Mark Dayton

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I honor last fall's Youth Service Learning class, at Mankato West High School, in Mankato, MN, which recently earned an Award for Excellence in Education for its exceptional and innovative achievements. The Youth Service Learning class at Mankato West High School is truly a model of educational success. As part of its fall curriculum, the class embraced Project Homecoming, a statewide effort to raise money to help pay for the cost of bus transportation from Camp Shelby, MS, to Minnesota, for 400 Minnesota National Guard soldiers. The soldiers had been training at Camp Shelby for deployment to Iraq in early 2006. Although they were given 10 days leave for the holidays, no funding was available through the military or National Guard to provide round-trip transportation to Minnesota and back. The Youth Service Learning class, which focuses on volunteerism and the functioning of nonprofits in the community, gained some real life experience by helping Project Homecoming raise $75,000 in just under 4 weeks. The students learned how to establish a tax-exempt fundraising effort, engage the media in an event, and raise significant money for a cause they considered extremely important to their communities. In less than 3 days, the students raised over $1,500 from their schoolmates, made telephone calls to potential donors, and asked their own employers to help in the effort. With the students' help, Project Homecoming reached its $75,000 goal. Much of the credit for the Youth Service Learning class's success belongs to Mr. Bruce Borchers, Mankato West principal; Mr. Tim Walz, Youth Service Learning teacher; and Mr. Pat Griffiths, Project Homecoming coordinator. The students and staff who participated in the class understand that in order to be successful, a school must go beyond achieving academic success; it must also provide a nurturing environment where students develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for a lifetime of success. All of the faculty, staff, and students should be very proud of their accomplishments. I congratulate the Youth Service Learning class at Mankato West High School in Mankato, MN, for winning the Award for Excellence in Education and for its exceptional contributions to education in Minnesota.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Mayo High School, in Rochester, MN, which recently earned an Award for Excellence in Education for its exceptional and innovative achievements in educating children. Mayo High School is truly a model of educational success. Several years ago, the school established three major goals and developed an action plan to achieve them: No. 1, to improve the graduation rate; No. 2, to address a disproportionate number of suspensions of racial minority students; and No. 3, to improve poor math and reading test scores. Several key school leaders are largely responsible for the school's attaining these goals. Ms. Joan Bachman, who chaired the diversity committee, initiated a multiyear plan, working with the community, staff, and students to make Mayo High School a more welcoming place for all students. Through her leadership, the school has won the District's Diversity Award for each of the last 4 years. She also won the Rochester Diversity Council's Educators Award last year. Ms. Jeri Brown oversees the school's conflict mediation program and trains students in conflict mediation skills. The students who receive conflict mediation training perform nearly 400 mediations per year, achieving a 93-percent success rate. Mr. Ron Randall, chair of the math department, and Barb Milburn, chair of the English department, have done a superior job in improving the academic performance of all students. Last year, Mayo received the State's Five Star rating in math. Recognizing that many of the students receiving suspensions for behavioral reasons were the same students who least could afford time away from school, Mayo modified its policies. By focusing on addressing causes of students' poor behavior, Mayo has avoided loss of valuable class time. Consequently, suspension rates have improved, and graduation rates have dramatically risen. Last year, the school boasted a 95-percent graduation rate. Much of the credit for Mayo High School's success belongs to its principal, Dr. John Frederikson, and his dedicated teachers. The students and staff at Mayo High School understand that, in order to be successful, a school must go beyond achieving academic success; it must also provide a nurturing environment where students develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for a lifetime of success. All of the faculty, staff, and students at Mayo High School should be very proud of their accomplishments. I congratulate Mayo High School in Rochester, MN, for winning the Award for Excellence in Education and for its exceptional contributions to education in Minnesota.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Eagle Lake Elementary School, in Eagle Lake, MN, which recently earned an Award for Excellence in Education for its exceptional and innovative achievements in educating children. Eagle Lake Elementary School is truly a model of educational success, having earned a Five Star rating from the Minnesota Department of Education. The school, which is part of the Mankato Area School District, serves 290 students from the communities of Eagle Lake and Madison Lake. Although relatively small, Eagle Lake Elementary offers an impressive variety of educational opportunities, including all-day kindergarten, special education services, assurance of mastery program for at-risk students, a school psychologist and social worker, a structured study center, afterschool academic assistance, speech and language assistance, an artist-in-residence program, mentoring program, lyceum programs, and challenging opportunities for highly capable students. Eagle Lake Elementary's ``400 Club,'' a school-wide home reading program, encourages students to spend at least 100 minutes per week reading. At the end of each month, a school-wide celebration honors those who have read over 400 minutes for the month. The ``Reading Buddies'' program pairs early elementary students with fourth and fifth grade students to explore reading through weekly themed projects and activities. The older buddy learns role model and leadership skills while the younger buddy is encouraged to develop lifelong reading habits. The school also boasts an orchestra program, a science fair, a Quiz Bowl, Peace Makers, which teaches peer mediation and conflict resolution, novel study, word masters, art masterpiece, geography and spelling bees, Jump Rope for Heart, and a variety of afterschool activities. Parents' involvement in the education of their children is also very high at Eagle Lake Elementary. This fall, 99 percent of all parents participated in parent-teacher conferences. Much of the credit for Eagle Lake Elementary School's success belongs to principal, Jason Scherber, and his dedicated teachers. The students and staff at Eagle Lake Elementary School understand that, in order to be successful, a school must go beyond achieving academic success; it must also provide a nurturing environment where students develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for a lifetime of success. All of the faculty, staff, and students at Eagle Lake Elementary School should be very proud of their accomplishments. I congratulate Eagle Lake Elementary School in Eagle Lake, MN, for winning the Award for Excellence in Education and for its exceptional contributions to education in Minnesota.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Bamber Valley Elementary School, in Rochester, MN, which recently earned an Award for Excellence in Education for its exceptional and innovative achievements in educating children. Bamber Valley Elementary School is truly a model of educational success. The school is Rochester's largest elementary school, serving 885 students in kindergarten through fifth grade. The successful partnership created between families and the community has made possible a school that exemplifies teamwork, pride, and excellence. Bamber Valley is making full use of test score data to improve teaching techniques and to address the specific reading and math challenges facing individual students. The administration's quick dissemination of test data to the classroom teachers has allowed the teachers to adjust their teaching strategies, addressing the skills that students found to be the most difficult on the standardized tests. Bamber Valley is home to the district's programs serving the elementary deaf and hard-of-hearing children. The program's resource teachers work with families encountering crisis situations, and a gifted and talented specialist is assigned to the school to help challenge students who excel. For students in the first through fifth grades, the school has an afterschool academy program, where laughter and high energy combine to create a learning environment that is safe, welcoming, and fun. Much of the credit for Bamber Valley Elementary School's success belongs to its principal, Ms. Becky Gerdes, and her dedicated teachers. The students and staff at Bamber Valley Elementary School understand that, in order to be successful, a school must go beyond achieving academic success; it must also offer a nurturing environment where students develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes for a lifetime of success. All of the faculty, staff, and students at Bamber Valley Elementary School should be very proud of their accomplishments. I congratulate Bamber Valley Elementary School in Rochester, MN, for winning the Award for Excellence in Education and for its exceptional contributions to education in Minnesota.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, the most momentous votes I have cast during my years in this Senate were on two war resolutions, one against al-Qaida and the Taliban, which I supported, and the other against Iraq, which I opposed. After those life-and-death decisions, I cannot recall another vote of more long-lasting importance than on the two nominees for the United States Supreme Court: Chief Justice Roberts and now Judge Alito. The statements of my colleagues which I have witnessed have evidenced the utmost seriousness with which we have undertaken this grave responsibility. The Constitution does not prescribe any criteria which a President must consider in choosing his nominees for the Supreme Court. Neither does the Constitution prescribe any criteria by which Senators must consider those nominees and decide whether to vote for or against their confirmations. We must each establish our own measures, search our own consciences, and make our own individual decisions. Most of this process has been appropriately dignified and respectful, as it was with Chief Justice Roberts. I myself was not troubled by the detailed questioning of either nominee during their Judiciary Committee hearings. That is the one and only opportunity for any Senators to question a nominee in a public forum, before all Senators must decide whether or not to confirm that person to be one of nine Supreme Court Justices for the rest of his or her life. No other public office in this country offers such longevity and almost irrevocable security as Federal judiciary. I want to commend the members of the Judiciary Committee. I certainly want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Stevens regarding the distinguished chairman, Senator Specter, whose personal courage and integrity are examples for us all, and the ranking member, Senator Leahy, who also holds himself to those high standards. I have read the transcripts from their confirmation hearings. Their questions, and the extensive research which informed them, brought, I believe, great credit upon them and their committee. Judge Alito's answers were also illuminating about him, although not in the same way as committee members' questions. A New York Times headline best summarized for me Judge Alito's responses: It said, ``700 Answers; Few Glimmers.'' Again and again, his answers were evasive. Some were simply not believable. I would find it difficult to support Judge Alito's confirmation, given his past opinions, as expressed during his 15 years as a Federal Circuit Court Judge and also prior to that time as an official in the Reagan administration. I find it impossible to support him, given his recent lack of candor and credibility before the Judiciary Committee. Let me give some examples. On the critical question of whether he continues to believe, as he stated in 1985, that the Constitution does not provide a woman with the right to make her own reproductive decisions, regardless of how they affect her life or her health, Judge Alito would not give an answer. Nineteen times he was asked whether he believed Roe v. Wade was ``settled law,'' as Chief Justice Roberts affirmed during his Judiciary Committee hearings, as ``super precedent'' as the distinguished committee chairman suggested, or simply whether he had changed his 1985 position. He rejected the first two and refused to answer the third. My colleague, Senator Schumer, tried seven times to get a straight answer to a very straightforward question: In 1985 you stated--you stated it proudly, unequivocally, without exception--that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion. Do you believe that now? Judge Alito's replies included: I would address that issue in accordance with the judicial process as I understand it and I have practiced it. . . . and: Senator, I would make up my mind on that question if I got to it. . . . The most Judge Alito would say about Roe v. Wade or the subsequent Casey Supreme Court decisions was that they were precedents. As my sons used to say, ``Well, duh.'' Everyone knows that every prior Supreme Court decision constitutes a precedent. Again and again--and again-- Judge Alito invoked this platitude about respect for stare decisis, even though, as Senator Coburn pointed out, precedents have been overturned by the Supreme Court more than 170 times involving some 225 cases. Senator Coburn had the candor to state clearly that he wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned, so I can only assume that his pointed historical references were intended to reassure all with similar views that they could continue to rely on Judge Alito to help form a Supreme Court majority which would reverse Roe v. Wade. Judge Alito is certainly entitled to his personal views and constitutional interpretations. The American people are entitled to know what they are before he is placed on their Supreme Court for the rest of his life, because his views and interpretations will profoundly affect their lives and the lives of future Americans. Unfortunately, Judge Alito denied most of us those answers. It is noteworthy, however, that the Senators who feel most strongly about overturning Roe v. Wade all support Judge Alito and seem comfortable with his nonanswers. I can't imagine such equanimity without other, private assurances that the nominee's bland platitudes belie a bedrock anti-Roe predisposition, as he stated candidly in 1985. Certainly, the country's anti-abortion activists get it. The thousands of them who marched on the Capitol last Tuesday reportedly cheered every time Judge Alito's name was mentioned. Quoting parts of the New York Times and Washington Post reports: We must support the confirmation of Judge Alito and other jurists who will support a strict-constructionist view of the law and make it possible once and for all to end Roe v. Wade.'' Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), a leading House conservative, thundered. While Mr. Bush made no explicit mention of his nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court, the expectation that the judge would soon win Senate approval and join a majority in overturning Roe was clearly the overarching message of the rally. . . . Most chillingly: Nellie Gray, the president of March for Life, the group that organized the rally, said reversing Roe was this year's theme. Speaking to the crowd in fiery tones, Ms. Gray predicted that the United States would hold the equivalent of Nuremberg trials for ``feminist abortionists,'' calling support for a woman's right to choose ``crimes against humanity.'' Let me turn to other subjects. I agree with my colleague from Oklahoma, who told Judge Alito on the third day of the Judiciary Committee hearings: Integrity, I think, is the No. 1 issue. I always feel uncomfortable to stand in judgment of another person's integrity--or other matters of personal character--especially someone whom I do not know personally. No one is perfect. I like to say that there are no saints in politics--only shades of sinners. Yet I agree with Senator Coburn about the importance of integrity in a candidate for such a high public office as the United States Supreme Court or the U.S. Senate. So, I am very troubled by Judge Alito's answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee about two incidents: his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University and his initial failure to recuse himself from the case involving the Vanguard Group. Judge Alito acknowledged to the committee that he himself listed his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University in his 1985 application for appointment by then-President Reagan to an important position in the U.S. Department of Justice. Presumably, he considered his membership to be a positive reason for his favorable consideration. Yet he repeatedly professed total ignorance of the organization's repeatedly expressed, very extreme prejudices against the admission of women and minorities to his alma mater. His only acknowledged glimmer of recollection was that he was concerned about the status of ROTC on the Princeton campus, even though, the committee research found ROTC had been readmitted by Princeton way back in 1973, and the only reference to it found in the Concerned Alumni's publication, Prospect, was in 1985, ``ROTC is popular again.'' I find it not believable that Judge Alito would have no recollection of the extreme and extremely controversial views of the Concerned Alumni at the time he joined the organization or listed it as one of his credentials for the Reagan administration 20 years ago. He is too intelligent. His mind is too sharp. He recalls in great detail his judicial decisions and writings during the past 15 years and their precedents from the previous 200 years. He remembers the details of decisions in 1969 about ``one person--one vote.'' He remembers the context for other controversial statements in his 1985 application and subsequently. Yet he professes to be unable to remember why he joined the Concerned Alumni of Princeton University, why the president of Princeton wrote to all Princeton alumni in 1984, calling the organization's extremist views ``callous and outrageous,'' or why he thought his membership would enhance his appeal to the Reagan administration. I find it absolutely unbelievable. I am also troubled by many of Judge Alito's answers to questions about his initial failure to recuse himself from a case involving the Vanguard Group, in which he had a financial interest that preceded his appointment to the Third Circuit Court in 1990. During those confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito promised, in writing: I would disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard Companies. . . . I could accept--with reluctance, but I could accept--Judge Alito's admission that his failure to recuse himself was an ``oversight'' for which he accepted responsibility, after he and the White House initially tried to pass it off as a computer glitch. As Senator Feingold established, there is no evidence that Judge Alito ever registered his promise to the committee on the Court's recusal form in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, or any time before he failed to recuse himself in 2002. Then, however, Judge Alito reached for the escape hatch that Senator Hatch offered him, i.e., that his 1990 promise applied only to ``conflicts of interest during your initial service in the position to which you have been nominated.'' In the committee transcript, Chairman Specter said: You, in response to Senator Hatch, did not believe that you are bound by the promise, because you said in your mind that you felt that it was just for the initial aspects of it. Senator Kennedy said: That's another issue, because initially was meant to include the investments that you had at that particular time. You might have those investments and then discard an investment and, therefore, no longer have a conflict. That is what the asker of the question had intended. But you've added another wrinkle to it. You've just indicated that when you made a pledge to the committee that you were going to recuse yourself, that you thought that at sometime you were going to be released. . . . Judge Alito responded: Senator, as I said, I can't tell you 15 years later exactly what I thought when I read that question. It refers to the initial period of service. And looking at it now, it doesn't seem to me that 12 years later is the initial period of service. I know from my own experience--as Judge Alito should also know--that a financial conflict of interest lasts for as long as the financial interest. It is not in any way limited or mitigated by time. That is a matter of integrity, not interpretation. In other areas, I am deeply troubled by Judge Alito's well-documented biases against individual Americans and in favor of large and powerful corporations and government organizations. The Knight Ridder Newspapers, which publishes two of Minnesota's three largest newspapers, did an excellent analysis of Judge Alito's judicial record. I would like to quote excerpts from it. It begins: A Knight Ridder review of Alito's 311 published opinions on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals--each of singular legal or public policy importance--found a clear pattern. Although Alito's opinions are rarely written with obvious ideology, he's seldom sided with a criminal defendant, a foreign national facing deportation, an employee alleging discrimination or consumers suing big businesses. A review of Alito' s work on dozens of cases that raised important social issues found that he rarely supports individual rights claims. The primary exception has been his opinions about First Amendment protections. Alito has been a near freespeech absolutist in his writings, and he's been equally strong on protecting religious freedoms. But even some of his First Amendment opinions underscore the bent in the rest of his work. He hasn't strictly enforced church-state separation, and his love of the First Amendment seems to stop at the prison walls. He has written opinions that would deny prisoners access to reading materials and curtail their rights to practice their religious beliefs. In other areas, Alito often goes out of his way to narrow the scope of individual rights, sometimes reaching out to undo lower-court rulings that affirmed those rights. Alito has been particularly rigid in employment discrimination cases. Many conservative jurists set a high bar for plaintiffs who allege racial, gender or age bias in the workplace, but Alito has seldom found merit in a bias claim. In most of the employment discrimination cases, Alito succeeded in applying a standard higher than the Supreme Court requires to plaintiffs' claims, often forcing them to prove that bias was the motivation behind their misfortunes. In two cases, Alito dissented from 3rd Circuit rulings that allowed discrimination claims to proceed. In one, a racial discrimination case involving a black hotel maid, Alito agreed that the woman had been treated unfairly, but he said that the employer had produced enough evidence to show that the unfair treatment didn't amount to illegal discrimination. Although Alito is the son of Italian immigrants, his record in immigration cases is similar to his perspective in criminal cases. He's demonstrated an inclination to defer to the judgment of the immigration courts, which are under the Justice Department's umbrella. As a result, a noncitizen fighting deportation is paddling upstream with Alito. Legal scholars, and some of Alito's supporters, have pointed to his decision in the case of Parastoo Fatin, a young Iranian woman who was fighting deportation in the early 1990s, as evidence of his scholarship and his impact on immigration law. Alito ruled in Fatin's case that gender- based persecution could be grounds for asylum. But the ruling was a hollow victory for Fatin. She lost her case when Alito found that she hadn't shown enough factual evidence to prove that she'd be persecuted if she were sent back to Iran. It was typical Alito--an impeccably crafted decision that denied relief to an individual. Finally, I am very concerned with Judge Alito's view of executive power which reigns supreme over Congress and the judiciary. That radical view threatens the checks and balances the Constitution created among the three coequal branches of government to protect our democracy and the rights of all American citizens. All Senators--not just those on my side of the aisle--should be deeply troubled about Judge Alito's position on Executive power. He believes the President has the right to interpret laws as he wishes, rather than as they are written. As one illustration, while he served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Reagan administration, Judge Alito recommended the use of interpretive presidential ``signing statements''--statements issued by the President when signing a bill not only to explain why the President signed it into law but also to provide his view of how the law should be interpreted. The apparent purpose of such statements is to encourage the courts to pay as much attention to the President's interpretation of a law as they do to the legislative branch and give the President the ``last word on questions of interpretation.'' Judge Alito explained that such statements would ``increase the power of the Executive to shape the law.'' He also wrote in that memo: A ``President's understanding of a bill should be just as important as that of Congress.'' As a recent Los Angeles Times editorial stated, ``On its face, the assertion threatens to undermine the fundamental constitutional principle that it is for Congress to write the laws and for the executive to well execute them.'' President Bush has issued over 100 signing statements since 2001. The most notable was his signing statement a couple days after he signed into law H.R. 2863, the Department of Defense emergency supplemental appropriations, which contained Senator McCain's amendment banning inhumane treatment of detainees by U.S. personnel. The President, in his signing statement, basically asserted he could ignore parts of the law he had just signed under his constitutional authority. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a President can ignore the parts of a law he doesn't like. Nowhere in the Constitution is there mention of ``signing statements.'' The Constitution makes it very clear under article I, section 7 what the President can do with legislation that Congress has enacted. He can sign it into law as it is written by Congress or he can veto it. There is no other option. For almost 190 years, our country's first 39 Presidents followed this very clear language of the Constitution. However, then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alito in 1985 decided that he could ignore all those precedents and try to fabricate this ill-considered power for the President. As yet, the Supreme Court has not been called upon to decide whether this unprecedented exaggeration of Presidential power is Constitutional. Can there be any doubt, however, how Judge Alito would vote in such a case? In closing, some critics are blaming the Senators who oppose Judge Alito for the absence of bipartisan unanimity in support of the President's nominee. Their blame is misplaced. The way to get broad, bipartisan consensus for a Supreme Court nominee is for the President to nominate someone from near the middle of the judicial mainstream, a nominee who promises to be a Justice for all of the American people, not just for those on one side of the social spectrum. President Bush initially proposed someone who might have offered that possibility: Harriet Miers. In addition to her moderately conservative views, she would have maintained the Court's gender imbalance at two women and seven men. By contrast, if Judge Alito is confirmed, that appalling under-representation of America's women will become even worse. Our nation's highest court, the ultimate arbiter of the rights and protections for all citizens, will be comprised of eight men and only one woman, of eight Caucasians and only one minority. Unfortunately, the activist extremists on the country's political right erupted against Ms. Miers. Their vicious denunciations of the nominee and threats of political reprisals against her supporters prevailed, before her capabilities could be reasonably considered. Now some of that nominee's destroyers are sanctimoniously bemoaning the absence of unanimous support for this nominee. Unfortunately, their sound and fury, as Shakespeare said, signify nothing. Sadly, their winning this confirmation will not be a victory for this country because, tragically, they profoundly misunderstand the essential reason for the Supreme Court, which is to protect each one of us from all the rest of us, to protect the ``life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness'' of a minority of Americans from the potential domination by the majority. The nine men and women on the Supreme Court must protect everyone by belonging to no one. The goal of ``taking over'' the Supreme Court is shortsighted, narrow-minded, and wrong. Their success is America's peril. For our great Nation to continue to succeed, any and every such effort must fail. That failure is America's victory.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I wish to also honor the Edina Public School District, serving Edina, MN, which recently earned an Award for Excellence in Education for its exceptional achievements in educating children. The Edina Public School District is committed to instilling in its students not only knowledge, but also a sense of self-worth, creativity, and strong ethical values. To achieve these goals, Edina Public Schools offer a wide array of educational opportunities tailored to the diverse needs of its students. Students with limited English proficiency benefit from an exceptionally fine English as a Second Language program; more advanced learners are given new challenges through the district's Gifted Education Program; and students with special needs receive additional help through an outstanding Special Education program. Edina Public Schools also challenge students outside of the classroom. The district's top-notch athletic programs and team sports help students learn the value of both cooperation and competition. Student musicians, actors, and artists benefit from highly acclaimed musical, theatrical, and artistic cocurricular programs. Over 90 percent of Edina Public Schools' student body participate in cocurricular activities. The Edina Public School District recognizes that it must constantly adapt and improve its curricula to meet the ever-changing needs of its students. The district's superintendent, Dr. Kenneth Dragseth, and the dedicated faculty are always willing to incorporate new techniques and approaches to teaching. As a result, 95 percent of Edina High School's graduates who attend college report being well prepared for their college experience. All of the faculty, staff, and students at Edina Public Schools should be very proud of their accomplishments. I congratulate the Edina Public School District for winning the Award for Excellence in Education and for its exceptional contributions to education in Minnesota.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I further wish to honor the Community Learning Center in Austin, MN, which has earned an Award for Excellence in Education, for its outstanding commitment to lifelong learning. The Community Learning Center provides educational opportunities for students of all ages and skill levels--from infants to senior citizens. The Community Learning Center offers programs tailored to every type of learner, including, early childhood family education for parents and their young children; early childhood special education for students with special needs; adult basic education and family literacy for adults with limited reading and English skills; and community education, which offers ongoing education for all community members. The Community Learning Center is committed not only to lifelong learning but also to the empowerment and better quality of life that education makes possible. The center's learning programs help students to break the cycle of poverty, imparting skills that expand their opportunities for employment and that illuminate the value of education for children. The center is a model of quality education and community outreach and has enriched the lives of thousands of students. All of the center's faculty, staff, and students should be very proud of their accomplishments. I congratulate the Community Learning Center in Austin for winning the Award for Excellence in Education and for its exceptional contributions to education in Minnesota.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, today I wish to honor Pilot Knob Elementary School in Eagan, MN, which recently earned an Award for Excellence in Education for its exceptional and innovative achievements in educating children. Pilot Knob Elementary School, which serves a diverse population of 375 children in kindergarten through grade four, is truly a model of educational success. The school boasts a 96 percent attendance rate; test scores are well above average for most students; and many of the teachers are leaders in their fields. Pilot Knob Elementary has also devised an innovative approach to address bullying in school. Through its ``Take Time To Be Kind'' program, nine fourth graders donate their recess time to spread goodwill in the hallways, creating a safe and kind learning environment for all students. In addition to its students, Pilot Knob Elementary is also committed to its community. Recently, students raised $1,700 for UNICEF, to help victims of the tsunami in South Asia, and a similarly successful fundraising effort benefited a local shelter for homeless families. The school regularly opens its doors to the citizens of Eagan, welcoming not only staff and students but also parents, siblings, and neighbors to special school activities. Pilot Knob hosts a wide range of community events: from musical concerts to art and book fairs, to science experiment demonstrations, to ice cream socials. Much of the credit for Pilot Knob's success belongs to its principal, Byron Schwab, who was Minnesota's Principal of the Year in 2001. Principal Schwab and the dedicated faculty at Pilot Knob Elementary understand that, in order to be successful, a school must go beyond achieving academic success; it must also create a nurturing environment, where students learn the importance of respecting one another and the value of their community. All of the faculty, staff, and students at Pilot Knob Elementary should be very proud of their accomplishments. I congratulate Pilot Knob Elementary School in Eagan for winning the Award for Excellence in Education and for its exceptional contributions to education in Minnesota.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, last Saturday, President Bush castigated those of us who voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act. He said: That decision is irresponsible and it endangers the lives of our citizens. That is a mistaken characterization. Every Senator supported the Senate's reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act last July when it passed the Senate unanimously. Last Friday, 47 of us said the House-Senate conference report is not yet good enough. Before we make the PATRIOT Act permanent, we must make it right. The PATRIOT Act that we passed 4 years ago, which I supported, gave the Federal Government unprecedented powers to conduct surveillance on American citizens and demand information about their private activities, about their personal lives. We passed the PATRIOT Act hastily in the Senate 4 years ago, too hastily in retrospect. We passed it when my caucus was in the majority. So we, and I, were responsible for that haste. It seemed necessary in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. One important consideration for this Senator, then, when we voted for the PATRIOT Act was that it would sunset in 4 years, and this Congress would take the time to review it carefully and modify it as necessary to assure the proper balance between combating terrorism and protecting the privacy of innocent Americans. As I said 5 months ago, the Senate passed unanimously our reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act with important changes to protect constitutional rights of innocent American citizens. The House passed its version of the new PATRIOT Act in July, also, allowing plenty of time for the House-Senate conference committee to resolve their differences in the best interests of all Americans. But the House did not appoint conferees until last month. The House leaders chose to engage in this take-it-or-leave-it brinksmanship to try to force the Senate to accept their permanent invasion of the private lives of innocent Americans. Last Friday, 47 Senators--5 Republicans, 41 Democrats, and 1 independent--said: No, we will not accept this version of the PATRIOT Act. We do not oppose the PATRIOT Act, as the President and others have falsely charged. Most of us voted for the original law 4 years ago, and all of us in this Senate voted for the new one last July. Many of us, myself included, have proposed extending the existing law for another 3 months to give conferees time to resolve our remaining differences to design a permanent PATRIOT Act that most of us can support. What we haven't said is there is more brinkmanship with the President and the Senate leader threatening to let the existing law expire so they can blame 47 of us for supposedly weakening the protections of the American people. Let us be very clear. Let the American people be very clear. If the PATRIOT Act is allowed to expire, that is the choice and the responsibility of the President and the Senate majority leadership. Today is December 19. The Senate is still in session with 12 more days until the year's end. That is enough time either to revise the conference report so that it has broad bipartisan support in the Senate or to extend the existing law. All of us, every Member of this Senate, supported the Senate version of the new law that passed unanimously 5 months ago. It is absurd and wrong for detractors to claim that we do not support it now when we just disagree with a few but a very important few features in it. Last Saturday, President Bush also reasserted his right to do whatever he deems necessary to protect the American people from terrorist attacks. That is an enormous responsibility, one that Congress shares with him. However, we differ in our approaches. The President's legal counsel has opined that he has the constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and the legal authority from Congress post-9/11 to override or ignore any laws or limitations that he decides necessary to combat terrorism. Whether Congress intended ``any and all force necessary'' to include that authority is highly questionable. But that is the President's operating assumption. If the President can do whatever he wants, whether it is legal or not, and his decision to do it makes it legal, then in a sense the PATRIOT Act is not even necessary because the President can order it all done anyway. In another sense, however, our getting the PATRIOT Act right becomes even more imperative because we are a nation of laws, laws which must be followed by everyone--even the President, even the FBI, even the National Security Agency, during good times and bad, during war and peace, because our existence as a nation, as a constitutional democracy requires it and depends upon it. No external threat to our way of life could be so great as the danger that our rule of law not be obeyed by our most powerful institutions and individuals. This Senate exists to make those laws. Every one of us--all 100 of us--takes that responsibility most seriously because we assume that our laws matter, that they will be honored and obeyed, or that they will be enforced so that they will define the legal courses of action that everyone in this country must follow. Otherwise, we are irrelevant and laws that we enact are meaningless. Our operating assumption, however, continues to be that our laws will be obeyed, and, thus, our efforts in the Senate do matter. That is why we want and we deserve the time necessary to get our laws right. That is the way our process is supposed to work. All 41 or more Senators to hold up legislation in order to get it right is the way our process is supposed to work. It is strange, to say the least, that those who assert their right to ignore our rules and our laws are vilifying us in this Senate for following them. For people watching us today who may be unfamiliar with the details of the existing PATRIOT Act, let me give you an example of what it is that we are trying to correct. According to the Washington Post, last year, under the PATRIOT Act, some 56 FBI field agents signed over 30,000 national security letters. That is 100 times more than before the act. They were not directed toward possible terrorists but, rather, to people, to businesses, to universities, to libraries that might have information about people who might be terrorists. The PATRIOT Act requires them to turn over the information demanded, the most personal information, including health records, Internet use, upon demand, with no recourse. It is a criminal act under the PATRIOT Act for them to tell anyone else about the Government's demands, even to consult with an attorney. Under an Executive order which President Bush signed 2 years ago, all that private-personal information remains permanently in the Government's files and can be shared with other Government agencies even after the suspect has been determined to be completely innocent. The new PATRIOT Act, which 100 Senators unanimously supported last July, would not prevent the Federal Government from demanding that information on some 30,000 businesses, universities, and individuals every year in order to combat terrorism. It would only provide minimal legal rights of independent judicial review of those demands when some innocent person, business, library, or university believes the Federal Government has gone too far. No one wants to prevent the Federal Government from stopping terrorists or preventing terrorist acts against the United States. We do want to prevent some people, however well intended they believe they are, from going too far. Secret torture prisons in other countries is going too far. Spying on Americans is going too far. Denying due process, even the right to consult with an attorney, for innocent Americans, is going too far. Former Republican Congressman Robert Barr said it well: Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror. Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don't. It's truly frightening what is going on in this country. Thank you, Congressman Barr. Those in the Senate who believe the Constitution and our laws enacted under it still mean something, we are trying to get the PATRIOT Act before we make it permanent, and we deserve our right to do so. It is an inversion and a perversion of the values of this great Nation when it becomes legitimate to set up illegal torture prisons in other countries or to conduct illegal spying in this country but illegitimate for the Senate to carry out its own due process. This Senate must not adjourn for this year until we either extend the existing PATRIOT Act or pass a new one acceptable to a broad bipartisan majority of this Senate. Anyone who prevents Members from doing one or the other is placing their personal politics ahead of the protection of the American people. That would be dangerous and destructive personal politics. That is why we must vote on a 3-month extension of the existing PATRIOT Act or a new conference report before we adjourn this year. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I also want to join with my colleagues in paying tribute to our departing Senator from New Jersey, Senator Jon Corzine. I met him for the first time when we were both sworn in on January 3 of 2001. Even before that time, I knew of his success but also his high caliber by virtue of the fact that he was cochairman of a great firm, Goldman Sachs, whose previous contributions to the U.S. Government included John Whitehead, Deputy Secretary of State under President Reagan, and Robert Rubin, the Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton. Senator Corzine followed in that tradition of very successful men who could do anything they wanted with their lives for the rest of their lives but had chosen to commit themselves to public service. It has been an honor and a privilege and a pleasure to serve with Senator Corzine these last 5 years, to learn from his own wisdom and experience as it relates to so many matters affecting the betterment of our country, and then to watch him forego what would have been a safe track and a relatively easy reelection next year as a Senator because he felt he could be of better service to his fellow citizens from New Jersey by acting as their Governor, going through the rigors and ordeals of another campaign, a challenging endeavor but where he sacrificed himself and his own resources in order to give greater service to the people of New Jersey. Our loss in the Senate with his departure will be a gain for his fellow citizens from that State as he devotes full time in New Jersey to their better interests. I wish him well. We will miss him. He will carry out even further the great talents he has and his ability to improve his State and our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for her remarks and associate myself with them. I commend her for taking on this vital issue affecting all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the previous order be modified to permit Senator Byrd to precede me in speaking order.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the great Senator from West Virginia, and he is a great Senator. His 47 years of experience here and wisdom have made him an invaluable Member of this body, a leader of this body, an invaluable mentor to newcomers such as myself, and his fidelity to the Constitution, his understanding of history, his understanding of the appropriate relationship of this body, as an independent branch of Government, with the executive branch has been patriotic, courageous, and right. I thank him for his remarks and for his kind words. I also want to share the outrage that he expressed, and the previous speaker, the distinguished Senator from California expressed, about these disclosures. Yet another one today, reading in the New York Times about the secret spying on American citizens by the National Security Agency, in contravention of law and in contravention of previous policy under Presidents, Republican and Democrat. That, on top of the revelations about secret torture camps being conducted, again extra-illegally, by this administration, to the detriment of the great name of the United States of America. I see that the outstanding Senator from Arizona is on the floor and will follow me with his remarks. To his enormous credit, he has been the champion of putting the United States back on track and assuring that we set the example, the proper example, for the rest of the world in how to conduct itself even under adverse circumstances.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a great Minnesotan and great American, former Senator Eugene McCarthy, who passed away last Saturday at the age of 89. Senator McCarthy served two terms in this body, from 1958 to 1970, after serving five terms in the House of Representatives. In addition to his very distinguished legislative career, he is perhaps best remembered for his historic Presidential campaign in 1968, in which he deposed an incumbent President. Eugene Joseph McCarthy was born on March 29, 1916, in Watkins, MN. He graduated from St. John's University in Collegeville, MN, in 1935, and then earned a master's degree in economics and sociology at the University of Minnesota. After college, he spent 9 months as a novice in a Benedictine seminary. The world pulled him away, however, and he played semiprofessional baseball, taught high school social science, was a professor at his alma mater, St. John's, and then chaired the sociology department at St. Thomas University in St. Paul, MN. During World War II he worked in a military intelligence division of the War Department. He married a fellow teacher, Abigail Quigley, with whom he had three daughters and a son. Abigail McCarthy passed away in 2001. In 1948 Gene McCarthy was elected to the House of Representatives from Minnesota's Fourth Congressional District. While in the House, Congressman McCarthy founded McCarthy's Mavericks, which was the forerunner of the Democratic study group that would, in succeeding decades, be influential in developing many important legislative initiatives. In 1952, he was the first Member of Congress to challenge Senator Joseph McCarthy in a nationally televised debate on foreign policy. That political courage presaged his decision 15 years later to challenge an incumbent President. In 1958, Congressman McCarthy defeated an incumbent Senator to become Senator McCarthy. He was reelected to the Senate in 1964 with over 60 percent of the vote. Then, in November of 1967, he announced his candidacy for President, challenging the incumbent President of his own party, Lyndon Johnson. In his announcement speech he said: I am hopeful that this challenge may alleviate this sense of political helplessness and restore to many people a belief in the process of American politics and of American government. His candidacy ignited a new generation of political activists, many of them young college students who shaved, showered, and went ``Clean for Gene.'' They swarmed into New Hampshire for the first political contest of 1968. There they helped Senator McCarthy transform the political landscape by holding President Johnson to 49 percent of the vote in the Democratic primary, with 42 percent voting for Senator McCarthy. Seldom has a second-place finish been considered such a victory. Two weeks later, President Johnson withdrew his candidacy for reelection. Shortly thereafter, fellow Senator Robert Kennedy and fellow Minnesotan Vice President Hubert Humphrey entered the Presidential contest, two actions that Gene McCarthy would never forget or forgive. The Democratic contest became divisive in subsequent primaries, then catastrophic with the assassination of Robert Kennedy, then destructive at the tumultuous national convention in Chicago that nominated Hubert Humphrey, not Gene McCarthy. The nominee and the party did not recover from that disastrous convention and Richard Nixon was elected President in November. The Vietnam war continued for 7 more years. Gene McCarthy retired from the Senate in 1970 and never again held public office. Some of his later remarks, reflecting his disenchantment and his defiance, along with his acerbic wit, dismayed some Democrats and disillusioned former supporters. Gene McCarthy, however, was always his own man. He once said his definition of patriotism was ``to serve one's country not in submission, but to serve it in truth.'' He used his pen and his tongue to speak his own truth, regardless of the personal or political consequences. In that respect, he was a true patriot. After he was decried by Johnson's supporters as a mere ``footnote in history,'' he retorted, ``I think we can say with Churchill, `but what a footnote.''' You are much more than a footnote, Senator McCarthy. You were a U.S. Senator. You made history and you changed history. You were true to yourself, to your ideals and to your convictions. You were a poet, a philosopher, and a patriot, a great Minnesotan and a great American. May you rest in peace. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DAYTON. I think Senator McCarthy would be very impressed with the extemporaneous eloquence of the Senator from Iowa and very appreciative of his kind words. Of course, Iowa has the first Presidential contest. Back in those days, I would have seen a lot more of Senator McCarthy.

Mr. DAYTON. I thank my friend.

Mr. DAYTON

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2658 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DAYTON. All right. Thank you.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in the request, please note I have two amendments.

Mr. DAYTON. May I ask, do the managers intend to have final passage tonight?

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment 2629 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, this amendment would provide a Federal tax credit to farmers for 30 percent of their 2005 energy costs up to $3,000 per farmer. Qualified energy costs are those for fuels, utilities, fertilizers, heating and drying used in farming businesses of taxpayers during calendar year 2005. As my colleagues know, farmers have been especially hard hit by soaring energy prices. In addition to skyrocketing energy costs, many farmers have been hit with higher transportation costs. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, American farmers desperately need relief. The estimated $3 billion cost of this measure is more than offset by closing the tax loophole that gives a foreign oil and gas income tax credit for oil companies that provides $4.1 billion over 5 years. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act with respect to my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.