Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, I have sort of a long history with this program. Years ago on my watch we started this temporary program, this emergency program called LIHEAP, energy assistance. Well, here we are, 10 years later, almost 10, it is still here, and it is growing.

I guess one thing that shocked me, and this is an admission against my interests, when I realized it went from being ``heating'' assistance to being ``heating and air-conditioning'' assistance, I began to think: How far will this go?

I was in the ninth grade before we had air-conditioning, and we survived. We did not suffocate. It was damn hot down there on the Mississippi gulf coast. You could not open your windows because mosquitos would come in because we did not have screens on the windows.

So, now, millions is going into air-conditioning. And then we have heat. What is it we are not going to give people for free? Is there any limit? Is there any limit to the amount of money? I thought we were having global warming. I thought it was a mild winter.

Yes, my bills have gone up. Mine have gone up astronomically in my State because of the disaster.

I thank the Senators from Maine, particularly Senator Snowe, for this not being connected to the flood insurance proposal. Flood insurance is a completely different issue, and because people paid for this coverage, it has already been paid for, they paid the Government for their flood insurance, and now they are going to say: Gee, because the Senate once again does not do its job and is playing games with us, we are not going to get the checks for the coverage we already paid for? I don't understand that.

Second, Senator Coburn and others who are opposed to this LIHEAP proposal have acted responsibly. They could have been obstructionist, the way they have been on other bills around here, to insist on a vote on a motion to proceed. The Senators from Maine are going to make their case. Those who are opposed to it will make our case. We will have a vote. One side or the other will win, and then I recommend we go forward at that point.

I do think if we are going to have this program, we at least need a formula that is a national formula. I do not like the program. I would prefer not a nickel of it go to my State, but I would not be doing my job if I did not insist on a formula that is fair to all of us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess.

Reserving the right to object, if I can make a parliamentary inquiry: First of all, did Senator Reid ask for a different UC?

Reserving the right to object to that, Mr. President, I hesitate

to tread into these waters because I know how difficult it is to be in the position that these two leaders are in. They have to make tough choices. They have to take into consideration what happens once you get into conference. You have to look at personalities. But frankly, I think seven and five is too big. That is, to me, a pretty large number of Senators to be going to conference. I understand that Senator Reid has other Senators who would like to be conferees, and I am sure Senator Frist has other Senators who would like to be conferees. In fact, most Senators would like to be a conferee on everything, particularly coming out of their committee. That is what this is all about. I wanted to be a conferee on the tax reconciliation bill. I worked on it for a year, but I am not. The leader made the choice to go with two others, and I am off. I am not happy about that, and I have explained it to him. It is called leadership. It is called tough choices.

By the way, this has been hanging around since December 10. I believe that is when our leadership first said: Let's go to conference. I remind my colleagues and our leaders, this is a bipartisan bill. This is a bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly. This is a bill that passed the House overwhelmingly. But it is a complex area. We need time to work out the difficulties and disagreements on pensions and how it affects aviation. None of it is going to be easy. I would think some Senators might want to take second thoughts about whether to be on this conference because it will be difficult.

But we have a time problem. If we don't appoint these conferees this week in the Senate and the House, we won't be able to begin when we come back, and then another week will be frittered away. When you look at the calendar, we will have something like maybe 25 days to reach an agreement because there is a drop-dead date on this.

First of all, at least two airlines are hanging in the balance of bankruptcy. They could very easily dump their pensions on the PBGC and say we are out of here. They are trying not to do that. They are trying to do the responsible thing for themselves, the taxpayers, and everybody.

Secondly, the reason why April 15 is a very serious date is because that is when the next quarterly payment is due. Within 2 weeks, companies are going to have to make a decision: Do I comply or not? Do I dump my pension on PBGC or do I go into bankruptcy?

We have a time problem. So I know it is not easy, but we need to get this done. I know the leaders have been talking back and forth trying to reach an agreeable number to deal with all this, but I say to my friends, it is time to make a decision, and we all have to understand we don't all get to be conferees. I understand that. I don't like it, but I understand it.

So I object to a larger number for a lot of reasons, and I urge the two leaders to come to a quick agreement. Let's get this done in the next 24 hours. Let's show for the first time this year that we can deal with something, as hard as it may be, in a bipartisan way. So I object.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to mark up an original bill to make the legislative process more transparent.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

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

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

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume off of the time that has been designated on the pending issue.

Mr. President, it is Monday at noon and I think the people's business needs to be attended to sooner rather than later, in the daylight rather than at night, so I rise to point out my concern that the Senate continues to fiddle while Rome burns. I have no idea why there is a justification for up to 10 hours of debate and multiple motions to instruct on this tax reconciliation. We have been through this already multiple times. This convoluted procedure is, in my opinion, very unhelpful for the legislative process and for the relationship between the two sides of the aisle. There is no need for this. The Senate has voted twice already on this and 66 Senators are for this bill--or 68, 66 and 68. Go back and look at the Record. So we are going to go to conference.

We can't let these motions to instruct prevail. By the way, they are outrageously ridiculous, anyway. Nobody pays any attention to that. I hope to be a conferee. Do you think I am going to pay any attention to any motions to instruct me? Baloney.

The Senate leadership that is responsible for the way we do our business and the way we appear to the American people needs to get a grip on this situation. The very idea that there would be even 3 motions to instruct, let alone 8, 9, 10--we have to stop this. We have had our chance to make our speeches. We don't need to eat up 3, 5, 10 hours of debate on this bill. What in the heck are we going to say? Are we going to talk about the snow event this weekend? Nobody is going to be snowed by what is going on here. This is delay and obstruction. We need to find a way to get over this. I realize Senators have their rights to have motions to instruct. But how can we move this process forward?

That leads me to my next point, in terms of fiddling while there is a problem that is getting worse. If you talk to the American people, an awful lot of

people are concerned about the future and their retirements. Will the retirement benefits be available to them and to their children? Will they be there when they need them? Will they be portable? We need pension reform. We need certainty in pensions. People need to know what the law is going to be. We need to know it is going to be actuarially sound. How are we going to pay for all these benefits people are expecting in their pensions when they retire?

Of course, an important part of this pension bill is what are we going to do about aviation pensions? Airlines are having a difficult time. They are teetering in the balance. At least a couple of them are prepared, if they have to, to enter into bankruptcy and walk away from their pensions. But they don't want to. They want to do the right thing. They don't want the taxpayers to be saddled with these pensions that airlines unfortunately quite often agreed to in the past. They want some way to make sure those pensions are protected.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and the leadership, to find a way to move forward, to appoint conferees on the pension bill, so we can step up to this issue that worries people. Why should it take days or weeks to appoint conferees on a bill that is broadly supported, is going to be bipartisan, and is important to the working men and women of America?

I know there is a lot that goes on in making these appointments. You have to decide on the numbers and you have a lot of Senators who would like to be conferees. But I plead with our leadership to find a way to get the conferees appointed--not tomorrow, not Wednesday--today, because we are fiddling while people's pensions are burning. It concerns me.

I am glad to be here. I am here. I am perfectly willing to be a pain in everybody's neck as the day and the week progresses so we can find a way to get to a conclusion on two conference issues. These are issues we can get into in conference. These are issues on which we can get a result.

I urge our leadership to find a way to appoint these conferees as soon as possible on the pension bill and to get into conference on the tax bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Oregon yield for a couple questions?

I wanted to make sure I understood what the Senator was advocating.

Is the Senator proposing a motion to instruct that would basically say that the Senate should insist on the position it had in our version of this reconciliation tax package in conference?

And that language was retained in the full Senate?

Let me just say to the Senator from Oregon that regardless of whether Senators agree or disagree, this is an appropriate motion to instruct. This relates to the bill at hand. Obviously, it is not going to buy any conferees. I hope I will be a conferee. Certainly, it won't buy me. But at least it speaks to the substance of the bill before us. The Senator has his right to do this, and it certainly is appropriate.

Most of these other motions to instruct we are going to be dealing with don't really deal with the bill; they are purely partisan hit amendments or motions to instruct. And what we are going to do on this side is respond in kind. It is the kind of partisan political ``gotcha'' which has caused this institution to deteriorate to the nadir where we are. It is unfortunate, and I am sad about it. But if that is the way we are going to proceed, I am going to join in the fun and games before the day is done.

At least in the case of the Senator from Oregon, he is dealing with a subject in the bill. I commend him for that. He is very thoughtful in this, as in most subjects. His motion to instruct is an appropriate one.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we now on the conference report itself so that I could yield myself time off the overall report?

I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded time off of the debate which is scheduled on our side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I will be brief. In line with what I was just saying, I have been informed by the staff that the Parliamentarian probably would consider motions to instruct conferees regarding making permanent the changes we have provided in the alternative minimum tax area. If that would be in order, if we start down this trail of motions to instruct, I would be prepared to offer one in this AMT area or defer to the chairman, if he would prefer to do so.

This is an area in which we should act. I remember a few years ago when we got into the discussion of the alternative minimum tax, the desired goal was to make sure that everybody paid some minimum amount of taxes. It was aimed at the wealthy. But as we all have learned, because of the way the Tax Code works, more and more middle-income Americans have been pulled into this AMT web. It has gotten to be a serious problem, so we have proposed to do something in the Senate- passed bill on a temporary basis on the AMT.

My proposal would be, if it is the right thing to do, make it permanent. This is the kind of thing we are playing around with that is inappropriate. Why would we do it for a year or two? If it is the right thing to do, let's make it permanent.

I suspect there are some people in the Senate who will not want to do that for whatever reason. My question is: Why not, if it is the right thing to do? The same thing is true with some of the other proposals which have been considered. If we are going to extend the tax break for some of these families with children so they won't get hit with a tax increase, shouldn't we do it here? Who now wants to stand up and defend the fairness of what is happening with this alternative minimum tax, what it is doing to middle-income workers?

With all the complaints we hear about the AMT on both sides of the aisle, why in the world wouldn't we support a motion to instruct to make it permanent? I would hope that we would. I think that substantively, this is a no-brainer. Yet I understand there is resistance to doing that. Maybe there are some people who don't want to vote on that motion to instruct.

There are 20 million American families affected by this pernicious provision in the Tax Code which has taken on aspects we never intended. If it is the right thing to do, then the budget should reflect that. This tax reconciliation should reflect that. We ought to make the change in the AMT permanent.

I would hope that we wouldn't get into a long list of motions to instruct. They are irrelevant anyway. But both sides need to know that if we are going to start down that trail, there are going to be some uncomfortable motions to instruct on both sides, and we are going to get a chance to vote on making the changes in the unfairness of the alternative minimum tax that affects all these millions of families permanent.

I yield the floor.

Observing no other Senator wishing to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by the senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, in submitting a bipartisan proposal to reform some of the procedures of the Senate that have caused an explosion of anonymous earmarks in conference reports.

Our proposal does not bar the long-standing practice of allowing Members to channel resources to communities in their States that need Federal resources. However, we attempt to bring a far greater degree of transparency to the process and make it nearly impossible for Members to insert items in unamendable conference reports which have not undergone thorough scrutiny by either the House or Senate.

The proposal we are submitting today would create a point of order against any item included in a conference report that had not been considered by either body. This point of order lies against all legislation, not simply appropriations bills. Thus a transportation authorization conference report that includes highway and bridge projects that were not considered by either body would be subject to this point of order, just as an earmark inserted in an appropriations conference report would be subject to a point of order. This point of order could be waived by 60 votes.

Although current Standing Rule 28 allows a point of order against items in conference reports that were not considered by either body, this point of order is almost never used. That is because if the Rule 28 point of order is sustained, the entire conference report is rejected and Senate and House Members must reconstitute a new conference where all items in the original bills must be renegotiated.

Under our approach, if a point of order against an item in the conference report is sustained, the conference report, minus the items struck by the point of order, is returned to the House for its concurrence.

Our approach is modeled after the Byrd Rule that applies in the case of reconciliation conference reports.

I believe that this new point of order will make it far less likely that Members will attempt to insert new items in conference reports that have not been thoroughly aired in debate. However, our resolution goes much further in enhancing the transparency of earmarks, especially in appropriations bills.

Our resolution requires that any Senator who requests an earmark in an appropriations bill must file a copy of the request with the Secretary of the Senate, who is then required to publish the earmark request in the Congressional Record.

Moreover, our resolution requires that all earmarks that are included in appropriations bills must be specifically identified in the Report, along with the sponsor of the earmark and an explanation of the essential government purpose of the earmark. In addition, such reports, including conference reports, must be made available to all Members, and the general public via the Internet, at least 24 hours before consideration of the measure.

There is nothing inherently wrong when a Member directs financing for a key project in his or her state. Sometimes it is necessary to get the Federal bureaucracy to focus on the needs of our constituents. However, the process needs far greater transparency, and it is my hope that this resolution will resolve some of the problems that have been associated with this process.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, February 8, 2006, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing to examine procedures to bring greater transparency to the legislative process.

For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I don't believe there is any order of speaking rather than the normal trying to rotate back and forth, so I wish to make a few brief remarks now.

Mr. President, I thank Chairman Grassley for his speech this morning. I thought it was extraordinarily good. I thought there was a little bit too much emphasis on Iowa--we need a little more mention of Mississippi in the process--but it was very good. My colleague touched on every important issue I had actually thought I might mention, but I will not belabor those points. He made it very clear that this is tax legislation that has broad support: 64 Senators voted for it back in December and there were at least 2 who missed it who would have supported it, so 66 at least are for this. This is a classic case where there are some people, I guess, who are opposed to moving on to conference because of something they think may be in conference or some other things which I suspect, which I will talk about in a moment. But there has been good leadership. It is time to get into conference.

I thank Senator Grassley's partner and helpmate on most legislation, Senator Max Baucus, for what he has had to say and for the support he has given on good tax policy over the years. They are examples of what can happen in this institution, how we can work together across the aisle, in committees, as individuals. I commend them both for their position on these issues.

Of course, you can go through every bill and find some piece or some portion or some section you don't necessarily agree with or would like to have more or all kinds of arguments. But this one is amazing to me. I will talk a little bit about the substance in a moment, but I want to talk about what is happening here.

Some people have said to me, Why are we doing this? Have we done this in the past? Have we had extended debate and the opportunity for 20 hours of time and a vote-arama at the end and amendments ongoing to confront? No, we have not. This is unusual.

Why are we in this position? This is a case where the Senate got sort of--we didn't want to wait forever on the House. We moved first. Because of the way it was taken up, procedurally, we now have to go through this extra motion to take up the House bill and all of that. I don't want to get into the details because it is irrelevant, but I will make this point: This is an administrative proceeding. This is a question dealing with the fact the Senate acted before the House and usually the House acts first on a tax bill. Maybe we should not do that. Yet we get criticized quite often because the House is waiting on us. This is a case where we were waiting on the House. We passed good legislation, with broad support. We should go to this conference. We should have done it earlier today. This is a voice-vote thing. There should not be any debate.

So what is happening here? I think it is sort of the sign of the times. We just went through the Supreme Court confirmation of Sam Alito. A lot of us scratched our heads and said, How did it come to this? How low do we go? When do we stop the partisanship?

Some people look at us and say, Why is this? Here is an example. There is no call for this. When are we going to end the tit for tat, and I will get you here or I got you there, delaying the process? Obstructionism--I don't get it. Why we do not have an agreement of how to deal with this now is beyond me. Why our leadership--I am not criticizing either one of them. There is just the fact that there has not been an agreement to do it by voice vote, no agreement to limit the time or agreement to limit the amendments--no agreement.

Here we are, on an administrative proceeding to go to conference on a very important tax package, action if we do not take will cause people's taxes to be raised.

We need to stop. We need to work out an agreement how this is going to proceed. We should be through this by sundown tonight. But, no, what is going to happen is we are now headed--we are going to be on this next week. Some people say we ought to be doing this, we ought to be doing that, why aren't we debating--whatever--because we are messing around like this.

As a Republican and in support of the bill, my attitude is, fine; throw me in the briar patch. I love to talk about this. This is a positive agenda. This will help the economy. This will help the families with children. This will help my State. This will help most Senators' States. Why don't we just do it? If we want to talk about it, we can do that. But I urge both sides of the aisle, find a way to get an agreement on how to do this.

What is going on here beneath the surface is two or three things. It is kind of a general anger right now, unfortunately, between both sides. We need to get over that. But, also, there is a plan, I am sure, to offer other agenda items, nongermane, ``gotcha'' kind of amendments. That is what is going to happen. I don't like that. I think it contributes to the bad atmosphere around here. But I am a realist. We can deal with that. Tell us what the amendments are and identify a limited number and let's get it on, let's have a vote, and let's be done with it.

We can't even get that done. That is what is going to happen. We are going to have ``gotcha'' amendments on a whole variety of subjects. I don't want to talk about them right now because I maybe know what they are going to be and maybe I should not know, but that is OK. If you want to have a debate on some nonrelevant amendment coming out of the stratosphere to put people on the spot, OK, but let's at least agree to how we get that done.

There is another reason behind this. There are some people who fear that, in conference, we might eventually also include something to do with holding down capital gains rates--capital gains taxes and dividend taxes. I hope so. I certainly hope we will do that because it is important to individuals, it is important for the economy. But it is not in this bill. This is another case where we are having a huge argument over what is not in a bill. This is a classic example of why the atmosphere here is so bad. I hope we will find a way to do it. We should all assume some of the blame. We ought to all root around and say to each other, ``Can we work this out? Can we find a way to kind of get through this process?'' Let's do it and get on to the next subject. I know the next bill we go to is going to cause a fracas--and probably it should.

Asbestos reform? I have been trying to figure a way to do asbestos reform for 20 years and haven't been able to do it. We have not been able to do it.

Do we need it? Yes.

Is the bill which the judiciary reported out a perfect solution? I am not saying it doesn't have some good benefit. I know the committee has worked hard on it, and I know Arlen Specter has worked hard on it. But it is tough. We should at least do that.

If we are going to be attacked by the Democrats, that would be a good place to do it. It will be a bipartisan fight, I am sure.

I don't understand. I wish we could get over it.

This is good legislation. It has been coming for a long time. It is ready for conference. The conference probably won't be that acrimonious, and it probably won't take that long. I hope and expect that it will be bipartisan. It probably will be.

But this procedural, dilatory action which will drag us out for the rest of this week and into next week probably is holding up a number of important issues.

Do the Democrats really oppose the centerpiece of the bill? The biggest chunk of it--$30 billion--is for ensuring the AMT doesn't hit more than 9 million middle-income families this year. Do they oppose that?

Do Democrats oppose the research and development tax credit, a 1-year extension which costs nearly $10 billion?

Do they oppose small business expensing?

We all stand here on the floor of the Senate and praise the small businesses in this country as to how important they are to the economy and the jobs they create. They do. It is true. Why wouldn't we want to extend small business spending? Why would we want that to end? It will, if we don't act.

Do Democrats oppose the work opportunity tax credit?

Do they oppose extending the welfare-to-work tax credit?

Do they oppose allowing above-the-line for teacher classroom expenses?

Do they oppose the provisions in here that would be beneficial to States which do not have a sales tax, such as Nevada and Florida?

The answer is no, they don't oppose those things. They are for them. An overwhelming majority support 98 percent of what is in this bill. Yet we are going to ding round here the rest of this week, and we are going to even have to go through an extra motion of sending it back to the House, and having the House kick it back over here. I think we should not be proceeding in this way.

I also want to make it clear that I think it is very important for us to take another look at what is in the House version in conference which would support the progrowth policy of tax and capital gains and dividends at 15 percent or at 5 percent for individuals in the 10- or 15-percent tax brackets.

I am disappointed that we don't have a 2-year extension in this bill. I believe if we did that it would spur and encourage economic growth and would bring in more revenue to the Treasury.

The CBO has indicated that the capital gains and dividends tax relief policies generated an additional unanticipated $26 billion into the Treasury.

This is not what has caused the deficit. The deficit is caused by us spending more money. A lot of it is justified. We have the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the war on terror. I have been here pleading with my colleagues to help those of us in the Katrina area. It costs lots of money; both of them hundreds of billions of dollars.

But we also have not been able to check our appetite for spending. There is no offsetting reduction in spending.

If we don't have these progrowth tax incentives, we will have a worse deficit because the revenue they generate will not come in.

I don't want to mislead anybody. I am absolutely hoping that I will be a conferee, and I will be pushing for holding down these capital gains and dividend rates.

We need to look at what is happening in the economy. What is happening is good. It is not perfect. But we need to think about ways to continue the growth we have seen and create the jobs. Millions of jobs have been created in the last 3 years. Unemployment is 4.9 percent. The gross domestic product growth is strong. Household wealth is at an all-time high, reaching $51.1 trillion in 2005. Seventy percent of Americans now own their homes. The American dream is becoming a reality. Income is rising. Inflation remains in check. There is a lot to be proud of. But that is not good enough.

We need to look at where the problems exist and at how we can provide incentives for growth and create better paying jobs and to pay attention to people's retirement needs and their health care needs. There is a lot we need to do.

I wish we could find a way to agree more on how we can move legislation in this body--not how we can drag it out or get the drop on each other.

I remember when I used to talk to Tom Daschle when we were in leadership positions. We would get tangled up in arguments--heated ones. And I used to fill up the tree every now and then where amendments could not be offered, which he didn't appreciate, and he said as much. But many times we would come together and say in the end: Good politics means good policy. If you do things that help the people, everybody benefits--Democrats and Republicans.

Do we need to do something about the delivery of health care in America and the accessibility and affordability of it? Yes.

Do we need to find a way to deal with border security and all of the ramifications of immigration? Absolutely.

Do we need to find more ways and better ways to deal with the future energy needs of this country? Yes.

Would it be good if we could find reform on asbestos that would actually help the people who are truly injured and not have all the money go to my friends in the plaintiffs' bar? Yes. We ought to do that. We ought to find a way to do it in a bipartisan way.

I plead again with the leadership of the Democratic side. Let us get an agreement on how to finish this. Let us not have a shootout when it is not even necessary on this bill. There will be plenty of time for a shootout. In fact, let us arrange a time. OK, at 12 noon we are going to meet at the OK Corral next Tuesday and get it over with--but not on this bill.

Can we do a few things together before we fight like cats and dogs because it is an election year? We ought to find a way to do that.

But if we are not going to get an agreement, I will say repeatedly, as long as we are on this bill, this is our territory. I am glad to talk the rest of this year about going to conference on tax relief for working Americans, for teachers, for families with children. Hallelujah. I would just as soon let us stay on this for the rest of this month. I will be a happy camper. Politically, I don't know who is winning. Maybe we are. That suits me fine, too. I have my speech ready to talk about the substance over and over again. We can do that. But we also can go to conference and get this work done, and then we could go on to the next issue.

I thank the Chair and my colleagues for this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry before I begin: I know we have a balance, going back and forth in this debate. Have any prior arrangements been made with regard to others proceeding, or may I go at this time?

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Before I proceed to my discussion of my views of Judge Alito, I take a moment to thank Senator Arlen Specter for the good work he has done on the Judiciary Committee over the last few months. He has had a loaded calendar, a lot of important legislation, important hearings, and the process of confirming two Supreme Court Justices. It has been a while since any chairman of the Judiciary Committee or any committee has had this kind of workload over just a few months. Senator Specter has done an excellent job in the way he has handled it.

I also recognize Senator Grassley and his participation on the committee and the statement he just gave. It is obvious he has done his homework. He handled himself well in the hearings, and he has even developed what seems to be a personal affinity for Judge Alito. That will affect a lot of other Senators' thinking about this, and a lot of the American people.

I commend those on the committee who have treated this process with the dignity and respect it certainly deserves. The Chair will note, I said to ``those,'' meaning not necessarily all of the members of the committee.

There is not a lot I can say here today that others won't say about his

record or about this issue. But I believe this is one of the most important functions we have in the Senate; that is, our advice and consent, the confirmation process for our Federal judiciary. There is no question that it was intended we have three equal branches of Government: the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative. We all have responsibilities under the Constitution and under the law, and those have evolved over the years. Separation of power should not mean we become the body or the part of Government that becomes obstructionist or is always looking for a way to take on the executive or the judiciary. This is an important responsibility, and it is important every Senator have a chance to express his or her views on this topic.

This is such an important issue that it is good for the country, anytime we have a debate about the judiciary and what is the role of the Congress, the executive branch, the judiciary, the whole process: How should judges be selected and how should the hearings be held and what should they do when they get on the Court. This is good for the country, and we should look at it that way.

I do know that it has been a constant topic of discussion in much of the country since last summer with the process that led to the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and now the discussion about Judge Alito. I had a call from a constituent in Jackson, MS. She expressed her support for the fact that the Judiciary Committee reported out this nomination and thought we were going to vote today, which we should be voting today on his confirmation as an Associate Justice. It said to me, once again, this is not a person involved in the judiciary, but people are paying attention to what we say and what we do. We should not trivialize in any way this important process.

Over the years I have asked myself, what should I do in analyzing Federal judicial nominations, particularly the Supreme Court, since they clearly can have a long-term effect. When we confirm these men and women for life terms, it is serious. We need to always be thinking about it. When I first came to the Senate after years in the House, I asked my senior colleague from Mississippi, a respected member and now chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to talk with me about what should be the criteria in debates for confirming judges. He gave me good advice, and it was pretty simple. He basically said that under our advice and consent responsibility, we should look to see if the nominee is qualified by character, education, experience, and temperament. Then if the nominee meets the basic criteria or qualifications in those areas, he or she should be confirmed. End of discussion. Not a ruling on a particular case, not a personal view on any subject, not one based on religious faith or any number of other issues. Are they qualified by character, which means do they have good integrity and ethics, are they educated for the job, do they have good experience, and do they have the right temperament to serve. That is the way it should be.

When I have looked at the issue, I am absolutely satisfied we have one of the most qualified nominees for the Supreme Court, probably one of the most qualified in at least 70 years, when we look at all he has done. I have applied this principle during Democratic administrations and Republican. Have I occasionally voted against nominees? Yes, for good and valid reasons. I voted against one because I thought he had a conflict of interest. I voted against one because I thought he had been a recess appointment inappropriately. I don't think Federal judges should, generally get recess appointments, although it has been done in one case where I clearly felt it was fair. But it is not something I would want us to make a practice of.

I voted for Justice Ginsburg. A lot of people in my State said: Why? I voted for other so-called liberal judges I philosophically had problems with, but in the case of Justice Ginsburg, I thought she was qualified by character, education, experience, and by her temperament. I am sure I don't agree with an awful lot of the decisions she has made on the Supreme Court, but she is qualified.

There is one other thing. It is called elections. When we elect a President, we should know what is going to be their position on appointing people to the Federal judiciary. This President, George W. Bush, made it clear he was going to be looking for strict constructionists, men and women of good character who would not write the laws but would interpret the laws. He talked about it. Nobody in America should be surprised that he would nominate a candidate such as Judge Alito. He certainly is experienced. He is a strict constructionist. He is qualified.

Some people are offended that the President would suggest what appears to be a conservative for the Supreme Court. Why? What did they expect? That is why I voted for Justice Ginsburg and a lot of President Clinton's nominees for the Federal judiciary, because he won the election. These were his choices. While I might disagree with him philosophically, I couldn't disagree with him as far as their qualifications. Even the very active Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, Mr. Rendell, has talked about elections and their meaning in this process. This President has selected this nominee and he is entitled to that and, basically, this judge should be confirmed. That was an interesting comment for a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. But he took the right position, and I appreciate the fact that he would do that.

When you look at Judge Alito's background, it becomes clear he is highly qualified. He is a graduate of Princeton and Yale Law School. Some people might try to use that against him. I guess he couldn't get into Vanderbilt or the University of Mississippi, but Princeton and Yale are not bad institutions.

He was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. He was an editor of the Yale Law Review. He clerked for Judge Leonard Garth of the Third Circuit. He was an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. He was Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States beginning in 1981 where he argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Federal Government. After serving as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, he was nominated for U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey. He was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Then, of course, he was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

So he has good character. I think most people would agree to that. He is clearly well educated. It is hard to disagree with that. He clearly is brilliant. Maybe sometimes he is too smart for a lot of us; he knows the law, and he can talk about cases by name without reference to notes. He clerked and has worked as a Federal judge in the Third Circuit. He was on the prosecution side as assistant U.S. attorney and as U.S. attorney. So these are all good qualifications.

Then he went on the Third Circuit, a very important and active circuit, where he has served 15 years. He cast approximately 5,000 votes, and he participated in the decisions of more than 1,500 Federal appeals and has written more than 350 opinions--a lot of work and a lot of good work.

If there was a problem with this judge and his opinions, do you really think the Judiciary Committee could not have found some cases or more phrases when he participated in all of these votes and wrote 350 opinions? I have been very impressed by the willingness of his colleagues, but not just from New Jersey, not just those who served with him in previous administrations, but six current and former Federal judges with all kinds of backgrounds and philosophies--people who admit, I am a Democrat, a liberal, but I know this man, his demeanor, how he handles himself when we were in conference--where judges come out with these mystical decisions they develop in those quarters. That is where you see the real man. When you have people who have spoken up and made it clear about the quality of this nominee, I think that is very important.

The ``holy grail,'' the American Bar Association, has rated him well qualified. There again, a lot of people used to say that is the most important thing of all. Well, he got their top rating. Surely, that would affect us. Regardless of ideological, philosophy, or positioning, the people who know him best have spoken up very aggressively in his support. That is very convincing to me.

I thought during the hearings he handled himself quite well. He answered over 600--maybe 700 questions, when he was given a chance. The statements and questions were a lot longer than the answers were allowed to be. I thought his responses were good and studied. He met the so-called Ginsburg standard. He would not say how he might rule on a particular case. How can you do that? You have to know the facts and you have to look at precedents and you have to go through all these hoops that lawyers enjoy wrestling with and judges have to comply with. I watched it. My wife thought I was strange for sitting there watching these committee hearings, but I felt it was part of my responsibility. I wanted to see what the Senators asked him and how he responded. I thought he handled himself well on his answers and how he responded on substance.

I was upset, quite frankly, when it turned from substance to what got close to character assassination, smear. It really got personal and ugly. I was embarrassed about that. I was ashamed, quite frankly. I realize that sometimes our spouses have to put up with a lot for those of us who are in government and politics and on the judiciary. But I thought it was a defining moment when the judge's wife was driven to tears.

I have appreciation for the fact that one of the Senators was saying, We are sorry that you had to put up with this. We know you are a man of character and integrity. I don't think it needs to go that far.

Do we get carried away around here sometimes on both sides of the aisle? Sure. It is a tough, political, and partisan political place. But how much is enough? How low will we sink? Every year I have been in the Senate we have drifted further and further down in how we deal with these Federal judicial appointments. Hopefully, we will finally reach the bottom and we will go back up.

There is no good reason to vote against this good man to be on the Supreme Court, even if you might disagree with him on some of his decisions. But he will be careful and studied and he will pay attention to the precedents--more so than I probably would like him to. But it is time to begin to try to go back and approach these nominations differently. Again, I am not absolving any of us for having misbehaved sometimes in the way we handle these issues.

The American people are watching, and they have to feel for this man. They were unhappy with what they saw from a lot of Senators on the Judiciary Committee. They felt that he went through more than he should have, in terms of personal attacks. They would like for us not to go quite so far.

I was encouraged, frankly, when we had the vote on Judge Roberts, to be the Chief Justice. I was pleased that it was as bipartisan as it was, and he received 78 votes. But now I see that slipping away in this case.

Some say: Wait a minute, this is extraordinarily important because this may tip the balance, and that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor became somewhat of a swing vote and probably would be interpreted by some people as being a moderate in some respect.

Well, it may tip the balance. From my standpoint, I sure hope so. But I was not paying any attention to balance when I voted for Justice Ginsburg. I was voting on the merits of that particular individual.

I don't think it is fair to Judge Alito to oppose him because he is conservative and may tilt the balance of the Supreme Court. These things swing back and forth. The pendulum has been way over there in the Supreme Court for a long time and, finally, it has become more moderate. Maybe it will become more conservative.

I think I have told the story in the Senate before about how I was talking to a personal friend, now a Federal judge. He was inquiring in bemusement, and incredulously:

Why is it that the Federal judiciary is held in such low

regard?

I could not believe he even asked. I said:

Your Honor, it is because of the dumb decisions that you

all quite often make.

The people are outraged with decisions such as the Kelo v. City of New London case, dealing with eminent domain.

Time and time again, people see what is happening in Supreme Court rulings. They get in here when they should not and don't get in there when they should. In many instances, they interpret the law wrongly or start to try to make laws. And it is not just the Supreme Court. I think over the years--recently, at least--if you look at the Supreme Court, they have been pretty good. But the eminent domain decision just absolutely floored me. We have to correct that mistake. When you get down to the rest of the Federal judiciary, they are into all kinds of stuff all the time--social engineering, intervention when they have no business intervening, and they have lost a lot of respect from the American people.

That said, I want the Federal judiciary and the Congress and the President to be respected for the special institutions they are. So this is an important decision.

I am pleased the President nominated Judge Alito. I think that his experience over these years has clearly qualified him for it. He has 30 years of experience, and he went though 18 hours of questioning. He is a good man with a great background, with an American dream story, a first generation American from another country. He is everything I thought we should be looking for. So I am pleased and honored to be able to come and speak on behalf of his nomination and urge his confirmation, and I will vote for him.

In conclusion, let me say again that there are some who say we may still have a filibuster. We should not do that. We cannot do that. That is not fair to the process, not fair to this nominee, not fair to the President. I hope our colleagues will not impose a filibuster here and force action by the Senate to stop that sort of thing from happening.

I also want to say again that I think we have sort of lost our grip on how we treat these nominees. We need to find a way to pull back. It has gotten too ugly, too personal, and I think it undermines the credibility of the judiciary and those of us who sit in judgment on these men and women. I repeat again that we have all been a party to this, including me--I don't deny it--over the years. But at some point there comes a time when you say to each other, regardless of philosophy or region or party, let's see if we cannot do a better job, with more dignity and decorum, and that is more focused on the qualifications and character of the men and women and not on politics, partisanship, or ideology. I would like to be a part of making that happen.

Every now and then, I have colleagues say: What can we do about the atmosphere? Well, it begins with us. It begins with making up our minds that we are going to be more communicative and we are not going to be quite so partisan. I have been as partisan as anybody around here. I served in the House, and it tends to make you a partisan warrior when you have been in the minority. Some people say maybe you get to be kind of arrogant and mean when you get to be in the majority. We can make a difference. I hope we find a way to do it, and do it soon.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I again commend Chairman Grassley for the leadership role he has taken in crafting much needed reductions in the mandatory spending programs that fall under his jurisdiction as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Regarding the changes to the Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement formula, we both share a strong commitment to ensuring that the Federal dollar is spent in a wise and proper manner while maintaining patient access to their medicines.

I do want to take this opportunity to clarify specifically how bona fide services fees, which are negotiated between a manufacturer and pharmaceutical distributor, should be treated under the new Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement metric.

Manufacturers pay bona fide service fees for specific services provided by the distributor. Service fees are a relatively new business model to the pharmaceutical distribution industry and how they should be treated under Federal reimbursement programs first came into question as the new Average Sales Price, ASP, metric under the Medicare Modernization Act was being implemented. I am pleased to note that Congress specifically did not include service fees as a price concession to be incorporated into the ASP calculation and CMS subsequently confirmed that, ``Bona fide service fees that are paid by a manufacturer to an entity, that represent fair market value for bona- fide service provided by the entity, and are not passed on in whole or in part to a client or customer of the entity should not be included in the calculation of ASP.''

In light of this, I wanted to make it clear that it was not the Chairman's intent to have manufacturers include such bona fide services fees in the new Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement equation.

Could I inquire about the time remaining so we can keep some balance about how the time is divided?

Madam President, then I will take advantage of this time.

Madam President, I say to my colleagues, so many of them have worked hard on this. They have produced a product that has some very important things in it. I know some people will be concerned about the process, as I am. I have been concerned, and I have been on both sides of the process question. But this is probably the biggest, most important bill of this year. We need to realize that.

Some people say: Oh, this is so unprecedented, and why are we here? I have been here a while--not as long as the distinguished Senator from West Virginia--but this is not unprecedented. This is where we are just about every year. Almost every year, we get down to the end and we have some sort of omnibus or combination of bills, and so there is nothing so unusual or outlandish about all of this.

I wish to take just a minute to thank all who have been involved in putting this legislation together, particularly my senior colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. He held the line. He insisted on some reprogramming of the money that had been approved by the Senate earlier for installations that were damaged by the hurricane and to also include additional money when some people did not want to include the money that was needed for our people who are so desperate in the Katrina and Rita devastated areas. But he held the line, and he came up with a bill that has $29 billion in reprogrammed money out of money that was already there--this is reprogramming, not adding to the deficit--plus some funds for restoration of our eroding lands in Louisiana and Mississippi. This is so vitally important to our region.

I have hesitated speaking because I am concerned I am going to get emotional and not be able to get through this without showing the same feeling I hear from my constituents in Mississippi, people in Louisiana and Texas. We need this so desperately, and we need it now.

I know we have been arguing for years about ANWR. I am not going to rehash the merits of it. I think it is time we do this. We need the energy. I think a lot of the alarms that are expressed about it are not accurate. I admire Senator Stevens for his tenacity and the leadership of Senator Murkowski for trying to get this done. It is an awfully small piece of land. It is something we really need. I hope we would not allow this big, important bill to be defeated on this point.

The most important thing I wish to say today is how badly we need this help. There are people right now literally living in tents, small trailers, and double-wides who do not know what they are going to do with their lives. There are people living with their relatives miles and States away because they lost their home. They have a slab, a mortgage, no insurance. Many of them lost their job. Some of them lost loved ones. Some of them lost their truck and their dog.

I talked to a man yesterday who cried twice on the phone, pleading with me to tell him what he could do. They have hit the wall. Right now, they are at that moment of exhaustion, frustration, and decision. If we do not provide this help now, if it is put off another month or 2 months or 3 months, Heaven help us.

So I plead with my colleagues. I know we might not have designed this bill this way in a different time or a different set of circumstances. I do not begrudge anybody for what they have done, but I cannot let this day go without pleading that we get this done and get it done now.

I am scheduled to go home tonight to make a speech in the morning to the Biloxi, MS, Chamber of Commerce, an area that was devastated by this hurricane. I have done this for 32 years in a row. If we do not get this bill done, I cannot go home and face those people. Please help us, and I will help my colleagues as long as I can avoid this sort of situation in the future.

I thank my colleagues for their time and for the support they have already given us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am taking this opportunity to announce that in accordance with Title V of the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Rules and Administration, the committee intends to update the ``U.S. Senate Internet Services Usage Rules and Regulations.''

Based on the committee's review of the 1996 regulations and the October 8, 2003 amendments to the regulations, the following changes to these policies have been adopted effective today, December 21, 2005. The changes primarily affect the activities of a Senator who is running for election, section C.

Set forth below are the updated Internet Usage Rules and Regulations:

A. Scope and Responsibility

1. Senate Internet Services (``World Wide Web and

Electronic mail, BLOGs, Podcasting, streaming media, etc.'')

may only be used for official purposes. The use of Senate

Internet Services for personal, promotional, commercial, or

partisan political/campaign purposes is prohibited.

2. Members of the Senate, as well as Committee Chairmen and

Officers of the Senate may post to the Internet Servers

information files which contain matter relating to their

official business, activities, and duties. All other offices

must request approval from the Committee on Rules and

Administration before posting material on the Internet

Information Servers.

3. Websites covered by this policy must be located in the

SENATE.GOV host-domain.

4. It is the responsibility of each Senator, Committee

Chairman (on behalf of the committee), Officer of the Senate,

or office head to oversee the use of the Internet Services by

his or her office and to ensure that the use of the services

is consistent with the requirements established by this

policy and applicable laws and regulations.

5. Official records may not be placed on the Internet

Servers unless otherwise approved by the Secretary of the

Senate and prepared in accordance with Section 501 of Title

44 of the United States Code. Such records include, but are

not limited to: bills, public laws, committee reports, and

other legislative materials.

B. Posting or Linking to the Following Matter is Prohibited

1. Political Matter

a. Matter which specifically solicits political support for

the sender or any other person or political party, or a vote

or financial assistance for any candidate for any political

office is prohibited.

b. Matter which mentions a Senator or an employee of a

Senator as a candidate for political office, or which

constitutes electioneering, or which advocates the election

or defeat of any individuals, or a political party is

prohibited.

2. Personal Matter

a. Matter which by its nature is purely personal and is

unrelated to the official business activities and duties of

the sender is prohibited.

b. Matter which constitutes or includes any article,

account, sketch, narration, or other text laudatory and

complimentary of any Senator on a purely personal or

political basis rather than on the basis of performance of

official duties as a Senator is prohibited.

c. Reports of how or when a Senator, the Senator's spouse,

or any other member of the Senator's family spends time other

than in the performance of, or in connection with, the

legislative, representative, and other official functions of

such Senator is prohibited.

d. Any transmission expressing holiday greetings from a

Senator is prohibited. This prohibition does not preclude an

expression of holiday greetings at the commencement or

conclusion of an otherwise proper transmission.

3. Promotional Matter

a. The solicitation of funds for any purpose is prohibited.

b. The placement of logos or links used for personal,

promotional, commercial, or partisan political/campaign

purposes is prohibited.

C. Restrictions on the Use of Internet Services

1. During the 60 day period immediately preceding the date

of any primary or general election (whether regular, special,

or runoff) for any national, state, or local office in which

the Senator is a candidate, no Member may solicit constituent

input or inquiries (such as online petitions or opinion polls

or issue alerts) using a Senate Internet Server (``World Wide

Web and Electronic mail,

BLOGs, Podcasting, streaming media, etc.''), unless the

candidacy of the Senator in such election is uncontested.

2. Electronic mail may not be transmitted by a Member

during the 60 day period before the date of the Member's

primary or general election unless it is in response to a

``direct inquiry''. Exceptions to this moratorium include the

following: press release distribution to press organizations

and email to perform administrative communication.

``Direct inquiries'' do not include a request to be added

to a mailing list, subscription list, or other request to

receive future mailings. During the 60 day period,

electronic news letters may not be sent out.

3. During the 60 day period immediately before the date of

a biennial general Federal election, no Member may solicit

constituent input or inquiries (such as online petitions or

opinion polls, issue alerts or request to be added to

newsletter mailing lists--electronic or otherwise, on behalf

of another Senator who is a candidate for election, unless

the candidacy of the Senator in such election is

uncontested.''

4. An uncontested candidacy is established when the Rules

Committee receives written certification from the appropriate

state official that the Senator's candidacy may not be

contested under state law. Since the candidacy of a Senator

who is running for re-election from a state which permits

write-in votes on elections day without prior registration or

other advance qualification by the candidate may be

contested, such a Member is subject to the above

restrictions.

5. If a Member is under the restrictions as defined in

subtitle C, paragraph (1), above, the following statement

must appear on the homepage: (``Pursuant to Senate policy,

newsletters, petitions, opinion polls and issue alerts and

other electronic communications cannot be initiated by this

office for the 60 day period immediately before the date of a

primary or general election.''). The words ``Senate Policy''

must be hypertext linked to the Internet services policy on

the Senate Home Page.

6. A Senator's homepage may not refer or be hypertext

linked to another Member's site or electronic mail address

without authorization from that Member.

7. Any Links to Information not located on a Senate

Internet Server must be identified as a link to a non-Senate

entity.

D. Miscellaneous

Domains and Names (URL)--Senate entities must reside

exclusively on SENATE.GOV domains. The URL name for an

official Senate Web site located in the SENATE.GOV domain

must:

1. Member's sites--contain the Senator's last name.

2. Committee sites--contain the name of the committee.

3. Officer sites--contain the name of the office.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hurricane Election Relief Act of 2005. I thank my friend Senator Dodd--the ranking member of the committee I chair, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration--for joining me in sponsoring this important legislation.

It has now been over three months since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wreaked havoc throughout the gulf coast region, leaving almost unimaginable wreckage and destruction in their wakes. The good people in the region have suffered a terrible toll in terms of lives lost and property destroyed. Though their plight no longer dominates the headlines, the difficulties and hardships that these individuals continue to confront on a daily basis remain formidable. However, one thing that gulf coast residents should not have to face in the aftermath of the hurricanes is an impediment to their ability to fully participate in our Nation's democracy. The right to vote must not become a further casualty of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The hurricane-related damage to election infrastructure was extensive throughout my home State of Mississippi as well as Louisiana and other gulf States. Voting equipment was destroyed; voter records were lost; polling places were leveled. If this infrastructure is not restored in a timely manner, the voting rights of thousands of citizens in the region will be substantially impaired. This is not acceptable.

But replacing damaged and destroyed election equipment and technology is not the only election-related challenge these States face. Thousands and thousands of individuals were forced to evacuate their homes and their communities and relocate to other areas and, in some instances, other States. Large numbers of these displaced individuals will not be able to return to their homes anytime soon. Consequently, if these citizens are going to participate in the upcoming elections that will shape the rebuilding efforts in their communities, they will have to do so largely by means of absentee ballots. This increased demand for absentee ballots will, in turn, present significant logistical challenges for localities that are already cash-strapped and struggling to recover in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Therefore, to ensure that gulf coast residents remain fully enfranchised, it is essential that the impacted States receive sufficient resources to restore their election infrastructure to pre-hurricane levels.

For this reason, I am proud to introduce today the Hurricane Election Relief Act of 2005, which provides much needed funds to the States that bore the brunt of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to aid them in rebuilding election infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed. Specifically, the Hurricane Election Relief Act authorizes $50 million in grants to be distributed by the Election Assistance Commission, EAC, to assist affected States in restoring and replacing supplies, materials, records, equipment, and technology used in administering Federal elections that were damaged, destroyed, or dislocated as a result of the hurricanes. The act also permits the authorized funds to be used to ensure the full electoral participation of displaced individuals. Thus, State and local election officials could use monies furnished by the act to offset the costs associated with printing and processing voter registration and absentee ballot materials for displaced voters. Finally, the use of the funds provided under this act would have to be consistent with the requirements of Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Much work remains to be done to help the communities impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita get back on their feet. I realize this fact more than most. Thus, it is my hope that my fellow Senators will enthusiastically support this important legislation, which will ensure that those individuals in my home State as well as those in the surrounding States whose lives were thrown into such turmoil as a result of the hurricanes will retain their ability to fully exercise their right to vote.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hurricane Election Relief Act of 2005. I thank my friend Senator Dodd--the ranking member of the committee I chair, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration--for joining me in sponsoring this important legislation.

It has now been over three months since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wreaked havoc throughout the gulf coast region, leaving almost unimaginable wreckage and destruction in their wakes. The good people in the region have suffered a terrible toll in terms of lives lost and property destroyed. Though their plight no longer dominates the headlines, the difficulties and hardships that these individuals continue to confront on a daily basis remain formidable. However, one thing that gulf coast residents should not have to face in the aftermath of the hurricanes is an impediment to their ability to fully participate in our Nation's democracy. The right to vote must not become a further casualty of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

The hurricane-related damage to election infrastructure was extensive throughout my home State of Mississippi as well as Louisiana and other gulf States. Voting equipment was destroyed; voter records were lost; polling places were leveled. If this infrastructure is not restored in a timely manner, the voting rights of thousands of citizens in the region will be substantially impaired. This is not acceptable.

But replacing damaged and destroyed election equipment and technology is not the only election-related challenge these States face. Thousands and thousands of individuals were forced to evacuate their homes and their communities and relocate to other areas and, in some instances, other States. Large numbers of these displaced individuals will not be able to return to their homes anytime soon. Consequently, if these citizens are going to participate in the upcoming elections that will shape the rebuilding efforts in their communities, they will have to do so largely by means of absentee ballots. This increased demand for absentee ballots will, in turn, present significant logistical challenges for localities that are already cash-strapped and struggling to recover in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Therefore, to ensure that gulf coast residents remain fully enfranchised, it is essential that the impacted States receive sufficient resources to restore their election infrastructure to pre-hurricane levels.

For this reason, I am proud to introduce today the Hurricane Election Relief Act of 2005, which provides much needed funds to the States that bore the brunt of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to aid them in rebuilding election infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed. Specifically, the Hurricane Election Relief Act authorizes $50 million in grants to be distributed by the Election Assistance Commission, EAC, to assist affected States in restoring and replacing supplies, materials, records, equipment, and technology used in administering Federal elections that were damaged, destroyed, or dislocated as a result of the hurricanes. The act also permits the authorized funds to be used to ensure the full electoral participation of displaced individuals. Thus, State and local election officials could use monies furnished by the act to offset the costs associated with printing and processing voter registration and absentee ballot materials for displaced voters. Finally, the use of the funds provided under this act would have to be consistent with the requirements of Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Much work remains to be done to help the communities impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita get back on their feet. I realize this fact more than most. Thus, it is my hope that my fellow Senators will enthusiastically support this important legislation, which will ensure that those individuals in my home State as well as those in the surrounding States whose lives were thrown into such turmoil as a result of the hurricanes will retain their ability to fully exercise their right to vote.

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