Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to proceed to a piece of legislation before we go to morning business. I think we have it agreed to and worked out.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 328, H.R. 4440.

It is, Mr. President.

Mr. President, let me say to Senator Reid, I have been working with the Senator and both sides of the aisle, and we are trying to make sure everybody understands what we are doing here. This is very critical legislation to aid the Katrina victims in all the affected States, including Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

I hope we can get this agreed to shortly before we get into the extended debate with regard to the other legislation, the PATRIOT Act. So as soon as we could get notification from the Democratic leader, we are ready to proceed. I will be standing by waiting for that opportunity because there are thousands of people waiting for this help, and they need it now.

I thank Senator Reid. And since he has objected, I will withhold at this time but will be on standby ready to go momentarily.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that we have been working on, and I think we are ready to go with. We would like to get that done before we go to the hour of debate on the PATRIOT Act. I wish to see if we can confirm that with the minority.

Mr. President, could I inquire what the anticipated time is on when we could get this done? I know the Democratic leader has indicated we are very close and should be able to get this done momentarily. Do we have any information on that?

Mr. President, I must say my patience is wearing thin. I have been going through this for several days now and have been assured by the Democratic leader himself that we would get this done this morning. I am expecting that to occur. I am going to be standing right here waiting for that signal from the Democratic leader.

The people of the area that have been damaged by Hurricane Katrina cannot wait any longer. I expect this to be done momentarily, and if it is not, there is going to be hell to pay this day.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 328, H.R. 4440.

Mr. President, because there is no committee report accompanying this legislation, I would like to engage Chairman Grassley in a colloquy to clarify the intent of two provisions contained in this important legislation.

First, among the tax benefits contained in this package is the employee retention credit. This incentive will play a pivotal role in helping businesses retain their employees even it they are temporarily out of business while the gulf coast rebuilds. As I understand the committee's intent, the credit will apply both where a company is completely out of business, and where it did not suffer total devastation to its trade or business operations. For example, the credit would apply in cases where one part of the operation in the designated zone was rendered ``inoperable'' while another location of that same business continued to operate. Is that correct?

Another provision of H.R. 4440 would make eligible for tax- exempt financing the costs of nonresidential real property located in the Gulf Opportunity Zone. It is my understanding that the intent of this provision is that nonresidential real property includes any tangible property other than fixtures and equipment that are movable, without regard to the class life of such property or its use as part of manufacturing, production, or extraction, or of furnishing services or property.

Mr. President, I would like to thank Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus for their commitment to enacting a long-overdue tax bill that will help get cash back into the pockets of businesses and individuals who are rebuilding their lives and their communities in the wake of hurricane's Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.

By significantly lowering the cost of capital for small, medium, and large businesses alike, the provisions in this legislation will spur business investment on the gulf coast, increase the supply of affordable housing, and put dislocated employees back to work.

Specifically, this legislation includes roughly $8 billion in tax incentives to help the gulf coast. These provisions: 50 percent bonus depreciation for property acquired in the GO Zone; double small business expensing for small businesses in the Zone; increase the amount of tax-exempt bonds Mississippi is allowed to allocate by $4.8 billion; allow for an additional advanced refunding for bonds previously issued by Mississippi and by all local issuers within the GO Zone; increase the amount low-income housing tax credits available to Mississippi; increase the allocation of new markets tax credits available for companies investing in Mississippi businesses and construction; allows for a 5-year net operation loss carryback for businesses in the zone; allows for a 10-year NOL for public utility disaster losses; allows public utility disaster losses to be carried back 5 years; increases reforestation expensing from $10,000 to $20,000 for expenses incurred in the Go Zone for 2006; allows small timber growers a 5 year NOL carryback for losses incurred in the zone; allows increased expensing for demolition and clean up costs through 2007; and makes the employees retention credit available to all employers in the zone.

We have been at this for several months now. My constituents have been patient, and deserve action now. This is a vitally important bill. It is critical that we pass it today and that it is sent to the President for his signature before we adjourn.

This amendment modifies recent legislation introduced by Chairman Grassley by making clear that the business tax incentives in this legislation do not apply to the construction of private or commercial golf courses, country clubs, massage parlors, hot tub facilities or suntan facilities, racetracks or other facilities used for gambling, or any store the principal business of which is the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off premises.

However, it also makes clear that tax incentives do apply to the construction of hotels, restaurants, parking lots, and other attachments to gaming facilities.

I would have much preferred a clean bill, but in the interest of my constituents, I am offering this amended legislation today. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be adopted.

I ask unanimous consent the substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Briefly, I express appreciation to Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, especially Senator Reid for his efforts, my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, the input and the help and the determination of Senator Landrieu from Louisiana, and Senator Vitter, Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn. I will have my additional remarks. I thank all those involved. This is important legislation. This is almost $8 billion in tax incentives and relief for the people in the hurricane areas. It means so much. Now we will be able to pass this back to the House, and hopefully they will take it up and send it directly to the President.

Mr. President, we will hear plenty of self-congratulatory statements on this floor today about this conference report. And I am sure that there are probably many provisions that in fact have merit.

I cannot let the Senate consider this conference report, however, without highlighting some particularly egregious provisions which were literally inserted at midnight. These specific provisions were not included in either the House or Senate appropriations bills, they were never discussed during any of the meetings of the Conference Committee, nor were they subject to hearings by either the authorizing committees with jurisdiction, nor by appropriations committees.

I think we should call these provisions the ``Leave the Victims of Unscrupulous Moving Companies Behind Act.''

Consumers have fewer rights in trying to seek recourse when they are victims of fraud or outright theft than when they deal with a dishonest interstate moving company. The consumer has no ability to use State or local laws or consumer protection regulations. That is because Federal law preempts State and local action in this area. The only recourse a defrauded consumer has is to try to enforce the Federal regulations by going to Federal or State court. This is expensive and in most cases extremely impractical. Let me explain.

One of the most common forms of abuse is what is commonly called ``hostage goods.'' This abuse was described by the Department of Transportation's Inspector General at a hearing I held in the Commerce Committee to look at this problem. Let me quote from his testimony:

. . . household goods moving fraud is a serious problem, with

thousand of victims who have fallen prey to these scams

across the county. Typically, an unscrupulous operator will

offer a low-ball estimate and then refuse to deliver or

release the household goods unless the consumer pays an

exorbitant sum, often several times the original estimate. In

one case, for example, a New York husband and wife in their

seventies were quoted a price of $2,800 to move their

household goods to Florida. Once the movers had loaded about

half of the goods, the foreman advised the couple that unless

they paid the new price of $9,800 they would never see their

property again. Fearing that the moving crew might physically

hurt them, the couple paid the vastly inflated fee.

In such a case, trying to find an attorney and then proceed to courts while all your worldly possessions are on a truck heading to Florida is not especially practical.

This is not an isolated incident. Since 2001, consumers have filed over 10,000 official complaints with the Department of Transportation. Since 2000, the Inspector General has investigated allegations of fraud associated with approximately 8,000 victims.

In the recently completed highway bill, Congress included provisions to try to tip the scale back a little bit to the side of the consumer. The provisions that were included in the highway bill conference report were almost identical to the provisions in the Senate passed bill and to the provisions that were included in the highway bill that passed the Senate in the last Congress. The basic point of these provisions was to allow State attorneys general and State consumer protection officials to intercede on behalf of consumers and enforce Federal law and regulations dealing with moving companies.

The appropriations conference report we are considering today basically puts these proconsumer provisions on a hold for a year, and allows State officials to intervene in only the most limited of circumstances.

Finally, let me be clear. Most of the companies and individuals engaged in the moving industry are hard-working and honest. It is a small minority of companies that engages in unscrupulous behavior and it is these companies that need to be reined in.

Unfortunately, this conference report allows unscrupulous movers to continue to defraud consumers with little practical recourse for our constituents that have been mistreated.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2633 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, this is the amendment dealing with the resolution of the Senator from Oklahoma, and I just want to clarify that because it will be referred to as the Coburn amendment. I want to make sure everybody understands that is what we are talking about.

Before I get into my remarks, I would like to yield, as a convenience to him, the first 2 minutes to Senator Hatch, or for additional time if he needs it.

Mr. President, again, I know we will need to alternate back and forth. As a courtesy to a colleague, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume so I can get into some of the specifics of the resolution.

The resolution simply provides that a Senator who is a physician can continue to practice in his profession while serving in the Senate. However, there is an important caveat included in this resolution. A Senator who continues to practice medicine may not receive fees and other payments for medical services that exceed the actual and necessary expenses incurred by the Senator in connection with his medical practice. In other words, the Senator cannot make a profit from his practice.

I have discussed this issue with a lot of our colleagues. There are those who are concerned that once we open this door, we will open it more and more and there will be more and more exceptions to the rule. That is not my intent here. That is a debate for another day, and maybe we should have it, in my opinion. This is narrowly crafted legislation that would allow for Senator Coburn to continue his practice.

I think he should have that opportunity. I think it is fair to him, and I think it is needed in his community. In talking with him, it is not that he is an obstetrician/gynecologist, he is a general practitioner. He treats people who come to him for all kinds of problems. We have a need for more, not less, doctors.

Also, there is a unique difference we have to remember. As lawyers, I guess as long as you keep your bar membership up, when we leave here, oh, yes, we are still lawyers because we got a law degree 40 years ago. But as a doctor, if you don't keep up your practice, you can't go back and say, Oh great, I will take care of your gynecological needs or deliver a baby. They need to keep their skills honed.

Some people say he can practice, he just can't have any income to cover his expenses. Based on the Senate salary, he would not be able to pay for the expenses, primarily because of the exorbitant amount of money now that is involved in medical malpractice.

I note that allowing a physician to continue practicing medicine to the extent of covering actual costs is consistent with an approach that was taken by the House of Representatives. I think it is a very critical point. We are going to have more of a disallowance over here than even the House. This matter was worked through a very lengthy process in the House, and they came to the conclusion they needed to have this exception.

Moreover, the definition of compensation contained in the resolution is identical to the definition used in the U.S. Office of Government Ethics.

The resolution applies only to physicians who practice as sole practitioners and only when the Senate is not in session. So there is not going to be a conflict with his responsibilities. Knowing this Senator from Oklahoma, as we all do already, he would never do that. He wouldn't fly home and start delivering babies when we were having votes.

It also limits it to a sole-practitioner role. The resolution retains the current Senate rule that prohibits a Senator from affiliating with a firm. In addition, the current rule that prohibits a Senator's name from being used by any affiliated firm or company is retained.

Physicians need to continue to practice in order to maintain their skills, as I noted. Because we have not been able to get medical malpractice insurance reform, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, in many cases, to stay in practice. We all hear from our doctors about how difficult that is getting to be. I think it is probably even more difficult if you are an OB/GYN to pay the fees that are involved for providing this medical service.

Should a Senator who is a physician have to be recertified to practice when he leaves the Senate because he has been unable to maintain his practice because of Senate rules? I don't believe he should have that additional responsibility. We are putting an additional burden on physicians who would serve in the Senate. We need more diversity here, not less, even though we have had doctors throughout history serve in the Senate. Most of them--in fact, I guess all of them until very recent history--continued to practice medicine. It was never a problem. I am sure the Senator from Oklahoma is going to give us a history of doctors and physicians in the Senate and what they did. I am sure he is going to give us the history of lawyers who continued to practice, great Members of the Congress and Senate who went on to become President.

I think we are setting up a situation that is indefensible. It is not just about this Senator. I want to make the point, too, about why we are doing it this way. I don't want to take away the responsibilities of the Ethics Committee to interpret the rules. I hoped this would be worked out. We have a time problem now. At some point soon, the Senator from Oklahoma is going to have to decide what to do: Is he going to completely shut down his practice or what is he going to do? There are certain limits on how long he has to close out his practice.

I would like the Rules Committee to have acted on this issue, but there is the issue of getting the matter through the Rules Committee and then getting it scheduled for time on the floor. We are doing it this way because it is the only way it could be done. I think the Senator at least deserves to have his case considered.

The current Senate rules do not completely bar outside profit by Senators, I should note. Many Senators now are writing books, and they are able to keep the royalties. There is an ethics exception, I believe, for teaching classes, and that is earned income. Yet that exception is made. Of course, if you are a Senator and you marry a person with money or if you inherit money, that is fine. But if you have an ability, a talent that you can offer, a service that you can provide, even if you do it not for profit, no, you can't do that.

I am very concerned about what we are doing to ourselves. I practiced law. I looked at staying affiliated with a law firm. I think I could have practiced estate law without running afoul of the ethics rules, but you could not do that.

This is a narrow exception that I think is the fair way to allow this Senator to continue his practice without conflicting with the ethics rules or with his duties. This is a profession we need more of, I repeat.

I hope my colleagues will seriously consider this modest exception to the rules of the Senate. This is a Senator who wants to continue serving the medical needs of his constituents without earning a profit. That is pretty magnanimous, it seems to me. I think we should do this. I think what we are doing to this Senator and the people he serves is wrong. At least he will have a vote, and I hope that maybe sometime later we will consider this whole issue in a broader sense. But for now, we should make this narrow exception, as the House of Representatives did in the past.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Do we want to alternate. How much time does the Senator desire? I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia yielding me that time. Might I inquire, what is the time remaining?

Mr. President, first of all, I point out this is a classic example of how we can work together to get an agreement to move needed, necessary, balanced legislation. There have been a lot of glitches along the way, but there has been persistence by the Finance Committee and by the HELP Committee to report out the legislation, to have hearings, to listen to the arguments from the administration, from the private sector, from those who are experts in this field of the PBGC. I am very proud of the work that was done by the chairman of the Finance Committee, working hand in hand with the ranking member, Senator Baucus, to get the legislation passed and to allow an amendment in which I was very interested dealing with the airline pension situation. They could have said ``don't do it'' or ``we will do it later,'' but they allowed the process to work its way through.

Then, also, I have to give tremendous credit to the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Enzi. He did not give up on it. He was dogged and he was working on trying to get this unanimous consent agreement on how we consider this legislation, and our leadership on both sides of the aisle were

able to come together. There were a lot of people who had amendments they wanted. They had objections, there were holds here, holds there, yet here we are. So I hope we can look at this and see if we cannot do this again in the future.

There is no question we need reform in this area. There is real exposure across the board. American workers all over this country, and management, and the leadership in the administration or in the PBGC are very worried about where we are headed with these pensions. Are we going to keep our commitment to the workers and to the people involved in these pensions? We have an exposure, according to an article this morning in the newspaper, this PBGC organization, of approximately $26 billion.

Where are we heading in this regard? Part of the problem with regard to pensions is the requirements that the law places on them are inverted. If you get into difficulty, if you are losing altitude, your payments to the agency, PBGC, go up, making it more likely you are going to continue to plunge into the ground. Conversely, if you are doing well, you pay less. How did we ever allow the law to get into that shape? Reform clearly is needed. If we do not do it, and do it in the right way, more companies are going to go into bankruptcy and are going to wind up dumping their pensions. The people who earned these pensions or had agreements for their pensions are going to get less than they thought they would get or in some cases even less than they should be getting.

We can debate whether or not these pensions have been too inflated, but we have to transition. I personally think we have to get away from these defined benefit plans. We have to go to the defined contribution plans. But I think this legislation is a good compromise. We need it and we certainly should get it done before we complete this session of Congress.

I also congratulate Senator Coleman from Minnesota for working on the aviation provisions, and especially Senator Isakson, the great Senator from Georgia, for his efforts to stay behind this legislation and to offer the amendment that is going to be voted on before we complete the legislation.

The language in the bill says airlines that freeze their defined benefit plans can amortize any funding shortfalls over a 14-year period. That was a compromise agreement. The chairman had some concerns about what that number would be. The language we have from Senator Isakson is slightly broader than that, broader than the base bill.

It allows airlines that freeze their plans and airlines that prefund their plans 20 years over which to amortize their funding shortfalls. I think that is the right number. I would like to have seen it more than 14. I support this amendment. I must say that I know it is critical to some of our airlines that we have this language. I have worked on the language in the pension reform package on airlines. I have worked on supporting this amendment, and I have worked on checking the votes. I want the Record to show, in case there is a voice vote, that I believe there are probably over 80 votes in the Senate that would be for this amendment.

I want to make it clear for the future and for the Record and for the conference that this amendment is going to be handled in the way it is going to be handled because of the overwhelming support it has. We could have a lot more resistance to it by the leadership, but they continue to be reasonable in their handling of this legislation.

I support the Isakson amendment. I certainly believe it will be accepted by an overwhelming indication of support in the Senate, and that is the way it should be.

I believe, as a result of this legislation, that companies-- particularly airline employees--the PBGC, and ultimately, most importantly, the U.S. taxpayer will be better off.

This bill is not perfect. It will probably be better as we go along through the conference, but it will never be perfect. But it is a major step forward and one we should be proud of. It is not the kind of thing you will read about in the local newspaper or, congratulations, you did a good job, unless you are the hub of an airline. It is not something you are going to read a lot about in most places in Wyoming. But this is the right thing to do, and the exposure is cataclysmic if we don't deal with it.

I am delighted to support the legislation and the Isakson amendment.

I yield any remaining time at this point. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2360.

Mr. President, I will take a couple minutes to discuss the amendment. First of all, my cosponsor on this amendment is Senator Lautenberg.

This is an amendment that adds provisions of S. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2005. It was reported out of the Commerce Committee in July and has been ready to be considered by the Senate, but repeated efforts to have it brought up in the regular order were not cleared.

We are running out of time. The administration has made it clear that without reform, they are not going to be supportive of future funds through the appropriations process for Amtrak. This is genuine reform with a lot of input from management and labor, the administration, and both sides of the aisle.

I believe this is the last chance for the Senate to act on this important legislation, making it possible for us to have it included in some legislation, before we finish this year, to reform Amtrak.

Mr. President, I note that Senator Burns has also been active in this process.

I ask unanimous consent that other Senators' names be allowed to be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the situation now? I was told that we needed to call up an amendment at 3 o'clock. We are ready to go on. Senator Wyden, is he commenting on the subject at hand?

I withhold recognition.

I call up amendment 2360 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I take a few moments to talk about Amtrak and the intercity passenger rail. Several years ago, during the 1990s, I worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass Amtrak reform. We got it done. It provided some improvements in Amtrak. It gave the Amtrak board some additional authorities, some of which they have used successfully and some of which they have not taken advantage of. I even said at that time I was convinced they could become self-sufficient, that they could make enough changes, they could make enough off revenue that we would not have to continue to pass funds each year through the appropriations project for Amtrak.

I now am prepared to admit that is not going to happen. If we want a national rail passenger system, we have to figure out exactly what we want, how much are we willing to pay for it, and how that will happen. I don't think we can do it with appropriations bills each year. We are going to have to think more broadly and be innovative in what we allow the Amtrak board to do. Some of the lines will probably have to be shut down and some of the services curtailed. We have to make that decision.

In the appropriations bill that passed a week or so ago, the Treasury, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, funds were included and some small reform provisions. We have to go beyond that. We have to have some broader reform. In fact, the administration has made it clear they will be in a position of having to oppose annual appropriations for Amtrak, the national rail passenger system, unless we have some reforms.

I started back in January trying to work through that and tried to see if we could get some reforms. I did what I think is due diligence. I worked with the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. I worked with the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member, Senator Stevens from Alaska and Senator Inouye from Hawaii, and Senator Lautenberg, my colleague from New Jersey, who is in the Chamber. We talked about what we needed to do.

We also reached out and talked to the Amtrak board members, the Inspector General, the Secretary of Transportation, we talked to labor, we talked to the users, and we started moving toward developing some reform. We came to the conclusion of what is in this amendment. It is S. 1516, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. The bill was reported by the Commerce Committee in July after having had hearings. By the way, it passed with only one dissenting vote. It is a bipartisan bill. It is ready to be taken up by the full Senate.

I tried to help the leader find time to have this legislation considered in regular order, but have not been able to get it cleared. Because of the way the Treasury-Transportation appropriations bill is written, I guess we could move to try to get this additional language in the appropriations bill, but I would like the Senate to know what we are doing here and have a chance to look at it and have a chance to vote on it.

I assume there is broad support for a national rail passenger system, including the Northeast corridor and for interstate rail service. But we want some reform, too. That is why I am offering it here so it can be considered, within reasonable time limits, and so our colleagues will have a chance to take a look at it and actually express themselves. I emphasize it was developed with input from the administration, input we continued to include up until very recently. The Inspector General, Department of Transportation, has been very helpful in this regard.

The bill makes a number of important reforms to Amtrak. There are three major themes: reform and accountability, cost cutting, and creating funding options for States. By increasing executive branch oversight over Amtrak, which they wanted and which I agree is acceptable, this bill ensures that taxpayers' money is used more effectively.

Under the current president, David Gunn, Amtrak has made some improvements in its management but more needs to be done. They need us to give them the authority to do that. Amtrak must be run more like a business. This bill requires Amtrak to develop better financial systems and to evaluate its operations objective. It forces Amtrak to improve the efficiency of long-distance train service. People are not going to ride a long-distance train if they are going to wind up arriving 12 hours late to their destination. Some people say we should cut out food service and sleeper trains. Are you going to get on a train traveling overnight from Florida into Washington, DC, and not have any food, not have a sleeper option? Maybe we will have to evaluate that, but before we start cutting out services, we need to see if we can't find other ways to be efficient and make Amtrak attractive.

The bill reduces Amtrak's operating subsidy by 40 percent by 2011 by requiring Amtrak to use its funding more effectively. The bill requires a greater role for the private sector by allowing private companies to bid on operation Amtrak routes. Some people have reservations about that. We have to think about ways we can provide better service at a savings. This is one area we should consider.

The bill also creates a new Rail Capital Grant Program States can use to start new intercity passenger rail service. As a matter of fact, there is a real need for this intercity passenger rail service within States. It is being done in several States, being done pretty well, but in order to expand it we need a program that specifically provides funds for it. This will not be the first time the States will have a Federal program they can use for passenger rail. But it will be a very important improvement putting intercity passenger rail on a similar footing with

highways, transit, and airports--all of which have Federal assistance through infrastructure. Some people say, my goodness, we cannot help Amtrak. Do we help the highways? Do we help the airlines? If we want a complete system of infrastructure and transportation, America needs to include rail as well as highways and air. States do not want to rely only on Amtrak for intercity rail service.

It is unusual to add this to a bill that is intended to reduce the deficit. I appreciate the work that has been done. I don't want to delay it or encumber it, but time is running out. If we do not get some reform to go with the money, we may not be able to get the money. Do we want Amtrak to wither on the vine? Do we want it to die because of our incompetence or failure to act? This is part of the process.

The administration has indicated it will not support any funding for Amtrak this year unless we do that. This gives an opportunity to look at it and speak on it. I hope my colleagues will allow us to add this amendment to the deficit reduction package.

I yield to Senator Lautenberg for any comments, unless the chairman has some action he needs to take.

I was under the impression we had 15 minutes on each side. I used about 9 minutes of our time and there is 6 minutes left, so I believe you have 15 minutes if you want to use it. I thought it was 15 minutes on each side.

Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, provided it is not more than the time we have allocated.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do we have remaining?

One minute. Mr. President, I have no requests for time. It is such a good bill and such a great amendment, I just cannot believe there would be any Senator who would rise to oppose it.

We yield the remainder of our time, Mr. President. Good luck, Mr. Chairman. You are going to need it.

Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains on this side of the aisle on this issue?

Has the Senator from Montana spoken on this subject?

Mr. President, I want to speak on the subject also, but I would defer to the ranking member of the committee, and then hopefully I could speak right after that.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, the manager of this important legislation, for yielding at this time. He has been very patient as this amendment has been discussed. And the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma certainly has been patient, thinking he was going to have to wait 5 or 10 minutes after this amendment, so I will try to be brief.

Let me say there is no question in my mind about what our needs are in Mississippi and Louisiana. The people I love the most, my neighbors, my family, and constituents I have represented for 33 years, are hurting. They need lots of help.

Right across the hall now are 12 superintendents from south Mississippi saying: Help us, please, and do it quickly because FEMA is not delivering trailers for our employees. We are open because we want to get our children back in school, but we need operating expenses, we need help right away. Not just rebuilding, we need help to keep operating because the tax base has been destroyed--no ad valorem tax, no sales tax, nothing in some of the counties that are affected.

Look, I know firsthand how bad this situation is. Every time I go home it breaks my heart again. Fortunately, the people there are resilient and determined to come back. They appreciate any help we give them. They don't whine a lot, from my neck of the woods, they just keep working.

I agree with what has been said here in a lot of areas. First, this Senate has not done enough to help the people, and what we have done is being slow-rolled by the Office of Management and Budget and FEMA. The list of horror stories, if I put them in the Record, would stagger my colleagues here.

A good job is not being done--yet. The money we passed, $63 billion almost, probably--maybe $40 billion has been spent. Meanwhile, some contractors have not been reimbursed; schools have not gotten a nickel; the Mississippi Department of Transportation is not being reimbursed for the money they have already spent. There are horror stories of what Congress has not yet done in terms of changing the law. There is a bill pending right now at the desk from the Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, S. 1777, that would do an awful lot to help our people in a lot of areas by changing the laws, by removing caps. It would not necessarily cost a lot more money. It would extend the time for unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 39 weeks, and so on and so on. There is a lot we could be doing. We ought to do it.

But what is this bill we are working on? This is the deficit reduction legislation, I thought. I thought this is where we found places where we could make savings where money is not being properly spent, or spent to the best effect. Several committees have worked to come up with the savings we have. And, by the way, gee whiz, we came up with more money than the budget required. So, ``Gee, where can we spend it?''

Yes, I am one of the ones who is trying to do that. I supported the effort of Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus to get a bill through--I don't know, 6 weeks ago--that would have provided $8.5 billion, I think it was, for Medicaid. I didn't cosponsor it because there were things in there I was uncomfortable with, but I thought we needed to take action quickly.

So we came down to this. Now it is $1.8 billion. How did we get $1.8 billion for Katrina in the deficit reduction bill? I don't want to brag too much; I am not even particularly proud of it. But I said if you don't put that in there, I won't vote for the bill, and if I didn't vote for it, it wouldn't have passed because, unfortunately, we have to do it with all Republican votes.

Democrats won't help us at all. That is why it is in here. But it is not enough. It is not all we need. The plate has been passed. We got a little help. Now I am going to come back and say give me another $2 billion, $3 billion, or $4 billion. That is going to depend on how we add to the deficit. This is not all it is going to be. But this is a good start, $1.8 billion.

I have gotten to the point where I am saying I don't want it all, just help me a little. This is responsible, what we have done here-- $1.8 billion to increase the Federal match for Medicaid in the FEMA disaster counties. That is an important differentiation.

One of my problems I keep arguing about is I have people in northwest Mississippi who are not in the disaster area. We shouldn't increase the eligibility for them. They weren't hit by the hurricane.

I would be perfectly willing to just say: Governors of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas, we are going to give you X dollars for Medicaid, and you make sure it gets to the people who really need it. I have not been able to sell that. A lot of what we need can be done by OMB without us doing a thing. They could take it out of the $60 billion-plus that we passed.

But I don't think we should use deficit reduction or the need for Medicaid help to immediately increase eligibility. I don't think we ought to provide 100 percent FMAP to all of Mississippi and Louisiana, including in those areas that were not affected. We may need to increase eligibility, but this is supposed to be to help people who were hit by the disaster, who were displaced by the disaster, or live in the area and lost everything.

I tried to make a point to my colleagues when they said we have to be fiscally responsible. I say help me explain to the people in Hancock County, MS, who lost their job, their house, their car, their truck, their boat, their dog, that we have to make sure we are fiscally responsible. I am not going to do that. We are going to help that person. That person has a slab, a mortgage, and no job. We are going to help them or I am not going to be part of an institution or government that will not help people in America who are hurting like that.

I can get just as passionate. I lost my house. I am emotional about that. Everybody around me lost their houses. And people who worked all their lives and saved everything, they have lost it all. This hurricane is a great equalizer. If you are poor and you lost everything, you have nothing. If you are middle income and you lost everything, you have nothing. If you are a retired doctor and you lost your home and your car, you ain't got much left.

We need to do more. There is no question about that. But we do the right thing here by raising the FMAP 100 percent for those areas that are affected. We need to do more in this uncompensated care area, and we are going to do more.

But I ask my colleagues--I know how heartfelt this is for my colleague from Louisiana and the Senator from Arkansas. They are trying to do the right thing. But I am just saying, let us not pursue the perfect at the expense of the good. I was a part of the deal. I got all I could. I will come back at the next round in conference and try to get more.

When we get through this, we will be back trying to get what we need. But to my colleagues from the affected States and those who want to help us, I want to remind them that when you ask for more than you are really entitled to, or when you ask for things not in the hurricane- affected area, or for people not in the affected area, you are hurting your credibility. When you ask for a huge number and include things that maybe are not in the area, and I

could do that, then our colleagues say: Wait a minute. We have to make sure we help those people who really need it, but we don't do things under the cover of the hurricane that can't be justified on behalf of the American taxpayer.

Having been critical about the recovery, let me just say to everybody--to volunteers, to the military, to the private sector, to the faith-based groups, to this institution, to so many people who have helped us when we have been on our knees--we appreciate it. We have to do a lot more. But I don't think we are in a position to be looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Let us do this now, and let us keep working because we have a long way to go.

This hurricane was so overwhelming, the damage is so monumental that it overwhelmed Federal agencies. Nobody can really appreciate what we are dealing with here. It is just more than we ever dreamed, including people like me. I have been through six hurricanes, two tornadoes, an ice storm, and a flood. I have never seen anything like this.

We are not going to fix this tonight, in a week, in a month, or in many months. It is going to take years.

I want to make sure, my colleagues, that I come back to you again and again and say: We need this help. I have done my homework. It is justified, and we need you to do it on behalf of these people.

Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this next vote be taken on a voice vote.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I know that the distinguished chairman and the ranking member want to move forward on this legislation. I do not want to delay their proceedings, but I will take just a moment. I will take advantage of the opportunity to put a statement in the Record.

I think it is important that we acknowledge the importance of this relatively small bill as we try to recover from the hurricanes we are dealing with.

I think we must give credit to the chairman of the Governmental Affairs and Homeland Security Committee, Senator Collins from Maine, the ranking member, Senator Lieberman from Connecticut, to the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Florida, and Senator Martinez, who knows full well the things we are dealing with in the recovery from these disasters. His own State has been hit once again. Mother Nature can be a very devastating vixen when you don't anticipate the kind of damage you wind up with.

Also, I thank the Democrats and their leadership for helping clear this legislation.

I thank and acknowledge Senator Vitter's and Senator Landrieu's involvement in all these efforts.

It is hard to get anything done in the Senate these days. It is the way our body functions. And we all question everything, legitimately. But we got it done.

I would like to give credit to both sides and to all of those involved.

This just has four or five important things. They are important. People are hurting, and this will help us get through this recovery period.

Thank you very much for allowing me this moment to comment.

I object on behalf of the chairman.

First of all, I want to thank my good friend the senior Senator from Connecticut and ranking member of the Rules Committee, which I chair, for participating in this important discussion about the election-related challenges that the Gulf Coast States face in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. While the full extent of the damage to the election infrastructure cannot yet be precisely quantified, we know it was wide-ranging. For example, in my home county, Jackson County, MS, it appears that hundreds of voting booths and large amounts of voting equipment were destroyed as was the building that houses the county election commission. In neighboring Harrison County, we understand that all the polling places located near the coast were leveled. And in Hancock County, MS, all of the voting machines were destroyed and nearly every polling place was either completely flattened or otherwise rendered uninhabitable.

We have heard similar reports from the state of Louisiana. According to state election officials, early estimates are that the State lost over 500 polling places and over 2,000 voting machines, with some parishes reporting that all of their voting equipment was destroyed. Thus, it is clear that a major commitment of resources will be needed to rebuild polling places and replace voting machines that were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

But restoring damaged election infrastructure in the areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina is not the only election-related challenge to be surmounted. Hundreds of thousands of citizens in Louisiana and Mississippi had to be relocated as a result of Hurricane Katrina, in many instances to other States. Large numbers of these evacuees will not be able to return to their home communities in the immediate future. For these citizens, casting absentee ballots will be the primary, if not only, method by which they will able to be fully able to participate in upcoming elections that will affect the rebuilding efforts in their communities. Consequently, the demand for absentee ballots in the impacted areas will increase by many orders of magnitude during the coming months. We are already learning that additional workers may need to be hired to handle

the increased number of absentee ballot requests that are anticipated. So, as we can plainly see, election officials in jurisdictions impacted by Hurricane Katrina will face numerous logistical challenges as they prepare to conduct upcoming elections.

We understand that FEMA, under its Public Assistance Program, is obligated to cover the expenses for replacing damaged voting equipment and restoring destroyed polling places in jurisdictions that have been designated Federal disaster areas. And for jurisdictions with upcoming elections but whose permanent polling places are currently uninhabitable, FEMA has a responsibility to pay the costs for setting up temporary polling places such as tents or trailers. The funding provided by FEMA, if it is disbursed in a timely manner, should go a long way towards restoring the election infrastructure in areas ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. It remains to be seen, however, whether such monies will be sufficient to bolster all aspects of the voting systems that were affected by the recent catastrophe.

As Chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over the administration of Federal elections in our country, I along with the ranking member, Senator Dodd, will continue to vigilantly monitor the situation in the states impacted by Hurricane Katrina to ensure they are receiving the resources they need to fully restore their election infrastructure to pre-Katrina levels. As more information becomes available, we will assess whether additional funds may need to be appropriated to assist the impacted jurisdictions in reconstituting their election systems. We will also make sure FEMA follows through on its commitments and responsibilities.

In conclusion, the right to vote in the impacted regions of the Gulf Coast must not become a further casualty of Hurricane Katrina. We must work to ensure that it does not. Essential election infrastructure will need to be restored. And those who had to be evacuated as a result of Hurricane Katrina and who continue to be displaced from their homes must be afforded the full opportunity to participate in the democratic process in their home communities.

I again want to thank my friend Senator Dodd for his leadership on the issue of election reform and look forward to continuing to work with him on this important matter.

Madam President, I am delighted this morning to rise to speak on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to become Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Before I proceed on my discussion of Judge Roberts, I want to take a moment to commend the President of the United States for his brilliant selection of this outstanding human being, lawyer, judge, and public servant. I had thought there would be pressures to move in some other direction, that some other person might be selected for a variety of reasons--good reasons. But the most important thing was for him to select the best man or woman for the job, regardless of anything else. That is what the President did.

When I had an opportunity to comment to White House representatives when they asked my recommendations, I said, frankly, I didn't have a particular person I recommend. I have faith in this President and I believe he will make the right choice. But second, I urged that he pick the best person, regardless of sex, religion, race, religious background, region of the country, or philosophy. And then I had one or two that I thought, well, maybe you do not want to suggest these people.

I was, frankly, delightfully surprised when the President selected Judge Roberts. I am very pleased with this selection.

I also want to thank Senator Specter of Pennsylvania for conducting these confirmation hearings in such a fair, dignified, and respectful manner. We can only hope that the nature of these hearings will carry over to the next Supreme Court nomination. Every Senator had ample opportunity to make statements and ask what were supposed to be questions that quite often became just another speech, but I thought that the overall tenor and tone of the committee hearings was very good.

Maybe this nomination and the conduct of these hearings in the Judiciary Committee and the vote today in the Senate will be overwhelming and will bring to a final close a dark and ugly chapter in the history of Federal judicial nominations and confirmations. What we have done to men, women, and minorities over the past 4 years, until May of this year, was one of the nastiest things I have ever witnessed. Good people's remarks were misinterpreted. I will not even describe how strongly I feel about some of the things that were said and done.

We found a way to change the atmosphere, to move some of these nominees, and now to vote on this nomination. Thank goodness. This is a good opportunity. Let's continue these future hearings and these nomination considerations in this vein.

We are set to vote later this morning on the nomination of Judge Roberts to be the 17th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the youngest nominee in probably over 150 years. The vote will place Judge Roberts at the head of the judiciary branch, a job that comes with an immense amount of responsibility and a position for which Judge Roberts is eminently qualified.

Before I met Judge Roberts, I knew him by his reputation. I had some mutual friends who had worked with him at the Supreme Court, who had served with him in previous administrations, who had known him in a variety of roles, and to a man or woman they gave glowing reports on his quality and his credentials.

By Supreme Court standards he is still a young man, just 50 years old, but he has compiled an outstanding resume, graduating sum cum laude from Harvard, taking only 3 years. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School and served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review, with clerkships for Judge Henry Friendly and then Associate Justice William Rehnquist.

When I met with him I said, You have an outstanding resume and we will overlook the Harvard thing--which always gets a laugh. And I am only jesting--in half.

Judge Roberts embarked upon a distinguished career in public service and served as Associate White House Counsel in the Reagan administration and the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the George H.W. Bush administration. In all, Judge Roberts argued 39 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, winning more than half. That is a pretty sterling record of appearances, let alone the victories. The American Bar Association gave him its highest rating, a unanimous ``well- qualified,'' both for the Supreme Court and DC Circuit nominations.

After visiting with Judge Roberts and watching how he has conducted himself during his nomination process, I continue to be extremely impressed. He is brilliant, eminently qualified, and fair man who clearly has a passion for the law. If confirmed, I believe he will serve the United States with honor and distinction for a long time.

Before Hurricane Katrina hit my home area and shifted the focus of us all, as we try to do all we can in a responsible way to help the people who have been so devastated by this natural disaster, I consistently heard concerns from Mississippians about the direction of our judicial system. My constituents realized that judicial activism is a serious problem that threatens their rights and ignores the constitutional obligations of the judiciary. With recent decisions such as Kelo v. City of New London that allows local governments to take private property and give it to someone else for private development, and the Pledge of Allegiance cases out of the Ninth Circuit, it should be clear to everyone what the dangers of judicial activism are and how it causes serious concerns.

I have a friend who serves in the Federal Judiciary, a very close friend. Recently, we were together in my home and after breakfast on Sunday morning we were talking about things in general. He said: I am concerned about the attitude toward the Federal judiciary. We actually have to worry about security in our courthouses. Why is this?

And I said: Your Honor, my friend, look at your decisions. You Federal judicial members are out of control. And until you get back in the box and stay as judges, not as legislators, and quit rendering these ridiculous decisions, there will be no respect.

However, I have learned, also, in so many ways in recent years, that one of the sayings of the Jaycees when I was

a young man in a young businessman's organization was that this is a government of laws, not of men. It is just not so. You can have the best laws in the world, you can have the best system in the world, which we do, but if you have the wrong men and women in place, it does not work.

So we have a little changing of the judiciary that is called for. And these recent decisions I refer to just magnify why this is needed. Judicial activism is a threat to all Americans, regardless of political alliances. The use of judicial activism to advance conservative or liberal political goals is simply wrong.

Judge Roberts' own testimony illustrates his understanding of the constitutional role of the judiciary and shows his understanding of the issue. He said:

Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they

apply them. . . . They make sure everybody plays by the

rules, but it is a limited role.

While Judge Roberts acknowledged this analysis might be an oversimplification, but it shows a welcome respect for the constitutional role of the Judiciary.

When he was asked what type of judge he would like to be known as, Judge Roberts responded ``a modest judge,'' meaning he has an ``appreciation that the role of the judge is limited, that a judge is to decide the cases before them, they are not to legislate, they are not to execute the laws.''

Judge Roberts vowed to decide each case in a fair-minded, independent, and unbiased fashion and has stated repeatedly that personal ideology has no place in the decision making process of a judge.

Simply put, this is a rock solid judicial philosophy. This is what separates judges from legislators. We as legislators are free to use our personal ideology and make decisions, and boy do we. We are elected and accountable to our constituents for those decisions if we go too far, in their opinion, one way or the other.

Judge Roberts addressed the role of personal ideology in the judiciary during his hearings by saying:

[Judges] are not individuals promoting their own particular

views, but they are supposed to be doing their best to

interpret the law, to interpret the Constitution, according

to the rule of law, not their own preferences, not their own

personal beliefs.

During his hearings, Judge Roberts was asked to answer several questions on issues that potentially could come before him if confirmed to the Supreme Court. He handled those questions exactly as he should have. It is a well-established standard that nominees should not answer questions that might bias them on future cases. I commend Judge Roberts for his handling of that sometimes difficult situation with steadfastness, with intelligent responses, and even sometimes with a sense of humor.

This nomination has served as a fantastic example of how the Ginsburg standard should be applied. Judicial nominees should have a fair and respectful hearing. They should not be expected to prejudge issues or cases. Judges must remain impartial and should not be asked to commit to rule a certain way in order to win confirmation votes. Judge Roberts, like Justice Ginsburg and all the other sitting judges, rightly refused to prejudge cases or issues likely to come before the Supreme Court.

During this process, Judge Roberts' record was scrutinized more closely than any other person in the history of judicial nominees. Senators had access to unprecedented 76,000 pages of documents from his time spent in public service and 327 cases decided by him on the DC Circuit. In addition, he was questioned for nearly 20 hours by the Judiciary Committee before receiving bipartisan support and a vote of 13 to 5. Through all of this intense scrutiny Judge Roberts and his record remain consistent and impressive.

Being placed under the microscope like this is not for the fainthearted. I admire how he handled this entire process with grace and poise.

Nobody should be surprised that when faced with a Supreme Court vacancy President Bush nominated a judicial conservative for that position. He said he would, I expected him to, and so he did. I expect him to do it again. In fact, you are talking about a consensus nominee. There won't be a consensus if he nominates somebody like Justice Ginsburg.

But I voted for her. I knew she was going to be way out of the mainstream, extremely liberal, but President Clinton won the election. He selected her. She was qualified by education, by experience, by demeanor. I voted for her. I did not expect her then to go on the Supreme Court and vote the way I would vote. She was a liberal. She is today. And probably--I have every reason to believe--a wonderful lady and a very thoughtful judge. She just comes to wrong conclusions, in my opinion.

The President was elected twice to the Presidency, telling anyone who would listen he would fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court with a judicial conservative. So why are we surprised? Why would you expect anything else? That is the way it is going to be; and that is the way it should be. He has followed through on that promise with John Roberts. He will likely do so again in the next nomination. And the next nominee, whoever it might be, deserves to be treated with the same fairness, respect, and dignity given to Judge Roberts.

There is clear and convincing evidence here that Judge Roberts is the right choice to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. I look forward to voting in favor of his confirmation.

I yield the floor.