Floor Statements

Madam President, the current newspaper-broadcast cross- ownership rule prohibits the coownership of a newspaper and a broadcast station in the same market. This rule is the only local ownership rule that has not been modified by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, since the ownership rules went into place over 30 years ago. Despite massive innovation in the media marketplace, the advocates of S.J. Res. 28, the Dorgan resolution, want to preserve an archaic rule that is no longer relevant or useful in today's media world.

On December 18, 2007, the FCC issued an order to provide a modest relaxation of the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership prohibition in the top 20 markets. To ensure that one company doesn't control the local media, the prohibition is only relaxed if there are eight independent television stations in the market. The rule change only applies to the acquisition of a television station not ranking in the top four in any market, which essentially excludes network affiliated stations. The FCC's order further mandates that all proposed newspaper- broadcast combinations be reviewed by the Commission on a case-by-case basis with the opportunity for public comment. Simply put, the new FCC rule provides a modest relief in a limited number of markets and ensures that any changes are carefully scrutinized.

After 18 months of review and more than 150,000 filed comments, 10 empirical studies, and 6 field hearings, the FCC fully vetted its decision to relax the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule. It determined that the ``harm'' envisioned by cross-ownership is directly contradicted by simple facts. Currently, there are a number of newspaper-broadcast station ownership combinations that are exempt from the ban through grandfathers and waivers. These combinations have served the needs of the local communities well.

The FCC also found that the ban on newspaper-broadcast combinations was established at a time when communications in any town consisted of a newspaper and, at best, a handful of local television and radio stations. The rule is antiquated in today's media world where there are multiple sources of news and viewpoints, such as the Internet, satellite radio, blogs, cable, and other forms of communication.

Finally, upholding the ban would also largely ignore the dire financial condition of the newspaper industry. Due to the multiple news and information outlets available to consumers, local newspapers are finding it harder to make a profit. What is at stake here is the long- term health of newspapers and their ability to provide the kind of journalism that has served our democratic society well for more than 200 years. Permitting cross-ownership with broadcast stations allows greater financial efficiency in the market, allowing some newspapers to survive.

For all of these reasons, I will not support the Dorgan resolution. The FCC's narrow rule will not lead to mass consolidation, and I would encourage my colleagues to consider the ramifications of reversing the FCC's order.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Madam President, I voted against the Senate-passed version of the farm bill because it lacked the fiscal discipline required of Congress during a time of deficit spending and exponential growth of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the conference report is just as unacceptable as the Senate-passed version of the farm bill. As a result, I cannot support it.

Congress first approved the Federal farm assistance policies in the early 1930s to help struggling farmers during times of economic hardship due to low commodity prices. Over the last six decades, however, the farm bill has swelled significantly, and now provides extensive subsidies for farmers and agricultural landowners who may not be in true financial need.

The conference report continues this trend, spending approximately $730 billion over 10 years. And, as the administration correctly points out, it increases spending by approximately $20 billion over the current baseline, not $10 billion as claimed by the conferees. The roughly $10 billion difference is achieved through a number of gimmicks, including using timing shifts and funding cliffs.

To make matters worse, at a time when the United States' net farm income is projected to be $92.3 billion this year--51 percent greater than the 10-year average--the conference report would increase subsidy rates, create additional subsidies for a number of crops, and continue direct payments regardless of crop prices. Now is not the time to maintain or increase subsidies; now is the time to reduce or eliminate them.

The conference report would also continue to pay subsidies to millionaire farmers and nonfarmers. It would allow married couples who farm and have an adjusted gross income of $1.5 million to continue to receive subsidies. It would also allow married couples with an adjusted gross income of $1,000,000 who are not full-time farmers to receive subsidies. Farm payments should go only to those who actually need them, not to some of the wealthiest individuals in the country.

Congress could use the farm bill to make substantive reforms and cut federal spending. Instead, it appears that Congress will pass a bloated farm bill that is just another example of a broken and mismanaged Congress. Consequently, I cannot support it and urge my colleagues to also oppose the bill.

Thank you, Madam President. I am going to take a couple of minutes to lay this motion down and then leave the floor. I will come back. Senator Grassley will be here in about a half an hour. I know he wants to speak to this motion. So the total time consumed should not be more than that, but exactly when we will do the time I am not precisely sure.

Madam President, I have a motion at the desk.

Madam President, let me simply describe in about 90 seconds what this motion does, and then I will come back and make the presentation for it in a moment. This motion would instruct the House and Senate budget conferees to assume a 1-year extension of the alternative minimum tax so-called patch, in other words, that the filers who have not had to pay that would not have to pay it in the future for another year.

Also, it assumes an extension of the tax extenders, as we call them. Those are the provisions of the Tax Code that have already expired, things such as the R&D tax credit; plus those that expire at the end of this year, things such as the various energy tax credits; and some international tax credits that have always been the subject of our extender policy.

These tax extenders and the AMT, alternative minimum tax, fix would not have to be offset by raising taxes on others. That is the key point of this motion, that we extend the relief we have given to filers-- about 26 million filers this year--from the alternative minimum tax, and extend the various so-called tax extender provisions that are traditionally extended here, and that in neither case would we be raising taxes in order to pay for them.

Madam President, I will reserve discussing this further until some of the other speakers are here to make the motion.

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

Madam President, I had earlier filed and Senator Grassley had spoken on a motion to instruct conferees. An alternative has been presented by Senator Conrad. I wish to discuss both of them, this motion to instruct conferees on the alternative minimum tax, and the so-called tax extenders.

Each year Congress is required to fix the AMT because without such a fix--around here it is called a patch--but without such a fix, it would apply to, last year 22 million people, this year 26 million people. It was never intended to apply to those people.

It was originated about 20 years ago because there were a couple hundred millionaires who were not paying taxes because of all of their credits, deductions, offsets, and so on. People in Congress thought that was not right, so we said: Well, no matter what, even if you have enough other tax shelters to eliminate your tax liability, we are going to make you pay an alternative minimum tax, no matter what. But it was not indexed for inflation, so now everyone is going to have to be paying it. Each year Congress says: Well, we did not intend that, so we will fix it so you do not have to pay it this year.

The question is not whether we are going to relieve taxpayers from that--we will--but whether the rules of the Democratic majority that it has to be paid for will, in fact, be implemented so that we have to raise taxes in order to save taxes, save people from having to pay taxes. Obviously it does not make any sense to say to taxpayers: You should have not to pay the alternative minimum tax, but under the Democratic rules we have to raise your taxes so that the Government does not lose any money from us relieving you of that tax liability. That does not make any sense.

So each year we waive that requirement. All we are saying here is we need to do that again this year. I understand the pay-go requirement is part of the Democratic rule around here. It has not been applied in the past for a very good reason: It makes no sense, and it should not be applied here either.

We never intended that this tax apply to 26 million taxpayers, we never intended to collect the revenue, we are not going to collect the revenue. So why do we have to make the Government whole for revenue that we never intended to give it in the first place, especially since it means raising taxes on people in order to ``pay for the reduction in revenues to the Treasury''? That is what this resolution is about.

The other half of it is to instruct the conferees that we need to also extend the so-called extenders. Now, that is shorthand around here for a variety of tax provisions which provide various credits and other relief to taxpayers such as the research and development tax credit. But we only do that a year at a time, so every year about this time we have to start talking about passing the extenders package. We are going to do it; there is not going to be any debate about it. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee made the point earlier that agrees with us that this needs to be done; it is a question of how we do it.

What we are doing is saying here, today, we need to do it in the following way: Pass it as we did last year. You do not have to raise taxes somewhere else in order to ``pay for it.''

This is not a case that make any sense for us. If you are going to give tax relief, why would you raise taxes to have to pay for it? We are not counting on any revenue. Every year we do it this way. So why the charade that somehow we have to raise taxes to pay for something we never intended to collect revenue from in the first place?

That is what this resolution does. Let's strip away the pretense here that somehow or other we are going to pay for it. ``Pay for'' are not the right words anyway. That starts from the presumption that the Government owns all of this money, and that if we ever decide to give the taxpayers a break so they do not have to pay for it all, the Government gets to make up the revenue some other way.

How does the Government make up revenue? It taxes people. That is the only way the Government makes revenue. So the assumption is, well, the Government deserves all of this money, and if we ever say we are not going to collect some of it because we want people to keep more of it, then we have to make that up some other way, obviously by raising taxes.

I would rather start from the other premise, which is that the money belongs to the people and especially in times of economic downturn it is important that they be able to use, in the way that they deem most beneficial, the income they have earned, and that when we say we are going to relieve them of the alternative minimum tax liability, for example, we are doing that for a reason, and we do not need to start from the premise that it is the Government's money and somehow we have to keep the Government whole and give the Government money by raising taxes even though they were never going to collect this AMT revenue in the first place.

This must sound like a strange debate to the American people. But that is what the rule the Democratic majority has in place would require. That is what the budget would require. All we are saying is, since we are going to be passing a budget, let's instruct the conferees on the budget here that is not what we are going to do here. We are going to do it as we have in the past, as we did last year. We are going to pass the AMT relief, we are going to pass the extenders, and, no, we are not going to raise taxes on someone in order to pay for them.

Now, what is the alternative that the distinguished chairman of the Committee comes up with? It is the identical motion I have, with one other provision. It is this addition:

And that we should insist that every effort should be

made--

That is a sure sign for: We are not really going to do anything about this, but we at least want to make it sound good--

to offset the cost of these policies by closing the tax gap,

shutting down abusive tax shelters, addressing offshore tax

havens without raising taxes.

Well, I am glad we have the ``without raising taxes'' in there, because none of us wants to raise taxes. But this reminds me of the candidates, and we have all seen them out on the stump: Yes, we have a huge Federal budget deficit, but I want to spend more money. The way we are going to pay for it is we are going to end waste, fraud, and abuse in Government. That is a sure sign for a politician who has not figured out how to get the money in any other way. Everyone is going to end waste, fraud, and abuse. You know, I used that phrase in a sort of facetious way, but actually I think it is in here.

Shutting down abusive tax shelters. There we are. Abuse. Waste, fraud, and abuse. Addressing offshore tax havens. The reality is, the Finance Committee on which we sit comes up with offsets to offset true tax policy whenever we can, and we have wrung out our Tax Code for every last dollar we can find that involves waste, fraud, and abuse.

There are not any abusive tax shelters out there. If they are out there, we have not found them or we would sure enough have gotten the money from them. The same thing about offshore tax havens. We have gotten about $60 or $70 billion from these, and there is no more to get. If there is, we would have gotten it by now.

Then there is the tax gap. The tax gap is this: Not everyone pays all of the income taxes the IRS thinks they owe, and the problem is we do not know exactly who has not paid. But the estimates are that if most businesses in an industry pay $100, and some only pay $80, the assumption is that maybe those that only pay $80 probably ought to be paying more. We cannot figure it out, but we think the money would be there if we had a better way to account for it.

We have held hearings, and the experts basically say: There is not much more you can get. You probably would have to pay more to find it than it is worth to collect.

We did do one thing, though. We actually subcontracted out to some tax collectors. If they can go out and find some and they can bring it back, they get a little piece of the action. It would help us because they would collect some of these revenues.

The only thing from the other side is, well, let's eliminate that policy. We are not going to send these guys out to try find where these taxes are. So if they intended to collect the revenue or to end or minimize the tax gap, they would not be sponsoring the legislation to fire all of the people we hired to go out there and find the revenue.

The bottom line is, this is a nice sounding phrase, but it is like the person that goes out and says: I am going to end waste, fraud, and abuse. That is how I am going to pay for all of the new spending I am recommending.

I urge my colleagues to support the motion I have filed, the motion that Senator Grassley spoke to, and to reject the motion of the chairman of the Budget Committee which, at the end of the day, recognizes the reality. We are going to do the AMT patch. We are going to do the tax extenders. We are not going to pay for them. So let's don't pretend like we have to find revenue from someplace else in order to make this happen.

I reserve the remainder of my time and inquire how much remains?

How much remains on the other side?

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``aye.''

Both the chairman of the committee and I have resolutions that are almost identical. They both call for us to extend the so- called patch for the alternative minimum tax which otherwise would affect about 26 million taxpayers this year; to extend the so-called tax extenders package that has tax provisions like the R&D tax credit in it for another year, and to do so without raising taxes.

The addition on the Conrad motion is to use our best efforts to shut down abusive tax shelters, address offshore tax havens, and to close the tax gap.

Since I assume we are all for ending any waste, fraud, and abuse, I cannot disagree. I would be pleased to take votes on both of these motions by voice vote.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senator is necesarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain.)

Madam President, please advise me after I have spoken for 10 minutes.

Madam President, I ask to be notified after 8 minutes.

First, I compliment Senator Warner and Senator Webb for several weeks ago crafting legislation to provide some changes in our GI benefits for educational purposes. I support an alternative measure which has been developed in the weeks since then, among other things, because the Defense Department, led by Secretary Gates, has analyzed the requirements that the Defense Department has and has suggested a different approach than that originally taken by Senators Warner and Webb. That approach is embodied in legislation authored by Senator Graham, Senator McCain, Senator Burr, and others. It is S. 2938. I will describe the key point in a moment, but I was very disappointed an hour or so ago when, after Senator Graham had offered this legislation as an amendment, it was tabled. Our colleagues didn't want to have a vote on it. I would think that at least we could have a fair up-or-down vote on the legislation, particularly since it is the approach that has been recommended by Secretary Gates and the Defense Department. I believe it is the approach President Bush would prefer. I believe it would solve the problem we are trying to solve.

Everybody knows that next week, when the supplemental appropriations bill comes before us, the bill that will enable us to fund the troops missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Warner-Webb bill will be included as a part of that. We will not have an opportunity to try to amend it. That was the purpose of the Senator from South Carolina offering the amendment today. We have now been foreclosed from voting on that. That is not right, especially since this is the superior of the two approaches.

The key here has to do with the original intent of the GI bill and today's circumstances. After World War II, when most of the members of the Armed Forces had been drafted, came back from the Pacific and European theaters, many of them had been drafted right out of high school or perhaps they were not even in school. They, obviously, saw the importance of getting a college education. A grateful nation said: You have been plucked out of your family circumstance, maybe out of high school. You were not able to attend college, although some were in college when they were drafted. We want to pay something back to you and send you to college, if you would like to do that. That was the GI benefit.

Today the circumstances are much different. We don't have the draft anymore. We didn't have millions and millions of servicemen mustered out of the service, ready to go to college. Today we have exactly the opposite. We need to attract good men and women to serve in our forces, and we need to provide them the kind of benefits that are attractive to them in today's world. They are a very different, diverse group of people. The kind of educational benefit likewise needs to respond to that kind of diversity and circumstance. That is the reason this GI bill is being modernized and updated.

The key point Senator Graham will make and that Secretary Gates has made, as my colleague Senator McCain has said, is that instead of a group of people who have been mustered out of the service, we aren't trying to get people out of the service. Today we are trying to retain folks, good people who have been educated and trained in the military. We want to have as many of those men and women stay in the military as possible.

Clearly, recruitment and retention in an all-volunteer force is critical to an effective military. That is what Secretary Gates was speaking of when he said:

Our first objective is to strengthen the all-volunteer

force. Accordingly, it is essential to permit transferability

of unused education benefits from servicemembers to family.

Transferability supports military families, thereby enhancing

retention.

That is the key difference between these two approaches. I would hope that my colleagues who originally wanted to support an approach that Senators Warner and Webb wrote would recognize that there has been an improvement to that in the legislation Senators Graham, Burr, and McCain have offered and would support that alternative which provides for transferability.

There are a couple of other differences. I wish to briefly highlight them. The fact that the Warner-Webb

bill costs more certainly should not be necessarily an argument against it, but it certainly should not be an argument for the legislation either. If we can deliver the same services in a more efficient way, that is good, not bad. As to that point, one of the other differences between the legislation of Senator Graham and the previously introduced bill is that this recognizes everyone in a fair way, providing the same benefit. It doesn't discriminate against people who attend a less- expensive, State-sponsored school in favor of one who attends a more expensive private school, for example. You have the same kind of benefit. It is an adequate benefit because of the increases provided for in the bill.

The bottom line, the reason I strongly support the legislation introduced by my colleagues from South Carolina and from Arizona is because it responds to today's circumstances, the all-volunteer force, where we are trying to keep more people in the military as opposed to the other approach, which is an extension of the old GI bill which was provided for people who were leaving the military. That is the key difference and the reason why I urge my colleagues to support the approach Senator Graham is providing. I hope, even though we have had this legislation now tabled, that we will have an opportunity to actually vote on it in the future. I encourage my colleagues to support us in providing an opportunity to vote on the legislation.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I wish to speak to this legislation and address briefly some of the comments that have been made.

I don't think there is any question that this legislation would represent an unprecedented intrusion by the Federal Government into the affairs of States. It is justified on the basis primarily that it is needed, that States should be required to do the things the law mandates.

I don't think one can argue this is not an intrusion into State law. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, the bill would specifically reverse the actions of 13 States that have considered and rejected similar legislation in the last two legislative sessions of those States. The law in these States would be overruled by this legislation. The bill would specifically overturn the current law in an additional eight States and cast into doubt a number of aspects of current law in at least an additional nine other States.

Apart from the constitutional issues that have been raised by some of my colleagues, the first point I wanted to make is we cannot very well argue we are not telling the States to do anything, we are not really changing anything in the States; this is Federal law that controls certain aspects of State labor laws from now on and, as I said, in several situations would specifically change the policies of States as determined by the citizens of those States.

We have to ask ourselves a fundamental question: Do we trust States and local governments or do we not? There are some reasons why States have different labor laws, as well as other kinds of laws. There are reasons why some States have permitted what this legislation would mandate and other States have not.

For example, it is very difficult to argue a State that doesn't currently have this kind of requirement doesn't care about the safety of its employees. These are people in our communities, these are people who are already governed by other laws relating to minimum wage and safety, to the things that were mentioned by my colleague from Ohio, and these are people who certainly have the ear of others in their community. They are leaders in their community.

I can certainly attest to my State of Arizona. There are some tremendous folks in our firefighting communities, specifically in my hometown of Phoenix, but in other communities as well. If they were working under unsafe conditions or conditions they felt were not appropriate for the circumstance, I think we would hear about that.

To suggest that the mayor of a town doesn't care about their safety or else he would be doing this and, therefore, we are going to have to mandate it on to that community is not a proper recognition of the way our Government works in this country, starting from the ground up rather than the top down. That is what the United States is all about, and that is why communities have different ways of dealing with these different situations.

I, frankly, have not heard any case made for the legislation. I have not heard of situations where in several of these communities over 5,000 population, because this particular mandate doesn't exist, there are all sorts of horrible things happening that have to be fixed.

Unless there is some suggestion that is the case--first, that petition ought to be brought to the State or local government that is involved to see if they want to change their laws. But otherwise, there is certainly no reason why the Federal Government should be intruding into the area.

I don't think we can say this legislation is not a mandate to the States, that it simply allows States to continue to operate as they are. That is clearly not the case.

As my colleague from Massachusetts pointed out, there are four specific requirements that have to be met under this legislation. But he then went on--and I am not certain of exactly what the point here was--that if they do not agree, then that is the end of it.

The reality is, the legislation itself has a very explicit provision for what happens if the Federal authority does not believe the agreement is in compliance with this law. It is subject to the enforcement of section 5 of the law, which is a very extensive section that deals with what happens if you are not in compliance. I will not bother to go through the whole legislation, but it speaks about the determination of rights and responsibilities and says that the authorities shall make a determination as to whether a State substantially provides for the rights and responsibilities set forth in the legislation not later than 180 days after enactment. If it concludes that it does not meet the requirements, then it shall be subject to the enforcement or to the procedure described in section 5. That is on page 9 of the bill. Then section 5 goes on to provide all of the ways in which the Federal authority would then have the jurisdiction to make determinations as to what the State is supposed to do. This is an intrusion of the Federal Government into activities that have previously been left to the States, and I think there is a failure to protect both the rights of the workers in this case as well as the local communities.

I note that Senator Hatch has an amendment, which I think is a good idea, to provide for, in effect, a bill of rights for the workers under this legislation.

I also think the bill itself purports to prohibit strikes. But let me describe to you what the bill does do. It goes to great pains to say that it is not a strike when a public safety officer refuses ``to carry out services that are not mandatory conditions of their employment.'' Well, what does that mean? There is a rich history in labor law

about, you know, well, we were all sick that day. It was purely coincidence that we did not come to work, that kind of thing. We are all familiar with that. Who decides this?

Obviously, at least in my view, this provision appears to be nothing more than legislative code words that authorize work-to-rule and a host of other types of disruptive job actions that we have all become familiar with in certain unions--teachers unions, for example.

The bill forces unions on unwilling cities and towns and then gives those unions the legislative green light, in effect, to disrupt municipal services as long as it is not the refusal to carry out a mandatory condition.

I think some of these things probably could have been corrected had the bill gone through the regular legislative process. But, as the Senator from Wyoming, the ranking member of the committee, the former chairman, pointed out, the bill has not gone through committee. It has not had the benefit of some of the changes that would have improved the bill had it done so.

In fact, I am informed that there were changes that were recommended even by some supporters of the bill when it came from the House of Representatives, things they understood at that point that should be done to the bill to make it a better bill and to make it work more effectively. But the committee had no opportunity to consider those items.

So, at a minimum, this kind of complicated legislation that is going to direct States and municipalities should be the subject of hearings and of the regular legislative process that would enable us to correct its deficiencies before it comes to the floor of the Senate here.

Now, there has been discussion about the administrative expenses not being an unfunded mandate. Well, I do not think there is any doubt that there are costs associated with this. The Federal Government is not paying for them. You can call it whatever you want. I do not know what those costs would totally amount to, whether they would end up bankrupting cities. I am not going to make those claims. But I do not think you can deny there would be extra costs associated with this legislation and that the Federal Government does not pay for those costs.

It has also been pointed out that because of provisions that have-- union contracts that cities have taken on in certain instances, those cities have either declared bankruptcy or become close to declaring bankruptcy because of the requirements of these union contracts. I am not going to assert that every city would end up in that kind of a situation either. But I do think it is important to note that there will be financial ramifications. There is no point in doing it otherwise. As a result, I think the cities and the folks in these communities need to consider what their additional obligations are going to be. As I said, there is no reason to have this legislation unless one assumes there will be additional costs imposed upon the folks in those communities.

Another thing about this legislation that causes a great deal of consternation, at least on this side of the aisle and among a lot of people who have been surveyed about the so-called card check legislation, is the principle that in order to unionize a particular facility, you do not have to have a secret ballot. The people, the workers there, are not, in fact, entitled to make their wishes known by secret ballot but, rather, it is done through what is called a card check, a nonsecret proposition where somebody comes around and says: You want to sign this petition, don't you? And through various methods of intimidation--direct or indirect--they could end up forcing unionization in that situation. That is not the American way. We have always prided ourselves on having secret ballots in this country, in labor relations as well as when we elect our officials and vote on propositions that affect our communities.

This bill contains no workers' protections. Specifically, it sanctions State card check laws that do not guarantee secret ballot elections for unionization, and it does not require transparency, fiscal transparency, for labor unions or any other control over the way the unions would then spend the union dues of the members of the union.

One of the things that bothers me most about it, though, is what is called the authority, the Federal entity. It is a new entity that would be created to supervise this legislation. It is not accountable to the State, but it basically becomes in charge of their State laws. In fact, as I said, if it makes the determination that the State law does not comply in what it thinks is the requirement of this legislation, then there are several different enforcement actions it can take to bring the State into compliance. That is not States rights. That is not allowing communities to decide. That is an imposition from the top down from the U.S. Government here in Washington.

There are a lot of smart people in the Senate and a lot of smart bureaucrats and other officials here in Washington, but I do not think any of them got any smarter when they came to Washington, DC, from where they were originally located. We have many smart people in our States and communities who can do these things. We do not have to turn to Washington, DC.

The final point I wish to make is that there is a little bit of a double standard here because, of course, we do not have this in the Federal Government. We are not mandating full collective bargaining for Federal employees, but we are going to impose it on States and towns for a large segment of their employees. I think our folks back home would rightly ask us: Now, what about this? It is something you are imposing on us. If it is such a wonderful idea, why don't you try to do it at the Federal level as well? I think most of us recognize it would not get very far at the Federal level, and it should not get very far at the local level.

I will conclude with this: We all have folks back in our communities who do a tremendous job in protecting us through fire and police protection, providing emergency services. It has been my pleasure and, frankly, an honor to visit with some of them even this week and to visit with them back home and to represent them and to work with them on matters of concern to them. From time to time, some of them have spoken to me about this legislation.

We have a pretty rich tradition in Arizona. It is a right-to-work State. It is a State that obviously has unions, but it also has a rich tradition in trying to protect workers' rights. I find so much of this legislation, as it is written, does not meet what the people of the State of Arizona have year after year insisted in labor relations legislation to govern the relations with the folks who work in the State of Arizona. I think it would be rejected by my constituents. Therefore, it is far better to try to work to correct conditions as they exist locally if those conditions can be presented as significant problems. As I said, I have not seen that. I have not seen it in my local community. I have not seen it presented as a national emergency that has to be dealt with in this extraordinary way. If there are hearings, bring these problems out. If the legislation then works through the committee in a way that provides some of the worker protections we do not see here, provides a little more clarity with respect to things that are not clear, then it is obviously something folks could look at.

In the meantime, I am going to respect the local communities and the people in the State of Arizona who have spoken to this issue in the past and, as a result, urge my colleagues to reject this legislation in its current form. In the meantime, I will support some of the very interesting amendments that have been brought forth, one by my colleague from Tennessee, but I specifically mention my colleague, Senator Hatch.

Let me conclude by acknowledging the good work of the leader on our side of the aisle, the ranking member of the committee, the Senator from Wyoming, and also the fine work that, as always, he does in putting legislation like this together with the chairman of the committee, Senator Kennedy. To suggest that the bill is not perfect is not to suggest that I do not respect his considerable skills at writing and legislating. It is that we have some disagreement about some of these things. I suspect that had the bill gone through the committee process, it would be a better product than it is today.

Mr. President, tomorrow we are going to be voting on a couple of different bills, one of which was discussed by my colleague from North Dakota. The other is called the Domenici bill for the senior Senator from New Mexico.

I believe that while the Domenici bill does not answer all of the questions with regard to energy production, it is a very good start because, first and foremost, it addresses the production side. We know there is a huge demand and not enough supply of energy. In many respects, the Domenici bill seeks to remedy that imbalance and provide for more production.

In the last 30 years, U.S. consumption of oil has grown moderately. Our dependence on foreign oil has doubled to more than 13.4 million barrels per day, but our domestic production has remained relatively flat. Whether oil is purchased domestically or from foreign sources, we are feeling the negative effects of high prices more than ever.

We have to do something to help bring down the price of oil and gas at the pump, and today's average was $3.78. What the Domenici amendment does is open up new production, for example, 2000 acres of the 19 million acres of the Arctic Plain which was specifically designated for oil and gas leasing so that with its new environmentally sound directional drilling, very low footprint, at least a million barrels of oil could be made available, roughly 1 million barrels a day for 20 years. That would make a big difference. It also allows that States on both the Atlantic and Pacific could petition the Federal Government to opt out of the current broad moratorium on drilling and, in a responsible, environmental manner unlock potentially millions of barrels of crude oil.

The Domenici amendment streamlines and consolidates the refinery permitting process since frequently that is the bottleneck in getting refined gasoline to the consumer. It eases difficulties usually encountered when they want to build or expand refineries. We haven't built a new refinery in about 30 years.

The amendment suspends delivery to the SPR, echoing comments of my colleague from North Dakota. This is not a magic bullet. Simply not buying some oil and putting it in the SPR, while it won't hurt anything and might actually help a little bit, is a very modest proposal and does nothing to actually add to the supply of energy. But the Domenici amendment includes this provision as well. It is not going to do any harm, and it could do some good. The amendment also allows for the long-term procurement of synthetic fuels by repealing section 526 of last year's energy bill which placed certain emissions requirements on Air Force fuels, for example, and repeals a provision of last year's bill that stipulated a moratorium on oil shale development. U.S. domestic oil companies are doing a lot of research into the potential for shale converted to oil. If we were able to accomplish this, we could produce much more oil in the United States as a result.

The Domenici amendment is not perfect. I would, for example, not have included a coal mandate though, obviously, it would be good if we could convert coal to a liquid fuel that could be put into our transportation needs. I would have included a domestic oil royalty provision that would have required that new leases include price thresholds limiting royalty relief when gas and oil prices are high. That would improve our energy situation. I also believe it is important to look at some of the causes of the high oil and gas prices and some of the potential initiatives that will lessen our reliance on oil which reached $125 a barrel today. I will talk briefly about the weakness of the American dollar which has something to do with that.

The bottom line is, there are very good provisions in the Domenici amendment. While I think it did not go far enough in some areas and had one mandate which is unfortunate, it is an amendment which I will support because it will actually produce oil. Much of what comes from the other side sounds good, but it doesn't produce a single drop of oil. Without that, we are not going to decrease demand to more match supply.

I mentioned that one of the costs of oil for American consumers is the fact that our dollar has decreased in value relative to other currencies. There was a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal which showed that the price of oil based upon gold or the value of the Euro has remained relatively constant, whereas compared to the price of a dollar, it has increased dramatically, because the dollar is worth less money. If a dollar doesn't buy you as much, you have to have a lot more of them to buy the same quantity of gasoline. I filled up two cars this weekend. In both cases, I could see the fact my dollars weren't going as far as they used to. That was one of the reasons I paid more for the gas I purchased.

European and Asian nations are shielded from this because their currencies, like the Euro and the yen, have maintained their value. Europeans pay 80 Euros for a barrel of oil, while Americans are paying more than $125 as of today. So returning the United States to a strong dollar policy would greatly reduce the price U.S. consumers pay for oil. The Federal Reserve should switch its focus from maintaining economic stability to fighting inflation, its primary goal. In periods of slower economic growth, the Federal Reserve traditionally responds by reducing short-term interest rates, but that can exacerbate inflation which has increased substantially. The Federal Reserve needs to refrain from

reducing interest rates further. Our currency is the foundation for our economy. Without a strong dollar, our economy will not be able to achieve the stability that is necessary to control oil prices for the economy.

Something else we can do, as well as reducing our reliance on foreign oil and promoting reliable and affordable energy sources for the future, is to acknowledge that the mandates we imposed in the last two energy bills aren't actually helping to reduce oil prices but actually have caused them to increase.

I support the development of cost-effective alternatives to fossil fuels, but the alternatives should not increase the already burdensome costs of energy and food on American families. As we know, last year's energy bill effectively mandated that fuel marketers blend $15 billion of corn ethanol. I support efforts to reduce the ethanol mandate included in the Energy bill. That will lower gas prices and help to lower food prices as well. Instead, I believe we should be focusing on other and better sources of renewable energy already available, specifically nuclear energy.

Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, stated in a Washington Post op-ed 2 years ago:

Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective

energy source that can reduce . . . emissions while

continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power.

We all know that other countries have relied significantly on nuclear power. Today, France meets 80 percent of its total energy needs with nuclear power and is even able to export surplus energy to Britain and Italy. On top of the clear benefits for France, the country has also experienced a steady decline in per capita emissions of CO2 since the 1970s. On the other hand, we rely for electricity production on 600 coal-fired electric plants that ultimately produce, according to Dr. Moore, 36 percent of U.S. emissions or nearly 10 percent of global emissions of CO2. As the public increasingly becomes informed on the advantages of nuclear power, its misgivings about this renewable energy source should diminish.

The benefits to Americans could be great--a clean and renewable source of energy that is produced right here in the United States.

Finally, a word about the majority's energy proposal to increase taxes on domestic oil energy. According to a 2005 report by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, oil companies have paid $2.2 trillion in Federal, State, and local taxes over the last 25 years. While it is important that tax policies be reviewed from time to time to ensure they still make economic sense, we must be careful not to take actions that would result in even higher prices for consumers. It is hard to imagine that raising taxes on the oil industry would not be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Let's get to expanding our production so we can meet the demand for oil. Let's increase our use of nuclear energy which can make a big difference in providing electricity primarily for electricity production. Let's get back to a strong dollar which is one of the first things we could do without producing a drop of energy to reduce the cost of gasoline we put into our vehicles.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. President, might I inquire how much time is remaining on this side?

Thank you, Mr. President.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Texas and would note, as he did, my colleague from Arizona, John McCain, is making an important statement today respecting the need to confirm good judges for our court of appeals and Federal district courts--something which he will be committed to when he is President of the United States.

Our friends around the country might be wondering: What exactly is going on around here? Why are we talking about the need to confirm judges? It is a good question. The answer is this: It is interesting that in most of the Presidencies--in fact, in the last four Presidencies--in the last 2 years of the Presidency, the other party is in charge of the Senate. You had that situation with Ronald Reagan; with George Bush, the 41st President; with Bill Clinton; and with the current President Bush. In each case, the other party was in charge of the Senate the last 2 years of their Presidency.

Now, on the average, between 15 and 17 circuit court judges have been confirmed in the last 2 years, even though it is the other party in charge of the Senate. That is because we have a responsibility under the Constitution to act on the nominees the President, regardless of party, has made.

That is his job, and this is our job. Both of us have to do our jobs. It would not be appropriate for the Senate to simply sit on our hands and not act on the nominees of the President, even though he may be of the other party.

So between 15 and 17 nominees of the President have been confirmed each of the last 2 years for these last Presidencies. But, unfortunately, that is not the case with the current President. We are not on track to get that number confirmed. In fact, we have only had six confirmed.

That is why our leader, Senator McConnell, sought to have an agreement with the majority leader to try to get more circuit judges confirmed. An agreement was reached that at least three judges would be confirmed by the end of this month.

Now, what is interesting is that up to now, there has been sort of a sense that: Well, it is not possible to get very many judges confirmed. It takes a long time, and there is a lot of process involved. But what this latest agreement demonstrates, as Senator Specter, who spoke earlier, pointed out, is that when the majority party wants to, it can act very quickly to confirm judges. In fact, it can move very quickly.

That is what Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is now doing because, unfortunately, he does not want to take the judges who are in the queue and get those judges considered by the committee on the floor of the Senate and voted on by the Senate. He has judges that he would rather get considered, but they were way behind in the process. So he is speeding them up, getting them through the process very quickly, in breach of what had been the policy in the past.

Nevertheless, he is moving them along very quickly with an intention, I gather, to try to comply with this agreement and get them confirmed by the end of the month. That is a good thing in the sense that we will get three more circuit court nominees.

I suspect it does illustrate that the Judiciary Committee and the Senate can act quickly when we want to get these confirmations accomplished. But that will leave us several more judges who have been pending a long time. That will leave us the months of June, July, and September, at least, when we can confirm additional nominees. The question will be, what will happen then? Will we act with similar alacrity?

We have one judge nominee, Peter Keisler, who has been pending for almost 2 years now. His hearing has been held. All he has to do is come before the committee. That will take 1 or 2 weeks at the most, and he could be on the floor of the Senate. We have other nominees from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, four nominees pending in the Judiciary Committee. Judge Robert Conrad and Steve Matthews are ready for hearings. Mr. Rod Rosenstein of Maryland could be ready but is being blocked by the two Senators from his State. Judge Steven Agee had a hearing last week.

So there are judges in the queue who could be dealt with. There is no reason to hold them back except a possible desire not to get them confirmed or politics. I don't know what is behind it. There is no reason not to move forward with these nominees.

The Washington Post, no big supporter of the President, said recently, after we confirmed one court of appeals nominee:

That should be only the beginning. . . .In the past two

years, the Senate has confirmed seven nominees to the Court

of Appeals; 16 such nominees were confirmed during President

Bill Clinton's final two years in office.

It appears unlikely that Democratic Senators will match

that number, but they should at least give every current

nominee an up-or-down vote and expeditiously process the

nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit,

where five of the court's 15 seats are vacant.

That was an editorial entitled, ``Judges, and Justice, Delayed: The Senate Needs To Move Faster On Court Nominations,'' of April 15, 2008. That is obviously very true. There is no reason these other judges cannot be considered as well. When we ask the question, what is really going on, it is that the chairman of the committee apparently is desirous of picking and choosing which nominees move forward. It is not a matter that the nominees cannot move forward.

In one case, or in two or three cases, they are ready to have the hearings. In one case, the hearing has already been held. So it is literally only a matter of a week or two before those nominees could be brought to the Senate floor. As illustrated by the current process, to get these other judges confirmed by Memorial Day, it is clear that when we want to we can accelerate the process and get the job done.

I will close by noting that regarding the nominee who has been pending now for almost 2 years, Peter Keisler, the Washington Post had this to say:

Peter Keisler was nominated in 2006 to the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the DC Circuit; his confirmation hearing was in

August of that year. It is a travesty that he has yet to get

a vote from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Here, I will interpose, what is the holdup? Going back to the editorial:

Mr. Keisler, who was chief of the Justice Department's

Civil Division before joining a private law firm, earns

plaudits from the right and left for stellar intellect and

his judicial demeanor. Democrats have held up Mr. Keisler's

nomination over a squabble about whether the DC Circuit needs

12 full-time judges. That dispute is over: Congress

eliminated the 12th seat this year. Mr. Keisler should be

confirmed forthwith.

So, clearly, we have nominees who should be confirmed. They are in the queue waiting. They could be easily taken up this week or next week. Their hearings need to be held. They need to be brought to the Senate floor and I urge my colleagues to work with us to move this process forward so these important nominees can be considered by the full Senate.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. President, I wish to compliment my colleague for his cogent analysis and remarks just now. He is absolutely right about the way we need to deal with our energy crisis today.

I wish to talk very briefly about another subject, frankly the challenge and a refrain that we have often heard from the other side; that is, that the so-called rich are an endless well that can be tapped to fund limitless spending priorities.

My colleagues across the aisle frequently argue that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were a giveaway to the so-called rich and that that should be allowed to expire, in effect, raising the tax rates to their pre-2001 level.

The marginal rate cuts enacted in 2001 and accelerated in 2003 reduced the tax burden for all Americans. In fact, the effective tax rate for the middle fifth quintile of taxpayers dropped more than 2 percentage points, from 16.6 to 14.2 percent as a result of these cuts.

Let's assume that the other side would not only let the tax cuts expire but actually repeal them this year. How much would taxing the so-called rich raise? The 2005 Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income report notes that those earning over $349,700, putting them in this top marginal tax rate of 35 percent, earned a total of $1.1 trillion. Of that amount, $565.4 billion was taxed at the top rate.

These 950,000 taxpayers, or the top .9 percent, paid a total of $315.4 billion in taxes, $198 billion at the top marginal rate. So if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were repealed today, taxes on those filers would increase $26 billion, an increase of $27,300 per top marginal taxpayer, not an insignificant sum for those taxpayers, but clearly not enough to offset the cost of the Democratic spending plans.

What about broadening the definition of the ``rich'' by including those taxpayers in the upper middle class, or those in the second highest tax bracket of 33 percent? Would that bring in enough money?

Well, these 1.5 million taxpayers, or 1.4 percent of filers, paid $92.4 billion in taxes; $26.1 billion was paid at the marginal rate. If you increased their tax rate from 33 percent to the pre-2001 level of 36 percent, it would raise $2.4 billion in additional taxes.

Reinstating the 39.6-percent and 36-percent tax rates for the taxpayers in those two top brackets raises $28.4 billion more than under current rates, still just a fraction of what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to spend.

What if one reaches down a little deeper and includes the middle class by increasing taxes on people in the 25- and 28-percent tax brackets?

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

A back-of-the-envelope calculation using the same data shows that raising the top four marginal rates would increase taxes for 28 million Americans, increasing revenue on a static basis $37 billion this year and $111 billion over the next 5 years, not even enough to offset the cost of the additional discretionary spending assumed in the Democratic budget resolution.

When someone claims to want to increase taxes only on the rich, taxpayers should view such a proposal with a healthy dose of skepticism. Our experience with the AMT should convince us of that. Taxing the so-called rich never raises as much revenue as the other side claims and usually manages to hit a lot more taxpayers than just the rich. Invariably, when one talks about raising taxes to pay for new spending, a lot of people who would otherwise not consider themselves to be wealthy end up paying more in taxes.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).