Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I would like to take the next 10 minutes to talk about a couple of different items.

Not far from where we are today, the body of our late Chief Justice has lain in repose, and a number of us were privileged to go there earlier today just to say goodbye and to thank him for his service to our country--33 years. That is a long time, more than three decades that he has served us. His love for our country, his love for the law and the integrity of our Nation's judiciary system was only surpassed by his love for his family and for those with whom he worked.

During his time on the Court, he fostered, among other things, real congeniality among the Justices--something that is not easy to do in that forum or, frankly, in this one. In return, he was held in high esteem by his colleagues who had called him, among other things, ``brilliant,'' ``principled,'' ``generous,'' with ``a good sense of humor,'' something we can never have too much of.

He demonstrated great personal strength and courage in leading the Court and this country through difficult and contentious times, continuing his work in the face of ever-daunting health problems that would have set most of us on our backs and far out of the courtroom.

There are many judicial hallmarks of his time on the Court. Throughout his tenure on the Court, he staunchly supported the independence of the Federal judiciary and our overall governmental system of checks and balances. We will miss him, but we are grateful that he was here to serve us for as long as he has.

I would also like to talk about the good efforts that are going on in a number of places around our country to support the relief effort to those who have been stricken by Hurricane Katrina. We heard a fair amount of questioning about whether the response was adequate, was timely, what we could have done better, what we needed to do better, and those are all legitimate questions and they need to be answered in time--some of them now, some of them in the course of the next couple of weeks and months.

I said to some of my colleagues with whom I was discussing Katrina and our response--we were talking about the role of government in a situation such as this--Lincoln had it right about 150 years ago when he said words to the effect that the role of government is to do for people what they cannot do for themselves. That is our role in this instance as well.

Not long ago I was in our church, and the focal point of the sermon was the parable from the New Testament about the Good Samaritan and the question that is asked at the beginning of the parable of the Good Samaritan, Who is my neighbor? We go on to be reminded that our neighbor is not just the people who live across the street from us in Wilmington, DE, or in South Carolina. Our neighbor could just as well be a person who lives in New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, or any of the other places affected.

I am inspired by outpouring, not just from government and for us to do our jobs--we are paid literally to help people in instances such as this, and that is the expectation of us, but for a lot of people this is not their expectation. People are literally showing their faith by their deeds. In some cases, people are opening up their homes, opening up their military installations, opening up all types of facilities to receive those who have been dislocated, welcoming youngsters to schools far from the schools those kids would normally be attending to make sure their education is not disrupted.

I think of the folks from my own State, the doctors and nurses, folks in our medical operation out of our Delaware Air National Guard. They were literally on the scene today providing services and assistance to those who need it. People are collecting food, people are giving blood, people are giving boatloads of money and, frankly, boatloads more are needed. But it is an inspiring outpouring after a difficult and disappointing beginning.

Among the questions I hope we will focus on as we try to decide what went well and what did not go well, what was right, what went right, and what we did poorly, is the issue of the levees that surround the city of New Orleans that keep Lake Pontchartrain from pouring into the city of New Orleans. If you look in the dictionary for a definition of ``city at risk'' if there ever was a Category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane, you would see New Orleans. That is the poster child for this kind of risk. We knew the threat was there. We knew it was a grave threat. We have been talking about it for years. The people have talked about it for years. The Army Corps of Engineers sought to reinforce the levees.

We knew this storm was coming. It is not one that popped up at the last minute. Yet, in spite of that, the work that should have been done on the levees to strengthen them to sustain this kind of onslaught by Mother Nature, someone has dropped the ball. I am not interested in finger-pointing or witch hunts. We have to find out where we went wrong, why we went wrong, and fix that. If New Orleans is ever to rise again--not from the ashes but from the waters that engulf it today-- this is an issue that has to be not only resolved, we have to come up with a solution to make sure we have learned from this very expensive lesson.

I fear a storm which could have cost tens of billions may cost more than $100 billion to repair the damage, a lot of it from New Orleans. A storm that could have cost us hundreds of lives will probably cost us thousands of lives. It did not have to be.

The last thing I wish to say is I was encouraged in the presentation we had by some of our Cabinet Secretaries who talked about what the Department of Health and Human Services is doing, making sure the folks who need medical assistance and Medicaid eligibility, identification, people who need help getting their food stamp allocations, people need to receive their unemployment checks--all kinds of things were discussed, what the Federal Government can do to help people. It was encouraging.

One of the presenters was the Secretary of the Department of Treasury. He talked, as the Presiding Officer may recall, about the work being done to

defer the payment of taxes. People who normally would have an estimated tax payment--personal business maybe--on September 15 will be given until the end of October to make that payment. They were looking for ways we, through the Federal Government, could exercise some charity, some consideration for those who were in harm's way and are now in desperate straits to pull their lives back together.

I come from a State where we have a lot of banks. We probably have more credit card banks per capita--probably issue half the credit cards issued in America. I am empowered to speak on this point. We have a lot of financial services companies around the world. They extend credit. Most do a great job of extending credit to people through America, the Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, and also the Gulf Coast States. Just as the Department of Treasury is trying to find ways to show kindness and a little consideration to those who are affected in the disaster areas on the tax side, my hope is our financial services companies which are going to be benefiting from the implementation of our new bankruptcy law this fall, this might be a good opportunity for some of them to say--and some of them already are doing this, I should point that out. Some financial services companies are saying: We want to help folks in the Southeast United States who have been affected, and here are the variety of ways we will do that. Some are not entirely forgiving indebtedness but are providing payment holidays, extending the dates on which payments are due, and taking away interest and finance charges. That is what we ought to applaud and the behavior we ought to encourage others to undertake.

Today, in addition to saying goodbye to our Chief Justice and to saying terrific work by folks from all walks of life to help people in dire straights, well done, we say to our financial services companies around the country that are trying to find their own ways to reach out and help people, God bless you. Good for you. Finally, to say to those who aren't, maybe you would like to join the parade and lend a helping hand as well.

(The remarks of Mr. Carper pertaining to the introduction of S. 1627 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, some folks were looking for a place to go on summer vacation on the Internet. A lot of people go to national parks. A couple of summers ago, my family and I went to Alaska and visited Denali, a national park bigger than my State. We had a wonderful time in Alaska. But if you go to the national park Web site, you can find national parks to visit in 49 States. There is one State that has no national park. It is my State.

I am reintroducing legislation Senator Biden and I introduced at the end of the last Congress. We will reintroduce that so we get our State on the road to having our own national park and providing people around the country and the world the opportunity to learn about our coastal heritage, which included the landing of the first Swedes and Finns when they came to America. They landed in Wilmington, DE, to establish the colony of New Sweden. I don't think the Finns called it that, but the Swedes did. We want to have a national park of our own that would include that discovery, commemorate that discovery.

Our bill authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a Special Resource Study of Delaware's coastal region. This study is the first step toward establishing the first national park in Delaware.

Delaware's coastal region is rich in historical sites, parks, and wildlife areas. This Special Resource Study will trace the various threads that make up the fabric of Delaware, which are an ideal microcosm for the tapestry of America. Together, these sites highlight the threads of history, heritage, commerce, and nature. The result would be a national park highlighting America's history, cultural heritage, commercial progress and natural beauty.

The study would be anchored on Fort Christina and the 7th Street Peninsula in Wilmington. It would extend south from there to include old New Castle and points along Delaware's coast in Kent and Sussex Counties, which have been the location of many significant events throughout America's history.

This proposed study will help encapsulate the human and natural activity that has occurred along our coast that has helped create the very fabric of our society.

I am confident this study will prove that a national park highlighting Delaware's rich coastal heritage would be a very appropriate and fitting addition to the National Park system. Our national park would demonstrate that coastal regions like those found in Delaware are a vital part of America's past, present, and future.

Delaware is first in so many ways, but it is the only state without a national park. Every year, millions of Americans plan their vacations around our nation's national park system. They log onto the Park Service web site and search for ideas for their family vacations. Right now, that search will turn up nothing for Delaware. With a national park unit here in Delaware, that will change.

In the future, those families will be considering a trip to Delaware to visit our national park. Those trips will be a significant boost to our economy and will teach new generations of Americans about Delaware's rich cultural heritage.

I have described to you today a vision resulting from the hard work of many dedicated Delawareans. Today, I take the next step in making their vision a reality.

I believe this is an exciting proposal and one that, when incorporated into the National Park System, will become an important element in preserving the wonderful human and natural history presented by our coastal region.

Mr. President, some folks were looking for a place to go on summer vacation on the Internet. A lot of people go to national parks. A couple of summers ago, my family and I went to Alaska and visited Denali, a national park bigger than my State. We had a wonderful time in Alaska. But if you go to the national park Web site, you can find national parks to visit in 49 States. There is one State that has no national park. It is my State.

I am reintroducing legislation Senator Biden and I introduced at the end of the last Congress. We will reintroduce that so we get our State on the road to having our own national park and providing people around the country and the world the opportunity to learn about our coastal heritage, which included the landing of the first Swedes and Finns when they came to America. They landed in Wilmington, DE, to establish the colony of New Sweden. I don't think the Finns called it that, but the Swedes did. We want to have a national park of our own that would include that discovery, commemorate that discovery.

Our bill authorizes the National Park Service to conduct a Special Resource Study of Delaware's coastal region. This study is the first step toward establishing the first national park in Delaware.

Delaware's coastal region is rich in historical sites, parks, and wildlife areas. This Special Resource Study will trace the various threads that make up the fabric of Delaware, which are an ideal microcosm for the tapestry of America. Together, these sites highlight the threads of history, heritage, commerce, and nature. The result would be a national park highlighting America's history, cultural heritage, commercial progress and natural beauty.

The study would be anchored on Fort Christina and the 7th Street Peninsula in Wilmington. It would extend south from there to include old New Castle and points along Delaware's coast in Kent and Sussex Counties, which have been the location of many significant events throughout America's history.

This proposed study will help encapsulate the human and natural activity that has occurred along our coast that has helped create the very fabric of our society.

I am confident this study will prove that a national park highlighting Delaware's rich coastal heritage would be a very appropriate and fitting addition to the National Park system. Our national park would demonstrate that coastal regions like those found in Delaware are a vital part of America's past, present, and future.

Delaware is first in so many ways, but it is the only state without a national park. Every year, millions of Americans plan their vacations around our nation's national park system. They log onto the Park Service web site and search for ideas for their family vacations. Right now, that search will turn up nothing for Delaware. With a national park unit here in Delaware, that will change.

In the future, those families will be considering a trip to Delaware to visit our national park. Those trips will be a significant boost to our economy and will teach new generations of Americans about Delaware's rich cultural heritage.

I have described to you today a vision resulting from the hard work of many dedicated Delawareans. Today, I take the next step in making their vision a reality.

I believe this is an exciting proposal and one that, when incorporated into the National Park System, will become an important element in preserving the wonderful human and natural history presented by our coastal region.

Mr. President, the Senate recently passed S. Res. 31, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate that the week of August 7, 2005, be designated as ``National Health Center Week.''

In keeping with this resolution, I rise today to commend the work of the Mid-Atlantic Association of Community Health Centers and of all of the health centers of Delaware for the role they play in delivering quality, affordable health care to the people of Delaware.

Community health centers are community-run and open to all Americans regardless of their ability to pay. Delaware has a number of community health centers, including Westside Health in Wilmington and Newark, Henrietta Johnson in Wilmington, Delmarva Kent Community Health Center in Dover, and La Red Health Center in Sussex County. These centers and those across our Nation are extremely valuable, operating in both rural and urban medically underserved areas and providing care that might not otherwise be available to residents.

By serving as a point of access for affordable primary and preventive care, health centers also help patients stay healthier or, if they are ill, allow them to receive treatment earlier. This prevents patients from having to seek care in the most expensive setting--the emergency room--and therefore can save money for our health system as a whole.

Again, I wish to commend the health centers of Delaware for their dedication. I thank them for the valuable services they provide to all Delawareans.

Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Dr. H. Wesley Towers Jr. upon his retirement as State Veterinarian after 37 years of dedicated service. He is a man with a kind heart, diverse interests and great abilities. Wesley embodies the best of Delaware.

``Doc,'' as he was fondly known, was born on August 15, 1942 in Wilmington, DE. He spent much of his youth with his grandfather, the farm manager on E.E. du Pont's Greenville, DE, estate, ``Dogwood.'' He loved the country, the farm work, and the animals. When the local veterinarian came to tend the livestock, Doc knew what he wanted to be.

Doc graduated high school in 1960 from P.S. Dupont, and went on to study animal and poultry science at the University of Delaware, graduating with honors and distinction in 1964. He spent the next four years at the University of Pennsylvania veterinary school, graduating in 1968, and went on to become Delaware's vet almost by chance.

After veterinary school, Doc took a job in Kent County as an apprentice to the State veterinarian. At the same time, Harrington and Georgetown racetracks offered him a temporary night job overseeing racehorses. Several weeks later, the track vet had a stroke, leaving him unable to resume race work. The temporary job became a full-time, second job for Doc. The following year in 1969, the State vet retired and Doc was appointed in his place.

Doc has the Nation's fourth largest poultry industry to protect, a rabies epidemic to police, and race courses to regulate. Containing and excluding contagious and infectious animal and poultry diseases is his priority, with public enemy No. 1 being avian flu, a virulent respiratory ailment that devastates poultry. Doc and his team work hard at their jobs to ensure that any outbreaks of avian flu are contained.

During his time as State vet, Doc has received the Department of Agriculture's Employee of the Year award, the University of Delaware's Worrilow Award for service to agriculture and Delaware's coveted Award for Excellence and Commitment to State Service. At the University of Delaware, Doc is a part of the Agricultural Alumni Association, the Alumni Association board, the Career Planning and Placement advisory committee, the phone-a-thons, and the ``Alumni in the Classroom'' program.

Doc spends much of his free time championing causes in which he believes. He testifies in SPCA cases, including revelations over local ``puppy mills.'' He is involved with the racing commissions, the State Fair Board and the Tri-State Bird Rescue group. In addition, Doc enjoys gardening, traveling, hunting, cooking and taking trips to the beach.

Doc is married to his college sweetheart, Sarah. The two met in a chemistry laboratory at the University of Delaware, and were married on June 25, 1966. They have two children, Laura and David, and four grandchildren, Mark, Annie, Matthew and Davey. Sarah describes her husband over almost forty years as a patient, kind and loving man who loves to be around people. He is fortunate to wake up every morning and go to a job that he loves.

After retirement, Doc plans to spend his time pursuing his hobbies, volunteering, and most importantly, continuing to raise his beloved Delaware blue hens. I rise today to honor Doc and to thank him for the friendship that we share. Through his tireless efforts, Doc has made a profound difference in the lives of thousands and enhanced the quality of life for an entire State. Upon his retirement, he will leave behind a legacy of commitment to public service for both his children and grandchildren and for the generations that will follow. I congratulate him on a truly remarkable and distinguished career. I wish him and his family only the very best in all that lies ahead for each of them.

Mr. President, I convey to Senator Chambliss my respect and regards for the way he has handled himself in these negotiations over the last 24 hours. Senator Harkin has done us all a favor. What he has done is reminded us when people make a mistake--and we all make mistakes. God knows I do--we ought to be willing to acknowledge that. There are serious mistakes, as I think Mr. Dorr has made with respect to his comments about diversity and minorities, and things Mr. Dorr has done with respect to his own farming operation regarding minimum payments. He made serious mistakes. There was a period of time when it looked as though he wasn't willing to acknowledge those mistakes, at least to do so in the public forum. If someone makes mistakes of this magnitude, it doesn't mean they are forever denied the opportunity for public service. What it means is when their name comes before this Senate for confirmation for a senior position, in this case in the Department of Agriculture, that person should be held accountable for their mistakes. They should be willing to acknowledge their mistakes and they should be willing, essentially, to ask for forgiveness for those mistakes.

It is not always an easy thing to do. Mr. Dorr has made that acknowledgment. He said, I was wrong; what I did was wrong and I hope others learn from my mistakes.

It now falls to Senator Harkin who, as we all know, has fought hard against this nomination, as to whether to accept this letter from Mr. Dorr for us to move forward to the actual vote on the nomination.

I want to say to Tom Harkin, thank you for the way you handled yourself in the course of this debate over the last 4 years, for the important role you have played, and for your willingness to allow this nomination to come to a vote today.

With that having been said, I yield my time and thank the Senator from Georgia.

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

Mr. President, I am happy that my colleagues have brought these important amendments to the floor today to provide the necessary funds to secure our inner-city rail, our freight rail, and our transit systems. As someone representing a State, Delaware, that relishes and relies heavily on rail travel, this is certainly a major concern to me and those I am privileged to represent.

In the weeks and months after September 11, we took unprecedented steps to secure our Nation's airlines, and for good reason. We all know about the added security--baggage checks, passenger screening--because we have all seen it every time we go to an airport and try to get through an airport onto our planes. But we have not been as diligent when it comes to protecting our Nation's railways and transit systems, which is alarming given the number of people who travel by rail, and it is alarming when we see what has happened in Madrid and London in the last months and, in fact, last days.

Today, nearly 25 million passengers ride Amtrak. During the course of the year, that equates to about 3.5 billion rail trips taken annually by people looking to take a vacation, go home for the holidays, or traveling for business. In fact, our railroad network is so busy that every day more people use Amtrak's Penn Station in New York than use all of New York's major three airports combined.

In 2003, public transportation moved over 8.8 billion--almost 9 billion--passengers, according to the national transit database. Since 1995, public transportation ridership in the United States has grown by over 20 percent--faster than highway, faster than air travel. The American Public Transit Association estimates that more than 14 million people use public transportation every weekday. Yet we have done comparatively little to protect rail travelers and transit travelers from terrorist attacks.

Nowhere is that shortfall more evident than in the Homeland Security appropriations bill we are debating today. Under this bill, we would provide a scant 12 cents in security funds for each time a person boards a bus or a subway car or an Amtrak train to get to work--12 cents. Yet what we propose spending every time a person gets on board an airplane is $7.58.

Let me repeat that. Every time one of us gets on a Metro bus in Washington or boards a SEPTA train in Wilmington, DE, or southeastern Pennsylvania, the Federal Government is providing 12 cents to protect our safety on that railcar or in that transit station. Yet every time one of us flies out of National Airport, the Federal Government is spending $7.58--12 cents on the one hand, $7.58 on the other hand. That is a whopping disparity. It is one we need to correct.

During Senate consideration of legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security, I, along with several of my colleagues, tried to provide funds to Amtrak to secure its trains, station facilities, and its infrastructure, but that language was stripped out of the bill during the wee hours of the night. Some lawmakers were reluctant to give Amtrak any additional funds, while others were too focused on responding to the last disaster to start preparing for the next one.

Since then, supplying even modest amounts of rail security funding has been a battle. The danger to our rail and transit system has been repeatedly cited by officials at the Department of Homeland Security. During his confirmation hearing as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge stated:

Amtrak and freight rail are at considerable risk to

terrorist attack.

Secretary Chertoff has also acknowledged the risk facing our Nation's rail and transit systems. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission concluded that the risk of attacks on surface transportation is as great or greater than that of any aircraft hijacking. Further, the Government Accountability Office has stated:

Insufficient funding is the most significant challenge in

making transit systems as safe and secure as possible.

Despite these warnings, progress has been slow, results have been few. The Department of Homeland Security has established no comprehensive approach to rail and transit security. None. None like we developed for airports in the wake of 9/11, that is for sure.

The Transportation Security Agency, meanwhile, has been working on a national transportation security plan since 2003, some 2 years. Yet that plan is still not complete. In the wake of the Madrid bombings in Spain last year that killed nearly 200 people, several of my colleagues and I sponsored legislation to establish rail and transit security programs, just as we created an airport security program after 9/11. This bill, called the Rail Security Act of 2004, was passed unanimously by the Senate on October 4 last year. Although the House did not act on this bill, we did succeed in securing $150 million in funding for rail and transit security in the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill, which is in effect today. However, only a year later, the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security bill reported out of committee cut that figure by a third, down to $100 million for the next fiscal year.

Last week, more than 50 people were killed, some 700 people were injured when terrorists bombed the London underground. It is time that we learn from these tragedies and develop a long-term, comprehensive approach to strengthening security of our Nation's rail and transit infrastructure. We cannot continue to ignore our transit systems or Amtrak or their passengers or the need to secure the hazardous material that travels across our freight lines throughout this country.

There has been a bipartisan effort to increase funding for rail and transit security. We hear people talking about increases in the magnitude of hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars. This may sound like a lot of money, but keep in mind, this bill includes nearly $4.5 billion for airline security. In fact, while Congress has spent almost $20 billion on aviation security since 9/11, only $400 million has been spent on rail security.

In other words, we have spent 50 times more money on airline security since 9/11 than we spent on rail and transit security combined.

No one is arguing that airline security is not necessary--it is necessary--but is the risk 50 times greater to our airlines and to people who fly on our airlines than to public transportation systems, to the millions of people who ride transit every day and who take inner-city passenger rail across America? I would argue that it is not.

We have made some progress securing air travel in the wake of 9/11, although I would argue, and I think most of us would agree, that there is more that we can and should do. The amendments we are considering today, though, call for a similar level of focus and attention to be brought to the security needs of our Nation's rail and our transit systems and to the literally, in the course of a year, billions of people who ride transit and who ride Amtrak.

We should be taking a serious look at ways to help railroads, States, cities, and transit agencies do what they can to improve security efforts, such as hiring more police, putting out more bomb-sniffing dogs with those police, improving ventilation, improving lighting, and establishing escape routes in tunnels.

Amtrak, freight railroads, and local transit agencies are doing all they can, but the Federal Government, we in Congress, have not done our share. It is time we stand up and take some responsibility in this as well. We need to, and can do so, before the disasters that struck Madrid and London strike us at home.

I yield back my time and ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be divided equally between either side.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to add a comment or two to our colleague from New York. I believe in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill, which is currently in effect, there was about $150 million that could be used for improving transit and rail security. I believe, as of last week, none of that money had been allocated. I hope that is not true, but that is what I have been briefed by my staff. None of that $150 million has been allocated. One has to wonder what it takes. I fear that it may take some tragedy to really get our attention, the attention of the executive branch to begin allocating the money and putting it where it can do the most good most promptly.

As I understand it, the administration has asked for no appropriation in their budget proposal for fiscal 2006 for rail security and transit security. The committee has put in $100 million for that purpose, and I believe the committee has agreed to raise it to the current level of appropriation of $150 million. But if the administration is not going to spend the money, what good does it do for us to allocate. It is very disappointing. I hope it is not true, but I am afraid it probably is.

I thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention and join her in saying we can do a lot better and we have to.

Some time tomorrow, we are going to have the opportunity to vote on several options for allocating aid to first responders in our 50 States, firefighters, police, paramedics, and others who are first on the scene. When tragedy strikes and that tragedy happens to be a strike launched by terrorists, they will be the first to be there, whether it is Delaware, Missouri, New York, or any other State.

I rise to express my strong support for an amendment that is going to be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman. That amendment seeks to streamline the system for distributing first responder aid to States, tries to make the system more fair, and seeks to ensure that every State, large or small, receives the funding that may be needed to respond to terrorist attacks and to other disasters.

Senator Collins and I have been working with Senator Lieberman and other members of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on this issue for some time. In fact, Senator Collins and I first introduced legislation on this topic more than 2 years ago. That original bill came after a series of hearings we held in our committee, highlighting the fact that the way we help States prepare for disasters simply makes little sense. The application process is lengthy and confusing. More importantly, the funding formula simply isn't getting money to those who need it the most.

States, counties, cities, and first responders all told us in one voice that we need to do something about it. Much of what Senator Collins and I and our colleagues did in that initial legislation a couple years ago to respond to the concerns is reflected in the amendment that will be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman.

That amendment mirrors in many respects the bill that Senator Collins and I introduced 2 years ago. For example, the amendment streamlines the grant application process. It creates a one-stop shop within the Department of Homeland Security where State officials and others can seek grant information. It also ensures that funds are distributed as quickly as possible and requires States to go through a planning process that would include both localities and first responders.

In addition, we take steps in this amendment to give States more flexibility in spending their first responder aid. Not every State is the same. Missouri's needs may be different than Delaware's. This amendment, as with our earlier bill, gives States the ability to ask for a waiver from the Department. If they want to use a little more money for training or equipment or exercises or planning, they can go to the Department and ask for a waiver to do so. One size does not fit all. This amendment, such as our earlier bill, acknowledges that.

Funding formulas are akin to what they used to say about beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of a funding formula is oftentimes in the eye of the particular State that is eyeing the formula. I believe we have gone a long way toward addressing the concerns that some of our colleagues from more populous States have raised over the years. There were concerns among a number of Senators, both on and off the Homeland Security Committee, that the current program in our original legislation directed too much aid to smaller States, to less populated States, at the expense of larger States or more populated States and high-threat urban areas. I believe we have addressed those concerns.

A version of this amendment that was added by a unanimous vote to the intelligence reform bill last year provide additional allocations to the dozen or so largest States in the country. It also allowed the Secretary of Homeland Security to distribute a portion of the funding made available for State grants directly to the most at-risk urban areas. We go even further this year, further than some of the supporters of our original legislation might like to have gone. In an effort to shift even more funding to those parts

of the country most at risk, Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, and the rest of us who support their amendment have negotiated a new funding formula that actually reduces the baseline allocation or the so-called small State minimum guaranteed to every State.

Currently in the bill, it is 0.75-percent minimum for every State. The amendment that will be offered tomorrow by Senators Collins and Lieberman and myself and others would take that minimum down to 0.55 percent. We have also added language in this amendment that gives the Secretary the discretion to allocate up to half of the available funds to big cities. In total, these efforts have resulted in what I think is a balanced formula that I am told allocates about twice as much aid on risk as we did in last year's appropriations bill.

There will be some who will argue that the baseline allocation in this amendment should be even smaller or that it should not exist at all. I respond to that argument by simply pointing out that my own home State of Delaware may be small. We may have a small population--about 800,000 people, in fact. That is more than about six States that are, frankly, bigger than us in size have. But Delaware is home to significant critical infrastructure such as chemical facilities, oil refineries, and one of the most important ports in the country, and those could be unfortunately on a terrorist target list.

Right across the Delaware River, about 15 miles from my home, are two nuclear powerplants. Up and down the northeast corridor we have I-95 carrying, each day, hundreds of thousands of cars, trucks and vans, including trucks carrying some dangerous material. We have the northeast rail corridor through which some of our largest freight railroads pass, again carrying all kinds of cargo, goods, including some which are hazardous, potentially a target to terrorists. We have the Delaware River, the Delaware Bay. Every day dozens of ships go up and down the Delaware River, any number of which carry cargo that could be considered hazardous.

My staff and I have talked to any number of public safety officials in Delaware. Here is what they tell us. They tell us that they are not getting the resources they need to enable them to respond to incidents that the Department of Homeland Security itself has told us have a real possibility of happening in our State. I am sure many of my colleagues from States large and small could share similar stories with us, and they probably will during the course of this debate. That is one reason why we need to approve this amendment.

I urge all of our colleagues to support this compromise amendment. It does the best job of any proposal that I have seen at getting the most at-risk parts of our country the first responder aid that they need without arbitrarily shortchanging smaller States like Delaware that may be small in size but the risk profile belies the modest size in population.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, free trade--when done correctly--can be an important tool in building consumer demand for U.S. products worldwide, encouraging investment and growth in developing markets, and forging new alliances. Today, Congress is considering an agreement to expand trade with Central America and the Dominican Republic.

Delaware is already heavily engaged in trade with Central American countries, with $25 million in exports in 2004. In fact, a large amount of the fruit imported through the Port of Wilmington by Chiquita and Dole come from Central America. However, while 75 percent of Central American products enter the United States tariff free, almost all U.S. goods continue to face tariffs in Central America. The Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement, or DR-CAFTA, will level the playing field for U.S. workers and businesses that rely on exports to Central America and the Dominican Republic by providing immediate, duty-free access for more than 80 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial goods.

For Delaware, this will lift tariffs on the fabrics supplied by companies like Invista to sewing operations in Central America, making textiles in the Americas more competitive with China. Delaware's poultry producers will finally gain access to Central American markets under DR-CAFTA. When the agreement goes into effect, some U.S. chicken products will be given immediate duty-free access, and that access will expand annually until duties are eliminated.

Free-trade agreements with developing countries also offer an opportunity to encourage reform. Certain reforms were accomplished in DR-CAFTA, such as competitive bidding for government contracts and protection of copyrights, patents and trademarks--very important to Delaware companies such as AstraZeneca and Dupont.

However, we have not used the opportunity provided by the negotiation of this agreement to make as much progress as we should have, particularly in improving conditions for workers and protecting the environment. Steady progress was made in the 1990s in the way these important issues were addressed. By the time the Jordan Free Trade Agreement was adopted in 2001, labor and environment provisions were all subject to sanctions through the agreement's dispute resolution process. This was an important advancement, not just for workers in developing nations but also for competing workers and businesses in the United States. The agreements Congress has considered since 2001 have retreated from this

strong enforcement standard, and this has unnecessarily weakened the bipartisan support for free trade that we have built over the years.

While I am pleased that the administration has agreed to support an increase in funding to support efforts to improve labor and environment conditions in Central America, I am aware of no reason to back off of the strong enforcement of labor and environmental obligations that we have included in several agreements. Let me be clear. The administration must include a greater level of enforcement of labor and environment standards in those trade agreements currently being negotiated in order to be assured of garnering my support in the future. It is particularly important that we enforce the obligation not to backslide or repeal current labor and environmental laws and regulations.

I will be watching the negotiations of the Andean and Thailand trade agreements closely. If this administration is serious about getting those approved, they will listen to the concerns that have been expressed in the debate over DR-CAFTA, consult with Democrat and Republican Senators during the course of those negotiations and send the Senate free trade agreements with stronger enforcement of labor and environmental standards. In the months and years ahead.

Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to discuss with my friend, the Senator from Montana, a tax incentive which I believe is very important to our efforts to reduce fuel consumption in America. As you know, Senator Baucus is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee and has a great understanding of our nation's tax policy, as well as a great institutional memory of tax legislation through the years. Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Finance Committee, provide us with advice and counsel concerning tax policy and do a superb job in that role.

The specific incentive I would like to discuss with my friend from Montana is a provision included in the House energy bill to encourage the use of clean diesel passenger vehicles. It is called the ``diesel advanced lean-burn'' tax credit, and it would give consumers a credit on their income taxes when they purchase a clean diesel vehicle meeting stated fuel efficiency and environmental requirements. I am very supportive of this provision and want to encourage my colleagues to consider it when the Senate energy bill is conferenced with the House bill.

Why is that? Why do I think this provision is so important to our energy policy? For these reasons.

Diesel fuel contains more energy than gasoline, resulting in fuel economy increases of more than 40 percent compared to equivalent gas powered autos.

In fact, the Department of Energy estimates that 30 percent diesel penetration in the U.S. passenger vehicle market by 2020 would reduce net crude oil imports by 350,000 barrels per day.

So why aren't diesel vehicles more common on U.S. highways? Because until recently, they have been considered significantly dirtier in terms of air pollution. But the technology has

changed. Today, you will have a difficult time telling a new diesel car from its gasoline counterpart. New diesels are clean, quiet, and powerful. And they will get even cleaner with the introduction of low sulfur diesel fuel in the United States late next year as the result of new regulations.

Diesel engines have become increasingly popular in Europe over the last 20 years to the extent that market penetration now exceeds 40 percent. The situation is very different in the U.S. where diesel accounts for only 1 percent of light vehicles.

Clean diesel engines provide the perfect platform for the use of BioDiesel which comes from products grown here at home by American farmers. The more diesel engines on the road, the greater demand for this renewable product, and the less petroleum imports from overseas to meet our fuel needs.

We now have the opportunity to take advantage of the advances in clean diesel technology and to do what we can to get more of these fuel efficient vehicles on the road.

In the 2003 Energy Bill there was a tax incentive for ``new advanced lean burn motor vehicles,'' and the House recently passed an Energy Bill containing essentially the same provision.

So with that background, I wanted to ask my friend from Montana whether it is correct that high efficiency diesel vehicles would be considered ``lean burning'' vehicles?

The 2003 conference legislation contained incentives for lean-burn diesel vehicles. Is it fair to say that you are interested in this technology and in promoting cleaner diesel cars in the U.S.?

And is it your thought that the Senate conferees should carefully consider the tax incentives provided in the House version of the bill for these types of vehicles?

I thank my friend for taking a moment to discuss this matter with me, and I would encourage my colleagues who will be negotiating the tax provisions of the Energy Bill with the House of Representatives to do just that--to carefully consider the benefits that new clean diesel vehicles have to offer. I think the benefits are substantial, that diesel passenger vehicles are already very clean and will get even cleaner next year when low sulfur fuel becomes available, and that a transition toward this technology will pay big dividends for the country over the next few years. This is something we can do which will have an almost immediate positive effect, and I encourage my colleagues to consider this incentive positively.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding

me time. And even more, I express my thanks to him and Senator Lieberman for the leadership they are providing on an enormously important issue for not just our country and our States but, really, I think for the world in which we live.

I want to start off today with something of an admission. I want to admit to all of you that I am really a Johnny-come-lately on the issue of global warming. Not that long ago, I believed we needed more science to be able to justify action; that we needed more research to justify action. Not that long ago, I feared that taking meaningful action could very likely mean that we do harm to our economy.

But with the passage of time, like a lot of our Republican friends and our Democrat friends, I have changed my mind. Over the past several years, I have become a believer. Global warming is real. We do need to do something about it. I have enough faith in American technology and our ingenuity and our know-how to believe we can do that without endangering economic growth.

Two of the key people who have helped to educate me on this issue are Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his wife Ellen Mosely-Thompson. Both are professors at Ohio State University. Just last month, Lonnie was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. As an undergraduate student and graduate of Ohio State University, I am proud to say I know them, although neither of them was a professor of mine when I was a student there a long time ago.

Doctors Thompson are not retired academics who sit in Columbus, OH, and pontificate about global warming. They get their hands dirty. They have led some 40 expeditions around the world--to the Himalayas, to Mount Kilimanjaro, and to the Andes in South America--in an attempt to figure out how global warming is changing the face of our most famous mountaintops.

According to Lonnie Thompson:

In 1912, there was over 12 square kilometers of ice on

Mount Kilimanjaro.

When the Thompsons went to that mountain in February of 2000, it was down to about 2 square kilometers of ice. Lonnie Thompson projects sometime around 2015--that is 10 years from now--the ice that sits atop Mount Kilimanjaro will disappear entirely.

From all their studies of glaciers and icecaps atop mountains in Africa and South America, Lonnie and Ellen Thompson have concluded that many of them will simply melt within the next 15 years because of global warming. And their fear is that little can be done to reverse that.

I would like to share with you today several enlarged photos. I will start with one of the icecaps the Thompsons have studied in the Southern Andes. This first one shows what it looked like in 1978--27 years ago and the second shows the same mountain in 2000. This area here may not look like a whole lot, but that is a 12-acre lake that exists today which did not exist in 1978. There is a lot less ice, a lot of melting, and now we have a lake where a glacier once stood.

Now, that may or may not sound like a lot, but consider this: The Thompsons have observed that the rate of retreat has been 32 times greater in the last 3 years than it was in the period between 1963 and 1978. Just think about that; 32 times greater that this glacier has retreated in the past 3 years than it did back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Now, that is the Andes. Let's look at something just a little bit closer to home. Glacier Bay is located along the coast of southeastern Alaska. It is a national park and preserve filled with snow- and ice- covered mountains. A lot of us have been there, visited, and seen them with our own eyes.

This next photo is of the Riggs Glacier in Glacier Bay. It was taken by the U.S. Geological Survey, I believe, in 1941, over 60 years ago.

Now, look at this next picture. It is also the same spot, taken in 2004. There is no ice. The weather warmed up enough that we actually have vegetation. This might be the upside of global warming, but there is a downside as well, and that is what I am going to be focusing on today.

These are just two examples, my friends, and there are plenty more we do not have time for today. Together I believe they spell out an ever more convincing case that our Earth is warming, and at an increasing rate, and what is more those of us who live on this planet are largely to blame.

I want us to consider some facts as we know them. If we could take a look at this next chart. First of all, 9 out of 10 of the hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. Arctic sea ice has shrunk by some 250 million acres--an area the size of California, Maryland, and Texas combined. Since 1995, more than 5,400 square miles of ice have broken off of Antarctica and melted.

Skeptics will still try to claim that there is no official link between what we see happening across the globe and manmade greenhouse gases. But last month, scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies announced that they have found the ``smoking gun'' in the global warming debate. What they have done is they have used sophisticated computer models and ocean-based measurement equipment. NASA scientists found by doing so that for every square meter of surface area, our planet is absorbing almost 1 watt more of the Sun's energy than it is radiating back into space as heat--a historically large imbalance that these NASA scientists tell us can only be attributed to human actions. Their conclusion:

There can no longer be substantial doubt that human-made

gases are the cause of global warming.

Their words, not mine.

According to scientists, that imbalance will only get worse over the next century. Computer modeling shows that temperatures may well rise between 2 to as many as 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century depending on how well carbon emissions are controlled by us here on this Earth. The effects of our doing nothing could be catastrophic. As the Earth's temperature increases, the extra heat energy in the atmosphere likely will trigger even greater extremes of heat and drought, of storms and wind and rain and even sometimes of more intense cold. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that unless global warming is controlled, sea levels will rise by as much as 2 feet over the next 50 years. For our island nations and coastlines, that could mean literally entire communities and beaches wiped out.

I like to joke, but it is really gallows humor, that in Delaware our highest point of land is a beach. A sea level rise of that magnitude would mean that people wouldn't be looking for beachfront property at Rehoboth or Dewey Beach. They might be looking for it closer to the State capital in Dover, DE, than any place along the shores we visit.

I thank the Chair.

I also want to quote a Republican friend of mine who recently pledged to cut California's carbon dioxide emissions by more than 80 percent over the next 50 years:

I say, the debate is over. We know the science. We see the

threat, and we know the time for action is now.

I want to ask, what does the chief executive of California know that the chief executive of our country may not yet know? Our country is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The Governator knows that. He knows we account for almost 20 percent of the world's manmade greenhouse emissions. He also knows we account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. The bottom line is, the United States has a responsibility to lead on this issue.

I don't believe my time has expired. Someone just told me I had 5 more minutes a minute ago. I would ask for 2 more minutes.

The United States has a responsibility to lead on this issue. Unfortunately, we have not seen a whole lot of leadership coming from

the White House or Congress on global warming--at least not yet. The McCain-Lieberman proposal before us is not Kyoto. It calls for more realistic timeframes for CO2 reductions and more flexibility for businesses to meet them. In my opinion, the time has come for action. That is not just my opinion, that is an opinion shared by a growing number of American businesses as well. They see the future. They are telling us to act now rather than later.

In the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, most naysayers have moved away from questioning whether climate change is real. They have now pinned their excuse for inaction on the adverse effects carbon constraints would have on the economy. However, some forward-thinking businesses are starting to realize that doing something proactive on global warming represents an opportunity to enhance their bottom line.

More American businesses are coming to realize that controls on carbon dioxide emissions are probably inevitable. They are saying it makes sense to take small steps now to avoid bigger problems later. A growing number of those companies have concluded that if we act to address climate change now, we can actually help them and their bottom line.

Let me give a couple examples. Companies realize they can make money by being green. Last month, for example, GE chief executive Jeffrey Immelt said his company is prepared to support mandatory limits on CO2 while simultaneously moving forward to double revenues from environmentally friendly technologies and products to $20 billion within 5 years. Here is what Mr. Immelt said:

We believe we can help improve the environment and make

money doing it . . . we see that green is green.

In addition, more shareholders these days are demanding green portfolios. Evangelical and environmental groups as well as State pension fund officials, who together control more than $3 trillion in assets, get it. They are pushing resolutions at shareholder meetings that will compel companies to disclose their financial exposure to future global warming regulations. Their pressure has resulted in many companies developing global warming policies in order to decrease future liabilities and show a greener, more environmentally friendly portfolio.

There is also more pressure among corporate peers to prove their environmental stewardship. JPMorgan recently announced that it would ask clients that are large emitters of greenhouse gases to develop carbon reduction plans. Similar commitments were made earlier by Citigroup and Bank of America.

Other companies, such as DuPont, a major global manufacturer headquar- tered in Delaware, have already begun taking meaningful steps to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. In the mid-1990s, DuPont began aggressively maximizing energy efficiency as part of a global climate change initiative. This strategy allowed DuPont to hold their energy use flat while increasing production. Their efforts have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60 percent and saved this company $2 billion. Chad Holiday, CEO of the company, said:

As a company, DuPont believes action is warranted, not

further debate. We also believe that the best approach is for

business to lead, not to wait for public outcry or government

mandates.

I, too, believe the time has come to act. I also believe that given the right initiatives, even more American companies will rise to the challenge.

As businesses such as DuPont and GE have begun taking steps to address climate change, more and more States and cities are moving to do the same. Just this month, the U.S. Conference of Mayors unanimously passed a resolution calling on their 1,183 cities to try to meet or surpass emissions standards set by the Kyoto Protocol. Nineteen States have developed renewable portfolio standards in an effort to encourage more energy to be derived from cleaner and less carbon producing sources.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute.

There is good news and bad news in all this. On the one hand, you have all these cities and States taking their own course. While that is encouraging, on the other hand, for businesses that need some certainty and a national game plan, there is a problem with that. We don't need a patchwork quilt. What we need is the Federal Government to provide some leadership and certainty for our businesses.

On Social Security, the President says we are going to have a big problem 20, 30, 40 years down the road. And in order to avoid a big problem, a big train wreck, we need to take some small steps now. Frankly, the same argument applies to global warming. Thirty, 40, 50 years down the road, we are going to have a huge problem. It could be averted if we take some small, measured, reasonable steps today. The sooner we get started, the better off we will be and the less likely that a train wreck will occur 30 or 40 years later in this century.

I yield back my time, and I thank my colleagues for their leadership and for the extra time.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the leadership he has shown on this particular issue to unite environmental groups and business groups, people from the Republican chairman of our Environment and Public Works Committee, to the junior Senator from New York on our side. It is a remarkable coalition that has been put together in a very short period of time.

With respect to diesel engines, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that diesel engines last a long time. The bad news is that old diesel engines that are still on our highways and roads last a long time. In fact, there are about 11 million of them. While next year our new EPA requirements for lean-burn, clean-burn diesel engines--so- called tier 2 standards--kick in and requirements for lower sulfur content diesel fuel kick in, we have 11 million older diesel vehicles, some of which will be around until 2030 belching out nitrogen oxide.

Half the nitrogen oxide we emit comes from these 11 million diesel engines--school buses, regular buses, boats, locomotives, trucks. That is where half of our nitrogen oxide emissions come from. It causes fog, and the particulates that come out of our diesel engines lead to all kinds of lung diseases in people young and old. That is the bad news.

There is some more good news. The good news is we can do something about it. Senator Voinovich and others said the thing to do is create a partnership with the Federal Government, State government, EPA, and some of the private sector folks to put in place retrofit devices on these older diesel engines to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide and particulate, in some cases, by as much as 85 percent.

It is cost effective. The effect will be immediate. We do not have to wait until 2030 until these vehicles are off the road to start cleaning up our engines.

The last thing I will say is good environmental policy can also be good business policy. Companies such as Corning, Cummings, Caterpillar are making these devices and installing these devices, and they will do a whole lot more in the days to come. They will make money, a profit, from doing this. They will create products that can be exported, not jobs but products that can be exported to other parts of the world.

We will have cleaner air and, frankly, a stronger economy. That is a great win-win situation for all of us. I am delighted Senator Voinovich proposed this. I am delighted to join him as a principal sponsor on our side and anxious to get this vote recorded.

My hope is that maybe we can actually pass this unanimously. That would be a wonderful thing for our country and a good thing for this bill. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding this time and providing such terrific leadership.

I have no question.

Mr. President, I have served in the Senate for a bit over 4 years. When I came, I never imagined I would stand on this floor and defend a filibuster. I came to try to make sure we preserve jobs and bring in new ones, to make sure kids got a new education, to make sure we brought down the costs of health care and made it affordable and extended to a whole lot more people, that we ran a fiscally sound ship of state, and that we provided for the security of our Nation. I came for all of those things. I never imagined I would be standing in a food fight on how we are going to approve these judges, how many confirmations are enough and what constitutes a shortfall.

In Delaware, we are proud of being the first State. We were the first State to ratify the Constitution. We did it December 7, 1787. The Constitution that we confirmed at the Golden Fleece Tavern in Dover, DE, had been hammered out about 75 miles north up the road in Philadelphia. The last part of the Constitution that was hammered out, maybe one of the more difficult aspects of the Constitution, was not only who is going to be President, how are we going to pick the President, how long will their terms be. That was worked out. They did not get caught up in how old does one have to be to be a Senator or how old does one have to be to be a Representative, how long are the terms going to be. That was worked out. What was hardest to work out in the Constitutional Convention, almost harder than anything else, was how we are going to pick these judges.

There were some folks at the Constitutional Convention, led by Ben Franklin, who were fearful we would end up in this country with a king. We may not call him a king or we may not call her a queen, but we would end up with a king. They were dead-set determined to make sure we did not do that.

If we read through the Constitution, it is an intricate set of checks and balances that are designed to make sure that we have a President but we do not have a king. With those sets of checks and balances, the Constitution has served us extraordinarily well.

The Constitution also said, in addition to having a House and a Senate and how one gets elected to serve and how long they serve, it also said the House and Senate could each set out their rules. The Constitution does not say what the rules of the Senate are. It says we can write our own, and we have done that.

We heard earlier this afternoon about how the rules have been changed with respect to invoking cloture to end debate. Before 1917, Senators could not invoke cloture. Another Senator could talk literally as long as they could stand. From about 1917 to 1975 or so, the rule was that there had to be roughly a two-thirds supermajority to be able to end debate. Using the rules of the Senate to effect change, the rules were changed to say, no, a three-fifths majority, 60 Senators, is needed to bring debate to a close.

It is interesting how we confirm our judges in Delaware. Governors nominate with the advice and consent of the Senate. We do not nominate people to lifetime terms on the bench. We nominate them to 12-year terms. The remarkable thing in Delaware is for every--and I served 8 years as Governor--Democrat I nominated to the bench I had to nominate a Republican. We are equally balanced Democrat and Republican.

In survey after survey, the Delaware legal environment, including our judiciary, is regarded maybe as the best in the country. We do not have these food fights in Delaware. We have the best judiciary. We have Democrats and we have Republicans who serve on the bench. They are nominated by Republican and by Democratic Governors.

I ran into a friend of mine not long ago who has loosely been following this debate on judicial nominations. He asked: Why do you not confirm more of the President's judicial nominees? And I said: How many do you think we have confirmed, or what percentage do you think we have confirmed?

He said: Maybe half.

And I said: No, no my friend, 95 percent.

He said: Really? Do you not have a lot of vacancies on the Federal judiciary bench?

I said: No. We have one of the lowest vacancy rates we have had in years.

I asked him in return: While we have confirmed over the last 4 years 95 percent of President Bush's nominees to the bench, what percentage of President Clinton's nominees do you think were confirmed during his first 4 years?

Well, I do not have a chart here that says what the answer to that question is, but just to remind us all, from 2001 to the beginning of this year, 95 percent of President Bush's nominees have been confirmed.

If I had a magic marker I would make a big yellow line through this and write in 81 percent because that is the percentage of President Clinton's nominees that were confirmed in his first 4 years.

There is a great irony. I am told we never heard a peep or a squeak from our friends on the other side of the aisle during the first Clinton administration when his nominees were denied a vote on the floor. It was not because of a filibuster. They were denied a vote on the floor because somebody on the other side of the aisle in the Senate Judiciary Committee would not let a hearing be held, not on one or two judges nominated by Bill Clinton but on scores of them. They would not have a hearing. They would not let a nominee out of committee. They did not have to kill them on the floor in a filibuster. They did it in committee, quietly, out of the view of the public.

Now, why just a few years ago was it okay to deny 19 percent of President Clinton's nominees an up-or-down vote on this floor? Why was that okay? And why is it with this President--he received 95 percent of what he wants and actually in the end he will get more than that. There are a couple from Michigan that we are going to confirm. Some of the 10 have basically withdrawn their names or retired from the bench.

The figure of 95 percent actually understates what ultimately this President will realize in confirmation victories.

The other number I want to share, talking about advice and consent, is 2,703. This number is 1. What do they refer to? During the first 4 years of

President Bush's presidency, he nominated over 200 judges. Republicans and Democrats voted on those judges. There were 2,703 aye votes from the Republican side of the aisle on President Bush's judicial nominees. In those 4 years, there was one nay vote from the Republican side of the aisle on a judicial nominee of this President.

We can argue forever what advice and consent really was meant to be when the Constitution was written. But if we are in a situation where 50 percent plus 1, 51 percent, would enable a nominee of this President or any other President to go on to serve for life on the Federal bench, and if you look at the last 4 years and only 1 person out of 2,704 votes was no, does that give you any kind of confidence that we are going to see any sort of checks and balances going forward? It doesn't give me much.

I do not care if you are a Democrat or Republican, it should not matter. It should not matter who is in the White House or the House and Senate. But when you get a situation where you have one party that controls the White House and one party controls the House of Representatives and one party controls the Senate, and you have, out of 2,704 votes for judicial nominees, only 1 Republican Senator who ever voted no, and it was for somebody initially nominated by Bill Clinton, that is something we ought to worry about.

Someday, someday we are going to have a Democratic President. Someday we are going to have a Democratic majority in this body. We have sayings in Delaware. I bet they have in Minnesota, too. Maybe in Vermont. Among those sayings are these: Chickens do come home to roost; the beds that we make are some days the beds that we get to sleep in; what goes around comes around.

I promise you, I promise you, my friends, if a decision is made to pull this trigger, this nuclear option, and we end up with a situation where the rights of the minority really are, in my view, ignored, maybe even trampled on, the Republicans who do this will come to rue the day.

Let me close with this. I came here to get things done. As I look around this floor, the other Senators who are here whom I respect, I know you came here to get things done as well. I mentioned at the outset the kinds of things I wanted to see us accomplish. I describe myself as a recovering Governor. We have a recovering mayor who is presiding here today. We like to work together. We would like to work across the aisle. We are even happy to work with the President, Democrat or Republican.

My fear is here is what is going to happen. If this action succeeds, if we do change the rules of the Senate to lower to 51 the votes that are needed to end a filibuster on judicial nominations, that is a slippery slope. If we can do it on judges, we can do it on other nominees to other posts, we can do it on amendments, we can do it on bills. It is a slippery slope. But there is an even greater concern to me, as a guy who wants to get things done.

I see Senator Leahy is here. He is working with Senator Specter on asbestos litigation reform. We need to pass that litigation. We need to right a wrong. My fear is, if we take this step, trying to work out a very difficult compromise on that legislation will be made more difficult, not easier. We need to address the rising cost of health care and all the folks who do not have it and cannot afford it, and employers are stopping providing it. We need a comprehensive energy policy in this country. It is tough in the best of times to hammer that out.

I am happy to yield.

Mr. President, what I was saying, in closing, one of my greatest fears is that we end up with this partisan battle. Those of us who fervently want to accomplish asbestos litigation reform, a comprehensive energy bill, determining what the business model for the Postal Service ought to be in the 21st century or the passenger rail service in the 21st century--what should our next steps be in welfare reform? How are we going to provide health care coverage, reduce the costs, and extend coverage to all kinds of people? There is a ton of stuff, so many issues we need to address.

The postal bill alone--the Presiding Officer serves on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee with me. We worked for years, Senator Collins, myself, and others, to determine what should the Postal Service look like in the 21st century. What should the business model be? We unanimously passed the bill last year out of committee. Over in the House of Representatives, almost the very same bill was negotiated, debated, and passed unanimously by our counterpart committee. There was not a single ``no'' vote. We could not get either bill to the floor for debate. And that is when we agree.

I remind my friends, if it is that hard to get legislation through the House and Senate to the President for his signature when we agree, God help us on difficult issues such as asbestos or comprehensive energy policy or health care or the like.

Finally, I have a whole lot of quotes here. I was trying to figure who to close my remarks by quoting. I looked for something for the Senator from Minnesota, the Presiding Officer, which might seem appropriate. I couldn't find anything, at least on this subject, so I turned to another source. I think it is

actually pretty good. It is not a Senator, but he probably wouldn't be a bad one, a fellow who has thought a lot and written a lot and I think is generally regarded more favorably on the other side of the aisle than this one, and he makes a lot of sense sometimes. I will close my comments today with a quote from George Will. Here is what he said about the filibuster:

The filibuster is an important defense of minority rights,

enabling democratic government to measure and respect not

merely numbers but also intensity in public controversies.

Filibusters enable intense minorities to slow the

governmental juggernaut. Conservatives, who do not think

government is sufficiently inhibited, should cherish this

blocking mechanism. And someone should puncture Republicans'

current triumphalism by reminding them that someday they will

again be in the minority.

Will goes on to conclude:

The promiscuous use of filibusters, against policies as

well as nominees, has trivialized the tactic. But filibusters

do not forever deflect the path of democratic government. Try

to name anything significant that an American majority has

desired, strongly and protractedly, but has not received

because of a filibuster.