Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask for 8 minutes from my colleague from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for sponsoring this legislation along with me, Senator Warner, Senator Clinton, and others. It is vital legislation.

In general, we have to make homeland security as large a national priority as security overseas. I have been supportive of the President in fighting the war on terror overseas, but I do not think we are doing enough at home. I have had a series of amendments in that regard. This amendment may be the most important of all amendments.

Senator Specter laid this out quite well. We have certain areas that have high needs in terms of the threat to them. To take all the money in an airplane and let it gradually disperse itself all over the United States would not make sense.

My city of New York has tremendous problems. I live near the Brooklyn Bridge. That is, obviously, a target. Our city has two police officers at each end of that bridge 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We could not do less given the great needs of security. Just figure that out. Four officers to fill a 24-hour a day, 7-day-a week shift. That is 20 just for that bridge. Multiply it by the multiplicity of bridges, tunnels, the airports and high buildings, and New York City is spending a tremendous amount on security.

It is not just cities such as New York. Buffalo, at the other end of my State, is one of the 30 cities wisely included in the high needs formula last time by the Homeland Security Department.

Buffalo has a border with Canada, with bridges. They found a terrorist cell in Lackawanna, a city on the border with Canada. All the commerce with Canada creates special needs.

Our amendment says: Let everyone get a certain amount of money. Everyone has a police department and a fire department. But understand that there are certain areas that have high threat. We ought to do something for them.

This is a modest amendment. First, it only raises the high-needs area $250 million to $1 billion. Second--and I underscore this to my colleagues because I have been asked--this does not have an offset. It does not take money away from the smaller States, smaller cities. The theory behind this amendment is we need to do more for our police and our fire and our first responders. Therefore, we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are, rather, saying let the high-needs areas, the high- threat areas, be funded.

Secretary Ridge, former Office of Management and Budget Chair Daniels, and, in conversations on the phone, present OMB Chair Bolton have all agreed we should improve the formula. We should make it better to correspond with high-threat areas. This amendment tries to do that by adding some money into the area that, in my opinion, this bill has most underfunded: High threat.

I remind my colleagues of one other point. Last year, we allocated $800 million to high threat. The needs are greater. We should be going up. The House allocated $500 million in their bill. If we go to conference with only the $750 million in the mark, we are virtually certain to go backward in terms of the money that high-threat areas need and that high-threat areas deserve.

I quote from a well-received report from the Council on Foreign Relations, chaired by a former colleague, Warren Rudman. The Council has estimated: The Federal, State, and local spending for homeland security should increase by $19.7 billion a year for the next 5 years and more targeted to the areas where the threats are.

If they think we need $19.7 billion more and we are only increasing this by $250 million, it shows the modesty of the request compared to the actual need.

To come out of conference and cut money to high-threat areas would be just what many feared in the wake of September 11: that we were getting complacent; that we are going back to the pre-September 11 days; that because nothing has happened in the last year, year and a half, we can relax.

The conditions that cause terrorism, the idea that small groups of people

can use technology to do us terrible damage is with us as much today as it was on 9/10/2001. The good news is we can do things to stop it. We can do them at the Federal level, and we can do them at the local level. But this does cost money.

Money is dear. Obviously, with the deficit we have and other problems, it is dear. But life is even dearer. This is one area where nobody disputes that the Federal Government has the lead role. This is not something the private sector can do on its own. It is not something the States and localities can do on their own.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. Again, it doesn't take money from anything else. It does raise the overall amount by a modest $250 million but probably in the area of the budget that is least funded. Even the mark done by the chairman has less money for high-threat areas than we actually allocated last year.

I yield the floor and return the remainder of my time back to my colleague from Pennsylvania, but I hope we will support this amendment.

Mr. President, I want to reiterate what my colleague from Pennsylvania said. It is the same amendment as last time, except it has an offset because many colleagues wanted that. The offset doesn't come from small States or from any part of the homeland security distributional money. Rather, it comes from two categories called information analysis and

infrastructure protection, which is reduced by $187 million. We reduced it by adding up all the various specific amounts that were asked for in the specific programs, and this was an overage after that. Second, science and technology, research and development, where we went with the President's commitment of $803 million, rather than the committee number of $866 million. Our high-needs areas need help. This will do it without breaking the budget by one nickel.

It does rearrange the priorities some, but it is the priorities we think are fair. We are trying to accommodate many colleagues on the other side who wished for an offset. This seems to be the right one. I reiterate, our high-needs areas, wherever they may be, or high-threat areas, need more help than they are given in the bill. The bill goes down from the amount we did last year, despite promises by all that it would go up. We don't break the budget, and we don't take it from small States.

I urge support for this amendment, and I yield the floor as we approach the time of 3:40.

Will the Senator yield?

I know my colleague is aware the high-threat areas were not just New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania when the last round of money was given out. I know my colleague is aware that 30 cities got special money because the cities had special needs, including Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Miami, Detroit, Newark, San Diego, Phoenix, Baltimore, Dallas, Buffalo, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, Long Beach, New Orleans, Memphis, Cleveland, Tampa, Seattle, New York, Washington, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The high-needs areas are not simply in three States, they are in special areas.

I ask my colleague two questions. Was he aware that 30 cities got this money? And this year we are putting less money into high needs than last year.

Will my colleague yield for another question?

Our good friend from Alaska said we have needs on a per capita basis. But is my colleague aware that on a per capita basis the high-need States get less money? It is not the same. This is not evenly distributed on a per capita basis, because the formula here has .75 for every State--much higher.

I believe in helping all the States but this is higher than we have ever seen in a formula distributing money to every State. As a result, a State such as Wyoming or Alaska, for instance, would get far more money on a per capita basis----

It is the time of the Senator from New Jersey.

Who has the floor, Mr. President?

On a per capita basis than even a larger, high-threat State. Is my colleague aware of that?

Mr. President, I rise to speak about the tragedy that occurred in my city yesterday.

Everyone knows that a gunman came into our city hall, into the city council chamber, raised his gun, and killed one of our brave city councilmen. I knew the councilman. I knew him well. He did not live far from my home in Brooklyn. One of my happiest moments with him was speaking at his inaugural ceremony only 2 short years ago.

So I would like to speak about Councilman James Davis, and also about Officer Richard Burt, who acted with bravery. In short, in the wake of this terrible tragedy, we really celebrate two heroes: mourning the life of one, thankful for the bravery of the other.

First, I would like to talk about Councilman Davis. He came from Brooklyn. He went to a high school that was one of my high school's rivals, and followed in the footsteps of his father. He was a corrections officer, and then a police officer, and then ran for public office.

He was always a maverick. He liked to challenge the conventional wisdom. He was unafraid. He was virtually fearless. But he was always fearless with a smile on his face. He would take on whatever powers that be because he believed it was right.

He cared so much about his community. Long before he became an elected official, he would sponsor ``Stop the Violence'' marches in Crown Heights. Everyone knew it was August when the big signs saying ``Stop the Violence'' would be emblazoned across Eastern Parkway.

When he got elected to the city council, it was a dream come true for James Davis. He had run for office many times before and been defeated, but he kept working and working. The people in the community saw that the man was sincere and put him in the office of city council.

Once on the city council, it was clear that James Davis was one of the rising stars in his own way because he always did things in his own way. He was a maverick. He would oppose things everybody else thought was good, and then he would have good reason for it. And he always had a twinkle of mischief in his eye, and often, when he would greet you, he would have some kind of little joke to mention with you. But he never hesitated to speak his mind. He never hesitated to vote his conscience, regardless of how it would affect his career. He refused to roll over for anyone, even some of the most powerful politicians in New York City.

So we miss James Davis. It is a tragedy he has been taken from us so young, with so much potential. It is a tragedy he has been taken from this Earth, untimely ripped. But his smile, his passion, his desire to fight, his desire to tilt at windmills will remain with us forever.

There is another hero we celebrate today, and that is Police Officer Richard Burt, so typical of the bravery of New York City police officers. Officer Burt acutely saw what was happening on the balcony during the New York City council meeting, and though he was 45 feet away, he fired shots at

James Davis' murderer, and the shots struck true and killed the murderer.

Richard Burt saved lives. Richard Burt, just like James Davis, was brave. James Davis' bravery was about his willingness to challenge the establishment and to do what he thought was right. Burt's bravery came as well in the line of duty, as a police officer. We thank him because many lives were saved.

I read the reports this morning that in the murderer's sock were more bullets. Lord knows what would have happened had Richard Burt's aim not been brave and true.

So it is a sad day in New York today. It is a sad day because our city council chamber, our city hall, has been violated by violence. It is a sad day because we miss and mourn for James Davis, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Two brave men: One we mourn, gone, his memory, his courage live with us; one we thank for saving the lives of so many others.

I yield the floor.

I am flattered. Although I love New York, I have never been told I come from anywhere south of Washington, DC.

I was trying to be nice, Mr. President, but I guess that does not pay around here these days.

Amendment No. 1343

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will listen to this because maybe we can get this accepted without a vote. As many in the Chamber know, as does certainly the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, to me one of the greatest holes, one of the greatest weaknesses we face as we try to defend our homeland is we are not doing enough to prevent the smuggling of a nuclear weapon into this country. Our greatest nightmare would be that some evil group of people get ahold of a nuclear weapon and put it in a container in a ship and send it to our shores. The devastation that would ensue would be enormous. Unfortunately, there is very little to prevent that from happening now.

We are trying to tighten our general cargo system, but it is not enough in terms of preventing a nuclear weapon from coming into this country.

I sought experts shortly after 9/11 and said, How do we prevent this from happening? They said, There is good news and bad news. The good news is nuclear devices are detectable because they emit something called gamma rays, which pass through everything. The bad news is the only practical detection devices right now are Geiger counters and the Geiger counter has to be held 2 or 3 feet from the object.

You can't go on every container and put a Geiger counter near each crate. It will bring commerce to a standstill. But, they said, the cyclotrons at Brookhaven National Lab and Argonne, our national energy labs, detect radiation 60, 70, 80 feet away. The trouble is, the devices are not practical. They are delicate, they cannot be bounced around, and they are large. But, they said, it should not be too difficult to practicalize these devices and then place them on every crane that loads or unloads a container. It would emit a noise if, God forbid, a nuclear weapon were on board that container, and we could stop it.

Everyone agrees this is a good thing to do. The problem is finding the resources to get it done. So last year the Senate voted for $150 million to do this.

But when we got back from the conference, I think $10 million was left in, which was not close to enough.

I have proposed in this amendment that we add another $70 million to general homeland security research, solely for the purpose of developing these nuclear detection devices. But if my good friend from Mississippi thinks we do not want to add any money into the bill, I would be satisfied with earmarking $70 million of the existing research funds for this very purpose. Although it would take money away from other research, it would not increase the overall amount.

I cannot imagine research that is more needed. As I mentioned, I would be happy to substitute the second amendment which does not raise the overall price and earmarks the money.

All I can say is. God forbid a nuclear device is smuggled into this country; it would be our worst nightmare. The fact we can do something about it and the fact we are not doing enough about it to me is a dereliction of our duty, of our responsibility to make our citizens safe. I want to be able to say to my constituents--I think every Member here does--that every container entering this country has no nuclear weapon in it. By developing technologies like passive detectors, we can make sure that happens. There is not a question as to whether this is feasible. It is not just spending the money and putting it down a black hole. The $10 million that was allocated last year, even though this House voted for $150 million, is too little. The $70 million--I would rather have it be higher, but the bottom line is this. Terrorists know our weaknesses. Right now, let's hope none of them has a nuclear weapon. But, if, God forbid, they did--if, God forbid, they did, they could bring it into this country through one of our ports and have a darn good chance, an all-too-high chance of succeeding.

So I say to my colleagues, there may be no amendment to this bill more important than this one to the future safety of our citizens, our beautiful and wonderful 280 million Americans; maybe no amendment that we vote on this year. This is a quiet issue. It has not garnered that much attention. But it is a vital issue. This should show whether Government can work. Because this is what we should be doing.

I hope my friend from Mississippi will accept this amendment. I would rather not call a vote on it. As I said, I would be willing to substitute for this the offset. But we cannot delay any further. Every year we delay makes it more likely that this horrible situation could occur.

I do not want to be in a ``what if'' mode. What if, God forbid--God forbid--a nuclear weapon were exploded in this country? And what if the next morning we said to ourselves: Why didn't we do something about it when we knew we could?

With that, I will relinquish the floor and hope my colleague from Mississippi and others could work something out here so we could come to a compromise and get this amendment accepted in the legislation.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I have taken the first amendment and added $70 million in general homeland security research. But it requires the research to go into port security. The language is not specific. I can make it specific. It was intended to be for the research into these devices. We can get together and make it specific. I don't know why we didn't. We probably should have. But it just earmarks it for port security as opposed to general security.

The second amendment, which I haven't sent to the desk, doesn't increase the overall amount for research and development. But this one does. This would increase it by $70 million. It is not taken from the rest. But the other one earmarks $70 million of the existing $130 million for this very purpose.

If the problem is making the language more specific, I am willing to do that.

I am not familiar. I ask my colleague a question: Where does the $55 million that he is refers to go? As I understand it, there is $10 million we passed last year. But I would be happy to look at that. I have no pride of authorship. I just want to get these devices done.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I first make a point. Yes, there is $55 million for this, but none of that has to be used for nuclear security devices. There is no allocation for any research to be done for this very important part of research.

I have to say, with all due respect, that there are lots of different kinds of research which will be done that don't guarantee any. Last year, we put $10 million in for this, but the Senate voted for $150 million.

But I ask my colleague a question: First, where is this institute? I am not even familiar with it.

Second, I ask my colleague if we were not to violate the Budget Act but, say, allocate $70 million or some sum within the $130 million for research that should specifically go for nuclear detection devices, would my friend from Mississippi be willing to support something like that?

There is $10 million we allocated last year for this. The Senate voted for $150 million. There was no subcommittee at that point on homeland security. Senator Stevens supported it. But when it came back from conference, it only had $10 million in it.

I think my colleague would understand that this kind of research should not be done in some new institute. There are experts who have done this already at our national energy research laboratories. They can detect radiation. It is just that the device has to be practical, and it is not right now. That is why we need this specific quick allocation.

But if my colleague from Mississippi doesn't want to allocate any specific money for this purpose, whether we violate the Budget Act or not, I guess there is no compromise we can reach.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague.

I thank my colleague for that point.

I say to my friend from Mississippi that it is probably likely that none of the $55 million of this specific institute, which I am sure is doing a very good job on air research, will do this. Then I say to my colleague--I say to everybody here--to not put any money into this when this is the greatest danger we face is a dereliction of our responsibility. I am willing to offset. I am willing to work. But the $55 million that is in this institute is not going to go to the kind of research we are talking about. Even if they were to give the money to this institute to do it, it would have to reinvent the wheel when our existing research laboratories can do this.

Last year, we had sort of a consensus that we had to do something, but in conference we lost the dollars. We are taking a step backward here. This is what everyone worried about after 9/11--that we would become complacent. From all of the moneys in the budget, we can't find $70 million to do research to deal with perhaps the greatest danger that faces us. That is wrong. That is something we, hopefully, will never regret. But we may.

I say to my colleague from Mississippi that this Atlantic City research center, as my friend Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey said, is part of the FAA. That has nothing to do with the research we are talking about. It does a good job.

I ask my colleague, where is this research going to be done?

I say to all of my colleagues, if we don't do this amendment, and we say it is because of the Budget Act, my goodness, we just passed $350 billion in tax cuts without even talking about the Budget Act. And we can't spend $70 million to make our homeland secure from the greatest danger that would face us--greater than biological weapons, greater than chemical weapons? What is the matter with us?

I am happy to yield.

Right.

I thank my colleague for the question. Obviously, this is a real problem. Obviously, we should be doing something about it. And somehow, because the committee, in its wisdom, said $55 million for this and $40 million for this and $10 million for this, and we can't break the Budget Act, we should ignore this problem. Why the heck do we have amendments on the floor? No one objects to the substance, it is just finding room for it.

I would just, once again, say to my colleagues, I plead with you; this is not a political issue for me at all; this is about the safety of America. Let us find some way to find some money.

I am not saying the committee should be omniscient and should have thought of everything. This is one area on which I have spent a lot of time. I can assure every one of my colleagues that the money could be well spent. Every expert says it can be done. And every expert who looks at our budget says it is not being done now or is being done at such a slow pace that we are almost inviting people to harm us.

So I am disappointed--I have to tell you, I am disappointed, whether we violate the Budget Act or not, because I am willing to go either way--that we cannot find one thin dime more for this vital research.

I yield the floor.

Will my colleague yield?

I am not aware, in all the research my friend from Mississippi read off, that any is being done

for the specific thing I talked about, which is to develop not just a nuclear sensor somewhere but nuclear sensors that can go on cranes when they load and unload containers.

Every expert who looks at how they would do a nuclear device here, how they would explode one going into this country--it is very hard to do it on a plane; they are heavy; they can't do it on a truck very easily--you do it in the big containers that come through the ports.

I don't see anything, from what the Senator has read off, to show this is being done. I would be happy to delay for a bit. We could do some research and call Homeland Security and see if they are doing this. Just to read off a number of accounts and say there is research being done, and maybe some of it is being done in the area I am talking about--which I know everyone thinks is important--isn't good enough because this is so important.

So I ask the Senator, does he know of any specific funds that will definitely--not maybe but definitely--go to the research we are talking about; namely, nuclear detection devices to prevent nuclear weapons from being smuggled in, in a container?

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. President, I move that the Budget Act be waived and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I know my good friend and colleague, Senator Baucus, spoke on this amendment but I believe it has not been sent to the desk yet.

I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, my good colleague from Montana is from a State that is quite different from mine. He has summed up this bill well. We are from different States but we face the same problem, and that is our northern border is not guarded as well as it should be.

Frankly, I think our country has done a very good job on the southern border. We have had lots of problems there in the past. The various governmental agencies, prodded in part by this body and the other body, did a good job tightening things up.

There was really no need to tighten up the northern border until 9/ 11. But what we have learned is that the terrorists know what we are doing. They can log onto the Internet, even if they are in a cave in Afghanistan, as long as they have a wireless connection, and can learn what we are doing. So they know what we all know: The southern border is pretty well guarded but the northern border is not.

As a result, we have seen that various terrorists and others who seek to do damage to our country, evil acts in our country, perhaps, have started crossing at the northern border. It is a massive border. It has 128 ports of entry. It is 5,500 miles long. Large parts of it are totally unguarded. Some of it is water. The Canadian border that New York State shares with Canada is bounded by Lake Ontario and by the Niagara River and by the St. Lawrence River. It is a beautiful border, it is a peaceful border, but unfortunately it can be used by bad people for evil purpose.

The challenge we face is we have trade with Canada. Western New York, the north country in New York State depend on that trade. Yet we need to be more secure. Can we have security and commerce? Is there a tradeoff between one and the other? Only if we do not provide the resources. If we provide the resources for personnel, for equipment, for technology, we can have the best of both worlds--a northern border that is secure and a northern border where a free flow of commerce occurs. It is extremely important. Canada is my State's biggest trading partner. Last year we exported $9 billion worth of merchandise to the north.

In order to do what we do, we need a three-pronged approach. We must first have the technological programs such as FAST, NEXUS, and US VISIT. We need the VACIS radiological detection program. And, most important, we need sufficient staffing at the border.

We recognized this in the PATRIOT Act, where we authorized a tripling of Immigration, Customs, and Border Patrol. I have to be honest; it is not that this country has done nothing. There are now more people guarding northern borders than there were in September 2001. There were 2,300 in September 2001; there are now about 5,000. That is a significant advance and I am not critical of that advance; I think it is a good one.

But my motto in the post-9/11 world is a simple one: You can't be too careful. This is a greater expense but we need it. We need it both so commerce continues--I know your State, Mr. President, depends on that commerce as well--and we need it so our people can be more secure.

There should be, according to the PATRIOT Act, not just 5,000 men and women guarding that border, which there will be in September of 2004, but 6,900. That is a shortfall of 27 percent. We will basically have only three-quarters of the men and women at the northern border we publicly promised to station there.

That is less than one person per mile of the border.

The amendment of my good friend from Montana and I--again, from completely different States but who share the same problem of a border that is guarded better than before but still not well enough--allocates $200 million to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection for the express purpose of adding new personnel to the northern border. We give the Department of Homeland Security flexibility to transfer these funds to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement if needed to meet the PATRIOT Act goals.

I urge that we support it.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

I yield the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. President, I will soon yield a minute to my colleague from Montana. The amendment is very simple. It brings up what we promised in the PATRIOT Act--funding for northern border personnel.

Right now, we have increased the personnel on the northern border, but we have not increased them to a level even close to the level we mentioned in the PATRIOT Act. The northern border has become the border of choice for those who want to infiltrate into this country and do real harm. It makes eminent sense to spend a relatively small amount of money--$200 million--to fulfill our promise and bring the Border Patrol and others, including Customs, to that border so we can have both commerce and security. We can have both if we provide the dollars.

I yield the remaining time to my friend from Montana.

Mr. President, I wish to say a word about the tragedy in New York. I knew James Davis quite well. I spoke at his inaugural. He doesn't live very far from me in Brooklyn. I will speak more about him tomorrow. But I just want to say that he was a wonderful man. He had a smile on his face a mile wide. He was so happy. After many tries, he was elected to the city council. His devotion to the people he represented and to his ideals was second to none. It was a terrible tragedy. We all regret it.

There is a sad face hanging over New York and America tonight. We pray for James, for his family, for his friends, and for everyone in his life who he touched.

Mr. President, I believe the amendment is already part of the managers' package, so it does not have to be read.

In the interest of time, Mr. President, of the 10 minutes allotted to me, I will yield back 4, take 3 for myself, and yield 3 to the senior Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. We have all heard the reports, which bother us, tear at our hearts, that our soldiers are going to have to stay a longer period of time because of the fighting, the chaos, the problems in Iraq.

One of the quickest ways to get them home is that we set up an indigenous police force. After all, our Army, the greatest Army in the world, that has done such a great job in Iraq, has not really been trained to be a police force to stop looting and to create civil order, et cetera.

We are in the process of training Iraqis to take over this job, and I am sure most Americans wish it could be done as quickly as possible. This amendment is a reminder of that and an importuning of the administration to do just that, by requiring that every 180 days there be a report from the administration to Congress and the American people that talks about the progress of setting up such a police force, the cost of such a police force, and how it might affect the timetable and speed up the timetable, more particularly, of our soldiers coming home.

We know we have to restore rule of law in Iraq. We know it should best be done by an indigenous Iraqi police force. This amendment simply says, let's get that done quickly, and let the administration report to us on how that progress is going. It is important to the soldiers. It is important to law and order in Iraq, and it is important to the American people.

Nothing would make us all happier than to bring so many of our brave soldiers home, and home quickly. This amendment is both a reminder and an importuning addressed to that fact.

With that, I yield back the rest of my 3 minutes, and yield the remaining time to the Senator from Washington, the cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment Senator Reid mentioned after Senator Biden's amendment is a different amendment. Senator Clinton and I have an amendment. Those two amendments we will do en bloc. We would not have a vote. The majority and minority have agreed. It affects matters in New York City. We would like to do those very quickly before we begin this order, if I may ask that we do that.

One minute.

Two minutes of debate right now.

Will the Senator yield?

Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman and ranking member for their courtesy.

We have two amendments. Senator Clinton has explained the first one. That deals with reimbursement for police expenses. We always had that in New York City. This simply raises the amount, given the 9/11 situation.

The second amendment is a little different. It very simply says that diplomatic scofflaws have to pay their property taxes. We have a whole lot of missions in New York. A handful of them don't pay their property taxes.

This amendment is very simple. When they don't pay their property taxes, this gives authorization for them to be taken from their foreign aid. It is only fair. It is only right.

We did this for parking tickets a few years ago. It was very successful. We want to do it for property taxes.

It is mind-boggling to know, but there is $214 million in outstanding property taxes from these missions. This amendment will go a long way to collecting it.

I ask unanimous consent that both amendments be agreed to by voice vote.

I ask unanimous consent that both amendments be agreed to.

Mr. President, I will talk today about the nomination of Victor Wolski to the Court of Federal Claims. This nomination admittedly has not gotten much attention from our colleagues because the Court of Federal Claims does not handle the breadth or the number of cases that the courts of appeals do or even Federal district courts.

However, I remind my colleagues that in one area these courts are extremely important--they are important in many areas, but in one area where we have our usual ideological discussions and battles, the area of the environment. The Court of Federal Claims is the place where claims of takings reside. Takings have been the way many have opposed the advances we have made in the environment. They make their arguments this is a government taking from you your right to use your property as you see fit.

When the Government says you cannot pollute the water on the land you own or you cannot pollute the air on the land above which you own, some have come up with the theory that the Government is taking something from you. It is sort of denying the theory of compact that we all live together and we all have to be responsible for our land and our water.

I argue that the vast majority of Americans do not agree with this argument. However, there is a small group of people who tend to be propertied, tend to be quite well off in society, who are very much for this argument.

The nominee to the Court of Federal Claims, Victor Wolski, if we nominate him, if we approve him, we are approving somebody who has led the charge in this area--not somebody who sees some merit to the taking argument and sees the other side but somebody who is a committed ideologue, not somebody who would have the balance we need on the courts.

If anyone does not believe me, I take Mr. Wolski's own words to the National Journal:

Every single job that I have taken since college has been

ideologically oriented trying to further my principles.

He then goes on to describe his principles as ``a libertarian belief in property rights and limited government.''

This man is a self-described ideologue. I thought we had been making some progress in this body, that while some would propose more conservative nominees and some would propose more liberal nominees, that it was a bad idea to put ideologues on the bench, ideologues of the left or the right.

Mr. Wolski is clearly an ideologue and does not belong on this sensitive court. For that reason, he is opposed by 13 national environmental groups. When he was counsel for the Pacific Legal Foundation, Mr. Wolski consistently furthered his ideology through sweeping arguments that would have dramatically undermined the Nation's environmental laws.

My guess is he preferred an America of the 1890s or the 1930s where our air was much dirtier, our water was much filthier. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, if you believe at all in preserving the environment, it would seem to me it would make a good deal of sense not to further this nomination. We can find people who might be more consistent with the President's views, with many views on the other side in terms of not extending environmental laws or making sure that the excesses of environmental laws are limited. Mr. Wolski is just not that. He is so committed to this ideological view that the Government has virtually no right to tell you you cannot pollute the air or the water, that if he had his way, we would turn the clock back dramatically in the environmental area. As a result, as I mentioned, 13 national environmental groups oppose his nomination.

In addition, a broad coalition of groups, civil rights, women's rights,

human rights organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the National Women's Law Center have expressed serious concerns with Wolski's ``extreme views on governmental power and his troubling record in race and sex discrimination cases.''

Admittedly, this court does not handle race and sex discrimination cases, but it does handle the takings cases that relate to our environment.

In addition, I argue to my colleagues, Mr. Wolski does not really have the judicial temperament to be a Federal judge. He argued a case where there were ponds that were providing habitat for migratory birds. I know from my own experience that some would think every piece of water, every pond and every lake is a wetlands and cannot be touched, and sometimes the advocates, I would be the first to say, go overboard. However, in this case, Mr. Wolski called ponds ``puddles,'' and he belittled the possibility that there might be any interest in protecting migratory birds. ``Jurisdiction over puddles was justified by the Ninth Circuit on the basis that birds might frolic in these puddles.''

He wrote:

Will one fewer puddle for the birds to bathe in have some

impact on the market for these birds?

In the argument he is making--I don't know, the facts of the case might be right--the language does not show the temperament, a fair and balanced temperament, that we seek in nominations to the bench, whether they be Democrat or Republican.

In a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle, Wolski derided what he called ``a rogue Congress'' and referred to the Members of Congress as ``bums.'' Again, many of our constituents have hard words about Congress Members, but I don't think a lawyer, a trained advocate, ought to be using that kind of language. Again, it shows the kind of temperament Mr. Wolski has.

On the merits of his views, he is way over to the extreme. On his judicial temperament he has used incendiary language that is inappropriate for a lawyer or a judge. Mr. Wolski should not be put on the bench.

I make one other argument in this regard. The Federal Court of Claims has some vacancies. It has 16 slots. It now has 13 senior judges in addition to the 11 regular judges. This court does not have much of a caseload. The average number of cases the United States District Court judge handles is 355 cases; the number of cases a current judge of the Court of Federal Claims handles is 24. If we add the new nominees, each will handle 19 cases.

Let's say you don't agree with Chuck Schumer on the environment. Let's say you even agree with Victor Wolski, but you are a fiscal conservative. Why are we adding more judges to a bench that does not need any help?

The Washington Post editorial--and, as you know, the Washington Post on the issue of judges has not agreed with many of us on this side-- called the CFC:

. . . a court of extravagance and an unnecessary waste of

judicial resources that should be abolished.

Each of these judges costs a million dollars. I would say to my colleagues, those on the other side of the aisle did not allow nominees to the Court of Federal Claims when President Clinton was in office because, they said, the caseload was too low. Today the caseload is even lower, and there is a rush to nominate. This should not be dispositive.

If Wolski were a good man, if the caseload were growing, I would support him no matter what was done between 1995 and 2000. But I have to tell my colleagues on the other side, it is extremely galling to us that the very arguments that have been used in the past now seem irrelevant, now that there is a new President making different appointments. If the Court of Federal Claims should not have had appointees under the Clinton administration and the Republican- controlled Senate did not allow any because the caseload was too low-- 24--why are we now nominating 4 and bringing the caseload down to 19? It is just not right. It is not fair. There ought to be some consistency to the argument. There is not. There absolutely is not.

So for these grounds, I urge Mr. Wolski's defeat. No. 1, he is a good man--he may be a good man, I don't know him personally, but when I said ``a good man'' before, I did not mean in terms of his views for this court. He is an extremist. By his own words, he is an ideologue. He does not believe in the progress we have made on the environment.

If the President wishes, as our great process unfolds, to nominate somebody who would cut back a little bit on the environmental laws, or not make decisions that move them forward, that is a fair and legitimate argument. To nominate an ideologue--a self-admitted ideologue who has made it his career to say that anytime the Clean Water Act or Clean Air Act has effect, it often means it is a taking-- is really not what the American people want. My guess is maybe half of the people on this side of the aisle, on the Republican side of the aisle, do not agree with these views at all--in terms of their voting record.

His temperament is poor. He uses inflammatory and derogatory language. That makes sense, in a certain sense--that when you nominate ideologues, they are not dispassionate. They are not going to interpret the law, which is what the Founding Fathers wanted; they are going to make law. I have rejected nominees from the left in my own judicial panel because they are ideologues, too, and they want to make law. We want judges to interpret the law. Those far right and those far left tend to want to make law. On temperament and ideological grounds, he is not the right man for the job.

One other argument to boot. Even if you think he is the right person for the job--and I argue, I plead with you to think otherwise--this court has no caseload. This court could handle many more cases without an additional new judge. This is a total boondoggle. This is a waste of the taxpayers' money. If it was right that this court did not have the caseload under the Clinton administration so we would fill the vacancies, with the caseload even lower today, why are we doing that?

I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote no on Victor Wolski.

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

I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. President, before my colleague speaks, I didn't realize when I yielded all the time, there was at least one other of my colleagues who wanted to speak on Mr. Wolski. Could we, if he should come, just leave 5 minutes to continue the debate? I just reserve 5 minutes of the time to discuss the Wolski nomination, and I will yield the remainder--whatever is left after reserving those 5 minutes--to my colleague who I know wants to speak on both issues.

Mr. President, as I understand it, I have 10 minutes.

I designate myself as the Democrat to control those 10 minutes.

I am happy to yield 2 of those 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada, and I will then take the next 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask that I be given 4 minutes of the remaining 8 and the Senator from Illinois be given 4.

Mr. President, I want to repeat the arguments against Mr. Wolski. Something new has happened since I spoke an hour ago. The AFL-CIO has come out against him, which is understandable, because of his ideology.

Mr. Wolski should be defeated for two reasons. First, he is an ideolog. This important court, when it comes to the environment, does not deal with much else we would care about, other than just claims issues, and we should not have somebody who is a self-described ideolog. Let me repeat that Victor Wolski, in his own words, said every single job he has taken since college has been ideologically oriented, trying to further his principles, which he describes as a libertarian belief in property rights and limited government.

I do not think the Founding Fathers intended judges to be ideologs. That is why they have us advise and consent, so that if a President, as this President does, sees judges through an ideological prism and does not nominate moderates--I do not like judges far right or far left-- when he nominates them, we can be the check. We have used that power judiciously. We have defeated or filibustered only two of the 134 nominees the President has made.

This man deserves to be defeated. He is an ideolog, way over. If my colleagues believe we have made advances in clean water and clean air, his theory is that any type of environmental law is a taking, which denies the compact on which we all live: That if someone lives upstream on a river from somebody else, they do not have the right to dirty that river and foul the water of the person who lives downstream. If someone lives 100 miles east and they own a factory where the winds blow in that direction, they do not have a right to spew SO2 and NO2 in the air and foul the lungs of people who live downwind.

Mr. Wolski does not believe in that. He says if someone has the money and can build the plant, go build it. That is the core of his beliefs in terms of takings. So he is an ideolog. He does not have the temperament for the bench, as mentioned. He said that Members of Congress were, and this is his word, bums. If he does not like us, he has a right to denounce us, but that is not the kind of word of a person we want to see as a judge.

Just as importantly, whatever one's views on Wolski, this is a boondoggle, a waste of money. The average number of cases a court of appeals judge handles is 355. The Court of Federal Claims handles 24. If we add these judges, it will go down to 19--a million-dollar boondoggle.

The Washington Post, in an editorial, called it the ``Court of Extravagance.'' When President Clinton was President, Members of the other side refused to fill these vacancies, stating there were too few cases and too small a workload. Well, the workload is even smaller and we are nominating four judges. We do not have money for all of what we are talking about--prescription drugs health care, education--and we are doing this. It is wrong. It is hypocritical of those who have said in the past that this court should not be filled, because it has such a low caseload, to fill it now.

I urge Mr. Wolski's nomination be defeated.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for about 15 minutes on an upcoming judicial nomination.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator how long he intends to speak.

I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Nevada finishes his remarks, I be recognized for 15 minutes on the nomination of Mr. Wolski on which we will vote at 11:45 a.m.

Mr. President, are you saying there is no time between now and 11:30 a.m.?

I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside pending amendments and call up amendment No. 1040.

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

Madam President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and my colleague from Pennsylvania, as the lead sponsors of this amendment. I also ask Senators Corzine, Clinton, Lautenberg, and Kerry be added as cosponsors who support what we are doing here.

Madam President, Senator Santorum has summed this up very well. We have a large number of senior citizens who have opted into a Medicare+Choice Program. The Medicare+Choice Program has been an experiment. Basically it said, let's let some providers, in this case HMOs, provide Medicare for senior citizens so they have an option to go into it.

What most of these programs have done, frankly, is they made a sort of deal with senior citizens. They say you have to go to the doctors and hospitals that are a part of our plan. In that way, we will reduce costs. Then we can provide prescription drug coverage or other types of coverage for you. It has been quite popular in a good number of places, in my State as well as many other States.

This program has had some trouble, there is no question about it. The reason is the cost of prescription drugs has gone way up. Health care costs have gone way up. As a result, many have pulled out of Medicare+Choice. Many seniors--not all but most of the seniors I know-- went into it so they could get some prescription drug coverage.

I agree completely with Senator Santorum. We are, in 2006, going to provide all kinds of different help to private providers who will provide either prescription drug coverage or a whole Medicare+Choice- type situation. But it absolutely makes no sense to let these programs go under, which they will because there is not enough money for them now, in 2004, 2005, until 2006 funding kicks in, and then whole new infrastructures would have to be set up.

In addition, the premiums have gotten so high because the costs have gotten high and we have been unable to put in the money that many of those providing Medicare+Choice have either pulled out entirely of large regions in this country or so many have pulled out there is not the competition we would like to see.

In Suffolk County, in my area, I think it is 80,000 senior citizens who were in Medicare+Choice; but where there were once 6 providers, there are now only 2.

In addition, and really galling to the seniors, with good reason--I completely agree with them--the premiums, the copayments on these programs have been large. They once were $10 or $20 or $30. Now, particularly in suburban areas, they are $140 to $170 a month. In fact, many of my constituents, with justification, cannot understand why Medicare+Choice is available in some areas with no copayments and no premiums, and in others the premium is so high that if you are a typical senior citizen on a fixed income, you can't afford it.

Our proposal does two things--and, again, Senator Santorum is exactly correct. No. 1, it provides the money so these programs can stay in effect until 2006. Once we get to 2006, they are taken care of because of the structure of this bill. But to have them collapse makes no sense.

Second, it provides some equity. Because costs are higher, for instance, in Suffolk and Nassau Counties, they should not be treated the same and given the same dollars as New York City.

Who is paying the higher costs in the end? The senior citizen who is having the same kind of expenses as a senior citizen in New York City.

We add just the formula and make it more flexible so high-cost areas get some reimbursement. This is a problem in the suburbs of New York, in the suburbs of Philadelphia, in the suburbs of Texas and California. It tends to be a suburban problem.

But make no mistake about it: Many of the senior citizens who live in these suburban communities are not wealthy. They are not middle class. They are struggling. They are on a fixed income. Medicare+Choice originally was a salvation to them. Now it is becoming a real burden.

I would add, I do not believe this is the fault of the HMOs providing the service. It is the Federal Government that has not put in enough money to make these things viable. We have corrected this in this proposal, but only in 2006, when it takes effect. Again, it makes no sense, no sense whatsoever, to let these HMOs that do Medicare+Choice fold and then have to start up again.

So this is an important amendment. Unfortunately, we cannot bring it to a vote because in the rules of the Senate, we would have to get 60 votes to adopt this, and that is too uphill a burden. But the good news is, it is in the House bill which has different rules.

I know Senator Santorum, as well as all my cosponsors, joins me in saying we want this program to be put in the final bill when it comes out of conference committee. We know there will be the kind of dollars that might be available, and this is an extremely high priority.

So I am offering this amendment to underscore that importance, to let our diligent leaders of the Finance Committee--Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus--know how important it is to a good number of us, and to make sure it has its place at the table when the conference committee occurs.

I just want to make a few more points about Medicare+Choice Programs. These do not benefit well-to-do people. Let me give you some numbers. Among Medicare beneficiaries who have annual incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 and who do not have Medicaid or group health coverage, 40 percent are in Medicare+Choice. These are the very people who cannot afford the high cost of prescription medicines.

Medicare+Choice, when it came in, was a godsend to them. And I, for one, am on this side of the aisle, but I do not let any ideological blinders get in my way. If Medicare+Choice, a private program, is going to solve their problem, great, but let's provide it with the funds, particularly in more suburban, high-cost areas so it can actually work.

Here is another statistic. In addition, 52 percent of Hispanic and 40 percent of African-American Medicare beneficiaries who do not have Medicaid or group health depend on Medicare+Choice. So this is an area that affects typical Americans: hard-working retirees, who have not made a windfall, who made a decent living just by the sweat of their brow, and now they are retired and are on a fixed income, they need some kind of help that goes beyond Medicare because they have a large prescription drug bill or they need something else. Medicare+Choice becomes a health care safety net.

Again, it would be a shame if we did nothing. If we did not have this bill,

most of the Medicare+Choice Programs would have faded away or made the premiums so high they would be out of the reach of all but very comfortable people. This amendment provides the bridge between now and 2006 when we know this will work.

I know there are many Senators who are enthusiastically for this approach. I want to add that Senator Kerry, who could not be here today, wanted me to let my colleagues know how enthusiastic a supporter he is.

I hope we will work this out in the conference because it is one of the most important things that are not in this bill, once you overcome the basic disagreement we have of Medicare versus private.

Amendment No. 1040 Withdrawn

So I am going to withdraw the amendment because, again, we do not want to put ourselves, because of the Senate rules, under a burden of having to get much more than a majority, a 60-percent vote. We have hope because it is in the House bill. We are going to work hard in conference to see that it is kept in the conference agreement. But at this point, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment on behalf of Senator Santorum, myself, and the other cosponsors.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I cleared this with the Democratic manager. I ask unanimous consent that I control the time under the control of the Democratic manager.

Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank my colleagues and my friend, the Senator from Arizona, who is just walking off the floor. He and I got involved in this issue a couple of years ago when we saw the abuses that occurred. He has been simply a pleasure to work with--right on the money, focused on getting the job done for consumers, and not being deterred by interest groups on one side pushing him one way or by others questioning him on this or that. I thank him.

I also thank my partner in this endeavor, Senator Gregg of New Hampshire. Early on this year, he came over to Senator McCain and me and said: Why can't we work this out? He agrees with the principles in the bill that we put together, but he had some very positive and constructive suggestions. I mean this as a complete compliment, having spent 7 years there. Without his New England style leadership-- understated, to the point, courageous, forthright--this bill would not have gotten as far as it did. I thank him for his leadership. I would say that New England leadership is tempered by having spent a few years in higher education in the great city of New York as well.

Finally, I thank my good friend and our great leader in this Senate, a Senator I have been privileged to know and who again has been invaluable in bringing this bill to the floor. The original Schumer- McCain bill would not have gotten the push that it did if the Senator from Massachusetts had not steered it through the shoals of the health committee when he was chair, and again he and his staff have just been of constant, invaluable assistance in making this happen. I thank him for that.

The concept of this bill is simple. It is clear that we know we have these miracle drugs. They are wonderful drugs. The people who invent them in the pharmaceutical industry, I know many have had harsh words for on occasion, and I am not the least of those. But they do a very good thing. They come up with new, wonderful drugs that keep people living longer and living healthier.

One of the reasons that my parents--praise God--just last week turned 80 and 75--our whole family got together and celebrated their birthdays in Connecticut--is the fact that these drugs are available. I think every family can recount the stories.

The careful balance we seek to reinstate here says we want to see innovation continue. We want to see a fair and reasonable rate of return made. We want to realize that for every 1 successful drug, there may be 20 or 50 or even 100 failures. There has to be an economic viability there. We want that to happen.

I think most of us agree that the Hatch-Waxman bill--I thank my friend from Utah, who I think is over at the Judiciary Committee trying to work out another grand compromise, this time on asbestos, understood that.

But here is what has happened over the last several years. This is where I fault the drug companies despite the goodness of the products they come up with. A lot of blockbuster drugs were on the market. Their patents were about to expire. The drug industry, accustomed to the high rate of return they have had, came to the conclusion that they had to do everything they could, they had to pull out all the stops to extend their monopolies. They came up with wild and crazy schemes to do it, such as patenting the substance the body makes when the drug is ingested; developing computer programs and listing the patents on the drug; and, in one case, absurdly, a new patent was asked for because the color of the bottle was changed.

That was never the concept of Hatch-Waxman. We found that the pharmaceutical industry, instead of spending all its time developing new drugs, was developing new patents. They seemed to care more about hiring good lawyers than good chemists, scientists, and doctors.

Let me give you one example of what happened. Paxil, a $2.1 billion drug used to treat obsessive compulsive disorders, has been in litigation since 1998. After the lawsuit began and the first 30-month stay was triggered, the brand, Glaxo, listed nine additional patents on the drug, triggering five additional 30-month stays.

Well, over the past 4 years, there have been court decisions on four of those patents. The patent which began this litigation was found not to be infringed by the generic, and three others were found invalid. But the 30-month stays are still going on and on and on, costing consumers $3 billion. The same drug, with its same miracle qualities, would have been available for $3 billion less altogether had these frivolous and unnecessary patents not been filed. Well, this story could be repeated and has been repeated.

Why is this a great day for consumers? Because the cost of the generic drug is so much less than the cost of the brand-name drug. And that generic drug should be allowed to come on to the market without frivolous patents, lawsuits, and legal mumbo jumbo preventing that from happening.

We want a rate of return to be made by the drug company, but we do not want to allow them to do what they have been doing, with increasing frequency: playing games, perverting the law, and costing consumers billions of dollars because the lower-priced generic drug is delayed from coming on the market by frivolous patents.

Let me give you some examples in my State:

In Buffalo, Allegra, a great drug for allergies: The brand cost for 30 pills is $84.56; if a generic were available, it would cost about $32.98.

In New York City, Prevacid, to treat acid reflux: The brand cost is $154.28; the generic would cost $60.17.

In Rochester, Celebrex, a great drug for arthritis: The brand cost is $108.29; the generic would cost $42.23.

In Rochester, Lipitor, a wonder drug for cholesterol; I think it is now the largest selling drug in the world: The brand cost is $77.73; the generic would cost $30.32.

And finally, in Syracuse, Norvasc, for angina and hypertension: The brand cost is $54.37; the generic would cost $21.20.

The bottom line is: When 30 pills cost you $100 for the brand-name drug, it will cost you $25 or $30 for the generic--for the exact same medication.

What our proposal does is encourages robust competition by allowing the generic to come on to the market in its fair time. It restores the balance of Hatch-Waxman. It does it in a way without frivolous lawsuits. It does it in a way that gives everybody notice. But what it says is, the recent trend to extend the patent monopolies long beyond what anyone thought they should be will be stopped.

So this is a fair compromise. It is a compromise that helps consumers. It was estimated that the original McCain-Schumer--bill I don't see why it should be too much different in this new bill that Senator Gregg and myself, with Senator McCain and Senator Kennedy, have sponsored, other than some changes due to the baseline--would have saved American consumers $60 billion over 10 years. It was estimated our bill would have saved $18 billion in the Democratic Medicare package on the floor last year.

In the same way, the bill before us today will save companies, that are struggling to pay for health care, hundreds of millions of dollars. That is why it has such a big and broad coalition behind it. And not just consumers and consumer groups, but industry groups, companies such as General Motors, the insurance industry--which I am often at odds with when it comes to health care issues--are fully on our side. There is a broad consensus of support.

It is my hope the House will pass this bill. It is my hope the President of the United States will support this bill and sign it. And it is my hope--my sincere hope--the drug companies will see the error of their ways and, instead of spending so much time on extending patent monopolies, they will, rather, spend that time creating new drugs. They will spend their time not innovating new patents but, rather, innovating new drugs. That is what this is all about.

One final point. Some might say, well, the FDA is doing some of this, anyway. I am glad they are, but as this chart shows, the FDA only goes about a third of the way in doing what is needed in this fair and balanced bipartisan compromise. In fact, when the FDA actually talked about closing these loopholes, it was made clear that legislation would be needed to finish the job.

Mr. President, in conclusion, this legislation finishes the job. It allows generics to come on the market. It will save consumers, American companies, and our Government billions of dollars and increase the quality of health care--the good health and vitality--of the American people.

Mr. President, I do not see Senator Gregg on the floor, so let me yield 10 minutes to my colleague and partner in this 2-year attempt to bring balance back into the area between brand and generic drugs. He is one of our great leaders in the Senate on health care and so many other issues, the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from Vermont and my colleague from New York in supporting the nomination of Judge Wesley.

I rise in enthusiastic support of Richard Wesley's nomination to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Like most of the nominees we see, Judge Wesley has a top-flight legal mind and experience. He graduated from SUNY-Albany summa cum laude

and from Cornell Law School. He worked in private practice for several years, worked as a staffer to the minority leader of the New York State Assembly, and from 1983 to 1987, represented the 136th District in the assembly.

That was just after I left the assembly, so I never had the privilege of actually serving with him, but my former colleagues in the assembly, many of whom disagreed on policy with Judge Wesley, all have spoken very highly of both his capabilities and his integrity.

Judge Wesley has served on the State trial court in New York, the intermediate appellate court, and for the past 6 years on New York's highest court, the court of appeals. He has the distinction of being appointed to the bench by both Governor Cuomo and Governor Pataki. Clearly there is a serious history of bipartisan support.

His nomination has been examined by his good friend and my friend Congressman Reynolds, as well as by Bill Paxon. They have known him for a very long time and vouch for him as well. I do not think Judge Wesley would have gotten where he did without the push from Tom Reynolds, and I think we all appreciate it because we are adding a qualified person to the bench.

There is no question Judge Wesley is well-qualified, but as my colleagues know, legal excellence is only one of the three criteria I use when evaluating judicial nominees. I also look at diversity and moderation.

Judge Wesley is the third Second Circuit judge we have considered under the Bush administration.

Judge Barrington Parker, who we confirmed in 2001, is African- American, and Judge Reena Raggi, who we confirmed in 2002, is a woman. So we are doing quite well on diversity when it comes to recent nominations to that court.

Our experience with the Second Circuit on excellence and diversity is similar to our experience with the President's nominations to the other circuit courts. By and large, he has done a good job bringing us well- qualified nominees who are not exclusively white males.

It is on that third prong, moderation, where we have had some problems. I am pleased to say that Judge Wesley fits quite well with Judge Parker and Judge Raggi as being well within the mainstream.

I would like to read what Judge Wesley said about his own judicial philosophy:

I consider myself a conservative in nature, pragmatic at

the same time, with a fair appreciation of judicial

restraint. I have always restricted myself to what I

understand to be the plain language of the statue and not

gone beyond that [because] public policy is made by the

legislature.

That is an honest and candid assessment of how Judge Wesley judges.

It is not just words. We have had nominees who have come before us and said that, but this is what he has done because he has a record. He has had 16 years on the bench to back it up. We know Judge Wesley has certain positions in which he personally believes. He has an ideology. That is clear from several of the votes he took in the assembly. For instance, in the assembly he voted the pro-life point of view. That is different from mine. And, of course, I do not have a litmus test. Most of us do not.

What is abundantly clear from his record on the bench is that he can check his personal beliefs at the door and judge fairly and honestly.

Unlike, some of the nominees we have seen, including Bill Pryor, the Fifth Circuit nominee whose contentious hearing is going on in the Judiciary Committee as we speak, there is nothing controversial about Judge Wesley.

He is best known for his thoughtful, scholarly approach that unites judges behind unanimous opinions.

He is truly a uniter, not a divider. He is a judge, not an activist. He will be a credit to New York, to the Second Circuit, and to the Senate when we confirm him.

It would be my wish that this would be the character of the President's nominees. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from Judge Wesley's hometown paper, the Rochester D&C, Democrat and Chronicle, be printed in the Record. It says: ``Bipartisan Support?'' And then it says:

If only more judicial nominees would go as smoothly as this

one.

Well, I wish that would happen.

It will happen if the President truly consults with us and nominates judges in the mold of Judge Wesley, clearly conservative but also clearly within the mainstream. It would be my hope that we would not have 51 votes for many of the nominees but 100 for most all of the nominees, or close to it. If this President should decide to treat the nominees and the rest of the country the way he is treating nominees in the Second Circuit, that is what would happen. That is my hope. That is my prayer.

I urge every one of my colleagues to vote for this fine addition to the bench. We are all proud of him in New York State, and he will make a great addition to the Second Circuit.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in remembering the Israeli soldiers captured by the Syrians during the 1982 Israeli war with Lebanon. It is with great sadness that we mark today 21 long years of anguish for their families, who continue to desperately seek information about their sons.

On June 11, 1982, an Israeli unit battled with a Syrian armored unit in the Bekaa Valley in northeastern Lebanon. Sergeant Zachary Baumel, First Sergeant Zvi Feldman, and Corporal Yehudah Katz were captured by the

Syrians that day. They were identified as an Israeli tank crew, and reported missing in Damascus. the Israeli tank, flying the Syrian and Palestinian flag, was greeted with cheers from bystanders.

Since that terrible day in 1982, the governments of Israel and the United States have been doing their utmost by working with the office of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations, and other international bodies to obtain any possible information about the fate of the missing soldiers. According to the Geneva Convention, Syria is responsible for the fates of the Israeli soldiers because the area in Lebanon where the soldiers disappeared was continually controlled by Syria. To this day, despite promises made by the government of Syria and by the Palestinians, very little information has been released about the condition of Zachary Baumel, Zvi Feldman, and Yehudah Katz.

Today marks the anniversary of the day that these soldier were reported missing in action. Twenty-one pain-filled years have passed since their families have seen their sons, and still Syria has not revealed their whereabouts nor provided any information as to their condition.

One of these missing soldiers, Zachary Baumel, is an American citizen from my home of Brooklyn, NY. An ardent basketball fan, Zachary began his studies at the Hebrew School in Boro Park. In 1979, he moved to Israel with other family members and continued his education at Yeshivat Hesder, where religious studies are integrated with army service. When the war with Lebanon began, Zachary was completing his military service and was looking forward to attending Hebrew University, where he had been accepted to study psychology. but fate decreed otherwise and on June 11, 1982, he disappeared with Zvi Feldman and Yehudah Katz.

During the 106th Congress, I cosponsored and helped to pass Public Law 106-89, which specifies that the State Department must raise the plight of these missing soldiers in all relevant discussions and report findings to Congress regarding the development in the Middle East. We need to know that every avenue has been pursued in order to help bring about the speedy return of these young men. Therefore, I strongly feel that we must be sure to continue the full implementation of Public Law 106-89, so that information about these men can be brought to light.

Zachary's parents Yonah and Miriam Baumel have been relentless in their pursuit of information about Zachary and his compatriots. I have worked closely with the Baumels, as well as the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the American Coalition of Missing Israeli Soldiers, and the MIA Task Force of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. These groups have been at the forefront of this pursuit of justice. I want to recognize their good work and ask my colleagues to join me in supporting their efforts. For two decades these families have been without their children. Answers are long overdue.

The agony of the families of these kidnapped Israeli soldiers is extreme. They have not heard a word regarding the fate of their sons. I believe that we must pledge to do our utmost to obtain information about these soldiers and to bring them home, for the sake of peace, decency and humanity.

I have an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Clinton be added as a cosponsor.

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

Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would modify the renewable fuels provision of this amendment and limit it to Petroleum Administration Defense Districts II and III where corn and ethanol are most naturally available.

The objection that those of us from the coasts and the Rocky Mountain areas have with this amendment is very simple. While corn is plentiful in the Middle West, as this chart shows, and ethanol will be a good additive for gasoline in terms of cleaner air, in terms of oxidation, it will not work on the coasts. First, we do not have the corn available. It has to be shipped. It has to be made into ethanol and then shipped. Since ethanol is combustible, shipping is expensive. It will raise prices for us. We do not know how much. There is a dispute. But when there is a better way to do it that will not raise any gasoline prices, there is no reason we should not be for this.

So this amendment would basically be very simple. It would say that PADDs II and III, the corn-growing areas of the country which produce most of the ethanol, would, indeed, still have the mandate before them, but it would allow PADDs I and IV and V to be exempt.

This body has no reason not to exempt. We have already exempted Alaska and Hawaii because they are far away. The issue is not the amount of water or land that must be traversed; it is how far the ethanol has to be transported, and it has to be transported quite a long distance to get to these other areas.

So I join with my colleague, Senator Clinton, to offer this amendment and to say the main reason we are against this is very simple: There are cheaper ways to do this. This will raise the price of gasoline, and it will be an unfair burden, an unfair tax, on many of the people who live in the two coastal areas of this country and in the Rocky Mountain States.

Every one of my colleagues from the PADD IV, PADD V, and PADD I areas are not representing their constituents unless they vote for this amendment because the benefit for the few corn growers in our area will be far exceeded by the detriment to every driver in the area in terms of increased gasoline prices.

Some say it will not raise prices much. Most of the studies are admittedly divided on that, but there is too much evidence that says they will. If there is a better way to do it that does not require a mandate, why not? I say to my free market colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is very hypocritical to be for the free market except when it benefits a product in their State. To force ethanol on areas that could do it better in other ways is not free market.

Ethanol is already subsidized dramatically. I have supported money for our corn growers, even though we have very few in New York. But if we are going to do it, it ought to come out of the Treasury, not out of the pockets of drivers throughout the Nation. We are going to be making a major mistake. We will come back 3, 4, 5 years from now, if we pass the Frist-Daschle amendment, and we will regret it.

Remember the catastrophic tax? This is the same type of thing. I do not want any of my colleagues to say they did not know, because we are giving them warning loudly and clearly that the chances that this will raise gasoline prices significantly are too high to risk it, particularly when there are other ways to require the clean burning of fuels other than ethanol.

So for my colleague from Tennessee and for my colleague from South Dakota, who are both fine people, we are not exempting their areas. If they want to do it there, that is fine. It is not going to cost them much. It will help their corn growers and not cost their drivers much. But for all the people on the east coast, the west coast, and the Rocky Mountain States, this makes a huge difference.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I conclude, first, one difference with this amendment--it has the support of the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which the others did not. Second, it affects all of the coastal States, not just one or two.

On the other amendments there was a general opt-out. Those who advocate ethanol would say every State could opt out and we would not have an ethanol program. Here, the main States that care about it in PADDs II and III, half of the States in the country or less, would not be allowed to opt out. It would be cheaper for them.

I say to my good friend, ``mischief''? We are creating mischief with this amendment? My goodness, the amendment my good friend the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is creating affecting the drivers in more than half the country is enormous, all to help the corn growers and to help the ethanol industry. That is the kind of mischief that people do not like about Washington.

They are saying, you are telling me, Mr. John Q. Smith of New York, Miss Mary E. Jones of Oregon, Miss Young Teenager who just learned to drive from Denver, CO, they must use ethanol even if it costs more.

I see my good friend from Pennsylvania, one of the great upholders of free market principles--except when it comes to steel and corn.

Let's be realistic here.

I retract my remarks. I should not have assumed the worst.

I say to my friend from New Mexico who also upholds free market principles that this is not a free market bill. This is the opposite. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page has come out against this proposal.

Can't we form a nice little coalition of the States poorly affected, the States that are hurt by this, plus all those who believe in the great free market, like my good friend from Pennsylvania on the issue of corn?

Reclaiming my time, I simply say to my friend from New Mexico, the underlying is so bad and so egregious it is worth trying and trying again.

You know the old song: what made you think that ram could punch a hole in the dam? Everyone knows a ram can't punch a hole in the dam, but he had high hopes. He had high hopes, high, apple pie-in-the-sky hopes.

That is what we have here. We know if we persist, because we are right, we can do it, just like the ad, that could not move a banana tree plant in the same aforementioned song.

We are going to keep trying. We know it is an uphill fight. We do not think that is because we are wrong. We think that is because there is a lot of power on the other side. I guess our lack of strength and votes thus far is somewhat made up for in the passion we felt about this issue in these amendments.

If my colleague would like to conclude, I yield him whatever time remains.

I ask the President if I have.

In deference to my good friend from New Mexico, and in hopes that he will see the error of his ways, I yield back those 54 seconds.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my detailee, James Flood, be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of debate on S. 14.