Floor Statements

Mr. President, before the Senator from Arkansas leaves-- I know she has a meeting for her children--I want to add my accolades to that of my friends from Nevada and California. She has done a good deed. The Bible says: The best thing to do is do a good deed for those who are in need. She has done that, not only tonight but by her efforts in the Finance Committee and on the floor of the Senate because the children her amendment is aimed at are the ones who most need our help. So I know she has to attend to her own children. I thank her. All of America owes the Senator from Arkansas a debt of gratitude.

Mr. President, I am in full accord with what was said before about bringing this amendment to the floor. I do not like class warfare arguments. And I certainly believe there are certain tax cuts for people regardless of their income that stimulate the economy. I thought a tax cut was appropriate. But what really burns me is this idea that is circulating now that the people left out of the tax bill do not pay income taxes and, therefore, they are not entitled to a tax cut.

When you look at the working class, the people earning $10,000 to $26,000, they pay a much higher percentage of taxes than we do. They pay tax on gasoline. They pay a payroll tax. They pay property taxes, if they own a home. They pay the property tax in a passthrough when the home is rented. And their percentage is much higher than anybody else's.

If you want to talk about class warfare, look at this Wall Street Journal editorial today, ``Even Luckier Duckies,'' talking about these people who don't pay income taxes.

America, who would you rather be, a family with $22,000, paying no income tax--but paying a payroll tax, paying a sales tax, paying tax on gasoline--or somebody worth $1 million, God bless them, who pays $150,000 or $70,000 or $100,000, or whatever they pay in income tax? Give us a break. Who is doing class warfare? Who? I would say this editorial is class warfare. It is misleading as well.

``Luckier Duckies''? Well, if you want to define the world just by income taxes, you can. But ask any American--not just those making $10,000 to $26,000--ask any American making $60,000 or $70,000--at least from New York State--what is the tax they hate the most. It is not the income tax. It is not even the sales tax. It is the property tax. Do we define those people as well off because they pay little in income tax? Absolutely not. When a green dollar goes out of your hands for a tax, it is a green dollar, and it can buy food and it can pay rent and it does not matter if it is an income tax or a sales tax or a payroll tax. And, of course, the payroll tax is a Federal tax.

So this is not fair. This argument that these folks pay no taxes is bogus. The argument that they pay no Federal taxes, if they are working, is bogus. The idea that they escape the system scot-free while all the other wealthier people are struggling hard and paying money into the Treasury is bogus. They generally pay, as has been said before, a greater percentage of their income as taxes than more well- to-do people.

I read an article the other day in the New York Times. It wasn't about Federal taxes, but it took one census tract in Southern Queens in Ozone Park. It was an average census tract. I read about a family. They were talking about how tax increases in New York City--property tax increases, the increase in subway fare, which is not a tax increase but has the same effect--and the family was making, I believe it was $34,000. The mother worked in a beauty parlor and the father was a janitor at the library, and they had been saving $5 a week, I think it was, to have a party for their child's communion.

They kept an envelope, and every week Mom put the $5 in. And she started several years before because she knew the date of her child's communion and she wanted to have enough money to have a party for the whole family.

And now, because of these tax increases, because of the increase in the subway fare, and because of a rent increase on the block--and another family who was struggling was told by their landlord he would have to increase the rent because the property tax increased--there would be no party for the young child. It touched me. I wish every one of my colleagues could read that story.

This idea that people making $15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 are ``Lucky Ducks,'' that is so unfair. It is not right. I would argue that is class warfare. And there are many people in America who are struggling and working hard. A lot of the people in the New York Times article I am talking about are immigrants. There is a very mixed group on those few blocks and around 101st Avenue in Ozone Park, NY. And every one of our families probably came here poor as church mice. Mine did. And every generation that starts here in America struggles. Mine did. And probably yours did too, Mr. President, at some point in the past.

No one is saying they are oppressed or beleaguered. They are fine people. They are the people who have made this country strong, along with so many others. But to say they are in great shape in terms of the Federal tax law, given the payroll tax they pay, to say they are in great shape, despite all the other taxes they pay--sales tax and property taxes, whether they own their property, or if not, the passthroughs--is just not fair. It is not right. It is not the best of America.

And I am not surprised this Chamber is empty. I am not surprised, during the course of this whole debate, not a single Senator from the other side, with the exception of you, Mr. President, who might have been here not quite by choice----

I am happy to yield to my colleague.

Eighteen years.

It is true.

I was not aware of it. I am glad my friend from Nevada has brought it to my attention. It is what I was talking about. It is so unfair to say there were other things more important in the bill than helping struggling families. Before my friend from Nevada came in, I was talking about an article in the New York Times about working families, about the income level we are talking about, and how one family had been saving $5 in an envelope every week so that their son might have a party at his holy communion for all his friends and family. And now they can't save that $5 anymore because taxes are going up and the costs are going up. To say that family is not struggling is amazing.

I also am interested to hear my colleague say that there were other things in the bill more important. If I heard him correctly, it seemed to me that the majority leader is not going to want to change this. Did he say that as well?

I agree with my colleague. What is the purpose of saying they are doing OK because they don't pay income taxes, when they are paying 7.5 percent of their check into the payroll tax? That is something most Americans support, but they are sure paying a lot. Right then and there, when you have a $15,000-a-year job, and 7.5 percent comes out for the payroll tax, that is food off the table. That is not going without the second vacation or buying some special gift for your wife, that is food off the table.

When you pay that dollar to the Federal Government, to the State government, to the local government, do you think most Americans say it doesn't count because it is not an income tax? It doesn't count to pay property taxes? It doesn't count to pay sales taxes? It doesn't count to pay excise taxes?

That is the kind of logic that is what I call outcome determinative. You look at what you want to do: Help the wealthier classes for whatever reason. And then you come up with the argument that income tax is the only tax that counts.

I wonder if my friend saw this editorial in the Wall Street Journal, ``Even Luckier Duckies.'' Basically, it says this tax bill has made a lot of people very lucky because they won't have to pay income tax. And I asked my colleagues who were not here, how lucky do they think someone making $20,000 a year is compared to somebody making $200,000 or $2 million? Who would trade places? Who of those who make $200,000 or $2 million would trade places with the person who is making $20,000 so they could be a lucky duck and not pay income tax? Give me a break.

This is not America. This is not the generosity of spirit that this country has always shown. This is not the fairness that this country has shown. As I mentioned earlier, I don't like the class warfare arguments. I have supported tax cuts on individuals with some money to stimulate growth in the past and will continue to in the future. But to make it seem as the majority leader did, as did the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which often reflects the majority leader's view, that someone making $20,000 is lucky because they don't pay income tax, and someone making $1 million is unlucky because they pay significant income tax, that is turning logic, fairness, goodness of spirit, and having a good soul on its head.

I am happy to yield to my colleague.

I have indeed.

I have indeed.

The likelihood is much greater than somebody who is given the money who has a large income.

People have said I am aware of that.

I doubt it. Forget the raising of the money. I worry that they don't sit down and talk to somebody who is making that amount of money, ever. Yes, you may shake hands at a county fair. But how about sitting in a living room and talking to the family who is making $27,000 and has dreams for their children and is struggling to do the best for their kids and can't make ends meet? Again, that story about the communion touched me. But there was another one in that New York Times, an article about a family, a husband, wife, and two kids who were going to have to move out of the house they always lived in because their landlord got an 18-percent increase in property tax and he didn't want to pass it on. They were friends. It is a two-family house in a neighborhood in Queens. He didn't want to pass the property tax on as a raise in the rent for the people in the apartment. He had no choice because he couldn't make ends meet. He was not well off either.

Here is a family--they probably don't pay much, if any, income tax; I don't remember exactly what their income was, probably in the $30,000 range--who is going to have to move. They don't know where to find a place to live. The kids will have to be uprooted and go to a different school. Who in this Chamber would not choose to help that family out a little bit? I mean, create jobs? I have to tell you, a lot of these families have jobs. They had jobs. The hard-working sort of bottom-of- the-ladder jobs that they are starting out at. But not to give them a little break for their children because there is no room in the Tax Code and it is loaded with things for other people? Where are our values? Where are our priorities?

I wish every single person on both sides of the aisle would just go to three homes of someone making between $10,000 and $26,000 a year.

Spend a half hour with them and talk about their struggle and then come back and say we could not reduce the top rate by a little bit less.

I thank my colleague from Nevada for his questions. I think he hit the nail on the head. I am just saddened by this. If it were truly just a mistake,

then we would not have heard the language statement issued by Tom DeLay, the majority leader in the other body; if it were just a mistake, we would not have pulled an amendment that a lot of people care about--I am glad it was pulled, myself, because I am not for it-- but it would not have just run off the floor. If it was a mistake, they could say, great, the amendment of the Senator from Arkansas was pulled out at the last minute and we are going to put it back in and show that it was a mistake. But, no. There will be a lot of concerns, and maybe we will get it and maybe we will not. I hope we will.

I am troubled--very troubled--by the fact that we have a view here that those making $20,000, or $25,000, or $15,000 are lucky ducks because they don't pay income tax. That is a view some in this Chamber seem to have taken.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that today's Wall Street Journal editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is a simple amendment. Two years ago, on the last tax bill, we took a historic step in this body. We said part of college tuition should be tax deductible. We required that the first $3,000 be deductible for a family making up to $160,000 a year. This will raise that. It goes up to $4,000 in the next fiscal year under the previous law, and then it expires in 2006. This law would make it permanent and raise the amount to $8,000 initially, next year, and then $12,000 in future years.

It is very simple. It pays for itself, by the way, by reducing the top rate not by three points but by one point. The choice is simple. Middle-class people have an awfully difficult time paying for college. If you are rich, you can afford it. If you are poor, we help you, and we should. But the middle class gets stuck. Families are up late at night worrying about how they are going to pay the tuition bill.

I ask my colleagues, which do they choose? Bring the top rate down but not as quickly and help middle-class families with the second greatest expense they face other than their home, or bring the rate down quickly? It is a simple choice. I hope the body will vote for the middle-class parents who are stuck with these huge tuition bills.

Mr. President, I ask that the point of order be waived, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, I have an amendment that I believe is technical, although important, with no revenues. It was approved by this side and is awaiting approval by the other side. I ask that it be added to the list, and I don't think we will have to debate it. But I can't forgo the opportunity to bring it up.

Madam President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I add my remarks to his. I agree with him completely. I am in full support of the Collins-Rockefeller-Nelson amendment. Our localities and States desperately need aid. It makes no sense to tell John Q. Citizen that he will get a $100 rebate from the Federal Government and then have his State and local taxes rise $100. That does not put money in his pocket and stimulate the economy.

Madam President, $20 billion is a decent sum, half going to FMAP and half to direct aid. I would like to see a little more going to localities. It is 60-40, as I understand it. My original proposal with Senator Collins and Senator Snowe was 50-50. That would be a little fairer because localities need help in property taxes a lot. But this is a good start. I am glad it is in the bill. I hope it will stay in the bill because our localities desperately need aid.

Property taxes are going through the roof, and the best property tax circuit breaker is local aid. I wish it was higher as well, and I am glad that in a few minutes, my colleague from Washington will be offering an amendment that doubles that amount.

The original legislation that Senator Snowe and I introduced was $40 billion. I know my friend from Montana originally proposed $75 billion. Even that would not be enough to do what we need to do. I hope we can raise the amount. Again, States and localities need it.

Cities and counties throughout my State are raising taxes. That is going to put a real damper not only on New York's economy but on America's economy. Local aid prevents some of that from happening.

This is one of the most important provisions in this bill. There are a lot of provisions in the bill that Senator Grassley has proposed with which I agree. There are some with which I disagree. But there is probably none that is more needed, more demanded by the Governors, mayors, county officials, town and village officials than the proposal the Senator from Maine, the Senator from West Virginia, and the Senator from Nebraska have brought before us.

I am going to support it rather enthusiastically, only tempered by the fact that I think it should be more. I hope it can be more. I hope it does not get any lower, I say to my good friend from Iowa, in conference and in other places. He is shaking his head yes, let the record show. I hope he is saying, yes, it should not get lower not, yes, it should get lower.

This is a very important amendment. I will fully support it. I was involved in helping to push this local aid issue. I hope we can increase the amount with the amendment of the Senator from Washington.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I first thank my colleague, Senator Murray, for her sponsorship of this vital amendment. I also want to specifically recognize Senator Grassley, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus, the distinguished ranking member, for their leadership in putting State and local fiscal relief on the agenda. I should also note the bipartisan effort of Senators Collins, Rockefeller, Smith and Nelson which helped establish State aid in the budget debate. Finally, Senator Snowe deserves special recognition for her early and steadfast support of this legislation.

The fiscal crisis in our States and cities is a national problem that requires bipartisan cooperation in the best spirit of the Senate, and I am proud to be working together with my esteemed colleagues.

I support the Murray amendment.

This amendment is critical to New York. It will help thousands of New Yorkers keep their jobs, maintain the State services they rely on, and most importantly avoid the burden of increasing taxes. I cannot state that more clearly--without this legislation the tax burden on citizens in my State will go up. That threatens to undo the very stimulus we all believe is necessary.

As we all know, New York is not alone. States are facing their worst fiscal crisis since World War II. The Governor of New York, George Pataki, stated the situation in all of our States and cities clearly, ``We face a fiscal crisis today of a magnitude that we have not faced in our lifetime.''

According to estimates provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the total budgetary shortfall for all States in fiscal year 2004 was in the range of $80 billion, and an approximate $22 billion gap still remains from fiscal 2003. Many believe these figures remain significantly understated.

Almost every State is running a significant, multi-hundred million dollar deficit. In many States, the figure runs into the multi-billions of dollars. In several States, the deficit's percentage of the total State budget is estimated to be in the range of 25 percent or more. New York State's budget shortfall alone is $12 billion dollars.

The situation at the local level is just as dire. According to the National Association of Counties, nearly 72 percent of counties are facing budget shortfalls, 37 percent are reducing services, and 17 percent are increasing taxes--all at a time when the demand for services and the need for tax cuts is rising given the sour economy.

This is not a regional issue. It is a national crisis.

Unlike the Federal Government, which has seen its fiscal position change from a budgetary surplus in 2000 to a newly estimated deficit of over $300 billion in fiscal 2003, almost every state is required by law to have a balanced budget. To achieve this the only options are to raise taxes and/or cut spending.

State taxes are increasing in three ways. First, state income tax rates are increasing. Second, property tax rates are skyrocketing. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg was forced to raise property taxes over 18 percent to preserve vital services. Third, States are increasing sales taxes, excise taxes, and other fees. As the New York Times recently reported ``at least 15 states have raised taxes, five of them by 5 percent or more.''

This increasing tax burden falls heavily and squarely on the backs of our working families. It will make it harder for them to make ends meet in these already difficult economic times when every dollar counts.

State spending cuts follow 2 years of a deteriorating economic environment and fiscal outlook. During that time, States have cut the fat from their budgets and depleted reserves. They now are cutting muscle. To balance their budgets for fiscal 2004, States are in the process of eliminating thousands of jobs.

In many States, the jobs that will be lost are vital to our communities: policemen, firefighters, teachers, postal workers, and bus drivers. In New York these were the jobs of the everyday heroes that we celebrated after the tragedies of September 11.

States also are eliminating many critical programs and reducing funds available for those programs that remain.

Among the most vulnerable targets are those services that working families rely on, such as childcare and elementary and secondary education. Without funds, school improvements will not be made. Libraries will not be upgraded. Staff will be cut. Class sizes will dramatically increase.

All of this is happening today. As one school superintendent stated, ``It is the worst thing that has happened in my thirty years in public education.''

This comes at a time when, as a nation, we are striving to raise our children's test scores and improve overall school performance. In addition, in many states the cost of higher education is increasing. Tuition at some State colleges and universities has been raised over 20 percent. Also vulnerable are programs that help those most in need during difficult times.

States now bear the responsibility for numerous programs and services that provide the safety net that our citizens rely on. For example, as we know well, states fund a large percentage of the cost of Medicaid. During the current fiscal crisis, according to the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, Medicaid programs have been cut substantially. This will place an enormous burden on our society. States clearly need funding to pay for Medicaid.

In addition, programs such as job-training, housing subsidies, and other services for lower-income citizens are at risk.

Most importantly, states now face extraordinary demands to provide the protection citizens require in the new post-9/11 world. They face increased responsibilities to patrol ports, bridges and tunnels, to train emergency response personnel, and to put in place the infrastructure to protect their citizens.

In the current world, with threats on our home soil at high levels, and on the brink of a war with a nation accused of sponsoring international terrorism, we cannot abandon our States and cities. We must give them the funds they need to protect our citizens.

The solution is to provide direct Federal aid to the States and localities within the budget. We have had bipartisan agreement to provide $20 billion in direct Federal aid to the States and

localities on a one-time basis. I commend Senator Grassley for his leadership in getting this done. It is a very good start, but it not enough.

I have heard some argue that state aid is not good economic policy, but numerous reports indicate that a very large number of economists believe that aid to the States is, in fact, an extremely effective means of providing fiscal stimulus, as it quickly puts money in the hands of people who need it and will spend it.

State and local aid also alleviates the need for States to cut more jobs, cut more programs, and raise taxes, which acts as an ``antistimulus'' on the economy. Without any State aid, an individual's or family's decreased in Federal taxes could be surpassed by an increase in State and local taxes.

We should not support policies where, ``What one hand giveth the other taketh away.'' We should not ``rob Peter to pay Paul.''

This modest increase in the amount of aid is a one-time shot in the arm for the States. It is not an enormous, multi-year change that threatens to build more deficits. It is a short-term proposal in response to a crisis that threatens to further drag down our economy and further increase the tax burden on our citizens.

Some argue that States and cities have dug their own fiscal graves, and should now lie in them. I could not disagree more. Our States and cities face the same economic forces as the Federal Government. As the economy has forced a dramatic reversal in fiscal health in our Federal budget, so has it wreaked havoc on local budgets.

Why should we hold States and localities to a different standard than we hold ourselves?

If we want to teach States a lesson, why should we force citizens to bear the brunt of that discipline through higher taxes on their income, bigger class sizes for their children, and less services for those in need?

The money we are discussing is not a bailout. Nowhere close. States and locals will still need to make painful cuts and possibly raise taxes. But we can help alleviate the pain which will fall not on lawmakers, as we all know, but on our citizens.

As President John Kennedy once said, ``Let us seek not the Democratic solution or the Republican solution, but the right solution.''

This is the right solution. I fully and enthusiastically support Senator Murray's amendment.

Mr. President, I first want to thank my colleagues, Senator Landrieu and Senator Corzine, for their sponsorship of this important amendment.

I also want to recognize Senator Grassley, the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus, the distinguished ranking member, for their leadership. Democrats and Republicans may disagree on our economic priorities, but we all appreciate the contribution Senators Grassley and Baucus have made to the debate.

There is something else we all agree on. By any measure we are in the midst of a very tough economy. Our long-term prospects are very bright, but right now times are tough. We are all familiar with the statistics--rising unemployment, choppy markets, low growth. These are real problems that require real solutions.

But too often we hear economic theory and ideology as the rationale for what we should do.

I believe that equitable tax relief can be very good short-term and long-term policy. If we can find the means to afford it, hard-working families and successful entrepreneurs should keep more of what they earn. And at this time of low economic growth and high economic uncertainty, there is an important role for the Federal Government to play in reigniting our economy.

My concern with the legislation before us, and the reasons I support a complete replacement of that bill, is quite simply that it does not work as advertised. We all recognize that the bill is not a short-term response to the economic downturn. It is a back-door attempt to fundamentally change the tax code.

We may need to take up that debate at some point. But our first priority should be getting the economy moving.

We need to unite behind an economic plan that is based on the practical needs of our country for jobs and growth, not on an ideology of how the world works.

It is time to replace the centerpiece of the President's plan--the dividend tax cut--with something that both Democrats and Republicans can rally behind, a one-time reduction in Federal payroll taxes, wage taxes, for every working American. That is the heart of this amendment. And it is time we put in place real aid to State and local governments so that we don't undo the very economic recovery we are trying to start.

Let me briefly review the key elements of wage tax relief.

Every working American is subject to taxes on his or her wages which are used primarily to fund Social Security and Medicare. Under the wage tax cut in this amendment, every American worker would receive a rebate for the amount of these taxes they have paid on their first $10,000 of earnings, about $800 for each working American.

In addition, every employer would be eligible to receive a tax credit for the payroll taxes they have contributed on behalf of their employees. This tax relief would take effect as soon as possible in 2003.

The cost of a payroll tax reduction would be paid out of the general funds of the Treasury, so that there would be no impact on the Social Security trust fund.

The benefits of a payroll tax cut are numerous. First, a payroll tax cut gets money in the hands of people who need it and will spend it-- the litmus test for most economists of a good stimulus program.

While we can have a long debate about the merits of a dividend tax cut, in the real world an additional $800, or $1,600 in the case of two working parents, would have a big impact on the average family's budget.

Second, it is good economic policy. The problem with our economy today is that there is not enough demand for products and services. The administration's supply-side approach, in fact, has it backwards. Capacity is not the problem, as illustrated by the fact that inflation has dropped during this downturn from 2.8 percent in 2001 to 1.6 percent in 2002.

We need to encourage consumption so that businesses will have the confidence to invest in new plants and equipment and hire more workers. Before the debate was politicized, the Business Roundtable, which represents the CEOs of major U.S. corporations, wrote the President that an immediate reduction in the payroll tax would be more effective than ``any other proposal'' to stimulate demand and productivity.

Third, a payroll tax cut is equitable. It would benefit the many Americans who work, not just the few who receive taxable dividends. The Congressional Research Service estimates that 40 percent of all dividends are received by the wealthiest 2 percent, or those with incomes of $200,000 or greater. By contrast, the majority of American households now pay more in payroll taxes than Federal income taxes.

Fourth, a payroll tax reduction removes a large disincentive to creating jobs. In our present economy output is flat with GDP running at an annualized rate of only 1.6 percent, but productivity is increasing. The result is that since 2000 the economy has lost over 2 million jobs, and Americans are remaining out of work longer. A payroll tax reduction will lower the cost of labor for an employer by about 15 percent, making it more likely that employers will keep workers on the payroll and hire more people.

Finally, a payroll tax cut is affordable. The $188 billion estimated cost of a one-time payroll tax reduction is about one-half the cost of the President's dividend tax cut plan. While it costs less, a payroll tax reduction provides more immediate stimulus. By contrast, the President's dividend tax cut delivers only $2.5 billion in stimulus in 2003--50 times less impact.

If we want to grow the economy today, it makes sense to put money to work now, not ten years from now. Most importantly, since a payroll tax cut is a one year plan, it does not create structural deficits in our economy which drive up our national debt and undermine our long term growth.

Let me now turn to the issue of State aid.

We have had bi-partisan agreement to provide $20 billion in direct Federal aid to the States and localities on a one-time basis. I commend Senator Grassley for his leadership in getting this done. It is a very good start, but it is not enough.

This amendment provides a bigger boost to our States and locals. They clearly need the money.

According to estimates provided by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the total budgetary shortfall for all States in fiscal year 2004 was in the range of $80 billion, and an approximate $22 billion gap still remains from fiscal 2003. Many believe these figures remain significantly understated.

Almost every State is running a significant, multi-hundred million dollar deficit. In many States the figure runs into the multi-billions of dollars. In several States the deficit's percentage of the total State budget is estimated to be in the range of 25 percent or more. New York State's budget shortfall alone is $12 billion.

The situation at the local level is just as dire.

According to the National Association of Counties, nearly 72 percent of counties are facing budget shortfalls, 37 percent are reducing services and 17 percent are increasing taxes--all at a time when the demand for services and the need for tax cuts is rising given the sour economy.

This is not a regional issue. It is a national crisis.

I have heard some argue that State aid is not good economic policy. But numerous reports indicate that most economists believe that aid to the States is, in fact, an extremely effective means of providing fiscal stimulus,

as it quickly puts money in the hands of people who need it and will spend it.

State and local aid also alleviates the need for States to cut more jobs, cut more programs, and raise taxes, which acts as an ``anti- stimulus'' on the economy.

Without any State aid, an individuals' or family's decrease in Federal taxes could be surpassed by an increase in State and local taxes.

We should not support policies where, ``What one hand giveth the other taketh away.'' We should not ``rob Peter to pay Paul.''

This modest increase in the amount of aid is a 1-time shot in the arm for the States. It is not an enormous, multi-year change that threatens to build more deficits. It is a short-term proposal in response to a crisis that threatens to further drag down our economy and further increase the tax burden on our citizens.

Some argue that States and cities have dug their own fiscal graves, and should now lie in them. I could not disagree more. Our States and cities face the same economic forces as the Federal Government. As the economy has forced a dramatic reversal in fiscal health in our Federal budget, so has it wreaked havoc on local budgets.

Why should we hold states and localities to a different standard than we hold ourselves?

And if we want to teach states a lesson, why should we force citizens to bear the brunt of that discipline through higher taxes on their income, bigger class sizes for their children, and less services for those in need?

The money we are discussing is not a bailout. Nowhere close. States and locals will still need to make painful cuts and possibly raise taxes. But we can help alleviate the pain which will fall not on lawmakers, as we all know, but on our citizens.

At a time when we are struggling to find funds for homeland defense, public education, health services, and the environment, it is unacceptable to many of us to push through massive, multi-year tax cuts.

On behalf of the many citizens and business leaders who play by the rules and quietly shoulder the burden of financing our government, it is time for a new approach.

This amendment gives us an opportunity for that new approach.

Mr. President, I send amendment No. 557 to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I will be brief.

This amendment would continue the work we made in the last tax bill a few years back to further increase the deduction for college tuition. The bottom line is a simple one: College is a necessity today for young people. Good jobs are hardly available without a college education. They are getting rarer and rarer. Yet the cost of college is very, very expensive.

If you are wealthy, you can afford it. If you are poor, we often pay for your tuition, as we should. I fully support that. But if you are in the middle class, that tuition bill every year is a fright. My wife and I make good salaries, and we are up late at night trying to figure out how we are going to pay for our two daughters' college education. One is a freshman in college. One is in the 8th grade. So we know, because our salary is better than the average American, what the average American does: They struggle in terms of thinking of how they are going to pay for tuition.

This amendment, cosponsored by Senators Biden, Boxer, Durbin, Cantwell, and Lieberman, takes the current deduction and makes it permanent, because now it expires at the end of 2005. It increases the eligible tuition amount to $8,000 for the tax year 2003

and $12,000 for the tax year 2004 and thereafter. It now is $4,000 for the tax year 2003 and thereafter.

The deduction is available to joint filers with taxable income up to $130,000, with a phase-out up to $160,000; and single filers with taxable income up to $65,000, with a phase-out up to $80,000.

The bottom line is simple: This helps middle-class people with perhaps the greatest problem they struggle with. It also can be taken by parents or grandparents who pay the tuition of a dependent child or grandchild. It applies to any student enrolled at least half time, including graduate students. It is per student, so if you have two students in college or graduate school, you get the deduction for each of them.

It would cost about $26.3 billion for the 10-year period of 2003 to 2013. The cost of the amendment would be offset by slowing the acceleration of the top tax rate reduction so that the top rate would become 37.6 percent in 2004 and 35 percent in 2006.

Now, again, we are dealing with choices. It would be nice to get that top rate down quickly, but if you ask me, the future of America depends on kids who deserve to go to the best college being able to afford to go to the best college. That is probably more important than quickly accelerating the top rate.

This amendment, as I said, applies to the solid, middle class who get very, very few tax breaks and yet sweat and struggle to send their children to college.

Mr. President, when a young man or young woman either does not go to college, even though they have the grades to get in, or goes to a lesser college than the one they deserve to go to, they lose. Their lifetime productivity will be lower. Their families lose, but we lose. America loses, because in this new ideas-oriented economy, we need the best educated labor force possible.

So I can hardly think of a better investment for America than tuition deductibility. We made a good step in the tax bill of 2001, as I said.

For the first time, I, Senator Snowe of Maine, and then-Senator Torricelli of New Jersey managed to get this into the tax bill for up to the $4,000 level. This will bring it up to $8,000 and make sure it does not expire in 2005.

Mr. President, as I said, in today's information-driven economy, a college degree is no longer a luxury, it is a necessity.

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

The challenge is that the cost of college tuition has increased faster than any other major consumer item including health care over the last 20 years, skyrocketing from $5,156 in 1981 to $21,768 in 2001, an increase of 322 percent.

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

As currently written, this bill does everything except invest in people. We have incentives for plants, property, and equipment. Let's take this opportunity to invest in the next generation.

As I said, the amendment makes the current tax deduction permanent and increases the eligible tuition amount to $8,000 for tax year 2003 and $12,000 for tax year 2004 and thereafter.

The deduction is available to joint filers with taxable income up to $130,000, with a phaseout up to $160,000, and single filers with taxable income up to $65,000, with a phaseout up to $80,000. For example, for a joint filer with an income of $105,000, the legislation would mean a savings of as much as $3,240.

The legislation would allow families to choose the Hope Scholarship instead of the deduction, depending on which is more beneficial to them.

I know the hour is late. I heard my colleague from North Dakota got out of his lovely home to come to the floor because he was so eager to speak, and I am eagerly awaiting his remarks. I hope he did not have to get out of his pajamas and back into his nice suit and tie. I don't know what his status was while he was at home.

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

Mr. President, I ask that my remaining time be ceded back to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator Kyl from Arizona, for his great work on this and many other issues.

We live in a new world. It is a post-September 11 world. We have to adjust to those realities. I believe we can do both, have security and liberty, the great concern of our Founding Fathers. I think this bill, in a careful and thoughtful way, readjusts that balance.

My colleague from Arizona has been a leader on these issues. We do not always agree, but we often do. It is a pleasure to work with him. His persistence and dedication to making this country secure and maintaining its freedom at the same time is something I share and I respect.

As I mentioned, the age-old debate between security and freedom is at the nub of the Constitution. It was probably debated more by the Founding Fathers than any other issue. They realized that in times of crisis, in times of war, in times of attack, the pendulum could swing more to the security side and at other times to the freedom side. They realized, as Benjamin Franklin said, that giving up even an ounce of precious freedom is a very serious thing to do.

FISA is a debate about that. While I certainly believe, as I think most of my colleagues do, given the fact that what we have learned since September 11, that terrorists can strike in our heartland, that small groups of people empowered by technology can do the kind of damage we have never seen before, which my city suffered on September 11. We remember the losses every day. We do have to reexamine this, particularly when there has been one law for people overseas and one law for people in this country because the walls have changed.

That is a general debate on FISA. I know some of my colleagues have wanted to do that today. My colleague from Wisconsin says the law has shifted too far one way. My colleague from Utah thinks it has shifted the other way. Senator Kyl and I are not debating that. We do not give up any liberty in this bill. The very standards that are now in the law with FISA remain, standards of what must be done to get a FISA warrant. Those do not change. The only change is our recognition that in these new post-9/11 years, technology has allowed small groups unknown before, or even lone wolf individuals, to commit terrorism, and if they are doing the same thing as established terrorist groups or established terrorist nations, there seems to be no reason why they shouldn't be susceptible to the same type of surveillance of other groups. That is at the nub of this issue.

We are informed by history. Again, those who say don't do anything to change don't look at history, in my judgment. We learned from the disclosures regarding Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, that the FBI had abundant reason to be suspicious of him before 9/11, but they did not act, they did not do what Agent Rowley wanted them to do. She, of course, has been heralded as a great leader and a great American for what she has done, and I join in that. But they didn't want to do what she wanted, which was pursue a warrant to dig up evidence that may have been the thread which, if pulled, would have unraveled the terrorists' plans.

The anguish she felt then, and so many of us feel afterwards, that this might have been stopped but wasn't because of a provision in the FISA law that quickly became archaic as terrorists advanced and we learned that small groups could do such damage, is what motivates this legislation.

One reason we have been given--and Agent Rowley agrees with this, I believe--why the FBI did not seek the warrant is the bar for getting those warrants when it came to those not affiliated with known terrorist groups or known terrorist countries was set too high.

That is why Senator Kyl and I introduced this amendment to FISA. We intend to make it easier for law enforcement to get warrants against non-U.S. citizens--this does not affect a single U.S. citizen--who are suspected of preparing to commit acts of terrorism.

As I mentioned, we leave two of the standards in place, the ones that measure the bar. Right now, the FBI is required to show three things before they can get a warrant: They must show the target is engaging in or preparing to engage in international terrorism. We keep that requirement. It does not change. They must show a significant purpose of the surveillance is foreign-intelligence gathering. We are keeping that requirement, too, that foreign-intelligence gathering is a significant purpose.

Here is the problem. They also must show under present law that the target is an agent of a foreign power, such as Iraq, or a known foreign terrorist group, such as Hamas or al-Qaida. That is the hurdle we are removing. If that requirement had not been in place, there is no question the FBI could have gotten a warrant to do electronic surveillance on Zacarias Moussaoui and, who knows, not certainly but perhaps, 9/11 might not have occurred.

That is the anguish we all face. Right now we know there may be terrorists plotting on American soil. We may have all kinds of reasons to believe

they are preparing to commit acts of terrorism. But we cannot do the surveillance we need if we cannot tie them to a foreign power or an international terrorist group. It is a catch-22. We need the surveillance to get the information we need to be able to do the surveillance. It makes no sense. The simple fact is, it should not matter whether we can tie someone to a foreign power. Whether our intelligence is just not good enough or whether the terrorist is acting as a lone wolf or it is a new group of 10 people who have not been affiliated with any known terrorist group, should not affect whether we can do surveillance, should not affect whether they are a danger to the United States, should not affect whether they are preparing to do terrorism. Engaging in international terrorism should be enough for our intelligence experts to start surveillance.

It is important to note if we remove this last requirement now it will immeasurably aid law enforcement without exposing American citizens or those who hold green cards to the slightest additional surveillance. Let me repeat, because I know we get some who write that this is the unraveling of the Constitution and it befuddles me because it is not, it does not affect a single American citizen or those who have green cards.

It is fair. It is reasonable. It is a smart fix to a serious problem. It passed out of the Judiciary Committee with unanimous support. It is supported by the administration as well.

One final word. This is about an amendment from my good friend, a colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, which we will debate. She is introducing an amendment that would allow some gray into the law, rather than making it black or white. Her amendment would leave the decision whether or not to grant the FBI a FISA warrant against a lone wolf, she would leave that up to a particular judge.

I do not believe we can afford any more uncertainty. We saw what uncertainty did when the Zacarias Moussaoui case occurred. The FBI, so worried that they might overstep, said no. We need clarity in the law when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Feinstein amendment and support the bipartisan bill which is before us today.

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

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in reluctant, but considered, opposition to the amendment of my good friend from California. I thank her and the Senator from Wisconsin for their roles in this area. My colleague from California and I usually share many of the same views on law enforcement issues, and we work closely together. I say usually, it is the other way around. I am on one side, and she is trying to put together the compromise. Now she is trying to put another compromise together. I respect her for that.

I say to the Senator from California and the Senator from Wisconsin, who is a devout believer in the freedom and liberty this country cherishes and a constant watchdog on our committee, I have great respect for both of them. This is a good debate because in our brave new post-9/11 world, we have to balance liberty and security and, obviously, some adjustments have to be made.

The Founding Fathers knew that in times of war, in times of crisis, security might gain a little. I do not think this is an issue of security versus liberty, though. I do think it is an issue of the new technologies that are available and allows individuals or small groups of individuals unknown before to do real damage to America. Then 10 years ago, you knew who was going to hurt you. It would be a nation. It would be an established group of terrorists. But today, any small group can pop up, even individuals, and do such damage. That is what has caused the Senator from Arizona and I to change the law.

I think the Feinstein amendment is well-intentioned, and honestly it recalibrates the balance in a little different way than I would. This is what the debate is about. My guess is, if Washington, Jefferson, or Madison were looking down on the Senate Chamber, they would want us to have this debate. It is a good thing we are having this debate. I appreciate it.

I am going to be brief. I know we want to deal with this amendment.

My objection to the amendment of the Senator from California is that it does leave discretion in the hands of the judge--the very purpose of the amendment. I do not think there ought to be discretion when there is probable cause that some individual or small group, whether they can be connected to a terrorist group, a known terrorist group, a terrorist organization or not--I do not think there should be discretion in getting that FISA warrant. Obviously, the judge will have discretion, so to speak, in determining if probable cause is there. So this is hardly a straitjacket, even the amendment we have proposed.

If the judge does not find probable cause to engage or prepare to engage in terrorist activity, there is not going to be a warrant.

The other point I want to stress, of course, and this matters to me-- I know some in the civil liberties community say everyone who is dealing with American law should have the same rights. This does not affect citizens or those who hold green cards. I think it strikes a fair balance. The idea of giving the judge discretion, the so-called permissive presumption, in my judgment, goes too far.

One of the problems we had with the Moussaoui case was that the FBI was unsure that they could seek a warrant. They did not think the law allowed them to seek a warrant. That is what brought up our amendment.

With the Feinstein amendment, they would still not have that certainty. You also might get in the very same case a judge in California ruling one way and a judge in New York ruling another way. I do not think we want confusion, differing opinions, judicial discretion when clearly probable cause is met.

I realize that my good friend from California seeks an ability to check on the abuse of FISA. I agree with her. I argue this is the wrong way to do it. Again, if probable cause is established, it should not matter if it is a lone wolf or a known terrorist group or a known terrorist organization. To have different judges come to different conclusions about that I do not think helps move our law, move our safety, or, for that matter, further protect our liberties.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is well intentioned. It does seek to understand the balance between liberty and security, but it would do it in a way that I think is not advised, particularly in our post-9/11 world. I urge my colleagues to vote down the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to thank our leader on the Judiciary Committee for his indefatigable efforts to keep the bench nonpartisan, or bipartisan, or at least moderate, as much as he has done. History will look back very kindly on the leadership of the Senator from Vermont and say that he made a courageous fight. Many of us are proud to be at his side in that fight.

I will speak for a few minutes about the nomination of Judge Owen. The issue is not whether Judge Owen is a conservative; it is whether she will take her own views and subrogate them to the views of what the law is. If we look at her history, time and time again Judge Owen has been unwilling to follow the law and instead impose her own very conservative ideology on the courts. She is clearly not a moderate, but it is not even that she is a conservative that bothers many of us. I have voted for over 100 judges that the President has nominated, and the vast majority could clearly be classified as conservative. In fact, what worries us about Judge Owen is that she is what conservatives used to excoriate, an activist, somebody who will impose her own views because she feels them so strongly and passionately.

I respect people who feel things passionately. I do. But when someone is a judge, that is not what they should bring to the bench. It is not really passion, except in rare instances, that

serves the bench well. It is, rather, an ability to understand the law and follow it.

I do not have many doubts that Judge Owen understands the law. She is a bright person. I have very real doubts whether she will follow it.

Conservative members of the Texas bench, none other than Judge Gonzales, now the President's counsel, have pointed out in instance after instance where Judge Owen has simply gone far afield and imposed her own views rather than do what the Founding Fathers wanted. I speak of the Founding Fathers, and it is a timely coincidence that our leader from West Virginia has come in. He has been the guardian of the Constitution, and he could tell us better than anyone else that the Founding Fathers asked--judges to interpret the law, not make law. The great irony, as we go through these debates, is that in the 1960s and 1970s the hue and cry of people of Judge Owen's philosophy was that judges are making law from the bench.

I had some sympathy for those arguments then. I have sympathy now, even though I might be very sympathetic to the laws they were making. But now, all of a sudden we have had nominee after nominee who are not activists from the left but activists from the right. It is quite logical that if one is on either the far left or the far right, they will have much more of a desire--there are exceptions to every rule but much more of a desire to impose law rather than interpret law, and of all the nominees who have come before us, Judge Owen seems to be the apotheoses of that view because in case after case that is exactly what she has done.

Many of us believe, for instance, that Miguel Estrada would do the same thing, but he does not have a record and he refuses to answer questions. But with Judge Owen, the record is crystal clear that in instance after instance she has not subrogated her own personal feelings but, rather, let them dominate her decisionmaking. That is not what a judge ought to be.

We will defeat this motion for cloture, and I am glad we will. History will look kindly on that as well because never has a President of the United States been more ideological in his selection of judges, never.

I have been studying the history and for the first time, this President--whether because he wants to win political favor of the hard right or because he believes it himself, I do not know; I have not discussed it with him--this President wishes to change America through the article III section of Government, the judiciary. And so nominee after nominee is not just a mainstream conservative but somebody who wears their views on their sleeve and is not at all shy about imposing those views on court decisions.

So those of us on this side who are opposing Judge Owen, and some of the other judges, believe that we are fighting for the Constitution, we are fighting for what the Founding Fathers intended judges to be, we are fighting a President who is more ideological in his selection of judges than any, and we will continue this fight.

I have seen our caucus. We were hesitant when we took the first steps. We are stronger. I think we feel this issue more passionately than before, not at all for political reasons. I can't tell you where the political chips fall out on this one. It is a rather esoteric issue. A few people in America on each side feel strongly about the issue but most do not. We know we are doing the right thing.

I am proud of our caucus. I am proud of this moment today. I think it is so important to try to get the President to back off this plan, which is so out of the thinking of the Founding Fathers, to make law from the one nonelected section of the Government, the judiciary, the article III section.

So I will stand proudly today and move that we not go to vote on Judge Owen, not because she has not answered questions. To her credit, she was more forthright than Miguel Estrada and, frankly, than John Robert of yesterday but, rather, because she does not represent the kind of judge the Founding Fathers wanted and America should have. I hope we can defeat her.

I yield my remaining time back to our leader from Vermont.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I immediately proceed after Senator Durbin for 15 minutes--that I follow him.

Yes.

Mr. President, before I begin, was the Senator from Iowa seeking extra time?

Could my colleague from Iowa proceed following me?

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Jeffrey Sutton to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am going to get into Mr. Sutton in a minute, but I just say that Mr. Sutton is another example of nominees who have been nominated who are not simply mainstream conservatives but are way over to the right side. That is what we have seen in this judicial process. We have seen nominee after nominee after nominee who is not simply a mainstream conservative--we voted for most of those--but a nominee who is a passionate ideologue and whose major view--if you had to underline it all, perhaps with the exception of the issue of choice--is a wish to curtail the power of the Federal Government.

They, in a very real sense, wish to turn the clock back--many not to the 1930s but even to the 1890s. There has been 100 years of history that the Federal Government expanded its power to deal with injustices that occurred with individuals. Keeping in concept with a limited government and a free market society, the general consensus in our society has been to move forward. There have been ebbs and flows. I think there was legitimacy to Ronald Reagan. There had been 50 years of Federal expansion and he said retrench. Since that time I think there is

no groundswell among the American people to turn the clock back to 1930 or 1890. Any attempts by either the President or the Congress to do that are always defeated, or almost always defeated in the long run because those two parts of our Government, the article I part, the Congress, and the article II part, the Executive, are elected.

What has happened here, Mr. President, is that those who wish to turn the clock back--a narrow band of ideologues--have either captured the President's ear or certainly captured the nomination process, and they put forward nominee after nominee after nominee who is beyond the mainstream--not people who disagree on views but people, if they sat in this Chamber, would be more conservative perhaps than any of the 100 Senators. But they are not elected.

The President and his allies thought they could do this without a whimper. Some of us, a year and a half ago, said we were going to question these nominees on their ideological views, on their judicial philosophy. Initially, there was an outcry, but I think basically the argument has been settled.

Certainly, there is a right to ask nominees about their views. Secondly, I believe there is an obligation because the article III section of Government, the judiciary, has huge power. The nominees, if they become members of the bench, are there for life. This is the only chance because the White House doesn't vet their views. In fact, there seems to be a philosophy in the White House to tell the nominees to say as little as possible, and the apotheoses of that was Miguel Estrada, who was like a Cheshire cat and would not say a single thing about his views. But with the problems that Mr. Estrada has had on this floor, I think that philosophy is not going to work.

My guess is if any other nominees to the court of appeals took the strategy of not dare telling us how they think on anything, they would reach the same fate as Mr. Estrada, and they would not be supported by a majority here. They will not be nominated either. Mr. Sutton is one of these nominees. He is not merely a conservative judge. In fact, as I said, conservative judges are nominated--there is a nominee, for instance, in the Fifth Circuit who is pending right now, Judge Prado. Judge Prado is conservative, but he is not out of the mainstream. He is Hispanic. He is nominated to the Fifth Circuit. The majority doesn't bring him forward. Why? Because they know he will be supported by the majority on our side. Instead, we are going to refight the nomination of Priscilla Owen, one of the judges like Judge Sutton who is way over.

The point is that we are not blocking every judge. I don't have the exact number, but of approximately 110 or 120 of the President's nominees, I have supported around 100. And 111 out of 116 of the President's nominees have been confirmed. I voted for all 111 of them.

There are some who are so far over that we have to say no. Mr. Sutton is such a nominee. I just wish our President would understand this, would treat the Senate with some respect, would understand that the checks and balances in this Government make sense, and that he cannot just give the nominating process to a small group of ideologues, led by the Federalist Society, who have a view--a very respectful view, but it is out of the mainstream, way out of the mainstream.

Very few people believe the Federal Government's role should be cut so dramatically that we go to a Federal Government ala 1930 or 1890. So I believe our fight on these issues is gaining support, not losing it. It is a tough fight to make.

Why not give the President his way? No one knows the damage these nominees will do because they have not heard these cases. I will say that when our caucus rallied and coalesced around opposing the nominee Miguel Estrada and not letting him come to a vote until he was doing what the Founding Fathers wanted him to do, discuss the issues, we did not do it in this caucus for political advantage. We did it because we were so appalled by the arrogance of a nominating process that said the advise and consent process could be ignored and the nominee could say, I cannot answer this because I might have to judge it on a future case. No other nominee has done that.

In fact, yesterday, in my State, I was proud to support a nominee of the President named Judge Irizarry, another Hispanic nominee. I called her into my office and talked to her. I said, give me some court cases you do not like. And without flinching, this woman, educated, I believe, at Columbia and Yale, an excellent lawyer, an excellent judge, told me two cases, one she disagreed with from the right, one she disagreed with from the left. I told the White House, let's move her.

So this is not an issue of Hispanics or women. This is not an issue of being obstructionist. This is very simply an issue about the Constitution and about some degree of balance that ideologs--neither ideologs of the far left nor ideologs of the far right should capture the judiciary, because when they do, they do not interpret the law, which is what the Founding Fathers wished them to do but, rather, they make law.

The great irony is the conservative movement in the 1960s and 1970s had a revulsion towards judge-made law. I remember arguing with some of my classmates in college about this. All of a sudden it has flip- flopped and now activism on the rightwing side is okay, turning the clock back, which certainly in an Einsteinian way, and I think in a general way, is as much changing direction as moving it forward, is not activism but fidelity to the Constitution? Judge after judge will reverse precedent--that is what activism is--when they should not.

So I believe, with every bone in my body, with every atom in my body, that we are doing the right thing here--that we are doing more than the right thing; we are doing the Nation a service. If we succeed, no one will ever know because the kinds of cases that would be ruled on will not come to the fore. If we fail, people will know, but it may not be for 5 or 10 years. It is the right thing to do. We know it, and I believe most people over there know it.

These are not nominees who are mainstream. They are not the kinds of nominees Bill Clinton generally nominated, people who were to the liberal side but not out of the mainstream, not a whole lot of legal aid lawyers or ACLU advocates but, rather, partners in law firms and prosecutors. That was the Clinton nominee.

Here, it is nominee after nominee who sort of with a passion wishes to say the minute the Federal Government moves its fingers, chop them off.

Let's talk a little bit about Mr. Sutton, because I think he fits that extreme mold. Now to his credit--and I want to give him credit--he answered questions when we asked him. He was not silent like Miguel Estrada. I do not hear anybody saying he is violating Canon No. 5 of the lawyers' ethics by saying how he felt on certain issues. That was why Mr. Estrada would not tell us things.

In general, some of the cases he has talked about advance an agenda that is antirights, antifairness and, in my judgment, antijustice. Probably the most notorious is Patricia Garrett. There, he sought and obtained--this was not just someone who looked up his name in the phone book, went and looked up an ``S'' and came to Sutton. He went out of his way to find the opportunity to oppose a breast cancer patient's bid to vindicate a right to keep her nurse's job. In other words, she was fired because she had breast cancer.

He went so far as to argue the Congress had no power under the 14th amendment to protect the disabled. Whether you agree or disagree with the view, it is clearly an attempt to say the Federal Government, in the kind of general, gradual, fitful progress we have made to protect the rights of individuals, should be pushed back.

In the case of Westside Mothers, Mr. Sutton again grabbed the opportunity to oppose a group of mothers whose children were being deprived of services under Medicaid. Mr. Sutton apparently believed impoverished children should not have the right to force the State they live in to provide them services that Congress guaranteed to them. Again, cut the Federal Government back.

In another case, Mr. Sutton sought the opportunity to file a brief arguing Congress does not have the power to address violence against women and argued that significant portions of the Violence Against Women Act were unconstitutional.

Do my colleagues think most of America agrees with that? Do they think most of America thinks Congress

has no right to legislate, particularly when there are findings that say this is interfering with commerce and interfering with women's rights to hold jobs and be productive citizens? It is sort of obvious if a woman is beaten at home, that that will interfere. Do my colleagues think most Americans agree with Mr. Sutton to say there should be no Federal power to do it?

The bottom line is, in case after case, Mr. Sutton has sought the opportunity to represent States rights at the expense of individual rights. He has sought the opportunity to seek injustice at the expense of basic fairness, guided by some ideological construct that the Federal Government is bad, it is evil, it grabs too much power, in ways that most Americans, 95 percent--99 percent, maybe of all Americans-- would have no problem with.

I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 5 minutes of our time.

I thank my colleague for his generosity.

Now, it is no exaggeration to say Jeffrey Sutton is one of the architects of the rightwing revolution that is taking place in our Federal courts. In hearings before the Judiciary Committee, he claimed he was trying to build a Supreme Court practice and he cannot be condemned for the views espoused in his advocacy, because lawyers have to represent their clients. Generally, that is true. If Mr. Sutton were a public interest lawyer taking all cases that come to him, I would agree. If he were a junior associate taking the cases partners assigned to him, I would agree. If he had a diverse array of cases taking different ideological perspectives, I would agree. But the cases Mr. Sutton took reflect a clear agenda. He believed in what he was doing.

In one interview, Mr. Sutton said: I love this Federalism stuff. It was obvious to me, at least, that at the hearing this was a personal agenda for him. He has taken positions far beyond what his clients' interests have demanded. His record, viewed as a whole, makes clear he has an agenda and his career has been devoted to advancing that agenda.

Frankly, I do not believe someone with such strong against-the-grain ideological views will simply set them aside to become a fair and neutral judge. That is a pretty tough thing to do.

So the bottom line is we have another nominee from the extreme, another nominee clearly bright, clearly accomplished--I have no dispute with his intellectual character or his ethics, but he comes from way outside the mainstream. It is a pity this judge divides us, does not unite us. If every judge the President nominated were that way, I would say it is not much of an argument, but it is just some. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Sutton.

Frankly, I think a large number will. I think because Mr. Sutton answered questions and other reasons that there is not going to be a prevention of his nomination from coming to a vote. He certainly adds weight and burden to future nominees because many Members want to seek balance on the courts. Jeffrey Sutton does not bring a bit of balance to the courts. It continues the push, bringing them far over to the right side to eliminate the powers of the Federal Government or to greatly reduce the powers of the Federal Government at a time when only a small band of ideologues is demanding just that.

I yield the remainder of the time I have not used to my colleague from Iowa, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I enjoy listening to all of our colleagues: Our leader from South Dakota, my friend from Nevada, and of course my good friend from Utah, who is just an excellent debater. I would say he is indefatigable because he is on the floor all the time.

I am rising in opposition to Priscilla Owen, and I have a whole bunch of points I would like to make. But I would like to just answer my good friend from Utah on two.

He constantly is using the word right now, ``obstruction.'' It would seem logical by his definition that nonobstruction is only when we approve every judge the President has nominated. The fact is that there are 119 who have been approved and only 3, if you include Judge Pickering in this--that is, Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and Judge Pickering--only 3 have been held up. Is it fair, I ask my friend from Utah, to call that obstruction?

I will; 119 judges approved, 3 held up. That has been done with greater speed than in any time that anyone has heard of, in terms of the period of time.

So I just ask my colleague, is the only way we can fail to be obstructionist by approving every single judge the President nominates? Because we have come darned close. We only opposed three, and the word ``obstruction'' flows like water from my good friend's lips.

I yield.

I would just like to reclaim my time.

Reclaiming my time, I would remind my colleague that within a single day, cloture votes were held on Judge Paez and Judge Berzon. There were attempted filibusters on the other side. They waited large numbers of years--more years than Priscilla Owen, Miguel Estrada, or Judge Pickering have waited. I didn't once hear my friend from Utah call it obstruction.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. There were cloture votes held. There is only one difference--actually there is no difference. Cloture was achieved eventually. But the bottom line is this is not true. For Paez and Berzon I think it was the same day, it may have been within a day of one another--cloture votes were held because a filibuster was being conducted.

I will yield in a minute. It was run by a number of his friends. I know my friend from Utah will say he worked out a deal and eventually they were approved. So I ask him, when he answers that, to remind all of us how long they waited to be approved. Was it a year? Was it 2 years? No.

So, if my good friend from Utah would have the same patience, and sort of maybe we can come to an agreement 2 or 3 years from now--maybe after 2004--then we would be being fair; we would be judging one side and the other with the same standard.

Unfortunately, there has been a double standard here, when my good colleagues from Alabama and the now-Attorney General but then-Senator from Missouri and others launched filibusters----

Against two nominees for the Ninth Circuit. Those folks waited years, longer times than any of the three we have mentioned. I didn't hear the word ``obstruction.''

I will be happy to yield.

I would ask my colleague to yield for another question. How long did Judge Berzon wait?

I believe the record will show it was a longer time than any of these we are talking about.

I thank my colleague. But I say my good friend from Utah had another method even more effective in bottling up judges, and that was never bringing them up for a vote. I think it is hard to see how keeping someone from a vote in the Judiciary Committee when there were vacancies on the bench, when those nominees waited and waited and waited, is anymore commendable. To me, it seems certainly less commendable than bringing them up for a vote and then having a large number of Senators--not a majority but certainly more than 40 percent of this body, as the rules of the Senate allow--not do it.

I am going to move on now.

I will be happy to yield. But the bottom line is that there is a lot of sophistry going on here in terms of argument--not in terms of individuals. When you are forced to invoke cloture to get a vote, if that is not a filibuster, I don't know what is. It seems to me it is. When you don't allow a nominee to come to the floor and get a vote and you don't even bring them before the Judiciary to bring a vote, that is OK. But when they get the vote in Judiciary and then they come to the floor and large numbers of Members feel so strongly that in only 2 cases out of 119 they say this is the only method we can use to stop it, that is wrong. It makes no sense.

Finally, I would say this: It is obstruction when you stop any one of the President's nominees, because what our friend from Utah says he must do when he says just have them come up for a vote is to pass every nominee because, for whatever reason, the discipline on that side is such that they will always get 51 votes.

I am proud of what we have done. I believe we are upholding the Constitution. I believe we are checking the arrogance in the White House, particularly with Miguel Estrada and his refusal to even answer any questions. I believe history will look very kindly on this effort. They will look at it as courageous. They will look at it as right. They will look at it as judicious because it has not been used willy-nilly. They will look at it as fair.

I know my colleague from Utah is doing his job. He does it very well. My hat is off to him. But ultimately all he wants us to do is spend a little time debating each nominee and then approving each one, no matter what--whether they answer questions or not; whether he said, Well, Judge Paez had some bad cases that he ruled on.

Guess what. We think Judge Owen has a lot of bad cases. And some of them were called bad by very conservative colleagues of my friend: The White House counsel, then-Judge Gonzales; and the junior Senator from Texas, then-Judge Cornyn, on the record--very rare--chastising Judge Owen for going way beyond the law. These were not liberal Democrats. These were not even moderate Republicans. I don't think it is disputable that in the eyes of many, Judge Owen has ``some bad cases.'' And if it was permissible to delay Judge Paez for 4 or 5 years because of some bad cases, then clearly we should just have begun on Judge Owen.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time----

They were never nominated by President Clinton.

I am happy to have the debate, and I want to clear the record. They were not sitting for 12 years and not disposed of at the end of Congress and not renominated by a new President.

I will reclaim my time on that one. There are strong feelings on this side, as the Senator knows. It has nothing to do with games. To me, this rises to a sacred responsibility. And I don't use those words lightly.

The bottom line is--again, I would first say to my friend from Utah, this is not a referendum on his stewardship on the Judiciary. It is, again, part of an extremely important process about who is on the bench, who is part of that third branch of Government and put there for life.

But I would say to my friend--and he is the best in the business--the high dudgeon all of a sudden when a few nominees are held up for whatever reason and sort of the muted signs when he was chairman and many nominees were being held up, albeit not in exactly the same way--I would say it is a difference that doesn't make a difference; it is sort of, well, inconsistent.

Again, that doesn't go to the personal integrity of my friend from Utah who did try in many instances but didn't succeed. And how we should be judged, so to speak, is by who gets on the bench and who does not because that is ultimately what the process is about.

I would mention, in my colleague's recounting, there were lots who withdrew their nominations. You had the DC Circuit, the second most important circuit, for which both Miguel Estrada and Judge Roberts have been nominated, where there were no blue slip problems and there were no votes. So we can go over history. I am sure each side can point to wrongs on the other side.

The fact remains, of 119 judges who have been approved, there have been 3 we can be accused of holding up. As my friend from Nevada said, I have experienced the same thing. I go to parades and people say: What about Estrada? What about the judges? Because they listen to talk radio. I say: I voted for 113 out of 119, and they just be quiet. They say: Well, that is more than fair.

So this idea that we should roll over for every judge and allow them to be approved--and I would argue this with my friend from Utah--no President, certainly in my lifetime, and I think in the history of these United States, has so nominated judges of an ideological cast. You almost have to march lockstep and not be mainstream, not even be conservative but be way over, in case after case after case. That is what started this: no advise and consent, a desire to change America through the judiciary by creating an ideological litmus test for nominee after nominee after nominee. That is not what the Founding Fathers intended. My guess is, if Jefferson or Washington or Madison were looking down on this Chamber today, they would be approving of what we are doing because they would see that the balance in power-- which they so carefully constructed between the President and the Senate, the President and the Congress, in terms of this awesome power to put people on the bench for life--is being eroded. That is why we are here. And we are going to continue to be here.

So my friend from Utah and the majority leader and others have a choice: They can hold up all these other judges and say, well, until we deal with Priscilla Owen we are not going to move anybody else. I would ask a jury of 12 people, fair and true, nonpartisan, who is obstructing?

That is why I would hope we could bring the nomination of Judge Edward Prado to the floor. And one of the reasons we want to do it is, yes, from the mouth of my friend from Utah, there is this view that only certain types of Hispanics would be approved or, from the mouths of others, that we are anti-Hispanic, a charge never leveled when Judge Moreno and Judge Rangel were not voted on to the same circuit by the other side.

But now we have Judge Prado, approved unanimously by the committee. I guess he is every bit as Hispanic as Miguel Estrada. There is one difference: He answered questions. And his views were not so far over as many who know Miguel Estrada report them to be. Why don't we approve him? Why don't we bring him up for a vote? Is he being used?

I will tell you what I think. I think the other side does not want us to approve a Hispanic judge who is within the mainstream. I think that--

I think I will call on my colleague in a minute.

I think it sort of shows that why Miguel Estrada is being held up has nothing to do with his ancestry but, rather, his conduct as he went through the nomination process in a unique refusal to answer questions.

I am going to tell my colleague one other story. President Bush has just nominated a woman to the district court in my State, Justice Dora Irizarry. She is Hispanic. She happened to be the Republican candidate for attorney general in this last election. That does not bother me a bit. I called her to my office. I asked her many of the same questions I asked Miguel Estrada. She was forthright. I asked her for two Supreme Court cases with which she disagreed. She named them, expostulated on them. She did not say, canon 5 will not let her talk about them. She did not say: I did not have the briefs, so I could not talk about them--both absurd arguments, arrogant arguments, arguments that show contempt for the Senate. And she is going to be approved, with my wholehearted support, even though she is Hispanic, even though she is more conservative than I am, even though she is a Republican officeholder.

So the bottom line is simple: We can fill the bench and increase the number of Hispanic nominees quickly, if we work together, if the nominees would take the process not with contempt but with the responsibility that they should, given the awesome power that Federal judges have.

So I hope we will move to Judge Edward Prado. I hope we will move to him soon. I would like, as my colleague from Nevada, for us to bring him to the floor because there will not be a 2-week debate. There will be a day debate, maybe a 6- or 3-hour debate, and he will be approved.

By the way, if we are worried about vacancies, it is the same circuit as Priscilla Owen. The reason the other side does not want to bring up Judge Prado is very simple; it shows the glaring inconsistency and falsity of their arguments.

Our opposition to a few of these nominees has nothing to do with their ethnic background and nothing to do even with their political party. It has to do with the fact that some of them are so extreme that their own Republican colleagues thought that.

Again, you have Judge Gonzales who is now counsel to the White House. He said, in one of the cases that she dissented on, if the court went along with her, it would ``be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' That is from the Republican, conservative, White House counsel. It could be an isolated case, as my good friend from Utah mentions, except that those who followed her on the courts say that was her MO. She constantly wanted to be a judicial activist and make law from the right.

I would be equally opposed to somebody who wanted to make law from the left. I do not like nominees who are too far left or too far right. On my own judicial committee, when those appointed distinguished jurists from around my State have brought forth nominees and suggested nominees who were way over to the left, I have said no. Anyone who has watched me interview judges knows that I am very weary of that because judges of the extremes make law. They do not do what the Founding Fathers said, which is interpret the law.

And it was not just Judge Gonzales. We then have the situation in the case of Weiner v. Wasson. This was a medical malpractice case. Again, Justice Owen wrote a dissent about an injured

plaintiff while he was still a minor, and the issue was the constitutionality of a State law requiring minors to file medical malpractice actions before reaching the age of majority or risk being outside the statute of limitations.

Then Justice John Cornyn, now our colleague in the Senate, said:

Generally, we adhere to our precedents for reasons of

efficiency, fairness, and legitimacy. First, if we did not

follow our own decisions, no issue could ever be considered

resolved. The potential volume of speculative relitigation

under such certain circumstances alone ought to persuade us

that stare decisis is a sound policy. Secondly, we should

give due consideration to the settled expectations of

litigants like Emmanuel Wasson, who have justifiably relied

on the principles articulated in [the case]. . . . Finally,

under our form of government, the legitimacy of the

judiciary rests in part upon a stable and predictable

decisionmaking process that differs dramatically from that

properly employed by the political branches of government.

According to the conservative majority on the Texas Supreme

Court,

--this is not a liberal court--

Justice Owen went out of her way to ignore precedent and

would have ruled for the defendants. The conservative

Republican majority followed precedent and the doctrine of

stare decisis.

So this is not a mainstream nominee. This is a nominee who has every indication of being an activist from the right, of being somebody who wishes to turn the clock back, of being somebody who sides over and over and over again with the larger corporate interests against the individual. In my judgment, she does not belong on the Fifth Circuit. If the only way we can stop her is to prolong this debate, so be it. There are many other people in Texas, many other lawyers, many other judges, many others in the realm of the Fifth Circuit who are conservative and intelligent and qualified. If the President wanted to come to some agreement with us, he would nominate them. In fact, one is before us--could be before us: Judge Prado. He will not have any issue with us.

Is there a litmus test? Absolutely not. I have no idea what Judge Prado has ruled. He has been for 19 years on the court. I don't know what his position is on choice. I don't know what it is on gun control. I don't know what it is on gay rights. But his hearing and his record show he is not out of the mainstream.

I have always had three watchwords with people I have supported, both in New York, where I am actively involved in the selection process, and around the country, where obviously I am one one-hundredth of the advise and consent process. Those are ``excellence,'' ``balance,'' and ``moderation.'' My three words are ``excellence,'' ``moderation,'' and ``diversity.''

I have to give the President credit. On criteria one and three, his nominees meet the bill. They are legally excellent, by and large. These are not political hacks or people who don't have the brainpower to be excellent judges. The President, to his credit, has gone out of his way for diversity.

But on moderation, it is almost as if he is not even making an effort. It is as if he has over and over and over again nominated people like Jeffrey Sutton, who we just approved, who are trying to change the law, who are trying to turn the clock back, who have an atavistic fear of the Federal Government and what it can do.

Again, it is our obligation to oppose such judges, just as it is our obligation to support those who are qualified.

I urge my colleagues on the other side to realize they are not going to win every single case. They are going to lose a few. I think they should have lost a few more than they did. I would have not liked to see Jeffrey Sutton go to the Sixth Circuit. But to say we will not bring up another judicial nominee until Priscilla Owen is passed is the real obstruction. I don't think it will stand up. We know there are some on the other side who quietly have said this has gone too far, who have urged the White House to moderate its stance, who have said, let us move on from Miguel Estrada or reveal his records. Unfortunately, the White House seems to feel they want it all in every way. They want it all theirs.

That is not what the Founding Fathers intended. It is not even what the Founding Fathers intended when there is a President and a Senate controlled by the same party, as we have today. We will oppose Judge Owen. We will continue to oppose her. We will proudly oppose her.

When we began this fight, which I guess I was one of the first people to get involved in in terms of moderating the judiciary and seeing that there be some moderation, when I proposed to our good majority leader and our chairman of the Judiciary Committee that we not allow Miguel Estrada to go forward until he answered questions, I thought politically it would be a loser. It is easy to get up and say: Just let a majority vote and let the chips fall where they may. I think we had some knowledge that illegitimate charges of not supporting someone because of his ethnic background would be hurled at us.

But do you know what has happened. As the debate has gone forward, first, our caucus is firmer and firmer and stronger and stronger in the belief that what we are doing is right and rises to noble constitutional principles. Second, the public is beginning to catch on.

I found, as I traveled across my State these 2 weeks while we were on Easter break, that people were saying: Why does the President want his way on every single nominee? As soon as people heard I had voted for 113 of 119 of the President's nominees, they said: You have been more than fair.

So anybody on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue who thinks they are going to take a two by four and break us, we have proven that that is not the case. The fact that in our caucus there is such strong support to block Priscilla Owen shows we are gaining strength.

I plead with my colleagues to go back to the White House once again and tell them they are not going to win every single fight, that they have an obligation to advise and consent, that there is some degree of compromise in making this government work, and that, most of all, the bench should not be filled with ideologs who have an atavistic, instinctive preference to make law rather than interpret the law as the Founding Fathers intended.

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

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, as all of America now knows, Syracuse defeated Kansas in the national championship Monday night 81 to 78. This is the Syracuse Orangemen's first national championship. My, how long we have waited. But my, how sweet and deserved victory is.

As you remember, in 1987, in New Orleans, the same building, the same site as this year's championship, Syracuse lost to Indiana by 1 point on an acrobatic shot by Keith Smart. Coach Jim Boeheim said: ``I think that building owed us.'' Well, the building did, and Syracuse is now the national champion.

In a time of war, when so much sorrow is among us, it is a time for a little happiness, the happiness that the Orangemen brought New Yorkers, soldiers overseas who follow the game, and the tens and tens and tens of thousands of Syracuse fans across New York State and across the country.

This is Jim Boeheim's first national championship. He has been coach for 27 years. His loyalty to his alma mater, Syracuse, is unparalleled. Now, Boeheim has been criticized for not being able to win the big game, but he has quieted his critics and has established himself as a legitimate candidate for the Hall of Fame. He called the win not a validation of his coaching skills but a testament to the talent of his players--typical of Jim Boeheim's modesty. This Syracuse team is a model for all of America. They have persisted and persisted and persisted. Coach Boeheim persisted and persisted and persisted, and we so admire him. His heart belonged to Syracuse.

Jim Boeheim is Mr. Syracuse. As the old story goes, Boeheim was sitting on the beach in Hawaii with his former assistant, Rick Pitino, and Pitino's wife, Joanne. Someone posed a question: If you could live anywhere, where would it be?

Rick picked San Francisco, and his wife Joanne picked New York City. ``Syracuse,'' Boeheim said. ``Hawaii was just Syracuse in July,'' Boeheim sniffed. ``For 8 months a year, it's the best weather in the country, and the other 4 months we are playing basketball.''

Well, the Orangemen had an amazing story this year. They came in to the season as underdogs, not even earning a ranking in the ESPN/USA Today coaches poll until February. They stormed through the regular season, finishing tied for first in the Big East, with a 13-3 record. They finished the regular season 24-5 overall.

Of course, one of the biggest stories is the youth of this team. Where have we ever seen--ever--two freshmen guards lead as well as they have?

Carmelo Anthony, a freshman and leader of the team, had 20 points Monday night, with 10 rebounds and seven assists in the final game against Kansas. You could see the pain on his face. He was playing with an injured back, but he kept going and going, as he has done all season. He scored a career high 33 points and had 14 rebounds against Texas in the semifinal. Many scouts believe he could be the No. 1 or No. 2 draft pick this year in the NBA lottery.

How about Gerry McNamara, that feisty Irishman, a freshman point guard. He was huge in the championship game. In the first half, he hit six 3-pointers and scored 18 points.

Hakim Warrick, only a sophomore, made the biggest play of the game. As all of us were sitting around holding our breath as Kansas came within three points, with 1.5 seconds left, Warrick made an amazing block of Michael Lee's 3-point attempt that would have tied the game.

What a game it was, Mr. President. What a victory for Syracuse. All of central New York is cheering. It is 80 degrees and that orange sun is shining brightly over Syracuse in central New York this afternoon, and it will continue to do so for a long time. Because Syracuse has so many proud alumni and fans from one end of New York State to the other, there is a smile across our State this afternoon spreading from Buffalo to New York City.

Mr. President, we are proud of the coach, Jim Boeheim; we are proud of the team, the great Orangemen; we are proud of the university, Syracuse University.

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

I thank my colleague.

I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 5 minutes, or 3\1/2\ minutes, so I may speak for 10 minutes, with the consent of the Senator from Alaska.

I will be brief. I withdraw my request to accommodate my colleague from Massachusetts.

I withdraw the request.

I commend my colleague from California. We all know she is a fighter. She finds issues, focuses on them with passion, is able to persuade so many others. The American people are lucky that Senator Boxer has taken such a leadership role in defending the homeland. I know the citizens of California thank her, but so do the Senators of New York. This is a real danger.

If we had to make a list of how terrorists would go after us, unfortunately, shoulder-held missiles would be at the top of the list. As my colleague from California has demonstrated, we know they have them. We know al-Qaida, the most sinister right now of the terrorist organizations, has tried to use them. And there is an FBI statement that says just that.

God forbid this should happen. God forbid the loss of life, the anguished families. Would anyone fly for 3 months, 6 months, 9 months? The economy is squishy now. If one of these shoulder-held missiles were used by terrorists to bring down one of our commercial airliners, it would send the economy due south; we would have huge problems.

The good news is we can stop this. Yes, it will cost some dollars. But I cannot understand the attitude that we should not spend dollars to deal with something such as this. The Senator from California is not asking for much. I, for one, would like to see more money. I know if we do this, it will eventually cost more money, but she is being extremely modest in the amendment.

To say, against one of the greatest dangers held for our wonderful people in America, that we should not do anything defies imagination, defies belief. We have the technology on our military planes, on Air Force One, El Al Airlines. I have dealt with the former top of security of El Al Airlines. They have them. They unfortunately know what terrorists can do. Yet we are saying we should fiddle while terrorism burns. I don't get it.

The Senator from California and I carefully crafted this amendment, along with Congressman Mica from Florida, a Republican Member, to make it as modest as possible. I hope we accept this amendment. No one wants this to be a partisan amendment. Obviously, it is not. However, one of our jobs is to defend the troops. We are doing that by supporting the President's request. One of our jobs is to protect this homeland from the new scourge of terrorism.

I mourn every day for the families lost on September 11. I wear this flag on my lapel every day in their memory; God willing, I will wear it every day for the rest of my life. I don't want it to happen again in any way. Spend a few dollars to make sure that does not happen.

If we ask the American people to line up the priorities of all Federal spending, does anyone think this is at the bottom?

They say there is no more money or maybe it will come out of some existing funds. We know what that means around here. That means forget it. If you cannot earmark it, it does not happen. I cannot believe we are not going to do this. I can't believe there is opposition to this. I can't believe, on something so vital to our security, where we have spent billions of dollars to protect our military planes, that we would not apply it to commercial airliners because in the post-September 11 world, those commercial airliners are just as much targets as our F-18s and F-16s and B-1s and B-2s.

Please, colleagues, let's not be in the ``what if'' situation.

Let's not wake up one morning after this has occurred and say, What if we had done this? I would plead with my colleagues to support this very important amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I believe I have time. I will yield 3 minutes to myself.

Mr. President, I heard my friend from Pennsylvania speak on----

Please.

Mr. President, I heard my friend from Pennsylvania speak for his amendment. I will support that amendment because it is better than what is currently in the bill, although I wish it had more money. I wish it had money for the FIRE and COPS Programs, which the amendment I am offering with my colleagues from New York and Maryland, does. And I wish it gave more funding to high-threat, high-need areas, and to all other areas. I also wish that it ensured, as my amendment does, that the Department of Homeland Security would be required to provide the funds within 30 days and that the amendment would guarantee an 80/20 split of those funds between the States and localities.

The Schumer amendment is the amendment that provides sufficient funding for police, for fire, for first responders all across the country. We all know how beleaguered they are. We know how stretched they are. We know whether they be in a large city like New York City, or a medium-sized city like Rochester or Syracuse, or a suburb, or even a rural area, our police and firefighters have been pushed to the limit. They must meet their regular law enforcement and public safety responsibilities, but now have new responsibilities under 9/11, and from the Iraq war.

And many police and fire departments have to do more with fewer people and fewer resources, because of the terrible budget deficits at the State and local level, and because many are in the Reserves and have been called up and are proudly serving our country.

So we have an obligation. If we are going to fight the war on terrorism at home, we have to vote for this amendment. We cannot just fight the war on terrorism overseas and not fight it at home. Our first responders, our police and fire, in a very real sense are on the front lines.

So I hope we will get support for the Schumer amendment. I hope we will back up our police and firefighters. I hope we will back up our local governments and our first responders.

The idea that we can win the war on terror just by fighting it overseas and giving it all the money for needs overseas--I am for that and support that proudly--but not do what we need to do domestically makes no sense. We will rue the day.

I ask my colleagues to vote for an amendment that really provides sufficient funding. Again, I am for the Specter amendment. It is an improvement. I salute my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering it. But if you really want to give the dollars to police and fire in the way that they need them, then the Schumer amendment is the answer. It is not a Democratic or Republican amendment. It is supported by police and fire organizations, both management and union throughout the country. It is supported by local governments. It is what our badly strapped local governments need in this post-9/11 world.

Again, a good team needs a good offense and good defense. Our soldiers overseas are providing the offense. But it is our police, our firefighters, our first responders who are providing the defense. We need to back them up and back them up fully as well.

I urge support of the Schumer amendment and yield 3 minutes to my colleague who has been with me all along on this issue, the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to another sponsor of the amendment, somebody who has fought long and hard for first responders and localities, the people of Maryland, the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski.

Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan, who has been a great supporter of first responders.

I inquire how much time I have.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lautenberg as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New Jersey 2 minutes.

I am prepared to yield back our time as well so we can move this along.

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