Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I rise to address the rising costs faced by Americans as they try to heat their homes this winter. Obtaining affordable heating assistance each winter, and cooling assistance during the summer months, is critical to hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians and millions of Americans. Unfortunately, projections from the Energy Information Administration this January show that on average, consumers will spend nearly 35 percent more for natural gas this winter than they did last winter.

The primary Federal heating assistance program is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. I represent a Commonwealth that depends heavily on this program. My State also has a high percentage of elderly citizens; they are especially vulnerable to cold winter temperatures. Overall, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare reports that it distributed LIHEAP funds to approximately 462,000 households during the 2004-2005 winter, with 128,000 of these recipients being elderly.

While I am pleased that my Commonwealth ranks second in the Nation in the total Federal LIHEAP assistance distributed, more has to be done to help Pennsylvanians in need. At current funding levels, only 15-percent of LIHEAP-eligible households are served in my home State.

As a member of the Special Committee on Aging, I am pleased that Chairman Smith has recognized the importance of this program for many low-income senior citizens. This past June, my colleague from Oregon convened a hearing to examine the effect of energy prices on the elderly. However, much has changed across the national energy landscape since that hearing. The tragedies of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita put severe pressure on our energy industries, increasing costs of oil and natural gas. Now that the winter has arrived, the increasing cost of home heating fuel weighs heavily on the minds of the elderly and low- income individuals, and it is time for the Senate to further address this vital issue.

In the beginning of January, I chaired a field hearing for the Special Committee on Aging near my hometown of Pittsburgh, PA, to revisit this critical issue and hear from a variety of witnesses about ways in which the Government and private sector are helping the elderly and others stay warm. Representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, Pennsylvania State Department of Public Welfare, and private sector organizations and utilities testified in support of LIHEAP.

The testimony of Pennsylvania State secretary of public welfare Estelle Richman was especially troubling. Secretary Richman testified that, by December 30, 2005, her agency had received over 320,000 LIHEAP applications. This is a 5 percent increase over 2005, which means that over 17,000 additional Pennsylvania households have requested heating assistance already this winter. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare has already seen a 15-percent increase in crisis home heating assistance applications.

Pennsylvania is not alone in facing such difficulties. According to Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, Wade Horn, his agency assists nearly 5 million households each year. However, those who are eligible for these benefits far outnumber those who receive this assistance.

As a Senate, we need to address this growing national problem. Each winter, our Government is faced with distributing emergency LIHEAP funds, while millions of Americans are stuck out in the cold. This past year, we tried, in a bipartisan fashion, to appropriate additional funding for LIHEAP. Unfortunately, we were not able to garner enough support for those provisions to pass.

This year we find ourselves in a worse situation than we did last year. When I travel throughout Pennsylvania, I continually hear from my constituents their concerns about rising energy costs and what we, the Congress, are doing to help. Now we have our chance to provide additional assistance that will benefit millions of Americans in the short term. However, while we need to pass this additional LIHEAP funding, we also need to look toward long-term solutions for our Nation's energy needs.

As we are all aware, there is no one solution to our Nation's energy problems. However, by increasing our domestic supplies and production capacity, we can take steps towards lowering the cost of energy for all Americans. We also need to promote alternative energy solutions that utilize state-of-the-art technological advancements like coal-to-liquid fuel advancements. Without this combination of current and new technologies, the costs faced by consumers at the pump and in their home heating bills will only continue to increase.

While this is clearly a long-term problem that we, as a body, need to address, I am proud to support my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, in her effort to provide additional LIHEAP funding this winter. This measure will assist thousands of Pennsylvanians and millions across the country. For this, as well as the reasons I have cited, I urge my colleagues to support this measure that assists countless senior citizens and low-income Americans.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some of the recent developments in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

We have a lot of activity today. There is a hearing in the Foreign Relations Committee, as well as some dissidents who are in town to talk about the state of affairs in Iran.

As many of my colleagues know, the Iranian Government's track record with respect to supporting acts of terror inflicted upon innocent persons and inflicting damage on peaceful relations among Middle Eastern countries is abysmal. Iran's bad activities in the Middle East and, candidly, bad actions in the world--at the head of the list, from my perspective, is promoting terrorism activities and Islamic fascism ideology that undergirds that terrorist activity in the Middle East-- have secured a designation by the U.S. Department of State as a state sponsor of terrorism. Iran supports terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, the entity behind the 1983 suicide terrorist attack against U.S. military and civilian personnel in Lebanon. Hamas is another organization that they are now supporting, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. All of these are reprehensible organizations that the Iranian Government is directly sponsoring as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Additionally, Iran has been implicated in the 1996 attack on U.S. military personnel at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

Iran's reach into Iraq, which many of us have been complaining about for a couple of years and which is now being recognized by our Government, by our Department of State, and which is now being recognized by the world--Iran is one of the fomenters of terrorism within the country of Iraq. Iran's connection to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the organization's Badr Brigades means that Iran has a hand in shaping the allegiances of both Iraq's police and military forces.

Iran's human rights violations, in addition to their terrorist activities, are no less chilling. The State Department reported that the Government of Iran engages in widespread use of torture and other degrading treatment and the Iranian Government continues to discriminate against religious and ethnic minorities. They do not discriminate as to who they discriminate against. Other Muslim sects-- whether Sunni or Suffi or Jews or Christians, they discriminate against them all.

Iran's record of degradation of women is appalling and should not be tolerated by the international community. Iranian women are severely oppressed and their voices are constantly suffocated by the government. There are numerous examples of Iranian women who have been arrested and severely beaten for the simple fact they are females. One example is Dr. Roya Toloui, a women's rights activist and the editor of a publication that is now banned in Iran. She was arrested last summer in the wake of a 2005 July demonstration in the town of Mahabad. Dr. Toloui was held in prison for 66 days. While she was there, she was raped and she was tortured. Though she has since been released from prison, Dr. Toloui is in constant fear of rearrest and of death.

The State Department also noted Iran's continued restrictions on workers' rights. In short, the Government of Iran oppress its people and terrorizes the world and is a threat to the security of this country and to the security of democracies throughout the West.

The one additional aspect that has now taken a lot of press is Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability. This is very unsettling when you have a regime with this kind of track record to be in pursuit of nuclear capability. Iran, of course, is permitted to pursue peaceful nuclear research under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Its record on transparency and the true purpose of its program, obviously, is very much in doubt. In November of 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has been developing an undeclared nuclear enrichment program for 18 years and had covertly imported nuclear material and equipment. Furthermore, the IAEA reported that Iran had conducted over 110 unreported experiments to produce uranium, metal, and separated plutonium, and had possession of designs clearly related to the fabrication of nuclear weapons.

In 2005, in August, following the election of President Ahmadinejad, Iran announced that the ongoing negotiations under the terms of the 2004 Paris agreement, the agreement that suspended activities brokered by the EU-3, were ``satisfactory'' according to Iran. Then they announced they were resuming the conversion of raw uranium into gas for enrichment. In January of 2006, Iran removed the IAEA seals on the research enrichment plant in Natanz.

Recently, the IAEA board voted 27 to 3 to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council, and in so doing noted Iran's many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran's aggressive behavior and concealment of ongoing nuclear activities can only lead to one conclusion, and that is that Iran is seeking to enrich uranium to use for nuclear weapons.

In response to this nuclear gambit, I believe we need smart sanctions for the U.N. to impose. For example, the U.N. should consider imposing a travel ban on Iran's leaders, banning international flights from Iranian air, banning the transportation of cargo carried by Iranian Government-owned ships, and possibly to pursue legal action against Iranian leaders responsible for human rights and terrorism abuses, as well as executions.

I recently introduced legislation with my colleague, Senator Norm Coleman, that seeks to empower the forces of democracy in Iran and support efforts to foster peaceful change within Iran. It is S. 333, the Iran Freedom and Support Act. It seeks to make it harder for the Government of Iran to have access to revenue and foreign investment. Resources that those investments accrue are used by the Iranian Government to support terrorist organizations and to pursue nuclear activity as well as to repress its people.

The bill also codifies sanctions, controls, and regulations currently in place against Iran by Executive order. It codifies those in statute. The bill declares it should be a policy of the United States to support the Iranian people in their prodemocracy movements. We believe, and the bill says, that the people of Iran are entitled to self-determination, to free and fair elections, and we want to provide the resources in helping those groups attain those free and fair elections. We authorized $10 million in this bill, but thanks to the effort on the supplemental the administration has sent up to the Congress, they have requested $75 million for prodemocracy efforts in Iran. I hope the introduction of our legislation last year perhaps gave some encouragement to ask for such funding. They have asked for $75 million. I will amend our bill to ask for $100 million for those efforts.

The Iran Freedom and Support Act is a nonviolent way to try to effect change in Iraq. I agree with the President and all who have talked about keeping our military options on the table, but it is vitally important to try to use our diplomatic options first and foremost. At a time when the threat from Iran is real, it is not only real to this country, not only real to the Middle East and Iraq, but it is, obviously, real to their own people in the way they treat them.

This is an important piece of legislation. It is something I hope we can do. It is important in spite of what the President has done. I support his policies that we show the Congress is 100 percent behind his effort to do something about the nuclear gambit Iran is engaged in right now. I am hopeful we can pass this legislation in a timely fashion.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues a letter written by the mayor of Tall-at Afar, Ninewa, Iraq, concerning the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment of the U.S. Army. This unit of brave soldiers is completing its second deployment to Iraq. As the unit prepares to come home, they have recently received this letter from the mayor of that city:

In the Name of God the Compassionate and Merciful To the

Courageous Men and Women of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment,

who have changed the city of Tall-at Afar from a ghost town,

in which terrorists spread death and destruction, to a secure

city flourishing with life.

To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of

terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the

streets for many months. To those who spread smiles on the

faces of our children, and gave us restored hope, through

their personal sacrifice and brave fighting, and gave new

life to the city after hopelessness darkened our days, and

stole our confidence in our ability to reestablish our city.

Our city was the main base of operations for Abu Mousab Al

Zarqawi. The city was completely held hostage in the hands of

his henchmen. Our schools, governmental services, businesses

and offices were closed.

Our streets were silent, and no one dared to walk them. Our

people were barricaded in their homes out of fear; death

awaited them around every corner. Terrorists occupied and

controlled the only hospital in the city. Their savagery

reached such a level that they stuffed the corpses of

children with explosives and tossed them into the streets in

order to kill grieving parents attempting to retrieve the

bodies of their young.

This was the situation of our city until God prepared and

delivered unto them the courageous soldiers of the 3rd

Armored Cavalry Regiment, who liberated this city, ridding it

of Zarqawi's followers after harsh fighting, killing many

terrorists, and forcing the remaining butchers to flee the

city like rats to the surrounding areas, where the bravery of

other 3rd ACR soldiers in Sinjar, Rabiah, Zumar and Avgani

finally destroyed them.

I have met many soldiers of the 3rd Armored Cavalry

Regiment; they are not only courageous men and women, but

avenging angels sent by The God Himself to fight the evil of

terrorism.

The leaders of this Regiment; COL McMaster, COL Armstrong,

LTC Hickey, LTC Gibson, and LTC Reilly embody courage,

strength, vision and wisdom. Officers and soldiers alike

bristle with the confidence and character of knights in a

bygone era. The mission they have accomplished, by means of a

unique military operation, stands among the finest military

feats to date in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and truly deserves

to be studied in military science. This military operation

was clean, with little collateral damage, despite the

ferocity of the enemy. With the skill and precision of

surgeons they dealt with the terrorist cancers in the city

without causing unnecessary damage.

God bless this brave Regiment; God bless the families who

dedicated these brave men and women. From the bottom of our

hearts we thank the families. They have given us something we

will never forget. To the families of those who have given

their holy blood for our land, we all bow to you in reverence

and to the souls of your loved ones. Their sacrifice was not

in vain. They are not dead, but alive, and their souls

hovering around us every second of every minute. They will

never be forgotten for giving their precious lives. They have

sacrificed that which is most valuable. We see them in the

smile of every child, and in every flower growing in this

land. Let America, their families, and the world be proud of

their sacrifice for humanity and life.

Finally, no matter how much I write or speak about this

brave Regiment, I haven't the words to describe the courage

of its officers and soldiers. I pray to God to grant

happiness and health to these legendary heroes and their

brave families.

Najim Abdullah Abid Al-Jibouri

Mayor of Tall-at Afar, Ninewa, Iraq.

This mayor's gratitude towards the soldiers of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment speaks volumes of the sacrifice and bravery that all of our soldiers are displaying in Iraq. Our service men and women are making a difference in Iraq by spreading democracy and fighting the terrorists. These soldiers ought to be proud of their efforts--we certainly are, and so are the Iraqis.

Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson called religious freedom the ``first freedom.'' As founder and leader over the last 3 years of the Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom, I wanted to take this opportunity to pay tribute to this pivotal liberty. Last month, President Bush also recognized this important freedom by declaring ``Religious Freedom Day,'' observed on January 16.

Americans are among the most religious peoples on Earth and are of many faith traditions. Nearly 80 percent of Americans state they pray regularly. Within a few blocks of this Capitol, there are churches, meeting houses, synagogues, mosques, temples, and house of worship of every variety.

The free exercise of religion is a hallmark of our Nation. It is the reason many of our ancestors came here. It is the reason we are able to live peacefully together as a religiously diverse people. Cherished by the American people as the most precious of those rights given by God, religious freedom has been given the pride of place in our Constitution, in the first clause of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief, as Jefferson and the American Founders recognized, is the prerequisite for the exercise of other basic human rights. Freedom of speech, press, and assembly depend on a free conscience. No basic freedom can be secure where religious freedom is denied.

But these rights do not just belong to Americans. They are universal; they belong to every person in this world. No one, from the worst dictator to the most powerful government, can take away the right for a person to believe as he or she wishes. However, the expression of this belief is too often repressed through the imposition of persecution and death.

Since the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people, the principle of religious freedom has gained recognition in foreign policy. The right to religious freedom found worldwide acceptance in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which many nations have agreed. ``Everyone,'' the declaration asserts, ``has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.'' As the declaration makes explicit, ``this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.''

The declaration's article 18 thus provides for the acceptance of religious pluralism; the freedom to convert to another faith; the right to express unorthodox beliefs in one's individual capacity; the right, not only to worship in private or behind the walls of a building but to express one's faith in society. These are powerful concepts that challenge many societies, including at times our own.

For example, I have introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, a

bill which would restore a balanced approach to religious freedom in the workplace. It would clarify current law, which requires employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or financial hardship for the employer. While most employers recognize the value of respecting religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain needs. It is supported by a broad spectrum of groups, liberal and conservative, who share this Nation's commitment to the freedom of conscience.

The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which I supported, institutionalized religious freedom as a guiding doctrine in America's foreign relations. The act established within the State Department an office, headed by an Ambassador-at-Large, to monitor and report annually on the status of religious freedom in every country; and it created the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom as an independent Government agency to study and propose new policies to advance religious freedom abroad.

Because of this legislation, regular reports are being issued by the State Department on the status of religious freedom in every country. Citizens now have access to information not easily available previously. The U.S. Government is now designating countries as being of particular concern solely because of their records on religious freedom. While more actions can be taken, our Government is making this freedom a priority.

The founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn, and many others fled to this land seeking religious freedom. Centuries later, the United States remains a beacon for the religiously repressed around the world. Our Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom includes persons from diverse countries and faith backgrounds who have found religious freedom in America and who now dedicate their lives to speaking out for the persecuted around the world.

A regular participant in our Working Group is Ali Alyami. Dr. Alyami is a Muslim from Saudi Arabia, but he is not a follower of Wahhabism, the extremist, state-sanctioned brand of Islam in Saudi Arabia, and so he faces marginalization and repression in his homeland.

Another is Bob Fu, an evangelical Christian leader who was arrested in his native China for praying in an unauthorized house-church before finding refuge in the United States and moving to Philadelphia.

Eden Naby, an Assyrian Christian, spoke at our ``Christmas under Siege'' meeting last month about the accelerating attrition rate of religious minorities fleeing ethnic cleansing and extremism in Iraq,

Seung-Woo Kahng attested to the cruelties suffered by an underground church-leader in North Korea.

Michael Muenir, a Copt originally from Egypt, reported to our group about the failure of Egyptian justice when Copts are murdered by Islamic fanatics, discrimination against the Copts in the upper echelons of government and military, and the obstacles to getting government permission to build or even repair churches in Egypt.

Bat Ye'or, a Jewish author originally from Egypt, spoke of the rising tide of anti-Semitism throughout Europe.

These and many more like them are grateful to have the freedom in the United States to speak out about the need for religious freedom in many countries throughout the world.

When we look at the overall state of religious freedom in the world, state-sponsored religious persecution of the harshest severity-- torture, imprisonment, and even death--occurs today under three types of regimes: the remnant communist regimes; repressive Islamist states; and nationalist authoritarian states. Many of the countries represented in these categories are those that have been officially designated by the U.S. State Department as ``countries of particular concern,'' or ``CPCs,'' for their ``egregious, systematic, and continuing'' violations of religious freedom.

The first type of regime is that of the remnant communist states, such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam. For example:

North Korea systematically crushes public expressions of religion and puts in harsh concentration camps those accused of being religious, along with up to three generations of their family members.

China seeks to control all religion and punishes religious leaders who worship without authorization with fines, ``reeducation'' camp, and other forms of incarceration. It also harshly treats Falun Gong practitioners, who have reported to us about torture and murder at the hands of authorities.

Vietnam beats and tortures its Hmong and tribal Christians until they recant their faith.

A second main type of regime fostering state-sponsored persecution is that of repressive Islamic states. For example:

In recent years, the Sudanese Government prosecuted a genocidal war in its south in which over 2 million Christians and followers of traditional African religions were killed and thousands enslaved for resisting the forcible imposition of Islamic law. Khartoum is now employing the genocidal tactics honed in the religious conflict with the south in a race-based conflict in its western Darfur region.

Iran's fanatical regime has tortured and killed many thousands of its own nationals for religious reasons. One Iranian political dissident, a Muslim professor named Hashem Aghajari, aptly protested at his July 2004 blasphemy trial that he was being punished for ``the sin of thinking.''

Saudi Arabia continues to indoctrinate its students in an ideology of religious hatred and exports such propaganda to other Muslims communities throughout the world, including here in the United States; Saudi researchers themselves found that the state's curriculum ``misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the `other.' ''

The third type of regime where religious persecution is prevalent is that of nationalist authoritarian states, such as Burma and Eritrea. For example:

In Burma, the government subjects all publications, including religious publications, to control and censorship. The government generally prohibits outdoor meetings of more than five persons, including religious meetings.

In Eritrea there are reports that police have tortured those detained for their religious beliefs, including using bondage, heat exposure, and beatings. Also, some detainees were required to sign statements repudiating their faith or agreeing not to practice it as a condition for release.

Lastly, we have unfortunately seen a global trend of growing anti- Semitism which has also been brought before our working group. It has been seen in Iran where the President has notoriously denied the Holocaust and threatened the existence of Israel, in the streets of Russia, in the capitals of Europe, and even on the campuses of American universities. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an abominable anti- Semitic forgery of a Russian czar, is resurfacing at Iranian government-sponsored book fairs, on Egyptian-controlled television broadcasts and in Saudi-published textbooks. This precise work was used by Hitler to indoctrinate Nazi youths. We must take this threat seriously.

Natan Sharansky, himself once a Soviet religious prisoner, a ``Jewish refusenik,'' states that a test of a free society is whether ``people have a right to express their views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm.'' None of the CPCs cited above are free societies. It is no coincidence that regimes that pose the gravest threats to our national security--Iran and North Korea today--are also ones that tyrannically crush freedom of belief. The protection and promotion of religious freedom is as fundamental to our national interest, as it is to our ideals.

When we promote religious freedom for these countries and others, when we as members of the Senate speak publicly on religious freedom, when we raise the issue on our trips abroad and in our meetings with foreign officials, when we make sure that members of

the administration and embassy officials around the world raise these values regularly with foreign governments, when we speak on behalf of persecuted dissidents, and when we act consistently in our own country, we will not only be working to ensure every person can worship as they see fit. We will also be ensuring a safer, peaceful, more secure world where the rights of all--the freedoms of all--are respected and celebrated.

Mr. President, I offer this motion to instruct with regard to the college tuition deduction. As I have noted on other occasions, this bill is really a ``tax increase prevention'' bill. One of the many important elements is the college tuition deduction. This provision was established in the 2001 tax relief bill and provides an above-the-line deduction for higher education expenses, commonly called the ``college tuition deduction.'' The eligibility for the deduction is limited based on income and is aimed at helping middle-class American families that are struggling to meet the rising

cost of college tuition. It benefits students and their families at all types of institutions--from community colleges to 4-year schools, and both public and private institutions.

However, because we have had to slow-walk this bill with some foot- dragging across the aisle, this deduction expired on December 31, 2005. Nonetheless, it is important that we not only extend this provision, but make it permanent. The college tuition deduction is an important and popular education tax benefit, particularly for the middle class. It is not available to taxpayers with income above $80,000--$160,000 in the case of joint returns.

In 2003--the last year for which official data are available--more than 3 \1/2\ million Americans benefited from the tuition deduction, with nearly $7 billion in college tuition costs covered by the deduction--an increase of nearly 9 percent from the previous year. Tax incentives for college tuition helped nearly 11 million Americans realize the dream of a college degree. This represents more than two- thirds of all college students. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, over 150,000 families and students took advantage of this deduction. The tuition deduction is a crucial part of our education tax incentives and must be made permanent. We should send the message to parents of high school students that this deduction will be there when their students begin college.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion and support these families and students striving for a college education.

Motion to Instruct Conferees

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the efforts of the Keystone Soldiers organization based in Fleetwood, PA. This all-volunteer organization provides continued support for our service members currently deployed overseas through letters, emails, phone calls, and care packages. Keystone Soldiers has most recently partnered with Boscov's department stores in an effort to collect valentines for deployed service members. The Collection of Hearts campaign is just a small part of their effort to remind our deployed troops that they have our continued support. I appreciate the patriotism of this organization in supporting our troops as they continue to serve our Nation.

Our brave service men and women are sacrificing so much for us; they are in harm's way each day, missing valuable time with their loved ones. Showing support by sending care packages, letters, and emails is a very small way to show our appreciation for their sacrifice.

I appreciate the selfless efforts of charitable organizations, such as Keystone Soldiers, for reminding our troops that they are appreciated. I encourage all Americans to show their support for our troops by lending your support to organizations such as these.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Sportsmen's Privacy Protection Act'' to address a number or privacy concerns I have heard from my constituents. When I worked with my colleagues to pass the 1996 welfare reform law, we made sure that we created a system to hold parents accountable for supporting their children. A provision included in that law obligated States to implement new requirements to encourage payment of child support that cross-referenced Social Security Numbers of applicants for drivers' licenses, professional licenses, occupational licenses and recreational licenses. States that failed to implement these requirements would have faced the loss of Federal welfare funding.

Under current state law, Pennsylvania is required to revoke or deny recreational licenses, including hunting and fishing licenses of parents who are behind on child support payments. As a result, any individual that applies or renews a driver's, occupational or recreational license must include their Social Security Number on their application form. And it is the application that is the problem. In Pennsylvania and many other States, the drivers', professional and occupational records are automated or computerized, while the recreational licenses remain in a paper book often with multiple entries on a page. In my view, there are significant privacy concerns to continuing this provision as it relates to recreational licenses such as hunting and fishing.

In preparing this bill we asked the Congressional Research Service, CRS, about the effectiveness of this provision. CRS spoke with the Pennsylvania Child Support Program, PACSP, regarding the effectiveness of retracting or denying individuals hunting and fishing licensees. CRS indicated to my staff that there have been very few instances where individuals have been denied hunting and fishing licenses for falling behind in child support payments. In the overwhelming majority of the instances where they have been denied, the custodial parent will tip- off PACSP of the non-custodial parent's interest in obtaining a hunting and fishing license. PACSP can then notify the PA Hunting and Gaming Commission to deny the non-custodial parent a license.

I have heard from a lot of hunters about their legitimate concerns in giving their Social Security Number when applying for a hunting license. This bill will repeal the Federal mandate that requires States to collect Social Security Numbers for recreational licenses. The requirement for drivers', professional and occupational licenses would remain in place. My home State colleague, Representative English, has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation that restores the privacy rights of recreational hunters and fisherman, while maintaining an effective system of child support enforcement.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the ``Sportsmen's Privacy Protection Act'' to address a number or privacy concerns I have heard from my constituents. When I worked with my colleagues to pass the 1996 welfare reform law, we made sure that we created a system to hold parents accountable for supporting their children. A provision included in that law obligated States to implement new requirements to encourage payment of child support that cross-referenced Social Security Numbers of applicants for drivers' licenses, professional licenses, occupational licenses and recreational licenses. States that failed to implement these requirements would have faced the loss of Federal welfare funding.

Under current state law, Pennsylvania is required to revoke or deny recreational licenses, including hunting and fishing licenses of parents who are behind on child support payments. As a result, any individual that applies or renews a driver's, occupational or recreational license must include their Social Security Number on their application form. And it is the application that is the problem. In Pennsylvania and many other States, the drivers', professional and occupational records are automated or computerized, while the recreational licenses remain in a paper book often with multiple entries on a page. In my view, there are significant privacy concerns to continuing this provision as it relates to recreational licenses such as hunting and fishing.

In preparing this bill we asked the Congressional Research Service, CRS, about the effectiveness of this provision. CRS spoke with the Pennsylvania Child Support Program, PACSP, regarding the effectiveness of retracting or denying individuals hunting and fishing licensees. CRS indicated to my staff that there have been very few instances where individuals have been denied hunting and fishing licenses for falling behind in child support payments. In the overwhelming majority of the instances where they have been denied, the custodial parent will tip- off PACSP of the non-custodial parent's interest in obtaining a hunting and fishing license. PACSP can then notify the PA Hunting and Gaming Commission to deny the non-custodial parent a license.

I have heard from a lot of hunters about their legitimate concerns in giving their Social Security Number when applying for a hunting license. This bill will repeal the Federal mandate that requires States to collect Social Security Numbers for recreational licenses. The requirement for drivers', professional and occupational licenses would remain in place. My home State colleague, Representative English, has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this legislation that restores the privacy rights of recreational hunters and fisherman, while maintaining an effective system of child support enforcement.

Mr. President, it is an honor for me to be here today to speak on behalf of a great organization and a great group of men who accomplished the heights of their profession. The Pittsburgh Steelers were victorious in Super Bowl XL on Sunday. As I speak right now, there is a parade going through downtown Pittsburgh of our warriors, our champions who have brought back the Super Bowl trophy, the Lombardi trophy, to Pittsburgh for the fifth time, which ties a record with the San Francisco 49ers and the Dallas Cowboys, having won five Super Bowls.

During the 1970s, we won four and got comfortable with the fact that Pittsburgh was a city of champions, winning both football titles and two World Series titles in 1972 and 1979; and in 1979 we won both the Super Bowl and the World Series. It has been a long time--26 years-- since we were able to get, as the saying goes in Pittsburgh, ``one for the thumb.'' We didn't yet have the one for the thumb. But the time for the one for the thumb has come. We have, in fact, gotten over the hump, and we have a lot more to look forward to, in my view, in the years to come with this great squad.

I congratulate, obviously, the team. I also congratulate some other folks who I think deserve particular recognition--and, by the way, Senator Specter and I have put forth a congratulatory resolution, which we brought down to the floor and I am sure will be cleared and we will be able to get that passed today.

I congratulate the Rooney family. This is a family enterprise that has been, since 1933, running the Steelers. I don't know of any other team in the NFL that has had the kind of stable ownership and closeness with the community that the Rooney ownership has brought over the past 73 years. They are a great Pittsburgh family. Art Rooney, who bought the team back in 1933, was one of the founders of the NFL. For years and years and years, he was one of the great men of football but never won a championship for over 40 years being in the league, and then they had a great run in the 1970s.

After his passing, Dan, his son, took it over, and has been a tremendous pillar of the Pittsburgh community. This is a man who is as humble as any man I have ever met. In contrast with some of the high- flying owners of the NFL, this is a man who still flies around in a little single-engine plane. They have a training camp well out of town, so instead of having to drive from his home, he takes this little plane and flies out to the airport near St. Vincent College. He still remembers his roots and does so much for the community. One of the things he does most for the community is he keeps the beloved Steelers a local community team, a team that is good to its players and good to the community and puts the community first. That is one of the reasons the Steelers are so beloved in Pittsburgh--because they are so much a fabric in the city because they participate in community organizations, and their players have great relationships throughout the Pittsburgh area and make a difference in the community. That is really what professional sports should be more about.

We have true role models in people like Jerome Bettis who have added so much to the texture of Pittsburgh. Over the years, we have had many great players in and out, and because of the leadership of the Rooney family and the stability of the coaching ranks, from Chuck Knoll to Bill Cowher, we have seen that stability, that bond with the city that has been transferred to the players. They feel that special relationship and obligation to be role models in the community. Overwhelmingly, they have lived up to that.

So it is a very proud moment, not only because they won a football game--in fact, they won four improbable games against worthy opponents--they were a team that barely made the playoffs, but they went through and not only got to a championship game and won the AFC championship, they then won the Super Bowl. They are truly a remarkable team, inspired by this great family, the Rooney family, and a great coach, Bill Cowher, who has been, again, another important piece of the Pittsburgh family now for better than a dozen years. He continues to show that a hometown boy can come back, somebody who wasn't a star in the league but a solid guy from Pittsburgh who understands the importance of the Steelers to the community and lives by that ethic and the code the Rooneys have established very well and makes Pittsburgh a better place as a result.

It is great to see Coach Cowher get a Super Bowl, it is great to see the team back on top, and it is great to see Pittsburgh, a town that has gone through a lot in the steel industry in the 1970s--they have seen pretty dark times in the 1980s in particular as a community. We have been going through a renaissance in Pittsburgh in the last 10, 12 years, a tremendous transformation of that city. It is nice to see that the Steelers put a punctuation mark which, hopefully, draws some attention and makes us feel better about ourselves because not only have we made the transformation, but we have a winning team and a good, positive attitude about how we go forward.

So I am proud to be a Pittsburgher, and I am proud particularly to be a Pittsburgh Steeler fan today. I congratulate the entire organization and all of the people in Pittsburgh for the tremendous support you continue to give the Steelers and the great attitude you bring to our fair city.

Mr. President, it is sort of with mixed emotions that I am

here on the floor to talk about this tax bill. In one sense, I am very happy we are moving forward with the Tax Increase Protection Act. At the same time, I am at somewhat of a loss as to why we are spending 2, 3, and maybe more days of the Senate's time for something that is traditionally done when there is comity and cooperativeness in the Senate by unanimous consent, putting in a substitute Senate-passed bill for the House bill and go to conference. That is something we do routinely here, almost daily. We have disagreements with the House, and we simply go through the procedure of moving to conference and having those differences worked out.

Unfortunately, we are at a time here where even routine things become weeklong labors to accomplish them. That does not reflect well on the Senate. I don't believe it accomplishes anything other than to delay other matters that are to come before the Senate.

We have a very important bill dealing with an issue that is of vital importance to my State--many manufacturing jobs in my State--and that is the asbestos debacle going on throughout the courts in this country where over half of the money paid out by corporations in asbestos claims has gone to lawyers. There are many people in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who are literally getting pennies--people who are sick and some are dying and some have died, and they have received literally pennies for their exposure to asbestos and their subsequent disease because of the horrific environment of litigation on asbestos, where lawyers are profiting and patients--those who are sick or are survivors of those who have gotten ill and died--get virtually nothing. This is something we have to address.

Instead of addressing that, which is what we should be doing right now, we are holding up the Senate on a procedural matter. It is truly sad that we can no longer just cooperate on the normal business. Everything is obstruction and slowdown and political potshots and making points. I think that is unfortunate for this body. It sets a very dangerous precedent that we are going to conduct business like this in the future. Whether it is in the next election or elections in the future, at some point in time, the tables will turn. I believe what we are establishing today is not something that will be beneficial for the long term in our ability to get things done in the Senate.

While the chairman is still on the Senate floor, I thank him again. I am repeating this because we are doing the same bill. I thank him for all the hard work he has put into this bill. The fact that he was able to get a bipartisan bill through the Senate is a testament to him, and I know it is very difficult and trying, negotiating within our own conference as well as negotiating with Members on the other side of the aisle. He was able to, as he has done on many occasions, cut through all of the difficulty and partisanship and the angst some Members have about various provisions and find a good middle ground, and well over 60 Members of the Senate supported the Senate bill that passed in November. I thank him for his good work and for the work he has done with me, in particular, on the issue of helping the nonprofit sector in our society meet the needs of those.

We were at the prayer breakfast this morning, and Senator Grassley was there. We heard Bono and the President talk about taking care of the least of our brothers and sisters. The President says it so well. I have been advocating so long that nobody really does it better than our faith-based communities and our community nonprofits. They are the ones on the front line. We talked about it at the prayer breakfast--whether it is responding to a natural disaster or, more often and less prominently, responding to a person in need in our communities across America, rich as well as poor, people in need who are suffering.

It is important that we recognize that portion of this bill has to be a net plus for our charitable community. There are provisions in there that I have expressed concerns about which would do damage to those nonprofits' ability to be able to provide the needed services and to do the good works in our communities that make America stronger.

We have some good charitable-giving incentives, which are a big plus, but we also have charitable reforms on which I worked with the chairman. I think that maybe we are 90 percent of the way there, making sure we weed out some bad practices and making sure there isn't abuse within the charitable field, but at the same time not saddling our charities with a Sarbanes-Oxley type of oversight and regulations that would drive a lot of our small volunteer-oriented nonprofits out of existence and leave a big hole in our communities across America.

I am hopeful that when we get to the House and into conference, Chairman Thomas will work with us and we will be able to get a bill that will be not only a net plus but a big plus for the armies of compassion, the foot soldiers across America who are helping men and women in need and children in need in our society.

A big part of this bill, obviously, is the tax relief. It is not exactly what I had hoped for. It is one of those compromises we had to make along the way. I thought the House bill actually had some better provisions when it comes to some of the tax provisions. It continues on a policy that has resulted in a lot of positive economic news over the past several years since 2003. We have seen that by these changes in the Tax Code and reducing marginal rates and capital gains taxes and dividends, it has incentivized the entrepreneurial spirit and incentivized business investment; it has created an explosion of growth in this country, which has also resulted in millions of people getting jobs--net new jobs across America.

I have a chart that shows, since the Jobs and Growth Act of May of 2003, and looking at the real GDP growth in America, there is a dramatic tilting upward since these provisions were passed. That has resulted in a dramatic increase, as we have seen on some other charts, in Federal revenues.

There is a constant complaint, a drumbeat on the other side of the aisle, and from a few on this side of the aisle, that somehow we cannot afford these tax reductions.

It is interesting; if you think of tax reductions, that leaves the question, What is a tax reduction? What is a tax reduction? Is a tax reduction a reduction in the taxes paid; or is it a reduction in the rate of the tax paid? What is a tax reduction?

Depending on how you view a tax reduction--and the answer is different based on what we did--if you look at, Did we reduce taxes, the answer is, with respect to rates, yes, we reduced taxes; we reduced the capital gains dividend rates, the marginal tax rates. We reduced the rates on the taxation of married couples and in several other areas. So, yes, we reduced the rate of tax.

The question is, Did we reduce the collection of taxes? What should Congress be more concerned about? Should we be more concerned about the rates of taxes or should we be more concerned about the collection of tax revenues?

I would think most people, when we have cut taxes, would say we reduced the collection of taxes in America. That is not what happened. When we reduced the rate of taxes, when we cut taxes, we actually didn't cut taxes. We actually increased the flow of revenue to the Federal Government.

So if we are looking at it from the standpoint of the budgeteers, the folks who are responsible for managing the receipts and distributions of Government, then the actions taken by the Congress in 2001 and 2003 resulted in increased taxes paid to the Federal Government through a policy that believes in the innovation and the energy of the people, that if you unshackle them from higher tax rates, they will produce more, they will create more jobs--and job growth has been terrific, over 2 million jobs, and the unemployment rate has been under 5 percent--and we end up with a better quality of life, more revenue to the Federal Government, and higher growth rates overall in our economy.

That is a pretty good picture. So why the complaints? Why are people so upset that we actually put a program in place that has resulted in more revenues coming to the Federal Government? Why the complaints? Why the gnashing of teeth that somehow this is a policy that is harmful to the budget deficit? Revenues were up 14 percent last year. How is that harmful to the budget deficit?

They say: That would have happened; in fact, we would have gotten more money had we not reduced taxes. Is that true? Let's look at the capital gains issue.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2003 that we would collect roughly $125 billion in the year 2004 and 2005 in capital gains taxes. We went ahead and reduced the capital gains tax rate. Many of us stood on the floor and said, by reducing that rate, we will actually get more revenues. The Congressional Budget Office said ``no,'' everybody on the other side said ``no,'' and, in fact, everybody on the other side still said ``no'' and still says we shouldn't keep those rates low, we have to increase those rates because we need the money.

How did it work out? What happened when we reduced those rates? Did we get, as the Congressional Budget Office suggested, $26 billion less money? And that is what they projected. They projected in 2004 and 2005 that the amount of money coming into the Treasury in capital gains taxes paid would go down by $26 billion. What happened? Now we know. The amount of revenue collected in capital gains taxes went up $27 billion.

I was talking to a reporter the other day. I said: Lo and behold, I voted for a tax increase and didn't even know it. I voted for a provision that actually increased taxes to the Federal Government, and the folks who paid those taxes were very happy to pay them, by the way, because they were investing in America and America's values were increasing. Stock in America, real estate in America, the things that made wealth in America were increasing because of a growing economy because of what we did on the floor of the Senate, and they were very happy to have paid those taxes. And we got more Federal revenues.

What does the other side want to do? They want to have that rate go back up. One might suggest that if the rate goes back up, revenues could do down. What could be their motivation? What is the motivation of trying to increase a tax to get less revenue? Think about it. What could be the possible motivation of coming to the floor of the Senate and saying we need to increase taxes, even though by doing so we are going to get less money. Why would you do that? From a public policy perspective, why would you want to do that?

I can tell you that the argument is given that we need it to balance the budget. Wait a minute. We are going to get less money, so why would you do it? Could it be something of the whole politics of envy, the politics of pointing the finger at those who are successful, get a paycheck, and invest in America and say we need to tax them more; that is the fairness issue? We hear that a lot on the floor of the Senate: It is about fairness. That is what it is about? Stick it to those who succeeded, invested, purchased real estate, purchased stocks and bonds; we are going to take a bigger chunk of their money because that is fair. We may get less revenue, we may get slower economic growth, fewer jobs will be created, but we will feel better.

That is not sound public policy. That is not in the best interest of the American people. We did not get in the Senate bill a reduction of capital gains tax rate extension for 2 more years, but I will tell you that we will work very hard in the conference to make sure that happens. It is important for the economic growth of our country, for the job creation in our country, and for Federal revenues that we get that extension in law.

There are a lot of games being played on the floor of the Senate when it comes to tax policy and the politics of envy. What we should be focused on is how does this Senate, how does this Government create the best environment for growth opportunity and job creation and how do we do it in a way that is fiscally responsible. Those are the two things on which we should be focusing.

I would make the argument that the bill before us, which prevents an increase in taxes--these are tax policies that are in place right now; there is no new policy or, I should say, very minor, little new policy changes, such as the charitable giving incentives, but very small policy changes, a very small percentage of the money. The overall bill deals with provisions such as the alternative minimum tax, which is vitally important and the small saver's credit, which is important. About a quarter of a million people in my State strongly support that provision, in fact, would strongly support increased incentives for low-income individuals to save and, in fact, put forth a bill with former Senator Corzine to do that. So I am looking for another new cosponsor if anybody wants to join. It is called a kid's account to give every child in America a nest egg to begin to save at their birth.

I am big on giving people the opportunity to save, invest, build wealth, and feel connected to the economy of this country. We need to do more of that. But we have a little piece of that here, which is important to the people in my State. Mr. President, 150,000 families and students in my State will lose their deduction for college tuition if we don't extend that provision. With regard to the teacher tax credit provision Senator Collins championed, 142,000 teachers in Pennsylvania will not be able to deduct that. We can go on and on.

These are preventions of tax increases, a tax reduction that caused the kind of economic growth we have seen. It is important for us to have these provisions stay in law.

Finally, I want to talk about an issue that has been brought up--and it is an important issue--and that is the issue of mine safety. I know Senator Rockefeller has put forth an idea that I think deserves some consideration because it has merit. It provides mining companies with incentives to make available newer technology that will enhance safety.

We have seen over the last month in West Virginia and we saw, I guess, 3 years ago in Pennsylvania, mine disasters occur where human life was lost, in the cases of West Virginia, and certainly a major disaster was diverted in Quecreek in Pennsylvania.

This is a serious issue, one I care deeply about. My grandfather was a coal miner in a deep mine for 30 years, so this is very close to home for me. This is one issue we need to do something about, to improve the safety for those who literally risk their lives every day to provide for their families, to build strong communities, and to provide energy for all of us so these lights will work in the Chamber. We need to do all we can to improve enforcement as well as to create incentives for the mining community to improve safety at the workplace.

There is another provision in the Rockefeller bill that has to do with training for rescue teams. Because of the way it is written, I have some concerns about it. I heard from a lot of our small mining operations, family-run operations, that this provision would not benefit them at all.

As we know, a large percentage--at least in my State--a large percentage of the mine operations in my State are not big corporate mining operations. They are small, in some cases small corporations, family-run operations. So while I certainly strongly support the first provision and support the concept behind the second provision, I have serious concerns about the way that provision will tilt to the benefit of the larger mining operations.

While I support it and will support this amendment, I hope it is included and that we can work on something in conference to include improvement of mine safety, I am putting my marker down here that we will do so not to discriminate against small mines versus larger mining operations. If anything--if anything--we should be concerned about, as we do on a lot of issues in the Senate, helping the little guy, as opposed to helping the big guy because the big guys already have the resources to spend to provide for a safer workplace.

What we should be doing is focusing on how we can make smaller mining operations safer. That is not what this amendment that Senator Rockefeller puts forward does. As a result of that, while I support it and will support the provision to be included in the conference, I put the marker down that we are going to work diligently to make sure it uniformly impacts across the industry and, if anything, it benefits the smaller mine operator as opposed to the bigger one. That is not the way it is currently drafted.

I completely understand. I don't think Senator Rockefeller--at least

Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Coretta Scott King and express my condolences on her passing. Mrs. King carried the message of nonviolence and the dream of racial equality around our great nation and throughout the world. She led goodwill missions in Africa, Latin America, Europe, and Asia. Mrs. King traveled throughout the world advocating racial justice, religious freedom, and helping those in need.

Coretta Scott was born in Marion, AL, on April 27, 1927. In a world where neither women nor minorities pursued an education, she graduated as valedictorian of her high school class and attended Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH. She received a bachelor of arts in music and education and then studied concert singing at the New England Conservatory of Music in Boston, MA.

While in Boston, she met Martin Luther King, Jr., and the two forged a unique relationship that led to the raising of their four children and an endeavor to find racial equality throughout our country. She was not just the wife of one of our great civil rights leaders. She was a great civil rights leader in her own right. She became the first woman to deliver the Class Day address at Harvard, and the first woman to preach at a statutory service at St. Paul's Cathedral in London.

Just days after the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., Mrs. King carried out her husband's dream by leading a march on behalf of sanitation workers in Memphis, TN. Mrs. King continued to speak publicly and write nationally syndicated columns. As founding president, chair, and chief executive officer of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, she dedicated herself to providing local, national, and international programs that have trained tens of thousands of people in Dr. King's philosophy and methods. In 1983, she led an effort that brought more than a half million demonstrators to Washington, DC, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where King delivered his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech.

Mrs. King was also an instrumental part in establishing Dr. King's birthday, January 15, as a national holiday in the United States. By an act of Congress, the first national observance of the holiday took place in 1986. Dr. King's birthday is now marked by annual celebrations in over 100 countries.

Mrs. King has received honorary doctorates from over 60 colleges and universities and was the author of three books. She served on, or helped create, dozens of organizations, and has met with various heads of state to address the issues of racial inequality and fighting poverty.

As a nation, we owe Mrs. King a debt of gratitude for her strength and perseverance throughout her lifelong pursuit of equality for all Americans. She and her husband inspired generations of Americans to work towards freedom and equality. Their legacy will live on and their quest for civil rights will never be forgotten.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Missouri for his excellent comments. I join with him in talking about some of the issues the President brought up with respect to the State of the Union and, in particular, some of the issues confronting us overseas.

Before I do that, I congratulate the President for focusing like a laser beam on the crucial issues we have to deal with on the domestic side--the issues of health care, doing something to curb health care costs, improving the efficiency of the system through technology, expanding access through both health savings accounts and tax credits to those health savings accounts to let more people who do not have employer-provided health care purchase health insurance; his initiatives on competitiveness and education, preparing all of our students, K-12 as well as in college, for the new technology jobs that will be available; and an emphasis on improving the quality of education through teacher training, as well as providing opportunities and incentives for folks who get into the areas of math and science-- very important initiatives.

Obviously, there was a lot of focus on energy. It has profound national security implications, as the President laid out.

The President cited our addiction to oil and laid out a charge for us to reduce our dependency. It is a great aspirational goal for a President to lay out and charge all of us, on both sides of the aisle, to come forward with our best ideas to create more energy in the United States using the great minds and the technologies being developed in our university communities and in our laboratories.

We are going to work very diligently on trying to address energy again in this session of Congress, to build on what we did last year.

We bring up the tax bill, what I call the Tax Increase Prevention Act, which is to continue the presence of progrowth policies that have resulted in dramatically increasing revenues to the Federal Government because we have seen dramatic improvement in the health of the economy, more jobs being created, stronger investment, more capital investment which has led to more capital gains taxes than otherwise anticipated. We actually have seen an increase in capital gains taxes over what was anticipated prior to reduction. Here we reduced the rate and got more revenue. It is something many of us here have been arguing for a long time, and we see it borne out with the issue of capital gains.

Again, one of the hindrances of our economic system right now is lawsuit abuse and the horrific trauma some of these unscrupulous trial lawyers--there are a lot of good trial lawyers, but there are some unscrupulous ones, a small percentage, who are wreaking havoc on our society, which we will deal with after the Tax Increase Prevention Act, and also medical liability, frivolous lawsuits in a whole host of other areas, obesity lawsuits and the like. We need to get our arms around that and have a much more rational system. The President called for that.

Finally, there is the issue of fiscal responsibility, tighter spending. I think he is going to propose a very tough budget for next year. It will be tough to get done, but I think many of us are looking forward to the kind of fiscal discipline we believe this country needs as we enter a period of time when the baby boomers are going to start to retire and the pressure on us is going to grow dramatically, exponentially.

Mr. President, the reason I have come to the Chamber to

speak is because I received a letter recently, which was passed on to me, from a soldier in Iraq. This was passed on to me by his parents. This is not a letter he sent to me; he sent it to his parents and his friends telling about his experience in Iraq.

The letter was written on December 15 of last year. His parents wanted me to see it to share their son's experience of what is going on and to juxtapose that with what some in this Chamber have been saying is going on in Iraq, as certainly many in the national media say. It dovetails nicely with what the President said last night and the advances and the progress that are being made in Iraq. Instead of hearing my words, I will read what this fine soldier--this fine Pennsylvania soldier--said to his friends in writing from Baghdad. It says:

Friends, I apologize in advance for this mass email. I felt

I had to gather every email address I had and send a message.

. . . I am writing this from outside of Baghdad, and this is

how I see the war from my small corner. This is my opinion

only, and not the position of the U.S. Army or government (I

think I have to say it).

The bottom line is that I have witnessed enormous progress

in just my short four months in Iraq. We are on the right

path, and we must complete our mission here.

Democracy is Winning:

The election today was a great success with more voters and

less violence than anyone imaged. I sat in our operations

center watching reports come in. I think the biggest

emergency was getting a busload of students to the polls

despite the ban on driving (Iraqi police escorted them).

Building democracy is a slow process that must be

shepherded along the way, but clearly the majority of

Iraqis want to participate in a democratic process and

have a democratic government. This is evident all the way

from the neighborhood councils to these national

elections. The choice is between terrorism and democracy .

. . and 15 million chose democracy.

We are Defeating the Enemy:

Our battalions in our area have routed out much of our

enemy, forced them to ground, or forced them to flee. The

Marine and Army actions in the west have cut off new recruits

and supplies. If a bad guy does something, nine out of ten

times, he pays for it. The threat is shifting from terrorism

to one that is more criminal in nature, but make no mistake,

the insurgency is not over. This is driven by the casualties

we have taken in our unit, though they have been gratefully

few. The insurgency will continue even as Iraqis take over

the fight, and it may continue for years, but it is waning,

there is no doubt.

The Iraqi Army is Effective:

I can only speak for our area, but here the Iraqi Army

units are motivated and effective. We continue to turn over

more and more of the city to the Iraqi Army and they have

done well at continuing to defeat the insurgents. The Iraqi

Army and police successfully provided all of the security for

the elections in our area, with our units acting only as a

quick reaction force if required. We continue to partner U.S.

soldiers with Iraqi units and they continue to improve. It is

inevitable that they will be able to carry the full burden

securing their country in the near future.

Consequences:

The consequences of pulling out too early are enormous. It

would likely lead to a civil war and terrorist haven in Iraq,

possibly dragging the entire region into further turmoil. Al

Qaeda would be encouraged to continue to attack America, at

home and abroad. Staying to finish this fight, though more

soldiers will lose their lives, is a much smaller price to

pay. The benefits of creating a modest democracy in Iraq are

also enormous. The people of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia

will witness the benefits of an open democracy and,

hopefully, pressure the governments to change. What was a

swelling of jobless, dissatisfied Arab young men, easily

recruited to the ideology of terror just a few years ago,

will soon have nonviolent outlets through democracy and an

economic future through open markets.

Negative Political and Media Comments are Damaging our

Efforts:

I want to make it unequivocally clear that political

comments about pulling out of Iraq or losing this war does

hurt soldier morale and absolutely gives hope and

encouragement to our enemies. The only way the terrorists can

win in Iraq is if the American people lose the will to finish

what we started and withdraw early. Now our battered enemies

have been given a sliver of hope by weak politicians, so they

will fight on and gain additional recruits. This political

mistake will cost more blood than any military error yet made

in this war. Of course the crime is worsened by an alarmist

media always willing to tell everyone the sky is falling.

Well, it is not. The great thing is that the support regular

American citizens show for their soldiers is overwhelming and

counters the negative political and media comments. Care-

packages, cards, e-mails, and letters are abundant, and send

a strong message to those of us in the fight.

There is a Plan:

And the plan is that we pull U.S. soldiers out as Iraqis

become strong enough to secure themselves. We are doing this

little by little, slowly withdrawing and turning security

over to the Iraqis. Slow and methodical is the key, not a

rushed abandonment of our allies and friends. A vacuum in the

wake of a rapid U.S. pullout would only be filled by chaos.

Like almost all soldiers here, I would like to go home. For

me it would be to see my young children and wife. However, in

the end I would prefer to stay until the job is done, or

return for a second tour. I say this because I recognize that

we are making progress, and that we will win . . . and I

recognize the cost of failure. I do not want my family to be

a target of terrorism in my homeland, nor do I want my son to

have to fight the war I should have finished.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope it helps

balance what you are hearing in the media.

This soldier wrote this letter on his own. No one called him or wrote him or asked him to write this letter. He did it, obviously, because he cares a lot about his country, his family, and the future security of our country.

I can tell you that this is not an unusual letter I have received or an unusual comment I have been given by soldiers who have returned from their duty in Iraq. It is almost unanimous. The sentiments expressed in this letter are the sentiments I hear, whether it is talking to folks back in Pennsylvania, talking to folks at Walter Reed or Bethesda. I hear it over and over--the optimism, the high morale, the sense of accomplishment, and the fact that we are, in fact, winning this conflict in Iraq.

I will tell you that I agree with him, that we are making progress, that we have a plan, that democracy is winning, we are defeating the insurgents, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable and effective each day, and, as he said, there are real consequences of losing, of withdrawing before the job is finished, and that the defeatist rhetoric and the media bias do have an impact on our ability to accomplish this task.

It is far too often in this country, now that we are 4\1/2\ years removed from the events of 9/11, that we forget what happened there and what happened before; that we were not antagonizing our enemy, we were not out there riling up the insurgency, we were not threatening terrorists around the world. We were ``minding our own business,'' and they hit us and hit us hard.

My wife and part of my family watched the A&E special the other night on flight 93. I encourage every American to watch that just to be reminded of, obviously, the incredible heroism of the members of that ill-fated flight but also of what we are up against and what they are willing to do to take down our way of life.

We have a job to do, and we need to finish it, and that includes we have a job to do in the U.S. Congress. We have to pass the PATRIOT Act. It is absolutely irresponsible for us to have every few months or few weeks the PATRIOT Act potentially not being extended, out there hanging over our law enforcement people. We need to improve the PATRIOT Act, pass it, improve both civil liberties and our ability to protect ourselves, and we need to do it now.

We also need to stand behind our President in his efforts to make sure we are intercepting communications between suspected al-Qaida terrorists and those who want to coordinate from places all over the world.

I hear often in reference to the events of 9/11 that the critics of the administration are saying they failed to connect the dots. I don't know how many times I have heard that the President or the administration or the intelligence community failed to connect the dots. And these very same people today want to erase the dots. They don't even want us to have the dots to connect. They don't want us to get the intelligence so we can, in fact, proceed in having those dots a little closer together so we have an idea of in what direction they are going.

This is not a political folly of the President, to track down enemies of the administration and eavesdrop on them. This is a targeted program run by professional people of suspected al-Qaida terrorists who are communicating overseas. I find it almost incredible that this has become a political football in this overtly and, I believe, extreme political environment we are in right now.

I am hopeful that the rhetoric will back off and that we will focus again on what this soldier said. We have a mission to accomplish--to protect

America and to secure our freedom in the future--and we need to do so together, in a bipartisan manner, without snipping at each other's heels trying to get political advantage. Simply support the mission that is best for the long-term future of our security.

I have one final comment on the NSA program of trying to uncover terrorists who are potentially planning and plotting further destruction in America.

It came from an op-ed that I read in the Wall Street Journal the other day, from the sister of Charles Burlingame. He was one of the pilots on American Airlines flight 77. He was from my State. I had the opportunity to meet his wife and members of his family.

Debra Burlingame writes in the Wall Street Journal this week:

NBC News aired an ``exclusive'' story in 2004 that

dramatically recounted that how al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar, the

San Diego terrorists who would later hijack American Airlines

flight 77 and fly it into the Pentagon, received more than a

dozen calls from an al Qaeda ``switchboard'' inside Yemen

where al-Mihdhar's brother-in-law lived. The house received

calls from Osama Bin Laden and relayed them to operatives

around the world. Senior correspondent Lisa Myers told the

shocking story of how, ``the NSA had the actual phone number

in the United States that the switchboard was calling, but

didn't deploy that equipment, fearing it would be accused of

domestic spying.'' Back then, the NBC didn't describe it as

``spying on Americans.'' Instead, it was called one of the

``missed opportunities'' that could have saved 3,000 lives.

It is a classic case in point where people complained about connecting the dots, but in this case we simply did not have the dots because we were afraid to go out and find the information we needed to prevent the loss of lives in America.

Don't hamper our ability to do that in the future. Quit playing politics with the safety and security of the American public.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to give my full support to Judge Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I am sure that will be no great surprise to those who have followed my career.

I want to lay out in brief why I believe Judge Alito is exactly the kind of Justice this country needs at this time and, candidly, is exactly the kind of Justice this country, for the most part, has had, in keeping with its constitutional traditions over the last 200-plus years.

Judge Alito is not from Pennsylvania, although he claims to be a Phillie fan, which is fine by me. I somewhat prefer the Pirates, being from

Pittsburgh. I certainly respect him. He comes from the Third Circuit, which includes the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I have had an opportunity to talk to many of his colleagues on the court, Republicans and Democrats. Both Republicans and Democrats--everyone I have spoken to, and I have spoken to several--have praised him in the highest terms possible. Colleagues of his have stepped forward and have used terms of respect you don't often hear. Unfortunately, you don't often hear it around this body--certainly not lately--but you certainly heard it from them both privately and publicly, saying how much integrity the man has, how much his legal acumen is right on, as are his demeanor, jurisprudence, and humility--all of the things one would want to see out of a judge, and they speak in glowing terms about him. So that was my introduction to him.

I had never met Judge Alito prior to his nomination. When he was nominated, one of the first things I did was call some of his colleagues. I did it to get a sense of the kind of man he was. The response I received was overwhelming.

One of the things I want to cover is how I believe that his view of the role of a judge is very similar to John Roberts' view of the role of a judge. In fact, his record, in my opinion, and the way he approaches the law is remarkably similar to the judge who is now a Justice confirmed here in the Senate by 70-plus votes. I am somewhat at a loss to see why Judge Alito is not receiving similar support, because their records and their approach to the law are remarkably similar, in my mind. He is a judge who, when I met him, used very much the same terms as Justice Roberts--terms such as humility and modesty in dealing with the matters before them; that he was not to be a judge who was to impose his views on the case before him.

Many have tried to claim that somehow or another he is ideological. I don't think there is anything in the Record that would indicate Judge Alito applies his own personal viewpoints to the case at hand. He looks at the law, looks at the facts of the case and does his best on the narrowest grounds possible to decide the cases before him. That is what a judge is supposed to do--not say, gee, here is my opportunity to change the law, my opportunity to right a wrong that I think Americans or a particular State or the Government has done that I disagree with; here is my opportunity to change the law by using the force of the Constitution to impose my values. That is not what he does. Again, what he also doesn't do--and it strikes me as a very odd discussion when it comes to analyzing a judge's rulings on who he rules for, does he rule for the little guy or the big guy, as if little guys are always right and big guys are always wrong, or vice versa, for that matter. It is the idea that you don't decide the case before you based on the law and the facts but based on whether you like the plaintiff, or you like the defendant, or what is a sympathetic figure on one side or the other-- that is about the worst kind of justice you can possibly acknowledge.

My colleagues who say he rules for the big guys or the big corporations, or whoever it is, are you saying every action that comes before the Court where a little guy is in a case, he automatically should win? Is that what it is? If you are not a judge who rules for the little guy all the time, is it true that somehow you don't have a proper view of the law? This is a remarkable discussion I keep hearing. I heard over and over again in the Judiciary Committee about the result of these cases and who he sides with. Is that somehow a point which is legitimate when it comes to a judge? The question is, is he an appellate jurist who was following the law? Was he properly applying the law to the case? It is not who won or lost the case. I find it very disturbing that we are reducing this confirmation process to whose side he ruled on and whether ideologically he fits a particular Senator's view of a particular issue or particular issues. That is not how we have ever viewed Justices in the Senate. We do not keep scorecards of whether you side with the little guy or big guy or how you came down on cases. We certainly have not had ideological litmus tests in the past on judicial nominations.

Those two things, I have to tell you, that have been some of the more frequent criticisms of Judge Alito trouble me as to how we are morphing the judicial process or the selection, approval, and confirmation process into sort of a campaign process, into a process of how we elect legislators and Presidents. We are not electing a legislator or a President, someone who we have a right to know their ideology or what side they are going to come down on.

We are electing someone whose job it is to play it right down the middle, whose job it is to be blind justice, who is going to weigh the facts in the law and do what it dictates, not do what they believe, in their ideological viewpoint, is right.

I am disturbed by the criticism, but I am very encouraged by Judge Alito and the way he has conducted himself and the way he answered the questions and how he has, in fact, laid out a very concise and well- reasoned approach to his making decisions on the Court in the past.

He obviously has impeccable credentials. The Senator from Utah is in the Chamber right now, and I heard him say over and over that no one has the credentials this man has and the experience he brings to the Supreme Court. No one, in my view, has been more personally decent, humble, and modest dealing with a rather rancorous hearing process. He came off, at least from my view, as exactly the kind of temperament we would want of a Supreme Court Justice--of any judge. He is obviously highly intelligent, battling wits with some of the best minds in the Senate. During this process, both privately and publicly, he has been gracious. He is, again, someone I am very proud to support.

If I can, for a moment, talk again about where we are in the context of the role of the judiciary in our democratic process. We often talk about the tyranny of the judiciary--many on our side of the aisle do-- how the judiciary has run amok in its ever-unceasing quest to take responsibilities and decisions away from the elected democratic bodies of our country and hoist it onto the backs of the Supreme Court or the courts in our country. That is a very dangerous precedent we have seen over the last 30 and 40 years in our courts, that increasingly decisions are being made by the judicial system and, in so doing, barring the House, the Senate, and the President from regulating or legislating in that area in the future, in a sense making these substantive decisions as to how we should live our lives, how our economy will function, how our laws will be written across the street in an unelected body as opposed to how the democratic process works--to have the people's collective will reflected in their laws.

One of the reasons I think these nominations are so important and maybe so contentious is because we are at a point right now where there has been a movement for many years to bypass the democratic process, bypass the people's Houses and go to the courts to get an extreme agenda passed and into law in this country.

The voices we have heard over the past couple of months during this nomination and which we heard somewhat more muted during the Roberts nomination were of those trying to hold onto power by holding onto a majority on the Supreme Court of the United States to continue to promulgate a far-left-of-center agenda on a variety of issues, using the Court as the place to silence the people in their collective judgments.

One of the reasons that I think is vitally important for putting a Judge Alito on this Court, and hopefully future Judge Alitos as other vacancies occur, is that we will have an opportunity to return a balance of power in this country away from nine unelected people across the street from the Senate to the halls of the people's bodies, to the living rooms of America, for them to be able to make these decisions that are important to the future of our country and not have those decisions taken from them by radical judges on our courts.

So this is an important step. Do I believe that we are going to see, as a result of Judge Alito's confirmation, which appears to be all but certain, a dramatic change in the precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court? I sort of doubt that we will see dramatic change, certainly not any time soon. But I think what we will see is a more

modest approach to dealing with the problems with which the Supreme Court is confronted. We will not see cases where the Court could decide a case on a narrow issue and settle the dispute at hand and instead of doing so take the opportunity, ``while we are at it,'' to overturn a variety of precedents they don't need to overturn and create new legislation, if you will, through their judicial opinions. We see that happen time and again. It threatens the very foundation of our country.

Thomas Jefferson understood that. Jefferson in 1821--this was after he was President, 5 years before he died, obviously a great student of our Constitution, obviously a great student of the powers of the Congress and the judiciary and obviously of the Presidency--he said, in reflecting on this very delicate system and the balance of power among the executive, the judicial, and the legislative branch:

The germ of destruction of our Nation is in the power of

the judiciary, an irresponsible body working like gravity by

night and by day, gaining a little today and a little

tomorrow and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over

the field of jurisdiction until all shall render powerless

the checks of one branch over the other and will become as

venal and oppressive as the government from which we

separated.

He saw the power of an immodest, a brash, a bold judiciary in its ability by using the ultimate law of the land, the Constitution, in grabbing power by day and by night quietly--drip, drip, drip--taking the power away from the people and ceding it to itself so that, to paraphrase Jefferson, they would be like the monarchs we left, ruling from their kings' benches.

This is a true threat, in my opinion, to the democracy in America today. Jefferson, as he did with many issues, had it right here too. There have been times in American history where the pendulum has swung in favor of one branch of Government to the other. I think this is such a time when we have seen that pendulum swing to the Supreme Court, and it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that equilibrium is restored.

I know there are a lot of folks who are listening who say: I like the decisions the Supreme Court has made; that is why I am out here arguing, to make sure we can preserve that. I can say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. There may, indeed, come a day-- although I hope it will not come--there may, indeed, come a day when this Court decides, since we have power to make laws in favor of those who like the recent decisions of the courts or decisions over the last 30, 40 years, there may come a time when they take that same authority and make a whole host of decisions that you don't like.

Whether I am in the Senate or somewhere else at that point in time, I hope I will have the integrity and the ability to stand up and criticize that Court such as I am criticizing the courts over the last 30 years for their activities. There is no place for the Court imposing its will and making laws. There is no place for that in our Constitution. That is not their role.

I am very pleased the President understands that and that he has put forth judges who I believe understand that point of view as a member of the judiciary. I am hopeful that we will confirm Judge Alito and that we will continue this process of creating a better balance of powers among the Congress, the executive branch, and the judiciary. This is a very important, in my opinion, second step in that process.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, but I want to take a few minutes to discuss a specific aspect of that bill--the reauthorization of the welfare reform law. As many of my colleagues have heard me say, I believe the 1996 welfare reform law is one of the great legislative successes during my time in the U.S. Senate. Since the bi11's enactment, welfare caseloads have been cut in half, more than 7 million individuals and 2 million families have exchanged a welfare check for a paycheck, and welfare reform has lifted 2.3 million children out of poverty.

We must build upon this success to move the 2 million families that remain on welfare into the workforce by ending the Practice of simply extending the program and passing a legislative reauthorization of the welfare reform law. On January 24, 2005, I introduced S.6, the MORE Act, that included a reauthorization of TANF. A bipartisan reauthorization bill, S. 667, passed the Senate Finance Committee with my support on March 9, 2005. While I continue to believe that such reauthorization would have been best suited by moving the Senate Finance Committee reported bill, S. 667, under regular order; we unfortunately have been unable to reach an agreement with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to bring this bill to the floor.

After over 3 years of trying to move forward on this reauthorization, our colleagues in the House have included TANF reauthorization in their budget reconciliation bill. Going into this process, I was concerned that some provisions in the House legislation regarding work hours, participation rates, child support enforcement and access to child care did not strike the appropriate balance needed to meet the needs of these families as they strive to move from welfare to work. I was pleased that the House had included provisions to encourage healthy marriages, promote responsible fatherhood, and support strong families. At the end of the day, the Deficit Reduction Act is not my preferred vehicle, but I am glad we are making some improvements in the program without upsetting the necessary balance.

The conference report reauthorizes the welfare program--the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program or TANF--through fiscal year 2010 at its current funding level of $16.9 billion annually. The bill provides an additional $1 billion for child care over 5 years for a total of $2.917 billion annually. While I understand and have heard from many that they want a higher amount for child care, this bill will increase the investment in child care for working families by $1 billion, and if we don't do this bill there will be no increase in child care at all. It is important to get this increase done this year.

I am very pleased that the conference report provides $100 million annually for healthy marriage promotion, and $50 million annually for the promotion of responsible fatherhood. The need for these programs is clear. Children growing up in married, two-parent homes are less likely to be victims of abuse, engage in high risk behaviors, and suffer from emotional problems. Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, five times more likely to be poor, and at least two to three times more likely to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with both parents.

However the benefits are also clear. Married families are 5 times less likely to be in poverty than are single-parent families. Adults benefit from marriage through lower mortality rates, better health, greater financial well-being, less suicide, greater happiness, and suffer less violence by intimate partners. Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior, and avoid high-risk behaviors such as drug use, truancy, and criminal activity compared to children who have uninvolved fathers. These grants can be used to provide information on the value of marriage, conflict resolution, relationship skills and financial management. Increasing healthy two-parent marriages is a proven means to reduce poverty and improve child well-being.

This conference report also makes modest changes in the implementation of the TANF program. First, it updates work participation rates. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, P.L. 104-193, contemplated that all states would meet a 50-percent participation rate by 2002. Because the current caseload reduction credit is based on the 1995 caseload level, most States--including my home State of Pennsylvania--have an actual participation rate standard of zero. States currently achieve their credit because of their ability to count a decade-old caseload decline. The conference report updates the credit to the more relevant date of 2005, thereby ensuring that the intent of the 1996 welfare reform act is realized.

The bill also closes a loophole on work participation rates. To avoid having to meet caseload requirements, some states set up separate programs and moved their harder-to-place clients to those programs to avoid the work requirements. The bill removes the ability to game the system by including these separate state programs in the work calculation, closing a loophole.

I have seen a number of reports that indicate that this bill changes work requirements, narrows what is considered work, et cetera. I want to be clear that this bill maintains the current work requirements. The bill does not change the current-law standard of 30 hours and maintains the separate 20-hour standard for adults with a child six years of age and under. It also maintains current-law activities that count as work, including allowing 12 months for education and training. The measure leaves it to the states to determine whether activities may be counted as work activities, and how to count and verify reported hours of work.

I have heard a number of my colleagues say that this bill ``cuts'' money from child support enforcement. I hope they go back and read the bill. The changes in child support actually increase child support enforcement and gets support to the families. The conference report includes provisions that increase States' ability to improve child support collection. Under current law, much of the child support that is owed to families on welfare is assigned to the State. The conference agreement would allow $423 million owed to families on welfare and those who have left welfare to go directly to those families--a significant improvement over current law.

The supposed ``cut'' is a restoration of the current state-matching requirement. Currently, States are required to match certain Federal funds with state funds, showing a State investment in the child support enforcement program. However, States have been taking Federal funds from one grant and then using them as the ``Federal'' matching funds rather than using State funds. The conference report prevents States from ``double dipping'' by using Federal funds to draw down additional matching federal funds for child support enforcement.

Additionally, the conference report provides $100 million for grants to ensure that the safety, permanence and well-being needs of children are met in a timely manner. The funds may also be used for the training of judges, attorneys, and other legal personnel in child welfare cases.

The measure also provides an increase of $200 million for the Safe and Stable Families program. The purpose of this program is to enable States to develop, expand or operate coordinated programs of community- based family support services for family preservation services, family reunification services, and adoption promotion.

A number of organizations may have misunderstood the changes relating to the alleged ``cuts'' in foster care. There are two provisions relating to foster care that might have led to this misperception, so let me speak on them for a minute.

First, the conference agreement restores long-standing foster care eligibility criteria relating to the Rosales v. Thompson decision. That decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals broadened eligibility for Federal foster care benefits to include almost every child in foster care in the nine affected States--California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii--instead of only children removed from low-income homes that TANF is intended to help. The conference agreement again ensures the same policy applies nationwide. As this decision did not apply in Pennsylvania, this change does not affect my home State.

Second, the bill limits the amount of administrative expenses when States are slow to place children in safe and suitable situations. I should be clear that this proposal does not reduce foster care benefits because the funds in question do not support payments to families. Instead, the proposal addresses how much Federal funding States may claim to operate their foster care programs and under what circumstances Federal funding may be claimed. Current law requires the placement of a child in a licensed foster family home or a child care institution as a condition of eligibility for federal foster care maintenance payments. As part of meeting this duty, States may make certain administrative claims on behalf of ``candidates'' for federal foster care. ``Candidates'' are children who have not been removed from their homes but are at imminent risk of removal.

The proposal allows the State to claim Federal administrative funds for up to 12 months while children are ``candidates'' for Federal foster care and the State is working to license the home as safe and appropriate for the child. In January 2005, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, issued a proposed regulation making this change. So States have been on notice that this issue was of concern for almost a year. Fourteen States have indicated that they would be affected by the proposed regulation; however Pennsylvania was not one of those States.

In summary, millions of our fellow citizens have replaced the dependency on government handouts with the dignity and opportunity of work. Children and families will now have opportunities to strengthen their families through programs to support marriage and responsible fatherhood. Thousands of children will have access to childcare through the $1 billion in new funding. And we have strengthened our child welfare programs. On balance, I think the reconciliation bill, as it relates to welfare reform, is a step in the right direction. I remain committed to ensuring that work remains a gateway to opportunity for all Americans and urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Mr. President, I rise today to raise an issue of concern with the Katrina tax relief bill, known as the Gulf Opportunity Zone. This bill quite rightly provides incentives to bring back businesses and capital to the devastated regions of the gulf coast. This package is needed legislation that will continue to drive redevelopment and provide encouragement for businesses and others to come back and rebuild, creating jobs in the rebuilding and jobs in the businesses themselves and providing much needed revenues for the local communities.

However, I have raised a concern to my colleague from Mississippi regarding providing incentives to certain industries such as casinos. I read with interest an article in the New York Times on December 14, 2005, regarding the return of casinos to the gulf coast. The article noted that while the storm damaged 9 out of 10 casinos in Biloxi, MS 3 of the 9 damaged would be open again before the new year. In fact ``[a]ll 10 Biloxi casinos have told the city they will rebuild, and most plan larger, more elaborate facilities.'' Clearly, the casinos and gaming industry do not need Congress to give them tax breaks to entice them to reopen.

More importantly, there are significant concerns about the impact of gambling on communities and families. In 2000, the Government Accountability Office found that ``individuals suffering from pathological gambling engaged in destructive family behavior, committed more crime than other citizens, and had higher suicide rates.'' It also found the ``destructive family behavior'' included domestic violence, divorce, and homelessness. Additionally, GAO ``also reported that children of individuals suffering from pathological gambling are often prone to suffer abuse and neglect.'' As we look at soaring costs for social programs and ever-increasing needs, it is most troubling that this report noted that ``lifetime pathological, problem, and at-risk gamblers are more likely than low-risk or nongamblers to have been alcohol or drug dependent'' and estimates that ``15 million adults are at risk of becoming problem gamblers.''

With the heartbreaking impact this industry has on some of our most vulnerable citizens, I am pleased that my colleague from Mississippi has recognized my concern and offered a package that ensures the necessary economic assistance for his State and communities without exacerbating the social toll on these already devastated communities and families.

I urge my colleagues to support the expeditious passage of this bill. I am hopeful our House colleagues will then adopt this bill and send it on to the President's desk so we can get this help out to these States, communities, businesses and families before the new year. Then hopefully the Congress can turn its attention back to the Tax Relief Act and enact its charitable incentives to help the countless nonprofits working day and night to heal the wounds in Katrina's wake. That element of the tax bill is critical, and we should move forward on this bill in short order.

EITC and CTC for Katrina Victims