Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Water and Power Infrastructure Security bill, S. 4079. This legislation will amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to authorize improvement for the security of dams and other facilities.

On September 11, 2001, America's view of national security changed. The threat of terrorist attacks on our own soil became a reality for each and every one of us. This possibility forced Americans to rethink security in many different sectors including the need to secure infrastructure such as our Nation's dams.

As a result of the 9/11 attacks, the Bureau of Reclamation set up site security programs, implemented more complex surveillance systems, erected protection barriers, and devoted substantial funding in the process.

Initially, the Bureau covered these added security costs, recognizing that water and power infrastructure benefits the public generally. This was a pattern established after the Pearl Harbor attacks when the Federal Government covered the added security costs at these public facilities.

Indeed, all Americans benefit from stable power sources and improved flood control. Other universal benefits of public dams include recreation, water supply, and fish and wildlife.

However, in recent years the Bureau has begun to shift these costs onto the energy rate payers probably due to pressure from Office of Management and Budget. Thus, hard working American families, many of whom are family farmers with limited incomes, are forced to shoulder this large financial burden. Shifting the burden of national security to family farmers is patently unfair.

Our bill amends the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act to require to clarify that consumers of public power must contribute to site security at Federal dams. However, the bill would limit their contribution to 15 percent of total security costs. This provides a more equitable division of dam security costs between local and national beneficiaries. The bill also would require the Secretary of the Interior to involve project beneficiaries in the planning and building of site security. Finally, the bill requires the Bureau to provide Congress a five-year plan on dam security and an annual report of its expenditures.

There is no question we need to protect our critical infrastructure. It seems logical that the costs of these national and multi-purpose facilities should not be imposed on a concentrated group of energy consumers. However, customers who depend on the Bureau of Reclamation facilities are willing to pay their fair allotment of the security reflected in this legislation.

I believe this bill strikes a good balance between reasonable costs and a legitimate amount of transparency. Ultimately, its about working together as Americans to protect our critical infrastructure and provide a fair cost distribution system. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a dynamic man, my constituent, a loyal friend, loving husband and father, and a highly successful businessman--Mr. Earl Holding. Earl is reaching a wonderful milestone, his 80th birthday, and I couldn't let this occasion pass without honoring him for the good he has accomplished throughout his life.

Earl has accomplished feats in business in Utah and throughout our Nation that few have ever achieved. He has made a lasting imprint on many industries including petroleum, ranching, and the travel and hotel industry. His work ethic, and inspirational leadership has literally transformed the business landscape of our State. His acumen and tenacity are legendary and are admired by many.

Earl has not been alone in his success. In 1949, Earl married his business partner, Carol Orme, and together they embarked on a remarkable life journey. These two humble individuals worked together to forge something real and lasting in all aspects of their lives. A story is told of their early years that I believe poignantly displays the dedication they both have always demonstrated. Their wedding night at the Temple Square Hotel in Salt Lake City reached an early end when they left at 5:00 a.m. to take their irrigation turn at their orchard.

In 1952, Earl and Carol accepted the responsibility of managing and investing in Little America, a service station and motel located in a remote area of western Wyoming. At the time Little America was unprofitable. In just 2 short years, through hard work, perseverance, and tenacity, the Holdings were able to turn Little America into the largest and highest volume service station in the United States.

From this beginning, the Little America Hotels and hotel properties led by Earl have became a favorite place for thousands of travelers throughout the Western United States. In fact, in preparation for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, Earl personally undertook a mission to build the first five-star hotel in Utah. His dream became a reality with the development and building of the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City. This property is truly ``grand.'' It is beautiful from the top to the bottom and is a wonderful testament to Earl's dedication to quality and service.

Earl's contribution to the travel and recreation arena doesn't end with his hotel properties. He also owns and manages the Snowbasin ski area in Utah, the home of several Olympic races during the 2002 Olympic Winter

Games; and the Sun Valley resort in Idaho, repeatedly named the No. 1 ski resort in America.

Earl's business holdings also include a large petroleum portfolio anchored by his purchase of Sinclair Oil in 1976. His innovative leadership in the petroleum industry has enabled Sinclair Oil to grow and is now one of the largest privately held, full integrated oil companies in America.

His leadership and dedication have been recognized many times through numerous awards and honors, including an honorary doctorate degree from the University of Utah, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars of the Smithsonian Institution's Award for Corporate Citizenship, appointments to the U.S. Postal Commission and the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, and as president of the American Independent Refiners Association.

Another hallmark of Earl's life has been his commitment to the thousands of employees he has hired throughout the years. Each Christmas season, Earl and Carol take the time to express personally their gratitude to each one of their 7,000 employees.

A famous orator, John Wesley, once stated: ``Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can.''

This describes Earl Holding. His good works accomplished through 80 years will be acknowledged and felt for generations to come. He is a living example of courage, commitment, and dedication. Hard work has never deterred him, and integrity has always been his guiding beacon.

Mr. President, I consider it a great honor to call Earl Holding a friend. He is an exceptional human being whose footprints will last for years. His success has not been achieved with one single magnificent accomplishment but through a journey of good work and exceptional leadership. I pay tribute to him today and hope my colleagues will join with me in wishing him a very happy 80th birthday!

Mr. President, I thank my chairman. I am grateful to be with him on this bill. I am one of the prime authors of the Ryan White Act. I stood here on the floor, with Mrs. White sitting up in the gallery, and recognized it and named it the Ryan White bill.

I rise again to support the effort to call up and immediately adopt S. 2823, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act. I thank our chairman and others who worked so hard on this bill to bring it here.

It makes no sense that this product of bipartisan, bicameral effort should

be held up at the eleventh hour by Members representing only two States--three at one time, but at least the two Senators from California backed off and now realize that they are not doing what is right here.

Given that the theme of this bipartisan, bicameral effort was to craft something that would help even out the playing field for all U.S. States and territories, it makes even less sense for these holds to be placed on behalf of States that currently enjoy substantially generous funding. In some areas of these States, the funding is so generous that we have heard reports of Ryan White dollars being spent on dog-walking services, haircuts, candlelight dinners, and four-star hotels. I, for one, am pretty fed up with it, and to have four liberal Senators on this floor holding this up is just outrageous.

Furthermore, some States carry over millions of unspent dollars every year, and some continue to receive funding for people who are no longer living. This is happening while people die in areas where the epidemic is newer because under the current Ryan White structure, their location dictates that they should receive less money for care. This reauthorization bill would fix that broken program structure.

Let me make it clear that my home State of Utah does not stand to gain large increases in funding. Our State AIDS director understands and supports the need for equity within the program. Due to efficient administration of the Ryan White program, Utah is able to manage its funding so that it can--just barely--avoid an ADAP waiting list for pharmaceuticals. Utah can do this even though it receives an average of $1,315 less per patient in Ryan White funding than does New York, $1,330 per patient less than New Jersey, and $843 per patient less than California, just to mention three States. The New York and New Jersey Senators are holding up this bill.

I could go on and on about this because there are really only about five States that receive less funding per patient than Utah. But I am not going to do that, and that is precisely my point. My point is that this should not be about who gets the most money. I find it disconcerting that I have to point out, once again, that this program assists people who could die if it is not reauthorized this week. It is as simple as that. I have received numerous letters from the HIV/AIDS community urging that the Senate reauthorize this program before it adjourns this week. I also remind my colleagues that President Bush has charged Congress with reauthorizing this program.

Last night, the House passed H.R. 6143, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act of 2006, by a vote of 325 to 98. The vote total includes over half of the House Democrats voting for this bill. What happened to the other half? They are always out here talking about compassion and talking about reason and talking about how good they are to the poor. Here is a chance to do some good for the poor. We worked hard to get everything together on this bill, and we have four liberal Senators holding it up. It is ridiculous.

I am the coauthor of three of the AIDS bills. I remember when we brought the first one to the floor. It was a big battle. I was the conservative who stood up for it. We finally won, and we won on all three of them. Like I say, I named this bill the Ryan White bill right here on the floor of the Senate.

As I mentioned, the House passed its bill last night with overwhelming bipartisan support. I implore my colleagues in the Senate to do the same, to work in the best interest of the entire Nation and pass this reauthorization.

I am really upset about it, and I think everybody ought to be upset about it. Sometimes we get extreme worrying about who gets the money and who gets this and who gets that. New York and New Jersey are not being mistreated here. Some States will always think they are not getting enough money no matter what we do here. We have to work on this.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I thank my colleagues for their forbearance.

Mr. President, with the President's recent declassification of the Key Judgments of the April National Intelligence Estimate, NIE, on Terrorism, the American public can get from the Democrats an object lesson in perfect irony.

For years, the Democrats have accused the Bush administration of cherry-picking intelligence to lead the country to war in Iraq. Yet here they are cherry-picking intelligence out of this report to make a media circus right before the upcoming election.

First, let me define what I mean by ``cherry-picking.'' This refers to a selective use of intelligence to make a politically persuasive argument. It is a

deliberate misrepresentation of a larger, often ambiguous body of intelligence reporting.

From my perspective, the Democrats' politicization of our Nation's intelligence is not a pretty picture. NIEs are the top-line product of the entire intelligence community.

They are supposed to be regarded as serious, substantive, consensus analysis for top policymakers. NIEs are one of thousands of intelligence products we review on the Intelligence Committee. I am on that committee, first ranking on that committee on the Republican side.

Please recall that the Democrats accused the Republicans and the Bush administration of cherry-picking intelligence prior to the Iraq war.

The Senate Select Intelligence Committee's comprehensive review of the prewar Iraq intelligence was concluded in July 2004 and made available to the public in a detailed 500-page report. It was unanimously supported by Democrats and Republicans of the committee. It was thorough. It pulled no punches. It was highly critical of the systematic failure of our intelligence on Iraq. Our faulty intelligence, as the world knows, was similar to the faulty intelligence of all of our allied partners.

The committee's report clearly shows, however, that there was no cherry-picking of intelligence because nearly all of the intelligence was bad, and there was no finished intelligence that contradicted the faulty conclusions our intelligence community reached before the war.

Recall also that the Democrats have regularly charged the Bush administration with politicizing intelligence, implying that intelligence was manipulated for political reasons. For example, they suggested that Vice President Cheney's visit to the Central Intelligence Agency prior to the Iraq war pressured analysts toward particular conclusions. The July 2004 report, which was based on hundreds of hours of interviews with all these analysts, concluded that no such politicization took place. The intelligence was lousy, but it wasn't cooked.

Now comes the latest little circus by many Democrats and many in the media in a prepared campaign to manipulate a fragment of a leaked classified document.

Putting aside for the moment the underlying question of whether the Iraq war made us safer--a point I will address shortly--the Democrats claimed over the weekend and earlier this week that the NIE proved their point that the Iraq war had made the terrorists stronger and therefore the United States more vulnerable.

Here are the sentences they quoted as proof:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation

of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist

success there would inspire more fighters to continue the

struggle elsewhere.

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for

jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in

the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global

jihadist movement.

This is the sentence the Democrats quoted as proof of their critique of the Iraq war.

Let us be honest: The sentence is true. But let us be even more honest--and this is distinctly where the Democrats are being deliberately dishonest--the sentence is out of context and ignores other parts of the NIE, such as the very next sentence, which reads:

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be

perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be

inspired to carry on the fight.

Can we be honest and admit this sentence is true as well? And can we recognize that the only way we prove this second sentence is to sustain the fight in Iraq until we have achieved security and stability that can be maintained by the Iraqis themselves?

This has been a classic exercise in spin, cherry-picking, and politicization of intelligence, and it stinks.

The Democrats spun this story all weekend, knowing that responsible members of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress could not respond without participating in leaking a classified document. The Democrats cherry-picked sentences and deliberately used them out of context. They conducted this exercise for purposes of supporting their antiwar agenda, in an example of egregious politicization of this Nation's valuable intelligence process.

As my colleague on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond, has said:

It is time to hit the baloney button.

We are conducting a war different from any in our Nation's history. One of the unique aspects of this war against global terrorism is the unprecedented reliance we place on our intelligence community.

As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am dedicated to supporting this function of our foreign policy, even when that has included criticizing systematic failures in collection and analysis, as we did with our phase I report released in July 2004. Every day, we see examples that the intelligence community's capabilities have improved as a result of the lesson learned from that review. Republicans like myself have criticized the intelligence community with the focus on improving it and have done our best to support it in its vital function in this war in which we are engaged today.

As we have just seen, Democrats cook this Nation's intelligence, callously undermining its importance and function. To win a war, you need will, but you also need function.

``Is the U.S. safer as a result of our invasion of Iraq?'' is a central policy question, one that could have been more honestly addressed without an exercise in cherry-picking and cooking intelligence.

I always thought that if you have to address an argument dishonestly, your position must be weak.

Are we safer as a result of our invasion of Iraq? There is the assessment of the war situation now and the strategic answer. The NIE is correct that the Iraq war has opened the battlefront for the global jihadists in Iraq. We knew this before the NIE was published last April, of course. And we read that last April. I have seen no Bush administration official deny this. In fact, General Abizaid in Washington last week was blunt about this: We are battling these jihadists in Iraq today. And when we defeat them, that defeat will be felt throughout the global jihadist movement.

If we follow some Democrats' advice to withdraw, we will give the global jihad movement another Somalia. Our withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 gave bin Laden his first propaganda point. He concluded that the Americans are weak, vulnerable, and easily defeated.

As far as strategic assessment, I believe the Iraq war has made us safer.

On September 20, 2001, the President addressed the Congress, the Nation, and the world in his first major policy address after the attacks of September 11. He articulated a new antiterrorism policy, one that had not existed up to that point, one that had not been put in place under the previous administration.

From that point on, President Bush said we would go after all terror groups within global reach; we would no longer wait for them to attack us. The President put all nations that harbor terrorist organizations on notice. Iraq was one of these nations. Iraq did not support al-Qaida and was not involved in 9/11, but it had a decades' long history of supporting terrorists, a view no one in Congress disputed.

The rationale for Iraq has been criticized and exposed, but one fact remains clear: When we took down the Saddam regime, from that day on, no regime in the world could conclude that they could harbor terrorists without risking consequences. By invading and deposing Saddam, we demonstrated to the world our resolve. Had we not done so, based on the empty threats and actions of previous administrations, nations entertaining terror links could doubt our resolve. From the day we acted to take down Saddam, we showed the world our intent behind our words. Today, no Nation can doubt this. And in this very real sense, America has been made safer. We need to finish the job in Iraq.

As I have said, that requires the functions of our foreign policy apparatus to be fully supported--diplomacy, military, economic, and intelligence. I am dedicated to providing this support, positively but not uncritically. We also need will. After last weekend's episode of cooking intelligence for political purposes, I question what such an exercise is intended to achieve when it comes to maintaining our will.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Clarification Act of 2006. My distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, and I have worked diligently and quickly to clarify the treatment of charitable contributions in chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. As many of my colleagues know, a bankruptcy court in the Northern District of New York recently upheld an objection to the confirmation of a chapter 13 plan due to the inclusion of a charitable contribution in the disposable income calculation. Shortly after learning of the decision I, along with Senators Grassley and Sessions, sent a letter to the Department of Justice expressing my concern about the treatment of charitable contributions in the Chapter 13 context, and while I believe the Department of Justice will affirm its policy of allowing charitable contributions that are consistent with the Religious Liberty and Charitable Contribution Protection Act of 1998, I do not want the religious practices and beliefs of individuals subject to the vagaries of judicial interpretation.

As a whole, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, BAPCPA, was--and still is--a good bill. However, like many large bills, it was not perfect. As a key architect of the recent bankruptcy reforms, I can say without equivocation that Congress intended to preserve the Religious Liberty and Charitable Contribution Protection Act of 1998 in BAPCPA. Unfortunately, the Northern District of New York thought differently.

I do not like impromptu legislative responses to judicial decisions, particularly ones with limited precedential value; however, I believe that Senator Obama and I have put together a narrowly-tailored clarification that leaves little doubt about Congress' intent when it passed BAPCPA. I want to make it very clear that this bill does not, in any way, affirm the Northern District of New York Bankruptcy Court's reasoning in In re Diagostino. I agree with the Department of Justice's position that charitable contributions consistent with the requirements of the 1998 Religious Liberty and Charitable Contribution Protection Act should be allowed under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The bill that Senator Obama and I introduced is meant to simply clarify existing law in furtherance of the Department's interpretation and Congress's intent.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to make the tax laws more fair for America's primary and secondary school teachers.

Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society.

These women and men dedicate their careers to educating the young people of America.

School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including in my home State of Utah, the salary of the average public school teacher is significantly below the national average.

A historic turnover is taking place in the teaching profession. While student enrollments are rising rapidly, more than a million veteran teachers are nearing retirement.

Experts predict that overall we will need more than two million new teachers in the next decade.

This teacher recruitment problem has reached crisis proportions in some urban and rural areas. The shortage is most acute in high-need subject areas such as math, science, and technology.

Retaining qualified teachers in the schools is only part of the puzzle. Attracting new teachers in math, science, and technology is another. It is clear that our teacher recruitment problem represents one the biggest challenges America faces as we contemplate how we are going to prepare the next generation to take their places in our society and in our economy.

Unfortunately, these problems of retention and recruitment of public school teachers are exacerbated by the unfair tax treatment these professionals currently receive under our tax law. Specifically, teachers find themselves greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of professional development expenses and of the out-of- pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying. Let me explain.

As many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their field of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to improve their knowledge or teaching skills. These expenditures are necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas, techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the best education possible.

Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves providing basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. As a result, dedicated teachers incur personal expenses for copies, art supplies, books, puzzles and games, paper, pencils, and countless other needs. If not for the willingness of teachers to purchase these supplies themselves, many students would simply go without needed materials.

I realize that employees in many fields of endeavor incur expenses for professional development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these costs are fully reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case with school teachers. Other professionals who are self- employed are able to fully deduct these types of expenses.

Under the current tax law, unreimbursed employee expenses are deductible generally, but only as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However,

there are two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-deductible for most teachers.

The first hurdle is that the total amount of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed two percent of adjusted gross income before they begin to be deductible.

The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the two percent floor, if any, combined with all other deductions of the taxpayer, must exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only about a third of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize.

The unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct their professional development and out-of-pocket supplies expenses.

Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example.

Let us consider the case of a fifth-year high school English teacher in Utah whom I will call Alice White Head. Alice is single and earns $48,000 per year. Last year she incurred $1,050 for a course she took over the summer to increase her knowledge of English literature. She also spent $450 for classroom supplies out of her own pocket. She was not reimbursed for either of these expenses, which totaled $1,500, by her school district. Under current law, Alice's expenditures are deductible, subject to the limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses must exceed two percent of her income before they begin to be deductible. Two percent of $48,000 is $960. Thus, only $540 of her $1,500 total expenses is deductible, that portion that exceeds $960.

As a single taxpayer, Alice's standard deduction for 2006 is $5,150. Her total itemized deductions, including the $540 in miscellaneous deductions for her professional expenses and out-of-pocket classroom supplies, fall short of the standard deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $540 of the original $1,500 in professional development expenses and out-of-pocket costs are deductible for Alice. What the first limitation did not block, the second one did, and Alice gets no deduction at all under the current law.

The way I see it, this situation is just not fair. Also, the tax treatment of teacher's expenses certainly does not help solve our teacher retention and recruitment problems.

To help alleviate this long-standing problem, five years ago I introduced the Teacher Equity for School Teachers Act of 2001. This legislation would have provided an unlimited tax deduction for the out- of-pocket expenses of school teachers for classroom supplies and other needed materials to help a teacher do his or her job. The bill would have also allowed teachers to take a deduction for their professional development expenses.

Rather than being available only for those who are able to itemize their deductions, this bill would have made these expenses ``above-the- line'' deductions, meaning they would be deductible whether or not the teacher itemized on their tax return.

Unfortunately, only a part of this bill was enacted. The 2001 tax bill included an above-the-line deduction for $250 for the costs of classroom expenses. While this was a great step in the right direction, it did not go nearly far enough. Moreover, the provision has now expired, and it is not clear when Congress is going to extend it.

The bill I am introducing today would do three things. First, it would reinstate the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of- pocket expenses for classroom supplies, make it permanent, and remove the $250 cap. Second, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the professional development expenses for school teachers. Finally, to assist in the recruitment of teachers in the most needed fields, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the cost of professionals in the fields of math, science, and technology to certify to become public school teachers.

Under my bill, the Alice of my example would be allowed to deduct all $1,500 of her professional development and classroom supplies expenses, whether she itemized or not. This would help provide tax equity, and a measure of much-needed tax relief for an underpaid professional. It would also help retain current public school teachers and attract new ones to this vital field.

Some might argue that such a generous deduction would be giving teachers preferential treatment. I disagree.

Most organizations provide training for their employees that is fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable to the employee. Yet public teachers, who are some of the most important professionals in our society, are left to foot the bill for these needed costs on their own. Also, office supplies and instructional materials are fully deductible to businesses. Should not teachers who provide these similar materials for their classrooms be afforded the same tax treatment?

Others may question the wisdom of my bill granting an unlimited tax deduction. ``Why not place a limit or a cap on the amount that may be deducted?'' some might ask. Again, I respectfully disagree with such critics. It is important to keep in mind the differences between a tax deduction and a tax credit. My bill calls for tax deductions, which reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax, and not for a credit, which is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of tax that is due.

With a tax deduction, a public school teacher is not receiving a cash subsidy or reimbursement for his or her expenses. Rather, he or she is merely obtaining a reduction in the amount of income that is taxed. Thus, the most benefit the teacher would receive under my bill would be a 35 percent reduction in the cost of the professional development, supplies, or certification expenses. This means that the teacher is still responsible for paying for the biggest portion of these costs. I do not believe that our public school teachers will abuse such an unlimited deduction. They will use their common sense and they will spend the appropriate amounts for their expenses.

Support for mathematics and science education at all levels is necessary to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology.

I endorse the efforts of my some of my colleagues to encourage more of our best and brightest students choose these fields of study. Support for qualified STEM teachers (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) is equally important. If we are successful in increasing the supply for STEM students, we will need to increase the supply of STEM teachers.

This bill will provide incentives for these professionals to enter the teaching profession by allowing expenses in connection with teacher certification to be fully deductible, above-the-line, the same as the professional development and supplies expenses of teaching professionals.

Mr. President, this bill would provide modest tax equity for teachers who, for too long, have been footing the bill for improving the quality of teaching by themselves. It is time that Congress recognized this unfairness and corrected it.

I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act of 2006 (RIDEA). This legislation would make a handful of relatively minor, but nonetheless important, changes to the tax rules governing Real Estate Investment Trusts to permit REITs to better meet the challenges of evolving market conditions and opportunities.

As most of my colleagues know, Real Estate Investment Trusts are companies that own, and in most cases, operate income-producing real estate. Congress created REITs in 1960 to give everyone the ability to invest in large-scale commercial properties in a very liquid way. The REIT industry has grown dramatically in size and importance to the U.S. economy since then, and in the last ten years in particular.

While the tax laws governing REITs are very good, from time to time they need to be modified to keep pace with the changes in the marketplace and in our economy. I am pleased to have supported, along with many of my colleagues, several tax bills that have been enacted in the past decade or so to modernize the tax treatment of Real Estate Investment Trusts.

Federal tax law requires that REITs meet specific tests regarding the composition of their gross income and assets. For example, 95 percent of their annual gross income must be from specified sources such as dividends, interests and rents, and 75 percent of their gross income must be from real estate-related sources. Similarly, at the end of each calendar quarter, 75 percent of a REIT's assets must consist of specified ``real estate'' assets. Consequently, REITs must derive a majority of their gross income from commercial real estate.

Failure to meet these tests can result in loss of REIT status, although with the enactment of the REIT Improvement Act in 2004, it may be possible for a REIT to pay a monetary penalty and bring itself into compliance in order to avoid such a result if the REIT can demonstrate reasonable cause for such failure.

Commercial real estate represents more than six percent of this country's gross domestic product and is a key generator of jobs and other economic activities. For example, REITs have invested over $1.2 billion in my home State of Utah and have thus been a major contributor to our robust economy. Over the past 46 years, Real Estate Investment Trusts have fulfilled

Congress' vision by making investments in large scale, capital intensive commercial real estate available to all investors.

Changes to the REIT rules that Congress has made in the past decade have allowed REITs to serve better their tenants while maximizing returns to REIT shareholders.

The bill I introduce today would further modify the REIT tax rules to conform to constantly evolving business realities, such as the growing importance of cross-border trade and the increased velocity of the competitive marketplace, while still focusing REITs on commercial real estate activities.

Specifically, the bill includes five titles.

The first would clarify the tax treatment of foreign currency gains attributable to overseas real estate investment. This is important as U.S. REITs continue to expand their investments overseas.

The second title would increase the permissible ownership of a REIT in a taxable REIT subsidiary to 25 percent from the current-law 20 percent. This change would bring the REIT rules into conformity with similar rules governing mutual funds.

Title III of the bill would update the safe harbor test for purposes of the 100 percent excise tax in relation to dealer sales. This would help REITs more prudently manage the timing and extent of their asset dispositions.

The bill's fourth title would conform the tax treatment of health care facilities to that of lodging facilities by treating as qualifying income rental payments attributable to a health care facility made to a REIT from a taxable REIT subsidiary. This change would allow health care REITs more flexibility.

Finally, the bill's fifth title would amend the REIT rules to provide that income from, and interests in, foreign-qualified REITs would be treated as qualifying REIT income and assets under the U.S. REIT rules under certain circumstances. This change is important because about 20 countries have now enacted legislation that closely resembles our REIT rules, and many U.S. REITs may wish to invest in a non-U.S. REIT. This would allow them to do so with a minimum of complexity.

I urge my colleagues to review this bill and lend their support to it. I realize that it is very late in the second session of the 109th Congress, and there is little time for us to consider newly-introduced tax bills. However, I hope to reintroduce this legislation in the next Congress if we do not get a chance to consider it this year.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act of 2006 (RIDEA). This legislation would make a handful of relatively minor, but nonetheless important, changes to the tax rules governing Real Estate Investment Trusts to permit REITs to better meet the challenges of evolving market conditions and opportunities.

As most of my colleagues know, Real Estate Investment Trusts are companies that own, and in most cases, operate income-producing real estate. Congress created REITs in 1960 to give everyone the ability to invest in large-scale commercial properties in a very liquid way. The REIT industry has grown dramatically in size and importance to the U.S. economy since then, and in the last ten years in particular.

While the tax laws governing REITs are very good, from time to time they need to be modified to keep pace with the changes in the marketplace and in our economy. I am pleased to have supported, along with many of my colleagues, several tax bills that have been enacted in the past decade or so to modernize the tax treatment of Real Estate Investment Trusts.

Federal tax law requires that REITs meet specific tests regarding the composition of their gross income and assets. For example, 95 percent of their annual gross income must be from specified sources such as dividends, interests and rents, and 75 percent of their gross income must be from real estate-related sources. Similarly, at the end of each calendar quarter, 75 percent of a REIT's assets must consist of specified ``real estate'' assets. Consequently, REITs must derive a majority of their gross income from commercial real estate.

Failure to meet these tests can result in loss of REIT status, although with the enactment of the REIT Improvement Act in 2004, it may be possible for a REIT to pay a monetary penalty and bring itself into compliance in order to avoid such a result if the REIT can demonstrate reasonable cause for such failure.

Commercial real estate represents more than six percent of this country's gross domestic product and is a key generator of jobs and other economic activities. For example, REITs have invested over $1.2 billion in my home State of Utah and have thus been a major contributor to our robust economy. Over the past 46 years, Real Estate Investment Trusts have fulfilled

Congress' vision by making investments in large scale, capital intensive commercial real estate available to all investors.

Changes to the REIT rules that Congress has made in the past decade have allowed REITs to serve better their tenants while maximizing returns to REIT shareholders.

The bill I introduce today would further modify the REIT tax rules to conform to constantly evolving business realities, such as the growing importance of cross-border trade and the increased velocity of the competitive marketplace, while still focusing REITs on commercial real estate activities.

Specifically, the bill includes five titles.

The first would clarify the tax treatment of foreign currency gains attributable to overseas real estate investment. This is important as U.S. REITs continue to expand their investments overseas.

The second title would increase the permissible ownership of a REIT in a taxable REIT subsidiary to 25 percent from the current-law 20 percent. This change would bring the REIT rules into conformity with similar rules governing mutual funds.

Title III of the bill would update the safe harbor test for purposes of the 100 percent excise tax in relation to dealer sales. This would help REITs more prudently manage the timing and extent of their asset dispositions.

The bill's fourth title would conform the tax treatment of health care facilities to that of lodging facilities by treating as qualifying income rental payments attributable to a health care facility made to a REIT from a taxable REIT subsidiary. This change would allow health care REITs more flexibility.

Finally, the bill's fifth title would amend the REIT rules to provide that income from, and interests in, foreign-qualified REITs would be treated as qualifying REIT income and assets under the U.S. REIT rules under certain circumstances. This change is important because about 20 countries have now enacted legislation that closely resembles our REIT rules, and many U.S. REITs may wish to invest in a non-U.S. REIT. This would allow them to do so with a minimum of complexity.

I urge my colleagues to review this bill and lend their support to it. I realize that it is very late in the second session of the 109th Congress, and there is little time for us to consider newly-introduced tax bills. However, I hope to reintroduce this legislation in the next Congress if we do not get a chance to consider it this year.

I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the REIT Investment Diversification and Empowerment Act and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to submit a resolution that would designate Thursday, November 16, 2006, as ``Feed America Day.''

The United States today is marked by an economic prosperity unparalleled in the world. Every year we gather together as family and friends in a great Thanksgiving feast to celebrate the goodness of God and the bounty that He has provided us. Unfortunately, not all in this world participate in this bounty. There are thousands among us who suffer from hunger and want, including far too many children.

Hunger was something our forefathers who instituted the first Thanksgiving feast understood all too well. Nearly half of the small band of Pilgrims who first arrived upon the bleak shores of Plymouth on December 11, 1620, perished from hunger and sickness that first winter. It was only through the generosity and goodwill of friendly native inhabitants that the Pilgrims were able to become self-sufficient and enjoy a bountiful harvest the following year.

It is with a sincere desire that others may partake of our plenty, that I offer this resolution designating Thursday, November 15, 2006, as ``Feed America Day''. That day, before we sit down to our own feasts of thanksgiving, I ask that all Americans share their food with their neighbors just as the Pilgrims and the Indians shared with one another, and all were able to sit down and rejoice together.

The concept of Feed America Day is very simple. On the Thursday before Thanksgiving, I urge every American who is able to fast for two meals and give the money saved to a church or charitable organization engaged in feeding the hungry. Fasting means to go without food for a higher purpose. What higher purpose could there be than to share our blessings with those in need? As we feel the hunger for a brief time that so many in the world experience every day, we become more sensitive to the needs of others. And this strengthened generosity of spirit will reverberate throughout our Nation and the world.

Sarah Josepha Hale, recognized as the Mother of the American Thanksgiving, engaged in a nearly 40-year campaign to have Thanksgiving accepted as a national holiday. She summed up her vision for this holiday in one of her many editorials on the subject published in the women's magazine she headed for many years. She wrote, ``Let us consecrate the day to benevolence of action, by sending good gifts to the poor, and doing those deeds of charity that will, for one day, make every American home the place of plenty and of rejoicing. . . . Let the people of all the States and Territories sit down together to the `feast of fat things,' and drink in the sweet draught of joy and gratitude to the Divine giver of all our blessings, . . .''

This is the purpose of Feed America Day.

Through this program of fasting and charity, we as a nation can truly embody the spirit of Thanksgiving that was amply demonstrated for us between the first European settlers to this land and its native inhabitants in 1621, and later urged by Mrs. Hale.

I urge my colleagues to support ``Feed America Day''. It is my belief that participating in such selfless sacrifice will breed a genuine spirit of Thanksgiving, affirming and restoring the fundamental principles that form the foundation of the United States of America.

Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation to reauthorize the Older Americans Act.

I strongly support this bill and want to acknowledge the hard work of the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension, HELP, Committee, Senator Mike Enzi, and the committee's ranking minority member, Senator Ted Kennedy.

In addition, I want to thank Senator Mike DeWine, the chairman of the Retirement Security and Aging Subcommittee and its ranking minority member, Senator Barbara Mikulski. All four of my colleagues and their wonderful staffs, Lauren Fuller, Kori Forster, Lindsay Morris, Kara Marchione, Ellen-Marie Whelan, and Keysha Brooks-Coley did a tremendous job in producing a good bill that will make a difference in the lives of older Americans across the nation.

Yesterday, this legislation passed the House of Representatives unanimously and it is my hope that the Senate will follow suit.

This legislation improves the functions of the Administration on Aging, provides grants for State and community programs on aging, and creates training and research programs to assist seniors in maintaining their independence. In addition, the conference report includes job training for seniors through the community service employment program and grants for supportive and nutrition programs for older Native Americans.

There are two provisions of this measure that I would like to highlight.

First, the conference report includes provisions from legislation that I introduced earlier this Congress with my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, S. 2010, the Elder Justice Act.

More specifically, this legislation includes a provision which authorizes the Assistant Secretary on Aging to designate an individual to be responsible for elder abuse and prevention services, and to coordinate Federal elder justice activities. This includes developing a long-term plan for the creation and implementation of a coordinated, multidisciplinary elder justice system.

I am so proud to have provisions from the Elder Justice Act included in this legislation. With over 77 million baby boomers retiring in the next three decades, we have no choice but to acknowledge something must be done to combat elder abuse. Passage of this bill is an important step in the right direction.

I also am pleased that this legislation includes a sense of the Congress recognizing the contribution of nutrition to the health of older Americans. This sense of the Congress states that while diet is the preferred source of nutrition, evidence suggests that the use of a single daily multivitamin-mineral supplement may be an effective way to address nutritional gaps that exist among the elderly population, especially the poor. I strongly believe that by encouraging seniors to take daily multivitamin-mineral supplements, we are only helping them to live longer, healthier lives and I am hopeful that senior meals programs will decide to provide supplements to those who participate.

There is a long history of evidence indicating that multivitamins and minerals can maintain and improve health and are safe. While I wish this provision had been more than a sense of the Congress, I appreciate the work of the conferees to highlight the necessity of good nutrition and supplementation.

Once again, I want to congratulate my colleagues on a job well done. Older Americans across the country appreciate your efforts.

Mr. President, I rise to support the effort to call up and immediately adopt S. 2823, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act.

Adoption of this legislation offers us the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people in the United States who are living with HIV/AIDS. We should not let this opportunity pass.

I am pleased to have joined HELP Committee Chairman Enzi and Ranking Minority Member Kennedy, Majority Leader Frist, and Senators DeWine and Burr in introducing this reauthorization bill.

As my colleagues are aware, I was the author of the original legislation along with Senator Kennedy and we introduced the first bill on this issue in the 101st Congress. The Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act of 1990 was signed into public law on August 18, 1990 and became--excluding Medicaid and Medicare--the United States' largest Federally funded program for the care of those living with HIV and AIDS. It was a lot of hard work. But it was a lot of hard work for a very important cause.

Let us take a moment to remember one of the reasons why we did all that hard work in the first place. His name was Ryan White. Ryan was born in Kokomo, IN, in 1971. Three days after his birth, he was diagnosed with severe hemophilia. Fortunately for Ryan and his parents, there was a new blood-based product just approved by the Food and Drug Administration called Factor VIII, which contains the clotting agent found in blood.

While he was growing up, Ryan had many bleeds or hemorrhages in his joints which were very painful. A bleed occurs from a broken blood vessel or vein. Think of a water balloon. When the blood has nowhere to go, it swells up in a joint and creates painful pressure. Twice a week, Ryan would receive injections or IVs of Factor VIII, which clotted the blood and then broke it down.

In December of 1984, Ryan was battling severe pneumonia and had to have surgery to have 2 inches of his left lung removed. Two hours after the surgery, doctors told his mother that he had contracted AIDS as a result of his biweekly treatment with Factor VIII. He was given 6 months to live.

Ryan White was a fighter. He was determined to continue at his school and live life normally. But in 1985, not many people knew the truth about AIDS. Not very much was known about AIDS at all. Most of the so- called facts that people claimed to know were speculation. So Ryan faced a lot of discrimination, mostly based on the unknown.

Ryan was soon expelled from his high school because of the supposed health risk to other students. His situation became one of the most controversial cases in North America, with AIDS activists lobbying to have him reinstated while attempting to explain to the public that AIDS cannot be transmitted by casual contact.

After legal battles, Ryan and his mother settled with the school to have separate restrooms and use disposable silverware from the cafeteria. He agreed to drink from separate water fountains and no longer used the high school gymnasium.

But those concessions didn't stop much. Students vandalized his locker. Some restaurants threw his dishes away after he left. A bullet was even fired into his home.

Later, Ryan transferred to a different school where he was well- received by faculty and students who were fully educated into the nature of HIV. Ryan was a great student with an exceptional work ethic and perseverance. He was respected by his fellow students because of his admirable traits. They understood he was a human being--just like them, but living with a terrible disease.

Before he died on April 8, 1990, Ryan White worked to educate people on the nature of HIV and AIDS, to show that it was not a lifestyle disease and that, with a few precautions, it was safe to associate with people who were HIV-positive. His character sought to overcome stigma. He became an inspiration to patients and advocates throughout the United States and the rest of the world.

By the spring of 1990, over 128,000 people had been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States and 78,000 had died of the disease.

The Ryan White CARE Act was originally enacted in 1990 in response to the need for HIV primary care and support services. At that time, the focus of public policy was on research, public education, surveillance, and prevention. The CARE Act was the first approach developed to help people with HIV and AIDS to obtain primary care and support services to save and improve their lives. There is no doubt that the CARE Act has played a critical role in the Nation's response to the AIDS epidemic.

The CARE Act was reauthorized in 1996 and 2000 to address the fact that the epidemic continued to spread and that primary care and support services provided through the act were still vitally important to people living with HIV and AIDS.

Today, more than 944,000 cases of AIDS have been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and prevention, the CDC. Nearly 530,000 men, women, and children have died as the epidemic has spread over the last 25 years to both new populations and new geographic areas.

The public health burden and the economic burden of the AIDS epidemic have not been reduced since the CARE Act was passed. The continued need for services grows faster than the resources available.

Steady expansion and shifted demographics of the epidemic and the increasing survival rates for people living with AIDS have increased the stress on local health care systems in some areas. This strain is felt both in urban centers, where the epidemic continues to rage, and in smaller cities and rural areas, where the epidemic is expanding rapidly.

This reauthorization bill addresses those inequities and reevaluates funding formulas so that money for the program follows the epidemic. It keeps money for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program--known as ADAP--within ADAP, and even grants States flexibility to transfer funds to ADAP when they have demonstrated need. Currently, funds for the ADAP supplemental pool are frequently dipped into for other purposes, resulting in inadequate funding and waiting lists. It also protects States and eligible metropolitan areas from suffering catastrophic losses in funding.

I know that it is never easy to revise a bill that contains funding formulas. No matter what changes we make, they will always raise issues and questions. But let us move beyond the narrow fight and work for the greater good.

We have been talking a lot about numbers and codes and case counts and reporting data, but we need to remember that there are actual real people being affected by this, real people who need our help. Hundreds of thousands of people continue to live affected with and die from this disease, and we need to bring out all the tools within the Federal arsenal to help fight for them.

As of December 31, 2005, the Utah Department of Health reported a total of 1,907 people living with HIV and AIDS

in the State of Utah. Many of these individuals rely on Title II funding from the Ryan White Program to receive health care, vital medications and support services.

These individuals are also counting on me to fight for their continued access to care and services that have such a big impact on their survival and quality of life. We in Congress are being counted on to work together on behalf of the nearly 1 million people living with HIV/AIDS in our country.

The last reauthorization period for the Ryan White Program expired in 2005. It is incredibly important that we reauthorize the program again now in order to continue providing the care that is so critical to these populations and alleviate strain from shifts in the epidemic felt by health care providers.

There are real people counting on us. We need to move forward in reauthorizing the only Federal program that helps the neediest of people living with this devastating disease. This bill extends the availability of vital services, and it includes changes that intend to fix discrepancies that have resulted in Ryan White funds not following the epidemic.

This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as soon as the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has finished.

Mr. President, I certainly enjoyed the remarks of my friend from Louisiana

Mr. President, I proudly rise to mark the 20th anniversary of a great event.

Twenty years ago today, Antonin Scalia took the oath of office to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Through his dogged commitment to the fundamental principles of liberty, and the brilliance and passion with which he expresses that commitment, Justice Scalia is having a profoundly positive impact on our nation.

In the time I have this morning, I would like to offer a few general remarks about Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy, his judicial personality, and his judicial impact.

Antonin Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey, the only child of immigrant parents.

After graduating first in his high school class, summa cum laude and valedictorian from Georgetown, and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, he embarked on a legal career that would include stints in private practice, government service, the legal academy, and the judiciary.

President Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia in 1982 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then in 1986 to his current post on the Supreme Court.

President Reagan did not choose Justice Scalia simply because he is smart and talented.

With all due respect to the good Justice, there are many smart and talented people around.

No, President Reagan chose Justice Scalia because his smarts and talents are connected to a deeply considered and deliberately framed judicial philosophy rooted in the principles of America's founding.

Indeed, as Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec has said, Justice Scalia ``is the justice who works the hardest to construct a coherent theory of constitutional interpretation that does not change from case to case.''

When the Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Scalia's nomination opened on August 5, 1986, I quoted from the Chicago Tribune's evaluation that the nominee before us was ``determined to read the law as it has been enacted by the people's representatives rather than to impose his own preference upon it.''

Consider for a moment the vital importance of this simple principle.

Since the people and their elected representatives alone have the authority to enact law, the way they have enacted it is the only sense in which the law is the law.

The way they have enacted it, then, is the only legitimate way for judges to read it.

This fundamental principle is at the heart of Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy.

This principle springs directly from the separation of powers, which America's founders said was perhaps the most important principle for limiting government and preserving liberty.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78 that there is no liberty if the judiciary's power to interpret the law is not separated from the legislature's power to make the law.

In his dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson, Justice Scalia highlighted the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 which, to this day, contains what Justice Scalia called the proud boast of democracy, that this is a government of laws and not of men.

The Massachusetts charter, however, also states what is required for this boast to be realized.

It requires the separation of powers, including that the judiciary shall never exercise the power to make law.

Today, only 42 percent of Americans know the number of branches in the federal government and fewer than 60 percent can name even a single one.

But America's founders insisted that identifying them, defining them, and separating them is essential for liberty itself.

In Marbury v. Madison, the great Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that it is the duty of the judicial branch to say what the law is.

Not what the law says, but what the law is.

The law is more than simply ink blots formed into words on a page.

Saying what the law is requires saying what the law means, for that meaning is the essence of the law itself.

But here is the crux of the matter, Mr. President.

The meaning of the words in our laws comes from those who made them, not from those who interpret them.

Those who chose the words in our laws gave them life by giving them meaning, and the judicial task of saying what the law is requires discovering the meaning they provided.

The separation of powers, therefore, excludes from the judiciary the power to change the words or meaning of the law and secures to it the power to interpret and apply that law to decide cases.

As President Reagan put it when swearing in Justice Scalia 20 years ago today, America's founders intended that the judiciary be independent and strong, but also confined within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws.

No one believes that principle more deeply, and insists on implementing it more consistently, than Justice Scalia.

President Reagan often used the general label judicial restraint for this notion of judges restrained by law they did not make and cannot change.

A speech last year at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here in Washington was one of many instances in which Justice Scalia used the more specific label originalism for his judicial philosophy.

When judges interpret the law, he said, they must ``give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.''

Whether that simple statement elicits growls or cheers today, Justice Scalia was merely echoing America's founders.

James Madison said that the only sense in which the Constitution is legitimate is if it retains the meaning given it by those who alone have the authority to make it law.

This body unanimously confirmed Justice Scalia on September 17, 1986, the 199th anniversary of the Constitution's ratification.

I see that as having more than coincidental significance, for it is Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy that gives the most substance and power to the Constitution.

The Constitution cannot govern government if government defines the Constitution.

That includes the judiciary, which is as much part of the Government as the legislative or executive branch.

To once again cite Chief Justice Marshall from Marbury v. Madison, America's Founders intended the Constitution to govern courts as well as legislatures.

It cannot do so if, as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes famously claimed, the Constitution is whatever the judges say it is.

If the Constitution is little more than an empty linguistic glass that judges may fill or a checkbook full of blank checks that judges may write, it is not much of anything at all. We all know better.

I am not sure what such a collection of words without meaning might be called, but it is not a Constitution.

Thankfully, Justice Scalia rejects such an anemic and shape-shifting view of the Constitution, insisting that even judges must be the servants rather than the masters of the law.

Justice Scalia insists that judges stick to judging so the Constitution can indeed be the Constitution.

Analyzing Justice Scalia's jurisprudential approach in the Arkansas Law Review, one scholar described what he called the justice's meticulous, almost obsessive, attention to language.

Let us remember that the epicenter of the remarkable system of government America's founders crafted is indeed a written Constitution.

They, too, were obsessed with language.

President George Washington warned in his 1796 farewell address against changing the Constitution through what he called usurpation rather than the formal amendment process.

George Mason actually opposed ratification of the Constitution, in part because giving the Supreme Court too much power to construe the laws would let them substitute their own pleasure for the law of the land.

President Thomas Jefferson said that ``our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.''

Justice Scalia appears to be in some good obsessive company.

No one should assume that while originalism is relatively straight- forward to describe, it is either perfect or easy.

Writing in the University of Cincinnati Law Review just a few years into his Supreme Court service, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that originalism is, in his words, not without its warts.

But it is consistent with, I would say compelled by, the principles underlying our form of Government.

And it is certainly better than the alternative, which puts judges rather than the people in charge of the law's meaning and the nation's values.

Let me emphasize that Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy is about the process of interpreting and applying the law, to whatever ends the law requires.

That process can produce results in individual cases that political conservatives or liberals will support or oppose.

But when the law, and not the judge, decides the outcome of cases, those who do not like the outcome can work to change the law.

When, however, the judge and not the law decides the outcome of cases, the people are nearly always left with no voice at all.

Justice Scalia's critics attack his judicial philosophy for the same reason he embraces it.

Originalism limits a judge's ability to make law.

The famed Senator and Supreme Court orator Daniel Webster once said that ``there are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.''

Justice Scalia has often said that judges are no better suited to govern than anyone else, and certainly have no authority to do so.

Unelected judges, no matter how well-intentioned, do not have the power to be our masters.

The temptation and danger of judges making law reminds me of a scene in The Fellowship of the Ring, the first installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Gandalf the wizard has discovered that Bilbo's ring is indeed the One Ring of power and Frodo insists that he take it.

Gandalf wisely says: Understand Frodo, I would use this ring from the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine.

In that same spirit, Justice Scalia declines the power to make law.

As Hamilton put it, the great and terrible cost of judges rather than the people making law would be liberty itself.

Thomas Jefferson warned that by playing with the meaning of the Constitution's words, the judiciary would turn the charter into a mere thing of wax that they would twist and shape into any form they chose.

In the last 70 years or so, the judiciary has been doing a lot of twisting and shaping.

One of Justice Scalia's predecessors on the Supreme Court, Justice George Sutherland, was also one of my predecessors as a Senator from Utah.

Justice Sutherland wrote this in 1937:

The judicial function is that of interpretation; it does

not include the power of amendment under the guise of

interpretation. To miss the point of difference between the

two is to . . . convert what was intended as inescapable and

enduring mandates into mere moral reflections.

In 1953, Justice Robert Jackson lamented what had become a widely held belief that the Supreme Court decides cases by personal impressions rather than impersonal rules of law.

Many people, conservatives as well as liberals, do not seem to mind this trend so long as it is their moral reflections and their personal impressions that are twisting and shaping the Constitution.

Many people, conservatives as well as liberals, applaud or criticize the Supreme Court when it amends the Constitution, depending on whether they like the Court's amendments.

Yet I ask my fellow citizens, both conservatives and liberals: would you rather have your liberty secured by moral reflections and personal impressions or enduring mandates and impersonal rules of law?

If you cede to judges the power to make law when you support the law they make, what will you say when

judges--and they will--make law you oppose?

Liberty requires separating judges from lawmaking.

Liberty requires that judges take the law as they find it, with the meaning it already has, apply it to decide concrete cases and controversies, and leave the rest to the people.

Professor John Jeffries of the University of Virginia Law School writes that Justice Scalia ``is the most nearly consistent of our judges. He cares more about methodology than is usual among judges, worries more about fidelity to the law laid down, feels himself more closely bound by external sources, and is more dedicated to a vision of constitutional law as something distinct and apart from constitutional politics.''

That is precisely the kind of judge America needs on the bench.

The second thing I want briefly to describe, is what has been called Justice Scalia's judicial personality.

It animates, communicates, and gives practical force to his judicial philosophy.

It turns up the volume, making people sit up and take notice of what, from someone else, might be little more than some quiet ramblings at a seminar somewhere.

One way to describe Justice Scalia's judicial personality would be simply to read from his opinions.

Even while enjoying his powerful prose, however, this might miss the real point.

Justice Scalia's piercing logic, witty and provocative writing, verbal jousting in speeches and debates, and aggressive questions in oral argument are but means to an end.

He uses wit, humor, logic, sarcasm, and the rest to expose the premises and implications of arguments, to assert and defend important principles, and to make the necessary application of those principles absolutely inescapable.

Justice Scalia does not suffer fools gladly, nor will he ignore the man behind the jurisprudential curtain.

His judicial personality makes his judicial philosophy more potent and, quite frankly, impossible to ignore.

As a result, the adjectives attached to his name by media, political activists, and commentators seem to be multiplying, as if a single descriptive--or even two or three--just will not do.

Some call him outspoken, provocative, or fiery; others say he is aggressive, engaging, and articulate.

One profile said he is colorful, controversial, and combative; another said he is testy, witty, and sarcastic.

If adjectives are a measure of one's presence, Justice Scalia is very present indeed.

Justice Scalia is also a funny man.

What is not to like about a judge who uses words such as pizzazzy when talking about constitutional interpretation?

I had no idea how to spell pizzazzy until I read it in one of Justice Scalia's speeches.

Following our modern penchant for everything statistical, we also have empirical evidence that Justice Scalia is indeed the funniest member of the highest court in the land.

Professor Jay Wexler at Boston University Law School examined transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments, noting when they identified laughter.

During the October 2004 term, Justice Scalia was way ahead of the laugh pack, good for slightly more than one laugh per session.

Finally, I want to address Justice Scalia's judicial impact in two respects.

The first is the impact that comes directly from him, from his judicial personality propelling his judicial philosophy.

One biography cites an unnamed Supreme Court observer noting that if the mind were muscle, Justice Scalia would be the Arnold Schwarzenegger of American jurisprudence.

The inherent power of the principles on which Justice Scalia stands, propelled by the way in which he asserts and defends them, force us confront, whether we like it or not, the issues most basic to a system of self-government based on the rule of law.

As a result, Harvard law professor John Manning writes, Justice Scalia has had a palpable effect on the way we talk and think about the issues of judicial power and practice.

In addition to the immediate work of judges, which is to decide cases, Justice Scalia has prompted, poked, and prodded us to grapple more seriously with these fundamental issues.

But he is not simply a judicial provocateur. When he enrages, he also engages. If Justice Scalia had no impact, he would get no attention. Even the commentators that call him a bully, or worse, feel they have to call him something. His harshest critics know they cannot ignore him.

Scholars or political activists can no longer simply describe the political goods they want judges to deliver, they must defend why judges have the authority to deliver those goods.

Justice Scalia has helped lead this transformation by so powerfully and consistently arguing that the political ends do not justify the judicial means.

As a result, the left-wing groups that today fight President Bush's judicial nominees often use Justice Scalia as the bogey-man, the model they say America must avoid.

To borrow an image from one of Justice Scalia's many famous dissenting opinions, he is used by some as the proverbial ghoul in the night, used to scare citizens and small children.

Somehow, I think, that is fine with Justice Scalia because, even as a foil, his judicial philosophy must be reckoned with.

He is indeed a happy warrior.

His speech at Harvard in September 2004 was typical.

According to news reports, nearly three times as many sought tickets as obtained them and he held the rapt attention of a standing-room-only crowd.

Legal scholars from across the political spectrum concede Justice Scalia's impact.

Professor Michael Dorf of Columbia Law School, for example, says that because of Justice Scalia's influence, we start more often with text rather than its history when looking at written law.

America's founders, it seems to me, assumed that judges would always start with the text and be kept in check because the meaning of that text already exists.

This is why America's founders could call the judiciary the weakest and least dangerous branch.

Putting statutory text ahead of statutory history would be a judicial no-brainer to them.

If Professor Dorf is correct, we should first lament that the courts had gotten so far off course and then cheer Justice Scalia for helping point the way back.

The second, more general, way of looking at Justice Scalia's impact has a human face.

Like every Federal judge, Justice Scalia each year has the assistance of law clerks, those super-brainy, hyper-kinetic workhorses who seem able to leap a courthouse in a single bound after virtually no sleep.

As his Judiciary Committee hearing opened 20 years ago, Justice Scalia introduced his law clerk Patrick Schiltz who had helped him prepare and who would go on to clerk for him on the Supreme Court.

Several months ago, this body confirmed Patrick Schiltz to be a U.S. District Judge in Minnesota.

In 2004, we confirmed Mark Filip, who clerked for Justice Scalia during the October 1993 term, to be a U.S. District Judge in Illinois.

In 2003, we confirmed Jeffrey Sutton, who clerked for Justice Scalia during the October 1991 term, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Justice Scalia must be proud of these former clerks who now sit on the Federal bench, and the many who have argued cases before him, even when he might vote against their position or reverse one of their decisions.

Justice Scalia's former clerks are now serving in many significant positions throughout the country.

They are partners at the Nation's leading law firms, on the faculty of the Nation's leading law schools, and heading legal teams at the Nation's major corporations.

Some, such as Solicitor General Paul Clement, serve in the top tier of the executive branch.

Ed Whelan, who clerked for Justice Scalia during the October 1991 term, served as my counsel when I chaired the Judiciary Committee and is now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center here in Washington.

Through these talented and dedicated men and women who have served in his

chambers, Justice Scalia's impact extends far beyond the halls of the Supreme Court.

Mr. President, I have received letters from some of Justice Scalia's former law clerks offering their own thoughts, reflections, and congratulations on this important anniversary.

I ask unanimous consent that they be made part of the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

While I have just scratched surface, my time is almost gone.

Justice Antonin Scalia is the kind of judge America needs and the kind of man Americans would want living next door.

He considers aggressively and defends passionately the principles responsible for the ordered liberty that makes America the envy of the world.

He refuses to let politics supplant principle and with a confident humility, or perhaps a humble confidence, submits himself to the rule of law and the collective judgment of his fellow citizens.

In the process, by the force of the principles in which he believes and the personality with which God has blessed him, Justice Antonin Scalia has made our liberty more secure, our citizenry and leaders more responsible, and given us all plenty to ponder, and chuckle about, along the way.

Mr. President, I have such respect for the Federal judiciary. I have such respect for those who interpret the laws rather than make them. Justice Scalia is at the head of the pack.

Justice Scalia, congratulations on your first 20 years on the Supreme Court. Thank you for all you continue to do for our Nation

Exhibit 1

September 21, 2006.

Senator Orrin Hatch,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Hatch: I am writing you on the occasion of

Justice Antonin Scalia's twentieth anniversary as a member of

the United States Supreme Court to reflect on some of the

enormous contributions the justice has made to our public

life during his service on the Supreme Court. I first met the

justice almost twenty-five years ago at the very first

Federalist Society conference ever held which was at Yale Law

School. I was struck then and am struck now by his vivacious

intellectual manner, his tremendous enthusiasm and energy,

and by his sharp wit. Justice Scalia is a brilliant man of

many talents, and he is in my view the intellectual leader of

the Court. I thought I would write you this letter to

describe some of the many ways in which Justice Scalia has

distinguished himself on the Supreme Court.

First, the justice is one of the most gifted writers ever

to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. Not since

Justice Robert Jackson has anyone served on the Court with

such a gift and flair for writing. Since his appointment to

the Court on September 26, 1986, Justice Scalia has emerged

as a brilliant, outgoing, and very outspoken Justice. His

sharp and pointed opinions, which all too often are dissents,

include many memorable lines. From the beginning, Justice

Scalia has also been a very active participant in the Court's

oral arguments where he asks probing and effective questions.

While serving on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia became

the most active proponent of originalism among the justices,

and it is fair to say he is the leading proponent of

originalism in American law today. Originalism is, of course,

the theory that constitutional language should be interpreted

according to the original meaning the relevant words had

when they were enacted into law. Justice Scalia defended

this theory in an important public lecture which was

published under the title Originalism: The Lesser Evil and

then in a book called A Matter of Intepretation: Federal

Courts and the Law. Justice Scalia's originalism is

evident in many of the most important decisions he has

written or joined including his opinions rejecting the use

of substantive due process in abortion, homosexual rights,

or assisted suicide cases. On criminal law and procedure

cases, Justice Scalia's originalism has sometimes led him

to favor criminal defendants claims with respect to issues

such as the right to jury trial in sentencing, in

determining the scope of the Confrontation Clause, and in

evaluating whether the President has power to detain

citizens who are enemy combatants without a court hearing.

Justice Scalia has qualified his support for originalism in

two important ways which illustrate his intellectual depth

and contribution to legal theory. First, he has made it clear

in constitutional cases that it is the original meaning of

the text which controls and not the original intentions of

those who wrote the text. Justice Scalia applies this

approach as well in statutory interpretation cases where he

has led a campaign for formalism and against any reliance on

legislative history. Justice Scalia's formalism has had a big

effect on the Court, and the justices make much less use now

of legislative history than they did when Justice Scalia was

first appointed. The revival of formalism is thus another

major accomplishment of the Justice's during his twenty year

tenure on the Supreme Court.

Second, Justice Scalia has also argued that when the

original meaning of the constitutional text would enmesh

judges in balancing judges ought in those cases to announce a

minimalist rule to further judicial restraint. As a result,

Justice Scalia rejects on judicial restraint grounds allowing

judges to assess the proportionality of punishments under the

Eighth Amendment or the necessariness of federal laws under

the Necessary and Proper Clause or the unconstitutionality of

broad delegations of power to the executive under the non-

delegation doctrine. Justice Scalia has defended his approach

in an important law review article called The Rule of Law as

a Law of Rules. In this article, Justice Scalia makes it

clear that when the original meaning of the text would enmesh

judges in balancing he thinks they should abstain from acting

instead. This too is a major contribution to the theory of

judicial restraint in judging.

Justice Scalia's most important opinions on the Court

include: his dissent in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v.

Casey, where the Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and his dissent

in Morrison v. Olsen, where the court upheld the

constitutionality of court appointed special prosecutors. The

Morrison dissent amusingly came to be hailed by liberals as

prophetic during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, and it

helped lead to a situation where the political branches

jointly decided to junk the special prosecutor law in 1999.

Other very important Scalia opinions include: his majority

opinion in Printz v. United States; his concurrence in Bush

v. Gore; and his dissents in Romer v. Evans and in Lawrence

v. Texas. Justice Scalia was also a critical fifth member of

the majority which found that flag burning was protected

speech under the first Amendment. In recent years, Justice

Scalia has led a campaign to preclude the Court from relying

on foreign law in many constitutional cases. But most

important of all, no other justice who has served on the

Court since Justice Scalia's appointment in 1986 has ever

been able to match him in his intellectual leadership of the

Court or in writing ability. A brilliant mind and a sharp pen

have guaranteed Justice Scalia a place in American history as

one of our most influential justices.

Best wishes,

Steven G. Calabresi,

Professor of Law.

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

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent on Senate business yesterday when the Senate voted on the nomination of Francisco Augusto Besosa to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Puerto Rico. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of Mr. Besosa's nomination.

Mr. President, I am pleased to submit today a resolution to celebrate 4.0 years of achievements of medical coders, and to encourage the medical coding community to continue providing accurate medical claims and statistical reporting to the people of the United States and to the world.

There are about 80,000 professional medical coders employed in the United States, and that number is expected to continue to grow due to the increasing number of medical tests, treatments and procedures, and the consequent scrutiny to provide the best quality health care in a market driven economy. Medical coders are a diverse group of women and men dedicated to ``running the numbers'' of health care. They translate the information that a physician documents during a patient visit into numerical codes that are used for both payment and statistical purposes.

Medical coders are sentries of our Nation's health. They communicate regularly with physicians and other health care professionals to clarify diagnoses or to obtain additional information in the assignment of alphanumeric codes. They are knowledgeable of medical terminology, anatomy, physiology, and the code sets necessary to serve effectively in their professional role within the health care community. They are team players committed to ethical and sound medical documentation and reimbursement practices.

Medical coders work in a variety of health care environments. Nearly 40 percent of all coding jobs are in hospitals. Others work in the offices of physicians, nursing care facilities, outpatient care centers, and home health care services. Insurance firms that offer health plans employ coders to tabulate and analyze health information. Medical coders in public health departments supervise data collection from health care institutions and assist in research. The Department of Defense policy requires accurate and prompt documentation of and coding of medical encounters within the Military Health System to assist, Military Treatment Facility operations. The compliance plan for third- party payers of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General acknowledges the specialized training of medical coders required due to the greater legal exposure related to coding medical services. Coders also stand as the frontline against the potential fraud and abuse of the Medicare and Medicaid programs while assuring that the physicians, hospitals, and clinics receive accurate compensation for the services provided.

The abilities coders possess to collect data about diagnoses and procedures figure prominently within my own interests for quality health care. Medical coders also provide us with the data we need for making tough choices in health care policy.

It is my hope that this resolution will help advance the recognition of professional medical coders and the attention given to their commendable work. It recognizes contributions to the national health care system and it reminds us of medical coders' dedication to the value of hard work in the interest of a national priority--quality health care for everyone. I applaud that contribution and am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me by passing this resolution.