Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise on the House floor this evening to highlight the National Federation of Indian American Associations (NFIA). NFIA is an umbrella organization for over 200 associations, all of which represent the 2.2 million Americans of Indian origin. Since the establishment of NFIA in 1980, the organization has served the Indian American community at the local, State and national level, by protecting the basic civil rights of Indian Americans and by promoting their rich cultural heritage. NFIA is a secular organization that accepts membership from all Indian Americans, irrespective of religious, regional, ethnic, professional or political affiliation. In addition to representing and encouraging political participation by Indian Americans, NFIA is also active in promoting strong relations between the United States and India. NFIA is very active in the area of raising funds for natural disasters, both in the U.S. and India, and has funded many charitable projects. NFIA holds biennial conventions in various parts of the country to discuss, deliberate, and debate the contemporary issues facing the community. Lastly, NFIA conducts annual receptions on Capitol Hill in an effort to strengthen long-lasting relationships with Members of the House and Senate and to advance its agenda on behalf of Indian Americans and U.S.-India relations. In closing Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor the National Federation of Indian American Associations (NFIA) for its dedicated service.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to voice my outrage and great disappointment about a recent development in Turkey. A conference set to begin yesterday in Bogazici University, of Turkish scholars and academics, entitled ``Ottoman Armenians During the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy,'' was indefinitely postponed by the university organizers. According to Agence France-Presse, Turkish Justice Minister Cemil Cicek yesterday accused conference organizers of committing treason, saying, ``We must put an end to this cycle of treason and insults, of spreading propaganda against the Turkish nation by people who belong to it.'' In addition, Turkish officials have demanded copies of all papers submitted to the conference. The development further affirms the speculation that the image that the Turkish Government has attempted to create for itself is nothing more than a desperate attempt to create a facade. Contrary to what Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and other Turkish officials would have us believe, the Government of Turkey is not democratic, is not committed to creating a democracy, is not making an effort to create better relations with Armenia and is definitely not ready to join the European Union. Over the last year, we have witnessed the Government of Turkey attempt to move towards democratization. However, the manner in which they have chosen to do so is an insult to any truly democratic government. Their attempts have included the adoption of a penal code that, in reality, represents a dramatic display of the Turkish government's campaign to deny the Armenian genocide. Furthermore, this new criminal code further hindered improved relations between the Republic of Armenia and Turkey. Section 306 of this penal code punishes individual Turkish citizens or groups that confirm the fact of the Armenian genocide in Ottoman Turkey or call for the end of the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, with up to 10 years in prison. Far from coming to terms with the genocide or reaching out to Armenia, Turkey, in adopting Section 306 of its new penal code, hardened its anti-Armenian stance and undermined hopes for reduction of tension in the region. This sets the stage for possible legal action against conference planners and participants. The Turkish Government has refused to support rescinding this prohibition against free speech, despite international criticism. Mr. Speaker, with the cancellation of this conference, we find that the Government of Turkey will go to any length to avoid facing its bloody past. In just 2 weeks, Turkey's prime minister will be in the United States for an official visit, proclaiming that his nation is a democracy ready for full membership in the European Community and asking for U.S. support. The sad reality, Mr. Speaker, is that when it comes to facing the judgment of history about the Armenian genocide, Turkey, rather than acknowledging the truth, has instead chosen to trample on the rights of its citizens and still maintain lies. Hrant Dink, editor of the Armenian weekly Agos in Turkey stated, ``This decision strengthens the hand of those outside Turkey who say Turkey has not changed, it is not democratic enough to discuss the Armenian issue, it shows there is a difference between what the government says and its intentions.'' Numerous European countries, including Poland, France and Greece, have passed Armenian genocide resolutions and have continuously urged Turkey to admit its crime. Just this week, French President Jacques Chirac urged Turkey to recognize the genocide and said failure to do so could harm Ankara's drive to join the European Union. We cannot sit by and allow any nation that we consider an ally and a nation that is desperately seeking admission into the European Union to behave in such a manner. To bring this development into perspective, consider that according to current law in Turkey, dozens of U.S. Senators and hundreds of Congressmen would be punished simply for having voted for Armenian genocide resolutions, spoken about the lessons of this crime against humanity or commemorated the victims of the atrocity. So, too, would the American academic establishment, human rights groups, the mainstream media and just about everyone else aside from the Turkish embassy and its paid lobbyists here in Washington, D.C. Only by being prepared to admit mistakes and make amends can the Turkish Government truly be considered a nation governed by the values of democracy. This recent event reveals the vulnerable side of Turkey, one that is still hiding from its history and is incapable of learning from its mistakes so as to ensure that they will not be repeated in the future. Mr. Speaker, the United States prides itself on being the world's leader in spreading democracy and liberty. As an effective leader, it is our duty to recognize that Turkey is not yet a democratic state and it will take a sincere effort on the part of Turkey to make a transition from a government that currently advocates censorship and lack of freedom of speech to one that embraces the principles of democracy in its true meaning.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I very much support the Bradley amendment. At a time when American troops are dying on a daily basis in Iraq, we simply cannot afford to disrupt the military framework that our soldiers rely on every day to help them in their mission and to keep them alive. I want to say last week I listened to the BRAC hearings and I saw the commissioners ask many questions related to the fact that our military are now in combat. The Pentagon could not answer many of the more important questions that were asked by the BRAC commissioners. This was not the case in previous BRAC rounds. I have been here since 1988, and I have now been through three or four BRAC rounds. The fact of the matter is there were many unanswered questions regarding the future of our military, and it is simply not the right time to be shutting down military facilities here at home. If you listened to the BRAC last week and you listened to the questions, you could see why in fact the Bradley amendment makes sense. I want to mention one thing about my base, Fort Monmouth, that was mentioned already by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). What many people do not realize, and I will use Fort Monmouth but it could be any base, in the case of Fort Monmouth, though, we have people on a daily basis, soldiers in the field and their commanders that will call back and ask for a particular type of communications or electronic equipment that may have to be altered in a matter of days or a number of weeks in order to be able to be prepared for combat, to defend the soldier in the field, to make sure that they are not wounded, to make sure that they are adequately prepared for combat. Imagine a situation where in the course of the next 2 or 3 years, that research and development, that operation, that communication, electronics function, is transferred to another location and all that science and all that engineering background is lost. It would be very, very difficult to operate and make sure that that soldier in the field is properly equipped and is able to deal with that particular situation that he or she may face on a daily or weekly basis. That is why it does not make sense to do this in time of war. Support the Bradley amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to return to our districts for the Memorial Day work period, I think it is important for us to take a look at where we are today and how exactly we got here in the Congress. I think, for the most part, and certainly a lot of recent polls indicate it, the American people are fed up with the Congress, that the approval rate of Congress is at its lowest point in 10 years, and it leads me to wonder how did we get to this place? I think we have to take a look back at the first 5 months of the 109th Congress this year to get some answers. Earlier this year, the Republican leadership went ahead and changed the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct does its business. In the past, whenever ethics changes were being considered, they were addressed in a bipartisan fashion with both Democrats and Republicans at the table, and that is the only way ethics reform can honestly be addressed. But the Republican leadership ignored that protocol and strong-armed enough of their Members to pass new and weakened ethics rules, without any support from our Democratic colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people understood that these new ethics rules were basically a blatant attempt by the majority to protect one of their Republican leaders. These new rules allowed either party, Democrat or Republican, to protect its own Members. Under the new Republican rules, if a majority of the committee could not determine whether or not an investigation should proceed after 45-days of receiving a complaint, that complaint would simply be dropped. Since the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is made up of five members from each party, either side could prevent an ethics investigation from moving forward against one of its Members. That is not the way the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is supposed to work. Under the old bipartisan rules, which have now been restored, an investigative committee was created after a 45-day deadline if a majority of the committee could not determine how to proceed. The weakened ethics rules by House Republicans did not fool anybody, certainly not the editorial writers around the country, both liberal and conservative. They followed the House proceedings closely and they were essentially fed up with the new Republican rules. I will just give you some examples. The conservative Chicago Tribune said, ``How do House Republicans respond to ethical lapses? By trying to bury them.'' The Hartford Current wrote, ``The committee has been careening towards ethical oblivion in recent years as the majority Republicans have relaxed the standards, eased up on investigations and created trap doors through which alleged transgressors could escape.'' Finally I cite the Sarasota Herald Tribune, which wrote, ``If the GOP's leaders in Congress continue to change the rules to protect one of their own, they will have ceded the ethical high ground they pledged to take in 1994.'' Again, this is what I call the Republican abuse of power, and it is a major reason why people have lost faith in Congress and why Congress is at a 10-year low in terms of people's support or feelings about the institution. But the Republican leadership did not just stop at weakening the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct rules. No, the leadership also purged three Republican members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct earlier this year, three members who ruled against a Republican leader the previous year. After losing his chairmanship on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the Republican gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) told the Washington Post that there is ``a bad perception out there that there was a purge in the Ethics Committee and that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did.'' He continues, ``Nobody should be there to protect anybody. They should be there to protect the integrity of the institution.'' Mr. Speaker, it took congressional Republicans nearly 4 months to finally listen to their former ethics chairman and the media. But, fortunately, in the end they did restore the old bipartisan ethics rules. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) was clearly right, the integrity of the House is much more important than any one Member, and I think it is time the Republican leadership learn that lesson, not only on that Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issue but in general. The abuses of power by the Republican majority really make you wonder why they are necessary now. It seems clear to me that the Republican leadership went to all this trouble to protect one of its leaders. The Wall Street Journal charged ``there is an odor, an unsavory whiff at the highest reaches of the House of Representatives.'' Every single day it seems the Members of this body and the American people are subjected to another revelation of questionable actions by one of our colleagues. It is a constant drip that is getting close to a large puddle. Fortunately, as I said, the American people were not fooled by this abuse of power by the Republican majority with the ethics process. They saw the new rules for what they were, nothing more than an attempt to protect a powerful Republican leader, and finally, after media and public outcry became too much for the Republican majority to endure, Republicans agreed to reinstitute the old bipartisan ethics rules. However, it is important to remember that had the public been indifferent and had the Democrats on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct gone ahead and allowed the committee to organize under the weakened rules, today this House would be structured under ethics rules that would allow either side, Democrat or Republican, to shield its Members from scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, the Republican ethics reversal was good for this institution and good for the American people. Now, there are still a lot of questions remaining about what the Republican majority is doing with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. Despite the majority's change of heart on weakening the ethics rules, there are still several areas where the Republican leadership is continuing to delay any action by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. The new chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has said that he wants to appoint his chief of staff from his personal office to be the new staff director of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. This action would defy House rules, which state that Committee on Standards of Official Conduct staffers are to be nonpartisan. It is inconceivable that the rules would allow the chairman to unilaterally appoint a chief counsel without immediately running afoul of the rules. Trying to do so would be a clear violation of the rules, as well as an affront to the committee's tradition. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is supposed to be a place where Members can get straight, unbiased, trustworthy ethics guidance. How can Members who might have disagreements with the House leadership feel comfortable going to the committee for advice if they fear committee staff members are incapable of performing their official duties in a nonpartisan fashion? My point is that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct should be a politics-free zone. One way to ensure politics stops at the committee doors is to hire staff whose first loyalty is to the ethics rules of the House and second loyalty is in equal measure to the chairman, ranking member and remaining members of the committee. If committee staff are perceived as being loyal to or owing their position to only one member of the committee, their ability to render advice and investigate sensitive ethics issues will be called into question. I would say once again, Mr. Speaker, the American public see the games the Republican leadership is playing with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and they simply do not like it. They would rather see this committee go back to work in a bipartisan fashion, and now, so the Congress can address their concerns. Now I want to go from the one issue of abuse of power here in the House related to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to the other outrageous abuse of power in the other body, in the Senate, and this relates, of course, to the Senate filibuster. Senate Republicans have spent much of the last 4 months fixating on seven extreme judges President Bush once again sent up for confirmation after they had already been rejected during his first term. Rather than dealing with rising gas prices and an economy that continues to falter and other issues that people really care about, Senate Republicans attempted to have a power grab, unlike any other in the history of the U.S. Senate. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican quest for absolute power in Washington was temporarily halted last night by 14 Senators. And this was a truly bipartisan group. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans came together to save the Senate from moving forward with an extreme power grab that would have undermined the very checks and balances that have existed in our Nation for over 200 years. Senator Frist and the Senate Republican leadership were prepared to wage an unprecedented political power grab on the filibuster. They wanted to change the Senate rules in the middle of the game and wanted to attack our historic system of checks and balances with the filibuster so that they could ram through a small number of judicial nominees who otherwise could not achieve a consensus. In reality, the power grab by the Senate Republican leadership in trying to eliminate the filibuster did not really have much to do probably with the current judicial nominees, but instead it was an attempt by the White House and conservative interest groups to clear the way for a Supreme Court nominee eventually who would only need 51 votes rather than 60. Conservative interest groups and a large majority of Senate Republicans are not happy with the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. They do not want to see another David Souder or Anthony Kennedy nominated to the Supreme Court, even though they both were confirmed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support. They would prefer to see President Bush nominate a Supreme Court Justice like Clarence Thomas, who, because of extreme views, could not garner strong bipartisan support. In Justice Thomas's case, he only received 52 votes, and he has proven to be an extremist. If the Senate had proceeded with this power grab and gotten rid of the filibuster, President Bush would have been able to appoint right- wing judges to the Supreme Court. The President has already said he most admires Justices Scalia and Thomas and I think it would be frightening to think of another Justice with that same mold. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day a group of 14 bipartisan senators kept the Senate Republican leadership from moving forward with this extreme power grab. The bipartisan compromise that was reached last night shows that President Bush is not going to be able to ignore the moderate views of these senators when he appoints future justices to the Supreme Court, and I think that is certainly good news for our country. I think certainly what was happening here, Mr. Speaker, was that the White House was manufacturing a crisis with these judicial nominees. The American people know that there was absolutely no reason for the Senate to take the measure of eliminating the minority's right for input on judicial nominees. The White House has essentially manufactured this judicial crisis because if you look at the record, over the past 4 years, the Senate has confirmed 208 of Mr. Bush's judicial nominations and turned back only 10. That is a 95 percent confirmation rate, higher than any other President in modern times, including presidents Reagan, the first President Bush, and President Clinton. In fact, it is thanks to these confirmations that President Bush now presides over the lowest court vacancy rate in 15 years. Despite what Senate Republicans are saying today, judicial nominees have not always received an up-or-down vote on the Senate Floor. In fact, back in 2000, it was Senate Republicans that attempted to filibuster two of President Clinton's appointments to the Ninth Circuit Court. Senator Frist, the architect, of course, of eliminating the filibuster now, voted to continue a filibuster of a Clinton nominee, Richard Paez. There are also other ways the senators can prevent a nominee from receiving an up-or-down vote on the Floor, and this has happened many times in the past, which shows why it is not the case that there has to be an up-or-down vote. Judicial nominees have often been stalled in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. More than one-third of President Clinton's appeals court nominees never received an up-or-down vote on the Floor of the Senate because Senator Hatch, then the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, refused to bring the nominees' names up for a vote in the committee. And, I think it is extremely disingenuous of Senator Frist to say that all nominees are entitled to an up-or-down vote when he himself helped Senate Republicans block President Clinton's nominees in the late 1990s. We did not hear him talking about an up-or-down vote then when President Clinton was nominating judges. I just want to say, once again, Mr. Speaker, I think that the bipartisan agreement reached last night was extremely valuable. It will keep two of the President's nominees from moving forward who really do not deserve to be appointed, and I would hope that the President would learn from last night's action that, unlike the House, the Senate is not a chamber that will be a rubber stamp for his extreme views. Let us hope that President Bush was listening and will resist nominating extreme right-wing judges to our courts in the future. But all of this, not only the action in the House on the ethics rules, but also the action in the Senate on the filibuster, I think they are examples really of how the Republican majority has abused its power. And the consequence of that is that the public is increasingly disappointed and feels that the Congress does not do its job, that it is essentially a do-nothing Congress. And as we approach the Memorial Day recess, I think I need to stress that, that I believe the reason why the polling and the media shows that people no longer have faith in Congress or that the support of Congress as an institution has dropped significantly is because of the Republican leadership's fixation on these issues that consolidate their power, that seek to consolidate their power without focusing on the real issues that affect the American people. A USA Today CNN poll that was released today, Mr. Speaker, showed that the American people are fed up with Republican control of Congress and are ready for a democratic Congress. And who can blame them? If they had been watching the abuses of power that had been taking place in both the House and the Senate in the last four months, they would have to be disgusted. Beyond that disgust, I think it is clear that they just want Congress to address the issues of importance in their lives, and we are going to be going into a Memorial Day recess without most of those issues being addressed. It really has been, for the last five months, a do-nothing Congress. For five months now, congressional Republicans have done nothing to reverse their abysmal economic record. The fact is that middle class families are being squeezed at the gas pump, at the pharmacy with high drug prices, and in the grocery store. There are growing signs of a faltering economy, with President Bush still having the worst jobs record in history. Instead of addressing the serious kitchen table issues of American families, education, health care, you name it, Republicans are focusing on legislation that is written for the special interests and will actually harm middle class families. Instead of increasing the minimum wage and expanding prosperity, Republicans are focused on undercutting bipartisan ethics rules. Instead of creating good jobs with good paychecks by completing the much-delayed highway bill, for example, Republicans choose to focus instead on undercutting the checks and balances on judicial nominations by focusing on the filibuster. Instead of enacting an energy bill that improves our communities and brings down gas prices and tries to create more energy independence, the Republicans have channeled their energy into replacing Social Security with a risky privatization scheme that clearly most Americans do not support, and the President probably is going to have to eventually abandon. And, instead of passing a budget that reflects the values of America's families, Republicans brought the entire Federal Government to intervene in the personal tragedy of just one family, and I am, of course, talking about the Terry Schiavo case. I think it is no wonder that the American people are not pleased with Congress, and I think it is time congressional Republicans take a hard look at these polls. I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that we should always be looking at polls, but in this case, the polls reflect what people are thinking. I go back, and I will, of course, go back to my district during the Memorial Day recess, and I know I am going to hear from people who are saying, why are you not talking about health care, why are you not talking about education? What are you doing about the trade deficit? What are you doing about the budget deficit? What is the reason why a crisis for everything from housing to groceries to gas continue to go up, and we in Congress do not address the issues. I am simply saying that the Republican leadership should listen to their constituents. The polls reflect, I think, what our constituents are telling us. I think the American people really want these abuses of power to stop. They do not want to hear us talking about the filibuster and about the ethics process; not that those are not important, they are, in terms of the procedures and how we proceed. But, in each of these cases, the Republicans wanted to change the procedure here so that they could get their own way, and instead of concentrating on those procedural issues and trying to change the rules, they should get down and look at issues like the rising cost of college, the rising cost of health care, the rising price of gas at a time when most people's wages are shrinking. It is simply time, I think, for us to get down to the people's business. I hope that when we come back after the Memorial Day recess, that we can see the end of these Republican abuses of power, we can see the end of their trying to change the rules and, rather, focusing in a bipartisan way on trying to address some of the Americans concerns of the American people. Steps Toward Peace in Israel I just wanted to switch to a different issue, if I could, Mr. Speaker, for a few minutes, because I know that this Thursday is an historic day when the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is going to be visiting Washington to talk to President Bush. I wanted to discuss briefly the recent developments in the Middle East peace process and how that relates to this historic visit to Washington by the Palestinian leader. This is the first time a Palestinian leader has visited the United States since peace talks in 2000 collapsed into bloodshed. This is a critical opportunity for Abbas to prove to Israel and the world that their commitment to peace goes beyond rhetoric and that the Palestinian leadership is taking concrete steps towards peace. Just as this is an important opportunity for Abbas to show that he is committed to peace, Abbas's visit to Washington is an equally important opportunity for the United States to further encourage reforms in the Palestinian Authority. As one of my constituents said to me this afternoon, and this is one of the reasons that I am here this evening, the United States must be willing to hold Abbas's feet to the fire. That being said, in order for negotiations to move forward, Abbas must rise to the occasion. He must take steps to dismantle Hamas and the Palestinian terrorist network. Security is of the utmost concern for Israel and Hamas is a direct threat to the safety of the Israeli people. Mr. Speaker, Israel has taken remarkable risks over the last few months to advance the peace process. By the end of this summer, Israel has agreed to withdrawal its military and civilian presence from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the West Bank, and this decision was made at great political, financial, and emotional risk for the Israeli people. In his speech today in Washington at the annual meeting of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that he is willing to work with Abbas to ensure a secure transition in Gaza. Cooperation on this level is an unprecedented step. It is critical that the Palestinians work to ensure a safe transition, that any looting or violence is prevented. Israel has taken the dramatic step of withdrawal; Abbas must then ensure that Gaza does not become a haven for terrorists. This morning, Sharon also announced that as a sign of good faith, he plans to release 400 Palestinian prisoners. This is in addition to the 500 prisoners freed in February as part of an agreement between the two sides. I would urge President Bush to be firm in his meeting with Abbas on Thursday that any support of terrorism will not be tolerated, that these next couple months will be critical if the peace process is to continue, the disengagement, and the upcoming Palestinian elections must go smoothly. Mr. Speaker, I would like all of my colleagues to be cautiously optimistic about the situation in Israel. These initial steps are heartening, but the words must be met with action. I had the opportunity almost two years ago to go to Israel at the time when there was a cease-fire and there was relative peace. At that time Mahmoud Abbas was the Prime Minister, and I realized very quickly that he was not in a position of authority and that it was not likely that the peace process was going to continue or that the cease-fire was going to continue. Very quickly, after myself and the rest of the congressional delegation left, the violence began again, Abbas ceased to be the Prime Minister, and we went through essentially another year, over a year of violence, if not longer than a year. I hope that this time is different. I hope that because of the overtures and the steps that Ariel Sharon has taken, that we can see now a situation where Abbas is ready to negotiate and to end the violence. But I do think it is incumbent upon President Bush to make that point, that we are not going to see peace, we are not going to see any new negotiations, we are not going to see any roadmap unless Abbas and the Palestinian Authority immediately take steps to ensure that there is peace and that violence does not continue.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the Republican quest for absolute power in Washington was temporarily halted by 14 Senators last night. A truly bipartisan group of Senators, 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans came together to save the Senate from moving forward with an extreme power grab that would have undermined the very checks and balances that have existed in our Nation for over 200 years. Senator Frist and the Senate Republican leadership were prepared to wage an unprecedented political power grab. They wanted to change the rules in the middle of the game and wanted to attack our historic system of checks and balances so they could ram through a small number of judicial nominees who otherwise could not achieve a consensus. In reality, the power grab that the Senate Republican leadership was prepared to move ahead with today had very little to do with these seven extreme nominees. Instead, it was all an attempt by the White House and conservative interests groups to clear the way for a Supreme Court nominee who would only need 51 votes rather than 60. Conservative interest groups and a large majority of Senate Republicans are not happy with the current make up of the Supreme Court. They do not want to see another David Souter or Anthony Kennedy nominated to the Supreme Court, even though they both were confirmed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support. They prefer to see President Bush nominate a Supreme Court justice like Clarence Thomas, who because of extreme views could not garner strong bipartisan support. In Thomas's case he only received 52 votes, and has proven to be an extremist. If the Senate had proceeded with this extreme power grab, President Bush would have been able to appoint extreme right wing judges to the Supreme Court. The president has already said that he most admires Justices Scalia and Thomas. How frightening to think of another Justice from that same mold. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day a group of 14 bipartisan Senators kept the Senate Republican leadership from moving forward with the extreme power grab. The bipartisan compromise was reached last night and shows that President Bush is not going to be able to ignore the moderate views of these Senators when he appoints future justices of the Supreme Court. And that is good news for our Nation. There was simply no reason for the Senate to take the extreme measure of eliminating the minority's right for input on judicial nominees. In fact, the White House has manufactured the so-called judicial crisis. Over the past 4 years, the Senate has confirmed 208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10. And that is a 95 percent confirmation rate, higher than any other president in modern time, including Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton. In fact, it is thanks to these confirmations that President Bush now presides over the lowest court vacancy rate in 15 years. Now, Mr. Speaker, despite what Senate Republicans are saying today, judicial nominees have not always received an up or down vote on the Senate floor. In fact, back in 2000, it was Senate Republicans that attempted to filibuster two of President Clinton's appointments to the 9th Circuit Court. Senator Frist, the architect of the power grab voted to continue a filibuster of Clinton nominee, Richard Paez. There are also other ways Senators can prevent a nominee from receiving an up or down vote on the floor. Judicial nominees can and have been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. More than one-third of President Clinton's appeals court nominees never received an up or down vote on the floor because Senator, Hatch, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee refused to bring the nominees names up for a vote in the committee. It is extremely disingenuous of Senator Frist to say that all nominees are entitled to an up or down vote, when he himself helped Senate Republicans block President Clinton's nominees in the late 1990s. You did not hear Senator Frist demanding an up or down vote then. Now, the bipartisan agreement reached last night will keep two of the President's extreme nominees from moving forward. And I would hope the President would learn from last night's action that unlike the House, the Senate is not a chamber that is going to rubber stamp his extreme views. Let us hope that President Bush was listening and will resist nominating extreme judges to our courts in future.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in 2003 the U.S. General Accounting Office released a report that was done at the request of myself and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and, I believe, other Members of Congress that found with regard to terrorist threats that no Federal agency has assessed the extent of security preparedness at chemical plants and that no Federal requirements are in place to require chemical plants to assess their vulnerabilities and take steps to reduce them. I wanted to talk briefly tonight about this issue of the need for security at chemical plants. I was very pleased to note yesterday in the New York Times the lead editorial addressed this issue. I wanted to read from some sections of that editorial and comment on it. In one part of the New York Times editorial yesterday it says, ``There is no way to guarantee that terrorists will not successfully attack a chemical facility, but it would be grossly negligent not to take defensive measures. The question Americans should be asking themselves, says Rick Hind, Legislative Director of the Greenpeace Toxics Campaign, is, `If you fast-forward to a disaster, what would you want to have done?' '' And this is what the New York Times and what Greenpeace say should be some of the priorities: ``First, tighter plant security. There should be tough Federal standards for perimeter fencing. Concrete blockades, armed guards and other forms of security at all of the 15,000 facilities that use deadly chemicals. ``Second, use of safer chemicals. Refineries, when practical, should adopt processes that do not use hydrofluoric acid, the chemical that is now putting New Orleans at risk. Some plants that once used chlorine, such as the Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant in Washington, D.C., have switched to safer alternatives. ``Third, reducing quantities of dangerous chemicals. An important reason that chemical facilities make such tempting targets for terrorists is the enormous quantity of chemicals they have on hand. The industry should be encouraged and in some cases required to store and transport dangerous chemicals in smaller quantities. ``Fourth, limiting chemical facilities in highly populated areas. Many chemical facilities were built long before terrorism was a concern and when fewer people lived in their surrounding areas. There should be a national initiative to move dangerous chemical facilities, where practical, to lower population areas. ``Fifth, government oversight of chemical safety. The chemical industry wants to police itself through voluntary programs, but the risks are too great to leave chemical security in private hands. Facilities that use dangerous chemicals should be required to identify their vulnerabilities to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Homeland Security and to meet Federal safety standards.'' Now, those are the five points that were are mentioned by the New York Times yesterday in their editorial, and also by Greenpeace. But I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, that more than 3 years have passed since 9/ 11 and Congress has yet to seriously address the need to secure our Nation's chemical plants. We are finally seeing some movement in the Senate, but not yet in the House. And it is time to take serious action to reduce the threat of an attack on a chemical facility which would endanger millions of lives. Last month I reintroduced the Chemical Security Act, H.R. 2237, which requires the EPA and the Department of Homeland Security to work together to identify high-priority chemical facilities. Once identified, these facilities would be required to assess vulnerabilities and hazards and then development and implement a plan to improve security and use safer technologies within 18 months. Senator Corzine has introduced this bill in the Senate. Now, since the legislation was first introduced in the House in 2002, I have tried to get the Republican leadership to conduct a congressional hearing on chemical security. And I welcomed the announcement last week on the House floor during the discussion or debate on the Homeland Security bill, there was an announcement that the House Select Committee on Homeland Security chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) said his committee would hold a hearing or start a series of hearings on chemical security beginning June 14. I would also like to see my own committee, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has jurisdiction over chemical facilities, to follow the gentleman from California's (Mr. Cox) lead and schedule hearings or begin to have hearings this summer. Hopefully, we will see some positive signs, some movement in the House, at least to have hearings on the issue, but it really is a very important issue, not only for New Jersey, my home State, but throughout the country. I am also pleased that the New York Times has pointed this out. Greenpeace, of course, has talked about a number of initiatives even beyond the ones that were mentioned in the New York Times, and I plan to spend some time over the next few weeks talking to Greenpeace about whether additional legislation is necessary to address some of their concerns.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment. Let me be very clear. This amendment would not ban all blending. In fact, it would have no effect on any currently permitted uses of blending. The Clean Water Act already says you can blend but only during a serious rain event. The EPA's proposed policy change, however, would let sewer operators bypass secondary treatment anytime it rains. That is what really could add a lot more sewage to our waters. I have been fighting this proposal every step of the way and the EPA has finally said they are not going to do it. However, we must make sure that they do not. I understand that the EPA is now saying they are no longer going to finalize this proposed policy change, but they could change their mind tomorrow. It should be a very easy vote for Members. We are saying that this is a bad idea. The EPA is now saying it is a bad idea. We are just making sure that the EPA actually does what it says it will do, because, who knows, tomorrow they may change their mind. But I do not want anybody here to think that all blending is going to be banned. You can still do it during a serious rain event, but you should not be allowed to do it anytime you want because that is going to increase tremendously the volume of material that does not have secondary treatment. And you will not have secondary treatment if you allow this policy to go ahead. It will be able to make an exemption anytime you please, and that is the problem. Our waters will get dirty. It will affect our tourism, our shellfish in coastal States around the country. Do not allow it to happen.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, immediate action should have been taken on chemical plant security after the wake-up call we got from the 9/11 attacks. I have introduced the Chemical Security Act in the past two Congresses, but the House has never considered my legislation. Across the country, the EPA has identified 123 facilities where a toxic gas release due to a terrorist attack could injure or kill more than 1 million people. The Thompson substitute would give the problem of chemical security plants and their security the attention it needs, and I would urge the House to adopt the Thompson substitute for that provision and all the other reasons that have been given here today.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate, or support again what my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), said. And I appreciate the comments from our ranking member, but the problem is that the House has not been willing to take up, even in our subcommittee, this issue. In other words, it would be great if we had the opportunity to bring up a bill, I have mentioned the Chemical Security Act, that would actually mandate that companies do in fact come up with their own assessment plans to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. I agree that would be a great thing. But, again, we are not moving in that direction. We have not even had a hearing in our subcommittee on this issue. Absent that, what we need is some money going back to the States. Because under the Menendez amendment, if money was going back to the States specifically for a chemical security response, then a State like our own of New Jersey would be able to take that funding and basically do some of the things that we would like the Federal Government to do that they are not doing. So this would accomplish that goal at least for those States that want to take the initiative; that they would have some money for their State and local programs to make the chemical companies respond and do something about this threat. The problem now, as our ranking member said, this is not happening. It is strictly left up to the voluntary efforts of the chemical plants, and that is not a good response.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in support of the Menendez amendment, and I want to mention to the gentleman that I know that he is also familiar with this issue, being the ranking member on the subcommittee on the Committee on Energy and Commerce that has jurisdiction over chemical security; and I would hope that as time goes on that we could in our committee, in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and specifically in the gentleman's subcommittee, have a hearing and address this issue in a more comprehensive way because I do think it needs to be addressed. In the meantime, I agree with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), my colleague, that we should provide additional funding in this appropriations bill to have our State and local responders try to address this issue in a significant way or at least provide some funding so that they could. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) mentioned, we have a number of facilities in our own State of New Jersey where we know that under this EPA report over 1 million people at each of those facilities could be negatively impacted if there was a terrorist attack on a chemical facility. He mentioned at least eight. In fact, in a hearing just last week in the United States Senate, Mr. Robert Falkenroth, who was a former Bush official with the Homeland Security Department, actually said before the United States Senate that his biggest fear in terms of another terrorist attack would be an attack on a chemical facility. He knows and we know and the Department of Homeland Security knows that this is the one area in the aftermath of 9/11 that has not been addressed. We have talked about attacking a nuclear plant. We have talked about attacks on port facilities. We have talked about attacks at airports. In every case, there has been an effort by this body to address a terrorist attack and to deal with security issues at those various facilities, but not so in the case of chemical plants. For whatever reason, we have said to the industry that you are on your own; you voluntarily set your own standards. We have not taken action in the House of Representatives or in the Senate to address the issue, and I think that is a shame. There have been various occasions in the past, most notably in the case of Bhopal, many of my colleagues just remember we just had the 20th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster. In the case there, Union Carbide owned a plant. It was not a terrorist attack, but the result there was over 20,000 people killed. That was not because of a terrorist attack. That was because of neglect or negligence on the part of Union Carbide. It had nothing to do with a terrorist attack, but the devastation at Bhopal, not the 20,000 that were killed but the hundreds of thousands in the aftermath of that crisis 20 years later, are still suffering, have not received medical attention, the impact on their children and the disorders that they are now seeing with their children, I mean, this is the type of thing that needs to be addressed, and it is not being addressed here. I think my understanding is that the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Menendez) amendment would shift $50 million to State and local programs to try to get them to address this issue. Now, I think we need a comprehensive program. Senator Corzine and myself have introduced the Chemical Security Act, myself here in the House, he in the Senate, which basically establishes a nationwide program that would require that chemical plants provide for security. But absent that, because we have not had that, we have not even had a hearing on it in this House, we need our local responders and our State responders, the way my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), has described, to have some money so they can go out and do some things to try to shore up this problem and deal with this problem. So I just want to say again that this is something we should do. It has been neglected here in the House. Hopefully, we will pass the Menendez amendment. Hopefully, we will have a hearing in our subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, and we can begin the process with this amendment of addressing this very important issue not only for the State of New Jersey but for the Nation as a whole.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Michigan and his willingness to come down here tonight. I know we both feel very strongly about this. Sometimes I think it is hard to explain because people's images of the filibuster are somebody standing up on the Senate floor reading the phone book, almost like ridiculing the process. But the bottom line is it is a very important part of our democracy. As you mentioned and I really did not get into it much tonight but I will mention briefly that we have seen here in the House many abuses of power by the Republican majority. You mentioned some of them, where bills do not even come to committee anymore, or bills in committee do not have a hearing, or they skip the subcommittee mark, or they go to full committee and they do not allow Democrats to offer amendments, or bills come to the House floor with a totally closed rule, so there is no opportunity for amendment, or there is very little time for debate. In fact, one of the reasons that you and I are here tonight doing special orders is because oftentimes we do not get a chance to speak during the day when legislation is being discussed because the rules are very limiting. We have just seen many examples where the Republican majority has limited in the House of Representatives the ability of the minority to speak or offer amendments or offer changes in policy. We do not want to see the Senate go down that route. Clearly, particularly on judicial nominations, the intent of the framers was that there had to be a consensus and the Senate was going to be a deliberative body that operated more, as I said, on a consensus basis. I just wanted to say again, I was making reference to this document from the People for the American way where Senator Frist is justifying this nuclear option or this parliamentary maneuver where he would simply have a majority vote on a rule change and that has never been done in the history of the United States Senate. For over 200 years, nearly as long as there has been a Senate, there have been documented examples of presidential nominations rejected by the Senate without even having an up-or-down vote, through delay, inaction, parliamentary tactics, including the filibuster. That history, I think, demonstrates conclusively that from the text of the Constitution there is no requirement for the Senate to vote on a presidential nomination. There is not a requirement that the Senate take any action at all on a nomination, which has often been the case. And the history of the confirmation process in the Senate illustrates another central fact, that Presidents have had the most success with their nominations when they have viewed the entire Senate as a partner in the nominations process, not an adversary. If you listen to Senator Frist, it is as if the Democrats are an adversary. That is not the way it is supposed to be. The better way out of this current stalemate and the best way to preserve our independent judiciary is not the tyranny of the majority in the Senate but a genuine bipartisan cooperation and consultation with Senators on both the Democrat and the Republican side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, as I said and my colleague has said, we continue to see abuse of power by the congressional Republicans. I will give you another example. Earlier this year here in the House, Republican leaders ignored protocol and weakened the House ethics rules without ever talking with Democrats about the proposed rules change. It was the first time the House ethics rules have been changed without both sides, Democrats and Republicans, sitting at the table and writing new rules together. Fortunately, both conservative and liberal newspapers around the country and the American people saw the weakened rules for the Ethics Committee for what they were, just a power grab and an attempt by the Republican leadership to protect one of their own. The Republican leaders were forced to backtrack and reinstate the rules a couple of weeks ago after Democrats refused to allow the Ethics Committee to meet until the rules were reinstated and the pressure from the public became too great. But it appears that the Senate Republicans learned nothing from that experience in the House with the rules change that the House Republicans tried to make here. Instead, the Senate Republicans seem prepared to overreach this week, as my colleague said, we hear as early as Wednesday, in an attempt to blow up 200 years of tradition in the U.S. Senate. Majority Leader Frist and Senate Republicans are on the cusp of waging an unprecedented political grab, abusing their power in order to force through a few judges who have been unable to earn a bipartisan consensus for their lifetime judicial appointments. This power grab was initiated by the White House, which manufactured a judicial crisis. I think my colleague from Michigan mentioned that since President Bush has taken office the Senate confirmed 208 of his judicial nominations and turned back only 10, a 95 percent confirmation rate. That is the highest approval rating for any President in modern times, including Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Thanks to these confirmations, President Bush now presides over the lowest court vacancy rate since Ronald Reagan was President. There is no judicial crisis here, Mr. Speaker. It is manufactured by the Republicans. Despite the fact that Democrats have helped confirm 95 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees, the President is choosing to pick fights and resubmit the names of nominees who have been rejected during his first term. There were 10 nominees that our Democratic colleagues in the Senate opposed because they had serious questions about their independence and fairness. One wonders, why are the Republicans preparing to throw out all these constitutional checks and balances just for a couple of extreme judges? Some people say it is because of the Supreme Court, that President Bush wants this fight on the filibuster before a Supreme Court justice retires, which is something that could happen anytime. That may be what is behind it, but it is still really not the way to proceed. To say that Supreme Court nominees would only need 51 votes instead of 60, again there would be no consensus on the very important selection of Supreme Court judges. Again, I think it is just the right wing of the Republican Party that wants to appoint extreme conservatives to the highest court in the land and they simply know they cannot do it if they have to meet the 60-vote threshold. The White House does not want to nominate another David Souter or an Anthony Kennedy or a Sandra Day O'Connor or a Steven Breyer, all of whom were confirmed with nearly unanimous bipartisan support. Instead, it wants to divide the country by picking a right- wing Supreme Court nominee that it knows could not garner bipartisan support. I just think that again although the motivation may be in terms of the Supreme Court, the bottom line is that we should not be sacrificing this very important safeguard of our democracy, the filibuster, just to appoint some conservative judges that the President wants to nominate. The last thing I wanted to say, again there is a difference between the House and the Senate. The framers did not want the Senate and the House to be the same. They saw two different bodies. One of the things that would likely happen is if this nuclear option was presented and the filibuster was overturned is the Senate would basically become a second House of Representatives. That is not what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they created two distinct Chambers. Again, I do not know what is going to happen, but I think we have to speak out and say that this is not just something that myself and my colleague from Michigan feel strongly about. I know and I have even seen polling that suggests that the American people feel very strongly about this. That is one of the reasons why we had this 2 or 3-week filibuster at Princeton University and why some of the Princeton students came down here last week and brought a bus, they called it the ``filibus,'' we were down on the Mall and we spoke to make the point of how important the filibuster is as a safeguard of democracy.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is just an excuse. I think they are using the judicial nominees and ultimately we will see it for everything else. There is no reason to make the distinction. I would argue there is a stronger case for judicial nominees because they are lifetime judges, and so it is an even stronger case why there should be a consensus and a filibuster should be used.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to use all the time this evening, but I did want to take to the floor this evening on the first day of this week because of my concern of what may be happening in the Senate on the issue of the filibuster. I know that the word filibuster to many may seem a little obscure. People ask what it is about, why it is significant, but I do want to say that in my home State of New Jersey there have been many manifestations by New Jersey residents of all walks of life about their concern if the Senate Republicans were to go so far as to eliminate the filibuster. About 2 or 3 weeks ago, at Princeton University in New Jersey, a group of students started their own filibuster to basically point out how important they thought the filibuster was, and they went on for 2 or 3 weeks, or as far as I know they may still be continuing, but all hours of the night, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week having different students and different people, including myself, I went one day on a Saturday with my kids to basically talk about the filibuster. My son read from one of his favorite Goosebumps novels. The point that so many of these Princeton University students and New Jersey residents were trying to make was that the filibuster is a guarantee of minority rights. They see it, and I see it, and the Democrats here in the House of Representatives see the filibuster as a way of checking the absolute power, the absolute power of the majority, in this case the Republican majority. And of course it is true that the Republicans are in the majority. They control the majority in the Senate, here in the House, the President is also Republican, but I would feel the same way regardless of which party was in power; that the filibuster is a way to guarantee that the Senate acts on a consensus basis, particularly with judicial nominees. It was always envisioned by our Founding Fathers that the Senate would be different than the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives, because each of us represents a fairly equal number of constituents, is the representative body of the people. We act through majority rule. However, in the Senate, it was always envisioned there had to be more of a consensus; that there would not be the power of the absolute majority. Because, after all, in the Senate they are not necessarily representative in the same way as the House. So you could have, as we have, two Senators from California, and they represent over 50 million people, or millions of people, as opposed to a smaller State, like Delaware or Wyoming, where the numbers may be 500,000 approximately. So it was always envisioned the Senate should act more on a consensus basis, and that is one of the reasons why the filibuster is in place, to provide a check on the power of the majority; to make sure that minority rights are represented. Now, I want to talk a little tonight, a little extended debate, if you will, on this whole issue, and I think it is important, first, to start with what the filibuster is. I am actually referencing a statement from the Filibuster Action Center at the People for an American Way. They say, what is the filibuster? The filibuster is one of our democracy's oldest and most important checks on the power of the majority. It preserves two of our bedrock values: One, protecting the rights of the minority; and, two, promoting compromise. And it works like this. If at least 41 Senators strongly oppose a bill or a judicial nominee, they can vote to continue debate and block a final vote on the issue. A final vote can only be taken if and when the majority wins 60 Senators' votes. In the context of a Supreme Court battle, the filibuster means that 60 Senate votes may be needed to confirm out of the mainstream judicial nominees rather than a simple majority of 51. For two centuries, our leaders have supported the tradition of the filibuster in order to promote cooperation and compromise, and because they have recognized the dangers of one-party control and the importance of protecting the rights of the minority. Now, there is a new word for what the Senate Republicans under Majority Leader Frist are trying to do, and it is called the nuclear option. I think that is their own phrase. Proponents of the nuclear option seek to break Senate rules and eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominations. They basically argue, and their justification is, the false argument, that the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote in the full Senate on every judicial nomination. This argument is very much refuted by more than 200 years of Senate history, during which literally thousands of judicial and executive branch nominees have been blocked in the Senate by filibusters, delays, and other tactics. Again, the idea being that it is necessary in the Senate, unlike the House, to have more of a consensus, hence the 60 votes. Now, I would maintain, and I am continuing making reference to this document from the Filibuster Action Center, that the nuclear option proposed by the Senate Republicans is essentially a radical tactic that would prohibit Senators from using filibusters against extremist judicial nominees. Right-wing Senators and leaders are supporting this destructive action because they want to guarantee the Senate confirmation of far-right ideologues to our Federal courts, but especially our Supreme Court. The nuclear option is actually a series of steps that right-wing Senators would take to eliminate the filibuster. The nuclear attack would likely begin with one party's Senators provoking a filibuster, most likely by trying to force the confirmation vote on an out-of-the- mainstream appeals court nominee. A Senator would then object, claiming that the filibuster could not be used on a judicial nomination. Vice President Cheney or another Senator presiding over the Senate would rule in the radical right's favor and then that ruling would be appealed. At that point, a simple majority, with Vice President Cheney as the tie-breaking vote, if necessary, would then uphold the ruling and the filibuster would be part of American history. Now, this nuclear option earns its name essentially for two reasons, Mr. Speaker. First, it breaks the Senate rules in order to eliminate another rule, the filibuster. Under normal Senate procedures it takes 67 Senators, or two-thirds, to end debate on changing a Senate rule. So normally you would have to have 67 Senators, even more than 60, to change a Senate rule; but the nuclear option would violate Senate rules and require only 50 Senators, plus the Vice President's tie breaker. Secondly, the atmosphere in the Senate after this attack would resemble a nuclear winter. That is one of the reasons why they call it the nuclear option. All bipartisan cooperation would vanish and the Senate's legislative business would grind to a halt, only adding to the price Americans would pay for the right's reckless abuse of power. I wanted to make three points, again, this is from the People for the American Way from the Filibuster Action Center, three very important points that I think they make. One is that filibusters are in fact constitutional. The U.S. Constitution gives Senators the vital responsibility and power to confirm or reject the President's nominees to our Federal courts. That is in the Constitution, Article II, section 2. The Constitution also gives Senators the authority to create rules for their own Senate proceedings. That is in the Constitution, Article I, section 5. For over 200 years, almost since the very founding of this republic, the filibuster tradition has been maintained under this authority and used by Senators of both parties, including the GOP Senate majority leader Bill Frist, in an effort to prevent the confirmation of judicial and other nominees. The second point. If filibusters reflect the democratic vision of our Founding Fathers, a primary goal of the filibuster is to force greater deliberation and compromise on controversial Senate matters by requiring that they receive 60 votes to proceed. More of consensus. Since it is legitimate to filibuster controversial legislation that future Congresses can revisit, it is even more appropriate to allow filibusters when considering lifetime appointments to powerful positions on the Federal Judiciary. Remember, these Federal judicial appointments are for life. That is in the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers wanted America's courts to be an independent branch of government, free of partisanship. Because Federal judges serve lifetime terms it is important both parties help determine who is appointed to the Federal bench. Lastly, on this point, Mr. Speaker, and again I think this is so important, that filibusters are really necessary to prevent one party from having absolute power, which is what the Republican Party wants right now in Washington. The outgoing Republican chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Orrin Hatch, has himself explained that the filibuster is, and I quote, ``one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.'' For 200 years, the filibuster has been an essential part of our system of checks and balances and has appropriated cooperation and compromise. I would say consensus. Senators have retained the filibuster rules because they recognize the dangers of one-party control and the importance of protecting the rights of the minority. I think America works best when no one party has absolute power. I just wanted to now go, if I could, Mr. Speaker, into this myth that I think Senator Frist and certainly the leadership on the Republican side in the Senate are trying to give out to the American people; that somehow the Constitution requires an up-or-down vote on a judicial nominee. If you look at the true history of checks and balances and the advise and consent in the Senate, it is often the case that a nominee never has a vote because the nominee is simply too far, in this case, to the right ideologically to achieve a consensus, to achieve the 60 votes. And there is nothing in the Constitution that says there has to be an up-or-down vote on a judicial nominee if that person is not acceptable because they are too extreme, which is essentially what we have in some of these cases. Again, I am making reference to the People for the American Way report on this and they say: ``To justify a truly unparalleled nuclear option parliamentary maneuver to end filibusters of judicial nominations by breaking the Senate's rules, Senate majority leader Bill Frist asserts that Democratic filibusters are unprecedented and that Senators have a constitutional duty to give Presidential nominations an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. This assertion is squarely refuted by the history of the confirmation process in the Senate.'' To the contrary, as the examples that I am going to be giving illustrate, for over 200 years Members of the Senate have used delaying tactics, including the filibuster, to defeat Presidential nominations to both the Federal judiciary and the executive branch. On many occasions, they have been successful. Furthermore, nuclear option proponents themselves, including Senator Frist, have repeatedly used the filibuster themselves to delay nominations, including judicial nominations, and have been successful in defeating nominations through a filibuster and other delaying tactics, in which case the nomination never came to the floor for an up-or-down vote. Under the Senate rules, there is a right of unlimited debate on any question that comes before the Senate, including a nomination. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, ending unlimited debate and bringing a nomination or other matter to a final vote. It takes two-thirds of the Senators present, as many as 67, to end debate or on a change to the Senate rules. So the nuclear option is a proposed parliamentary maneuver which requires a simple majority to get around the Senate rules and amend the Senate rules that requires 60 Senators to end a filibuster. Nowhere in the Constitution, in the text of the Constitution, is there a requirement for a simple majority for a vote on nominations or for any vote at all. What the Constitution does expressly say is that the Senate holds the sole power to make its rules, which certainly must include the rules governing debate on the Senate floor. Again, this interpretation is validated by over 216 years of Senate consideration of nominations. I want to give some examples because I do not want to just talk about this in the abstract. Until 1949 when Senate rule XXII was amended to allow the Senate to invoke cloture on any matter before the Senate, there was no way for the Senate to end extended debate or delaying tactics on a nomination. It simply kept going. In the last 32 years of the 20th century, the Senate leadership was forced to file cloture on at least 34 nominations to end a filibuster on the Senate floor. Among those 34 were 13 judicial nominations, of which three people were nominated to be justices of the Supreme Court. So 26 of the 34 filibusters, including in these cases Federal judges, approximately three-quarters were led by Republican Senators. So when they talk about how it is the Democrats are trying to do this, they should keep in mind that in three-quarters of the cases where filibusters were used in the last 30 or 40 years to stop a judicial nomination, it was the Republicans that were using the filibuster. I will give some examples. Among these, Abe Fortas, nominated in 1968 to be a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was denied a final up- or-down vote by a Republican-led filibuster when the Senate failed to stop on a vote to invoke cloture by 45-43. In that case, while the vote indicates that a majority of the Senate supported a final vote because of primarily Republican obstructionism, a final up-or-down vote did not occur. Senator Howard Baker argued during debate in defense of the filibuster of Justice Fortas by a Senate minority: ``On any issue, the majority at any given moment is not always right.'' Basically invoking the argument about minority rights. Similarly, the nomination of Henry Foster to be Surgeon General was killed by a successful Republican filibuster in 1995, as was the nomination of Sam Brown to be a U.S. ambassador in 1994. On both of these votes, a clear majority of the Senate supported the nominations. The exact same advice and consent clause in the Constitution applies to both judicial and executive branch nominations. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point in several cases the proponents of the nuclear option are supporting or have supported several of these filibusters. For example, Senator Frist supported a filibuster against U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Richard Paez in 2000. Senate Republicans, including Frist, Lott and McConnell, were so adamant to try to block a final vote on Paez that they forced the Senate to vote an extremely rare motion to postpone the nomination indefinitely after cloture had been invoked. Some current nuclear option proponents have been among the most frequent Republican filibusterers of nominations. Senators Lott, Hatch and McConnell all voted against cloture to continue a filibuster on 11 nominations during the first 3 years of the Clinton administration, including on two occasions where filibusters defeated nominees with majority support in the Senate. Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott on at least one occasion even prevented a cloture motion from being filed on a nomination. In 1998, President Clinton named James Hormel to be the U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg. Despite an overwhelming bipartisan vote of approval in committee, 16 to 2, Lott simply refused to bring the nomination to the floor despite clear evidence that at least 60 Senators would have voted to confirm the nomination. I could give many more examples, but I am not going to. I am trying to point out the hypocrisy, essentially, in the fact the Senate Republicans, including some who oppose the filibuster, have in the past used it in so many cases, including against judicial nominees. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has joined me, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to stress that the protection of the filibuster is something that the American people support. I heard one of my colleagues just a few minutes ago talk about the New Jersey filibuster which is down here at the Mall with a group of people who are trying to make the point that we must protect the filibuster. We should not repeal it as the Republicans want to do, because it does protect minority rights. It protects individual freedoms in terms of making sure that justices and judges that are appointed are those that have a consensus. I want to say that, in my State, it is not just the people involved in the New Jersey filibuster; a lot of other people have expressed their concern on this issue. Just a week or two ago, I was at Princeton University outside the Frist Student Center, and the students there at Princeton University were conducting a 24-hour filibuster which went on for almost 2 weeks, I think it may still be going on, because they felt so strongly about this issue. They feel strongly about it because it has been around for so long. It is over 200 years now that the Senate rules have provided for a filibuster, and that is what our Founding Fathers wanted, because they did not want an abuse of power. They did not want the majority to be the absolute rule.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, absolute power corrupts, and over the last decade, the cozy relationships that have been created between House Republicans and powerful corporate lobbyists have led to lobbyists controlling what happens here on the House floor. Earlier this year, the Republican majority rammed through weaker ethics rules to protect one of their leaders who has come under scrutiny because of his relationship with a lobbyist. Fortunately, the American people were not fooled by this stunt. They saw the new rules for what they were, nothing more than an attempt to protect a powerful Republican leader. Finally, after media and public outcry became too much for the Republican majority to endure, Republicans agreed to reinstate the old bipartisan ethics rules. However, Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that had the public been indifferent and had the Democrats on the Ethics Committee gone ahead and allowed the committee to organize under the weakened rules, today this House would be structured under ethics rules that would allow either side, Democrat or Republican, to shield its Members from scrutiny. Mr. Speaker, the Republican ethics reversal was good for this institution and good for the American public. I wanted to say, though, Mr. Speaker, that lobbyists still have too much power within the Republican majority here on Capitol Hill. House Republicans turned to lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry to write a prescription drug law that does nothing to help senior citizens with the skyrocketing prices of their prescriptions drugs. Republicans turned to lobbyists from the oil and gas industry to write an energy bill that does nothing to address the rising costs Americans pay at the pump. With each of these bills rewarding lobbyists with billions of dollars in tax breaks and government handouts, Republicans did absolutely nothing to help out middle-class Americans who continue to struggle to make ends meet. I think it is time Congress rein in the power of Washington lobbyists. Last week the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) introduced legislation that would dramatically reform the way lobbyists do business in this town. The reform legislation would force lobbyists to publicly disclose who they meet, whether it is a Member of Congress or an administration official, and what issue they are lobbying about. If the news reports of the last 4 months have shown anything, it is that lobbyists work below the radar screen here in Washington, and it is time for that to change and this reform legislation to get a good start. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) want to bring a Republican on board to make their reform legislation bipartisan, but so far they have no takers. In fact, when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, was asked about the reform legislation last week, his first response was to simply laugh. And then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) responded, and I am quoting, ``I am not interested in the water that they are carrying for some of these leftist groups.'' Now, I would maintain that lobbying reform should not be a partisan issue. The majority leader should not stand in the way of any Republican who decides to sign on to the Meehan-Emanuel bill. And could it be that the Republican leadership has become so cozy with Washington lobbyists that they do not want to see any lobbyist reform? Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said right here on the House floor, and I am quoting, ``The time has come that the American people know exactly what their representatives are doing here in Washington . . . are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interests? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people have a right to know.'' Now, that is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, as I said, 10 years ago. But, Mr. Speaker, what has happened to the majority leader over the last 10 years that makes him sing a different tune today? I think it is time this House support real lobbying reform, and it is time House Republicans seriously look at the ideas that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) have put forward in their legislation.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have become so arrogant with their absolute power here in Washington that whenever they do not get their way, they try to change the rules of the game. In January, House Republicans ignored protocol and weakened the ethics rules in order to protect one of their leaders, and now Senate Republicans are preparing to change the filibuster rule which has been in place beyond anyone's memory. Republicans say Senate Democrats are preventing President Bush's judicial appointments from taking the bench, but let us set the record straight. During President Bush's first 4 years in office, the Senate confirmed 204 of his 214 nominees; that is a 95 percent confirmation rate. The Senate has been so productive in approving Bush's nominees that the Federal court vacancy rate is at its lowest point in 15 years. Mr. Speaker, the filibuster has been used by Democrats and Republicans for 200 years to protect the rights of the minority party. After 2 centuries, it would be a mistake and an extreme abuse of power by Senate Republicans to change the rules now and eliminate this important check and balance.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor Mohammed Jaffer. Mr. Jaffer is a talented photographer and a dedicated individual whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for years. Mr. Jaffer was born in Hyderabad, India to a family wedded to the camera. His father, the late M.A. Rahim, was a renowned photographer, widely admired for his skill and vision. It was a popular belief that no one in the state of Andhra Pradesh could be deemed truly famous until Mr. Jaffer's father had photographed them. Having grown up in a house where everyone looked at the world through a camera lens, it was only natural for Mr. Jaffer to follow suit. Not content to limit himself to his hometown or even his home country, he set himself a much broader goal. Accordingly, at the tender age of 19, he graduated from Nizam College in Hyderabad and came to the United States with just his camera and a dream. Mr. Speaker, it turns out that the United States has proved to be a land of opportunity for Mr. Jaffer. Within a year, he formed his own news photo agency, SnapsIndia, and was well on his way to becoming the most-widely published Indian photographer in the country. In the next 15 years, Jaffer photographed various prime ministers and heads of states from different South Asian countries and around the world, as well as United Nations meetings and World Summits in New York. Having established himself in America, he began to cover high-profile events around the world such as the 1991 Cricket World Cup in Australia and New Zealand, the 1992 Australian National Laser Sailing Regatta, the U.S. Open in tennis for the past 7 years, the 1996 Americas Cup in San Diego, as well as beauty pageants and fashion shows worldwide. The highlight of Mr. Jaffer's career, however, came when he was invited to accompany President Bill Clinton to India in March of 2000. As part of the White House entourage, Mr. Jaffer had access to the President that no other Indian photographer could lay claim to. For five days, he photographed President Clinton in some of the most picturesque, and historic locations on earth, capturing the leader of the Free World in both private, pensive moments and at spectacular public events. In 2001, Mr. Jaffer once again accompanied President Clinton to India when he visited areas in the western state of Gujarat that had been devastated by an earthquake. President Clinton, who had admired the photos, inaugurated the exhibition of Mr. Jaffer's photos of the presidential visit at Regent Wall Street hotel in New York on June 12, 2001. That same year, Mr. Jaffer covered the inauguration and oath ceremony of President George W. Bush. Having established SnapsIndia, the first news photo service specialized to cater to the South Asian community in the United States, Mr. Jaffer has fulfilled the dream his father started 25 years ago when SnapsIndia was first established in Hyderabad, India. With SnapsIndia Jaffer has woven bridges and contributed to strengthening the ties between India and the United States through photojournalism.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day. The Chief U.S. Counsel to the Nuremberg Military tribunal said of the Holocaust: ``The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.'' Today, Jews around the world take a moment to pay tribute to the heroes that were lost. In Israel, where they refer to the day as Yom Hashoah, the ceremony began yesterday with survivors and their families gathering together for a memorial ceremony at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. During the ceremony, six torches were lit, representing the six million murdered Jews, and wreathes were laid. Today's ceremony in Israel began with the sounding of a siren for two minutes throughout the entire country. For the duration of the sirens, work was halted, people walking in the streets stopped, cars pulled off to the side of the road and everyone stood at silent attention. Mr. Speaker, genocide is a horror that has touched many cultures and religions. Just a few weeks ago, I joined several thousand Armenians in Times Square for a commemoration of the 90th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The date marks the beginning of a genocide that took the lives of more than one million Armenians in three years during World War I. Even Hitler exploited the Armenian Genocide to justify his atrocities against the Jews, asking ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' just before Germany's invasion of Poland. Today, the Armenians are still fighting for recognition of the genocide from the Turkish government. But Mr. Speaker, despite our attempts to shed light on the horrors of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide, the sad truth is that genocide is not a crime of the past. Since February 2003, the Sudanese Government has used a combination of Arab ``Janjaweed'' militias, its air force, and organized starvation to kill more than 380,000 Darfurians and displace almost 3 million. Estimates suggest that the Sudanese continue to kill at least 15,000 more Darfurians each month. The Sudanese government, like the Turkish government, denies any evidence of genocide. Even the United States government seems to be unwilling to label the crisis as ``genocide.'' Mr. Speaker, we as Americans have a moral obligation to stop genocide wherever and whenever it occurs. Americans can never again show the same lack of interest that F.D.R. showed toward the genocide of the Jews during World War II. No world leaders should ever be able to stand and justify their crimes by asking if anyone remembers the annihilation of Darfur? Today, we commemorate one of the darkest periods in human history in the hopes that it will never be repeated. Future generations--not just Jews, but all people--must learn the history of the Holocaust so that the lives that were taken were not lost in vain.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to honor a man who has spent 37 years of his life representing the interests of working men and women in Central New Jersey. Anthony Benedetti, on June 1, 2005, retires as Financial Secretary and Treasurer of the Sheetmetal Workers International Association Local 27. For the last several decades, Anthony Benedetti has unselfishly represented the Sheetmetal Workers International Association. His outstanding work and leadership have served as a guide to other employees throughout the years. It is doubtful that the Sheetmetal Workers International Association would have functioned the same way without his tireless efforts. I want to offer Mr. Benedetti my congratulations and thanks for his outstanding career of service. It is with men like Anthony Benedetti that our nation's labor movement is such a huge success. He will be deeply missed. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring and recognizing Anthony Benedetti as a determined and exceptional worker who affected the lives of many people.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, President Bush and the Republican leadership in the House are asking us today to vote again on a huge appropriations bill to fund the Iraq war without any oversight. I do not understand how we can be asked to vote on another huge appropriations bill to spend money in Iraq, and yet we do not have any oversight, any hearings to determine what the costs are and what the money is being spent on. Yesterday I talked about how there have been renewed reports about how our soldiers are not properly protected. There is no exit strategy. What are the overall costs of this war? And what does it mean when we continue to go into deficit and do not have money to pay for domestic programs without having an exit strategy or even any defined strategy of what our goals are in Iraq? As was mentioned earlier today by other speakers, we know that we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons. The weapons of mass destruction were never found, were never there. Yet no one within the Bush administration or within the Republican leadership basically tells us what the reason is, why we are remaining, how long we are going to be there or what the cost is going to be. I do not think we should be voting on this bill today until we have answers to those questions.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican majority finally did the right thing last week when it restored bipartisan ethics rules. Republicans fortunately caved to public criticism. And now, as the Ethics Committee gets ready to organize, we will see if the Republican majority is really interested in restoring the integrity of this institution. The new chairman of the Ethics Committee has said that he wants to appoint his chief of staff from his personal office to be the new staff director of the Ethics Committee. This action would defy House rules, which explicitly state that Ethics Committee staffers are to be nonpartisan. The rule is important since the actions of the Ethics Committee are intended to protect the integrity of this institution, not the integrity of an individual Member of either political party. By appointing a Republican as the main staffer on the Ethics Committee, the Republican majority would undermine any decision that came out of the committee. I would hope that Chairman Hastings would reconsider this political appointment before the Ethics Committee organizes in the coming days.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, May 1, marked the 2-year anniversary of President Bush's aircraft carrier news event in which he declared ``Mission Accomplished'' in Iraq. Two years later, our troops are still facing a strong insurgence that shows no sign of slowing down. Our troops are doing valiant work, but that sadly is not always enough. I will include for the Congressional Record a New York Times investigative report from April 25 titled, ``Bloodied Marines Sound Off About Want for Armor and Men.'' The article should be required reading for every Member of this House, as well as the high-ranking military and civilian personnel at the Department of Defense. Times reporter Michael Moss interviewed Marines from Company E who served a 6-month stint in Iraq last year. During that time, Company E endured the highest casualty rate of any marine company in the war. According to the Times, ``More than one-third of the unit's 185 troops were killed or wounded during that time.'' Several months after the beginning of the war as Congress was debating its first emergency supplemental, we were all alerted to the fact that our troops did not have the equipment they needed to adequately do their job and to protect themselves from extreme harm or death. We heard they did not have the body armor they needed, nor did the Humvees come with the necessary protective steel armor to protect them from being easy targets of insurgents. The situation became so dire for our troops that one brave National Guardsman last year asked Secretary Rumsfeld when the troops would have the protective gear they had already been promised. Secretary Rumsfeld could not give the Guardsman an adequate response at the time. As the press began to question the Bush administration about this outrageous neglect of our troops, President Bush came out and stated, ``The concerns expressed are being addressed, and that is we expect our troops to have the best possible equipment and I have told many families I met with, `We're doing everything we possibly can to protect your loved ones in a mission which is vital and important.' '' The New York Times report clearly shows that the Bush administration has not done enough to protect our troops. As the House prepares to vote tomorrow on another $82 billion supplemental to fund the war, bringing the total cost to $300 billion, it is hard to believe that the Bush administration, particularly Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, has not made protecting our troops in Iraq a main priority. Mr. Speaker, we have now lost more than 1,600 troops in Iraq, but the Defense Department has no idea how many of these troops have died because they did not receive the proper supplies from the leaders that sent them into harm's way. Would you believe that we do not have those numbers because the Defense Department chooses only to list casualties as ``killed in combat''? However, the New York Times story gives a grim report on how the lack of protection affected Company 13. According to the Times, ``The biggest danger the men faced came in traveling to and from camp; 13 of the 21 men who were killed had been riding in Humvees that failed to deflect bullets or bombs.'' I repeat, 13 of 21, or almost two-thirds of the men, were killed as a direct result of them not having access to armed Humvees. Again, this is last year. This is not 2 years ago at the beginning of the war. Mr. Speaker, where is the Bush administration, particularly Secretary Rumsfeld, spending the billions of dollars this Congress has given them? The Pentagon says it will not have every Humvee suitably armed until the end of this year. That is simply unacceptable. Our brave troops should not have to wait another 8 months to have the proper protection they need to do their job. Sergeant James King, a member of Company E who lost one of his legs when he was blown out of a Humvee, said it best to the New York Times: ``As Marines, we are always taught that we do more with less and get the job done no matter what it takes.'' You would expect nothing less from our troops. They have not let us down. But, unfortunately, our troops have clearly been let down by the Bush administration. [From the New York Times, Apr. 25, 2005] Bloodied Marines Sound Off About Want of Armor and Men (By Michael Moss)

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk tonight for 5 minutes about the President's latest proposal on Social Security, which I refer to as means testing. I have to say that from the very beginning, when I heard the President's privatization plan and the other statements he has been making about Social Security, I have very much opposed to what he has put forth, but this latest effort at means testing I think is, in many ways, the worst of all, the worst of his proposals. I just want to review some of the concerns that I have about his privatization plan, about his means testing in a few minutes here tonight. First of all, from the very beginning, I think, the President gave essentially misinformation because he kept talking about how Social Security was essentially going insolvent and yet we know that it is very solid, if you will, for the next 30 or 40 years. In fact, we have heard different figures from maybe 2030 or 2035, may be the date when we would begin to see less money available for Social Security. But until that time, the Social Security trust fund is very solvent and benefits would continue to be paid on a guaranteed basis the way they have for the last 60 or 70 years. So from the very beginning, he talked about Social Security in an inaccurate way because he talked about insolvency that does not exist for at least another generation or two. Worst of all, he never indicated that any proposal he had put forth would effectively deal with the eventual insolvency of Social Security. In other words, Democrats historically back in the early 1980s, for example, when there was a threat of insolvency or that money would not be there in the trust fund, basically sat down with Republicans on a bipartisan basis, back in the days when Speaker O'Neill was the Speaker of the House, a Democrat, and President Reagan, a Republican, was President. And they put forward a commission and they came up with a way of dealing the payroll tax, essentially, so that money would be available to keep Social Security solvent and so that benefits would continue to be guaranteed. But what the President proposed from the beginning was a very risky privatization plan that essentially would not do anything to help with the potential insolvency. In fact, it would make the situation even worse because we knew that he would be taking money out of the trust fund with his privatization plan and putting money in private accounts. And the consequence of that would be that there would be less money in the trust fund and the solvency problem would be aggravated all the more. At the same time, the people who put their money in these privates accounts, if they made a bad investment, ran the risk of gambling with their Social Security money and not having any money when the time came for them to retire. The bottom line is we could have gone back, if you adopted this, to the days before Social Security when people were on the street or were in an old age home because they did not have any retirement security. That is what Democrats are afraid of with the President's risky privatization plan. It gambles with your Social Security. It may essentially leave you broke with nothing, and even beyond that because you are taking money out of the trust fund, the solvency problem is aggravated and the potential looms for severe benefits because if you take the money out and you do not replace it with anything, the only thing you can do ultimately is cut benefits. Now, what we hear from the President, he was on the road for about 60 days talking about that. At the end of the 60 days period he realized, as did his Republican colleagues, that this was not working. People did not want to hear it. They did not like his risky privatization plan. So what does he come up with last week in this proposal that he made on nationwide TV? He talks about means testing. What that essentially means is that people, as their income gets higher, would get less and less Social Security benefits. And he made it sound, once again, like this was a great thing because poor people would still get their money and rich people did not need it. But what he fails to point out is reality is who is really being targeted here is the middle class. It is the middle class person who will have their benefits cut and it is the middle class person who relies the most on that Social Security, much more so than the wealthy person. I want to point out, I saw an editorial yesterday, Mr. Speaker, by Paul Krugman in The New York Times, and he vividly points this out. He talks about the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a Jason Furman, who he asked about what the President had in mind. What he said is that the average worker now pays about $37,000 and retiring in 2075 would face a cut equal to 10 percent preretirement income. Workers earning 60 percent more than average, the equivalent of $58,000 today would see benefit cuts equal to almost 13 percent of their income before retirement. But above that level, the cuts would become less and less significant. Workers earning three times the average wage would face cuts equal to only 9 percent of their income before retirement. Someone earning the equivalent of $1 million today would see benefit cuts equal to only 1 percent of preretirement income. So in short, this would be a gut punch to the middle class. It is the middle class that would suffer and is targeted in the President's proposal. It is a terrible proposal. It is no better than the previous one.