Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the distinction between this amendment and what we just voted on is, of course, paying for this. This amendment would provide at least around $18 billion, $19 billion in needed funds to serve returning veterans from theater of conflict. We know last year that over 100,000 Iraqi veterans returned home. Yet the administration's fiscal year 2006 budget for the VA was only prepared to handle 23,000 veterans. There are shortfalls in every State across the country. There are shortfalls in private facilities as well as public ones. This amendment is for us finally to say let's do something for these people. Last year, we were promised it would be accommodated in the appropriations process. It had to be done as almost an afterthought. I don't like offering this amendment on this bill. I understand the problems associated with it. But if we don't finally do something, these veterans will lose the support they deserve. That is why the American Legion is so strongly supporting this amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in seeing to it we have the resources to pay for this. If we don't pay for it, this amendment will not make it past the Ohio Clock. It will be dropped, and, once again, veterans will suffer. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. I begin by once again expressing my appreciation to both he and my good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and their staffs. They do tremendous work and we are all grateful to them and the members of their staffs for pulling together important pieces of legislation such as this one. It is not an easy job. It is one of the most important, if not the most important, committees of the Senate. They do a remarkable job and I personally thank them for a tremendous job. I know we don't make their lives any easier when we, who are not on the committee, offer different amendments and ideas, but we have ideas we would like to suggest as well. Let me mention, if I can--I will state the obvious--that we are a nation at war. It has been said over and over again by others, but maybe not often enough. We enjoy a relative calm and comfort in Washington these days, but as we speak, we know that there are the young men and women of our armed services who are in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are bravely defending our freedom on battlefields overseas, and keeping America safe and secure at home. The President, last evening, in the State of the Union Address spoke to this issue, and the thunderous response from Democrats and Republicans in the joint session of Congress, I think, evidenced the strong support we all feel for these brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States both on troubled battlefields as well as elsewhere around the globe. They deserve our unending support and admiration for their work. We all know that over 2,200 men and women in uniform have been killed in Iraq, and over 16,000 have been severely wounded. The U.S. Government should have few higher priorities than taking care of our military veterans who have served in harm's way to defend our freedom. Sadly, however, the Bush administration in recent years has had other priorities, it would seem. Throughout the last 5 years, the administration failed, in my view, to meet its commitments to our troops and their families, despite the rhetoric coming from the White House. In fact, just days ago we learned the Pentagon has now only started to address the inexcusable and shocking shortfalls in troop protection. Three years into the Iraq war and more than 4 years after the start of the conflict in Afghanistan, the Pentagon has just now decided to order more than 200,000 additional sets of body armor. Sadly, it may take another year before all of this equipment reaches our soldiers and marines deployed in harm's way. The administration's failures have not ended there. When our troops have come home, the Government's efforts to meet their needs also has fallen short. In fact, last year, despite adamant denials by the administration, we now know as a matter of fact that the President's 2006 budget fell over $1 billion short of meeting veterans' health care needs. Although our colleagues such as Dan Akaka of Hawaii and Patty Murray of Washington, had said so from the very outset last year on this floor and warned about what was being done, Congress had to step up as late as June to restore funding in an emergency supplemental. Such an occurrence, in my view, is unconscionable--that the White House's Office of Management and Budget seemed to treat America's veterans and their health care needs as almost an afterthought. I fear the administration is poised to repeat that mistake in 2007 as well. Indeed, we already know that our Federal resources are straining to meet veterans' needs, particularly the needs of military personnel just returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the Department of Defense, 120,000 servicemembers, or 28 percent of military veterans returning from Central Asia, are being treated in the VA system. But for some reason, the administration refuses to incorporate those very figures into its development of the VA budget. Other medical facilities treating America's brave men and women are straining as well--military hospitals, such as Walter Reed, put on the base closure list by the administration; State veterans facilities funded by State budgets already stretched far too thin, such as my own State of Connecticut's State Veterans medical and residential facilities at Rocky Hill; and private health facilities that help veterans throughout the country. It has been noted recently in the press that a rehabilitation center for amputees and other wounded soldiers is being built near the Brooke Army Medical Center. This critical facility, to be established at Fort Sam Houston, will be the nation's premier facility for treating troops who have lost limbs, suffered severe burns, blindness, and head injuries on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. But as the San Antonio Express-News recently asked on its front page: Why isn't the Federal Government paying for any of it? In fact, although eventually this facility will be handed over to VA and Army personnel to administer, its construction is being fully financed with donations of private citizens. I admire those making these contributions to support this facility for our heroes, but the idea that the Federal Government would not be taking better care of our veterans, I think, is an outrage. But apparently, the Bush administration believes that our military veterans should have to rely on the charity of private citizens to provide the resources for their critical care--because to the White House, tax breaks for millionaires seems to be a far bigger priority. Such logic simply makes no sense. It is our Federal Government's responsibility to meet its obligations to our combat veterans. I mentioned the other night that I had a knee replacement operation a few weeks ago. I go downstairs in this very building and I get rehabilitation. We have a wonderful facility where I can spend an hour each day and get rehabilitation. I am happy to do that. Explain to this Senator why it takes private donations to provide facilities for rehabilitation for veterans coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan who lost a leg, is blind, or has suffered burns or other serious injuries? There is something wrong with a situation when Members of Congress can get taken care of, but our veterans do not. The amendment I will be offering tomorrow will provide critical resources to facilities such as the Center for the Intrepid in Texas which, due to current shortfalls in the federal government, is being constructed using exclusively private funds. Again, I respect immensely those making the private donations, but we have to do better on behalf of our veterans than we are doing. It is unconscionable that we now have to rely on the charity of citizens to establish important rehabilitation centers for our military veterans. We already know that our Federal resources are being stretched thin as a result of this administration's policies. The package of budget reconciliation legislation this body has considered over the previous few months presents us with a clear choice in philosophies: Do we invest in the priorities that will meet our commitments to America's brave men and women who have sacrificed on the battlefield for our country, or do we continue to prolong a primitive agenda that has failed to address the major challenges of our era? We heard the President at least begin to say the right things in his State of the Union Message last evening to support our troops, and I thank him for that, but it is not enough just to talk about these issues; we need to do far more. We need to start matching our words with our policies. Rather than put Federal resources toward important facilities, including the ones I have mentioned, the President has decided to reward the wealthiest of our fellow citizens with these tax cuts. One could argue that no Presidential administration in history has been as generous toward the ultra-affluent as this administration has. Under the tax breaks of 2001 and 2003 alone, individuals with incomes greater than $1 million a year, who represent two-tenths of 1 percent of the population, have received more than $125 billion in tax-cut benefits. Meanwhile, our soldiers and veterans are being told to go without essential items and rely on private donations to take care of them with items such as body armor and the health care they need and deserve. If we cancel the final 2 years of the capital gains and dividend tax breaks for two-tenths of 1 percent--two-tenths of 1 percent, Mr. President--of individuals with incomes greater than $1 million--only two-tenths of 1 percent--then we can save approximately $28 billion, while still preserving reduced rates for 99.8 percent of all the other Americans. My amendment would make this change, and with the $28 billion saved over the next 2 years, funds would be distributed to health facilities that treat military personnel and veterans. These facilities would include, as I mentioned, Federal military hospitals, VA hospitals and clinics, State and other institutions that treat military veterans throughout our Nation. We owe it to America's men and women in uniform. This is not hyperbole. These are the facts. It is tragic, in this day and age, that we can't do a better job of servicing these brave individuals. So at an appropriate time tomorrow, I will offer this amendment which will do what I have been talking about. Again, I thank my colleague from Montana and my colleague from Iowa for their gracious leadership on this bill.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague, Senator Max Baucus from Montana, before he leaves the Floor, for a very fine statement. I appreciate his thoughts and comments. I rise today to discuss my vote on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court. First of all, I wish to briefly comment on the cloture vote that occurred this afternoon. I voted not to invoke cloture on the nomination. I want to explain why. As many of my colleagues know, I went through minor surgery to have a knee replacement before the holidays and I have been home in Connecticut recuperating. I looked forward to coming back to participate in the debate on the Judge Alito nomination and I followed the confirmation process closely from home. For this reason, I was somewhat stunned to learn that Senator Frist filed a cloture motion on the nomination a day after it was voted out of the Judiciary Committee. I have been a member of this body for a quarter of a century and I have voted to confirm the majority of the judicial nominations that have come before this Senate. I, too, like my colleague from Montana, voted with enthusiasm for the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts only a few months ago. The majority leader's action was surprising to me. It is exceedingly rare that a cloture motion is filed on debate regarding a Supreme Court nomination. In is my experience, cloture motions have gotten filed when the majority got frustrated with the minority for insisting upon extending debate--beyond a reasonable period of time. In this case, I feel strongly that there has not been a reasonable period of debate, let alone an extended debate. But I am only one Member. Certainly, this institution cannot wait for one Member. I was allocated only 5 minutes of time this afternoon to comment on this nomination. However, my flight was canceled out of Hartford, CT, and thus, I lost that small window of 5 minutes to be heard. I consider the matter of confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice with great seriousness and solemnity. In my view, some of the most important votes that we make in the Senate are to fill vacancies in the Judicial Branch, second only to declarations of war. Constitutional amendments are not far behind. Therefore, to be notified that I would have only 5 minutes to comment on the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice who will serve for life, far beyond the tenure of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, far beyond the tenure of a President of the United States, far beyond the tenure of a Senator or Congressman, I found rather disturbing. We have always respected one another here, at least we try to, and to recognize this is the Senate, different entirely from the body down the hall. We are a bicameral body for good reason. This is the place where we spend a little more time evaluating issues that come before the Senate. To ask for a few more days to have discussion about the nominee that has provoked serious controversy in the country, seems little to ask. Put aside the nominee for a second, put aside your decision to vote for or against the nominee, we should respect one another's desire to be heard on these matters. Tomorrow is the State of the Union, and there will be a photo opportunity for the President. I am deeply disturbed that this Senate may have made a decision to rush this nomination through, to invoke cloture, in order to provide a photo opportunity for a swearing-in ceremony prior to this President's State of the Union Message. I note the presence of my good friend and colleague from Texas in the chair of the Presiding Officer. He serves on the Judiciary Committee. He watched the gavel-to-gavel hearing proceedings. While I was at home rehabilitating this knee, I had a chance to watch my colleagues do their job. The circumstances around this nomination have been complicated. The nomination came up after Harriet Miers withdrew. We had the Thanksgiving holiday and the recess coming up. In fact, the Judiciary Committee met when we were out of session. Obviously, the desire was to move this along. I have no objection to that. That seems to be a reasonable request to have the committee meet when it did. Certainly, we all had an opportunity to watch those proceedings. The majority leader stated earlier than we have consumed an excessive amount of time on this nomination. This statement is correct if we measure it by days on the calendar. If we measure it by days we have actually been here during the last couple of months, it is incorrect. We have been out of session. There have been only a limited number of days in session and only a limited number of votes. Obviously, the number of days that have been consumed since the nominee was presented to this Senate is more than usual due to the circumstances surrounding the nomination and holiday session. I cannot allow the moment to pass without expressing my concerns about it and the rationale regarding why I voted against cloture. I would have preferred not to have voted on a cloture motion at all. If this were an extended debate, the majority leader might have been right to invoke cloture. I am troubled that now we are setting a new precedent for invoking cloture within only a short time after a nomination comes out of the committee. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote on this nomination. Tomorrow, at 11 a.m., we are going to vote on the Alito nomination. I would be remiss, obviously, if I did not thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, and the minority ranking member, my good friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for the extraordinary service they have rendered to the Senate, along with their colleagues, during this nomination process. Over the last several months, these members have managed three separate nominations to the Supreme Court: Chief Justice Roberts, Harriet Miers, and now Samuel Alito. They are to be congratulated for their commitment to fair hearings and for the manner in which they discharged their duties. The Constitution, as we know, vests in this great body, the Senate, the privilege and the solemn responsibility to advise and give consent to the President on Supreme Court nominations--a unique role in our governance. The Framers intended for the Senate to take an active role in the confirmation process. However, the Constitution does not delineate the factors by which each Member of this body should determine the fitness of a judicial nominee to serve his or her lifetime appointment on the Federal bench. Thus, each Member of the Senate, each Senator, must determine for him or herself the acceptable criteria in judging a Supreme Court nominee. I have never opposed a nominee solely because he or she holds different views than my own regarding the Constitution or the Court's role in interpreting or applying it. I have supported seven of the last nine nominees to the Supreme Court, including the current President's nomination of John Roberts to be our country's Chief Justice. As I said earlier, I did it with enthusiasm, having witnessed and gone through the process and watched the process of his confirmation hearing. I, like many of my colleagues, have supported the overwhelming majority of the current President's judicial nominees. Of the current President's 230 judicial nominees, only 5 have failed to be confirmed, a rather remarkable record. In the course of my Senate career, I have never imposed a litmus test while reviewing Supreme Court nominees. But, due to the nature of a lifetime appointment, I feel they are entitled to a higher level of scrutiny than other judicial nominees for the Federal bench. I have three specific criteria that a Supreme Court must satisfy: First, I require that the nominee possess the technical and legal skills which we must demand of all Federal judges. Second, the nominee, in my view, must be of the highest character and credibility. And, finally, I vigorously examine the nominee's record to see whether he or she displays a commitment to equal justice for all under the law, in order to protect the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Now, I waited until after the committee vote had occurred last week, and then, in an interview with my local press in Connecticut, indicated how I would vote on this nominee. I have always done that. I have always reserved the first judgment to be made by the committee. It seems to me to respect the committee process is very important, and the views of my colleagues are important to me. Whether I agree with them or not, I like to hear how they have arrived at their decisions. So on Supreme Court nominees, I have never announced a view on a nominee until after the committee has completed its review. Hence, less than a week after the committee voted, I find myself having to rush to the floor to make a hurried statement on this nominee. I am denied the opportunity to debate back and forth with other members of the Senate. I waited to make my decision because I felt that Judge Alito deserved a hearing before the Judiciary Committee. I felt that each of us who are not on the committee should have an opportunity to review the transcripts of that hearing and then engage, as nonmembers of the committee, in a discussion of the merits and demerits of this nominee. That has been denied this Member because of the cloture motion filed by the majority leader, provoking what I deeply regret that occurred only a few hours ago, and that was actually to have to vote on a cloture motion. I did not like casting that vote. I did not want to vote for it, but I felt I deserved the opportunity to be heard. So I do not regret at all that I am a part of a very small minority that voted against cloture. I wish more Members had. But I wish the majority leader had not filed that cloture motion, which provoked the exact scene we saw unfold here a few hours ago. Now, there is little question in my mind as to Judge Alito's intellectual competence and legal experience, and all of that. If this were the only criteria, I would be for him. Judge Alito received his legal education from Yale University School of Law in my home State of Connecticut. He served as a Government attorney in a number of positions including: Assistant Solicitor General, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel, and U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey under President Reagan. In 1990, Judge Alito was nominated by George H.W. Bush to U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In the course of his 15 years on the Federal bench, Judge Alito has heard more than 3,000 cases. Furthermore, the American Bar Association has twice unanimously awarded Judge Alito with their highest rating of ``well qualified.'' I have great respect and admiration for his intellect, legal experience, and service to the American people as part of the Judicial Branch. ``Next, I turn to character and creditability. The question is: Does Judge Alito possess the qualities of mind and temperament expected of a Supreme Court Justice? I do not question whether Judge Alito is personally decent or if he has integrity. I was impressed by the diverse group of former clerks and colleagues who testified before the Judiciary Committee who could not have given him higher praise. Let me also say I know there were questions raised. I listened carefully regarding these concern including those regarding the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and the recusal issues that were raised by a number of committee members on the Judiciary Committee. These questions, while relevant, and certainly need to be explored, would not have decided my vote on this nominee. I do not minimize it. But if my decision were to be based solely on the recusal question or Judge Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton issue, I would be here supporting this nomination. Those are not the most important issues to this Member. But what is important are other issues that were raised during this nomination. Indeed, I am troubled that throughout Judge Alito's hearings, Judge Alito failed to provide clear and germane responses to legitimate questions. A few examples. For instance, when Senator Schumer, our colleague from New York, asked Judge Alito if he still believed his statement from the 1985 memo that said the ``Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion,'' rather than reply with a simple yes or no answer, Judge Alito deflected the question and instead replied, ``The answer to the question is that I would address the issue in accordance with the judicial process as I understand it and as I have practiced it.'' When Senator Feinstein of California asked Judge Alito if Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land--not an unpredictable question, a fair one, one you might ask about Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, and there is a long list of cases that are considered established law, settled law--when she asked the nominee whether Roe v. Wade--one in that litany of cases--is settled law, instead of answering it directly one way or the other, as Justice Roberts did, in very unequivocal terms--others might have said absolutely not; that would have been a very straightforward answer-- what did we hear? He said--this is reminiscent of some comments that were heard earlier--``I think it depends on what one means by the term `well settled.' '' When Senator Durbin of Illinois asked the same question, Judge Alito offered the convoluted response: ``It is--if settled means that it can't be re-examined, then that's one thing. If settled means that it is a precedent then that is entitled to respect of stare decisis . . . then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis in that way.'' Imagine giving that answer to Brown v. Board of Education. Imagine giving that answer to the long list of cases we now have as settled law. Now, the answer is, as Justice Roberts said: ``It is settled law''. But what you have here with Judge Alito is this dance going on here, instead of a direct yes or no. A no answer would have been a very honest answer. In fact, I suspect that is what his answer is, but he did not have the courage, in my view, to say that, which I would have respected. I might have disagreed with it, but I would have respected it. That is troublesome to me. Finally, I think we should vigorously examine the nominee to see whether he or she is capable of and committed to upholding the Constitution of the United States and its promise of freedom and equality for all. Protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans is perhaps the most fundamental duty of a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, I am deeply concerned in his 1985 memo Judge Alito explained that his interest in constitutional law was ``motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment.'' That is a fairly sophisticated answer in 1985. Many of these decisions, of course, compromise the cornerstone of the Supreme Court's modern jurisprudence, in enforcing the fundamental democratic principle of one person, one vote, in preventing the violation of an individual's privacy by the state--a matter that concerns everybody in this country; we see a lot of it going on today--and in ensuring procedural fairness in criminal trials. To wholeheartedly reject this legacy is also to reject the continued pursuit of the constitutional ideals of liberty and equality, in my view. Before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito defended himself by saying he wrote the comments 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, he was well into his thirties. This is not some 18-year-old who is writing these thoughts. Of course, before becoming a judge, in that case, he was merely outlining the development of his thinking about constitutional law at the time and pledged to keep an ``open mind'' if confirmed to the Supreme Court. Well, that is nice to know. I am glad to hear he is going to have an open mind. The seven current and former members of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals stated Judge Alito is ``not an ideologue,'' ``has no agenda,'' and ``is attentive and respectful of all views and is keenly aware that judicial decisions are not academic exercises but have far-reaching consequences on people's lives.'' I think those were certainly worthwhile comments to make, and certainly the comments of his fellow peers on the court I found to be compelling arguments on his behalf. However, I must say, having said all of that--I respect the fact they said it in our hearings--Judge Alito's long record as a Third Circuit judge, particularly in cases involving questions of individual rights, indicates a personal intent on stripping away many of these so-called Warren Court era achievements. In Reynolds v. Simms, for instance, Justice Warren wrote: The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government. And the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise. Yet, in Jenkins v. Manning, Judge Alito was part of a decision to dismiss a suit brought by African-American voters who argued that the district's voting system diluted the voting strength of minorities. In that case, the dissenters argued that the decision failed to give effect to ``the broad sweep of the Voting Rights Act.'' Judge Alito's long record of opinions and dissents in these, and other divided cases lead me to believe that he has a legal philosophy which lies outside the mainstream. Several newspapers and scholars provided support for this concern. One study conducted by University of Chicago Professor Cass Sunstein, found that when there was a conflict between institutions and individual rights, Judge Alito's dissenting opinions supported the institutional interest over individual rights 84 percent of the time. Moreover, 91 percent of Alito's dissents take positions more conservative than his colleagues--including those appointed by Presidents Bush and Reagan. Judge Alito has set an incredibly high standard for individuals to meet when bringing a claim against the Government or a Corporation. He has repeatedly dissented in cases where the majority has ruled in favor of an individual alleging racial or gender discrimination. In Bray v. Marriott Hotels, for example, a housekeeper manager alleged that she was denied a promotion because she was black. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiff had established the essential elements of a case of race discrimination and therefore was entitled to go to trial by a jury, Judge Alito dissented. He argued for a heightened evidentiary burden in order to protect employers who, in the future, would have to choose between--and I quote--``competing candidates of roughly equal qualifications and the candidate who is not hired or promoted claims discrimination.'' The majority again criticized Alito's approach stating that ``Title VII would be eviscerated if our analysis were to halt where the dissent suggests.'' I also fear that if confirmed, Judge Alito may pose a threat to the laws that protected disabled citizens from discrimination. In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania the majority held that the plaintiff, a victim disabled by a terrible car accident, should be allowed to present, to the jury, evidence that the college had failed to make reasonable accommodation for her disability. Alito dissented, and again the majority reacted strongly to Alito's analysis: ``few if any Rehabilitation Act cases would survive summary judgment if such an analysis were applied to each handicapped individual's request for accommodations.'' But, I am especially troubled about Judge Alito's dissent in the Third Circuit Case of Chittester v. Department of Community and Economic Development. That case involved an employee who was fired while taking sick leave and who sought to enforce his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which became law in 1993. I was the original author of this law which has enabled more than 50 million workers to take leave for medical reasons or to care for a child or family member. A primary objective of the act is to ensure that both male and female workers have access to leave, and that they were not punished or discriminated against because of their family responsibilities. However, Judge Alito found that the law was not a valid exercise of Congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. He said: Unlike the Equal Protection Clause, which the Family Medical Leave Act is said to enforce, the Family Medical Leave Act does much more than require nondiscriminatory sick leave practices; it creates a substantive entitlement to sick leave. The decision reflects a proscriptively narrow conception of what ``equal protection'' required. Real equality cannot be achieved, and the very real effects of discrimination cannot be remedied, without meaningful, substantive action. This is precisely why Congress enacted the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Supreme Court recognized this in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that contrary to what Judge Alito said in Chittester, a worker can sue a State employer who fired him for taking family leave to care for his sick wife. This finding is critical to ensure that workers and their families can continue to take leave without fearing for their job. This right might be jeopardized if Judge Alito is confirmed, as during the hearing Judge Alito continued to reject evidence of discrimination in personal sick leave even though there is compelling evidence in the legislative history of this law. In these cases, the very judges who talked about our nominee as being fair and not being an ideologue, in their majority opinions had very different things to say about their colleague on some very critical cases on which this Appellate Court Judge reached different opinions, such as I have cited here, as well as in several others that came before that circuit. I am also concerned about Judge Alito's ruling regarding the Family and Medical Leave Act, which I authored. The Family Medical Leave Act has provided meaningful relief to millions of Americans. Judge Alito would have made significant changes, if not eliminated the law altogether, a great setback, in my view. The Supreme Court strongly overruled his decision. Finally, I am troubled that the rights of privacy which are so deeply valued by Americans could be eroded by a Justice on the bench who does not appreciate the importance of these issues. I am alarmed by Judge Alito's unwillingness to explain his previous statements on the unitary executive theory of Presidential power. In a November 2000 speech to the Federalist Society, Judge Alito expressed strong support for the unitary executive theory calling it ``Gospel according to the Office of Legal Counsel'' referring to the position he held in the Reagan Justice Department. Proponents of this theory believe that the Constitution vests in the executive complete control over the administrative and regulatory branches. Judge Alito's failure to shed any light on his professed support for a powerful, unitary executive is troubling. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Justice O'Connor acknowledged that the executive power must have reasonable limits, asserting that ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.'' Judge Alito refused to comment on O'Connor's statement, and instead remarked that ``no person is above the law, and that includes the President.'' Unlike Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearing, Judge Alito did not identify an affirmative obligation of the courts to block an executive action if the Executive acts unconstitutionally. Judge Alito' s answer fails to adequately explain in any substantial way, his views on limitations to executive power. This failure is of particular significance given the current political landscape. President Bush and his lawyers adopted an expansive interpretation in their view of executive power, particularly in relation to the War on Terror and the conflict in Iraq. In fact, President Bush has cited the ``unitary executive'' theory in several recent instances to override congressional provisions he finds objectionable. I am disturbed that the President has claimed, for himself, the authority to overrule the will of the Congress in passing its antitorture legislation--legislation which received the overwhelming support of congressional Members. This undermines the separation of powers and democratic principles. I am further troubled that in the course of the Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge Alito did not adequately distance himself from the current administration's belief that this theory provides justification for the NSA to engage in the warrantless wirewrapping of U.S. citizens in defiance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and for the detention of U.S. citizens accused of being enemy combatants. Defining permissible boundaries of Presidential power is among the most pressing of today's constitutional questions, and will almost inevitably arrive before the Supreme Court in the years to come. It is for this reason that Judge Alito' s inability to shed light on his past comments and his current beliefs is so significant. These failures call into question whether Judge Alito has sufficiently demonstrated that his jurisprudential philosophy allows for the degree of respect for democratic checks and balances, and the protection of individual rights and freedoms that the Constitution--and the public--demands. A Supreme Court Justice influences the most critical issues facing this and future generations of Americans. I believe that the Court may now be at a pivotal point in which the future direction of our law is at stake. Judge Alito, if confirmed, will take the seat of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. While all Supreme Court Justices have the same unique obligation--to serve as the ultimate guardians of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights and liberties of every individual citizen--Justice O'Connor has long provided a voice of reason and open-mindedness as she has carried out this weighty responsibility. With a moderate temperament and judicial independence, Justice O'Connor has often supplied the deciding vote to protect fundamental American rights and freedoms. We cannot underestimate how much is at stake in filling this critical seat on the Court. When I spoke on this floor regarding the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, I stated that for those of us concerned about keeping America strong, free and just, his confirmation was no easy matter. However, I ultimately concluded that although he was a conservative nominee, Judge Roberts was within the mainstream of judicial thinking-- in his judicial philosophy, his respect for precedent and his belief that the Constitution cannot be read as a document frozen in time. While his responses to questions in the Judiciary Committee may not have been as open as I had hoped, I decided that there was sufficient evidence to believe that he would honor and protect the individual rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution as the majority of his record showed him to be a persuasive advocate for his clients rather than a radical judge out of the mainstream of judicial thought. I regret to say that, having reviewed his judicial record and his responses to the committee, I cannot be convinced that Judge Alito falls within the judicial mainstream. His evasiveness in the face of questioning by the committee, his established record on the bench of taking a restrictive view of individual rights, and his inability to explain his past comments on executive power all lead me to harbor significant concern. Determining whether to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court is never an easy decision. Whether a nominee is sufficiently within the mainstream of judicial thinking is often a question of degree. While Judge Alito is clearly intellectually qualified and legally experienced, I am not convinced that Judge Alito's judicial philosophy will allow for the faithfulness to the constitutional rights and freedoms, and the protection of equality before the law we have come to expect from a Supreme Court Justice. After a review of Judge Alito's extensive record, his decisions as a judge on the Third Circuit, and his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, I must oppose this nomination. I have concluded that Judge Alito's judicial temperament is out of step with our fundamental constitutional values and that his confirmation would not be in the best interests of the United States.

Mr. DODD. So, Mr. President, for the reasons I have stated, I will oppose this nomination. I say this with regret because it will only be the fourth occasion in 25 years I will have voted against a nominee for the Supreme Court. I will do so tomorrow at 11 a.m. I deeply regret that I didn't have the opportunity to engage in a fuller discussion. It is somewhat disturbing, that I was only allocated 20 minutes. Because of the constraints on time, this is all this Senator can say about a lifetime appointment to a coequal branch of Government, a nominee that will have a huge impact on the course of America in the 21st century. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the PATRIOT Act Reauthorization conference report. I voted for the original legislation in 2001. Along with 98 of my colleagues, I supported that bill because I decided that on balance, the PATRIOT Act it would enhance our Nation's ability to fight terrorism without substantially encroaching on our citizens' civil liberties. At the same time, I and many of our colleagues understood that aspects of the law should be revisited. For that reason, a number of provisions were set to sunset on December 31, 2005. After careful, bipartisan review of these provisions, it became evidence to many of us that certain improvements are necessary to maintain the balance between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties. For that reason, I joined with a bipartisan group of Senators to cosponsor the SAFE Act, which would have modestly reformed the 2001 PATRIOT Act to provide procedural safeguards and increase judicial review. In July of this year, the Senate unanimously passed a PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. While that bill was not perfect, it took significant steps to fix shortcomings in the current law and strength our Nation's ability to fight terrorism while still protecting the civil liberties that are the cornerstone of a free and secure democratic society. The House also passed a reauthorization bill, which did not come as close to reaching this goal. Conferees were appointed to work out a compromise. Prior to the Thanksgiving recess, a draft PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report was circulated by conferees. At the urging of several Senators, Senator Specter and others took the conference report back to the conferees to try to negotiate additional modifications. They are to be commended for their efforts to reach a compromise that would earn broad bipartisan support. When the conference was concluded, a number of our colleagues, including Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Levin declined to sign the conference report due to their exclusion from key negotiations and their conclusion that the conference report failed to sufficiently meet the dual objective of combating terrorism and defending freedoms. While I believe that the conference report is an improvement over current law, the provisions related to section 215, national security letters, and roving wiretaps have still given me pause. First, under section 215, also called the business records provision, current law allows the Justice Department to obtain medical records, business records, library records, or other tangible items of individuals by merely showing that the items are relevant to a terrorism investigation. The unanimously agreed upon Senate bill requires that the Government show that a person whose records are sought have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy organization. Unfortunately, the conference report differs from the Senate version as it maintains the minimal standard of relevance without a requirement of fact connecting the records sought, or the individual, suspected of terrorist activity. Additionally, the conference report does not impose any limit on the breadth of the records that can be requested or how long those records can be kept by the Government. Under the current PATRIOT Act, an individual who receives a section 215 order to turn over business records is prohibited from telling anyone about the order. This is referred to as a ``gag order.'' The conference report is an improvement over current law as it explicitly grants the right for a suspect to consult with an attorney regarding this ``gag order'' but unlike the Senate version, the conference report also requires an individual who receives a Section 215 order to notify the FBI if he consults with an attorney and to identify the attorney. Second, under current law, the FBI can issue a national security letter--``NSL''--without the approval of a judge, grand jury, or prosecutor, to obtain certain types of sensitive information about innocent individuals. Similar to a 215 order, the targeted individual is restricted by a gag order. While the conference report does provide the right to challenge the NSL demand, it also requires the court to accept as conclusive the Government's assertion that a gag order should not be lifted, unless the court determines the Government is acting in bad faith. I also find it troubling that the conference report would give the Government the authority to keep all evidence secret from an individual who is challenging a 215 order or an NSL order. For example, if an attorney wants to challenge an order to turn over the business records of a client on the grounds of attorney/client privilege, they would not be allowed to see the evidence the Government had requested or the reasoning behind the request. It is also important to note that the recipient of a Section 215 ``business records'' order or an NSL order is usually not the subject of investigation. For example, a doctor could receive a Section 215 order from law enforcement to reveal the medical records of a patient. Under this conference report, that patient would not even receive notice that the Government had obtained his personal information and would never have the opportunity to challenge the use of that information in a trial. Third, I would like to address ``roving wiretaps.'' A ``roving wiretap'' is a tap on any telephone that a suspect uses, moving from one telephone to another, with no particular locational target. Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI is authorized to engage in roving wiretaps without court approval. The Senate bill mandated that a roving wiretap include sufficient information to describe the specific person to be wiretapped with ``particularity.'' ``Particularity'' is a legal term of art describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. The conference report does not include that requirement and it does not require the Government to determine whether the target of a roving intelligence wiretap is present before beginning surveillance. Without this level of specification it is easy to see how roving wiretaps could be abused to secretly record the conversations of Americans without their knowledge or consent. However, I would also like to note that the conference report is an improvement over current law as it includes a number of comprehensive public reporting and auditing requirements which would help prevent abuse of section 215 orders and to help preserve civil liberties. Additionally, the conference report also maintains provisions from the Senate bill that address the shortcomings of current law, including expressly permitting the recipient of the national security letter or a section 215 order to consult with an attorney, requiring the Government to notify a target of a warrantless search within a set number of days, and limiting the use of roving wiretaps to those cases in which the FBI includes a ``specific'' description of the target and ``specific facts in the application'' that show the target's actions may thwart conventional surveillance efforts. The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization conference report passed the House by a vote to 251-174 on December 14 and was brought to the Senate floor for debate. On December 16, Senator Frist attempted to invoke cloture to bring this body to a vote on the conference report. Cloture was not invoked. I was necessarily absent from the Senate for health reasons. Since then I have joined 47 of my colleagues in cosponsoring S. 2082. The bipartisan legislation, introduced by Senators Sununu and Leahy, would provide a 3-month extension of the expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, Senator Frist has said he will not permit a vote on it; the House leadership has said they will not bring it to the floor for a vote; and the Bush administration has stated that, even if the extension were to pass both the House and the Senate, President Bush would refuse to sign it. My fellow colleagues have asked this body more than a half dozen times to allow this 3-month extension to come to the floor. They have been denied this opportunity. This is playing politics with an extremely important law that protects our citizens from terrorism. Earlier this week, the President, in speaking of the PATRIOT Act, said, ``in a war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.'' I agree with his statement. That is why there is no reason why the President and those on the other side of the aisle should refuse to extend this important law. This is why I remain hopeful that the majority leader will set aside politics and allow this extension to occur. Law enforcement officials should not be without these important tools to fight terrorism for even a single moment. We would then have the opportunity to return after the holidays to address these areas of concern and hopefully pass a bipartisan bill that would enhance our ability to fight terrorism without substantially encroaching on our civil liberties.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, for most Americans, the holiday season is a time for giving. But for the Congress, it seems, the holiday season is also a time for taking, at least judging by the budget reconciliation legislation before this body. Americans around the country, are concerned about their economic security. Whether they work in a factory or behind a desk, they are feeling increasingly vulnerable to the volatilities of the global economy. While American families are concerned about economic security, this budget reconciliation legislation would cut the safety net that protects them. The burden would fall most heavily on working Americans, in particular, on low-income parents and children, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Moreover, while supporters of this bill cite fiscal discipline as the rationale for making harmful cuts, when this bill is considered in combination with its companion tax reconciliation legislation, the total package would increase the deficit rather than reduce it. For these reasons I cannot support this funding cut reconciliation bill. I have been a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility throughout my service in this body. I have introduced and supported pay-as-you go budget rules; supported the landmark Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget process reforms; and, during the 1990's, voted to balance the budget for the first time in 30 years. This budget reconciliation legislation, does not advance the cause of fiscal responsibility. Every penny saved in funding cuts and then some will be spent on new tax breaks, most of which will benefit a small number of affluent individuals who neither need nor seek such reckless largesse from their leaders in Washington. The Senate has already approved $60 billion worth of tax cuts over the next 5 years, and the House has approved more than $90 billion. Under the Bush administration, our National debt has grown from $5.7 trillion to more than $8 trillion. The portion of that debt held by foreign creditors has more than doubled. And our Federal budget has fallen from a $236 billion surplus in 2000 to a $319 billion deficit in 2005. The Republican budget reconciliation package would only make this record of fiscal recklessness worse. The cuts in this bill, if enacted, would make it harder for working Americans to find a job and afford such basic needs as health care and child care. At a time when international competition demands that we invest in our people and our society, this bill radically scales back our Nation's crucial commitments. At a time when we should be expanding access to higher education for all Americans, this bill puts college further out of reach for many students. And at a time when many businesses and millions of Americans cannot afford even the most basic health care coverage, this bill passes the buck, and the burden of paying, onto those who are already struggling to afford care. Instead of offering solutions, this bill offers more lip service to a failed, partisan ideological agenda that weakens our Nation's long-term strength. Perhaps most controversially, the bill before us would make the biggest changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, policy since 1996, going even beyond the provisions in the House-passed reconciliation bill. The Republican majority hopes to ram through these changes without any debate or consideration by this body. This is no way to run a country by not just ignoring those in the minority, but actively trampling over dissenting views. Children in low-income families will suffer the most. This section of the bill creates new, unrealistic work requirements for TANF recipients that would effectively amount to a backdoor way of cutting funds. It authorizes $2.5 billion less this year for child care than what is necessary to keep pace with inflation, which, over the next 10 years, will create a more than $11 billion shortfall and cause an estimated 255,000 children to lose care. It cuts child support enforcement, which will reduce child support collections by $8.4 billion over 10 years. And it completely eliminates Federal foster care support for grandparents and other relatives who care for children who have been abused or neglected and removed from their parents. These cuts reflect a fundamental lack of understanding by the Republican majority of the struggles most Americans face every day. Moreover, they are based upon a faulty economic rationale. Though our overall economy grew somewhat between 2000 and 2004, those who benefited from that growth are mostly at the top of the income pyramid. Indeed, the number of children living below one-half of the poverty line rose by nearly 1.5 million. Somewhere, the link has been broken, and not all families are sharing in our Nation's economic growth. Instead of looking for solutions, the cuts in this bill would exacerbate the problems faced with courage every day by American families. If history is any guide, the families forced off of TANF would be those who, without a lifeline, are the most likely to fall into deep poverty. Child care assistance helps working parents keep their jobs and parents who have lost their jobs find new ones. If adequate child care and other supports are not available to low-income workers, the TANF rolls will increase again. We would be taking a step backward in helping people move from welfare to work. We should be constantly innovating and strengthening our policies in this area, not blindly cutting them in favor of unaffordable tax policies, as this reconciliation package would do. In addition, this reconciliation bill would also reduce health care coverage and increase costs for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Most troublingly, this conference agreement proposes to increase co-payments and premiums for Americans who rely on Medicaid for their health care. Under this agreement, low-income Medicaid beneficiaries would be forced to pay more for their needed health care services and medicines. This, despite the fact that a recognized and growing body of evidence demonstrates that ill Medicaid beneficiaries will likely forego medical treatment in the face of increases in co- payments. Such decisions often lead to greater health problems, and larger health care costs, later on. On top of these co-payment increases, this package will additionally allow States to increase the premiums that Medicaid beneficiaries must pay to enroll in the program in the first place. Also deeply troubling about this agreement is its granting to States the ability to decrease the scope of their Medicaid programs. The Federal Government currently requires State Medicaid programs to adhere to a set of standards that ensure comprehensive health care coverage for Medicaid beneficiaries. This agreement will significantly lower these standards and will allow States to lessen needed coverage for those most in need. As alarming as these provisions are, just as galling is what this bill lacks. The Senate-passed reconciliation package rightly contained two significant and cost-saving provisions that are absent from the package currently before us. First, the Senate bill sought to increase the rebates that pharmaceutical manufacturers must pay the Federal Government for medicines provided to Medicaid beneficiaries. Second, the same bill achieved $10 billion in savings by eliminating the so- called ``stabilization'' fund designed to encourage preferred provider organizations to participate in the Medicare program. Both of these valuable provisions have gone missing in this conference agreement. Finally, in addition to weakening the safety net that allows Americans to weather tough times, this budget reconciliation legislation also shortchanges the millions of families trying to send their children to college. It provides no general increase in need- based aid. Instead, it limits the increase to a narrowly defined subset of students who may or may not demonstrate as much need as their peers. In fact, there are so many restrictions on who qualifies for the increased Pell funds that I question how many students will actually receive it. This version of reconciliation also ignores a number of other provisions that were important to the Senate: loan forgiveness for child care workers, protections as we open up distance learning, and more consumer information for students that are consolidating loans. All of these provisions have disappeared. Instead we are left with a narrowly crafted bill that does not help all students achieve their college dreams. In my opinion, this bill represents a lost opportunity for students and a lost opportunity for this body to assist them. The conference agreement before us today ignores the values and concerns of ordinary Americans. Instead of investing our resources intelligently in the priorities that will make America strong and secure into the future like education, health care and the fight against terrorism it weakens important safety net provisions, decreases health care coverage and increases cost burdens, and reduces access to higher education. America needs priorities that reflect our values as a country and that prepare our people, especially our children, for a future of freedom, prosperity and security. Regrettably, this reconciliation legislation falls far short.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this week, the Senate considers conference reports on two pieces of legislation--the Defense Authorization and Appropriations Acts that are critical to the security of our Nation. These conference reports contain important measures for keeping our troops safe and secure, particularly provisions to upgrade body armor and protective equipment, resources to ramp-up vital construction of U.S. military ships, aircraft, and ground vehicles, and funding for research on vital defense technologies of the future. The conference agreements also promote important quality-of-life improvements for our troops and their families, including a 3.1 percent pay raise for all military personnel and increases in compensation for survivors of military personnel killed since the onset of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These two bills could not come before the Senate at a more urgent time. Our Nation is at war, and our troops desperately need these resources to complete their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. This Congress owes America's fighting men and women its unconditional support for these critical defense priorities. But this year, the administration and Members of the majority in Congress have fallen far short of meeting this responsibility. They have allowed a handful of powerful special interests to impede the critically important process of funding our national defense, including America's highest security priorities. The Republican leadership's decisions to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil companies' exploitation and to shield drug and vaccine makers from any accountability have absolutely nothing to do with national security and have no place in bills like the defense appropriations conference report. Their willingness to risk funding for our troops in favor of these parochial priorities is indefensible. Let me say a few words about these two specific measures. I have consistently opposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, to oil drilling because I am unconvinced that the small amount of recoverable oil there outweighs the permanent damage that we would do to the area and the nearly 200 species of wildlife that live there. The process entails a web of oil platforms, pipelines, production facilities, power facilities, support structures, and roads across the entire area. I strongly believe we need to ensure our Nation's economic and energy security, but any recoverable oil in the Refuge would not begin flowing for at least 10 years. What is the urgency to include this legislation now in a bill it has no business being part--of especially when the impact of such a measure could be so remote and so damaging? There is significantly less job creation than proponents would have us believe, there is minimal recoverable oil available, drilling in ANWR would have no impact on current energy prices or supply or even on our foreign oil dependence, and it would leave a web of infrastructure that would permanently ruin the pristine nature of the land and habitat. Moreover, if we took just a few modest steps to use energy more efficiently--such as properly inflating vehicle tires or raising engines' fuel efficiency--we would save more oil than currently exists in the ANWR. It is simply irresponsible to move forward with this legislation. Just as irresponsible is an equally non-germane provision shielding vaccine producers from liability. This language provides sweeping legal immunity to a few companies, and relieves them of responsibility for their reckless and negligent actions. Rather than encouraging companies to make safe and effective medicines, it will provide a perverse incentive by protecting those companies that make ineffective or harmful products. That is unwise--not to mention unfair--to companies that strive for excellence, a number of which are located in Connecticut. And rather than encouraging Americans to be vaccinated or to take needed medication, it will discourage them from doing so by failing to provide even rudimentary compensation for the few who will inevitably be injured by these products. Make no mistake about it: this plan fails to protect the American people from the risk of a flu pandemic or from other biohazards. Senator Kennedy and I spent the past several months negotiating with Senators Enzi, Burr, Gregg, Frist, and others on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to try to reach a bipartisan compromise on this issue. Senator Kennedy and I made several proposals, modeled on past Congressional action, to protect manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits while providing fair and adequate compensation to those who are injured. Both sides worked in good faith, and we made significant progress. Unfortunately, my understanding is that a decision was made by leaders of the Republican caucus to forego this bipartisan process. Instead, this nongermane provision was slipped in the final hours of this session of Congress into the Defense Appropriations Conference Report. Furthermore, it is my understanding that this language was inserted after members had agreed to the Conference Report with the understanding that this language was not included. I am disturbed and disappointed by this blatant abuse of power and disregard for Senate procedures. I can only assume that the supporters of this provision are using this tactic because they know that their plan would not stand up to public scrutiny and Senate debate. In terms of some of the germane provisions of this bill, I must also express my disappointment with the conferees' decisions to weaken important measures that were actually inserted in the Senate's defense bills to support and protect our troops. For example, I originally authored amendments to both of these bills that would ensure that our troops would be reimbursed for purchasing their own critical safety and protective gear that the Defense Department failed to provide for use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate approved this measure without any dissent, having recognized the administration's inadequate compliance with current law. After failing to implement a program under a law enacted last year, the Pentagon only established the reimbursement initiative as this body considered the new provisions to extend this benefit to all military personnel deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Most appalling to me is that there remains little evidence that the Pentagon has acted to ensure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines receive the information that they need to take advantage of this important program. Given that the Defense Department is failing to meet its commitment to adequately equip our military personnel, the least that it can do is inform our brave men and women of the compensation due to them. In the end, I was deeply troubled that the final version of this legislation did not include adequate language to address many of the concerns originally raised on this floor just two months ago. In particular, as part of an agreement worked out with both Chairmen of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and Senate Armed Services Committee, we had agreed to extend the reimbursement program to troops who made purchases up until the end of the 2006 fiscal year. In both final conference reports, this deadline was cut short to April 1, 2006. In the final analysis of the underlying bills, I can only take solace in the fact that other critically important measures in these conference reports could have been weakened even further. We in this body managed to avert grave problems posed by misplaced priorities by the administration and the Republican leadership. For example, it is my understanding that the administration's allies in the House actually attempted to slip another measure--this time, related to campaign finance--into the Defense Authorization Act after the conferees had already signed the conference report--without any hearing or public review by the appropriate committees of jurisdiction. It was only after the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee intervened that this utter abuse of power was averted. In another case, the administration and its allies in Congress sought to thwart the final approval of Senator McCain's amendment that would set standards for the interrogation of detainees in the custody of the United States, and prohibit the cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of these detainees. I strongly support Senator McCain's amendment because it upholds the values on which our country is based, it helps strengthen the rule of law, and most importantly, it serves to protect American troops and civilians who are currently serving and living abroad. I regret, however, that the Bush administration attempted for so long to block adoption of this amendment. Indeed, the administration only accepted it in the face of overwhelming congressional support and in the wake of international condemnation resulting from allegations of secret CIA prisons in Europe. While I am certainly pleased that the McCain amendment was included in this conference report, I hope that the administration's stonewalling has not undermined the very things that this amendment aims to protect--American values and American lives. In the end, it is our solemn duty as members of this institution to promote policies that will safeguard America's critical security interests. That is why I am so deeply offended by the tactics which the majority used to weaken many of these efforts. After all, most of the germane provisions of these two Defense-related conference reports will support our defense needs and protect U.S. military personnel deployed in harm's way. For example, within these germane provisions, I am particularly proud that the bills build on Connecticut's unique strengths in contributing to America's defense needs. From increases in Black Hawk helicopters to production of a new Virginia Class submarine, our troops will be better prepared to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. Under these bills, the Army and Navy will receive 83 much needed Black Hawk helicopters to perform a variety of critical missions including medical evacuations, air assaults, and special operations. In the shipbuilding accounts, in addition to funding the procurement of another Virginia submarine, these bills will ensure that the Navy remains committed to developing new undersea technologies--including development of new submarine designs--an important element of our nation's pertinent efforts to maintain undersea dominance as countries such as China and Russia expand their own submarine fleets. To address immediate concerns for our soldiers and marines, these bills finally contribute meaningful resources for countering the most serious threats facing our troops in Iraq--the so-called improvised explosive devices or IEDs. Devoting $1 billion to the Joint Improvised Device Defeat Task Force will help accelerate American development of new technologies and tactics for detecting, jamming, or de-activating these roadside bombs which continue to plague U.S. combat operations in Iraq. In addition, I am truly pleased with the conferees' decision to add an additional $610 million to the Administration's otherwise slow attempts at reinforcing American ground vehicles in Iraq with state-of-the-art body armor and other protective gear. This Congress has few higher priorities than the safety and wellbeing of our troops deployed in harm's way. And I believe these measures truly are steps in the right direction. But we must remain dedicated to such critical force protection measures, particularly as our forces battle insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Republican majority's attempts to ensnare these defense bills with unrelated political schemes gravely threatened our ability to meet this commitment and amounted to an utter abuse of power. The United States is at war. Our troops and the American people expect that our nation's defense policy will be unfettered by special interests and untainted by political gamesmanship. I can only hope that, as we return to Capitol Hill to begin the New Year a few weeks from today, the leaders of the majority party will resolve to put national interests over narrow interests.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a long-time friend and an esteemed colleague William Proxmire, who passed away last week at the age of 90. I had the privilege of serving with him in this body for 8 years. Senator Proxmire retired from this Chamber 16 years ago, but he is still remembered for his staunch work ethic and his unique dedication to a set of closely held principles. His standards of conduct as a U.S. Senator are legendary. In 22 years of service, he attended more than 10,000 rollcall votes--still a record in the Senate. In his last two campaigns for office, he declined all campaign donations--from anyone. During each race, he spent less than $200, all out of his own pocket, mostly to pay for postage and envelopes to return donations offered to him by his supporters. In both instances, he won by a landslide, a testament to the overwhelming support of his constituency in Wisconsin. I have always felt a special affinity for Senator Proxmire and the issues that he championed. He was one of the few Senators who served with both my father and me. And he dedicated a great deal of time and effort to an issue that both my father and I considered paramount to our Nation's future. Over 19 years, he made over 3,000 statements on the Floor in support of ratification of an international treaty outlawing genocide. My father, as Senator Proxmire put it, ``contributed a special zeal to this effort,'' fighting for this issue even before he entered the Senate. In 1950, as a member of a special committee of the American Bar Association, my father was one of the first witnesses to appear before the Foreign Relations Committee in favor of a treaty condemning genocide. Senator Proxmire's efforts over the years to champion this issue meant a great deal to me. And I am particularly honored to have brokered a deal with Senator Jesse Helms in 1988 to finally commit the United States as a signatory to this treaty. I also had the privilege of serving with Senator Proxmire on the Banking Committee when he was the chairman of that body, and I can tell you, that he performed his duties with a unique commitment both to competition and the rights of the consumer. Early in his career, he passed the Truth-in-Lending Act, ensuring consumer access to information and forcing banks to compete openly and on equal terms. He also helped pass a bill deregulating the banking industry, which helped financial institutions offer better services at lower costs to consumers. Senator Proxmire is perhaps best remembered for his fervent devotion to slowing Government spending. He returned over $1 million of his staff budget to the Treasury. He refused to travel abroad at the expense of the taxpayers. And he developed the ``Golden Fleece'' award to expose government programs that he considered wasteful. He gave statements on the floor exposing studies that explored the effects of alcohol on fish, documented the body measurements of airline flight attendants, and examined why people fall in love. Each ``Golden Fleece'' not only illuminated Government programs that might be considered profligate, but reminded us of the humor and personality of this noble public servant. My wife Jackie and I offer our deepest condolences to his wife Helen, to his family, and to the people of Wisconsin and the citizens of our Nation, for the loss of such a dedicated public servant and an exceptional man.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, nearly three months have passed since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged the lives of the good people of our Gulf Coast region. Congress has taken great efforts to address the immediate needs of those affected by the hurricanes and continues to consider how we can assist the long-term needs of these communities. I previously came to the floor with the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Lott, to discuss the needs for funding to restore the elections infrastructure of the impacted States, including not just those directly hit by the storms but also States that welcomed and provided shelter to those displaced by the storms. As the ranking member of the Rules Committee, I rise today to introduce with Senator Lott, the Hurricane Election Relief Act of 2005, a bill that authorizes the necessary funding to impacted States for the purpose of ensuring that they will be capable of conducting the up- coming Federal elections next year, consistent with the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA'). This bill will ensure that impacted States will be able to strengthen the foundation of our democracy and the process by which we build communities. Specifically, this bill provides funding to States to restore and replace supplies, materials, records, equipment and technology that were damaged, destroyed, or dislocated as result of the storms. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is charged with distribution of the appropriate funding to the States. Earlier this month, Louisiana Secretary of State Al Ater postponed for up to eight months the elections for mayor and City Council in New Orleans from the scheduled February 4, 2006 date, after explaining that the infrastructure to hold an election is simply absent. Secretary of State Alter noted that polling places must be rebuilt, voting systems must be repaired, poll workers must be located, and a system to process the anticipated increase in absentee ballots must be developed. Following the storms, Ater requested $2 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) solely to repair voting machines. To date, he has not received any of the requested funds and there does not yet appear to be a projected FEMA disbursement date for such funds. Mississippi Secretary of State Eric Clark surveyed the 43 counties affected by the storms in his State and announced that in order to facilitate elections without long lines, Mississippi needs $3.3 million to replace 966 voting machines as well as additional funding to assure that the counties meet the HAVA requirements effective January 1, 2006. In light of the above, it is essential that we rise and join together to ensure that all States, including those States impacted by the hurricanes, may conduct timely Federal elections that enable every eligible voter to cast a vote and have that vote counted, regardless of race, ethnicity, language, age, disability or community resources. The health of our democracy depends upon it. As we approach the end of the first session of the 109th Congress and prepare to return to the comfort of our families and constituents, let us give thanks for the well-being of our communities and provide the authority to allocate funding to those States which are rebuilding their communities in the aftermath of these devastating natural disasters.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, nearly three months have passed since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita ravaged the lives of the good people of our Gulf Coast region. Congress has taken great efforts to address the immediate needs of those affected by the hurricanes and continues to consider how we can assist the long-term needs of these communities. I previously came to the floor with the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Senator Lott, to discuss the needs for funding to restore the elections infrastructure of the impacted States, including not just those directly hit by the storms but also States that welcomed and provided shelter to those displaced by the storms. As the ranking member of the Rules Committee, I rise today to introduce with Senator Lott, the Hurricane Election Relief Act of 2005, a bill that authorizes the necessary funding to impacted States for the purpose of ensuring that they will be capable of conducting the up- coming Federal elections next year, consistent with the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA'). This bill will ensure that impacted States will be able to strengthen the foundation of our democracy and the process by which we build communities. Specifically, this bill provides funding to States to restore and replace supplies, materials, records, equipment and technology that were damaged, destroyed, or dislocated as result of the storms. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is charged with distribution of the appropriate funding to the States. Earlier this month, Louisiana Secretary of State Al Ater postponed for up to eight months the elections for mayor and City Council in New Orleans from the scheduled February 4, 2006 date, after explaining that the infrastructure to hold an election is simply absent. Secretary of State Alter noted that polling places must be rebuilt, voting systems must be repaired, poll workers must be located, and a system to process the anticipated increase in absentee ballots must be developed. Following the storms, Ater requested $2 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) solely to repair voting machines. To date, he has not received any of the requested funds and there does not yet appear to be a projected FEMA disbursement date for such funds. Mississippi Secretary of State Eric Clark surveyed the 43 counties affected by the storms in his State and announced that in order to facilitate elections without long lines, Mississippi needs $3.3 million to replace 966 voting machines as well as additional funding to assure that the counties meet the HAVA requirements effective January 1, 2006. In light of the above, it is essential that we rise and join together to ensure that all States, including those States impacted by the hurricanes, may conduct timely Federal elections that enable every eligible voter to cast a vote and have that vote counted, regardless of race, ethnicity, language, age, disability or community resources. The health of our democracy depends upon it. As we approach the end of the first session of the 109th Congress and prepare to return to the comfort of our families and constituents, let us give thanks for the well-being of our communities and provide the authority to allocate funding to those States which are rebuilding their communities in the aftermath of these devastating natural disasters.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr President, I rise to lend my strong support for S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005, which I originally introduced with Senator Bennett and 34 cosponsors earlier this year. The product before the Senate today was amended in committee with the hard work and leadership of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes. Additionally, S. 467 addresses many of the ideas and concerns raised by the House in its version of the legislation. I would like to thank House Financial Services Committee Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank for their hard work in finding consensus on this measure. I would like to commend the members on the Banking Committee: Senators Johnson, Reed, Schumer, Bayh, Carper, Stabenow, Corzine, Hagel, Bunning and Dole as well as the other cosponsors of the legislation for recognizing-- very early on--how important extending the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, TRIA, was to our Nation's economy and for their efforts on this legislation. I would also like to thank the staff who worked on this legislation, particularly Sarah Kline and Steve Harris from Senator Sarbane's staff, Mike Nielsen from Senator Bennett's staff, Alex Sternhell from my staff and Jim Johnson, Andrew Olmem, Mark Oesterle and Kathy Casey from Senator Shelby's staff. Like many bills, this legislation is a document of compromise. We have carefully taken into consideration the recommendations of policyholders, insurers, consumers, academics, thinktanks, the Treasury Department and others to craft this important extension legislation. Let me take a few brief moments to provide my colleagues with a little background on TRIA and why it needs to be extended today. As a result of the tragic terrorist acts events of 9/11, we repeatedly heard from businesses, large and small, from labor unions and manufacturers, from hospitals to hotels, from professional sports teams to utility companies, from insurers and the insured about the need for the Federal Governmment to act to help them receive financial protection from future terrorist attacks. Congress listened, and we acted--creating the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, TRIA. In November 2002, TRIA was passed by both the House and Senate by significant margins and was signed into law. It created a 3-year program establishing a Federal backstop against catastrophic losses in the property and casualty insurance marketplace. And we heard an ovehelming response trom policyholders across the country--TRIA has worked. It has achieved its primary goal--continued availability and affordability of insurance against future terrorist attacks. Industries as diverse as commercial real estate, shipping, construction, manufacturing, and even ``mom and pop'' retailers require insurance to obtain credit, loans, and investments necessary for their normal business operations. TRIA was designed to do just that--restore ``business as usual'' in every State across our Nation. I believe that the greatest indicator of the success of TRIA is what we have heard over the past 3 years since the enactment of TRIA--public outcry from businesses and workers whose livelihoods are threatened by their inability to purchase coverage against acts of terror. Construction projects are no longer stalled, mortgages are no longer in doubt, jobs are no longer in jeopardy as a result of the inability to receive terrorism insurance. Not only has TRIA been effective in ensuring that terrorism is available and affordable, and that our economy remains vibrant, it is also an incredibly important taxpayer protection law. With relatively little money necessary to fund the administration of the TRIA program, we have ensured that insurers and policyholders take the first $30 to $40 billion of losses of a potential terrorist attack. Additionally, there is one provision in this legislation that I believe is an important component--the mandate for the President's Working Group--our Nation's Federal financial regulators--to do an analysis of the long-term availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance. This legislation provides for a 2-year extension of TRIA--and in these next 2 years we need to find a long-term solution to this issue. It may be determined that this is an unwritable risk for the private sector and that a continued Federal role is needed or we may find that insurers are able to return to underwriting this risk without a Federal backstop. But we need to start work on developing this information and potential solutions as soon as possible. The enactment of this legislation will extend the TRIA program and will ensure that our Nation and its economy are best prepared to deal with a future terrorist attack. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I ask--the understanding at this moment is Senator Dorgan and myself are recognized for how much time?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank, again, my colleague from North Dakota for offering this amendment. I am pleased to be the lead cosponsor of it. This was brought up a number of weeks ago. This isn't something the Senator from North Dakota conjured up in the last several days. It is one he suggested back a number of weeks ago when the first skyrocketing prices occurred and the information emerged about these incredible, historic profits. Just to put it in perspective in these few minutes, we have remaining before we vote on this amendment, in the space of 12 weeks--12 weeks-- the five largest integrated oil companies secured profits approaching $33 billion. Now, again, let me state the obvious, or hopefully what is the obvious. The Senator from North Dakota and I have no difficulty whatsoever with the idea that businesses, including energy companies, make a legitimate and decent profit because of their investments and their work. But from time to time we have seen in our Nation's history profiteering where excessive profits are made at the expense of what needs to be done for the good of the country. In this case, to develop additional energy resources. What we are suggesting with this amendment is that with windfall profits that exceed $40 a barrel, we offer the integrated companies an alternative. One: take the windfall profits and invest them back in the development of existing or alternative energy sources; or two: give rebates to consumers in this country who are paying these incredibly higher prices in gasoline and home heating oil. Don't just go out and buy your own stock or engage in merger acquisitions at a time when we need to be less dependent on politically fragile parts of the world such as we are today. We know over and over again, that the companies are bragging in their own annual reports about record profits. In 2004, one major oil company, in its annual report, stated that it had recorded 48 percent higher profits because of the higher prices of oil and gasoline. And at the same time they announced to the world in that annual report that they actually reduced their production by 3 percent. We know that refining capacity is near 100 percent. We also know that many of these same integrated companies virtually eliminated 176 refineries in the last 25 years. It is not because of environmental problems or people objecting to existing refineries. They decided themselves to reduce their refining capacity. Again, you don't need to have a Ph.D. in economics to understand a company is profiteering to such a degree that it hurts our country. We ought to be doing a better job than that. With this amendment, we are asking this industry to either reinvest these excessive profits into increasing the availability of supply in our country or provide the rebates for individuals who could use the help. It is not just taking the money and putting it in the general fund and saying, We will decide what to do with it later. I heard my colleague from Rhode Island making an impassioned plea for the LIHEAP program, and I agree with him. I have watched him offer this amendment on several occasions over the last few years. This body has seen fit to turn down those amendments over and over. So we are not going to get much help there. The suggestion is, why not ask this industry that is recording nearly $33 billion of profits in 12 weeks to do a little something to help the folks in Connecticut, Minnesota, or North Dakota who are going to be paying very high home heating prices. In fact, in my State, the estimated cost in that area alone would be about $325 more this year per household, not to mention, the continued high gasoline prices. While gasoline prices are coming down somewhat, they are still about 32 cents higher than last year. Again, I think the industry owes it. We saw during another time in our Nation's history, World War II, that another Senator in this body, Harry Truman, demanded a stop to the profiteering that was occurring in this country. We are not denying anybody a right to make a legitimate profit, but when those profits put our Nation at risk, when they cause people who deserve better to pay exorbitant prices to stay warm and to use the automobiles they need, then we ought to be standing up as a collective body saying: You have to stop that. There is no justification for it. Remember, these prices began to climb before August 29. It wasn't Katrina. These prices began to climb during the spring and summer months. Katrina has caused some problems, no question about it, but to use Katrina as the excuse for these skyrocketing prices is not based on fact at all. We are urging our colleagues to join us in this effort. This would be a major source of relief for people across the country. Alternatively, the industry could do the right thing and invest those windfall profits in new energy sources and refineries instead of merging and buying back their own stock. Half of the profits last year were spent on buying back stock, not in new exploration. The amendment serves as an incentive. That is what the Dorgan amendment does. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment. We urge our colleagues to support it. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will just pick up and then let my friend from Wyoming conclude this debate. Again, I commend him on trying to make as strong a case as he could. There is a fundamental difference here. We are talking about not just any other commodity or service; we are talking about things that are essential for people to survive. We are about to enter the winter season. We have been feeling it in the Nation's Capitol the last 24 hours; the temperature has dropped to 40 degrees. I suspect our Indian summer is over. Across the northern tier States and western States alike, people on fixed incomes do not have any choice on whether to heat their homes and take care of their families. So unlike other sectors of the economy where there are some choices involved, when it comes to this commodity, oil, America depends upon it for people to remain safe, healthy, and sound. Many people across the country, certainly in western States more than eastern states, have no other alternative in terms of how they get to their jobs or their schools or those places they must be. It is the automobile. That is what they have to rely on. Mass transit systems do not exist everywhere. So this is not just some random commodity or service we are talking about. That is the first point. No. 2, the point was made earlier by my colleague from North Dakota, that we are talking about the large, integrated oil companies. I showed the list yesterday. We now talk about ExxonMobil; it used to be Exxon and Mobil. It used to be Conoco and Phillips; now it is ConocoPhillips. At some point we may have one or two companies left. When OPEC sits down, that is hardly free enterprise or a free market system. These prices are being established by a handful of people basically deciding what we will pay as consumers. One tries to find some economic justification for it and some people are saying it was Katrina. Again, I admit Katrina has caused disruption, but these prices moved long before Katrina occurred. There is no economic justification that I can find. In fact, the industry itself admits that they showed record profits while they reduced production. Their own annual reports indicate what they are doing with the profits. They are out there buying back their own stock. They are engaging in mergers. We are saying, Look, you owe some responsibility to increase production or help us develop some alternatives. We just gave you massive tax breaks in the Energy bill. Alternatively, provide some relief to the businesses, the farmers, the consumers who are going to be paying these higher prices. This provides an alternative, an incentive. We provided an incentive with the Energy bill by providing tax breaks for the industry. They get the tax break if they will do certain things.

Mr. DODD. We urge the adoption of this amendment. These are essential needs. There is no choice for consumers today. This is a proper role for Government, to go in and demand this kind of accountability. We yield back the remainder of the time.

Mr. DODD. I yield back our time.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by saying these are the sorts of uncomfortable moments in the Senate when we start to deal with each other on a personal level. I have been in this body for 24 years and I take no comfort in engaging in this kind of discussion. But as the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, serving with my friend and colleague from Mississippi, Trent Lott, as the chairman of the committee, I felt it was important to at least express to my colleagues here the position this Senator has as a member of that committee and as a former chairman of the Rules Committee. Very simply stated, as a matter of process--putting aside for a second the arguments on behalf of our colleague from Oklahoma and his noble determination and desire to continue the profession in which he has been engaged for years--there is a means by which we go through changes in the rules in this body. We have established that process for orderly reasons. What is being suggested here by this amendment is a change in the rules of the Senate, and there is a committee established by this body to consider such proposals. There is nothing in the rules of the Senate which prohibits any Member of this body from engaging in the practice of a profession, except as constrained by Rules XXXVI and XXXVII. As the Senator from Ohio has pointed out, what is being suggested here is that a member be allowed to earn some level of compensation in order to defray certain expenses. That would require a modification of Rule XXXVI and/or XXXVII. There is a way of doing that and the way is, you come to the Rules Committee, you have a hearing, you listen to witnesses. A person can make a suggestion to modify the rules. We do that all the time. If the Rules Committee decides in its wisdom it believes the rules ought to be modified or changed, then we recommend that change to this body as a whole and we move forward and accommodate a request such as the Senator from Oklahoma is making. But to bypass all of that process, even if you believe strongly that what the Senator from Oklahoma is suggesting he ought to be allowed to do, we ought to be following the process here. You would be setting a precedent, even if you agree with my colleague from Oklahoma and what he suggests here. There is a way by which you do things here. When you begin to sidestep and short circuit the process, then you put the entire process in jeopardy. I begin by stating that to my colleagues. Even if you feel strongly--and I say I know many of my colleagues do, and I have listened to the remarks over the last several minutes in support of Senator Coburn's request--there is a process which we should go through to achieve that end. I urge the body, if for no other reason than that, to support the motion that will be made by the Senator from Ohio. Then if the Senator desires to go forward with this, I certainly would be willing--I say this to my colleagues here; my colleague from Mississippi is not here--but if he wants to have a hearing on this matter, I will attend the hearing. I will attend all the hearings on it and listen to witnesses come forward and then consider the proposed change in the rules. If that is what we want to do, we ought to do that process. But I am uneasy about bypassing that process. As I said earlier, there is nothing in the Senate Rules that precludes a Member of this body from practicing a profession while in public service. But that practice is limited by Rules XXXVI and XXXVII and limitations on compensation earned in a fiduciary relationship. The history of these provisions shows that they are designed to ensure the membership in a profession does not so impose on the responsibilities of a Senator as to effectively render the Member a part-time public servant. Again, there are circumstances which could be pointed out which I am sure would cause us to consider some changes in all this, but there is a process to go through. When the Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators some more than 200 years ago, they did not envision the kind of world we live in today and a Congress, today, that meets not only year round but often throughout the day, well into the night. Witness this evening. We are likely going to be here until 10 or 11 o'clock tonight debating these amendments on the reconciliation bill. We may be here tomorrow and Saturday and Sunday. Certainly, the Founding Fathers had times when that occurred but not with the regularity that we engage in these practices. My colleague, the chairman of the Rules Committee, whom I have referenced already, suggests that Senator Coburn will not fly home and deliver babies when there are votes. I can personally bear witness to this--I am sure my colleague from Oklahoma will verify this--that babies don't normally set their time for delivery based on the Senate schedule. I can say as the father of two new recent arrivals that they decided to arrive not during the Senate schedule; they had their own schedule for arrival. Even though we may try to accommodate our colleagues in these areas, it doesn't normally occur on any sort of predictable pattern. It is not elective surgery, in most cases. Moreover, while I am sympathetic to the concerns that physicians should maintain their skills. In fact, I relish the fact that we have Senator Coburn here as a physician, along with Senator Frist and the two Members before our body who are veterinarians, who add, I think, to the discussion and debate. It adds a dimension to our deliberations. But again, we have four Members of this body who practice medicine--two who practice the human variety and two who practice the animal variety. I respect them immensely and enjoy speaking to them about their profession. But if we begin this process, what argument is there in response to my colleagues here who practice veterinary medicine? Should they no be able to seek to cover their costs? What about those who like to maintain their skill level as attorneys, engineers, or otherwise? We decided to put some parameters around this. Again, there is a process we can go through if we decide that we want to change it. It is not in any way to try to impugn the reputation or the contribution of Members. But to suggest that in this 21st century, we ought to begin to start compromising these rules in order to accommodate Members who wish to go back and practice their profession and to receive compensation, which is a critical element here, on their own time I think would be a step in the wrong direction. We have come some distance over the years. In the previous century, there were Members of this body who would go down on the first floor and try cases before the Supreme Court and then come back up here to vote on the very bills that might have changed the law. There was a wonderful Senator from New York, Chauncey Depew. He was the president of the New York Central Railroad while a Member of this body and never had a second thought about voting on railroad matters affecting the compensation of the company he was running. But, of course, the world has changed. I believe we are far better off today because we moved away from that kind of practice in the past. I am not suggesting that my colleague from Oklahoma is suggesting anything like the behavior that we saw in previous centuries. But, nonetheless, we have established some parameters. Again, that is the reason we have a process here by which we make modifications. The provisions in the rules are not biblical, they are not etched in marble or granite. They can be changed. But I suggest that if we are going to change them, we ought to go through the normal process of doing that. Taking up what is essentially a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on the tax reconciliation bill is not the way to go. Again, I say to my friend, we don't know each other terribly well. We haven't engaged in much business together, and I don't want the Senator to perceive what I am saying as disrespectful of his intent--I am not comfortable with these debates. My colleagues have known me over the past quarter of a century, and they know I try to stay away from these matters. It does begin to reflect or suggest somehow our feelings about one another. I don't want anything I have said here to suggest any negative feelings about my colleague because we disagree in the way at which we have arrived at this debate. This is really not an Ethics Committee matter. It is a Rules Committee matter, and that is where it belongs. We ought to consider it there and some of the questions and implications raised in this debate and then come forward. It may be that a majority of the Rules Committee will say the rule ought to be modified or changed. If that is the wisdom, then we come to the body, and have an informed debate. But we ought to be careful about trying to short circuit that process. I am going to support the motion by the Senator from Ohio. I urge my colleagues to do so--not in any way to impugn the motives of the Senator from Oklahoma but to protect the process of the Senate. With all due respect, that is a much larger question, it seems to me, than the ambition or desires of any one Member of this body. We bear responsibility to be good caretakers of this institution and to see to it that we preserve and protect the way in which we conduct ourselves. If we wish to change the means by which we do that, there is a process we should follow in doing so. Again, to bypass that process by bringing it directly to the floor I believe does potential damage to this institution that none of us should want to be party to. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr President, I rise to lend my strong support for S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005, which I originally introduced with Senator Bennett and 34 cosponsors earlier this year. Our legislation was amended in committee with the hard work and leadership of Banking Committee Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes to develop the product before the Senate today. I would like to commend the members on the Banking Committee: Senators Johnson, Reed, Schumer, Bayh, Carper, Stabenow, Corzine, Hagel, Bunning, and Dole as well as the other cosponsors of the legislation for recognizing--very early on--how important extending the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, TRIA, was to our Nation's economy and for their efforts on this legislation. I would especially like to commend Chairman Shelby for his work on this legislation. This is not the bill I would have written, nor is it the bill that he would have written. For example, it was my hope that we could have included group life as a covered line in this legislation. However, I am acutely aware that the chairman has had concerns about the TRIA program and what the role of the Federal Government should be in this area--and I would like to thank him and his staff for helping to craft a compromise that not only adheres to his principles but also satisfies the concerns of so many Members of this body who believe it is imperative to pass an extension of TRIA. Like many bills, this legislation is a document of compromise. We have carefully taken into consideration the recommendations of policyholders, insurers, consumers, academics, think-tanks, the Treasury Department and others to craft this important extension legislation. And I think that this product is very good one. Let me take a few brief moments to provide my colleagues with a little background on TRIA and why it needs to be extended today. As a result of the tragic terrorist acts of 9/11, we repeatedly heard from businesses, large and small, from labor unions and manufacturers, from hospitals to hotels, from professional sports teams to utility companies, from insurers and the insured about the need for the Federal Government to act to help them receive financial protection from future terrorist attacks. Congress listened, and we acted--creating the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act--TRIA. In November 2002, TRIA was passed by both the House and Senate by significant margins and was signed into law. It created 3-year program establishing a Federal backstop against catastrophic losses in the property and casualty insurance marketplace. And we heard an overwhelming response from policyholders across the country--TRIA has worked. It has achieved its primary goal--continued availability and affordability of insurance against future terrorist attacks. Industries as diverse as commercial real estate, shipping, construction, manufacturing, and even ``mom and pop'' retailers require insurance to obtain credit, loans, and investments necessary for their normal business operations. TRIA was designed to do just that--restore ``business as usual'' in every State across our Nation. I believe that the greatest indicator of the success of TRIA is what we have not heard over the past 3 years since the enactment of TRIA public outcry from businesses and workers whose livelihoods are threatened by their inability to purchase coverage against acts of terror. Construction projects are no longer stalled, mortgages are no longer in doubt, and jobs are no longer in jeopardy as a result of the inability to receive terrorism insurance. Insurance isn't something we think about every day, yet it is vital to the overall health of our economy. By protecting people and property, goods and services in every sector of America's $10 trillion- plus economy, insurance provides the stability and certainty required to keep our economic engine humming. Every prospective homeowner needs insurance to obtain a mortgage from a bank. Insurance of all types is a critical component of our capital markets. Not only has TRIA been effective in ensuring that terrorism is available and affordable, and that our economy remains vibrant, it is also an incredibly important taxpayer protection law. With relatively little money necessary to fund the administration of the TRIA program, we have ensured that insurers and policyholders take the first $30 to $40 billion of losses of a potential terrorist attack. According to a recent study conducted by the RAND Institute, ``Based on our analysis (of TRIA), the role of taxpayers is expected to be minimal, unless there is are several large events in a single year.'' TRIA has essentially provided that in the unfortunate event of a future terrorist attack a $30 to $40 billion check is written to U.S. taxpayers. TRIA has not only worked to help provide available and affordable terrorism risk insurance, it has also protected our Nation's taxpayers. With the expiration of TRIA in less than 45 days, and this session near completion, it is essential that Congress extend TRIA immediately. I would like to bring to your attention a letter from 28 Governors across the Nation urging us to extend the TRIA program. There is one provision in this legislation that I believe is an important component--the mandate for the President's Working Group--our Nation's Federal financial regulators--to do an analysis of the long- term availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance. This legislation provides for a 2-year extension of TRIA--and in these next 2 years we need to find a long-term solution to this issue. It may be determined that this is an unwritable risk for the private sector, and that a continued Federal role is needed or we may find that insurers are able to return to underwriting this risk without a Federal backstop. But we need to start work on developing this information and potential solutions as soon as possible. Since the enactment of TRIA, our Nation has been fortunate enough not to suffer the tremendous loss of life or destruction of property that we endured on September 11, 2001. But by no means has the political climate, either domestically or abroad, returned to a sense of normalcy. We are engaged in a violent conflict in Iraq and we have seen despicable terrorist attacks abroad in Europe and elsewhere. We have heard repeated dire warnings that terrorism will return to U.S. soil. We must be prepared against this threat. Providing insurance against terrorist attacks, which allows our economy to function, is a critical part of our preparedness. But we cannot fail to extend TRIA. We cannot afford--and we should do everything in our power to avoid--restoring the tremendous uncertainty and instability to businesses and workers and our economy as a whole. The enactment of this legislation will ensure that our Nation and its economy are best prepared to deal with a future terrorist attack. I urge the my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from North Dakota who has more than adequately and eloquently described this simple proposal that has some significant implications but, nonetheless, one that is clear and straightforward. Let me repeat what my colleague from North Dakota has stated. First and foremost, these are not two Senators who believe that oil companies ought not to be able to earn a profit. In fact, our economy depends entirely on the capitalistic system, the profit motive. But all of us have learned historically that there are times when, in the absence of some restraint, the profit motive can cause such disruption, such a misalignment in economic circumstances, that it is imperative that those in positions of responsibility try to step in to do something about it. That is clearly what we are trying to do here. The underlying purpose of this amendment is to provide some relief to consumers. The New York Times reported the other day that one business has been paying roughly $700,000 for its energy needs. The company anticipated its energy costs this year will be $1.4 million, virtually doubling the cost of its energy needs in a brief period of time. We know, as a result of these rising costs, what consumers are likely to pay for home heating oil. And while we have seen some abatement in the cost of the price of gasoline, clearly the prices are still very high. We believe these individuals deserve a break. We talk about tax breaks for people who need them. Clearly, the people who will be paying these costs deserve to have some relief. But we quickly point out that this is a choice the industry can make because what the Senator from North Dakota has said is: If, in fact, you do what you ought to be doing, and that is to plow these profits back into energy creation, energy production, development of resources, there won't be an excess profits tax. That is an option that the industry can have at this juncture and one we would hope they would be engaging in. It was stunning to find out that they are taking virtually half of their profits and just buying back their own stock rather than investing in the expanded development of energy resources. So at the outset, I want to be very clear. We do not begrudge any company, even an oil company, making a profit and a good profit. It is the engine that keeps our economy moving forward. But as we have said, there is a huge difference between profits and profiteering, and it is profiteering, in our view, that is occurring here. In the opinion of many, the big oil companies have been engaged in just that, in profiteering. The concept of profiteering is not a new one, and this would not be the first time that the Congress of the United States has acted as a watchdog against such profiteering. One of the most high profile cases was during World War II when Harry Truman, then a Member of this body, chaired an investigation into the profiteering that was going on among wartime businesses. The concept of profiteering is also not new to this particular industry which operates in a market dominated by the OPEC cartel and a few large corporate conglomerates. Over the past several years, we have seen a steady and steep increase in the price of oil. In the year 2000, when the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve was established because of concerns that I and others had about heating oil supply and price, crude oil was trading at $30 per barrel. Today, just five years later, the price of crude oil has more than doubled. Refining capacity is near 100 percent, yet over the past 25 years, 176 refineries have closed in the United States. And last month, the five largest oil companies recorded record third-quarter profits. So here we are. Refining capacity is nearly 100 percent, and 176 refineries in the last 25 years have closed their doors. ExxonMobil, as this graph here points out, had profits in one quarter, 3 months, of $9.92 billion. Imagine the work that went on in the accounting department to make sure it wasn't $10 billion--we will squeeze it down to $9.92 billion, the largest quarterly profit ever reaped by an American corporation in the history of our Nation. In order to make that profit, ExxonMobil took in a record $100.7 billion in revenue in just those 3 months. To put those numbers in perspective, it is larger than the annual gross domestic product of the United Arab Emirates, a large oil-producing nation. Shell Oil earned third-quarter profits of just over $9 billion. BP earned profits of $6.53 billion, and ChevronTexaco earned $3.6 billion. ConocoPhillips earned profits of $3.8 billion. That is all in 3 months. That is a total of $32.8 billion in profits in 12 weeks. Mr. President, we all recognize that the gulf coast hurricanes temporarily shook the oil industry as it did other industries, interrupting refining and distribution systems across the country, and it may be some time before all operations are back to normal. We recognize that. But that does not explain the steadily rising oil and gasoline prices that consumers and businesses experienced in the months before the hurricanes. Long before any wind and rain hit the gulf coast, these prices were skyrocketing. There is evidence that the oil industry deliberately restricted supply to boost profits. Let me explain using their own language in their own reports, by the way. One major oil company in their 2004 annual report says the following: We achieved the highest net income in our history, 18.2 billion. This was 48 percent higher than in 2003 as a result of higher oil and gas prices. The report goes on to say that these higher profits occurred at the same time that the company produced 3 percent less oil than the year before. They produced less and had almost a 50-percent jump in profits. Mr. President, that is not a coincidence, in my view. It was a deliberate move to raise prices by restricting supply. It was not long ago that Enron traders were caught on tape colluding to manipulate energy prices during the California energy crisis of 2001. One trader was reported telling the operator of a power plant: We want you guys to get a little more creative and come up with a reason to [shut the plant] down. Mr. President, we don't have anything on tape here from these oil company CEOs, but clearly when you look at some of the reports, they brag about 50 percent profits and yet also point to a 3-percent drop in production. So given the circumstance of fewer refineries operating at or near capacity, coupled with the increased demand for oil and gas, all we are asking is that these industries reinvest their profits to find alternative sources and types of energy. In the Energy bill that passed only a few weeks ago, we provide massive tax breaks for the energy industry, and yet even with that they don't want to go out and invest in energy resources to boost energy supply. Instead, profits are used to buy back stock or engage in these mega mergers. My colleague is right to point out; just look at the names. There used to be a Conoco; there used to be a Phillips. Now it is ConocoPhillips. There used to be a Chevron; there used to be a Texaco. Now it is ChevronTexaco. There used to be an Exxon; there used to be a Mobil. Now it is ExxonMobil. I was born at night but not last night, Mr. President. I know what is going on. You don't have to be an economist or have a Ph.D. in economics to figure out what is going on here. The simple question is, Do we let this happen and just twiddle our thumbs or do we try to do something about it? And we have offered a simple alternative. The alternative is to provide the rebate and give the people who are paying these increased prices a break. Let me also be clear that the windfall profits rebate is nothing like the one imposed in 1980. First and foremost, the money would be rebated to consumers. The 1980 windfall profits tax was passed to ensure that the oil industry paid its fair share of taxes to the Federal Government. We are not suggesting that here at all. Just as important, this amendment would apply only to large integrated oil companies, not the independent producers and refiners. They are exempt under the Dorgan-Dodd proposal. The structure of the tax is different as well. In 1980, the tax was imposed on the difference between the market price of oil and the statutory 1979 base price, adjusted quarterly. Our amendment proposes a 50-percent profits tax only on the profit over $40 per barrel. As my colleague from North Dakota has already eloquently pointed out, that number was not chosen arbitrarily. At that level, record profits were earned by the industry. Yet that price today is substantially more than $40 per barrel. In 1980, the tax included nearly every barrel of oil produced, and thus domestic production suffered. If oil companies do the right thing to increase supply, then there will be no windfall profits tax incurred. I don't know how else to get their attention. Jawboning doesn't seem to work. So why don't we join in a bipartisan way and say to the oil companies-- invest in the energy needs of our Nation and, if not, provide some relief to the people out there who are paying these tremendously increased prices. If domestic production stays relatively constant at 5.2 million barrels a day and oil continues to sell at nearly $65 a barrel, then the windfall profits tax will be approximately $65 million a day. This is money that constituents of ours across the country could use to offset the record price increases expected for home heating oil this winter or to combat the rising costs of goods and services that are transported on trucks and rails. I pointed out one business that the New York Times identified the other day as expecting their energy costs to double from $700,000 to a $1.4 million. Obviously, they are going to pass it on as a cost of production. The consumers will pay the additional cost. I noticed--I see my good friend from Utah--last night the snow was beginning to fall in the home State of my spouse and the State the distinguished Senator represents. This is not just a New England issue. It is going to happen across the country where many expect record cold temperatures this winter. This is not a situation where consumers have a choice. You don't have a choice to stay warm or not warm, to provide for your family or not provide for your family. These people who travel to work every day don't have a choice whether to get into an automobile. They don't have mass-transit systems. There is no other choice but to put gasoline in that car and go to work. Those companies have no choice other than to shut down or swallow the cost and pass it on to their customers. It is clear that rising energy costs are a drag on the economy, for individuals, for families, businesses, or farmers, and while gasoline prices are coming down all across the Nation to some degree, they are still on average 32 cents per gallon higher than they were just a year ago. And as the winter weather begins to bear down on us, consumers are bracing for higher heating costs. The prices in my State and across the northern tier States are going to go up. This windfall profits rebate is a solution for working families across our Nation. It is more than the administration or many of our colleagues have proposed. Every time we try to ease the financial burden on individuals and families, we are met with opposition. We have not been able to raise the minimum wage in 9 years. We can't increase the funding for low-income home energy assistance at all. We have been unable to realistically address fuel efficiency. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island has offered the home heating assistance amendment. Senator Kerry of Massachusetts has also offered it. In the past, we have had joint efforts by Republicans and Democrats on the LIHEAP program. That has all been turned down. Why not do this? If you don't want to have the general revenues pay for increased help, why not ask that these additional huge profits that are being made go back and provide some relief to people? The administration has been asleep at the wheel for the last several years and was adamantly opposed to embracing conservation measures. In fact, in 2001, Vice President Cheney said: Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for sound, comprehensive energy policy. So you can imagine my surprise when the administration trotted out a conservation program, headed by the ``Energy Hog,'' as they call him. I applaud their late arrival to the benefits of conservation, but I am very disappointed that they have done nothing to stem the rising cost of fuel in our Nation. They brought the oil companies in when they were originally crafting their energy policy, but they have been unwilling to jawbone either OPEC or the large oil companies when individuals, families, and businesses are suffering. This is an amendment that will have tangible benefits to consumers without undermining the oil industry. It gives the oil companies a choice. I hope our colleagues here on both sides of the aisle would embrace the Dorgan-Dodd amendment. I urge its adoption. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, since 1980, 176 refineries have closed their doors, not because environmentalists shut them down. Is it not true, I ask my colleagues, these were decisions made by the industry themselves?

Mr. DODD. Does my colleague not further agree that in recent reports one of the major companies we are talking about, in effect, bragged that they had reduced production by 3 percent while profits over the same year had increased 50 percent? That was not some environmentalist reducing production by 3 percent. That was the industry itself that made that decision. Is my colleague familiar with that?

Mr. DODD. Thank you. I may not use all that time because we made our points. But I want to join with my colleague and friend from North Dakota. Let me say at the outset I have a great friendship with my colleague from Utah. We have done legislation together over the 24 years we have served together in this body. He has been here a little longer than I have. I enjoyed that relationship. I am somewhat stunned when my colleague from Utah becomes as exercised as he was over the oil industry and its profits. They have done very well. There is no reason to be upset about the oil industry. The profits they recorded in the space of 12 weeks are unprecedented in American history. I began to wonder whether my colleague from Utah had even read the amendment the Senator from North Dakota and I offered. It very simply says that, with the profits when oil is in excess of $40 a barrel, you either pay an excise tax which would rebate to consumers to the tune of about $65 million a day, which could be meaningful to families who will be paying much higher costs this year, or reinvest this money, these additional profits, into increased production or developing alternatives the industry says it wants to do. That is what the amendment says. We have watched the industry shut down 176 refineries in 25 years. One company brags about how profits are up 50 percent, and they themselves reduced production by 3 percent. In any class in 101 economics, when you reduce supply like that, obviously it gives a justification for increasing price. They admit it in their annual reports. I didn't make up that quote. I am quoting one of the major integrated companies in its message to its shareholders: Profits are up 50 percent, we reduced production by 3 percent. Then I hear my colleague from Utah talking about some environmentalists as if somehow they had shut down the refineries or they were responsible for reducing refinery capacity. It is the oil industry itself that has been closing refineries. There are not going to be many more opportunities because we are about to adjourn here. We will not be back until the middle of January. This may be the one opportunity we have to express ourselves on whether we think the industry ought to be doing a better job when it comes to increasing production and providing some relief for the people out there who will be paying these increased costs. This is not an excessive request. It is one that goes right to the heart of what we have talked about, what we talked about during the consideration of the Energy bill. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, we provide literally billions of dollars in tax breaks for the industry to go out and do some of the things the Senator from Utah talked about. I voted against that Energy bill, not because there were not some things I liked in the bill but, frankly, because I thought those tax breaks were unnecessary. When you are recording $9 billion, almost $10 billion in profits in 12 weeks, why do you need a tax break? But when the integrated companies report more than $32 billion in profits in 12 weeks and we turn around and provide billions of dollars in tax breaks, I didn't understand that. But that is what we decided to do. Here we have a chance to say: Listen, you got these additional profits. Put them into energy production or provide a rebate to the people of this country who are going to be paying these increased prices. It is one chance here to decide which side you are on. As I mentioned earlier, we tried to get Low-Income Home Energy Assistance increases for the poorest of our poor, the elderly on fixed incomes, and that has been denied over and over again despite amendments even in the last few days and weeks to provide some relief. That has been repeatedly voted down. What about providing some relief for people who are going to be paying these additional costs? That is what we are trying to do with this amendment. I commend my colleague from North Dakota. I know some people say, It is a futile effort, why do you even bother? We bother because we think it is right to stand up here. Other Congresses in other times--where are the Harry Trumans today? We are in the middle of a war right now in the Middle East. He stood up as a Member of this body and he called it profiteering, and he was not accused of being a populist. We celebrate Harry Truman today as someone who had the guts to stand up and tell the truth, whether people wanted to hear it or not. We ought to tell the truth now. These companies are making excessive profits at the expense of our economy and hard- working, honest people. They look to us to provide some help. That is what we exist for, in part, to make sure you don't have unrestrained activities that will do damage to the average person or average business out there trying to make ends meet. I again urge our colleagues to support this amendment. It is one chance we have to try to make a difference for these people. I yield.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on some of the votes that this body held yesterday related to the fiscal year 2006 Department of Defense authorization bill. Overall, this year's Defense authorization bill was a step in the right direction--for supporting our troops, for strengthening our military, and for securing our country. While I regret the limited time that we had to debate amendments, the end result here is, on balance, positive. There are, however, a couple of important votes on amendments that I would like to take this opportunity to discuss. First, the two amendments on Iraq--one offered by Senator Levin, which I cosponsored, and the other a Republican alternative offered by Senator Warner, which I voted for. These two amendments were very similar, and they were both steps in the right direction. They both express the Senate's belief that U.S. forces should not remain in Iraq indefinitely. They both establish expectations that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq. They both stress the need for compromise among Iraqis to achieve a sustainable sovereign government. And they both require the President to begin sharing with the American people his campaign plan for success in Iraq. But these two amendments, despite all of their similarities, have a fundamental difference. The Democratic amendment would have gone one important step further than the Republican amendment that we ended up adopting. It would have required the President to tell the American people not only his campaign plan, but estimated dates for the redeployment of U.S. forces--in other words, a timetable and strategy for success in Iraq. The Levin amendment acknowledged that unexpected contingencies might arise, and that such contingencies might change some of the projected redeployment dates, but I still believe that without these projected dates, we have left ourselves in an open-ended commitment. That is not good for us, it is not good for Iraq, and it is not good for stability in the region. Ultimately, I supported the Warner amendment because, as I have said, it is a step in the right direction. But it frankly doesn't take us any closer to convincing the American people that the President has a plan or a timetable for bringing our operations in Iraq to a successful conclusion. And I believe that our soldiers and the American public deserve better. I would also like to briefly address three related amendments offered by Senators Graham, Bingaman, and one by both Senators Graham and Levin, dealing with the issue of habeas corpus and detainees who are in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I voted against Senator Graham's underlying amendment on this issue because I believe that it would have been a step in the wrong direction for our country. That is not to say that we should be providing sanctuary to terrorists. We shouldn't. Any coward who is complicit in terrorist attacks against the U.S. and the civilized world must be brought to justice. I also recognize that the new threat posed by international terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, and their murderous henchmen, requires law-abiding nations to adapt in how they combat this threat. But as we adapt to the terrorist threat, we have to make sure that we don't hurt ourselves, and the cause of freedom, in the process. America's judicial system is part of the bedrock of our country. Protecting its integrity should be a cause of highest concern. That is why I voted for Senator Bingaman's second-degree amendment to strike the Graham amendment's text that would have stripped U.S. courts of the ability to review writs of habeas corpus submitted by or on behalf of foreign detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I regret that Senator Bingaman's amendment failed on a party line vote. I commend, however, Senator Levin for working with Senator Graham to strike a compromise on this issue. The Graham-Levin compromise is not perfect. It certainly doesn't go as far as this Senator would have liked in fixing the underlying text. But faced with the prospect of the original Graham amendment being sent to conference in its original form, I chose to support the Graham-Levin compromise, which is a definite improvement over the underlying text. What is particularly heartening is that Senator Graham, upon reflection, realized that his amendment went too far and accepted the moderating suggestions proposed by Senator Levin. My hope is that the conferees on this bill will continue to improve upon the Graham-Levin text. Mr. President, as I said at the outset, the Defense authorization bill that the Senate passed yesterday is not perfect. But on balance, I believe that it sends a message to our troops that we are here to support them, and that we remain committed to providing them with everything that they need to come home from their missions abroad safely and securely. At the end of the day, that is a good start.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by commending my colleague from Kentucky. I am pleased to be the lead sponsor with him on this resolution and he rightly points out that there are a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been very supportive of this effort. In fact, I think we might leave this open this evening so that others who wish to be cosponsors may do so before this evening is complete. I want to particularly thank, in this Chamber this evening, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts who was very interested in this issue and announced his strong support early on of recognizing Rosa Parks. I also want to thank Representative Jesse Jackson of the House and others on the House side who are also interested in this issue. The House sponsors have taken a different approach to authorizing a statue of Rosa Parks, but that bill has not yet been brought before the House for debate. The action we take today is one way that we can guarantee that Congress can authorize, and immediately have funds to pay for, the commissioning of this statue. I strongly support the efforts of my colleague, Senator McConnell, to expedite this legislation. I was honored to attend the funeral services here in Washington, DC for Mrs. Parks. The words spoken that day by numerous people were far more eloquent than anything I could add at this particular juncture. But I was struck by the fact that this woman, who refused to give up her seat, who caused a nation to stand up and take note, was physically a rather diminutive, quiet individual who had a long interest in civil rights. Her nonviolent act of defiance was not just a coincidental act. She had been involved in the civil rights movements and had worked with the NAACP and other organizations for sometime. But as the Senator from Kentucky points out, on that particular day, she was just not going to tolerate any longer a behavior that was so repugnant to the founding principles of this democracy--that was a denial of everything we stood for as a nation. With full recognition of the consequences, her course of action precipitated a year-long boycott in Birmingham of the public bus system. And that was a great sacrifice for the people of the city at that time. To sustain that effort for over a year is really quite a remarkable and significant effort. It all began on that day some 50 years ago when this wonderful American lady, on her own, decided to take an action that would awaken the interest and collective conscience of a country to recognize, and acknowledge, the great scar of segregation that still existed in some parts of our Nation. And we realize that we have perhaps not yet reached that perfect union that our Founders intended and that each generation of Americans must be newly challenged to achieve it. Rosa Parks was that challenge for her generation and by her solitary, nonviolent act, she changed the course of human history. This is a long journey. It has been a painful one for many but because of people like Rosa Parks, we are getting closer to our Founders' goal of a perfect union. And that is why it is not only important to preserve and honor her legacy for future generations, but to hold her up as an example of what can be achieved when we challenge ourselves to do better. She is an example to those oppressed in nations around the world that one person, in standing up for what is just and right, can make a difference. Nelson Mandela once called her ``the David who challenged Goliath.'' People of nations across this globe owe a debt of gratitude to this remarkable woman for her courage that day, for her determination, and for the inspiration she has provided. Now, when visitors come to the Capitol, they, too, can be inspired by this heroic American whose courageous act sparked the flame of liberty and equality for African Americans and minority groups in this country and around the world. Oprah Winfrey spoke at the funeral services about what it meant to her as a young black woman to hear about Rosa Parks and what she had done. By honoring Rosa Parks with a statue, placed in the most public places of honor in the Capitol, we will have a living symbol of that hope that Rosa Parks brought to millions of young black children 50 years ago. And so generations of children can pass by her statue and be inspired by her story and courage and identify with her greatness. We honored Rosa Parks by allowing her remains to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda. I was priveleged to have been a part of that most appropriate effort. It was an unprecedented event and the first time that a woman had been so recognized. There have been others who have been so honored because of their service as President, or as a general or distinguished military officer, or some connection to the Congress, but only once before had we honored a private citizen. To recognize this extraordinary lady was a noble act and a proud achievement of the leadership of this Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans took time to honor this symbol of freedom by paying their last respects to her in the most public of places, the Capitol Rotunda. And the American people were invited in to share in her struggles and triumphs and pay their respect to this great American, too. The statue of Rosa Parks will be placed in a very hallowed location in the Capitol. The site has not yet been established, but it may be that location will be in the National Statuary Hall. This resolution authorizes, and indeed requires, that the Joint Committee on the Library consider that option. But it must be in a prominent place where the public can be inspired by her, where Congress and staff can be reminded of her act of courage and her challenge to our leaders to do better. And each of us will be reminded of the opportunities in our lives to make a difference. Maybe not with the same dramatic results as Rosa Parks achieved with her act, but every single citizen of this country will know that he or she has an opportunity to make a difference, in a moment of challenge, to rise and to be courageous, to stand up for what is right. It is a wonderful lesson for the younger generation to be reminded that one person can make a difference. I often cite individuals who have made a difference, such as the mother who lost a child as a result of a drunk driver and went on to found an organization in her basement called Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or Lech Walesa, or now Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks caused this Nation to take note of what it needed to do to end the scourge of segregation. She is not just a national hero, she is the embodiment of our social and human conscience. It is an appropriate and fitting thing that we do here today. I am proud to be a part of it and I hope that generations to come for many, many years will walk past the statue of Rosa Parks in our Nation's Capitol and make a quiet determination to find a moment when they may be as courageous and as noble as this wonderful woman.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is in our Nation's interest and in our own troops' interests to ensure that Iraqi security forces, fighting side by side with America's soldiers and marines, are well-trained and well-equipped. As the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has indicated, our capacity to transfer security responsibilities to the Iraqis will chiefly rely on one thing--the ability of Iraqi forces to stand up and assume control over their nation's security. To successfully complete the mission in Iraq and to bring our troops home as quickly as possible, we need to ensure that lraq's soldiers and policemen have the capacity to assume control over their nation's security and law enforcement. And in the immediate term, as our troops deploy on patrol with their Iraqi partners, they need to know that they can rely on Iraqi forces to shoulder their share of combat operations. Achieving this goal is not only a matter of training Iraq's soldiers and policemen. We need to also ensure that they are adequately equipped to perform their missions safely and effectively. Last week, the New York Times reported on the difficulties Iraqi troops are facing in procuring inadequate armor and safety gear. According to that article, the biggest shortage is in fortified vehicles. Tragically, Iraqis are being required to patrol the same roads and marketplaces that are besieged on a daily basis by improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers without any armored protection or heavy vehicles. With several hundred Iraqis operating in military vehicles, only three dozen such vehicles are outfitted with protective armor. We need to do better than that if we expect Iraqi troops to have even a fighting chance. But at the same time, we also need to recognize that the needs of our own troops are of paramount concern. That is why, with the chairman's support, I offered an amendment to reimburse troops for protective gear that they purchased; why we have supported rapidly fielding increasingly more armored protection to U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan; why the Senate supported the chairman's amendment last July to add an additional 1,800 up- armored HMMWVs for the U.S. Marines Corps; and why, yesterday on the bill, we voted to add an additional $360 million for even more armored vehicles. Members of this body have few higher priorities than the safety and well-being of our troops deployed in harm's way. And there is no greater champion of the American GI than the current chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Therefore, I am sure that he would agree that the best way we can safeguard the safety and security of our troops is to ensure that U.S. forces can complete their mission and return home as soon as possible. Doing so will require well-equipped as well as well-trained Iraqi forces to take over from U.S. forces the responsibilities for maintaining peace and order through Iraq.