Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy- Collins-Menendez amendment. It is an amendment that sends an important message to our Nation. Yes, budgets are about values and priorities. We tell our children in this country that education is a fundamental value that is of the highest importance, and then we submit a budget that speaks of much different values than that which, in fact, we hold up to our children.

If this amendment is passed, it says: If you work hard, if you are aiming for a goal, we will help you achieve it. It says no matter the happenstance of where you were born, the station in life into which you were born, we will give you the opportunity to fulfill your God-given potential. That is what this amendment says. It says we are willing to make the investments necessary in our young people to strengthen our country's future.

However, the budget before us does none of those things. I sat as a member of the Budget Committee listening through this process and, I must say, eventually cuts have to come from someplace. The suggestion that everything is in the education budget that we have had in the past is simply not reality. At the end of the day, we are still over $700 million short in higher education than from where we were. It does nothing to increase the maximum Pell grant, and we can see from this chart no matter what we talk about in terms of how we try to portray the numbers, there is one unmistakable fact: In the cost of attendance at a 4-year college institution, at a public college, versus the ability of what you can maximally achieve with a Pell grant, there is a huge gap, and that gap has continued to grow. So what we are telling our young people is, yes, education is a value, a higher education, college education degree is incredibly important for your own fulfillment, for the Nation's success in a global economy, but, sorry, we are just largely not going to help you. You are going to have to do that on your own. You are going to have to borrow and graduate under a mountain of debt. That is not a value that I think Americans share. They want to see the fulfillment of their children's potential realized.

So this does nothing to increase the maximum Pell grant, which will be frozen for the fifth year, and will decrease the actual real dollars in values as it has over the last 4 years. It does nothing to increase work-study grants, which will mean 1,000 fewer students will receive awards next year. It would take away low-cost loans in terms of the underlying budget for nearly a half million low-income students, loans that are forgiven--forgiven--for those who are serving in vital public service sectors such as teachers, nurses, law enforcement, or military officers. It will mean that more than 1.5 million low-income students would lose out on early intervention and college preparation programs that help make sure they are enrolled in and graduate from college.

That is why I am proud to be offering this amendment with my distinguished colleague and a tremendous leader on education, Senator Kennedy. I am also glad to be joined with Senator Collins in this effort. This amendment provides a real opportunity to change the course of events for our Nation and to meet our competitive future.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3054 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of not only myself but Senators Clinton, Durbin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Nelson of Florida, and Lieberman. I also ask unanimous consent to add Senator Reed of Rhode Island and Senator Schumer as cosponsors.

Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission told us that to prevent a terrorist attack, we had to think outside the box. If an ordinary envelope could be turned into a biological weapon and a passenger plane into a weapon of mass destruction, then it takes little imagination to see how a container could be used to transport a nuclear weapon to the port of New York and New Jersey, or any other seaport, causing tens of thousands of casualties.

The 9/11 Commission told us to think outside the box, but when it comes to port security, I believe we must think inside the container. The bottom line is, we don't know what is inside the vast majority of containers entering this country because despite repeated warnings from security experts from both within and without our Government, only 1 of every 20 containers that passes through our ports is inspected-- inspected. That is very important. Not screened but inspected. Ninety- five percent of the cargo received no inspection other than a cursory glance at the cargo manifest.

Now, let me point out what the Government Accounting Office said when it stated that the manifest information, the listing of what goes into these containers ``may be unreliable and incomplete. There is no method to routinely verify whether the manifest data accurately reflects the contents within the cargo container.''

That is why I am offering this amendment with our colleagues, which will put us on the road to 100 percent container scanning.

As port security experts Stephen Flynn and James Loy point out--James Loy was the former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and Stephen Flynn is well known in this field. They said:

To ensure port security, we must construct a comprehensive

global container inspection system that scans the contents of

every single container destined for America's waterfront

before it leaves a port.

We need to take advantage of existing technologies that can scan the inside of a container and create a downloadable image of what is inside. That image can be viewed in real time back here in the United States so we know what exactly is in these containers. When this technology is combined with scans for radioactive materials, we can find dangerous materials before it is too late.

That is why our amendment provides $105 million for this dual technology in the United States. It provides $50 million to help developing countries which may not have the funds to buy this new technology. In fact, these ports could be the weakest link in our international port security chain. We must be sure they do not become easy targets for terrorists looking for lax security practices. And it provides $10 million to make sure the United States can integrate these new technologies into our existing scanning and inspection system.

While we are waiting for this new international scanning system to become fully operational, we must make sure we increase inspections through our existing programs and improve on-the-ground security at our ports. That is why this amendment provides $100 million for at least 400 additional inspectors, both here and abroad. I would note the funding in my amendment is specifically for staff at ports, both here and abroad. I believe we need to make this increase in port security and staffing explicit in our budget.

I would also note that the Government Accounting Office--in a report on the container security initiative, which is supposedly this administration's focus on how we do the best we can as it relates to port security, and which is designed to target and inspect high-risk cargo before it leaves the ports, pointed out that staffing problems-- the GAO specifically noted that:

Staffing imbalances are one of the factors which limit the

Custom and Border Patrol's ability to successfully target

containers to determine if they are high-risk.

The Government Accounting Office went on to say:

As a result of staffing shortages abroad, 35 percent of

U.S.-bound shipments from these CSI ports were not targeted

and were not subject to inspection overseas . . .

The essence, the key goal of the CSI program, they said it wasn't accomplished.

In the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, the C-TPAT Program, staffing was also a problem. Specifically, the GAO report points out that the Customs and Border Patrol is not able to validate the self-reported information of C-TPAT members because of ``staffing constraints.'' This means companies which receive less scrutiny and inspection under the C-TPAT Program receive these benefits before ``they undergo the validation process, which is the Custom and Border Patrol's method to verify that members' characterization of their security measures are accurate and that the security measures have been implemented.''

We also provide $600 million for the Port Security Grant Program, more than tripling last year's budget. As this budget reflects no changes over the President's request, we can only assume there is no specific money going to port security grants. The American Association of Port Authorities notes that their recommendation to double the funds is only ``a modest investment.'' In fact, they point out that doubling these funds would represent ``36 percent of the Coast Guard's projected cost of the facility improvements.'' I believe that falls short of the mark.

Security experts tell us that we could more than triple the

funding for these grants, and we still wouldn't meet the

requirements to implement security measures at our Nation's

ports.

Finally, we must make sure that we have cutting edge technology to safeguard our ports. This amendment provides $100 million for research and development. Up to now, we have not focused enough on creating second generation technologies for nonintrusive inspections, which the private sector is unlikely to develop. It is time for that to change.

Strengthening security at our ports will not be cheap, and given the budgetary challenges our Nation faces, every dollar is hard to come by. But the status quo is unacceptable. An attack on one of our ports would not just cause a tremendous loss of life that has no monetary equivalent, but would also shut down a port and all of the economic activity it generates at a cost of billions of dollars to our economy.

If we could roll back the clock 10 years and spend a few billion dollars to raise the levees in New Orleans to be able to withstand a category 5 hurricane, we could have saved hundreds of lives, as well as the billions of dollars it will take to rebuild the city. I don't want this country to look back in hindsight a few years from now with the realization that had we spent the necessary dollars to improve the security at our ports now, we could have prevented a major terrorist attack.

Who among us would be satisfied in the aftermath of an attack that we did not take the steps that could have prevented it because we were unwilling to dedicate the necessary resources? That is the choice the Congress faces, and for the security of our country it is essential that we make the right one.

This amendment is also fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes that this body has supported before. I urge all of our colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip.

One minute.

Mr. President, I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, can you tell me how much time there is on both sides?

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include Senator Murray as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, let me make three quick points.

No. 1, we don't raise taxes here. We fully pay for it by closing corporate tax loopholes that the Senate has voted on before. That is much more important to be done, closing those loopholes in favor of security, than keeping them open.

Second, this is not about physically going into each container, but it is about scanning each container so we can see its contents, because only 5 percent get screened. Screened is not an inspection, physical or otherwise. That means 95 percent of the cargo that comes into the United States is really untouched.

Last, we cannot have it both ways. Either that $4 billion that the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire talks about is about the northern and southern border and border patrol and inspection and the Iraq contingency funding, or it is about port security. But it cannot be about both. If you want to protect the ports of the United States, if you want to make sure the economic consequences of an attack do not take place, if you want to make sure that we save lives, the only way to do that is to adopt the Menendez amendment.

I urge our colleagues to do so. We believe in doing so we will have come a significant way on securing the ports of the Nation and, most importantly, securing the citizens of this country.

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

I ask unanimous consent to have 12 minutes in morning business.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Menendez pertaining to the introduction of S. 2334 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I am proud that I have introduced today along with Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Nelson, and Boxer legislation that would guarantee that foreign governments cannot control the operations of the ports of the United States. I thank Senator Clinton for her leadership on this issue as we fight together, along with Senator Schumer and others, to keep the Port of New York/New Jersey safe.

I think we all know why public attention has been focused on this deal over the past 2 weeks. Our ports are the gateway to this country. They are the gateway for much that we eat, that we drink, that we wear, drive, and use on a daily basis. But just as they bring in goods we enjoy, the ports are also our Achilles' heel, the vulnerability that could be exploited in an attempt to bring us down if terrorists transport a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon to our ports. That is why our legislation sets a new standard for the future control of our ports.

Our legislation would protect our national security by keeping our ports from falling into the hands of foreign governments. Our legislation bans foreign government-owned companies from operating in our ports and requires the President to report to Congress on how to manage national security risks arising from any existing port contracts. Our legislation would also end the secrecy associated with the Dubai deal by making the executive branch notify Congress as well as State and local officials of future deals. The legislation also includes a new public comment period.

Never again should the American public find out about a secret deal through the newspapers after the fact. Never again should Congress learn about the sale of a key U.S. infrastructure asset to a foreign state-owned company only after the deal is done. And never again can we compromise national security by turning our port operations over to another country, whether friend or foe.

Our message with this legislation today is clear: Never again.

I think all Americans instinctively know we cannot simply turn over our critical national security infrastructure such as terminal operations at our ports to a foreign government. Foreign governments act very differently than even foreign companies. Foreign governments act in their own national interests and in their own national security interests. Privately held foreign companies are controlled by stockholders and answer to the needs of the market, not the needs of a government. One must only study the way in which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has used his state-owned oil company to pursue the interests of the Government of Venezuela to understand that state-owned companies often behave very differently than publicly traded ones.

That is why our legislation bans foreign governments from owning, leasing, or operating any facilities in our ports. We believe that just as we would not turn over the operations of our airport facilities to a foreign government, why should we turn the operations of our ports, which are the biggest hole in our national security blanket, over to a foreign government.

The opponents of this thought process, of this bill, like to argue this is the reality of global trade. But the people making this argument are the same ones who constantly remind us that the world has changed since September 11 and that we must adapt our security response accordingly. Whatever happened before September 11, the world has changed since then and we cannot rely on our old methods of looking at the world in a traditional way.

One of the things the September 11 Commission told us was to think outside of the box. A simple envelope became a weapon of great injury when it was filled with anthrax; an airplane used to travel commercially or for pleasure was turned into a weapon of mass destruction. Think outside the box. And if we cannot think outside the box in the context of understanding how the ports in the United States, in the hands of a foreign government in an operational capacity, can have a security consequence, we are in trouble in this post-September 11 world. This is an area in which security must take priority over commercial transactions.

Make no mistake about it; the legislation is urgently needed, and I am writing the President today expressing my concern that this new 45- day review leaves the President with no authority to act to stop Dubai Ports World from taking control of United States port operations. I am not sure that is clear with this 45-day review. This transaction was set to close on March 2, and

we want to stop the clock now and make sure that 45-day investigative review period is precedent to the fulfillment of that agreement.

We also believe it is time to end the secrecy surrounding these deals. This secrecy apparently allowed the executive branch to ignore our own laws. These laws require a 45-day investigation of deals involving government-owned companies which could affect national security. Clearly a deal to turn over part of our port operations to a foreign government-owned company would impact national security. We know the Coast Guard warned the administration that there were intelligence gaps that made it impossible to determine the threats raised by the deal. Yet it is only now, after enormous external pressure, that this 45-day review period may be carried out. But starting an investigation that should have already been carried out under the law is not enough, and that is why, from my position on the Banking Committee, during hearings later this week, I plan to seek to discover why the law wasn't followed. I am looking forward to working with both the chairman and ranking member to come up with comprehensive solutions to these problems that emanated under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

As I said before, I am also concerned about the secrecy in this process. Many New Jersey residents have written or called me asking why the process in approving the deal was so secretive and why Congress was kept in the dark. It is clear to me, to the people of New Jersey, using their common sense, and to the American public that we must have transparency and openness as we address these national security issues.

Without our legislation, the committee that reviews this process doesn't even have to tell Congress about the deal until after it has made a decision. And even after they make a decision, they have no obligation to inform the American public. In the particular case of the Dubai Ports deal, the committee sent out no information and the press only learned about it when Dubai Ports World decided to put out its own press release. That is why our legislation would require the notification of Congress, State, and local authorities where appropriate, as well as a public comment period to allow the public impacted by any future deals to share their concerns with the Federal Government.

These are basic reforms which I think most Americans would agree seem necessary, almost obvious when it comes to protecting our ports. The fight to secure our ports cannot and will not end with this legislation.

Let me be clear: Our ports are not secure. I have been arguing on this for quite a long time as a former Member of the House of Representatives representing the Port of Elizabeth and Newark, the third largest port, the Port of New York/New Jersey and other ports on the eastern seaboard. For all the money the Nation has poured into improving our security, several critical links in the chain have been ignored, and this week the spotlight has shone brightly on one aspect of the problem: our ports, the port of entry for thousands of containers every day, holding everything from clothing to electronics. But these containers could also contain much more dangerous cargo such as a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.

The bottom line is we don't know what is in the vast majority of containers entering this country because despite repeated warnings from security experts from both within and without our Government, only 1 out of every 20 containers that passes through our ports is screened, and 95 percent receive no screening whatsoever other than a cursory glance at a cargo manifest.

It is crucial that we also develop a national transportation plan that includes a comprehensive strategy for protecting our ports. A weapon of mass destruction detonated in a shipping container at the Port of New York/New Jersey or any other seaport could cause tens of thousands of casualties and economic losses approaching a trillion dollars. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years for port security. Yet since the 9/11 attacks, Congress has provided less than $800 million.

This is not a new problem, and it should not be surprising that the administration has let this problem fester. They have continuously focused on the security of only one aspect of our critical infrastructure to the detriment of the rest. That is something we can no longer continue to accept.

In New Jersey we face the reality of failures in our national security every day when we look across the river at Ground Zero and mourn the loss of over 700 fellow New Jerseyans who died on September 11, 2001. The problem of port security is not in some distant future or some distant issue but an everyday reality, as we look at our own port which brings in hundreds of thousands of containers from around the world every day: 145 million tons last year from over 5,000 ships. This is a port that generates over 200,000 jobs and $25 billion of economic activity. It is a great economic engine. It is also a great risk.

In today's reality, a foreign government, if it were to be operating the facilities at one of those ports and simply wanted to do something as benign maybe as shutting it down at a critical moment, such as when we are sending supplies to our troops in the field--we use our commercial ports increasingly to send military equipment and supplies to back our troops in the field--imagine if it were shut down at a critical moment when we needed those supplies to be generated across the sea.

That is why we have to face these realities together. We must stand together across party lines and across States to fight for the safety and security of our families. Our ports are on the front lines in our fight against terrorism, and with this legislation, we say we will never again allow a deal which would compromise the national security of our ports, the safety of New Jersey, or the security of the United States.

I urge my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to join with us in this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am proud that I have introduced today along with Senators Clinton, Lautenberg, Nelson, and Boxer legislation that would guarantee that foreign governments cannot control the operations of the ports of the United States. I thank Senator Clinton for her leadership on this issue as we fight together, along with Senator Schumer and others, to keep the Port of New York/New Jersey safe.

I think we all know why public attention has been focused on this deal over the past 2 weeks. Our ports are the gateway to this country. They are the gateway for much that we eat, that we drink, that we wear, drive, and use on a daily basis. But just as they bring in goods we enjoy, the ports are also our Achilles' heel, the vulnerability that could be exploited in an attempt to bring us down if terrorists transport a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon to our ports. That is why our legislation sets a new standard for the future control of our ports.

Our legislation would protect our national security by keeping our ports from falling into the hands of foreign governments. Our legislation bans foreign government-owned companies from operating in our ports and requires the President to report to Congress on how to manage national security risks arising from any existing port contracts. Our legislation would also end the secrecy associated with the Dubai deal by making the executive branch notify Congress as well as State and local officials of future deals. The legislation also includes a new public comment period.

Never again should the American public find out about a secret deal through the newspapers after the fact. Never again should Congress learn about the sale of a key U.S. infrastructure asset to a foreign state-owned company only after the deal is done. And never again can we compromise national security by turning our port operations over to another country, whether friend or foe.

Our message with this legislation today is clear: Never again.

I think all Americans instinctively know we cannot simply turn over our critical national security infrastructure such as terminal operations at our ports to a foreign government. Foreign governments act very differently than even foreign companies. Foreign governments act in their own national interests and in their own national security interests. Privately held foreign companies are controlled by stockholders and answer to the needs of the market, not the needs of a government. One must only study the way in which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has used his state-owned oil company to pursue the interests of the Government of Venezuela to understand that state-owned companies often behave very differently than publicly traded ones.

That is why our legislation bans foreign governments from owning, leasing, or operating any facilities in our ports. We believe that just as we would not turn over the operations of our airport facilities to a foreign government, why should we turn the operations of our ports, which are the biggest hole in our national security blanket, over to a foreign government.

The opponents of this thought process, of this bill, like to argue this is the reality of global trade. But the people making this argument are the same ones who constantly remind us that the world has changed since September 11 and that we must adapt our security response accordingly. Whatever happened before September 11, the world has changed since then and we cannot rely on our old methods of looking at the world in a traditional way.

One of the things the September 11 Commission told us was to think outside of the box. A simple envelope became a weapon of great injury when it was filled with anthrax; an airplane used to travel commercially or for pleasure was turned into a weapon of mass destruction. Think outside the box. And if we cannot think outside the box in the context of understanding how the ports in the United States, in the hands of a foreign government in an operational capacity, can have a security consequence, we are in trouble in this post-September 11 world. This is an area in which security must take priority over commercial transactions.

Make no mistake about it; the legislation is urgently needed, and I am writing the President today expressing my concern that this new 45- day review leaves the President with no authority to act to stop Dubai Ports World from taking control of United States port operations. I am not sure that is clear with this 45-day review. This transaction was set to close on March 2, and

we want to stop the clock now and make sure that 45-day investigative review period is precedent to the fulfillment of that agreement.

We also believe it is time to end the secrecy surrounding these deals. This secrecy apparently allowed the executive branch to ignore our own laws. These laws require a 45-day investigation of deals involving government-owned companies which could affect national security. Clearly a deal to turn over part of our port operations to a foreign government-owned company would impact national security. We know the Coast Guard warned the administration that there were intelligence gaps that made it impossible to determine the threats raised by the deal. Yet it is only now, after enormous external pressure, that this 45-day review period may be carried out. But starting an investigation that should have already been carried out under the law is not enough, and that is why, from my position on the Banking Committee, during hearings later this week, I plan to seek to discover why the law wasn't followed. I am looking forward to working with both the chairman and ranking member to come up with comprehensive solutions to these problems that emanated under the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

As I said before, I am also concerned about the secrecy in this process. Many New Jersey residents have written or called me asking why the process in approving the deal was so secretive and why Congress was kept in the dark. It is clear to me, to the people of New Jersey, using their common sense, and to the American public that we must have transparency and openness as we address these national security issues.

Without our legislation, the committee that reviews this process doesn't even have to tell Congress about the deal until after it has made a decision. And even after they make a decision, they have no obligation to inform the American public. In the particular case of the Dubai Ports deal, the committee sent out no information and the press only learned about it when Dubai Ports World decided to put out its own press release. That is why our legislation would require the notification of Congress, State, and local authorities where appropriate, as well as a public comment period to allow the public impacted by any future deals to share their concerns with the Federal Government.

These are basic reforms which I think most Americans would agree seem necessary, almost obvious when it comes to protecting our ports. The fight to secure our ports cannot and will not end with this legislation.

Let me be clear: Our ports are not secure. I have been arguing on this for quite a long time as a former Member of the House of Representatives representing the Port of Elizabeth and Newark, the third largest port, the Port of New York/New Jersey and other ports on the eastern seaboard. For all the money the Nation has poured into improving our security, several critical links in the chain have been ignored, and this week the spotlight has shone brightly on one aspect of the problem: our ports, the port of entry for thousands of containers every day, holding everything from clothing to electronics. But these containers could also contain much more dangerous cargo such as a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.

The bottom line is we don't know what is in the vast majority of containers entering this country because despite repeated warnings from security experts from both within and without our Government, only 1 out of every 20 containers that passes through our ports is screened, and 95 percent receive no screening whatsoever other than a cursory glance at a cargo manifest.

It is crucial that we also develop a national transportation plan that includes a comprehensive strategy for protecting our ports. A weapon of mass destruction detonated in a shipping container at the Port of New York/New Jersey or any other seaport could cause tens of thousands of casualties and economic losses approaching a trillion dollars. According to the U.S. Coast Guard, $5.4 billion will be needed over the next 10 years for port security. Yet since the 9/11 attacks, Congress has provided less than $800 million.

This is not a new problem, and it should not be surprising that the administration has let this problem fester. They have continuously focused on the security of only one aspect of our critical infrastructure to the detriment of the rest. That is something we can no longer continue to accept.

In New Jersey we face the reality of failures in our national security every day when we look across the river at Ground Zero and mourn the loss of over 700 fellow New Jerseyans who died on September 11, 2001. The problem of port security is not in some distant future or some distant issue but an everyday reality, as we look at our own port which brings in hundreds of thousands of containers from around the world every day: 145 million tons last year from over 5,000 ships. This is a port that generates over 200,000 jobs and $25 billion of economic activity. It is a great economic engine. It is also a great risk.

In today's reality, a foreign government, if it were to be operating the facilities at one of those ports and simply wanted to do something as benign maybe as shutting it down at a critical moment, such as when we are sending supplies to our troops in the field--we use our commercial ports increasingly to send military equipment and supplies to back our troops in the field--imagine if it were shut down at a critical moment when we needed those supplies to be generated across the sea.

That is why we have to face these realities together. We must stand together across party lines and across States to fight for the safety and security of our families. Our ports are on the front lines in our fight against terrorism, and with this legislation, we say we will never again allow a deal which would compromise the national security of our ports, the safety of New Jersey, or the security of the United States.

I urge my fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle to join with us in this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation designed to protect our State's coastline from the threat of encroaching oil and gas development. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act, or COAST Anti-Drilling Act, bans oil and gas drilling off the New Jersey shore, and in the entire Atlantic seaboard from Maine to North Carolina.

This bill is necessary because of last week's publication of the Minerals Management Service's, MMS, draft 5-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf, which proposes to open the waters off the coast of Virginia to oil and gas leasing in 2011. In some places, this means drilling less than 75 miles off the coast of New Jersey. While the MMS may believe you can assign a part of the ocean as belonging to a certain state, oil spills will not respect those boundaries. Seventy- five miles is more than close enough for a spill to affect the New Jersey shore, potentially devastating our beaches and the state's critical tourist economy.

According to the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission, tourism is a $22 billion dollar industry in the State, responsible for more than 430,000 jobs, over 10 percent of the total jobs in the State. To risk all of that, and the coastal economies of every State along the Atlantic coast, for what is estimated to be a fairly small potential reserve of oil and gas is simply not worth it.

The MMS recently released new estimates for recoverable oil and gas in the outer continental shelf, and the entire Atlantic seaboard adds up to less than 6 percent of the nation's estimated OCS gas reserves, and less than 3 percent of the oil reserves--barely a 6-month supply. And that's from Maine to Florida, so the area off any individual State will be a small fraction of that.

This is not an issue of trying to lower the price of natural gas, or making the United States more energy independent. This is about protecting New Jersey's environment and economy. This is about protecting the coastline where New Jersey families live, work, and play. I look forward to working with my colleagues from neighboring States, and from States around the country, to ensure that our beaches are protected for generations to come.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation designed to protect our State's coastline from the threat of encroaching oil and gas development. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act, or COAST Anti-Drilling Act, bans oil and gas drilling off the New Jersey shore, and in the entire Atlantic seaboard from Maine to North Carolina.

This bill is necessary because of last week's publication of the Minerals Management Service's, MMS, draft 5-year plan for the Outer Continental Shelf, which proposes to open the waters off the coast of Virginia to oil and gas leasing in 2011. In some places, this means drilling less than 75 miles off the coast of New Jersey. While the MMS may believe you can assign a part of the ocean as belonging to a certain state, oil spills will not respect those boundaries. Seventy- five miles is more than close enough for a spill to affect the New Jersey shore, potentially devastating our beaches and the state's critical tourist economy.

According to the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission, tourism is a $22 billion dollar industry in the State, responsible for more than 430,000 jobs, over 10 percent of the total jobs in the State. To risk all of that, and the coastal economies of every State along the Atlantic coast, for what is estimated to be a fairly small potential reserve of oil and gas is simply not worth it.

The MMS recently released new estimates for recoverable oil and gas in the outer continental shelf, and the entire Atlantic seaboard adds up to less than 6 percent of the nation's estimated OCS gas reserves, and less than 3 percent of the oil reserves--barely a 6-month supply. And that's from Maine to Florida, so the area off any individual State will be a small fraction of that.

This is not an issue of trying to lower the price of natural gas, or making the United States more energy independent. This is about protecting New Jersey's environment and economy. This is about protecting the coastline where New Jersey families live, work, and play. I look forward to working with my colleagues from neighboring States, and from States around the country, to ensure that our beaches are protected for generations to come.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Health Care COBRA OffSet Tax Savings (COSTS) Act of 2006. This important legislation is a step forward in helping working families afford quality health care in this country.

Rewarding work is one of the most fundamental core values of our Nation. Our founding fathers built a society on the notion that if you work hard, you will have an opportunity to provide a better future for your children and thus build a stronger, more competitive nation. And, as we've seen throughout our Nation's history, America's workers have not disappointed.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are working hard every day, but are still unable to make ends meet and provide even the most basic needs for their family, such as food, shelter, or health care. The legislation I'm introducing will help address one of these important challenges: affordable, quality health care for working families.

The statistics are undeniable--almost 46 million Americans have no health insurance and more than 1 million of the uninsured are in my home state of New Jersey. But that's just the beginning of the problem. Even families who are fortunate enough to have health insurance, are struggling to pay the premiums, which in New Jersey, have increased at four times the rate of earnings. Since 2000, the employee share of health care premiums in New Jersey increased almost 43 percent or almost $400 a year. When family earnings increase by only 10 percent over the same period, it becomes clear just how challenging it is for our hard working families to get by.

The Health Care COSTS Act does not address the entire problem, but it will help some workers afford to keep their health insurance when they're between jobs. Currently, many workers who receive health coverage through their employer are entitled to keep that coverage for up to 18 months after they leave their jobs. This coverage is known as COBRA coverage. However, many don't take advantage of COBRA coverage because it's simply too expensive. The employee, who has just lost their job, has to pay the full cost of the coverage, making it prohibitively expensive for most families.

The Health Care COSTS Act helps moderate-income families with the cost of COBRA by providing an ``advanceable'' tax credit for half the cost of these health care premiums. The tax credit would go directly to the health plan administrator, thus reducing the workers' monthly premiums by half. This is not a handout, but a helping hand for workers who have contributed to the economic well-being of their community and have earned the opportunity to care for their family while they get back on their feet and find another job.

Clearly, there is much more to do in addressing the health care crisis in this country, but this is an important first step in helping working families afford health care coverage during one of the most difficult and vulnerable times a family might face. I hope this legislation will be a starting point for discussion of the significant challenges families face in affording quality health care in this country.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Health Care COBRA OffSet Tax Savings (COSTS) Act of 2006. This important legislation is a step forward in helping working families afford quality health care in this country.

Rewarding work is one of the most fundamental core values of our Nation. Our founding fathers built a society on the notion that if you work hard, you will have an opportunity to provide a better future for your children and thus build a stronger, more competitive nation. And, as we've seen throughout our Nation's history, America's workers have not disappointed.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are working hard every day, but are still unable to make ends meet and provide even the most basic needs for their family, such as food, shelter, or health care. The legislation I'm introducing will help address one of these important challenges: affordable, quality health care for working families.

The statistics are undeniable--almost 46 million Americans have no health insurance and more than 1 million of the uninsured are in my home state of New Jersey. But that's just the beginning of the problem. Even families who are fortunate enough to have health insurance, are struggling to pay the premiums, which in New Jersey, have increased at four times the rate of earnings. Since 2000, the employee share of health care premiums in New Jersey increased almost 43 percent or almost $400 a year. When family earnings increase by only 10 percent over the same period, it becomes clear just how challenging it is for our hard working families to get by.

The Health Care COSTS Act does not address the entire problem, but it will help some workers afford to keep their health insurance when they're between jobs. Currently, many workers who receive health coverage through their employer are entitled to keep that coverage for up to 18 months after they leave their jobs. This coverage is known as COBRA coverage. However, many don't take advantage of COBRA coverage because it's simply too expensive. The employee, who has just lost their job, has to pay the full cost of the coverage, making it prohibitively expensive for most families.

The Health Care COSTS Act helps moderate-income families with the cost of COBRA by providing an ``advanceable'' tax credit for half the cost of these health care premiums. The tax credit would go directly to the health plan administrator, thus reducing the workers' monthly premiums by half. This is not a handout, but a helping hand for workers who have contributed to the economic well-being of their community and have earned the opportunity to care for their family while they get back on their feet and find another job.

Clearly, there is much more to do in addressing the health care crisis in this country, but this is an important first step in helping working families afford health care coverage during one of the most difficult and vulnerable times a family might face. I hope this legislation will be a starting point for discussion of the significant challenges families face in affording quality health care in this country.

Mr. President, I call up amendment numbered 2705.

Mr. President, this amendment, which is a sense of the Senate, which I am offering with Senators Schumer, Kerry, Feinstein, Clinton, Lautenberg, and Stabenow, is simply a sense of the Senate to try

to ensure that 17 million middle-class families do not see a tax increase next year through the alternative minimum tax. This tax was never intended to raise the taxes of average Americans but, in fact, it has--millions of Americans.

Some think this is more problematic for residents of States such as New York, California, or my home State of New Jersey. But the truth is a whole host of other States have a significant percentage of tax failures affected by the alternative minimum tax, including Oregon, Maryland, Virginia, Minnesota, Ohio, Maine, Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. It is a problem of national importance. This is a question of whether the Senate values work and the work of honest and hard-working families who are going to be subjected to a tax not because they made more income but simply because of the way the tax is structured.

Ultimately, I urge my colleagues to support the sense of the Senate.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Caregiver Assistance and Relief Effort, CARE, Act and the College Access and Affordability Act because far too many families today are squeezed by the demands of caring for aging loved ones while working to give their children what all parents want for their kids--the opportunity to go to college and be successful. As a son helping to care for a mother with Alzheimer's disease and the proud parent of two college-age kids, I know personally the intergenerational demands families are facing and the sacrifices they are making to care for their loved ones. That's exactly why my first legislative initiatives in the United States Senate are to make higher education and long-term care more affordable and more accessible for New Jersey families and families across the country.

The CARE Act would provide tax credits to those caring for ailing family members and loved ones, and encourage individuals to plan and invest in their own long-term care by offering a tax deduction for long-term care insurance. In addition, it would double the funding for the existing National Family Caregiver Support Program, which supports a wide range of important services for older persons.

There are an estimated 44.4 million caregivers in the U.S., which is 21 percent of the adult population. My home State of New Jersey has over 830,000 caregivers, ranking it 9th in the country.

Caregiving families face unique strains. They are challenged with additional costs, and often caregivers must sacrifice their job or cut back on their hours at work. Almost 6 in 10 caregivers either work or have worked while providing care, and 62 percent of caregivers report having had to make work-related adjustments ranging from going in late and leaving early to having to give up work entirely. Caregivers are also a valuable asset to keeping health care costs down. They are providing $257 billion in care annually, more than double the annual spending on home care and nursing home care combined. Their compassion, dedication, and selflessness come at a price to their families and are a benefit to the greater good of our State and Nation. This legislation is aimed at addressing their hard work, sacrifice, and contributions to society.

The other bill I'm introducing today, the College Access and Affordability Act, will help open the doors to higher education for more young people by making financial assistance more flexible for students and by expanding and enhancing existing financial aid options.

I know the difference a college education can have on a young person's life. As the first in my family to go to college, and later law school, I had opportunities that would not have been available to me had I not been able to go to college. But financing a higher education was not an easy thing for my family. Federal financial aid helped ensure that I could go to college and that I could pursue my dreams. I know first-hand the important benefits of receiving Federal aid--not only did it help me finance my dreams of college, but it also gave me the extra confidence that I needed to succeed.

So, I am committed to ensuring that other promising young people get the same chance that I did and that we, as a Nation, will be there to help everyone in this country achieve their dreams of college, regardless of background, race, language, or income level. One of the great foundations of this country is that the doors of opportunity are open to anyone who works hard. We must follow through on that promise by providing a path for young people to have access to and attend college. If we do not lead the way to ensure that our colleges are full of the brightest minds and fullest potential, we are failing to prepare our future generations and we are jeopardizing the future of our Nation.

The College Access and Affordability Act will make financial aid more flexible and accessible to more students, such as extending Pell Grant eligibility to students who attend school year-round. It will also make substantial changes to the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, a useful tool in helping cover the costs of a higher education. Since the Credit was enacted in 1997, the maximum credit has not increased to reflect the rising cost of tuition. This bill would raise the award by $1,000 and allow the credit to be claimed for all 4 years of college, instead of the current 2 years. It will also make more families eligible for the credit by expanding the eligibility limits.

Finally, in recognizing that many of our communities are in need of qualified individuals to serve in essential public service positions, this bill would help attract dedicated college graduates who serve low- income communities in positions such as science, math, bilingual, or special education teachers; nurses; first responders; and child welfare workers.

Too many students do not pursue a college education because they think it is out of their reach. We must commit to providing sensible tools and adequate resources so that financing a college education is not more of a burden on families, and achieving the dreams of a higher education is not beyond the reach of our Nation's young people.

On any given day, families across New Jersey, and indeed, across this country, face the daunting challenges of making ends meet--putting food on the table, clothing their children, and putting a roof over their head. If that weren't enough, add the challenge of trying to pay for college or care for an aging parent, or in many cases, both, and you have what many times is an insurmountable challenge. But that's exactly what's happening to more and more people everyday. And the intergenerational demands will only increase as the baby boom generation grows older and our life expectancy increases. We need to work now to address the challenges on both fronts--from providing affordable long-term care and encouraging future retirees to plan for their own long-term care, to ensuring that anyone who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to go to college and succeed. That's what this country is all about, and that's why I've made these initiatives my first priorities in the U.S. Senate. I'm hopeful that we will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to address these important challenges facing American families.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Caregiver Assistance and Relief Effort, CARE, Act and the College Access and Affordability Act because far too many families today are squeezed by the demands of caring for aging loved ones while working to give their children what all parents want for their kids--the opportunity to go to college and be successful. As a son helping to care for a mother with Alzheimer's disease and the proud parent of two college-age kids, I know personally the intergenerational demands families are facing and the sacrifices they are making to care for their loved ones. That's exactly why my first legislative initiatives in the United States Senate are to make higher education and long-term care more affordable and more accessible for New Jersey families and families across the country.

The CARE Act would provide tax credits to those caring for ailing family members and loved ones, and encourage individuals to plan and invest in their own long-term care by offering a tax deduction for long-term care insurance. In addition, it would double the funding for the existing National Family Caregiver Support Program, which supports a wide range of important services for older persons.

There are an estimated 44.4 million caregivers in the U.S., which is 21 percent of the adult population. My home State of New Jersey has over 830,000 caregivers, ranking it 9th in the country.

Caregiving families face unique strains. They are challenged with additional costs, and often caregivers must sacrifice their job or cut back on their hours at work. Almost 6 in 10 caregivers either work or have worked while providing care, and 62 percent of caregivers report having had to make work-related adjustments ranging from going in late and leaving early to having to give up work entirely. Caregivers are also a valuable asset to keeping health care costs down. They are providing $257 billion in care annually, more than double the annual spending on home care and nursing home care combined. Their compassion, dedication, and selflessness come at a price to their families and are a benefit to the greater good of our State and Nation. This legislation is aimed at addressing their hard work, sacrifice, and contributions to society.

The other bill I'm introducing today, the College Access and Affordability Act, will help open the doors to higher education for more young people by making financial assistance more flexible for students and by expanding and enhancing existing financial aid options.

I know the difference a college education can have on a young person's life. As the first in my family to go to college, and later law school, I had opportunities that would not have been available to me had I not been able to go to college. But financing a higher education was not an easy thing for my family. Federal financial aid helped ensure that I could go to college and that I could pursue my dreams. I know first-hand the important benefits of receiving Federal aid--not only did it help me finance my dreams of college, but it also gave me the extra confidence that I needed to succeed.

So, I am committed to ensuring that other promising young people get the same chance that I did and that we, as a Nation, will be there to help everyone in this country achieve their dreams of college, regardless of background, race, language, or income level. One of the great foundations of this country is that the doors of opportunity are open to anyone who works hard. We must follow through on that promise by providing a path for young people to have access to and attend college. If we do not lead the way to ensure that our colleges are full of the brightest minds and fullest potential, we are failing to prepare our future generations and we are jeopardizing the future of our Nation.

The College Access and Affordability Act will make financial aid more flexible and accessible to more students, such as extending Pell Grant eligibility to students who attend school year-round. It will also make substantial changes to the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit, a useful tool in helping cover the costs of a higher education. Since the Credit was enacted in 1997, the maximum credit has not increased to reflect the rising cost of tuition. This bill would raise the award by $1,000 and allow the credit to be claimed for all 4 years of college, instead of the current 2 years. It will also make more families eligible for the credit by expanding the eligibility limits.

Finally, in recognizing that many of our communities are in need of qualified individuals to serve in essential public service positions, this bill would help attract dedicated college graduates who serve low- income communities in positions such as science, math, bilingual, or special education teachers; nurses; first responders; and child welfare workers.

Too many students do not pursue a college education because they think it is out of their reach. We must commit to providing sensible tools and adequate resources so that financing a college education is not more of a burden on families, and achieving the dreams of a higher education is not beyond the reach of our Nation's young people.

On any given day, families across New Jersey, and indeed, across this country, face the daunting challenges of making ends meet--putting food on the table, clothing their children, and putting a roof over their head. If that weren't enough, add the challenge of trying to pay for college or care for an aging parent, or in many cases, both, and you have what many times is an insurmountable challenge. But that's exactly what's happening to more and more people everyday. And the intergenerational demands will only increase as the baby boom generation grows older and our life expectancy increases. We need to work now to address the challenges on both fronts--from providing affordable long-term care and encouraging future retirees to plan for their own long-term care, to ensuring that anyone who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to go to college and succeed. That's what this country is all about, and that's why I've made these initiatives my first priorities in the U.S. Senate. I'm hopeful that we will be able to work in a bipartisan fashion to address these important challenges facing American families.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Finance for yielding time and for his work in preparing the opportunity to offer this amendment.

Later today I intend to offer an amendment, and I do certainly hope it will be in order, that lets families across the Nation know we are on their side.

In the bill before the Senate we have a clear choice: We can stop a tax increase for 17 million middle-class taxpayers, a tax that was never intended to penalize anyone considered middle class; or we can continue to give people who need it the least a break on their capital gains at the expense of middle-class workers.

I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Finance, Senators Baucus, Schumer, Kerry, and Feinstein, who have worked very hard on this issue to ensure that the final result of this bill will not be a tax increase for middle-class families.

The options before the Senate are a choice of values. Do we value ensuring fairness for all hard-working Americans or would we rather give a break to those who need it the least? The Senate made the sensible choice when it passed the tax reconciliation bill last November by extending the protection for middle-class families from the alternative minimum tax. Now that the House bill is to come before the Senate, this Senate must make it clear it stands by that vote and that middle-class families will not bear an additional burden of tax cuts for the wealthy.

In the past year, this Congress has given enormous tax breaks to an oil industry that has racked up record profits while American drivers saw the price of gas go through the roof, and given out tax break after tax break for those who need it the least, while ignoring middle-class families.

I am proud to later offer an amendment that will help hard-working families in America and New Jersey get real relief and to make sure in this great body the middle class is heard at least as clearly as the powerful and the privileged.

Last night we heard more of the familiar rhetoric on tax cuts. We heard the President speak about ``a massive tax increase'' American families will face that ``they do not expect and will not welcome,'' if the President's tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled in the next few years. The truth is, millions of families, not only in New Jersey but across the landscape of the country, will face an unexpected increase this year if the AMT exemption is not extended and the President's tax cuts do not include a fix for this problem.

Time and time again, the President has pushed for his tax credits from 2001 to be made permanent, which overwhelmingly benefit those who need it the least. More than 70 percent of the President's tax cuts have gone to people who make over $200,000, while families who earn between $50,000 and $75,000 have received less than 5 percent of the cuts. Yet the President has done nothing to make the AMT exemption permanent, a tax which in the next 4 years will affect nearly every two-parent family with two kids earning between $75,000 and $100,000.

We also heard the President call for more than just ``temporary extensions.'' Yet the fact is all the President has done in terms of this middle-class tax is to propose temporary extensions and only cosmetic changes while proposing no underlying reform to the AMT itself.

Would we like to do more than a 1-year extension? Absolutely. But when the President has directed all of his efforts, his priorities, and the Nation's bank account to tax breaks for the wealthy, there is little room, let alone money, left over for the reforms that affect nearly 20 million middle-class taxpayers.

When Americans wonder why there has been little attention on what most tax analysts refer to as the single most important tax issue facing the Nation, they should know that it is because tax cuts for the middle class have not been a priority for this administration.

Let's be honest. Once again, it is the middle-class families, the hard-working families, who are struggling to send their children to college, to keep up with the cost of health care, to care for aging parents, who pay all of their bills and try to make ends meet each month who are being asked to foot the bill for the top earners in our country. Why? How many middle-class families out of the 17 million know right now they could be facing a tax increase this year? I would guess not very many. It does not help that the President has been silent on this, one of the most significant tax increases facing the middle class.

The fact is many families will be faced with a harsh reality at the end of the year. In my State of New Jersey, where nearly 180,000 families were subject to AMT in 2003, the number of middle-class taxpayers subject to this tax will at least double if no fix is enacted.

Average families, which are far from wealthy and think they are below the threshold, could face significantly higher taxes this year if we do not act on the crisis at hand. For example, a typical New Jersey family with two parents, where one is a preschool teacher and the other a paramedic, with three kids would be subject suddenly to this new tax increase this year.

So this amendment we hope to offer is for middle-class families who may not know a tax hike is coming and for

average families who should not be expected to shoulder the burden of the President's tax cuts for the wealthy.

This amendment will make very clear that our priority should be to protect middle-class families from this unintentional tax hike and that millions of taxpayers should not wake up next tax season to realize they owe more in taxes even though their income has not changed.

Let's remember, this was a tax intended to assure those making some very significant income pay some taxes. It was never intended to raise the taxes of average Americans.

This is a zero-sum game. With soaring budget deficits and rapidly climbing debt, tax cuts for top wage earners are just one more burden being put on the shoulders of the working middle class.

The reality is, without this amendment, many families could be paying possibly $1,000 more in taxes next year. That is $1,000 more they could put in their pocket, $1,000 more they could use to save for their retirement, $1,000 more they could use for college tuition, $1,000 more to help make ends meet.

It is clear there is not room on the President's tax cut agenda for this middle-class tax crisis. That is why we seek to offer this amendment. This is why it is vital this body once again show its support for a tax package that includes an increased AMT exemption to protect middle-class families and not ignore the looming crisis before us.

We in this body know the consequences if we do not act. Many Americans do not. We know that if we fail to act, an astounding 30 million Americans will be subject to a higher tax rate within the next 4 years. We also know what many American families do not--that a family with three kids making $63,000 will be facing a higher tax rate next year if we do not enact this fix now.

Now, I hear a lot of talk about values. With this amendment, the Senate can decide which values--which values--it wants to embrace: rewarding those who work hard, play by the rules, and struggle to make ends meet, or give yet another tax cut to those who need it the least?

Let's send a clear message that the values we embrace are the values of American families. Let's embrace fairness and equal treatment for those who work hard. This is a chance for this body to go on record that we should not be imposing an unfair tax break on our middle-class families just to extend a tax break for those at the top.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment when it is offered, presuming we have the opportunity to offer it, and ensure that hard- working American families, not just top dividend earners, remain our top priority.

I also look forward to offering an amendment later on with Senator Kennedy that would expand a critical tool for college students and their families under the HOPE scholarship tax credit. As the first in my family to go to college, I fully understand the power of some of these programs and how they helped me, in my case, be the first in my family to go to college.

This amendment will simply expand what the credit can cover to include other associated costs for a college education. I look forward to the opportunity to offer that amendment as well.

I yield back whatever time I may have.

I rise in support of the nomination of Ben Bernanke, of my home State of New Jersey, to be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Once again, New Jersey is honored that the President has nominated one of our own to serve our Nation in such a vital position.

Dr. Bernanke has a remarkable record of scholarship. He graduated from Harvard with top honors and later earned a doctorate in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT. Dr. Bernanke then entered academia and has taught at some of the preeminent universities of our Nation, starting at Stanford before continuing at MIT and New York University and eventually ending as the Chairman of the Economics Department at Princeton University. He has also served our Nation with distinction in his roles at both the Council of Economic Advisers and the Federal Reserve.

As the newest member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, I look forward to working with Dr. Bernanke in ensuring that inflation remains in check, that our Nation's deficits are addressed and dealt with in a forthright manner, and that all Americans are able to successfully participate in our country's economy. He has a reputation of basing his decisions on sound economics, rather than ideology and partisanship, and I expect this to continue in his new role as Chairman.

Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not also take this time to thank Alan Greenspan for his almost two decades of service and economic stewardship as the outgoing Chairman.

I am quite pleased that the President has nominated my fellow New Jerseyan, Dr. Bernanke, to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve and am confident that he will do a good job in his new position, while making our shared State of New Jersey proud.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise, for the first time in this body, to speak on the nomination of Samuel Alito to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. No matter one's political persuasion, we all take pride in the honor that has been bestowed on a fellow New Jerseyan.

Samuel Alito's story is one that rings familiar to so many New Jerseyans, including myself. His parents came to this country in search of opportunity, and worked hard to build a better life for their children. The son of immigrants, Judge Alito's life is a story that demonstrates the power of seizing opportunity and working hard.

Frankly, it is a story close to my own heart. I too, am the son of immigrants who came to New Jersey to seek a better life and greater opportunity. Thanks to their hard work, and my own, I was the first in my family to graduate from college and law school.

Yet home State pride is not a sufficient reason for supporting a nominee. For a Supreme Court appointment is a life-time appointment. When the Supreme Court decides, it is the law of the land and their decisions affect the lives of millions of Americans. So, it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take the nation.

Sam Alito has served his entire legal career in public service, and for that he is to be commended. His work as a prosecutor and as an appellate judge for the past 15 years has given him substantial experience. In his hearings and his meeting with me, he demonstrated that he has a keen intellect. Judged simply by that standard, Sam Alito is ready to serve.

But competence and intellect is the very least we should expect from someone seeking a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. Indeed, competence alone might be enough for a nominee for one of a myriad of other appointments. But this is about the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court, alone among our courts, has the power to revisit and reverse its previous decisions. So surely, we should also demand that our justices fairly interpret the law, respect judicial precedent, and properly balance the rights of individuals and the power of the state. Above all, we should demand that they check their personal beliefs at the door.

The seat that Judge Alito hopes to fill is one of great importance. Justice O'Connor has been the deciding vote in key cases protecting individual rights and freedoms on a narrowly divided Court, and the stakes in selecting her replacement are high. I have not agreed with every one of her decisions. But she has shown throughout her tenure a respect for law over ideology and a commitment to deciding each case not on the personal views she brought to the bench, but on the facts before her. When some on the court sought to inject an activist political philosophy into judicial decision-making and to turn back the clock on the liberties afforded the American people under the Constitution, it was Justice O'Connor who blocked their path.

I had hoped Judge Alito would clearly demonstrate that he shares the commitment to protecting the individual rights and freedoms that Justice O'Connor so often cast the deciding vote to defend. Decades of progress in protecting basic rights, including privacy, women's rights, and civil rights, are at stake with this nomination. The burden was on Judge Alito to be forthright and unambiguous in his answers.

Unfortunately, his testimony was not reassuring and his record makes clear what kind of justice Judge Alito would be. A justice who would vote to overturn a woman's right to choose, a justice who has time and time again sided with corporations and against average Americans, a justice who would allow this administration to continue to stretch and potentially violate its legal and constitutional authority. Especially with the challenges our Nation faces today and will face tomorrow, America cannot afford that kind of justice.

We live in extraordinary times today. President Bush has sought the accumulation of unprecedented powers. He has asserted the authority to not only torture detainees and indefinitely detain American citizens as enemy combatants, but to also conduct warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

At different times throughout our country's history, Presidents under the cloak of Commander-in-Chief have exercised excessive authority that has eroded individual rights and freedoms in the name of protecting the Nation. Over 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers purposely established our Nation's government with three distinct coequal branches to help prevent this concentration and abuse of power. An independent judiciary, part of our country's long and proud history of checks and balances, is the only thing that stands between the executive branch and these potential threats to our rule of law.

In 2004, the Supreme Court stood up for the rule of law when it found that the President cannot ignore the Constitution and confine American citizens indefinitely without the ability to challenge their detentions. Decisions such as this, which recognize that our Nation's security is enhanced rather than undermined by respect of the rule of law, are what has always made the United States the envy of people around the world.

The bias Judge Alito has shown in favor of the executive branch threatens to undermine the freedoms that our judiciary has historically protected. From his work as a government lawyer to a speech before the Federalist Society in 2000, he consistently favors the concentration of unprecedented power in the hands of the President, even endorsing the so-called ``unitary executive'' theory that even many conservatives view as being at the fringe of judicial philosophy. It virtually gives the presidency exclusive powers that historically have belonged to either Congress or the courts. This theory is an activist theory, not a theory that reflects mainstream American thinking or values. In fact, the Supreme Court has largely rejected it.

Judge Alito has also backed granting absolute immunity to high- ranking Government officials who authorized illegal, warrantless wiretaps of American citizens, which is another position the Supreme Court has rejected. As far back as the Reagan administration, he has advocated that the President issue signing statements in an effort to shape the meaning of legislation. President Bush has often used this practice, most tellingly in December when he claimed the administration could ignore the new law banning torture whenever he sees fit. This undermines one of the coequal branches of our government, the people's elected representatives of the United States Congress.

Judge Alito has found against congressional authority when he argued in dissent in United States v. Rybar against a ban on machine guns that five other appellate courts and the Third Circuit itself upheld. Judge Alito also authored the majority opinion in Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, invalidating parts of the Family and Medical Leave Act for exceeding the bounds of congressional authority--a position the Supreme Court subsequently rejected.

Several in-depth reviews show, Judge Alito's rulings, especially his dissents, consistently excuse actions taken by the executive branch that infringe on the rights of average Americans. One study found that 84 percent of Judge Alito's dissents favor the government over individual rights. Another, the Alito Project at Yale Law School conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Judge's 15 years on the Federal bench. They found that ``Judge Alito has permitted individuals to be deprived of property or liberty without actual notice or a prior hearing.''

During his hearings and in my meeting with him, Judge Alito did nothing to distance himself from these positions; in fact, by refusing to candidly discuss where he stands on executive power, he only strengthened my concerns about his views.

If it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take the

nation, does a Supreme Court with Justice Alito take the nation forward or move our Nation back?

Back to a time when a President suspended the writ of habeas corpus; back to a time when a President ordered the internment of individuals based upon their ethnicity; and back to a time when a President ordered the unlawful breakins and wiretaps against his opponents.

Our next Supreme Court justice must be a check and balance against broad Presidential powers that are inconsistent with our Constitution.

With respect to reproductive rights, Judge Alito told the members of the Judiciary Committee that he would look at such cases with an ``open mind.'' However, he has, throughout his career, written that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to choose, worked to incrementally limit and eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, so narrowly interpreted the ``undue burden'' standard in one specific case as to basically outlaw this right for an entire group of women, and refused to state whether Roe is ``settled law.''

When asked by Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter whether he continues to believe that the Constitution does not protect the right to choose, as he wrote in his 1985 job application at the Department of Justice, Judge Alito acknowledged that it was his view in 1985, but refused to say whether or not he holds that view today. I found Judge Alito' s refusal to answer this question extremely troubling.

Later, as an Assistant Solicitor General, Judge Alito wrote a memo outlining a new legal strategy that the Reagan administration could use to ``advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meantime, of mitigating its effects.''

As a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alito alone concluded that all of the Pennsylvania restrictions, including the spousal notification provision, should be upheld as constitutional in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found 5-4 that the spousal notification provision was unconstitutional. Justice O'Connor, who wrote the opinion, rejected Judge Alito's arguments and wrote that the spousal notification provision constituted an impermissible ``undue burden'' on reproductive rights. She concluded by saying ``Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry.''

During our meeting, when I asked Judge Alito, ``Do you believe Roe v. Wade is the `settled law' of the land,'' he was unwilling to say that it is settled law. During the Judiciary Committee hearing, he said multiple times in response to questions from three of my distinguished colleagues on the Committee that the principle of stare decisis, or respect for precedent, is not an ``inexorable command.'' While this is undoubtly the case, this language is exactly what Justice Rehnquist used in his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey when arguing that Roe should be overturned. Justice Rehnquist wrote, ``In our view, authentic principles of stare decisis do not require that any portion of the reasoning in Roe be kept intact. `Stare decisis is not . . . a universal, inexorable command.' ''

Because I was concerned that his approach to these issues is far different than Justice O'Connor's, I gave Judge Alito every opportunity in our meeting to alleviate my concerns and those expressed by many New Jerseyans. I regret that he did not do so.

If it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take the Nation, does a Supreme Court with Justice Alito take the nation forward or move our Nation back?

What does Morning in America look like after Judge Alito becomes a Supreme Court justice? Will it be an America where a woman's constitutional right to privacy is not acknowledged? Will it be an America where a woman does not have access to the best medical care? Will it be an America where women do not control their own bodies?

Our next Supreme Court justice must respect both the constitutional right to privacy and a woman's right to choose.

Our Nation's civil rights are needed to provide equal rights in employment, voting, or disability, they are designed to eliminate discrimination from our society and to provide equal opportunity and access. These laws are often the direct result of our country's civil rights movement.

Unfortunately, Judge Alito has consistently applied a narrow interpretation of civil rights laws. Over his 15-year judicial career, he has more often than not sided with corporations and against individuals.

In five split decisions involving a claim of sex discrimination, Judge Alito has sided with the person accused of the sex discrimination every time. In Sheridan v. E.I DuPont de Nemours, a woman brought a gender discrimination lawsuit after being denied a promotion. A jury ruled in her favor, but the trial judge threw out the verdict. The full complement of the Third Circuit voted 10-1 to reverse the judge's decision in this sex discrimination case and remand the case for reconsideration. Judge Alito wrote the lone dissent, arguing that the case should be dismissed. If Judge Alito's view was the law of the land, virtually no woman who has been wrongfully denied a promotion based upon her gender would have her day in court.

In the area of race discrimination, Judge Alito voted in dissent against the plaintiff in both split decisions cases. The Third Circuit held that the plaintiff in Bray v. Marriot Hotels had shown enough evidence of possible racial discrimination to merit a trial before a jury. As in Sheridan, Judge Alito dissented, saying that the plaintiff had not produced enough evidence even to get to a trial of a jury of their peers. If Judge Alito's view was the law of the land, virtually no person of color would be able to pursue discrimination based on race in the courts of our nation.

From the bench, Judge Alito has participated in five split decisions in the area of disability rights law and he sided with the defendant four out of the five times. In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, relating to a college's knowledge of and response to the disability needs of a student, the majority held that the facts required a jury to hear her claims. Judge Alito disagreed with the majority, writing that Nathanson failed to prove that the college acted unreasonably in its responses to her requests for alternative seating arrangements. If Judge Alito's view was the law of the land, virtually no disabled person denied alternative accommodations could seek relief from the court.

These are only symbolic of the many cases where Judge Alito would say no to the average American citizen.

If someone's daughter was seeking relief from discrimination based upon her gender, Judge Alito would say no. If an American of color was seeking relief from discrimination based upon their race, Judge Alito would say no. If someone's handicapped son was seeking relief from discrimination based upon his disability, Judge Alito would say no. Judge Alito would make it virtually impossible for an individual to go to court when his or her rights were violated, and have their day of judgment.

If it's not where you come from that matters, but where you will take the Nation, does a Supreme Court with Justice Alito take the Nation forward or move our Nation back?

Back to a time when there was not equal access to schools and government programs, back to a time when employers could fire employees without just cause; and back to a time when all citizens were not guaranteed the right to vote.

Our next Supreme Court justice must truly subscribe to the inscription above the entrance to the United States Supreme Court-- ``Equal Justice under Law.''

The confirmation of a Supreme Court justice is one of the two most important responsibilities that a Senator has, in my view. The first is a decision on war and peace, which is also about life and death. The other is deciding who will have a lifetime appointment to the Court that decides the laws of the land.

Make no mistake about it, Judge Alito is a decent, accomplished, intelligent man. A man who is proud to call our shared State of New Jersey home. But it is not enough to come from New Jersey--the test is--will you represent the values of New Jersey and this Nation on the highest court in the land?

In New Jersey we value creating opportunity, we cherish the idea of individual freedom and responsibility, and

we believe that justice is a force that should level the playing field between the individual and the powerful.

I have given careful consideration to this nomination, and I entered the process with hopes of supporting Judge Alito. This is my first vote in this Senate, and I had hoped to cast it in support of this nominee, but after reviewing his record, and his testimony before my fellow Senators, I cannot.

The question for me has been will he tilt the court in its ideology so far that he will place in jeopardy decades of progress in protecting individual rights and freedoms. I am afraid that answer is yes. In good conscience, I regrettably cannot support his nomination for a lifetime appointment to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the extension of the Defense Department's Section 1207 Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (SADBU) program through September 2009. I am very pleased to see this program extended in this bill because it has proven to be extremely effective in fighting discrimination in the defense contracting process, and has been tremendously successful in ensuring that African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans are able to compete more effectively for government contracts.

The goal of the SADBU program is to provide opportunities for all Americans to take part in the defense contracting process. Since its inception in 1987, the SADBU program has helped to level the playing field for small and disadvantaged businesses. However, there is still a lot that needs to be done. Years of Congressional hearings have shown that minorities have historically been unfairly excluded from both public and private construction contracts in general, and from federal defense contracts in particular. And a recent study by MGT of America revealed that minority-owned and women-owned businesses in New Jersey still faced significant challenges in obtaining state contracts. Many business owners and representatives stated that their opportunities to perform work as subcontractors on state contracts decreased after the suspension of the state's minority and women business enterprise program. If the federal SADBU program were to end, a lot of the progress we have made to this point would likely be erased. That's why this extension is so important.

Mr. Speaker, the 1207 program helps to correct the problems of discrimination without imposing an undue burden on other businesses. It is not a quota. It is not a set-aside. It is not a guarantee of contracts or dollars. It is simply about fairness, and the ability of minority-owned businesses to compete more effectively for federal defense contracts. All of us benefit when recipients of federal opportunities reflect America's diversity, and I'm proud to support the reauthorization of the 1207 program.