Floor Statements

That is true in my State, as I know it is in the Senator's. Last week, the Labor Department reported 263,000 more jobs lost in September, leaving 15.1 million workers unemployed. The number of underemployed is even greater.

Funds for EDA are critical to our economic recovery, especially funds for Economic Adjustment Assistance, which is more flexible spending that enables EDA to respond quickly and forcefully to regions hit with an economic catastrophe.

Yes, I thank the Senator. In fact, a 2008 study conducted for the Economic Development Administration found that for every $10,000 in EDA funds invested in business incubators, an estimated 47-69 local jobs are generated. In rural areas, business incubator projects are the most effective type of EDA project.

The National Business Incubation Association, NBIA, estimates that in 2005 business incubators supported more than 27,000 start-up companies providing full-time employment to more than 100,000 workers--generating more than $17 billion in annual revenue.

NBIA also points to research showing that every dollar of Federal funds devoted to a business incubator generates approximately $30 in local tax revenue.

I understand the administration would also like to see these funds increased. In fact, in the Statement of Administration Policy issued for the CJS Appropriations measure, the administration urges Congress to provide increased funding to fully implement the administration's proposals to promote regional innovation clusters and create a business incubator network.

Mr. President, my colleague in the New York State Assembly, Alec Brook-Krasny, wrote two letters regarding the United Nations fact finding mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone, the Goldstone Report. Assembly Member Brook-Krasny represents the significant Russian speaking community of New York. He voiced the concerns of our constituents in writing to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov to raise concerns about Russia's vote in favor of the recommendations in the Goldstone Report. Likewise, he represented the community's views in voicing appreciation of Ukraine's vote along with the United States against adoption of the report's recommendations.

I commend Assembly Member Brook-Krasny for his leadership on this issue. I and a bipartisan group of 31 other Senators sent a letter of concern about the bias and flaws in the original mandate and ultimate recommendations of the Goldstone Report. We commended the State Department's leadership on this issue. As the report moves forward for consideration by the United Nations General Assembly, I believe it is important that the United States continue to do what it can to ensure that the Goldstone Report is not used unfairly and cynically to condemn Israel without looking at all of the facts and events leading to the conflict.

I ask unanimous consent that the attached letters from New York State Assembly Member Alec Brook-Krasny to Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov and Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Poroshenko, respectively, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of health care reform on behalf of greater access to health care for women. I am very grateful to Senator Mikulski for her extraordinary leadership on this health care debate.

There are few Americans who are not hurt by the rising cost of health care. However, it is shocking to think that in today's America, over half of this country could be discriminated against in one of their most basic life needs. Women must shoulder the worst of the health care crisis, including outrageous discriminatory practices in care and coverage.

According to the data compiled by the National Women's Law Center, under the current system, a 25-year-old woman pays up to 45 percent more for the same or identical coverage.

Some of the most essential services required by women are not covered by many insurance plans, such as childbearing, Pap smears, or mammograms. As a mother of two young children, I cannot imagine how awful it would be for a woman who does not have these basic needs covered. That is exactly what millions of women and young mothers face because of the costs of childbirth.

A standard in-hospital delivery costs between $5,000 and $10,000 and much more if there are complications. In the current system, pregnant women can be turned down for health care coverage because insurance companies would rather evade those costs. Pregnancy should never be a preexisting condition. Such discrimination is unacceptable and is contrary to our core American values of equality and equal rights.

As we address the inadequacies of our current system, we must safeguard the women's health clinics that are an essential point of care for millions across this country. Their work is being politicized as part of this debate. Politicizing health care delivery endangers young women, putting them at risk for teen pregnancy, STDs, cervical, or breast cancer. Women's health clinics provide critical services to women every day.

In my own State, over 400,000 New Yorkers receive health care from Planned Parenthood each year. About 50 percent are working adults whose jobs do not include health benefits. Our strategy for reform must protect these critical services that clinics provide and expand upon their success.

The health care crisis is a life-and-death issue for so many Americans--one that disproportionately affects women in this country. We must reform our broken health care system and disparities among race and gender and make quality, affordable health care available for every single American.

Mr. President, right now we are engaged in a historic debate about the future of our health care system. The crisis has reached historic proportions, and Congress must act now.

In 2000, family health insurance purchased through an employer was approximately $6,700. In 2008, it nearly doubled to $12,600. If we do not act now, by 2016, family health insurance is expected to double again, to nearly $24,300.

We pay nearly twice the average of what other developed nations pay for health care: $2.2 trillion a year--more than 16 percent of our gross domestic product. However, the United States ranks 29th in the world in infant mortality.

We have more than 47 million uninsured Americans. In 2007 and 2008, 86.7 million Americans--1 out of every 3 Americans under 65--went without health insurance for some period of time.

There is a hidden tax in America's health care system that all insured Americans pay to cover the cost of emergency care for the uninsured. For more than half of the 47 million Americans who do not have insurance, the only care they receive is through the emergency room. In fact, that hidden tax costs about $1,100 per year for family insurance premiums and over $400 per year for individual insurance premiums.

Every day we fail to act, 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance. We must provide affordable, quality health insurance to every man, woman, and child in this country. But we also must take additional steps to contain costs and make sure our system is more efficient. The health care reform plans we are considering today will address a number of these issues.

First, health care providers will be rewarded for the quality of the care they provide, not just the quantity. Hospitals and clinics around the country will model the success at places such as Bassett Healthcare which is in Cooperstown, NY, and is one of the leading health care providers in terms of positive outcomes because of the quality of care. We will also employ new methods to reduce medical errors through accountability and through health care IT, and prevent costly illnesses through better care management, through diet, exercise, and preventing diseases, such as preventing childhood obesity.

Second, we will address the needless redtape and excessive administrative costs in our current health care system. Senate health insurance reform combats this problem by setting administrative standards that insurance companies must meet, and providing new tools to combat fraud. I would like to see a universal, one-page form that all people can use for reimbursements for all insurance companies that can be submitted on line. Changes like that could transform efficiencies in the market.

Finally, we will make use of health care technology that could reduce health care spending by $77 billion a year. Currently, just 1 in 25 American physicians utilizes fully functional electronic medical records. Senate health insurance reform expands the use of electronic prescribing, electronic health records, and electronic support for diagnosis and treatment options. Studies have shown that one out of every four tests is needlessly done because there is no record of that test. This must change.

We know our Nation's health care costs are steadily bankrupting our government and our citizens, and we owe it to every generation that comes after our own to act now.

I thank the chairman for entering into a colloquy

with me and for her hard work on this bill. I want to discuss the need to add New York to the list of States included for Northeastern States Research Cooperative Funding.

The Northeastern States Research Cooperative, NSRC, was originally authorized by Congress in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 and is managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The clear intent of Congress in creating the NSRC was to fund a competitive grants research program shared by the four states of the cooperative, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and New York.

The original intent of Congress was to have all four States jointly funded by the enacted authorization of this act. Unfortunately, New York has been left out of the Forest Service budget requests this year.

Funding through this cooperative will maintain critical forestry research programs in New York State. For instance, the State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry has received funding through this program in the past that has provided research, technology transfer and outreach to coordinate and improve ecological and economic vitality of the northeastern forests of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.

The NSRC's research is critical to the economic vitality of and quality-of-life in the 18.5 million acres of the New York's forested land.

I thank the chairman for her help and for her leadership.

Mr. President, I am grateful to the senior Senator from Minnesota for her kind words and thank her for her extraordinary advocacy on behalf of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. The Senator's words and real belief in her contribution is extremely important.

I thank the Senator.

I stand today to speak on behalf of Judge Sonia Sotomayor and lend my strong support to her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor will bring the wisdom of all her experiences to bear as she applies the rule of law, and will grace the Supreme Court with the intelligence, judgment, clarity of thought and determination of purpose that we have come to expect from all great Justices on the Court.

Much has been made of Judge Sotomayor's remarkable personal story. There has been great import afforded to the characterization of a ``wise Latina.'' Clearly, the life lessons and experiences of Justices inform their decisions as has been noted during the confirmation process time and time again.

Justice Antonin Scalia discussed his being a racial minority, in his understanding of discrimination. Justice Clarence Thomas indicated that his exposure to all facets of society gave him the ``ability to stand in the shoes of other people across a broad spectrum of this country.''

Justice Samuel Alito described his parents growing up in poverty as a learning experience and his family's immigration to the United States as influencing his views on immigration and discrimination.

As Americans, we honor the diversity of our society. As our esteemed jurists have noted, the construct of the court is shaped by the diverse experiences and viewpoints of each of its Justices. However, Sonia Sotomayor's ethnicity or gender alone does not indicate what sort of Supreme Court Justice she will be. Rather, it is Judge Sotomayor's experience and record that more fully informs us.

The breadth and depth of Judge Sotomayor's experience makes her uniquely qualified for the Supreme Court. Her keen understanding of case law and the importance of precedent is derived from working in nearly every aspect of our legal system--as a prosecutor, corporate litigator, civil rights advocate, trial judge and appellate judge. With confirmation, Judge Sotomayor would bring to the Supreme Court more Federal judicial experience than any justice in 100 years and more overall judicial and more overall judicial experience than any justice in 70 years.

As a prosecutor, Judge Sotomayor fought the worst of society's ills-- from murder to child pornography to drug trafficking. Judge Sotomayor's years as a corporate litigator exposed her to all facets of commercial law including, real estate, employment, banking, contracts and agency law. Her pro bono work on behalf of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund demonstrates her commitment to our constitutional rights and the core value that equality is an inalienable American right.

On the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sotomayor presided over roughly 450 cases, earning a reputation as a tough, fair and thoughtful jurist.

As an appellate judge, Sonia Sotomayor has participated in over 3,000 panel decisions and authored roughly 400 published opinions. As evidence of the integrity of her decisions and adherence to precedence, only 7 cases were brought up for review by the Supreme Court, of reversing only 3 of her authored opinions, 2 of which were closely divided.

In an analysis of her record, done by the Brennan Center for Justice, the numbers overwhelmingly indicate that Judge Sotomayor is solidly in the mainstream of the Second Circuit.

Judge Sotomayor has been in agreement with her colleagues more often than most--94 percent of her constitutional decisions have been unanimous.

She has voted with the majority in over 98 percent of constitutional cases.

When Judge Sotomayor has voted to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional, her decisions have been unanimous over 90 percent of the time.

Republican appointees have agreed with her decision to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional in nearly 90 percent of cases.

When she has voted to overrule a lower court or agency, her decisions have been unanimous over 93 percent of the time.

Republican appointees have agreed with Judge Sotomayor's decision to overrule a lower court decision in over 94 percent of cases.

Judge Sotomayor's record is a testament to her strict adherence to precedence--her unyielding belief in the rule of law and the Constitution. I strongly support Judge Sotomayor's nomination and firmly believe she will prove to be one of the finest justices in American history. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in voting for her confirmation.

Mr. President, I've been proud to serve alongside Congressman John McHugh as a fellow Representative from New York and as a colleague on the Armed Services Committee.

Congressman McHugh's long experience as a member of the Armed Services Committee has made him uniquely qualified to serve in the post we have just confirmed him to. As a member of that panel, he always fought to provide for the well-being and safety of our troops and to ensure their fundamental mission of keeping America safe.

He also held the distinct honor, which I now share, of representing Fort Drum--one of our Nation's proudest, bravest Army posts. These men and women deserve the very best from their representatives, and Congressman McHugh did not fail them. I am confident he will bring that same leadership and determination to benefit all Army families across the country.

As we work to chart a new direction in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am proud to support Congressman McHugh's nomination for the Army's top civilian post. I congratulate Congressman McHugh and his family, and I look forward to continue working with him to keep America and New York families safe.

I thank the Chairman for entering into a colloquy with me and for his hard work on this bill. I wanted to quickly discuss the need to add New York to the list of States threatened by the emerald ash borer--an invasive insect that has destroyed over 50 million ash trees in the U.S. to date.

Originally found in Michigan, the emerald ash borer has been steadily

making its way eastward and is now threatening to decimate the 900 million ash trees across New York State. This invasive species threatens a billion dollar timber industry that supplies furniture makers, hardware stores, and the wood for Louisville Slugger baseball bats.

The emerald ash borer larvae burrow through trees, preventing them from receiving essential nutrients and water, eventually causing the tree to die. Thousands of traps have been set in Cattaraugus and Chautauqua Counties, but more funding will be needed to stop the spread and ensure that New York's forests are not forever altered.

The current committee report lists 12 States which are affected by this invasive pest. I would ask that New York be added to that list during conference.

I thank the Chairman for his help and leadership.

Food and Agriculture Policy Institute

Mr. President, I would like to add to the Record my most heartfelt congratulations to Eileen Collins for her recent induction into the National Aviation Hall of Fame. As an Elmira, NY, native, Eileen is the first female pilot and commander of a NASA shuttle. She has orbited the Earth 573 times. As a child, Eileen was inspired to be a pilot by watching the planes over the Elmira-Corning Regional Airport and the Harris Hill glider field. She joined the Air Force in 1978 and was recruited to join NASA as one of its earliest female pilots in 1990. The communities of New York's Southern Tier are so proud of Eileen's historic achievements.

As the first female pilot and shuttle commander, Eileen Collins is an inspiration and true role model to girls and young women nationwide. Her achievements prove that women everywhere can, and should, reach for the stars.

Mr. President, I would like to add to the Record my most heartfelt congratulations to Abby Wambach for her history making 100th goal. This achievement is only the fifth in women's USA soccer history that 100 goals have been scored by one player. As this goal is felt throughout the USA and worldwide soccer community, I especially want to recognize how much Abby and her remarkable achievement mean to the Rochester community. As seen by the cheering in her game on July 19, there is no more fitting place to achieve this momentous goal and Rochester could not be prouder.

Abby Wambach has made a lasting impression on the women's USA soccer team and has inspired generations of young women throughout New York and the Nation. She has helped her team win Olympic gold in Athens and countless World Cup matches. I applaud her tremendous achievement and it is my hope that her accomplishment will inspire countless generations of our youth to strive for excellence.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment which I had offered which was not included in the managers' package. It has passed in the House. It is about the issue of autism.

We have a significant issue with regard to autism in the military. The autism spectrum disorder affects 1 in every 150 American children, 1 in every 90 boys, more than pediatric cancer, diabetes, and AIDS combined. A new case of autism is diagnosed every 20 minutes, making it the fastest growing serious developmental condition in the United States. And if this continues, autism could reach 4 million Americans in the next 10 years.

In the military, autism is even more prevalent. There are currently over 13,000 children of Active-Duty servicemembers with autism. Representing about 1 percent of the Nation's total population, military families understand all too well the financial impact and the emotional burden of this disorder. Despite this, the Department of Defense has been unable to adequately provide autism therapy services to their families.

Currently, autism treatment is subject to a monthly cap under the health insurance system, TRICARE. It also has a very burdensome application process, which can delay critical care for our military families. My amendment is designed to change this, to make sure this cap no longer applies so that these military families have access to the care their children need.

One example. One family's son, Taylor, has autism, and he is 7 years old. They are dependent on the TRICARE autism treatment because his IQ is at 73, and the cutoff for the New York State program is 70. So they budget about $500 extra out of pocket per month to pay for Taylor's therapy. But it is far less than Taylor actually needs to achieve his potential.

So what we are hoping to do is ultimately make sure that children who have autism, whose mothers or fathers are serving in the military will have access to the number of hours of treatment doctors recommend. We hope that through these efforts, down the line we can begin to provide these resources for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day for our country.

Mr. President, some would suggest that a permit to conceal a gun in one State should provide authority for a legal and valid concealment in another State. I strongly believe that what gun laws are right for New York are not necessarily right for South Dakota and vice versa. States should be able to make decisions and pass reasonable constitutional safety standards based on their public safety requirements, traditions, population, crime rates, and geography.

It is wrong for the Federal Government to overrule a State's ability to enact reasonable, constitutional gun laws designed to prevent alcoholics, criminals, domestic abusers, those with documented grave mental illness, and other potentially violent and dangerous people from carrying guns in our cities.

In fact, Senator Thune's amendment creates a double standard in recognition of States rights with regard to conceal and carry laws. By allowing exemptions, this amendment validates the laws of States that ban concealed weapons but then strikes down the laws of a State such as New York that maintains basic safety standards for concealed carry permits. At a minimum, New York should be allowed to opt out and have an exemption.

This legislation would eviscerate concealed carry permitting standards, moving to a new national lowest common denominator. This bill would even allow individuals ineligible to obtain a permit in their own State the means to shop around for a lower standard in other States that offer permits to out-of-State residents, undercutting laws that would otherwise render the applicant ineligible.

A study by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence using FBI crime statistics demonstrates that relaxing conceal and carry laws may have an adverse effect on a State's crime rate. Between 1992 and 1998, the violent crime rate in States which kept strict conceal and carry laws fell by an average of 30 percent, whereas violent crime rates dropped by only 15 percent in States with weak conceal and carry laws.

A second concern is a lack of acceptable safety standards in all States. According to the Washington Post, in at least two-thirds of all States some form of safety training is required in order to receive a permit. Abusers of alcohol are prohibited from getting a permit. Those convicted of certain misdemeanors are prohibited.

In many States, statutory requirements are minimal and do not go much beyond the Federal Brady law requirements for purchasing firearms, meaning that some people get conceal and carry permits despite criminal convictions for violent or drug-related misdemeanors, assault, or even stalking.

It is not completely evident what a national overrule of State concealed carry laws might do to local crime numbers, but trends in national crime suggest that State and local governments understand what works in protecting their citizens.

I spoke with our NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, who said:

The Thune amendment would invite chaos in our cities and

put the lives of both police officers and members of the

public at risk by enabling anyone with an out-of-State

permit, including gun traffickers, to carry multiple handguns

wherever they go. New York City's strict requirements as to

who can carry a concealed weapon have contributed to the

city's unparalleled public safety. Our effort, indeed our

entire mission, would be severely undercut by this bill. In a

city where 90 percent of all guns used in crimes come from

out of State, it is easy to see how S. 845 would pose a

danger to New Yorkers by greatly increasing the availability

of illegal handguns for purchase.

In 2008, New York had the lowest crime rate of the 25 largest cities in the country, and of the 261 cities with more than 100,000 residents, New York's crime rate ranked 246th.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg attributed this success to ``using innovative policing strategies and a focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.''

This week, the Washington Post cited similar success at reducing crime in big cities across the country, stating that New York, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles are on track for fewer killings this year than in the last four decades. This is part of a larger trend in many big cities across the country.

Local and State elected officials and law enforcement officers across the country, such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Major Cities Chiefs Association, are speaking out in opposition to this amendment.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan coalition of more than 450 mayors--including of New York City, Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse--representing more than 56 million Americans, has stated a strong opposition to this amendment.

I stand here today with law enforcement and these cities and States across this country. They know what is best in keeping their communities safe. Commonsense gun laws focused on training, and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people, are reducing crime, and we should be supporting their efforts, not gutting such basic safety standards.

I strongly believe in our Constitution and the second amendment and Americans' right to defend themselves, but I also strongly support the States' and cities' right to provide basic constitutional and reasonable regulation of firearms.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate to stand up for our local communities and the commonsense gun safety laws.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. I am proud to join Senator Kennedy as an original cosponsor of this important legislation. This legislation condemns the poisonous message that some human beings deserve to be victimized solely based on their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

Hate crimes are serious and well-documented problems that remain inadequately prosecuted and recognized. Current Federal hate crimes law affords important protections against crimes motivated by a person's race, color, religion, or national origin. It fails to protect a significant number of Americans when victims are targeted based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. This legislation will expand protection to these groups, ensuring that all Americans are afforded equal protection under the law.

In addition to recognizing and prosecuting all forms of hate crimes, we must also provide local law enforcement agencies with the requisite tools to successfully combat these heinous acts. This legislation provides significant support to local law enforcement agencies across the Nation, including critical technical, forensic, prosecutorial, and other assistance to State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials for hate crime investigations and prosecutions.

It is essential that we send the message that these crimes will not be condoned. When we fail to prosecute violence driven by hatred and protect Americans' human rights, we risk escalation of such activities.

New York State has recently had numerous examples of hate crimes that would be prosecuted under this legislation. Within 3 weeks, three communities in Queens and Long Island--within an hour's drive--have experienced violent hate crimes targeted at gay, lesbian, and transgender victims. In each instance, the victims were the targets of violent attacks while the assailants communicated homophobic slurs.

During one of the incidents in Queens, a transgender female was brutally attacked while walking to her home. As she walked down her residential block, she was repeatedly taunted by two men who only ended their taunting with homophobic slurs so they could focus on beating her with a metal belt buckle. Her anguished cries for help were met with laughter as the two men removed all of her clothing and left her naked and bleeding in the middle of the street.

Unfortunately, this case was not investigated as a hate crime because current law does not provide protection for gender identity. This victim, like many others around the Nation, was a target of violence because of who she was. This must end.

In 2007, there were 500 such incidents in New York State alone. This is a reflection of a larger national trend where we see that the number of documented hate crimes is on the rise. In 1991, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began collecting hate crimes statistics, and since then the number of reported crimes motivated by sexual orientation has more than tripled.

This legislation, which has received bipartisan support before, is supported by more than 300 civil rights, law enforcement, and civil and religious organizations in addition to the vast majority of the American people. It is important we ensure that all Americans and all States are covered under this comprehensive hate crimes legislation.

There is some concern this bill would impact the first amendment. It does not. The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 covers only violent acts or attempted violent acts that result in death or bodily injury. It does not prohibit or punish speech, expression, or association in any way. Thoughts and speech are explicitly protected in this bill. This bill is not infringing upon freedom of speech. It is about safeguarding Americans' human rights and equal justice.

As Dr. Martin Luther King once said, ``injustice anywhere is the threat to justice everywhere.''

I strongly believe freedom and equality are inalienable American rights and should not be ascribed based on gender or race, religion or sexual orientation or gender identity. This legislation is an important step toward expanding human dignity and respect for all Americans.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today in defense of the $1 million that was allocated in this bill for an emergency operations center in Mount Vernon, NY. Mount Vernon is the eleventh most densely populated city in the United States of America, the eighth largest city in the State of New York, and is located on the immediate border of the largest city in this country, New York City.

Mount Vernon has three Metro-North train stations, which could provide a vital route for citizens exiting New York City in the event of an emergency. Thus, Mount Vernon is a first line of defense and a ``safe haven'' for millions who live and work in New York City.

In order to facilitate a proper and effective response to any emergency incident, Mount Vernon needs an emergency operations center. If, God forbid, another September 11 type incident occurs in New York City, which, as on September 11, compromised the communications system and emergency services in the city, it is imperative that we have a local emergency operations center nearby.

New York City is one of the largest terrorist targets in the country, and it does not make sense to be cutting emergency operations where we could be the most vulnerable. The threat of terrorism has not diminished, and our preparations should not either.

At present, the city of Mount Vernon does not have an emergency operations center for the managing and mitigation of a major incident. At best, the Mount Vernon Police Department's Field Command Center vehicle could coordinate an incident. However, this would greatly hamper police operations and the ability to manage a multiagency incident.

Utilizing an existing city facility would reduce costs associated with the project. This is an example of good government: repurposing an existing building to fulfill a new need and building important infrastructure to protect our citizens in an emergency.

However, if the Federal Government does not fund this emergency center, the local community will have to raise property taxes in order to make the upgrades necessary. Westchester County has some of the highest taxes in the country and should not be forced to pay more in order to provide a resource that benefits the entire region.

Terrorism is not a local problem, it is a national problem. So it is only right that the National Government makes the kinds of investments that can keep our communities safe.

I oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

In response to the arguments that were made on the Senate floor, in all due respect I think the judgment of a Senator knowing what is best for their State can usually overcome the judgment of any agency that makes that decision in a grant-making process because they know what are the most important investment needs for their communities, and our voices should be heard. That is why in this instance, it is very important that an earmark of this nature that is directed to protect us from terrorism and create a safe haven for citizens in the judgment and discretion of the Senator from New York is very much needed.

I yield the floor.

In response to my colleague, with regard to this particular earmark, New York has only received one earmark for $1 million. In relation to the amount of risk and the necessity for an emergency response center, the need is great. Our judgment, as Senators from New York, as to what is the best investment for all of New York in terms of an emergency response investment is helpful to this process. It should not necessarily be left only to a grant process. Much of the money is still available to a grant-making process which is a great process because it does have competition and we hopefully get the greatest good for the greatest need. There is a balance where the judgment of a Senator or a Congress Member is very important in that conversation. The agencies and the administration can make their own judgments. That is why a combination of targeted earmarks on the one hand and other investments through a grant process on the other hand is probably a better balance and approach, because we are getting the judgment of all parts of the three branches of government--at least two of them.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro temproe. The Senator from Montana.

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