaner air, and cuts gasoline use across the board.

I hope we can support this good tax cut unanimously.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

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

Will the Chair advise as to how much time remains on this side?

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As the Senate convenes this week, we stand on the edge of dramatic change. Change is usually a good thing, but the change that the other side is trying to invoke is not a good thing. We all know it. Most Americans know it. Most Democrats know it. Most Republicans

know it. Even most Senators on the other side know it. Yet they are torn because of a small group way out of the mainstream. The same people who believe their message, which may come from the heavens, dictates to them what is right for everybody else seem to be in control. It is a crucial time for America. The age-old checks and balances that are at the center of this Republic, at the center of our Constitution, are hanging at the precipice.

It is the Senate where the Founding Fathers established a repository of checks and balances. It is not like the House of Representatives where the majority leader or the Speaker can snap his fingers and get what he wants. Here we work many times by unanimous consent where you need all 100 Senators to go along. In some instances, we work where 67 votes are needed, in some with 60, and in most with 51. But the reason we don't always work by majority rule is very simple. On important issues, the Founding Fathers wanted--and they were correct in my judgment--that the slimmest majority should not always govern. When it comes to vital issues, that is what they wanted.

The Senate is not a majoritarian body. My good friend from Utah spoke. He represents about two million people in Utah. I represent 19 million in New York State. We have the same vote. You could have 51 votes for a judge on this floor that represents 21 percent of the American people. So the bottom line is very simple. This has not always been a 50.1 to 49.9 body. It has been a body that has had to work by its rules and by the Founding Fathers' intent. Even when you are in the majority, you have to reach out and meet not all, not most, but some of the concerns of the minority.

I understand why my colleague from Utah would get up and make such ridiculous arguments. He is torn. He knows this is wrong. Most of the Members on the other side of the aisle know it is wrong. Some have had the guts--a handful--to say no. Some have had the strength to resist the calls of that extreme group or groups. Some are true believers. But some, and my guess is my friend from Utah is one of those, know it is wrong but decide: I am going along anyway.

When my friend from Utah lists the 10 most ridiculous arguments against keeping the filibuster and says checks and balances is a ridiculous argument, please. I care a great deal about my friend from Utah. He is a fine man. We are friends. We have worked together on many things. But he has more respect for the Constitution than to say checks and balances is a ridiculous argument. He knows darn well that a 51-to- 49 vote does away with certain kinds of checks and balances.

When my friend from Utah talks about no extremists, it seems to me the very same people who are calling the shots are the people who said that judges are worse than terrorists. That seems pretty extreme to me. That is the type of person importuning my friend from Utah.

Another one said: Judges, in their black robes, are like the Ku Klux Klan in their white robes. These are officials of the American Government, most of whom now are Republicans. Sixty percent of the court of appeals are Republican appointees. Seven of the nine Supreme Court members are Republican appointees.

When my friend from Utah doesn't think those statements are extreme and listens to the solution that people who make those statements prescribe, what else can one conclude than that he is sort of tying himself in a pretzel to try and make an argument that he must know in his heart is wrong.

Unprecedented? Well, it was my good friend from Utah who played a leading role in blocking a large number of the Clinton judges. He will say it wasn't by filibuster. The American people are a lot smarter than that. Whether it is by not bringing them up for a vote in committee or by requiring that they get 60 votes to choke off debate on the floor, the effect is the same. The President, the incumbent, is denied his choice. By the way, that is how our Senate has functioned.

The President, when he gets 51.5 percent, as George Bush did, or even when he gets over 65 percent, as Franklin Roosevelt did in 1936, shouldn't always get his way with every single judge.

He says that this will not doom the legislative filibuster, that that is an absurd argument. A year ago, if we would have heard that the Republican majority was considering having the Vice President sit in the chair and rule by fiat his own interpretation of the Constitution, coming out of nowhere because the Constitution doesn't mention any of this, certainly a narrow reading wouldn't allow us to address this issue from the Constitution, and he says that we will rule by fiat from the Chair and there should be no more filibusters of judges, even though that has been allowed for 200 years, even though it was done in 2000 by our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle for Ms. Berzon and Mr. Paez, and then he is saying, well, it is absurd that we do it for other things. I say this: Allow them to do it for judges today, they will do it for Social Security tomorrow. The same exact procedure could be used to block filibusters of legislation and of every single other thing that comes before this body. There is no difference. The Constitution doesn't mention the word ``filibuster.''

I don't know where it is divined in the heads of some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle: It says it is for judges, but not for legislation. That is an activist reading of the Constitution if you ever heard one.

The bottom line is simple: We are appealing to those Members of the other side of the aisle who, unlike my friend from Utah, have thus far resisted the entreaties of the hard, hard, hard right, who have resisted the entreaties of the narrow few who are way out there and say to them: Have strength, have courage.

The basic makeup of our Senate is at stake. The checks and balances that Americans prize are at stake. The idea of bipartisanship, where you have to come together and can't just ram everything through because you have a narrow majority, is at stake. The very things we treasure and love about this grand Republic are at stake.

I, for one, am saddened by what is happening. I, for one, am surprised at what is happening. I, for one, hope and pray that it will not come to this. But I assure my colleagues, at least speaking for this Senator from New York, I will do everything I can to prevent the nuclear option from being invoked not for the sake of myself or my party but for the sake of this great Republic and its traditions.

I yield the remaining time to my colleague from Illinois, our great whip.

Mr. President, in this post-9/11 world, it has never been so important to work seriously and carefully on efforts to enhance our border security.

We in New York are particularly cognizant of the need for comprehensive efforts to make our borders, our ports, our critical infrastructure, and our airports as secure as possible. Like no other place in America, like no other place in the world, New Yorkers I represent know what terrorism looks like, feels like, and costs to our communities, the economy and our psyches.

It is crystal clear to almost everyone that there are many questions that need to be answered about how we secure our borders. As a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Senator from New York, an enormous amount of my time and energy is devoted to just those questions. And indeed, I don't think we are doing enough to secure our borders. But sneaking drastic changes to our immigration laws into a must-pass measure supporting our troops is not the way to address these Issues.

Opinions are mixed about how effective the REAL ID bill will be in enhancing national security. But regardless of what you might think about the merits of the bill itself--I, for instance, have serious concerns regarding the impact of its asylum provisions--this is an issue that requires serious debate. Instead, the Republican leadership has completely bypassed the committee process and slipped this controversial and complicated proposal into the emergency supplemental bill, which we will have to approve because it provides the necessary support of our men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the vital relief for the tsunami victims abroad.

Immigrants have built New York and this country from the bottom up. Our country was founded by and made stronger by the hard work of immigrants from all different countries, cultures, religions and races. I marvel how our new immigrants remake our land, making it a better place, even as they become new Americans. Just think of how many recent, and expectant immigrants now serve in our Armed Forces, some of whom have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am proud that New York is still an epicenter for immigrants. Just like my ancestors came over from Europe many decades ago, the new generations of people just like us are beginning to take root, making our country, our economy, and our culture that much stronger and diverse.

So any bill that makes such dramatic changes to our immigration laws should be looked at carefully and considered judiciously. We must never bend in our determination to secure our borders and protect our Nation from harm. But nor can we forget what makes our Nation great. These debates and decisions must be reasoned debates, not take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums strategically devised for partisan political benefit.

There are provisions in this bill, for instance, that will make it harder for people persecuted on the basis of their race, religion, national origin, or gender abroad to pursue asylum and the American dream.

There are other provisions that would allow bail bondsmen to play judge and determine which immigrants are dangers to the community.

These are major changes to our laws, and we have a system to debate, discuss and vote on such changes. No bill raising so many questions on issues of such fundamental importance should escape an honest debate in the Senate. I urge my Republican colleagues to rethink this strategy and allow the Senate to do its work the right way.

Mr. President, I rise under morning business to discuss some events that occurred overnight. Most important, there is a story in today's USA Today, based on a direct interview, that Karl Rove rejected a compromise with Senate Democrats Monday on long-stalled nominations for the Federal judiciary and strongly defended President Bush's choice of John Bolton.

I am going to talk about the first matter.

It is disconcerting and surprising to see an aide to the President, an important aide, tell the Senate how to conduct itself. The Senate has conducted itself by its own rules for decades--for centuries. Those rules, by the design of the Founding Fathers, written into the Constitution, talk about the Senate as being a preserve of minority rights. The Founding Fathers called it the cooling saucer.

It is clear, if you read the Federalist Papers and look at the history of this Republic, that when a Senate minority of 45 rejects 10 out of 215 judges and supports 205 out of 215, that is the very way the Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to behave. After all, one of the very earliest nominations of President

Washington, John Rutledge, was rejected by the Senate for the Supreme Court--rejected by the Senate. In that Senate were I believe eight Founding Fathers, the people who wrote the Constitution, rejecting the President's choice.

We have, in a certain sense, people way out of the mainstream, way over--a small group--telling the Republican Party in the Senate and telling the President that they must have all the judges, including the most extreme. Because, after all, it was only the most extreme we rejected, judges who believe, for instance, that the New Deal was a socialist revolution and should be undone; judges who believe zoning laws are unconstitutional; judges who believe the purpose of a woman should be to be subjugate herself to a man; judges who believe slavery was God's gift to white people.

These are some of the judges we have rejected. It was not based on any one particular issue. People say this is all code for abortion. It is not. I have voted for I believe it is about 190 of the judges. The overwhelming majority do not agree with me on abortion, but I believe they met the ultimate test, that they would interpret the law, not make law. Thus, even though they had strongly held beliefs on their own, they would be good judges. The 10 we rejected failed that test. They feel so passionately that they have to impose their views.

One of them, Priscilla Owen of Texas, was criticized repeatedly by conservative members of her own court, the Texas Supreme Court, for placing her interpretation of law ahead of the standard interpretation, the interpretation everybody accepted.

So we were proud to do our constitutional duty and reject these judges, judges we were not consulted about, judges who were way out of the mainstream.

Now, because of the demands of a few--way over, way out there--it seems the majority leader is pushing the so-called nuclear option. The problem is a large number, a good number of people on the other side, do not want to do the nuclear option. They know it would change the rules in the middle of the game. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game because you cannot get your way on every single judge. Our Constitution, our system of laws, is too hallowed, is too important to do that.

These wavering Republican Senators know the Senate has been the repository of checks and balances. That is why we have not done the nuclear option yet. I have to say I wish the majority leader would not be moving it. He should as a Senator stand up for the rights of the Senate. He should as an American stand up for the rights of the American people. But that has not happened.

Yesterday they had to call the heavy guns in. Karl Rove, a member of the executive branch, told the Senate Republicans there should be no compromise.

It is quite natural, by the way, that the White House would not want a Senate with checks and balances. This is not simply true of Republican Presidents, it is true of all Presidents, whether they be Democrat or Republican. They want to have their way. They regard the legislature, and particularly the Senate, as sort of a pesky obstacle to getting their way.

But the wisdom of our Republic has shown that when the Senate does slow things down, when the Senate does invoke checks and balances, the Republic is better off.

Now we have Karl Rove telling the Senate how they ought to act--how we ought to act--to change a tradition of 200 years.

Senator Reid has said publicly that the President told him the White House would stay out of this. That is clearly not the case. The White House is not staying out of this and they are trying to aggrandize executive power. The American people, though, are not buying it. There is a story today in the Washington Post that shows `` . . . by a 2 to 1 ratio''--that is pretty strong, that is more than the filibuster amount--

the public rejected easing the Senate rules in a way that

would make it harder for Democratic Senators to prevent final

action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were

reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures.

Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10

Democrats and seven in 10 political independents. . . .

The American public may not follow minute to minute, day by day, what we do on this floor, but they have a pretty good nose to smell what is going on. What they smell is a whiff of extremism, a whiff of ``I can't get my way so I change the rules in the middle of the game,'' a whiff of ``not simply a fight of the moment over a particular judge but rather a desire not to live with the traditions of this body and this Republic, which involves compromise and mediation.''

Honestly, when I recommended to our caucus early on that we filibuster a few of the judges and then later that we prevent and stand up to the nuclear option no matter what it took, I thought we would lose politically. I thought the argument: ``Well, have 51 votes on everything'' would prevail. But the American people's wisdom is large, deep, and hard to fool. The American people have said they understand what is going on. When the Republicans were in charge, they didn't allow judges to come out. We are not in charge now and the filibuster is a way of mitigating the President's desire to put whomever he wants on the bench and that the filibuster is appropriate.

I do not believe what some on the other side say, that the public is with the Democrats because they have gotten their message out ahead of us. Please. The public is with the Democrats in this case, not because they are Democratic and not because they may agree with the stand or disagree with the stand of each of the judges we have rejected-- although I suspect that would be the case if they knew--the public is with us because they understand fundamentally the checks and balances that are so important in this Republic and that because a President gets 51\1/2\ percent of the vote he doesn't always have to get his way, particularly when it comes to choosing the third, unelected--only unelected branch of Government.

So Mr. Rove can order Senators not to compromise. I hope and pray the Senators will not take direction from the White House on something where the interests of the White House, whatever party the President might be, are different from those of the Senate and frankly different from the Republic's--and I believe they will not.

The wisdom of the American people is strong. I let my colleagues know, if they should try to invoke the nuclear option and it succeeds, we will have no choice but to enforce the Senate rules and try to bring up issues the American people want us to bring up: the high cost of energy and gasoline, health care, education. We do not usually do that because of comity in the Senate. After all, the other party is the majority party.

But if they are not respecting the rights of the minority, as a majority, they do not deserve that same deference. What we will do is not shut down the Senate, not not show up. We will, rather, use the remaining rules at our disposal to bring up issues the American people care about.

Again, my plea to my colleagues on the other side--I know many of them have doubts about this nuclear option but are under tremendous pressure--resist the entreaties of the executive branch, in this case in the personification of Mr. Rove, stand tall, stand firm. Do not change the rules in the middle of the game; protect the sacred checks and balances at the core of the Republic by rejecting this trampling on the rules, the so-called nuclear option.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Kentucky for his usual graciousness.

I compliment our leader, Harry Reid, not only for his words but for his actions. The compromise he seeks is a vital one to the history of this body. Because if we do not reach compromise, the constitutional confrontation that will occur is something the likes of which the Senate has never seen. It could end up destroying whatever is left of comity in the Senate and undo our efforts to move forward on issues the American public cares about.

We are acting here out of strength, not out of weakness. The public is on our side. They realize the nuclear option is overreaching. As our minority leader said, it is not the first time we have seen overreaching here in the Congress in the last few months.

But the compromise is offered in the best of faith. We seriously love this body and wish to avoid ripping it apart. We plead with our colleagues on the other side--the Republican leadership but also those 10 or 12 Republican Members who know this is wrong but are under tremendous pressure to make it come about.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator. I will address a question to my friend from Nevada. I have two questions. I will ask them both. The first is this: Our good friend from Kentucky did speak of compromise, and we do want compromise. But you cannot call something a compromise and then say I

want to win everything. To say that there would be no filibusters of any judges, to say that every judge could be discharged from a committee--you can call that a compromise; you can say the sky is green--it is not a compromise. That is totally the position of the other side. A compromise involves a little pain on each side to be a genuine compromise.

So my first question to my good friend and leader, whom I am proud to serve under, is: Would this side saying we will not filibuster any judge be any kind of compromise at all? The second question to my colleague--I will ask both at once--is this: My friend from Kentucky said: Well, we want an up-or-down vote. Majority rules. Are there not many instances where the Senate does not operate by majority rule, where 60 votes are called for, where 67 votes are called for? In fact, I argue it can be said that 51 Senators, representing only 21 percent of the population of this United States, can pass a law. Isn't it a fact that the Founding Fathers wanted the Senate to be something of a different animal, not a place where if you had 51 percent, you got your way 100 percent of the time but, rather, a place where the rules, the traditions, the way of thinking said come together for compromise; and, in fact, isn't it a fact that the time when this is most important, when the Senate plays its most important role, is when the President, the House, and the Senate are in the control of one party?

My two questions: Is it a compromise--so-called compromise--that says no filibuster on any judges and discharge petitions on all judges, any compromise at all, which my friend from Kentucky seems to think it was, even though it would be everything your side wants and nothing our side wants?

And second, is it not true that the Senate has been founded not on 51-to-49 rule governance all the time, but on a tradition of comity, checks and balances, and bipartisanship where a bare majority does not always rule?

Will my colleague yield?

Mr. President, will my colleague yield?

I will be brief, as I know my friend from Missouri has been patient. I want to augment, since my name was mentioned, what my colleague said. What we were talking about was bringing votes to the floor. We did not say majority vote, nor did we try to stop the filibusters that were going on for Mr. Paez and Ms. Berzon.

The bottom line is those two were not allowed to get votes for 4 years, 5\1/2\ years. The nominees here have come to the floor and, by the rules of the Senate, they did not garner sufficient support. It is a lot different not bringing them up at all, and that is what we were talking about, rather than bringing them up and then letting them be disposed of by the Senate rules. In fact, the quote, the first part of it I believe I was talking to my colleague from New Hampshire: You can debate this as long as you want, just bring it up.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas. This is an amendment we have worked on together. As she said, it fills some badly needed positions without increasing the overall number. I hope we will support it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that Senators Mikulski, Stabenow, Dodd, Boxer, Dorgan, Lieberman, Clinton, and Akaka be added as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, the amendment I have offered will allow the Federal Government to take long overdue action to curb the record high gasoline prices that are plaguing American consumers at the pump. As my colleagues are aware, for weeks, oil and gasoline prices have been placing an immense burden on working families. They are burning a hole in every wallet and pocketbook in America, and they are threatening our fragile recovery. The March numbers showed that consumers are not spending on other things because of the high prices of gasoline and other petroleum products. It is time this body took action to protect our Nation's economic security from sky-high oil prices and the whims of the OPEC cartel.

This amendment would provide the American consumer with relief by halting the diversion of oil from markets to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and by releasing an amount of oil from the reserve through a swap program in order to increase supply, quell the markets, and bring down prices at the pump.

What we are faced with is the simple market economics of supply and demand. If demand goes up, price goes up. If supply goes up, price goes down. At a

time when we are facing recordbreaking gasoline prices, it is unfathomable that the Federal Government would actually be taking oil off the market and exacerbating the high costs of working families.

The price of crude oil has remained at near record highs for the first half of 2005. Oil has been trading at over $50 a barrel since February 22. The prices have already burdened Americans, particularly in my home State of New York and the Northeast where we rely on home heating oil to heat our homes, as people have done throughout the winter.

I know a lot of these families were hoping for a quick spring so they could enjoy relief from the high energy prices. Unfortunately, that has not been the case, as the increased burden of oil costs has just moved from the home and now, as we approach spring, to the highway. As Americans are beginning to plan for their summer vacations and road trips, the price of gasoline has reached a record high for the fourth week in a row.

The Energy Information Administration predicted that the current price of $2.28 a gallon--that is 49 cents, just about half a dollar up from last year--could give way to even higher prices in the future.

We know who is being hurt by these oil prices, and we know who is benefiting--OPEC. OPEC made over $300 billion in oil revenue last year. They stand to gain much more if the price stays in the stratosphere. And they have a policy which they keep changing. Originally, they said $22 to $28 a barrel would be their policy. Now they say they are comfortable at oil remaining at $40 to $50 permanently. I know who will not be comfortable--American families who depend on affordable oil to commute to work, heat their homes, and provide for their energy needs.

Some of my colleagues may be asking: Didn't OPEC agree to increase production by 500,000 barrels a day? The reality is that OPEC's pledge to increase production on paper has not reduced prices at the pump. OPEC cut a million barrels in the face of rising prices, and now they say they are going to raise it 500,000 barrels. But we are not sure this is happening because it may be a paper transaction. When it comes to the talk of increasing production by another 500,000 barrels, an increase that might actually result in a production raise, it is no surprise that OPEC members are balking. Venezuela, Nigeria, and Libya-- all have indicated they would oppose such an increase. That is another reason we should use the SPR because there is a division in OPEC, and we can strengthen the hands of those more responsible nations that want to increase production to meet the increasing demand in the world.

What has the administration done on this? It has continued its policy of taking oil off the market and placing it in the SPR. This policy, which further tightens the oil market by taking much-needed supplies out of commerce, is slated to take an average of 85,000 barrels a day off the market during the height of the driving season.

I understand some of my colleagues are convinced the SPR should not be touched, even to safeguard our economic security. I would argue that the concerns to this degree do not properly balance America's physical security needs against our economic security needs. The SPR is now 98 percent full. We are not recommending a sale but, rather, a swap so the oil would be replaced presumably at a lower price, and we would have the full amount of oil in the SPR once again.

The administration has these tools, and yet we are letting OPEC control the whole show. If we showed them we meant business, that we were willing to mix in, they would be far more reticent, far more reluctant to raise the price at will in the light of increasing demand from China, India, our country, and other places.

It is about time we did this. I urge my colleagues to join me in protecting the pocketbook of working families from OPEC's profiteering by supporting the amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of an extremely fine gentleman, Paul Crotty, to be confirmed to the Southern District of the New York bench. Paul Crotty is a fine man, an outstanding lawyer, and he will make a terrific judge. Paul Crotty is an impressive nominee who has long enjoyed strong bipartisan support for a judgeship in New York. I am glad that at long last his nomination has finally been brought to the floor for a vote after languishing since last November.

First, I would like to talk a little bit about Paul Crotty. He has the support of not only myself and Senator Clinton, he has the support of a broad range of New Yorkers, in fact. I personally would like to thank two who worked religiously on behalf of Paul Crotty's nomination, two former mayors of New York City, one a Democrat and one a Republican. They are Mayor Ed Koch and Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Both had worked with Paul Crotty when they were mayor, and both speak extremely highly of him. In fact, I would like to read from the letter, for instance, that Mayor Giuliani sent:

Paul Crotty is one of the finest men I know. He possesses

all the qualities of an excellent judge--wisdom, compassion,

toughness, curiosity, common sense, unwavering integrity, and

an abiding love of the law. . . . Many possess knowledge of

the law or knowledge of government. Paul Crotty is the rare

individual who possesses mastery of both. He has set and

achieved the highest standards at every stage of his career.

Our Nation will be fortunate to have him join the Federal

bench.

I don't have Mayor Koch's letter, but it was Mayor Koch who suggested to me the idea that Paul Crotty be nominated to the bench. I knew Paul in many different walks of life and thought it was a great idea and was happy to not only support his nomination but to work hard to see that it would pass.

Let me tell you a little bit about Paul Crotty. He has had a long and distinguished career in both the public and private sectors of the New York legal community. He graduated from Cornell Law School in 1967. He clerked 2 years for U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd MacMahon of the Southern District, the court to which he is now nominated. He served in city government as Mayor Koch's commissioner of finance and commissioner of housing. He was a partner in the very prestigious New York law firm of Donovan Leisure Newton Irvin.

He went on to serve Mayor Giuliani as New York City's corporation counsel and the head of the city's law department, perhaps the single most difficult legal job in municipal government anywhere in America.

Mr. President, Paul Crotty is an incredible choice. I have known him for a long time. He is smart, compassionate, decent. He has the two qualities I look for in a judge: a fine and deep intellect and a practical sense. Sometimes I worry that judges without practical experience impose things on Government or on society that cannot work, even though they might sound fine when you see it in writing and in black and white.

Paul's extensive and practical experience, as well as his legal experience, makes him a perfect candidate for a judge in the district court in the Southern District of New York, one of the most important courts in the country.

I want to make one other point. In New York, Paul Crotty's nomination is not the exception, it is the rule. We have worked extremely well together--the White House, the Justice Department, and the Senator from New

York--to bring judges to the floor. There have been no vacancies that have been outstanding for a long period of time in either the Second Circuit, which I know my good friend and colleague, the ranking member, Senator Leahy, is part of as well, nor have there been in the four district courts of New York in the East, Northwest, and South.

I think we have worked together well on this Crotty nomination. In general, we have worked well together in New York. The White House and Senate, including Democrats in the Senate, can work well together to bring fine men and women to the bench.

The candidates who have been nominated in the Second Circuit and in the courts of New York--I don't agree with them on everything at all, but they are fine people. They are qualified people, and I would say none of them are at the extremes--either far right or far left. They are not the kind of ideologues who seek to make law. They are, rather, the kind of people the Founding Fathers wanted to see on the bench, people who would interpret the law.

Judges have awesome power, and judges on the Federal level have a lifetime appointment. You combine those two and you know you need people who don't think they know better than the public, that they know better than the Congress, that they know better than others. They interpret law; they don't make law. Paul Crotty exemplifies this. I am proud to support his nomination. I hope he will get unanimous support on the floor of the Senate. I know he will make an outstanding judge.

I congratulate Paul Crotty for his great career, and his wife, his children, and the entire Crotty family, who are well known in New York for their public service from one end of the State in Buffalo, where the family originally came from, to the other end in New York City.

I yield the floor to our ranking member, Senator Leahy.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jyoti Sharma, a legal fellow for Senator Clinton's office, be granted the privilege of the floor during today's session.