Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to a wonderful staff member and dedicated public servant, Linda Gibbons. Linda will be retiring this week after 22 years of devoted service. I know I speak for everyone on my staff when I say she will be deeply missed.

As a member of my constituent services team, Linda helped thousands of Utahns who contacted my office seeking assistance. In serving constituents, she was always sympathetic to their needs and worked tirelessly to resolve their problems. Constituent casework is difficult, often requiring hours of tedious research and coordination with Federal and State agencies. But Linda was always equal to the task, and I can say without reservation that she was among the best caseworkers I have ever had.

Linda was passionate about public service. Her work ethic always impressed me, and I was grateful for her willingness to assume new responsibilities. She is tenacious, honest, and always believes in doing the right thing.

Most importantly, Linda has a deep capacity to care for and love others. Both constituents and staff know this well. She has always gone out of her way to listen to and help anyone in need.

I will always be grateful for Linda's work in helping me nominate Utah's most talented young students to military academies. Military academy nominations can be laborious and cumbersome, but Linda always saw candidates through the process with a remarkable degree of efficiency and professionalism. In doing so, she mentored some of Utah's best and brightest. She also built strong ties between our office, the students, their families, and officials from military academies.

Although Linda has achieved much in her professional life, perhaps her greatest success has been in the home. Linda has been married to her husband, Phil, for over 40 years, and together they have three children and seven grandchildren. She loves her family dearly and looks forward to spending more time with them in her retirement. Her compassion and strength have shepherded them through some of life's most difficult challenges.

I am truly grateful for the tremendous service Linda has rendered to my staff, her community, and the great State of Utah. I will miss Linda greatly, but I know that this next chapter in her life holds many exciting and wonderful opportunities. I will be forever grateful for her dedicated service and loyal friendship.

Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about some of the amendments we will be voting on later this afternoon--three of them in particular. The amendments I am referring to are the Merkley amendment No. 125, the Carper amendment No. 120, and the Heitkamp amendment No. 133. All three of these amendments address sensitive tax issues that fall squarely into the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee, and all of them address issues that are likely to be litigated as the Finance Committee continues its efforts toward comprehensive tax reform.

The Finance Committee is going to be very active in this Congress. We had our first bipartisan markup this morning. We already had two hearings, with more scheduled for next week, and perhaps more importantly--at least in the context of these three votes we will be having today--we have taken concrete steps in a process we believe will end in the introduction of bipartisan tax reform legislation. We have appointed five tax reform working groups to address the various areas of reform. Our hope is that over the next few months these working groups will study the issues and provide ideas we can use as we develop a comprehensive tax reform proposal.

Ranking Member Wyden is on board with this effort. We are working together every step of the way. If we start singling out individual tax issues here on the floor--even issues Members may feel passionately about--we are going to undermine this bipartisan process. Virtually everyone in both parties agrees that we need to fix our broken, inefficient Tax Code. Sure, there are disagreements on what the substance of tax reform should look like, but there is a growing consensus on the need for reform, which is encouraging. If we are going to be successful in tax reform, we need to make sure these issues are addressed in the tax-writing committees.

I think it is safe to say that all of the issues my colleagues are trying to address with their amendments are going to be litigated one way or another in the Finance Committee's efforts this year. That being the case, raising these issues as floor amendments on an unrelated bill is, in my view, very counterproductive.

Finally, I would like to note that these amendments would all be subject to a constitutional point of order as they all deal with revenue and would need to be passed first by the House of Representatives. I am not going to raise that point of order at this time; I just want to make note of it for the record.

Given all of these concerns, I hope my colleagues--Senators Merkley, Carper, and Heitkamp--will withdraw these amendments so these issues can be addressed in the proper forum. If they do not withdraw their amendments, I plan to vote against all three of them and urge all of my colleagues--particularly those who have an interest in a successful tax reform effort--to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 23

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 48

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help victims of child pornography, one of society's most heinous crimes. I am joined by 34 Senators on both sides of the aisle. I hope this legislation will soon become law.

Sexually exploiting a child distorts her life and leaves scars long after the abuse itself ends and the abuser has been prosecuted. For this reason, the Violence Against Women Act includes a provision requiring that in such cases a defendant must pay restitution to cover all of the victim's losses. Those losses can include future lost income as well as medical care, mental health counseling, and therapy.

Child pornography isn't merely the record of a child's sexual abuse, it is itself an instance of abuse. The ongoing trafficking and those images pile harm upon harm. As a result, it becomes even more difficult for a victim to put together a life that was shattered before it had barely begun.

As the Supreme Court has recognized, ``every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the victim's abuse.'' The current restitution statute was enacted in 1994, before the Internet became prime real estate for trafficking of child pornography.

It puts victims in an impossible bind. In a case decided last spring, the Supreme Court said the current restitution statute requires the victim to prove how much of her losses were specifically caused by a single defendant's possession of her images. With a burden like that, it is no wonder that under this statute victims receive no restitution at all in more than three-quarters of child pornography cases.

The cruel irony today is that the more individuals who participate in harming a victim, the less any of them is financially responsible, and the less timely help the victim will receive. Perpetrators are easily lost in a crowd.

The bill I introduce today will amend the restitution statute so that it works for child pornography victims. It is named for Amy and Vicky, brave women who are the victims of two of the most widely viewed child pornography series in the world. Amy's case went before the Supreme Court last year, and my staff worked with the legal team for these women in developing this bill.

I want to mention in particular James Marsh, whose legal practice in New York focuses exclusively on helping victims; Professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah, who argued Amy's case before the Supreme Court; and Carol Hepburn, who practices law in Seattle on behalf of Vicky and many other victims.

This bill changes the current restitution statute in three important ways so that it works for child pornography victims. First, it gives judges options for determining a victim's losses and calculating restitution. Second, it gives judges the ability to impose restitution on defendants in different kinds of cases to ensure that victims actually receive meaningful restitution. Third, it shifts the burden of chasing defendants all over the country from victims to defendants who can share the restitution costs with other defendants.

Both Amy and Vicky personally support this bill. I am also pleased that many national victim advocacy groups support this bill, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Crime Victim Law Institute, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women.

Last October I received a letter endorsing this bill signed by the attorneys general of 43 States, 22 Republicans and 21 Democrats.

I want to share with my colleagues the story of a young man, a Utah resident, who uses the name Andy.

Between the ages of 7 and 12, he was sexually abused by a trusted adult and family friend. Dr. David Corwin, the University of Utah child psychologist who examined him, said that based on 30 years of experience with child sexual abuse victims, the images and videos of Andy's abuse were the most disturbing he had ever seen.

According to the FBI, the images and videos created from Andy's abuse are one of the most widely distributed boy series in the country. The FBI says that as of last month Andy is a named victim in 726 cases. He has been granted restitution in 24 of the 101 cases in which he requested it and has collected anything at all in only 2 cases.

Andy wrote to support the bill I am introducing today. He addresses letters to the Members of the Congress, which means that he is writing to each Member of this body. Andy says this legislation will prevent him from having to spend decades trying to recover minuscule amounts of restitution from hundreds, if not thousands of defendants all over the country. I want my colleagues to hear his words:

My images may never be taken off the Internet and may

always be circulating around the country. At least with this

congressional change, I can start to heal, learn how to

handle my circumstances, and re-build my life.

There are many more Amys, Vickys, and Andys than any of us want to admit, and they need our help. In our system of government, we have the responsibility to pass or change legislation to address issues and problems Americans face. All the courts could do was confirm that the current restitution statute is no longer suited to help child pornography victims. It is now up to us to do our duty and enact a statute that will. Amy, Vicky, and Andy are counting on us, and we must not let them down.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help victims of child pornography, one of society's most heinous crimes. I am joined by 34 Senators on both sides of the aisle. I hope this legislation will soon become law.

Sexually exploiting a child distorts her life and leaves scars long after the abuse itself ends and the abuser has been prosecuted. For this reason, the Violence Against Women Act includes a provision requiring that in such cases a defendant must pay restitution to cover all of the victim's losses. Those losses can include future lost income as well as medical care, mental health counseling, and therapy.

Child pornography isn't merely the record of a child's sexual abuse, it is itself an instance of abuse. The ongoing trafficking and those images pile harm upon harm. As a result, it becomes even more difficult for a victim to put together a life that was shattered before it had barely begun.

As the Supreme Court has recognized, ``every viewing of child pornography is a repetition of the victim's abuse.'' The current restitution statute was enacted in 1994, before the Internet became prime real estate for trafficking of child pornography.

It puts victims in an impossible bind. In a case decided last spring, the Supreme Court said the current restitution statute requires the victim to prove how much of her losses were specifically caused by a single defendant's possession of her images. With a burden like that, it is no wonder that under this statute victims receive no restitution at all in more than three-quarters of child pornography cases.

The cruel irony today is that the more individuals who participate in harming a victim, the less any of them is financially responsible, and the less timely help the victim will receive. Perpetrators are easily lost in a crowd.

The bill I introduce today will amend the restitution statute so that it works for child pornography victims. It is named for Amy and Vicky, brave women who are the victims of two of the most widely viewed child pornography series in the world. Amy's case went before the Supreme Court last year, and my staff worked with the legal team for these women in developing this bill.

I want to mention in particular James Marsh, whose legal practice in New York focuses exclusively on helping victims; Professor Paul Cassell at the University of Utah, who argued Amy's case before the Supreme Court; and Carol Hepburn, who practices law in Seattle on behalf of Vicky and many other victims.

This bill changes the current restitution statute in three important ways so that it works for child pornography victims. First, it gives judges options for determining a victim's losses and calculating restitution. Second, it gives judges the ability to impose restitution on defendants in different kinds of cases to ensure that victims actually receive meaningful restitution. Third, it shifts the burden of chasing defendants all over the country from victims to defendants who can share the restitution costs with other defendants.

Both Amy and Vicky personally support this bill. I am also pleased that many national victim advocacy groups support this bill, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, the National Crime Victim Law Institute, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women.

Last October I received a letter endorsing this bill signed by the attorneys general of 43 States, 22 Republicans and 21 Democrats.

I want to share with my colleagues the story of a young man, a Utah resident, who uses the name Andy.

Between the ages of 7 and 12, he was sexually abused by a trusted adult and family friend. Dr. David Corwin, the University of Utah child psychologist who examined him, said that based on 30 years of experience with child sexual abuse victims, the images and videos of Andy's abuse were the most disturbing he had ever seen.

According to the FBI, the images and videos created from Andy's abuse are one of the most widely distributed boy series in the country. The FBI says that as of last month Andy is a named victim in 726 cases. He has been granted restitution in 24 of the 101 cases in which he requested it and has collected anything at all in only 2 cases.

Andy wrote to support the bill I am introducing today. He addresses letters to the Members of the Congress, which means that he is writing to each Member of this body. Andy says this legislation will prevent him from having to spend decades trying to recover minuscule amounts of restitution from hundreds, if not thousands of defendants all over the country. I want my colleagues to hear his words:

My images may never be taken off the Internet and may

always be circulating around the country. At least with this

congressional change, I can start to heal, learn how to

handle my circumstances, and re-build my life.

There are many more Amys, Vickys, and Andys than any of us want to admit, and they need our help. In our system of government, we have the responsibility to pass or change legislation to address issues and problems Americans face. All the courts could do was confirm that the current restitution statute is no longer suited to help child pornography victims. It is now up to us to do our duty and enact a statute that will. Amy, Vicky, and Andy are counting on us, and we must not let them down.

Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 165, which restores many of the terrorist detainee transfer safeguards that were weakened in the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, as well as imposes a 2-year bar on the transfer of detainees to Yemen.

This legislation has been authored by Senator Kelly Ayotte, one of the Senate's foremost leaders on national security, and its cosponsors include the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain, and the chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Richard Burr, as well as the Senate's preeminent expert on military law, Senator Lindsey Graham.

I am honored to add my name to the list of Senators who have cosponsored this legislation.

Mr. President, the effect of this legislation is to preserve the ability of the

United States to detain at our facilities at Guantanamo Bay members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban--the organizations responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Why is keeping Guantanamo open so important?

Simply put, Guantanamo affords our military a safe and secure location to detain those individuals held under the law of war or for violations of the law of war.

If an enemy combatant is captured during an armed conflict, that individual can be held under the law of war. It is a generally accepted legal principle, affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court, that enemy combatants can be held at least until a conflict is concluded.

If an individual is held for a violation of the laws of war, that means they are being detained until they can be prosecuted for a war crime they are alleged to have committed.

The detainee population of Guantanamo contains battle-hardened terrorists. Indeed, the threat they pose is amply demonstrated since 29 percent of Guantanamo detainees released so far are confirmed or suspected of rejoining the fight against the United States.

Now, Mr. President, Cliff Sloan, who was the State Department's envoy for closing Guantanamo Bay, recently wrote in a New York Times editorial that this nearly 30 percent recidivism rate was ``deeply flawed.'' It appears Mr. Sloan only wants the Congress and the American people to consider the confirmed rate rather than the combined confirmed and suspected recidivism rate.

Mr. President, if Congress and the American people are truly to understand the risks inherent in this administration's insistence on releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees, we must consider this combined number. How can that be deeply flawed?

Mr. Sloan goes on to state that the level of recidivism is much lower since 2009. However, this lower rate, if accurate, undoubtedly does not include the five senior Taliban leaders who were illegally released to Qatar and whose 1-year travel ban is about to expire. Unless the Qatari Government prevents it, soon these terrorists will be free to go wherever they wish.

I am also concerned that this new number might not fully incorporate the activities and future actions of those detainees who have been transferred in recent months. One of the major advantages of locating our detention operations at Guantanamo Bay is that it is well-settled law that the United States can hold individuals held under the law of war or for violations of the law of war at our facilities there.

Now, I personally believe current Supreme Court precedent would enable us to hold both law of war and violations of law of war detainees in the United States. However, if these detainees are moved into the United States, every attorney representing detainees would rush to federal court and file new lawsuits seeking their clients' release. Indeed, there exists a very real possibility that a court might release a detainee into the United States, especially in light of the Obama administration's unwillingness, in some cases, to defend against detainees' habeas petitions to the fullest extent. As such, the risks of transferring these detainees into the United States are great.

Guantanamo Bay also affords us a much better environment to bring and hold newly apprehended terrorists. Inside the United States, the Supreme Court has mandated that criminal suspects be read their rights--including their right to remain silent and right to a lawyer-- subject to only a narrow public safety exception. Such limits on interrogations severely hinder our ability to gather information from captured terrorists, who have time and again proven to be the source of vital intelligence.

Consider, for example, how officials were only able to interrogate the Boston Marathon bomber for just 16 hours before he was read his rights and immediately stopped cooperating. As one of the longest serving members ever of the Intelligence Committee, I can assure you that it takes far longer to gather all of the important information we can from most terrorists.

Moving detainees into the United States also presents serious domestic security concerns. A number of terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have become quite adept at jailbreaks. Bringing a concentration of terrorist detainees into the United States therefore could create a particularly appealing target in the homeland for jihadist radicals, whereas at Guantanamo Bay they are essentially isolated in a facility well secured by the U.S. military.

Clearly there are ample and compelling legal and national security reasons to maintain our detention operations at Guantanamo Bay. That is why Senator Ayotte's legislation is so important. It ensures we will continue to use this vital facility by restoring the transfer restrictions that have enabled us to keep these individuals in such a secure location.

A little over a year ago, there was a profound change in the laws governing the transfer of Guantanamo detainees overseas. Before fiscal year 2014 legislation, the Congress had repeatedly enacted provisions in the annual Defense Authorization Act which all but prevented the transfer of Guantanamo detainees.

Specifically, these previous laws required the Secretary of Defense to certify in writing, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that certain criteria had been met before the transfer of a detainee abroad could occur--in particular, that the foreign entity receiving a detainee has ``taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States'' as well as ``taken or agreed to take such actions as the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity.''

Despite this, with few exceptions, the law prohibited the transfer of detainees to countries to which detainees had previously been transferred and subsequently reengaged in terrorism. Yet the law did afford the Secretary of Defense a national security waiver that negated the requirements if other standards were met.

So the bottom line here is that under the old law it was very difficult--as it should be--to transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees overseas.

But the Obama administration, bent on an ideological crusade to empty Guantanamo no matter the cost, successfully lobbied to relax these restrictions in the Fiscal Year 2014 Defense Authorization Act. The newly weakened provisions permitted the transfer of detainees overseas as long as the Secretary of Defense determined that ``the individual is no longer a threat to the national security of the United States.'' This is, of course, a lesser standard than requiring a certification that the individual cannot threaten the United States or reengage in terrorist activity.

In addition, under the Fiscal Year 2014 law, the Secretary could even authorize the transfer of a detainee as long as the Secretary determined the transfer was in the interest of the United States and action had been or was to be taken which will substantially mitigate the chance of recidivism.

While the statute does require the Secretary of Defense to take into consideration a number of factors before making this decision, the reality of the new regime is that the Secretary has far more ability to transfer detainees overseas.

The Obama administration quickly seized on this new power. In the past year the number of Guantanamo Bay detainees has been decreased from 155 to 122. And despite this new transfer authority, the Obama administration had the audacity to violate even the relaxed transfer restrictions less than 6 months after the law's enactment--specifically by transferring five senior Taliban commanders to Qatar without providing Congress 30 days of notification. Since then, the administration, after a brief lull, has continued and even increased the pace of detainees being transferred overseas.

These deeply troubling moves by the Obama administration demonstrate the vital importance of Senator Ayotte's bill. It restores the previous transfer restrictions. Specifically, it requires the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, to certify that certain safeguards are in place and that threat of recidivism is very small before a transfer can be undertaken.

Furthermore, this legislation also places a 2-year ban on the transfer of detainees to Yemen. This restriction is especially important because approximately half of the remaining detainees at Guantanamo are from Yemen.

Yemen is one of our most critical partners in the fight against terror, and we cooperate closely with the Yemeni Government in the fight against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. But because of the presence of this menacing group within Yemen's borders, the security situation there is dire, and it seems to be deteriorating as we speak.

Just last week the Houthi, a Shia rebel group, seized control of Yemen's Presidential palace, forcing the resignation of the President, Prime Minister, and Cabinet. In December of 2013 AQAP launched a well- coordinated assault on the Yemeni Ministry of Defense that left 52 dead, not to mention a number of jailbreaks from the Yemeni correctional facilities in which, according to press reports, numerous members of AQAP were freed.

The unvarnished truth is that it will take many years and much effort to bring about the security improvements in Yemen needed before we can be confident that detainees returned there will not return to the battlefield. That is why this section of Senator Ayotte's legislation is so important.

Our policies must be based on defeating the real threats facing our Nation, not pacifying the ideological passions of an extreme few, which is why I was so disappointed by another recent New York Times editorial about this legislation. The Times called Senator Ayotte ``opportunistic,'' if you can believe that, for citing the very real threat of a Paris-style attack on the homeland and termed her description of Yemen as ``the wild, wild West,'' as ``odd.'' I cannot imagine a better way to describe the disturbing security situation in Yemen. And based on years of evidence, one can only conclude Senator Ayotte is right. Frankly, I believe the New York Times owes Senator Ayotte an apology, and I hope they will be big enough to do that.

We need this legislation because it restores proper protections from the threats posed by released detainees. I hope the rest of my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, today is the anniversary of a tragedy. Forty-two years ago today, the Supreme Court announced its creation of a right to abortions for virtually any reason at all virtually at any time. The result of that decision is a tragedy for our society, for our culture, and for our precious life lost.

Since even before America's founding, the law was on a steady march toward protecting human beings before birth. In the 19th century, medical professionals and civil rights activists led a movement that succeeded in prohibiting abortion in every State except to save the mother's life. America had reached a consensus on the importance of protecting the most vulnerable. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court swept all of that aside, imposing upon the country a permissive abortion regime that the American people to this day have never chosen or accepted.

The debate over the morality and legality or policy of abortion begins with one inescapable fact--every abortion kills a living human being. Many have tried mightily to avoid, obscure, distract from, or ignore that fact, but it will not go away. Every abortion kills a living human being. That fact informed President Ronald Reagan when he wrote a moving essay titled ``Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation'' in 1983.

He wrote, ``We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life.'' The real question, President Reagan said, is not about when human life begins, but about the value of human life. I believe that remains the real question today.

Today the United States is one of only seven nations in the world to allow abortion into the sixth month of pregnancy and beyond. That list of nations includes such champions of human rights as China and North Korea. Yet, in 1948, the United States voted in favor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes in its preamble the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of ``all members of the human family.''

Article 3 of the declaration states that ``everyone has a right to life.'' Words such as ``universal'' and ``inherent'' and ``all'' are unambiguous and clear.

Our embrace of the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings in 1948 stands in jarring contrast to the Supreme Court's decision in Roe just 25 years later, that the life of any human being may be ended before birth.

The Supreme Court might have thought in 1973 that it was settling the abortion issue. By 1992, however, the Court conceded that the rules it created in Roe simply did not work and issued revised regulations in a case titled Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court said then that the contending sides in the abortion controversy should ``end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.''

National division on any issue, let alone one so profound as the taking and the value of human life, will not end simply because the Court says so. The division over abortion not only continues, but has remained largely unchanged even after dozens of Supreme Court decisions and four decades of insisting that abortion is a constitutional right.

The Supreme Court can render opinions on constitutionality, but it is limited in its ability to forge lasting consensus. That is the provenance of our great deliberative bodies where the people are truly represented.

More than 70 percent of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances. That figure has not changed in 40 years. What has changed is that more Americans today identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice. Large majorities favor a range of limitations on abortion and last November elected scores of new pro-life Senators at both the State and Federal level.

We must not avoid the fundamental question of the value of human life, for no question is more important. Do we still, as we once did, believe that every human being has inherent dignity and worth?

Two nights ago, in his State of the Union Address, President Obama spoke about the values that are at stake in the public policy choices we must make. Is there any value more important than life itself? He spoke about expanding opportunities for individuals, but the first opportunity that must be secured is the opportunity for life itself.

For many, the right to abortion is a symbol of progress. However, the idea that an act resulting in killing a living human being should be held up as a step forward, as a light to guide our way, strikes me as deeply misguided. We should instead be deepening the conviction that all human beings have inherent dignity and worth. That has been and should remain the foundation of our culture, society, and even our politics.

In his 1983 essay, President Reagan wrote that ``we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion.''

Today's tragic anniversary is a reminder of how our Nation's survival depends on respecting the essential dignity and worth of every human individual. Resting in the balance is how we ultimately define who we are as a people and what we strive to be as a nation.

This is an important issue. It is not one that should be slighted over. It is an issue that should strike at the heart of every person in this body. It is an issue that we all should stand up to strengthen and fight against in the case of this issue of abortion.

I am so grateful that so many people feel the same way, and that more and more people in this country are starting to realize every human life is important and that this society has sometimes gotten off track and not respected the rights of human beings. I think Roe v. Wade led us there, and we should be let out of Roe v. Wade by those who know there is a better way to have the sensitivity that society deserves to have, should have, and I believe will have in the future.

Mr. President, there is a constitutional point of order that lies against the pending amendment.

It was filed and offered by my friend, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the senior Senator from Oregon.

A constitutional point of order lies against the amendment, numbered 27 because it violates article 1, section 7, clause 1 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the origination clause. The origination clause states that ``All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. . . . ''

In addition, the pending amendment is not germane to the bill we are debating, and is not expected to pass. I reserve the right to raise this constitutional point of order against amendment No. 27 in the unlikely event that it passes. I will hold off for now on raising this point of order to spare the Senate an unnecessary vote.

However, I want to put everybody in the Senate on notice that, in the future, I reserve the right to raise this constitutional point of order regarding any proposal that violates the origination clause. In the Senate, revenue proposals should first be processed in the committee of jurisdiction in the Senate, which is the Senate Finance Committee.

I will vote ``no'' on the pending amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, the Committee on Finance has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 114th Congress. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying rules for the Senate Committee on Finance be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity to pay tribute to a remarkable woman, a loving wife, and a caring mother-- former Utah Speaker of the House Rebecca ``Becky'' Lockhart.

After weeks of battling a rare degenerative disease, Becky quietly passed away on January 17, 2015, with her loving family gathered at her bedside. Becky leaves behind a legacy of leadership and passionate advocacy that will resonate for years to come. It was this same passion and resilience that defined her tenure as Speaker of the Utah House. She was a dedicated public servant who always rose to meet our State's challenges with wisdom and strength.

Becky's career was a model of selfless service. Guided by a desire to help others, she studied nursing at Brigham Young University. Before entering public service, Becky worked as a registered nurse for 7 years, during which time she treated thousands of patients and became intimately familiar with health care issues affecting Utah families. Her experience as a nurse would later shape her career as a legislator, and as Speaker of the House, she became a powerful advocate for State- based health care reform. I had the opportunity to discuss these and many other issues with Becky throughout the years. In doing so, I was always impressed with her eloquence, her intelligence, and her commitment to the State of Utah.

Becky was first elected to the Utah House of Representatives in 1998, and she quickly distinguished herself as a persuasive collaborator, a passionate legislator, and one of the hardest-working representatives in the legislature. Her colleagues recognized her leadership abilities and elected her Assistant Majority Whip in 2008. Just 2 years later, Becky made history when she became the first women to serve as Speaker of the House in Utah. Through her remarkable career, she trail-blazed a path for generations of women to follow and became known as Utah's ``Iron Lady.''

Utah grew under Becky's leadership. She championed legislation that modernized our State's transportation system, strengthened our infrastructure, and promoted technological advancement. During her last year as Speaker, she spearheaded an ambitious education initiative aimed at putting technology directly into the hands of Utah students. Her leadership spurred a much-needed discussion on ways to improve Utah's education system to equip our students with the resources they need to succeed academically.

Many are familiar with Becky's public life, but of even greater importance was her personal life. Before she was House Speaker and even before she became a well-known political figure, Becky was, first and foremost, a wonderful wife and a loving mother. Becky and her husband, Stan, created a strong partnership in politics and in parenthood as they lovingly raised their three children, Hannah, Emily, and Stephen. I know that Stan and his family will miss Becky most of all. During this time of heartrending loss, I pray that they may feel the comforting embrace of God's love and find peace in the memories they share with this remarkable woman.

I, too, will miss Becky dearly. May her memory always serve as a model of compassion, selflessness, and dedicated public service.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the critical need for cyber security legislation.

Computers control nearly everything we use in our daily lives. They control our cars, our phones, our water supply, our power grid, our financial services, our retail networks, our food production and in many respects our military capabilities.

Fortunately, our adversaries have not yet succeeded in inflicting major physical damage on our Nation's interdependent critical infrastructure.

That is not to say however they are not vulnerable to persistent threats in cyber space. Look no further than in the ``2014 U.S. State of Cybercrime Survey.'' That is a study prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the U.S. Secret Service, Carnegie Mellon University, and CSO magazine.

Of the more than 500 U.S. executives and security experts surveyed, 77 percent of businesses detected an attempted security breach in the previous 12 months, and 34 percent of these businesses said the number of security incidents detected increased over the previous year, with an average number of 135 incidents per organization.

The report makes many key observations, but let me emphasize a key finding that resonated with me. One thing

is very clear: Most organizations' cyber security programs do not rival the persistence, tactical skills, and technological prowess of today's cyber adversaries.

Cyber thieves proved their determination just last week when Russian hackers amassed over 1 billion Internet user names and passwords, the largest known collection of Internet credentials.

In the years following the September 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence consistently ranked terrorism as our No. 1 threat, but that started to change a few years ago. In 2012 then- FBI Director Robert Mueller predicted that ``in the not too distant future, we anticipate that the cyber threat will pose the number one threat to our country.''

He was right.

In 2013 and 2014 the intelligence community's Worldwide Threat Assessment lists cyber as the top threat to our Nation. Terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and unauthorized leaks of classified information remain grave threats to our country, but cyber is now our No. 1 threat.

Yet it is hard to believe no major cyber security legislation has been enacted since 2002, when Congress passed the Federal Information Security Management Act--or FISMA--and the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act. Of course, there have been provisions relevant to cyber security enacted in subsequent laws but nothing as significant or comprehensive as the laws passed 12 years ago.

As we begin a new Congress, let me articulate a few guiding principles that should be included in any cyber security legislation.

First, we must acknowledge the need for the government and the private sector to cooperate in order to fend off cyber attacks, but today businesses are reluctant to share critical information out of fear of legal repercussions. Congress must provide proper incentives, such as liability protection, to encourage the private sector to share cyber threat information with our government.

Next, any cyber security legislation must strike the right balance between protecting our Nation's computer infrastructure and protecting individual privacy rights.

Thus, information sharing between businesses and the government must be tailored to the recipient's actual security responsibilities. Moreover, any legislation should avoid overly broad language that could clash with privacy protections.

Furthermore, a voluntary, nonregulatory approach is most likely to yield consensus legislation. The role of DHS and other government agencies should be to provide advice and resources to improve our Nation's cyber security posture, not to pile on additional burdensome regulations.

Finally, and perhaps most important, we must build a strong cyber security workforce in the public and the private sectors. Enacting cyber security legislation will mean very little if there are no trained professionals prepared to tackle our Nation's cyber security challenges.

In order to build the enduring capabilities capable of protecting our cyber infrastructure, we must encourage young people to pursue high- tech careers and attract highly skilled workers from around the world.

Beyond the civilian realm, the cyber threats we face present critical new challenges to our national security. Arguably, we have not yet faced a similarly novel catalyst for policy formulation and change since the development of our nuclear deterrence strategy more than 60 years ago.

As we face this new world of cyber threats, the fundamental question remains the same: What is the most efficient and effective means to defend our country, the United States, while remaining true to the Constitution at the same time. Answering that question should be the cornerstone of the President's cyber security strategy.

I was encouraged to hear the President say during his visit to the National Cybersecurity Communications Integration Center earlier this week that ``cyber threats are an urgent and growing danger.'' I certainly share that assessment of the dire nature of this very real threat to our national security.

While I applaud the White House for its plans to host a conference on cyber security and consumer protection next month, the nature of the cyber security threat demands a comprehensive strategy to protect our Nation.

Much work remains to be done on this front, especially from the standpoint of the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. The urgency of this task was amplified when the Congressional Research Service concluded just this month that ``the overarching defense strategy for securing cyberspace is vague and evolving.''

As we face these threats, we must act decisively to ensure that bureaucratic barriers do not hinder the development of an effective strategy to counter threats from cyber space. As it stands, there is not a single agency primarily responsible for cyber defense.

The Department of Homeland Security is charged with protecting civilian networks and working with the private sector. The FBI and Secret Service are responsible for investigating cyber crime, and the Department of Defense is responsible for defending its own systems and partnering to protect the defense industrial base.

Critically, the Defense Department is only tasked with supporting DHS when the cyber attack is directed at our homeland. Yet these differences of responsibility can operate as artificial barriers to the efficient and effective cyber defense system.

Indeed, the lack of a single organization with direct responsibility runs counter to the basic leadership principle of unity of command. It bears remembering that these boundaries only exist for our agencies, not the hackers which seek to exploit the limitless terrain of cyber space. In a world in which the lines between cyber crime and cyber warfare are increasingly blurred, we need to ensure that all of our defensive cyber capabilities are brought to bear against the wide variety of threats facing our infrastructure, private and public, civilian and military.

Nevertheless, the need for a primary agency of responsibility does not necessarily mean the Department of Defense should be that agency, even despite its remarkable capabilities. Such a course would raise both legal and practical concerns.

Beginning with the legal issue, as the Supreme Court has stated, there is a ``traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into civilian affairs.''

The use of the military to enforce the law, with respect to domestic hackers or to virtually patrol on private networks is problematic because of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. section 1835.

In addition, the Defense Department's organization to defend against cyber attacks might not be the most efficient. Currently, U.S. Cyber Command, which is responsible for the training and equipping of our cyber warriors, is also entrusted with the Department's operational activities in cyber space. Such a construct makes sense. Yet unlike a unified combatant command, Cyber Command is a subunified command under U.S. Strategic Command. Though this configuration has been considered and agreed to by the Senate Armed Services Committee, I am still not convinced of its value. Therefore, I also hope the President addresses how our military forces can best be aligned to facilitate the most efficient and effective cyber defense possible.

But returning to the larger question, if concentrating our efforts entirely in the hands of the Defense Department is not advisable, what are we to do?

One possible solution has been presented by Richard Clarke, the noted former member of the National Security Council, in his book, ``Cyber War.''

To be clear, I am not endorsing Mr. Clarke's proposal. We surely do not need another government bureaucracy, but I do believe it is an important concept to be discussed during future debates on cyber security. Specifically, Mr. Clarke argues for a civilian cyber defense administration which would be responsible for protecting ``the dot-gov domain and critical infrastructure during an attack.'' As well as assigning those Federal law enforcement agencies personnel responsible for cyber crime to this centralized cyber defense administration, it would only be logical to ask if such an agency could provide other cyber defense functions.

Accordingly, addressing proposals such as this as part of answering the

question as to what is the most effective organization we can employ for cyber security should be a focal point of the President's address.

But we should not just place these questions at the President's door. The Senate itself must consider modifying the way it considers cyber security legislation and issues.

Currently, there are at least five separate Senate committees which are responsible for various aspects of cyber security. Therefore, we, too, have a unity-of-effort issue, and the Senate should consider means to concentrate this body's expertise on this critical matter.

In conclusion, there are a myriad of questions which our government must address before we are able to state we have the most effective, efficient, and constitutional cyber security defense possible.

I hope the President fully utilizes the opportunity presented to him in his State of the Union Address to answer these important questions-- and if he doesn't, we have to. So we better solve these problems. I presume the President will speak intelligently on these issues and hopefully in a way that will unify the country, unify the Congress, and get us all working in the same way.

We can't afford to let this drag any longer. This is one of the most important sets of issues we have in our country. It may be one of the most important issues or sets of issues in the world at large.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to thank my distinguished colleague for leading this fight. He has been leading it for years now. It is such a no-brainer. It is amazing to me that we have to go through this again. I thank him for yielding to me, and I would like to associate myself with the many persuasive arguments that have been made here by my colleagues--both Democratic and Republican--urging the speedy passage of this legislation.

To me, the decision to approve this pipeline is an obvious one for a host of reasons:

It will support more than 42,000 good-paying jobs. I didn't quite get what the assistant minority leader was saying today on how few jobs it will create. It actually will support more than 42,000 good-paying jobs during its construction phase.

It will contribute more than $3.4 billion to our gross domestic product.

It will aid in the goal of North American energy independence.

As the State Department's environmental impact statement found, building the Keystone XL Pipeline will actually be better for the environment than not building it. The energy resources the Canadians produce will reach the market regardless of whether this pipeline is built, and Keystone XL is by far the safest, cleanest, and most efficient means of doing so. What are the arguments against it other than phony environmental arguments? That was the State Department, controlled by them.

As a commonsense, bipartisan jobs and infrastructure measure, this bill is exactly the sort of legislation the Senate should be considering as its first order of business in this new Congress, but it should not have to be. The story here is about more than a single pipeline, no matter how many jobs its construction will create, no matter how important it is for our energy independence, and no matter how environmentally sound it is. This is a story about a regulatory process that is clearly broken. This is a story about special interests manipulating the bureaucracy to muck up a process that should be very simple and uncontroversial. This is a story about just one of many examples of tragically missed opportunities to create good-paying jobs and provide relief for household budgets across the country.

The application for approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline was first filed in September of 2008--more than 6 years ago. U.S. Senators have served more than a full term during that time. Children born after the application was filed are now in first grade.

The notion that any infrastructure project should be held up for such a long period is disturbing not just to me but I think to anybody who carefully

looks at this, but the delay of Keystone XL is even worse. Given the strong and well-documented economic and environmental case for the pipeline, Keystone is the sort of project that should have been quickly and easily approved for construction. But for some committed environmentalists inside and outside the Obama administration, common sense and balanced consideration of the facts no longer matter. Instead, to them, this simple pipeline has become a political symbol, regardless of what the science tells us. They have directed their ample energies at throwing up every procedural roadblock imaginable to the approval of the pipeline. As a result, this project has endured delay after delay.

Over the past few years, the American people have rightly developed the impression that Washington is broken. There can be no better example of the consequence of this dysfunction than the Keystone XL Pipeline sitting in bureaucratic purgatory.

When a project such as this--which is good for jobs, good for families, and good for families' budgets--gets bogged down in the Obama administration's redtape, it is absolutely the responsibility of Congress to act. Unfortunately, for years the Senate became a place where good ideas such as approving Keystone XL came to die, where control of the calendar and the amendment process prevented the consideration of so many good, bipartisan issues and ideas. Not only was the administrative process broken, but the Senate was also paralyzed and unable to step in and fix it.

By taking up this important bill as our first matter of consideration in the new Congress, we are taking steps to restore the Senate to the great legislative body it is meant to be, the place where Senators work across the aisle to meet the needs of the American people.

By coming together to propose a commonsense solution to get back on track this project which has become such a symbol of what is wrong with Washington, my friends from North Dakota and West Virginia are demonstrating exactly the sort of thoughtful, inclusive, and bipartisan leadership the American people have been demanding as they watched this greatest deliberative body in the world become the laughingstock of the world because we haven't gotten very much done. We haven't gotten very much done because of the way it has been run over the last number of years.

It is my sincere hope that we move quickly and desperately and deliberately to approve this measure and that we soon begin considering serious regulatory reform to prevent the sorts of abuses we have seen bedevil the Keystone XL project. The American people deserve an efficient and effective regulatory process that works for them. It is time for the Senate to deliver.

Having said these few words, I wish to personally thank my distinguished colleagues from North Dakota and my colleagues from West Virginia for the leadership they have provided on this issue.

Senator Hoeven is a former Governor. He knows what he is talking about. He is one of the most reasonable, decent, and honorable people in this body. He has shown a great willingness to work with both sides. He has continued to fight for this even though it has been uphill for more than 6 years. He has continued to fight for it because it is right. It is the right thing to do, and it is in our best interest to do it and to do it now.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, to urge the swift passage of a bill in the Senate that would create jobs, strengthen our economy, and put more money in Americans' pocketbooks--the bipartisan Hoeven-Manchin bill to authorize the Keystone XL Pipeline. I will talk about that for a few minutes, and then I might have some remarks about what the assistant minority leader has said.

I wish to address the Keystone Pipeline project and why it is important, but first I will focus on how the Keystone debate reflects on the state of the Senate and on good governance more broadly. After all, this project is now in its sixth year of limbo, waiting for a single permit to be issued. This debate has gone on longer than an entire term of the Senate.

My colleague from Florida, Senator Rubio, recently commented that the America public no longer has confidence that the Federal Government works anymore. He is right, and the American people are justified in their skepticism. He is right. This project is a perfect example of why.

A debate over the merits of and drawbacks to the pipeline--a debate that centers upon sound science and agreed-upon ground rules--is long overdue.

Such a debate represents the best traditions of the Senate--a meeting of minds where respect and tolerance shape the contours of debate. Such a debate is particularly valuable because a commonsense regulatory process is integral to a sound economy and the rule of law.

Time and again, President Obama has suggested that an issue such as this is too important to get bogged down in politics and that we should trust in the integrity of the regulatory process. To this I have two replies.

First, this is exactly the sort of debate we should be having in the Senate. This is the body that is supposed to debate the important issues of the day. When a project as important as this is stalled without meaningful justification for so long, our investment and involvement is even more important. In this case, we have sought to legislate according to the best traditions of this body, reaching across the aisle and taking all voices into account.

Second, curtailing debate on this issue has only had the result of turning the construction of what should be a commonsense infrastructure project into an abstraction, a political symbol that has little to do with the actual proposal under consideration. Without discussion of facts and evidence in this Chamber--all of which I believe counsel in favor of approving the project--the opposition has been able to obfuscate the facts and avoid having to defend their position. The Senate is a place where we can best accomplish good policymaking, not political grandstanding, especially on an issue of such importance as the Keystone Pipeline.

I was encouraged by yesterday's colloquy on the resolution to allow the Keystone Pipeline to move forward because it represents a return to the way we should talk about serious issues; that is, through actual debate. But that colloquy and the work we are doing today has been met with further resistance from the White House. Even before we consider any number of amendments from both sides of the aisle, the President has already threatened to veto our legislation calling for pipeline construction to move forward. This is an unfortunate way for any President to begin work with a new Congress.

Our country and North American energy security will greatly benefit from this project. It improves efficiency and energy infrastructure. It takes pressure off of moving oil by rail. It will increase our GDP by approximately $3.4 billion annually. The State Department, which has provided clear-headed analysis of the benefits of this project, has found that Keystone will support roughly 42,000 jobs during the construction phase alone. It will provide refineries with up to 830,000 barrels a day of North American oil.

The Keystone Pipeline is an environmentally sound way to transport this oil. In fact, the State Department's extensive environmental impact statement concluded that building the pipeline would actually be better for the environment than not. We have to be clear: The oil is going to go to market no matter what--by truck or rail, if not by pipeline. Building this pipeline takes this oil off of the tracks, off of

the roads, and transports it in a way that is safer, more efficient, more environmentally sound, and better for creating good-paying American jobs.

At the end of the day, the Keystone Pipeline and so many other bureaucratic failures demonstrate that the regulatory process is broken. It should not take years and years navigating the Federal bureaucracy only to have the Federal Government decide not to make a decision. In this new Congress we are focused on helping to create jobs and getting our economy back on the right track, which is why regulatory reform will be a key part of our agenda over the next 2 years. I hope the President will change his mind and join us not only in approving this important project but also in preventing similar abuses from occurring in the future.

affordable care act

Mr. President, having said that, I wish to make a few remarks about what the distinguished assistant minority leader had to say this morning about the Affordable Care Act. I have a great deal of admiration for him and his abilities, especially to articulate matters. I have to disagree with him on this issue, because after all of this hoopla, after all of the problems, after all of the costs, after all of the rising costs, after all of the many problems with the Affordable Care Act, we are still going to have about 30 million people who don't have insurance.

Think about it. That is why we passed the Affordable Care Act--or why the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act--was to take care of those people. We have a great many people covered, but there is still going to be almost the same amount of people without health insurance that existed before.

A number of the provisions he finds so good about the health care bill, we would have included in a health care bill ourselves. Yes, there were needed changes, such as this business of putting children on the parents' policy until age 26 and some of the other provisions the distinguished Senator spoke to.

I have a great deal of admiration for the distinguished Senator from Illinois. He is a very bright guy. He is one of the most articulate Senators in this body. Having said that, I was a little disappointed in some of the statements he made.

Just this week Harvard University--these are professors who are pretty well paid--yes, it is an expensive jurisdiction, I know, because I have some family there. The fact is that at Harvard these professors are upset because their costs are going up, which they will have to pay out of their own pockets. My goodness gracious. If they think they are being hurt, with their high salaries--and most of it is covered by their insurance from Harvard--can we imagine how the average person is going to feel. They are going to have a rough time because they have held off on a lot of the Affordable Care Act--I should say ``Affordable Care Act''--they held off on this until after the election that just occurred, knowing the costs are going to continue to escalate and rise in ways that we can't even take care of them. If we don't do something about it now, it is going to be a doggone mess in this country that nobody--nobody--not my friends on the other side who voted for it or Republicans or anybody else can truly contemplate.

All I can say is that it is a mess. Most people are admitting it is a mess, except those who want to take us down this social path toward having the government control every aspect of our lives in health care. To be honest, I could talk all day on this issue, but we are on the Keystone Pipeline. I have to say, as somebody who helped put through some of the most important health care bills in history, ranging from the orphan drug bill to the Children's Health Insurance Program, many pharmaceutical bills and others as well, I have always been willing to sit down and try and work these matters out. I have to say that my dear colleague from Illinois, having chosen one Senator's comments about every word, doesn't represent everybody on this side. Any Senator is entitled to their viewpoint and opinion, but a lot of us believe there is a great deal of work that has to be done if we are going to have health care truly improve in this country and work the way it should work.

I could go on and on, but I just wanted to make a few of those comments. Even with the so-called 8 million they claim have health care--I don't know that that is true.

They have problems in every step of this program, and the reason is because it is a poorly written program that was forced through in ways that didn't allow the real process in the Senate to work. Whenever we have a bill that is that high off the floor, passed by only one side-- in both Houses by only one side--we know it is a lousy bill. There is nothing that costs as much as this bill is going to cost.

I would challenge my friends on the other side--especially my friend from Illinois--to acknowledge that we need to work together to solve these problems because they are not going to go away. That bill is one of the lousiest pieces of legislation I have seen in the whole time I have been here, and that is why it was only supported in a totally partisan way.

I have talked long enough on this. I don't want to take more time away from the Keystone Pipeline because that also is extremely important. Right now we are down to 50 bucks a barrel or even below, but that isn't going to last a long time. The fact that we have oil now, that we are discovering oil now--something that wasn't allowed in years past--the fact that we are working to have this country be totally oil independent is terrific, and the Keystone Pipeline will help us in that regard. It is hard for me to understand why my friends on the other side or at least some of them--and maybe the President, who has issued a veto threat which I found profoundly disappointing-- continue to argue the way they do.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the state of the Senate and how to restore its greatness.

Yesterday, I was sworn in as the President pro tempore. Although there have been some notable exceptions throughout history, the modern practice of the Senate has been to elect as the President pro tempore the most senior Member of the majority party. As one noted historian of the Senate has generously written, ``election of a senator to the office of president pro tempore has always been considered one of the highest honors offered to a senator by the Senate as a body.''

I am greatly honored to have been selected for this position, but I am keenly aware of the great responsibilities that come with it. The President pro tempore of the Senate is one of only three legislative offices established by the U.S. Constitution, and in recent decades it has been occupied by true giants of the Senate. Their names, which include Vandenberg, Russell, Byrd, Stevens, Inouye, and Leahy, resonate as some of the greatest legislators ever to serve in this body.

Beyond the President pro tempore's formal responsibilities in presiding over the Senate and helping ensure the continuity of government, this office represents a unique opportunity to assist the majority leader in guiding the Senate as it addresses the critical issues facing our Nation. In that sense, the President pro tempore serves as an elder statesman, sharing accumulated knowledge and lessons learned through long experience.

I consider it fortuitous that the beginning of my service as President pro tempore coincides with the start of a new year. For many, the new year is a time for reflecting upon the past and reviewing commitments for the future. I believe we as Senators should use this opportunity for some much needed introspection about the state of this institution.

The Senate has long been heralded as the world's greatest deliberative body. With so many critical challenges facing our Nation today, there has never been a more important time for the Senate to live up to its storied legacy and to fulfill its responsibilities to the American people.

Central to properly understanding our responsibilities as Senators is to appreciate the Senate's role in our system of government. This means understanding both the Senate's purposes and its unique place at the center of our constitutional structure. It is important for us to consider these issues.

James Madison famously called the Senate the great anchor of the government. He described its purpose as twofold: ``first to protect the people against their rulers; secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions on to which they themselves might be led.''

The Senate accomplishes the first goal--protecting the people against their rulers--by playing a crucial role in the appointment and removal of both judges and executive branch officers. The President's power to appoint is tempered by the requirement that his appointees receive the Senate's advice and consent. Additionally, the Senate possesses the power to remove from office any official that has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. The President's power to enter into treaties is also critically checked by the requirement that the Senate provide its advice and consent to a treaty before ratification.

As such, the President does not have unfettered power to fill up executive offices, pack the courts or make agreements with foreign nations. He cannot staff agencies with corrupt, incompetent or ideologically extreme cronies unless the Senate allows him to do so. He cannot conclude treaties that will harm American interests unless the Senate gives its assent. In selecting life-tenured judges to apply the Constitution and laws of the land, the President cannot act unless the Senate confirms his nominee. In all of these settings, the Senate serves as a crucial check against executive abuse.

The Senate accomplishes the second of Madison's goals--protecting against temporary shifts in popular opinion--through its character and its institutional structure. In contrast to the large, transient House, the Senate is small, more stable, and therefore, it has the opportunity to be more thoughtful. Four hundred thirty-five Members inhabit the House, and only 100 fill this Chamber. The entire House stands for election every 2 years. Naturally, reelection is constantly on Representatives' minds. Senators, by contrast, have 6-year terms and only one-third go before the voters each election. Even with the pressures of modern campaigns, these divergent characteristics produce fundamentally different institutions.

But the Framers designed the Senate to do much more than merely check transient and occasionally intemperate impulses. They created the Senate to refine the public's will and to give more wisdom and stability to the government. The Framers chose the Senate's relatively small size to enable more thorough debate and to provide individual Members greater opportunity to improve legislative proposals. Longer, staggered terms would give Members greater flexibility to resist initially popular yet ultimately unwise legislation. They would also guard against temporary majorities. A fluke election may produce significant majorities for one party that 2 years later disappears. This can lead to wild swings in the law as each new majority seeks to enact a vastly different agenda during its brief period of power. Overlapping terms help to avert this danger.

Finally, statewide constituencies require Senators to appeal to a broader set of interests--including the concerns of the State governments themselves--than do narrow, more homogenous House districts.

To these constitutional characteristics, the Senate has added a number of traditions--some formal and others informal--that have enhanced its deliberative character. These include the right to extended debate, an open amendment process, and a committee system that gives all Members--from the most seasoned chairmen to the newest freshmen--a hand in drafting and improving legislation.

The late Senator Byrd liked to say that ``as long as the Senate retains the power to amend and the power of unlimited debate, the liberties of the people will remain secure.''

The Senate protects liberty by giving each Senator an active role in the legislative process. This multiplies the checks against bad laws and expands the universe of individuals working to make good laws better. It erects what Madison called a necessary fence against hasty and unwise government action. It enables each Senator to bring his or her own wisdom and considered judgment to bear on pressing national issues.

When the Senate functions properly, it is a truly deliberative body in which all Senators work to identify the common good and the best means to achieve that common good. The Federalist describes the common good as the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. This is to be distinguished from the individual good, which may vary from person to person and which may not result in the Nation's benefit.

Much like the Senate is designed to protect against transient shifts in public opinion, it is also designed to enable Senators to pursue the common good. Senators are able to prioritize achieving the correct results over doing what is politically convenient. The best answers do not always immediately present themselves nor are they always easily explained. Longer terms give Senators more time to investigate, to analyze, to reconsider, and to recalibrate, and so do robust debate and an open amendment process. These are critical elements of our deliberative pursuit of the common good.

Another crucial component of our pursuit of common good is prudence. Aristotle called prudence the legislative science because it concerns the best means of achieving the most good in practice. Prudence restrains us from seeking immediate and complete vindication of a single abstract principle. Instead, it counsels us to work within our existing circumstances to vindicate the enduring principles upon which our liberty depends.

While we should remain true to our principles, we must also recognize that we operate in an imperfect world where we do not control all of the levers of power. We cannot simply charge forward blind to present realities. To do so is to jeopardize our hopes for achieving any meaningful success, because in the messy world of politics, adopting an all-or-nothing strategy usually produces only the latter--nothing.

Politics is the art of the possible. Ideology is important, and rhetoric is captivating. But at the end of the day, when the campaign is over, the American people sent us here to govern. We are here to protect their liberties and to protect and improve their lives. When we grandstand or hold out for impossible demands, we do nothing but a disservice. The Framers gave us staggered, extended terms so that we could use our independent judgment to get things done. We should try to get to it.

An astute commentator observed that the Senate stands at the crossroads of our constitutional system. It shares power with the other branches of the Federal Government. It ensures temperance in the legislative branch. It must consent or not consent to the President's treaties and appointments, and it plays a critical role in appointments to the Supreme Court.

But it also--and this is unique among the branches of the Federal Government--embodies the interests of federalism and State power at the national level.

The Framers created the Senate to be much more than a simple legislative body. The Senate is uniquely positioned to mediate both among the Federal branches of government and between the Federal and State governments. As such, the Senate truly embodies the role described by one wise commentator as the sober guardian of the Republic.

Our responsibilities as Senators follow directly from the Senate's constitutional role. As the people's representatives and as envoys of our individual States' interests, we are accountable to our States and to our Nation. We do not serve any one party or principle, or any particular ideology or faction. We may align ourselves into certain groups--Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal--for purposes of organization and cooperation, but we are Senators first. Other labels are secondary.

Civility and statesmanship must be our constant ideals. Madison once instructed that ``the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.'' A key purpose of this body is to calm the passions that arise from the heat of political discourse. As such, we must always be courteous in our communications one with another, both formal and informal, on the floor and off, face-to-

face or on a video screen. When we disagree we need to do so with dignity and respect, acknowledging the sincere motives and passions of even our most firm adversaries.

Statesmanship connotes public spiritedness and a willingness to compromise in pursuit of broader goals. Petulance and unilateralism accomplish nothing in this body. Any Senator who would choose the glow of the camera over the prospect for meaningful achievement seriously misunderstands their role as a Senator.

Next on the list of practices Senators must follow are prudence and considered judgment. I have already spoken about prudence. It is a habit of mind that focuses on present realities and achievable goals-- not pie-in-the-sky pipedreams. Prudent lawmakers make experience--not theory--their guide, and they recognize that success in a republic requires harmonizing competing values.

Considered judgment is closely tied to prudence. Prudence is not rash. It requires deliberation and thoughtful analysis. Our constituents sent us here because they trusted our judgment and favored the general outlines we presented in our campaigns. Now that we are here, it is time to put our plans into action. We do this by studying problems, investigating proposals, and carefully choosing solutions that best cohere with our principles. Exercising judgment is an individual matter. Colleagues and opinion leaders may guide our deliberations, but the ultimate choice of policy is one which we each must make on our own.

The final two obligations I wish to highlight are our responsibilities: first, to seek the common good through earnest deliberation, and second, to achieve consensus to the extent possible.

As I explained, the Framers designed the Senate so that Members would be able to seek the common good encumbered by few political constraints. Because we stand for election only every 6 years, we are less susceptible to swings in public opinion. We have the independence to value long-term impact over short-term politics. And because we are a small body--relatively speaking--all Members are able to participate fully in the legislative process and to add their voice of praise, warning or suggestion to each proposal that we consider. We deliberate not to score points or to craft sound bites but because we believe that in the contest of opposing views, the best answers will win out.

I mentioned consensus. Although much of our day-to-day operations are conducted by unanimous consent, obviously we do not do everything around here by consensus. We are 100 fiercely independent legislators. Even at the end of a lengthy debate with numerous opportunities for amendment, we may remain sharply divided about a bill's wisdom or the objective it seeks to achieve. But that does not mean consensus should not be our goal. We should take counsel from past legislative victories which show that broad victories produce lasting reform, whereas narrow partisan power plays tend to yield only rancor and repeated attempts to repeal.

For 38 years I have had the extraordinary privilege of serving in the Senate. During that time, I have witnessed it at its best and, more recently, at its worst. My experience throughout the last four decades has confirmed to me the wisdom of the first Adlai Stevenson, then Vice President, who in his 1897 farewell address captured the essence of the Senate:

In this Chamber alone are preserved without restraint two

essentials of wise legislations and good government: the

right of amendment and of debate. Great evils often result

from hasty legislation; rarely from the delay which follows

full discussion and deliberation.

In recent years these foundations of the Senate's unique character-- meaningful debate and an open amendment process--have come under sustained assault by those who have prioritized scoring political points over preserving the Senate's essential role in our system of self-government.

Rather than simply bemoan this recent institutional damage, we have a duty to use this new Congress to restore the Senate. By returning to regular order and committee work, promoting robust debate, and enabling a deliberative amendment process, we can make the Senate work again-- both Democrats and Republicans.

First, robust debate. Senators' ability to engage in meaningful, substantive debate is at the core of the Senate's identity. Through robust discussions and inclusive deliberation, Senators examine all sides of an issue. We air opposing views and ensure that in haste we do not make worse the problems we are trying to solve.

When individual Senators have the right to debate a matter fully, it engenders confidence that the final legislation produced represents the best possible bill upon which the Senate can agree. Many pieces of legislation that seemed imperfect passed this way and have gone on to benefit the Nation greatly. For over 200 years, the Senate has provided each Member broad prerogative to debate and discuss the critical issues of the day. In the early years of the Republic, visitors flocked to the Senate gallery to hear Senators such as Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun, just to mention three, to hear them expound upon matters of national concern.

It was in this body that some of our Nation's most important debates over taxation, slavery, expansion, and foreign affairs took place. For many years, free-flowing debate was so intertwined with the identity of the Senate that no effective cloture mechanism to cut off debate even existed until well into the 20th century.

While the need to end debate in certain circumstances is clear, we have strayed too far from this important deliberative tradition. In particular, the practice of filing for cloture at the very same time a bill is brought up for consideration has proliferated to a disturbing degree. When a full and robust debate has occurred, invoking cloture is often appropriate. But we must not abuse this power by reflexively seeking to cut off debate before it even begins. Let us return to a system where all Senators have a say in what the Senate does and are able to express their views without getting cut off.

The second Senate hallmark we must restore is an open amendment process. The reason for an open amendment process is to improve legislation. No single Member can foresee all contingencies that may arise or identify all of the potential pitfalls.

There is a reason there are 100 Senators, not just 1. More eyes mean more mistakes caught and more opportunities for improvement. An open amendment process also facilities consensus. One amendment may resolve a particular Senator's concern, allowing him to support what he or she once opposed. Another may make a bill politically palatable to Senators who support the bill in principle but not in its current form.

Amendments may also achieve buy-in as Senators who successfully amend a bill find themselves more committed to final passage. When Senators retain the ability to amend legislation, such input can establish a wide and lasting base of support that crosses partisan and ideological lines. Indeed, an open and honest amendment process has frequently enabled diverse coalitions to find important areas of agreement.

I even found that the former Senator from Massachusetts, the late Ted Kennedy, the famed liberal lion of the Senate, a man I came to Washington to battle, could be a productive partner. In the process, he became one of my closest friends, even if we widely disagreed on a lot of things. I miss him personally. We were able to do things that would not have been done had it not been for the work we did together.

Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Senate's traditionally open amendment process has come under increasing attack. For the sake of shielding electorally vulnerable Senators from tough votes, we have emasculated one of this institution's critical characteristics. It is time to stop manipulating Senate rules to prevent amendments. It is time to stop blocking amendments for fear of tough votes. It is time to return to healthier ways of doing things, where we work together to improve legislation rather than doing all we can to keep Members out of the process.

The third hallmark we must restore is a vigorous and productive committee system. Although perhaps not as moribund as our amendment process, the role our committees play in drafting and refining bills has indeed suffered in recent years. For centuries Senate

committees have served as the primary forum for critical deliberation and amendments in this body.

Bills introduced in the Senate are referred to the relevant committees where Members have the opportunity to consider, debate, and amend the bill at length. Committees are the workhorses of the Senate or at least should be. On the floor we can do only one thing at a time. But any number of committees and subcommittees may operate simultaneously, allowing Senators to work out language and make compromises on multiple bills at the same time.

Committees also perform a crucial investigative function. They hold hearings, call witnesses, and solicit expert opinions on a wide variety of issues, enabling Members to expand their understanding and to better fine-tune individual bills. Lately, however, we have witnessed a disturbing trend of bypassing the committee process altogether by bringing bills directly to the floor for votes.

This practice undermines committee work and frustrates Members who diligently seek to move their legislative priorities through the committee. It also deprives bills of the benefits of committee review, which include more search and consideration of language, opportunities for comment by outside experts, and the ability to address support for amendments without tying up precious floor time.

A healthy committee process is essential to a well-functioning Senate. This body is not a fiefdom. We do not convene merely to give our assent to immutable messaging bills. We are supposed to work together to write, amend, and pass important legislation. When Senators bring up for consideration bills they have written without input from other Members, manipulate Senate procedure to prevent floor amendment on those bills, and then simultaneously file cloture to cut off debate, they act as autocrats rather than agents of democracy.

Let's return this body to one that operates by consensus, not dictate. Let's return the committee process to its proper place in our legislative landscape, as the first line of review rather than an utter irrelevancy. Let's restore the Senate to its proper role in our constitutional system by restoring the traditions that have made this body so great: robust debate, an open amendment process, an active, meaningful committee process.

Equipped with these tools, the Senate historically never shied away from taking on what everyone agreed were the toughest issues of the day. Yes, we had to take tough votes. Yes, we could not rush legislation through as fast as we sometimes would have liked. Yes, we sometimes felt deep disappointment when proposals we championed fell short. But while the Senate's rules can be frustrating and politically cumbersome, they are what allowed the Senate to serve the country so well for so very long.

Restoring the Senate in this manner will not be easy. After years of bitter partisan tension, we cannot expect a complete change to come overnight. But by reestablishing our historic aims and reinstituting our designing modes of operation, including robust debate, an open amendment process, and regular order through committee work, the Senate can once more be about the peoples' business and observe the title of the world's greatest deliberative body.

Mr. President, one of my friends in this body is the distinguished minority leader, Harry Reid. Harry and I have been friends for a long time. He has served here for a long time. He served well in many respects. He certainly was a tough majority leader. He is a tough guy.

Recently he suffered some very severe injuries. He is mending. These injuries seem to be injuries he can handle, although very strong, tough injuries. I wish him the best, that he may be able to recuperate well, come back again to this deliberative body, and play the role he needs to play for the minority in this illustrious body.

Harry and I believe many things together, especially in the religious area. He is a fine man. His wife Landra is a very fine woman. I am glad to see that her health has improved. She is a terrific person. Both of them are terrific people in their own right. I pray that the Lord will heal Harry and make it easier for him to come back as soon as he can. Being a tough guy, he will be back here pretty soon. I wish him the best. It is no secret that Elaine and I have been praying for him. Hopefully, those prayers will be efficacious.

I have great respect for my colleagues on the other side as well as my own colleagues on this side. These are good people. There are very few Senators--not more than 2--in my 38 years in the Senate that I thought might not have much redeeming value. Everybody else has played significant roles in this body, sometimes that I hotly contested and differed with, but nevertheless very good people over all these years.

Harry Reid is one of the nicest people one will ever meet off the Senate floor. He is all right on the Senate floor too. All I can say is that I wish him well. I am praying for his recovery. I want him to succeed in every way. He is from our neighboring State. Nevada is very important to us. We like both Senators from Nevada. Senator Heller is one of the finest Senators here. They work well in Nevada's interests together. I hope everything goes well with Senator Reid and his wife Landra and his lovely family. They are good family people.

I wanted to make those comments on the floor because of the high esteem in which I hold Harry. Yes, we disagree on a lot of issues, sometimes pretty strongly we disagree, but great Senators can do that. They can get over it quickly too.

I hope the remarks I made earlier in the day on this deliberative body will be taken up by everybody in the Senate to realize this is the greatest deliberative body in the world. We need to make sure it remains such. That means tough votes. It means tough amendments. It means long days here sometimes, but it also means an ability to have a rapport with my friends, not only on this side but the other side as well and for them to have a rapport not only with their side but with our side.

Let's hope we can build something and let's hope we can bring our two sides together and work in the best interests of the country and get some things done that are sorely in need and do things that both Democrats and Republicans can say: We did it together. Yes, there were tough times. Yes, we differed from time to time. But we did it together, and we did it in the best interest of the country.

I hope both leaders will be able to work together in this manner and that all of us will do our work in the best interest of this country. I do not think we necessarily have to forget politics, but we ought to sublimate them sometimes to the point where they do not interfere with getting very important work done.

I wish Harry Reid the best. As I said, he is in my prayers.

Would the Senator yield for a comment?

I thank my dear friend from Missouri for being so kind and thoughtful to me and the Senate. I appreciate our friendship and the leadership he provides in this body.