Floor Statements

Mr. President, I stand today to recognize and honor an extraordinary organization that began its important work 20 years ago, born from the words of a new President who was dedicated to engaging the American spirit of giving and service. The words of that President resonate even now: ``I have spoken of a thousand points of light . . . a new engagement in the lives of others, a new activism, hands-on and involved that gets the job done.'' This 1989 speech given by President George H.W. Bush outlined the vision for the Points of Light Foundation, now merged with HandsOn Network as the Points of Light Institute, the largest volunteer network in the country.

This independent, nonpartisan organization has worked to encourage, recognize, and empower the spirit of volunteer service that is encoded in our Nation's cultural DNA and is, as President Bush stated, central to living a meaningful life.

Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have demonstrated their willingness to give back and to serve in their communities, even in the hardest of times. Last year alone, over 60 million Americans performed volunteer service in this country. I am proud that my home State of Utah had the highest volunteerism rate, with over 45 percent of adults volunteering in the State in 2008. All told, these volunteers contributed almost 162 million hours of service in a single year.

Earlier this year, I had the privilege of joining with my good friend, the late Senator Ted Kennedy in sponsoring the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, a new law that expands volunteer opportunities for Americans of all ages. I know that the Points of Light Institute will be at the forefront in realizing the full potential of this important legislation, creating healthy communities by inspiring and equipping

willing Americans to do more of the heavy lifting in their communities as we all work to improve our Nation.

Mr. President, I once again commend the Points of Light Institute on this landmark anniversary.

Madam President, I have agreed to delay my 20 minutes in favor of the distinguished Senator from Michigan having 3 or 4 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be given the floor after that.

Madam President, I have to object on behalf of our side.

Madam President, I have taken a lot of votes in my Senate service, as I have had the proud honor of representing my fellow Utahns and of course all Americans across this great Nation. I deliver these remarks with a heavy heart because what could have been a strong bipartisan vote reflecting our collective and genuine desire for responsible reform in the Senate Finance Committee has ended as another largely partisan exercise as we take another step forward toward the flawed solution of reforming one-sixth of our economy with more spending, more government, and more taxes.

Having said that, I wish to compliment the distinguished chairman of the committee, Max Baucus, from Montana, for having worked so long and hard to try to get that bill through the committee. I disagree with the bill, but I also recognize that type of effort, and I have great regard for Senator Baucus and others on the committee as well. But I have worked through almost 4 weeks of debate in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and now through 2 weeks of strenuous debate on the Senate Finance Committee. I was in the original Gang of 7 trying to come up with a bipartisan approach, but I realized that not enough flexibility had been given to Senator Baucus, and I decided to leave that group of seven, and I am glad I did, because I predicted when I left exactly what this bill would turn out to be.

It almost seems as though these hundreds of hours of debate in the past were for naught. It is important for Americans everywhere to understand that the bills we have spent hundreds of hours working on are not the bills that will be discussed on the Senate floor. The real bill that is currently being written behind closed doors in the dark corners of the Capitol and the White House--and we can all only hope that all of us, especially American families, will have ample opportunity, at least 72 hours, to review the full bill before we are asked to consider this on the floor and vote on it--is a bill that affects every American life and every American business. The health care reform bill is too big and too important to not have a full public review.

I wish to spend my time today talking about why the Baucus bill fails President Obama's own test for responsible health care reform. This bill is another example of Washington once again talking from both sides of the mouth and using technicalities and policy nuances to evade the promises made to our seniors and middle-class families. First, President Obama in his own words has consistently stated: ``If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it.'' Let me repeat that: ``If you like your plan, you will be able to keep it.'' That was given on July 2, 2009, right at the White House, and we are all familiar with that particular commitment.

One of the amendments I offered in the Finance Committee simply provided that if more than 1 million Americans would lose the coverage of their choice because of the implementation of this bill, then this legislation would not go into effect. This was a simple and straightforward amendment; no nuance, no double-talk. This amendment was defeated along party lines.

It should come as no surprise to anyone on the Finance Committee that in a recent Rasmussen poll, a majority of Americans with health care coverage--almost 53 percent--said that the bill would force them to change their coverage. This bill is rife with policies that will do anything but allow you to keep your coverage. It cuts upward of $133 billion out of the Medicare Advantage Program, which will adversely impact the availability of these plans for millions of American seniors, especially in rural areas. That was what it was designed for. It is pushing for policies at the Federal level that actuaries acknowledge could increase premiums significantly for millions of Americans, not to mention the new insurance tax which will cost families another $500 in higher premiums. This will make current coverage unaffordable for countless Americans.

American families are very smart; they are very astute. They realize that there is no free lunch, especially in Washington. They are being promised an almost $1 trillion bill--that is really an understatement of what it is, and I will get into that later--that will not increase deficits, not raise taxes, and not cut benefits. Only Washington speak could try to sell a promise such as this with a straight face.

Second: The President has consistently pledged: ``We're not going to mess with Medicare.'' Once again, this is another simple and straightforward pledge that this bill has now evaded through Washington double speech or doubletalk. This bill strips, as I say, $133 billion out of the Medicare Advantage Program that currently covers 10.6 million seniors, or almost one out of four seniors in the Medicare Program. According to the Congressional Budget Office, under this bill, the value of so-called additional benefits such as vision care and dental care would decline from $135 to $42 by 2019. That is a reduction of more than 70 percent of benefits. You heard me right: 70 percent. I offered an amendment to protect these benefits for our seniors, many of whom are low-income Americans who reside in rural States. However, this amendment too was defeated in the Finance Committee. The majority chose to skirt the President's pledge about no reduction in Medicare benefits for our seniors by characterizing the benefits being lost--vision care, dental care, and reduced hospital deductibles--as extra benefits, not statutory benefits.

Let me make this point as clearly as I can. When we promise American seniors that we will not reduce their benefits, let us be honest about that promise. Benefits are benefits, so we are either going to protect benefits or not. It is that simple. Under this bill, if you are a senior with Medicare Advantage, the unfortunate answer is no, you are going to lose benefits.

Thirdly, the President has consistently stated: ``I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.''

That was when the President was a candidate in New Hampshire on September 12, 2008, and he has said that since.

Let us examine the realities of this bill. As I said before, there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially when

Washington is the one inviting you over. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, there is more than $400 billion in new taxes under this bill to continue to fund Washington's insatiable appetite for spending. Here are some of the highlights of the $400 billion: $23 billion of new taxes on employers through a mandate that will disproportionately affect low-income Americans and all at a time when our unemployment is rapidly approaching double digits. Some think we are already in double digits. There is $4 billion of new taxes on Americans who fail to buy a Washington-defined level of coverage; $322 billion of new taxes on everything from insurance premiums to prescription drugs to hearing devices and wheelchairs. Representatives from both the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, and the Joint Committee on Taxation, JCT, testified before the Finance Committee that these taxes will be passed on to the consumers.

So even though this bill tries to hide these costs as indirect taxes, average Americans who purchase health plans, use prescription drugs, and buy medical devices--everything from hearing aids to crutches--will end up footing the bill. By the way, it is interesting to note here that although these tax increases and Medicare cuts will start as early as next year, subsidies to help people with their premiums which will skyrocket under this plan will not be available until July of 2013-- 3\1/2\ years later.

By the way, they are going to cut $400 billion out of Medicare. I remember a few years back in 1975 when, for that budget that year, we were trying to find $23 billion out of Medicare and the other side just about went berserk over that. Here we are cutting $400 billion out of Medicare that already has $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

So what about the promise of no taxes on families making less than $250,000? Look at the evidence. According to the data from the Joint Committee on Taxation and former CBO director Doug Holtz-Eakin, 89 percent of these new taxes will be paid by taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year. The insurance excise tax alone would cost families up to $500 more in premiums. That is not all. The Joint Committee on Taxation also found that at least 71 percent of all penalties collected from the individual mandate will also come from those making less than $250,000. As I said, there is no free lunch in this town.

By the way, we all know when this bill is fully implemented it will cost significantly more. Every time Washington tells you that something will cost a dollar, it usually costs $10. History is prologue. Medicare started off as a $65 million a year program and now has a $400 billion annual budget. So look for these taxes to only go up in the future as we have just given the Federal Government a whole new checkbook.

So based on my count, this bill already has three strikes against President Obama's own pledges to the American people. He said: ``You keep what you have.'' That is not true. ``No reduction in Medicare benefits for our seniors.'' That is not true. ``No tax increases on families making less than $250,000.'' That is not true. In fact, most of those taxes will go to the middle class at way below $250,000.

Lastly, let me talk a little bit about the myth of this proposal actually reducing the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years. Here is the harsh reality. The Congressional Budget Office recently reported that our national deficit for fiscal year 2009 alone was a shocking $1.4 trillion. That is the highest deficit since 1945 in real terms.

Let me put this in perspective. This was the largest yearly deficit since 1945. It was more than three times our deficit from last year. I remember how they were complaining about George Bush and those high deficits. It is almost 10 percent of our entire economy. George Bush's deficit was less than $500 billion. I thought it was too high. We are now talking about $1.4 trillion in the first year of this presidency. Keep in mind the Democrats controlled the Congress in the last 2 years of the Bush presidency. This should send shivers down the spine of every American out there. We are literally drowning the future of this Nation in a sea of red ink.

Here is the fantasy: Congress will actually follow through with these massive Medicare cuts that are being used to make this $829 billion spending bill deficit neutral. I challenge a single Member of the Senate to tell me when have we ever followed through on such massive cuts. Let me use the words of Dr. Doug Elmendorf, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, on this issue:

These projections assume that these proposals are enacted

and remain unchanged over the two decades which is often not

the case for major legislation. The long-term budgetary

impact will be quite different if those provisions were

ultimately changed or not fully implemented.

I could not have said it better myself. We all remember the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which attempted to reduce Medicare spending by a mere $22 billion over 10 years. That proposal was mercilessly attacked by the other side of the aisle as being, among other things, ``Orwellian'' and ``immoral.'' Now suddenly we are being asked to believe the Congress will follow through in almost $500 billion in cuts to Medicare?

Take another example: the physician payment. This bill only contains a 1-year fix. After that, the doctors will face more than a 20-percent cut in their payments, seriously threatening access to Medicare for seniors. We all know that we have to fix this problem, and that we will. Unfortunately, the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to overhaul this broken system are not included in this score that is supposed to be balanced, and will go to further increasing our skyrocketing deficits.

Let's be honest about it. The reason they can keep it down to $829 billion was by not counting the first 4 years; not having it implemented until as late as 2014. In other words, that is 6 years. If you extrapolate it out to 10 years, we have $1.7 trillion, $1.8 trillion that this bill is going to cost.

One reason for that is because they know we are going to have to do the doctor fix rather than have doctors being paid 25 percent less by Medicare and even less by Medicaid, and hospitals 25 to 30 percent less by Medicare and even less by Medicaid.

The biggest bait and switch on the American people about this bill's impact on the deficit is a simple math trick. If something is too expensive to do for a full 10-year period, just do it for 6 years. That is what they have done. Most of the major spending provisions of the bill do not go into effect until 2013 or even 2014, coincidentally, after the 2012 Presidential elections. So what we are seeing is not a full 10-year score but rather a 6-year score.

According to the Senate Budget Committee, the full 10-year score of this plan will easily surpass $1.8 trillion, fully implemented over 10 years, the way it is written. I believe it will be more than that in actuality when we add the doctor fix that we are going to have to do.

That is on top of the $2.4 trillion we are spending right now.

In our current fiscal environment where the government will have to borrow nearly 43 cents out of every dollar it spends this year, let's think hard about what we are doing to our country and our future generations. Our national debt is on a path to double. We can see the red lines on the chart. That is the projected national debt since this administration has taken over. It is on a path to double in the next 5 years and triple in the next 10 years. There is still time for us to step back, press the reset button, and write a bill we can all support and be proud of.

Madam President, what is their answer in the end? I guarantee you, the final bill is going to have some form of--it may be disguised semantically--a government-run plan. That scares every American.

In 1965, when we did Medicare, the argument was that Medicare will be on an equal footing with the private industry. Well, it didn't take just a couple of years, and they found out they could not do it. So they had to set prices.

Today, Medicare pays doctors 20 percent less and hospitals 25 percent less, and Medicaid is even worse than that. If we think the Federal Government can take over the whole health care system and save money, we haven't observed the history of Medicare. Medicare today is a $38 trillion unfunded liability that we are saddling our kids and grandkids with--and even in my case, my great grandkids. I am concerned. This should not be a political issue.

We ought to be working together. I guarantee, if we turn all of this over to the government--I heard the distinguished Senator from Ohio, who is very sincere and very loquacious and has an interesting personality. I care for him. But if we do that, everybody is going to suffer because the Federal Government cannot do it better. It is just that simple. We have all the years since 1965 to prove that.

The fact is, if we turn this over to the almighty Federal Government and the bureaucrats in Washington, it will cause a furor like we cannot believe in this country, and rightly so. I heard the distinguished Senator say: Well, if the insurance premiums should increase because of this bill, let's turn it over to the government, and we will save all that money.

What about the $38 trillion in unfunded liability in Medicare as we stand here today? What about Medicaid going into bankruptcy within the next 10 years? There is nobody who doubts that who looks at the financial matters in this country. The reason they are is because they are run by the almighty Federal Government. I would much rather see a system whereby we allow the States themselves, which have different demographics--and the Chair is from New Hampshire, which is different from Massachusetts, and it is also different from my State of Utah. I will bet that the New Hampshirites can handle their problems a lot better than the Federal Government in Washington. I know Utah can. We have a good health care system because we do all the things that are necessary to make it good. It is closer to the people, and the government is closer to the people. They have to be responsible to the people.

I would like to see a system where we basically block grant these funds and let the States set up their own programs and have 50 State laboratories that literally can show us the way; where we can compare plans and see the good in one State and maybe adapt it to ours. If we turn this all over to a government plan, run by Washington, I cannot begin to tell you the stifling that will be to innovation and good ideas compared to allowing the 50 State laboratories, as federalism was designed to set up.

The majority leader said: The Republicans are just the party of no; they have no plan. We have 40 Members here and we have six plans. We find that even some of our plans are off the charts in cost. Some are good. The fact is, we know this system needs to be reformed. Every Republican is for reforming the system. We are not for bankrupting the country. We are not for having these almighty bureaucrats in Washington determine what we all have to do. We are not for turning everything over to the government, which is already running Medicare and Medicaid into bankruptcy. We don't believe a central form of government should control everything.

Our Founding Fathers didn't believe that. That is why they did the Constitution the way they did it. Anybody who believes they can do it better in a government-run program hasn't studied history. I have to admit some of our colleagues on the other side do believe a single- payer system is better. Single-payer is socialism, pure and simple. They don't like to call it socialism, but that is what it is. When we get socialism, we get everything that goes with it, and that means rationing.

We have to be reasonable about what services we can give. The States will do it the right way. The Federal Government will mess it up, I guarantee it. I don't know anybody who has been here as long as I have who could not acknowledge that. I don't think they should try to dispute that. I think they would be run out of Washington. If you want bureaucrats between your doctor and you, this is the way to do it--a government-run plan right here in Washington, with all the costs and expenses and the oblivious not caring about the future that we have seen year after year.

That is why Republicans are up in arms. That is why we cannot support this bill. I wish we could work with our colleagues and get together. I wish we could do a bipartisan bill. I might add that one person is not bipartisan. You can call it that, but it really isn't. I deeply respect that one person, and she knows that.

The fact is, we are a long way from having a health care bill. The further fact is, it will not be the bill that passed out of the committee today. It is going to even be worse.

If I were sitting on the Democratic side, I would be worried to death about what they are finally going to come up with. They really do, for the most part--the majority--believe a single-payer system, run by Washington, DC, and the bureaucrats here is going to be better than one run by the States. I have to admit there are some States that would mess it up, no question. We can all name them too. There are generally States that are behind the single-payer system, but there aren't many of them. The vast majority of States would show us the way and help us to find the way and help us to do a good job on health care.

Madam President, I am very concerned. I am one who likes to work in a bipartisan way, but it has to make sense. What we passed out of there today doesn't make sense, and it is going to get a lot worse. By the time they take the HELP Committee bill, which was a totally Democratic partisan bill, and take what they want out of that, and by the time they take the tricommittee bill over in the House, which is a partisan Democratic bill, it will get worse. When it does, the American people are going to be the losers.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, today I rise to express my concerns about the PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act. This bill, which is currently before the Senate Judiciary Committee, could have dire consequences on intelligence collection and investigations. While I have several concerns about the provisions in this bill and how they will adversely affect the intelligence community, particular attention should be given to what our intelligence professionals have said about this bill.

Stakeholders in the intelligence community and the FBI have expressed concern that this bill will have serious consequences on the tools those agencies rely on to carry out intelligence investigations, identify operatives, and prevent future attacks. These tools are critical for detecting and disrupting terrorist plots in the United States before they become imminent threats to our safety.

As we have seen in the past few weeks, investigations in Texas, Illinois, Colorado, and New York confirm what we already know: there are people in this country who want to and intend to harm us. The only way to stop these terrorist operatives is to give our counterterrorism specialists the tools they depend on to detect these plots, thwart attacks, and, if possible, arrest the persons planning these operations.

I am troubled by the fact that we are rushing this bill through committee without taking the time to consider the concerns of those charged with detecting terrorist plots. I urge my colleagues who are ready to stand up and say this bill will not adversely affect current and future investigations to stop for a moment and listen to the professionals who use and need these tools on a daily basis. Do not just hear their concerns, really listen to them. Many of these professionals were around before September 11, and they remember how difficult it was to act quickly to collect basic information about terrorists.

Three provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire on December 31, 2009. These are roving wiretaps; business records access, also referred to as section 215 business records; and the lone wolf provision. At this time, the lone wolf provision has yet to be used. It was created in response to the Moussaoui case. The provision amended FISA's definition of an ``agent of a foreign power'' to include any person, other than a U.S. person, who ``engages in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore.''

The expanded definition allows the government to obtain a FISA, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, court order to surveil a non- U.S. person who has no known ties to a group or entity. Congress passed this lone wolf provision because it was concerned that previous FISA definitions did not cover unaffiliated individuals--or those for whom no affiliation can be established--who, nonetheless, engage or are preparing to engage in international terrorism.

FBI Director Mueller has asked specifically that this authority be extended so if the FBI comes across another ``Moussaoui,'' there will be no doubt that the FBI can intercept that target's communications. This seems reasonable to me. We would not tell a police officer he had to give up his gun simply because he has not used it yet, would we?

The other two provisions set to expire are roving wiretaps and business records searches. These tools are extremely important in the FBI's investigative work, and the FBI has a solid track record of using them too. From 2004 through 2008, the FBI has obtained 236 orders from the FISA court to produce business records. The business records authority has been exceptionally useful in many types of national security investigations. It routinely gives the intelligence community important information that can be used

to build the case for FISA searches or surveillances of terror suspects.

Roving wiretap authority has similarly increased the FBI's efficiency in critical investigations. The FBI has obtained roving wiretap authority an average of 22 times per year. During the Senate Judiciary Committee's oversight hearing of the FBI, I asked Director Mueller if he supported the reauthorization of these tools. He told me these tools are extremely important to investigations, and he hoped the tools would be extended. Director Mueller has repeatedly expressed his support of these tools to other Senators and committees.

In September, Director Mueller appeared before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Chairman Lieberman asked the Director if there was one thing that the Bureau needed that would assist in its counterterrorism mission. Director Mueller responded by saying:

I'll leap into the fray and say yes, the PATRIOT Act is

going to be debated. I know these provisions are essential to

us, particularly the first two which relate to business

records and secondly the roving wiretaps. And third, while it

has not been used, the lone wolf will be and is important if

we get a similar situation that we had with Moussaoui in

2001. So I would urge the reenactment of those provisions.

In his response to Chairman Lieberman, Director Mueller also endorsed National Security Letters as a vital tool in gathering information. He further stated that NSLs contribute to the success of investigations through ``information we can gather, not of substantive conversations but of tag data or the telephone toll data that we can obtain by reason of National Security Letters. So it is retaining these capabilities that is important.

National Security Letters have come under fire from some on the left, and the substitute takes aim at them as well. Currently, NSLs cannot be used to wiretap citizens, scan e-mails, or conduct any kind of intrusive surveillance. NSLs simply allow the government to retrieve the sort of transactional records that are extremely useful in uncovering terrorist activities.

NSLs are the most effective method of obtaining this routine data that is critical to detecting, monitoring, and undermining terrorist activities. They are also regularly used to rule out individuals as terror suspects. Intelligence investigations are a mosaic. Each bit of information is laid out and compared to other data. When these records are compared to other facts or information, they become the tiles that compose the picture and provide investigators with the identities of confederates and operatives.

The Supreme Court has clearly stated the fourth amendment is not implicated when these types of records, held by third parties, are shared with the government. The High Court has reasoned that citizens hold no expectation of privacy when such records are created through business transactions or otherwise.

The same records and data are just as easily obtained by investigators in criminal cases when they seek this information through an administrative or grand jury subpoena. This information is routinely obtained with little oversight in criminal investigations. NSLs are narrow in scope and already have multiple layers of oversight and built in protections for privacy.

Some on the left have maligned NSLs as a sinister and baleful device from George Orwell's ``1984.'' The source of this accusation is clear: these critics have misread the findings outlined in the DOJ inspector general reviews of the FBI's use of National Security Letters.

In March 2007, the inspector general released its first report in which it criticized aspects of the FBI's use and record keeping of NSLs. I have reviewed the full report and it is clear to me that the errors identified by the IG with respect to NSLs are largely administrative in nature. Some critics have been quick to point to the IG's criticism of the FBI's use of what are called ``exigent letters'' as a reason to clamp down on the use of NSLs. But this is simply not supported by the evidence. Exigent letters are not--I repeat not-- national security letters and the IG's findings should have no impact on whether current NSL authorities remain intact.

In March 2008, the IG issued a second report that reviewed the corrective measures as a result of the first report. The IG found that the FBI and DOJ were committed to correcting and improving the earlier identified administrative problems with NSLs. The report also stated that the FBI has made significant progress in addressing compliance issues and implementing recommendations.

Under the leadership of Director Mueller, the FBI has made great strides in correcting previous errors associated with NSLs. For example, they have revised and clarified policies and increased training on the proper issuance and handling of NSLs. They created the Office of Integrity and Compliance to ensure that the FBI continues to comply with applicable statutes, guidelines, and policies.

Most significantly, the FBI mandated the use of a Web-based, automated NSL creation system that prompts the drafter to enter all information necessary to create an NSL. This system supplies the appropriate statutory language and ensures that the NSL and the supporting memorandum are internally consistent. An NSL can be issued from this system only after all the required officials have approved it within the system. This system will go a long way toward curing the administrative errors identified by the IG.

Although both reports show that the FBI has sometimes struggled to measure up to its own internal standards in using NSLs, they also reveal that incidents of misuse were infrequent and unintentional. In short, there were no abuses of NSLs as we have so often been led to believe. It is my opinion--and many in the FBI and Congress share this opinion--that the administrative errors identified by the IG could be solved easily if the FBI had a national security administrative subpoena--one type of subpoena for all national security records--just as the FBI, DEA, postal inspector, and a host of other agencies have in other types of criminal and administrative matters.

Those on the left who would prefer that the FBI not have NSL authority ignore the many investigative successes attributed to this basic tool outlined in the IG reports. For example, NSLs have provided information identifying terrorist financiers, revealed key information regarding pre-attack behavior, and detected an attempted espionage plot by a government contractor. The reports are unequivocal: NSLs are indispensable tools to national security investigations. Unfortunately, certain provisions in the S. 1692 substitute will undoubtedly have a negative effect on their operational efficaciousness.

But NSLs aren't the only tool that will suffer under this substitute. New and, frankly, unprecedented minimization requirements would wreak havoc on ordinary pen registers; unreasonable and confusing standards of proof will delay, and even prevent, usage of basic tools; new reporting requirements could compromise sources and methods; and sneak- and-peek search warrants have been rendered useless. My greatest fear is that this bill will reduce our terrorist detention capability to the standard we possessed in the days preceding the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001.

I have a profound respect for the fine men and women who serve our country in our law enforcement and intelligence communities. Their focus, vigilance, and attention to detail are critical in intelligence collection, analysis, and detection of terrorist plots. Only occasionally, as in the past few weeks, does the American public hear about the successes that their tireless efforts and these basic tools bring about. But here in Congress, we know the truth and we should do all in our power to help these professionals do their jobs. I am reminded of the quote attributed to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who said:

We sleep sound in our beds because rough men stand ready in

the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.

We should never lose sight of the fact that we are at war. One of our greatest assets in this war is the ability to detect, investigate, and disrupt terrorist plots, the purpose of which is to harm our citizens on our own soil.

Neither this substitute nor its original bill is an improvement to the PATRIOT Act. I believe firmly that this bill could reduce our intelligence collection capability to the level that existed before the attacks of 9/11. I urge

my colleagues to take careful notice of the operational disadvantages in this substitute. The best path forward is clear. Congress should simply vote to extend the sunsets on the three expiring PATRIOT Act provisions and reject any measure that would tie the hands of those charged with safekeeping and safeguarding our great Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of Senator Lieberman's and Senator Sessions' amendment No. 2616 which will provide $151 million for the research and development of the two-stage ground- based interceptor missile.

I have always believed in having a plan B. Throughout my life I have learned the colloquial wisdom found in the saying ``do not put all your eggs in one basket'' has great merit.

In fact, in its most simplistic form, our Nation's strategic deterrent has been based upon the principle that you always need a backup plan. Specifically, for over 45 years our Nation's ultimate security guarantee for ourselves and our allies has been our Nation's nuclear triad composed of intercontinental ballistic missiles, bombers and submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles. The idea was simple: If one leg of our defense system was knocked out or somehow rendered inoperable, the two other legs would maintain a more then credible deterrent.

Times have changed. But the continuing need for the triad was recently reaffirmed by Dr. James Schlesinger who was one of the principal members of the recently published final report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.

However, the events of September 11 only underscored a new threat phenomena that is referred to in military circles as the asymmetric threat. Simply put, an asymmetric threat is the tactics which are used by our new adversaries, such as terrorists and rogue regimes, to counterbalance our Nation's traditional strengths in conventional warfare. The example which is seared in the mind of each American was the hijacking and crashing of civilian airliners on September 11.

Asymmetric threats are not just limited to terrorist activity and those nations which support it. It is also found in those nations which are developing ever more sophisticated ballistic missiles and even the ultimate weapon, the nuclear bomb.

But the asymmetric threat that I wish to discuss today is Iran's ballistic missile program. Though the President argues the Iranians are a decade away from deploying an intercontinental ballistic missile, this was not what our military experts were telling us just a few months ago. Specifically, the Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center published an unclassified version of its Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat report in April 2009--just 5 months ago--that ``Iran has an ambitious ballistic missile and space launch development programs and, with sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could develop and test an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015.''

The report goes on to say ``in late 2008 and early 2009 it launched the Safir, a multi-stage space launch vehicle, that can serve as a test bed for long-range ballistic missile technologies. The [Iranian] 2009 test successfully placed a satellite in orbit.''

These conclusions are supported by the testimony of General Craddock, who while still Commander of U.S. European Command stated this March that ``Iran already possesses ballistic missiles that can reach parts of Europe and is developing missiles that can reach most of Europe . . . By 2015 Iran may also deploy an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile capable of reaching all of Europe and parts of the U.S.''

These are serious assessments and no doubt the President has good reason to believe the threat has changed and therefore made the decision to drop plans to deploy our ground-based midcourse interceptor, called GBI, to Europe. However, I am also mindful of the point the distinguished Senator from Connecticut made when he introduced his amendment. He astutely reminded the Senate that in 1998 the North Koreans tested their long range Taepodong missile just 7 days after our intelligence community concluded that North Korea was 3 years away from having that capability.

Which brings us back to the question: should we have a plan B?

We did until 2 weeks ago.

That plan B was to deploy a European-based GBI system to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles fired from the Middle East at the United States and our European allies. According to the Bush administration this system was scheduled to be completed by 2013--2 years before our intelligence estimates, until recently, believed Iran would have an intercontinental ballistic missile.

However, under the new strategy, which relies on the continued development of the SM-3 missile, we and our allies must wait until 2018 to have a similar capability as planned by the previous administration and offered by the GBI in 2013. We also must remember the 2018 SM-3 deployment date can only be reached if everything goes according to plan--an all too rare occurrence in modern weapons development.

Not much of a plan B when one remembers that Iran has received extensive outside assistance in developing their ballistic missiles. For example, the National Intelligence Center concluded the Iranian Shahab-3, which has a range of 1,200 miles is based on the North Korean No Dong missile. In addition, Anthony Cordesman and Martin Kleiber in their 2007 book titled ``Iran's Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities'' wrote that as early as October 1997 ``Russia began training Iranian engineers on missile production for the Shahab-3.'' The authors also pointed out that allegations have been made that various Chinese companies had assisted in Shahab-3s final development.

This, of course, begs the question what other outside assistance could the Iranians receive which could speed their development of an intercontinental ballistic missile?

That is why Senator Lieberman and Senator Sessions' amendment is so important. It provides us with a plan B. It continues the deployment of a two-stage GBI. This is not a pie-in-the-sky plan. Our Nation has already deployed a three-stage GBI in Alaska and California and until 10 months ago the Department of Defense believed the two-stage system could be deployed by 2013.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Lieberman-Sessions amendment to provide funding for a plan B which could provide us with capabilities to intercept Middle East ICBMs launched against our interests and allies years before the President's plan.

Well, thank you so much to the two leaders. This is embarrassing, but it is very moving to have all my friends and colleagues here. This means so much to me. I didn't realize it was such a big deal, to cast 12,000 votes, but I am grateful the people of Utah have given me this privilege and this opportunity to serve in the greatest legislative body on Earth today, with the most wonderful people I know on both sides of the floor. I appreciate each and every one of you, and as long as I am here, I am going to try to do the very best job I can.

I am very grateful to Bob Bennett as well. He is a wonderful colleague and a wonderful companion here in the Senate. He has been a wonderful guide, and he has helped me as well.

This body means a great deal to me. We all saw what it meant to Ted Kennedy and the great accolades he received throughout his lifetime. It was a real privilege to be close to him, as I am to almost all of you and will be to all of you. This is a tremendous body. I just wish we could get rid of some of the partisanship as well as work together a little bit better than we have. To the extent that I can, I will certainly try to do that.

I wish to thank my friends on the Democratic side for their patience and their tolerance and kindness and my friends on the Republican side for putting up with me all these years. I am very grateful to you.

By the way, I have three great-grandchildren as well, so I have 26 grandchildren, and I think probably more on the way by now.

When I was a missionary in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, they once called me to start the congregation in Sandusky, OH.

We had four members there who hadn't been to church in less than 10 years. Within a month we had 30, all women, of course, and children. I became the first branch president, pastor of that congregation. We have the longest serving woman's organization in the world in the Mormon church, and it is called the Relief Society, which is presided over by women. I don't want you to misconstrue this, but I was also a part of and the president of the Relief Society as well in that small branch of the church.

From those humble beginnings, I have to say I received some of the greatest experiences of my life. That mission was important to me. This is important to me. I love each and every one of you. I think I have expressed that to you in various ways, even at times when I am sure you wondered about it. I am sorry I took so long, but I am moved by this nice care that you have all shown to me. Thank you so much.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Amendment No. 2575

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment I filed to the Interior appropriations bill, and in doing so, I hope to remind my colleagues about their responsibility as federally elected representatives of the citizens of the United States. The U.S. Constitution, the document written by the people to empower and limit government, specifically gives the Congress the power to make the laws that direct this government. The first section of the first article of the Constitution states ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'' The people also established an executive power and a judicial power, but put the lawmaking power specifically into the hands of Congress

I would invite my colleagues to consider for a moment, and to remind themselves, why the people put the control of the Nation's laws into the hands of Congress, and not to the other branches of government. It is because Congress is directly answerable to the people. For members of Congress, there is no escape from the people. Our founding document ensures that we routinely have elections whereby lawmakers face the citizens who sent them here. By limiting legislative powers to Congress, the people have secured this power to themselves. So we see that the people are willing to live under laws, but only to the extent that those laws are their own.

This is a principle upon which our Nation was founded. This is a principle upon which we have achieved our status as a great nation. It is a principle that has made our government an inspiration to generations of free minds throughout the world. And I believe it is a principle that is being weakened on our watch during the 111th Congress.

In April of 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA, by a 5 to 4 margin, that the Environmental Protection Agency could act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions as a pollutant from vehicles under the Clean Air Act without further authorization from Congress. And it is widely believed that this decision allows the EPA to also regulate carbon dioxide emissions from all other sources, as well, without further action from Congress.

I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA and even consider it ill-informed in some respects. However, I don't question the role of the Court to make such a decision. After all, the people did, in fact, give the Supreme Court the jurisdiction to interpret the laws of Congress.

Furthermore, I disagree with the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide poses an endangerment to humans and that it is a pollutant. Unlike conventional pollutants, CO2 does not normally cause direct harm to our environment or to our bodies. It is considered an endangerment only because it has the potential as a greenhouse gas to warm the planet. What seems to be completely lost by the EPA, is that most scientists will tell you that a warming climate is a net benefit, while a cooling climate is a net detriment to life on Earth.

If greenhouse gases and warming are detrimental to life, then why doesn't the EPA propose to regulate water vapor? Water vapor makes up 95 percent of all greenhouse gases, and a cubic foot of water vapor has a much stronger warming factor than a cubit foot of carbon dioxide?

Those are just a couple questions that haven't been answered sufficiently, in my view. And so I disagree with the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide is an endangerment. In spite of that, I do recognize that the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Clean Air Act in a way that allows the EPA to make this finding.

However, I doubt that any of my colleagues can honestly say that when Congress voted for the Clean Air Act in 1970, that we intended that carbon dioxide should be regulated as a pollutant. But now we are witnessing the EPA initiating a process to that end which will lead to the most sweeping, and probably most expensive set of regulations in our nation's history, with no specific authorization from Congress to do so.

Is it the proper role of Congress to sit by and allow an independent agency, with nary an elected official within its walls to take over every single energy producing activity in the Nation? Could there be a more dramatic and sweeping centralization of government power than the move to control all carbon dioxide emissions? And are we, as the elected body representing the people going to hide behind a decision by a Supreme Court and just watch it happen? While technically, the Supreme Court and the EPA are acting within their jurisdictions and authority. Certainly, though, with such far reaching regulations, Congress has a responsibility to put these actions back under the direct authority of Congress, and thus back into the hands of the people.

My amendment would do just that. It would bar the EPA from moving forward with these far reaching regulations until Congress has expressly authorized such an action. I urge my colleagues to restore Congress and the people to their proper role over laws that relate to the regulation of carbon dioxide, and support my amendment.

Mr. President, I rise on this Constitution Day to urge support for S. 1319, the Enumerated Powers Act. My friend and Judiciary Committee colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, introduced the bill in June, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. It would create a mechanism by which we can highlight and, if necessary, debate whether we actually have the power to do what we do.

Today, the prevailing view seems to be that Congress can do anything we want to do, any time, and in any way. There are always problems to solve, good ideas to implement, money to spend, activities to regulate, agendas to pursue, or constituencies to please. But those are merely the ends and, in our system of government at least, the ends cannot not justify the means. Not if we truly value our liberty. Our liberty requires that government be limited, that government's actions have legal authority, ultimately rooted in the Constitution itself.

The Constitution, for example, does not grant Congress all legislative authority. Article I gives Congress only ``legislative powers herein granted.'' Those powers are listed, or enumerated, in article I, section 8. The 10th amendment affirms that the Federal Government has only powers that are affirmatively delegated to it. James Madison explained in The Federalist No. 45 that these powers delegated to the Federal Government are ``few and defined.'' Why all this emphasis on definition and limitation, especially of the Federal Government? Because individual liberty requires limited government.

In The Federalist No. 51, Madison wrote that ``if men were angels, no government would be necessary.'' In other words, some government is necessary to have any liberty at all. But Madison went right on to write that ``if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.'' In other words, unlimited government makes liberty impossible. The truth is that men are not angels and angels do not govern men. Acknowledging that truth, America's Founders in their genius created a system of limited government to maximize ordered liberty.

I realize that such notions as definition and limitation are not in fashion today. Many today think these ideas passe, antiquated, or--and this is my personal favorite--archaic. Limited government is fine when we have no major problems to solve, when there are no big crises looming large. But today we face the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and many Americans want government to be robust and full-throttled. We want government to come to the rescue, to set things right, to make everything OK. I realize that today saying no is not popular, whether for individuals or for the government.

So we have to make the same basic, fundamental choice that America's Founders did. How much do we prize liberty? The laws of human nature and, therefore, of government have not changed. Men have not become angels and angels do not govern men. That condition will never exist. Ordered liberty will always require limited government, and so we must repeatedly ask whether, and how much, we prize liberty.

This bill embodies these principles by requiring that each of Congress state its constitutional authority. In other words, each act of Congress must state the very condition that indicates it is consistent with limited government. Congress has no authority to act, Congress has no authority to exist at all, unless that authority is derived from the Constitution. It is no less important than that. So this bill would require that each act of Congress state the one condition that is necessary for that act of Congress to be legitimate-- authority derived from the Constitution.

That statement alone would be important but purely symbolic. Virtually everyone could ignore it. So this bill would create a mechanism for challenging and even debating whether an act of Congress is indeed authorized by the Constitution. It does not require such a debate for every act of Congress but provides for a point of order that can result in such a debate. That debate would focus everyone's attention on the absolutely necessary connection between Congress' actions and the Constitution and, ultimately, on the Constitution itself.

In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that ``[t]he powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.'' A written Constitution that delegates enumerated powers to Congress is central to limited government and, therefore, central to our liberty. If we prize liberty, we must prize limitations on government. Chief Justice Marshall later wrote in McCulloch v. Maryland that ``this government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can exercise only the powers granted to it . . . is now universally admitted.''

That was then. How about today? Do we still believe that ordered liberty requires limited government? Do we still believe that Congress may only do what the Constitution authorizes us to do? Or do we believe that Congress needs no more than a good idea powered by a good intention? Are the principles embraced by Madison, by Marshall, still universally admitted today? If so, then this bill is an important way to prove it. On this Constitution Day, I urge my colleagues once again to embrace those principles of limited government and to demonstrate it by supporting this bill. Policy ideas and political positions shape our legislative activity, the Constitution should do so as well. I applaud my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, for introducing this bill and offering this opportunity to raise these principles closer to the position of importance they deserve.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, the Satellite Television Modernization Act. I also note the efforts of Senators Sessions, Kohl, and Kyl in crafting this bipartisan bill.

It is hard to believe that 5 years have transpired since we passed the Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act, SHVERA, of 2004. Much has occurred since that time, including the transition from analog to digital signals, which occurred in June. That is why the proposed legislation will not only reauthorize the statutory license used by satellite television providers, but will bring all of the statutory licenses into the digital age so that consumers can receive a good quality digital signal. Additionally, S. 1670 expands access to low power stations by broadening the license for low power stations to cover the entire local market; permits satellite providers to carry a noncommercial educational broadcast station if a station is part of a state-wide network; improves the ability of both DirecTV and DISH Network to provide local signals to local markets; and addresses the ``phantom signal'' issue, where currently cable providers may be required to pay royalty fees under section 111 based on subscribers who do not receive the content for which the royalty is being paid.

I hasten to point out, however, that much more needs to be done to move away from government regulation and toward a marketplace where satellite providers and cable providers can compete based on market forces. This is not a new issue for this body. In fact, during the 2004 reauthorization of SHVERA, Congress required that the U.S. Copyright Office prepare a report to make recommendations on the operations of, and revisions to, sections 111, 119, and 122 of the Copyright Act. The Copyright Office provided this report to Congress on June 30, 2008.

While I will not provide a line by line summary of the Report, I will underscore some key findings that the Copyright Office, under the leadership of Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters, suggests that Congress consider

when legislating in this area of the law. Specifically, the Copyright Office found that ``below-market rates may have been justifiable when cable and satellite were nascent industries and needed a mechanism to allow them to serve their subscriber base with valuable distant signals.'' The Report continues by stating that ``the current multichannel video distribution marketplace is robust and has, for a long time, overshadowed the broadcast industry.'' Moreover, the Copyright Office further argues that ``it is now time to phase out section 111 and section 119 so that copyright owners can negotiate market rates for the carriage of programming.''

I agree with the Copyright Office that something needs to be done to ``phase out'' these compulsory licenses. There is no longer any reason that the cable and satellite industries need a government-sponsored subsidy--paid for by program providers--for the right to retransmit broadcast signals. I believe we can devise a way that would phase out these compulsory licenses without disrupting the market. In fact, it is already being done today, as cable and satellite services license programming for more than 550 non-broadcast networks directly in the marketplace without a need for a compulsory license.

Some have suggested a market trigger mechanism that would create an opportunity for, but not require, copyright owners to license their copyrighted programming on broadcast television in the same manner as they do currently for cable channels like TBS, ESPN, Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, FX, and Bravo. Copyright owners would have a choice between continuing to operate under the compulsory license, or if they prefer, licensing cable and satellite retransmission of their works directly through the free market as is done every day for the hundreds of non-broadcast cable channels.

I hope that industry stakeholders will participate in creating a practical and reasonable approach to rectifying this important issue. At a minimum, it is time to let program creators and distributors have the option to determine the terms and conditions for their intellectual property rights. I am pleased that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy is committed to exploring viable options for a marketplace model, and I look forward to working with him and our colleagues on this and other issues before final passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, the Satellite Television Modernization Act. I also note the efforts of Senators Sessions, Kohl, and Kyl in crafting this bipartisan bill.

It is hard to believe that 5 years have transpired since we passed the Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act, SHVERA, of 2004. Much has occurred since that time, including the transition from analog to digital signals, which occurred in June. That is why the proposed legislation will not only reauthorize the statutory license used by satellite television providers, but will bring all of the statutory licenses into the digital age so that consumers can receive a good quality digital signal. Additionally, S. 1670 expands access to low power stations by broadening the license for low power stations to cover the entire local market; permits satellite providers to carry a noncommercial educational broadcast station if a station is part of a state-wide network; improves the ability of both DirecTV and DISH Network to provide local signals to local markets; and addresses the ``phantom signal'' issue, where currently cable providers may be required to pay royalty fees under section 111 based on subscribers who do not receive the content for which the royalty is being paid.

I hasten to point out, however, that much more needs to be done to move away from government regulation and toward a marketplace where satellite providers and cable providers can compete based on market forces. This is not a new issue for this body. In fact, during the 2004 reauthorization of SHVERA, Congress required that the U.S. Copyright Office prepare a report to make recommendations on the operations of, and revisions to, sections 111, 119, and 122 of the Copyright Act. The Copyright Office provided this report to Congress on June 30, 2008.

While I will not provide a line by line summary of the Report, I will underscore some key findings that the Copyright Office, under the leadership of Register of Copyrights Marybeth Peters, suggests that Congress consider

when legislating in this area of the law. Specifically, the Copyright Office found that ``below-market rates may have been justifiable when cable and satellite were nascent industries and needed a mechanism to allow them to serve their subscriber base with valuable distant signals.'' The Report continues by stating that ``the current multichannel video distribution marketplace is robust and has, for a long time, overshadowed the broadcast industry.'' Moreover, the Copyright Office further argues that ``it is now time to phase out section 111 and section 119 so that copyright owners can negotiate market rates for the carriage of programming.''

I agree with the Copyright Office that something needs to be done to ``phase out'' these compulsory licenses. There is no longer any reason that the cable and satellite industries need a government-sponsored subsidy--paid for by program providers--for the right to retransmit broadcast signals. I believe we can devise a way that would phase out these compulsory licenses without disrupting the market. In fact, it is already being done today, as cable and satellite services license programming for more than 550 non-broadcast networks directly in the marketplace without a need for a compulsory license.

Some have suggested a market trigger mechanism that would create an opportunity for, but not require, copyright owners to license their copyrighted programming on broadcast television in the same manner as they do currently for cable channels like TBS, ESPN, Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, FX, and Bravo. Copyright owners would have a choice between continuing to operate under the compulsory license, or if they prefer, licensing cable and satellite retransmission of their works directly through the free market as is done every day for the hundreds of non-broadcast cable channels.

I hope that industry stakeholders will participate in creating a practical and reasonable approach to rectifying this important issue. At a minimum, it is time to let program creators and distributors have the option to determine the terms and conditions for their intellectual property rights. I am pleased that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy is committed to exploring viable options for a marketplace model, and I look forward to working with him and our colleagues on this and other issues before final passage of this bill.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment by my good friend, Senator Mike Johanns, that would prevent our taxpayer dollars from being directed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, more commonly known as ACORN. I also want to commend the Census Bureau's recent decision to cut all ties with ACORN.

Simply put I am very pleased with this decision, which was announced late last week through a letter from Census Bureau Director Robert Groves to ACORN's National Headquarters. As I met with Dr. Groves in my office just last week, I raised this very issue and expressed my disappointment, along with the disappointment of many of the Utahns I represent, that ACORN would have any association with such an important and historic event such as the 2010 Census.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am always supportive of reasonable efforts to ensure that taxpayer funds are not used for unlawful activities, particularly when those activities may be construed to be partisan in nature. That is why I have followed this particular issue so closely throughout the year and raised the issue directly with Director Groves.

In fact, as next year's census quickly approaches, I continue to work with Census officials at the Commerce Department on all levels. As all Utahns are keenly aware, the Decennial Census requires precision and uniformity--both of which I am closely monitoring as the Census moves forward.

To that end, I am hopeful that the Census Bureau will ensure that all Americans are counted fairly and accurately, with the privacy of the individual always in mind. I applaud Director Groves and his decision for the Census Bureau to cut all ties with ACORN. I am pleased that he listened not only to my concerns, but also to the concerns of thousands of Utahns and Americans from across country who have expressed severe disappointment with ACORN's involvement in the 2010 Census. Personally, I feel ACORN should not have been involved in the 2010 Census in the first place. However, I recognize Director Groves' decision as an important step toward an accurate and fair count and look forward to assisting in additional efforts toward that same end in the near future.

While I am encouraged by the recent actions by the Census Bureau, I believe it is critical to adopt Senator Johanns' amendment so we can know with certainty that partisan political organizations like ACORN will not be underwritten with taxpayer dollars.

Madam President, I wish to speak about a matter of great prominence to the people of my State. This past Friday, in Springfield, MA, Jerry Sloan and John Stockton were inducted into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. This is a well-deserved honor, and I wanted to take a few moments to congratulate them both.

As any fan of professional basketball can tell you, the Energy Solutions Arena in Salt Lake City is widely considered one of the most difficult places for visiting teams to play. Some have tried to blame this on the city's high elevation, but, if you have ever been to a game there, you know very well that it is because of the Jazz fans.

You see, due to its relatively small population, Utah has only one major sports franchise--the Jazz. And there were times when people thought that this small market would not be able to sustain even a single NBA team. But for more than two decades the Jazz have enjoyed one of the most loyal and supportive fan bases of any team in professional sports. This is due in no small part to the careers of both John Stockton and Jerry Sloan.

John Stockton grew up in Spokane, WA, and played basketball at both

Gonzaga Prep and Gonzaga University in his hometown. He was a relative unknown when he moved into the professional ranks, picked by the Jazz in the middle of the first round of the 1984 draft and initially relegated to a reserve role on the team. But after three seasons he became the full-time starter at the point guard position and went on to have one of the most prolific careers in basketball history.

Over the course of his career, he accumulated numerous honors. He was selected to play in the NBA All Star game 10 times. He played on the 1992 and 1996 Olympic teams--the first two Olympic squads to include professional players winning Gold Medals in both years. He was selected to the All-NBA First Team twice, the All-NBA Second Team six times, the All-NBA Third Team three times, and the NBA All-Defensive Second Team five times. In 1996, the NBA celebrated its 50th anniversary by selecting the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History. Of course, John Stockton was honored on this list as well.

Though the accomplishment of winning an NBA championship eluded him, Stockton did lead the Jazz to two consecutive NBA Finals appearances in 1997 and 1998. John Stockton was immortalized in the first of those seasons when, in Game 6 of the Western Conference finals, he scored the last 9 points for the Jazz, including a last-second 3 pointer to send the Jazz to the Finals for the first time. This was probably the most memorable moment of Stockton's career and the history of the Jazz franchise and it is still replayed in montages of great sports moments.

It is impossible to talk about John Stockton without mentioning Karl Malone. Together, these two formed one of the game's legendary one-two punches. Together, they became the league's models of consistency, commitment, and success. The two played 18 seasons and an NBA record 1,412 regular-season games together as teammates. Due to their collaborative efforts, Malone finished his career as the second highest scorer in NBA history and Stockton holds the all time career assist record.

Let's talk about that assist record for a moment. In the 63-year history of the NBA, only 4 players have career assist totals of over 10,000. Stockton finished his career with 15,806 assists. Mark Jackson, No. 2 on the list, collected 10,334 assists--5,483 fewer than Stockton.

But, the raw numbers don't do this record justice. To put it in perspective, only 37 players have dished out 5,483 or more assists in their entire careers. Indeed, just getting that many assists over a whole career would put you in pretty elite company--and that is the difference between John Stockton's total and that of the guy who is next in line.

This record is among the truly unbreakable records in all of sports-- and it isn't the only one held by John Stockton. He also holds the career record in steals, also by a considerable margin. He holds the NBA record for the most seasons and consecutive games played with one team and is third in total games played.

John Stockton's success on the floor was matched only by his consistency. He missed only 22 games during his career, 18 of them came in 1 season. In 17 of his 19 seasons in the NBA, he played in every single game. Overall, he played in 1,504 of 1,526 possible games. These are Lou Gehrig or Cal Ripken-type numbers.

Stockton will always be remembered for his no-nonsense approach to the game, his hard-nosed defense, his matchless work ethic, and his quiet, unassuming personality. His unflashy, fundamentally sound style of play earned him the respect of John Wooden, the legendary UCLA basketball coach, who once said that John Stockton was the only NBA player he would pay money to see.

Stockton retired in 2003 and returned home to Spokane. While other NBA greats have sought careers in broadcasting and coaching after their careers were over, so far, John has been content to stay at home with his family. This comes as no surprise to those who know him.

Guiding John through most of his NBA career, was coach Jerry Sloan, who, once again, is also being inducted into the Hall of Fame. Sloan's careers as both a player and a coach have been characterized by his unyielding toughness and an unmatched drive to compete.

Jerry was born and raised in McLeansboro, IL, and played his college career at the University of Evansville. He played one season in the NBA for the Baltimore Bullets before being selected by the Chicago Bulls in the expansion draft. In fact, he was the team's first player, earning him the nickname ``The Original Bull.'' Sloan quickly became known for his tenacity on defense, and he led the expansion team to the playoffs in its first season.

He had an exceptional career as a player. He played in two All-Star Games, was named to the NBA All-Defensive First Team four times and the All-Defensive Second Team twice. He also led the Bulls to the playoffs on various occasions and helped them to win the franchise's only division title prior to the Michael Jordan era. After his playing career was cut short by knee injuries, the Bulls retired Sloan's No. 4 jersey, the first jersey retirement in the team's history.

Immediately after his retirement, he became part of the Bull's coaching staff, starting out as a scout, eventually working his way up to head coach, a position he held for three seasons. A few years later, he joined the Jazz coaching staff as an assistant to another Utah sports icon, Frank Layden. In 1988, when Layden's health forced him to retire, Jerry was named head coach of the Jazz, a position he has held ever since.

Coach Sloan just finished his 20th season as coach of the Jazz, a milestone that, in today's sports world, is almost unthinkable. Over the course of his Jazz tenure, literally hundreds of coaching changes have taken place throughout the NBA. In a league that has had a number of great coaches in its history, none have coached for the same team as long as Jerry Sloan.

This extends to other sports as well. Currently, Sloan is the longest-tenured coach in any major professional sport.

There are a number of reasons to explain his longevity. The most obvious is that he has been successful. He is currently fourth on the list for alltime coaching wins--though he holds the record for most wins with one team. In 17 out of the 20 seasons he's been in Utah, the Jazz have been in the playoffs, the only absences coming in transitional years after the departures of John Stockton and Karl Malone.

Another reason Sloan has been able to stick around is his consistent, no-nonsense approach to the game. Over time, teams have changed strategies to become flashier in order to cater to younger fans and the new era of players, many of whom have been self-centered prima donnas. Throughout that time, Coach Sloan has been a model of consistency, placing premiums on discipline and hard work among his players. The result has been a franchise that, for over two decades, has competed at a high level.

In many ways, Stockton and Sloan were alike, and their strengths complemented each other. Neither one will claim to have been able to be successful without the other.

Currently, there is a huge statue of John Stockton in front of the Energy Solutions arena alongside a statue of Karl Malone. Chances are, in 20 or 30 years when Jerry Sloan finally decides to hang it up, they will want to build a monument to him as well. Neither of these gentlemen would actively seek such limelight, but few are as deserving.

Once again, I would like to extend my congratulations to both John Stockton and Jerry Sloan for this great honor and to thank them for their contributions to the Utah community.

Madam President, I thank all of our colleagues who have taken the time to come to the floor to speak for and on behalf of our great friend and colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy. I particularly enjoyed the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Vermont who served with him for 35 years. I only served 33 years with Ted. I thank them for the remarks and the reverence most everybody has had for our departed colleague.

I rise today to offer my remarks on the passing of my dear friend and colleague, Senator Ted Kennedy. Over this past recess, America lost one of its greatest leaders and this Chamber lost one of its most dynamic and important Members. I mourn the loss not only of a respected colleague but of a dear personal friend. I think I speak for all my colleagues when I say that Senator Kennedy will be missed and that the Senate is a lesser place without him here.

People have often remarked about the working relationship I had with Senator Kennedy, oftentimes calling us the ``odd couple.'' We used to laugh about that. But the truth be told, he and I really didn't agree on a lot of things. Over the years, Senator Kennedy and I were on opposite sides of some of the fiercest battles in this Chamber's history. While we have long been good friends, we did not pull any punches on one another. If we were opposing one another in a debate, Senator Kennedy would come to the floor and, in his classic style, he would lay into me with his voice raised--and he had a terrific voice-- and his arms flailing. Of course, I would let him have it right back. Then, after he finished, he would finally come over and put his arm around me and say: How was that? I would always laugh about it, as we did. We laughed at each other all the time.

That is what set Senator Kennedy apart from many in Washington. For him, politics rarely got personal. He was never afraid to voice his disagreement with the views of a fellow Senator. But, in the end, I believe he always maintained a warm and cordial relationship with almost every one of his colleagues. That is difficult to do sometimes, particularly when partisan tempers flare up, but it always seemed to come easy for Senator Kennedy.

Despite our tendency to disagree on almost everything, Senator Kennedy and I were able to reach common ground on many important occasions and on some important issues.

As I mentioned at the recent memorial service, one of my defining moments as a Senator came when I met with two families from Provo, UT. The parents in these families were humble and hard working, and they were able to provide food and clothing and shelter for their children. But the one necessity they could not afford was health insurance. Their children were children of the working poor. The struggles of this family touched me and inspired me to work with Senator Kennedy to create SCHIP, which continues to provide health care coverage to millions of children of the working poor and others throughout the country and which passed with broad bipartisan support.

Over the years, Senator Kennedy and I worked successfully to get both Republicans and Democrats on board for a number of causes. We drafted a number of pieces of legislation to provide assistance to AIDS victims, including the Ryan White AIDS Act. I named that bill right here on the floor with Mrs. White sitting in the audience. We worked together, along with Senator Harkin, to craft and pass the Americans with Disabilities Act. There was also the Orphan Drug Act, as well as the FDA Modernization Act, and a whole raft of other bills that would take too much time to speak about, all of which bear the Hatch-Kennedy, Kennedy-Hatch name.

Our final collaboration came just this year in the form of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which I was pleased to name after Senator Kennedy right here on the floor. He came up afterward, and we hugged each other. Then we went back to the President's Room, and he had pictures, even though he was not feeling well. He had so many pictures with so many people who were involved.

All of our bills passed because of the willingness of Senator Kennedy and myself to put consensus ahead of partisanship--something we see far too infrequently in Washington.

It is axiomatic in politics that timing is crucial. No one understood or practiced that principle better than Senator Kennedy. He had a sixth sense and an open mind to notice when the time was ripe for the key compromise. He knew when to let events sift and when it was time to close the deal. More importantly, he knew when he should stick to his guns and when he needed to reach across the aisle to get the help of his Republican colleagues. He was always able to recognize and work with those who shared his goals, even if they had different ideas on how to achieve them.

I will never forget, after I had made the deciding vote on civil rights for institutionalized persons--it was a Birch Bayh-Hatch bill, and Birch had led the fight on the floor, and so did I.

Later came the Voting Rights Act. I felt very strongly about not putting the effects test in section 2. I had no problem with it in section 5, but I did not want it in section 2 so that it applied to all the other States. I lost in committee. I voted for the bill out of committee because I considered the Voting Rights Act the most important civil rights bill in history.

The day they were going to have the bill signed at the White House, he caught me right inside the Russell Building where we both had offices, and he said: You are coming with us, aren't you?

I said: Well, I was against the change in section 2.

He said: You voted for it and were very helpful in getting that bill passed, and I know how deeply you feel about it.

I did go down with him. I would not have gone without Senator Kennedy recognizing I did feel deeply about the Voting Rights Act. And even though I lost on what I thought was a pivotal constitutional right, the fact is I voted for the bill.

At the risk of riling my more liberal colleagues in the Senate, I would like to point out that Senator Kennedy shared an utterly optimistic view of the American experiment with President Ronald Reagan. They both deeply believed that whatever the current trials or challenges we must face as a nation, America's best days were ahead of her. That is something many people do not appreciate well enough about Senator Kennedy.

Because of his optimism and hope for our Nation's future, Senator Kennedy was, throughout his career in the Senate, a great practitioner of the Latin motto ``carpe diem,'' ``seize the day.'' Few worked harder day-in and day-out than Senator Kennedy. As a result, every Senator had to work a little bit harder, either to follow his lead if you were on the same side of the issue or to stand in his way if you were the opposition. I have been in both positions. I am not saying it was inherently difficult to work with Senator Kennedy. But as anyone who has negotiated a tough piece of legislation can tell you, it can be sheer drudgery, even when you agree on most issues. But Senator Kennedy brought a sense of joy even to the most contentious negotiating sessions. And when you were working with Senator Kennedy, you knew he would keep his word. If after these long sessions an agreement was reached, he would stick by it no matter how much heat he would have to take.

All this was no doubt the result of his love for this great institution and his commitment to the American people. Political differences notwithstanding, there can never be any doubt about Senator Kennedy's patriotism.

Few had a presence in the Senate as large as Senator Kennedy's. More often than not, you could hear him coming down the hall--a mini- hurricane with a bevy of aides in tow, a batch of amendments in one hand and a stack of talking points in the other. He was almost always effective but seldom very quiet.

I also want to share a few thoughts about his staff. While at the end of the day the full responsibility of the Senate falls squarely on the shoulders of each Senator, it is also true that during the day and often long into the night and on many weekends much of the work of the Senate is conducted by a group of the most committed team of staff members of any institution anywhere. Throughout his career, it was known that the Kennedy staff was comprised of one of the most formidable and dedicated collections of individuals of the Senate. Many of them have gone on to have distinguished careers, including now- Justice Stephen Breyer; Dr. Larry Horowitz, who managed his health care right up to the end and loved Ted Kennedy deeply; Nick Littlefield, who ran the Labor Committee for Senator Kennedy and was an adviser right up to the time Senator Kennedy passed away; and, of course, Michael Myers--just to name four, with no intention of leaving out the others. Senator Kennedy would be the first to recognize how their efforts contributed to his success. I salute them for their hard work over the years. I cannot exactly say I have always been totally pleased with all of the Kennedy staff all of the time, but, as was true of their boss, while we might have been frequent adversaries, we were never enemies.

I am saddened by the loss of my dear friend Senator Kennedy. I will miss

him personally. I will miss the fights in public. I will miss his sense of humor in private and public. And perhaps more significantly, I believe this Chamber will miss his talents as a legislator and, most of all, his leadership.

While I cannot say I hope more of my colleagues will adopt his views on policy, I hope more of us can adopt his approach to the legislative process.

I was in California giving a speech at a fundraiser when they came in with a cell phone and said: Senator Kennedy is on the line, and he sounds very agitated.

So I went out on the plaza and I said: Ted, what is the matter?

He said: Oh, I have great news for you.

I said: What is that?

He said: I am going to get married again.

I said: Do I know her?

He said: No, but you would love her. She is a wonderful, wonderful person, and she has two wonderful children. I am going to adopt them and treat them as my own. And I am so happy.

I said: Ted, why would you call me in California?

He said: Well, her daughter was bragging to her elementary school teacher at that time that her mother was going to marry Ted Kennedy.

The elementary school teacher was married to a Washington Post reporter.

So he said: I wanted you to become one of the first to know. I am very happy. I am going to marry Vicki Reggie.

I have come to know Vicki very well. She has made such a difference in his life and in his family's life. She is a tremendous human being, as are his children. They are terrific.

I was happy to be in the Catholic church where Teddy went to pray for his daughter every day he could when she was suffering from cancer. I know how deeply he feels about Patrick and Teddy, Jr. I thought they did a terrific job at the mass at his funeral. He has to be very proud of them. I am very proud of them.

I think Vicki Kennedy deserves an awful lot of credit for all of the later happy years of my friend Ted Kennedy. I want her to know that I love her dearly for what she did and as an individual herself.

I love Ted Kennedy's entire family. A number of them have come to me at times where I was able to help them because he could not as a member of the family. I have to say that I was close to a great number of the members of his family, and I really appreciate them as well and the influence they had on him and he had on them.

He had a great influence on me as well. I want to personally thank him for it and say to my dear friend and colleague, as I look at his desk over there with the flowers and the drape, rest in peace, dear Ted, and just know that a lot of us will try to carry on, and hopefully, with some of the things you taught us and helped us to understand, we can do it better than we have in the past.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to give tribute to my colleague and friend, Senator Mel Martinez. During his time in the Senate, Mel has

served the State of Florida and our country well.

Overcoming great odds, Mel and his life's journey is an inspiration to all. At age 15, he fled his native Cuba as part of a Catholic humanitarian effort. Alone, and speaking virtually no English, Mel was placed in temporary youth facilities. Later, he lived with two foster families, for whom he has great appreciation and affection. In 1966, he was happily reunited with his own family members in Florida.

These experiences strengthened Mel and shaped his views. He went on to earn graduate and law degrees from Florida State University and practice law for 25 years before serving as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and then joining us here in the United States Senate.

During his tenure, I appreciated Mel's leadership, particularly working on the U.S. Senate Republican Conference Task Force on Hispanic Affairs--a task force I formed in 1987. I have long felt that we should not try to put this vital and growing segment of our population in a box because they care about the same things we all do--having a safe nation, strong families, a good education for all our children, and good jobs that provide well. At the same time, I recognized that Hispanics and Latinos bring unique and important perspectives to the issues we face in Congress.

Mel worked to advance the mission of the task force to promote greater participation in the democratic process, to create more job opportunities, ensure better access to health care, and educate our children.

While there is much talk on both sides of the aisle of strategy and outreach to try to ``woo'' Hispanics and Latinos, we should actively listen to their concerns and encourage their participation. That is true of all segments of our population. That is what I have tried to do and that is what Mel has done, too. I understand we have Mel's firm commitment to continue this important work.

Our colleague from Florida has taken strong positions on a number of issues that have come before this body. Mel has supported prodemocracy movements in Cuba while urging that its dictatorship of abuse and misery is not legitimized by our government.

As a member of the Armed Services Committee, Mel has been a strong supporter of our war on terror, especially as our brave troops combat terrorism overseas for the safety of our Nation.

Mel has supported a reasonable and rational approach to ensuring our Nation's energy security. He has helped to highlight our Nation's lack of action to increase our production of nuclear energy--our Nation's largest sources of green, clean electricity. He recognizes that our domestic electricity supply must be based upon a major source of green baseload power, and that nuclear power holds the most potential to ensure that the American economy is fueled by an abundant, cheap, and clean source of energy.

Mel has worked with us on health care reform. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue--it is an American issue which needs to be addressed in a bipartisan and fiscally responsible manner.

Our colleague has worked to defeat card check because it reduces employees' right to a free and private election to choose if they want to unionize.

Mel has sought workable reforms to our system of immigration. He spoke out against the negative rhetoric that divided and polarized. He will be missed in this body as the immigration debate moves forward.

I know my friend is looking forward to writing the new chapter in the book of his life. I thank him for his service to our country and wish him well.