Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Performance Rights Act, S. 379, introduced today by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Patrick Leahy, and myself. It is time to amend copyright law to establish performance rights on sound recordings. I believe that artists should be compensated for their work. This is an issue of fairness and equity.

I agree with the position of the Department of Commerce Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights: the lack of a performance right in sound recordings is ``an historical anomaly that does not have a strong policy justification--and certainly not a legal one.''

This legislation would ensure that musical performers and songwriters receive fair compensation from all companies across the broadcast spectrum, not just from Web casters, satellite radio providers, and cable companies. The proposed legislation attempts to strike a harmonious balance between fair compensation for artists and a vibrant radio industry in the U.S.

By amending sections 106 and 114 of the Copyright Act, the Performance Rights Act would apply the performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions thereby removing the exemption on paying performance royalties currently in place for over-the-air broadcasters.

The legislation also provides for a blanket license of $5,000 for small commercial broadcasters whose gross revenues do not exceed $1.25 million a year. In addition, noncommercial broadcasters as defined by section 118 of the Copyright Act, such as public, educational and religious stations, would have a blanket license of $1,000 per year. No payment would be due until the Copyright Royalty Board determines the rates for large commercial broadcasters. The proposed language provides that sound recordings used only incidentally by a broadcaster and sound recordings used in the transmission of a religious service are exempt.

Finally, the legislation strengthens the provision in section 114 that preserves the rights of songwriters and clarifies that nothing in the Performance Rights Act shall adversely affect the public performance rights of songwriters or copyright owners of musical works.

Let me repeat, this provision is to ensure that songwriters are not adversely affected by enactment of this bill. I understand the concerns of the songwriting community and the difficultly some have in recouping royalties on infringed works. We must ensure that our songwriters are not placed in situations where their property rights are ignored by infringers. Chairman Leahy agrees that additional work to address the issue of willful infringement is necessary before enactment, and I look forward to working with him.

I want the broadcasting community to know that I am committed to working with them throughout the legislative process. I continue to have an open-door policy and welcome a productive dialogue on this issue. There is no question that radio play promotes artists and their sound recordings. There is also no question that radio stations profit directly from playing the artists' recordings. Indeed, we must strike a fair balance, one that fosters a vibrant broadcast radio community and compensates artists for their work.

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

Mr. President, I support the nominee. I have known him for a long time. We differ on many issues, but he is a qualified person, and he is a good man. He has the necessary professional qualifications to do this job. I personally believe we ought to support the President and his choice of Cabinet officials if there are no other disqualifying factors, such as ethics or criminal activity or something serious. I have a friendship with the nominee.

In fulfilling my responsibility in the confirmation process, I try to apply the right standard to the whole record about a nominee. The right standard comes from the Constitution, which gives the appointment power to the President, not to the Senate.

Elections have consequences, and Presidents must be given significant latitude when choosing members of their own Cabinet. Differences on issues or whether I would have nominated the individual are not alone enough to overcome that latitude. I have always argued for this standard no matter which party controlled either the Senate or the executive branch. The Senate checks the President's appointment power, but it may not highjack it.

I realize that my friends on the other side of the aisle have at times applied a different standard, a much more partisan standard, when a Republican was in the White House. They got in the habit of putting partisan politics before the process principles the Constitution requires. I am not going to do that. I am going to apply the same standard to President Obama's nominees that I argued should have been applied to President Bush's nominees. In doing that, I believe the right standard must be applied to the whole record.

The record includes the fact that Mr. Holder has been nominated three times before, by both Republican and Democratic Presidents, and he has been confirmed three times before, by both Republican and Democratic Senates. Those confirmations were by voice vote, by unanimous consent, and by a rollcall vote of 100 to 0. Not one member of this body voted against Mr. Holder as he was appointed to be a judge on District of Columbia Superior Court, U.S. Attorney for the District, and Deputy Attorney General.

I think it also matters that the Judiciary Committee last week voted 17 to 2 to approve Mr. Holder's current nomination.

Another part of the record is the breadth of support Mr. Holder has received. This includes the entire law enforcement community. The cops on the beat and the chiefs of police, the troopers and the sheriffs, the district attorneys, the Federal prosecutors, and the State attorneys general, all of these and more support Mr. Holder. Advocates for crime victims also support Mr. Holder. These include my friend John Walsh, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, and the National Association for Victims of Crime. This really matters to me.

These organizations examined Mr. Holder's qualifications, his record of public service, and concluded that he would make a good Attorney General. Does that mean we should, therefore, set aside our own review and automatically support him? Of course not, but it is part of the whole record and, I believe, an important part.

I have served in this body and on the Judiciary Committee for more than 32 years and do not remember when the law enforcement and victims communities have been this united in support of an Attorney General nominee.

And the record also includes support for Mr. Holder from many legal experts and past Justice Department officials with high standing in conservative and Republican circles.

Former Solicitor General Ted Olson says that Mr. Holder will be a strong, courageous leader who is both a good manager and a good listener.

Former Acting Attorney General Stuart Gerson and Former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger write that Mr. Holder is an extraordinary lawyer and an even better person.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson says that Mr. Holder will be principled, pragmatic, fair, and tough.

Former Congressman and Federal prosecutor Asa Hatchinson writes that Mr. Holder will be the kind of Attorney General who puts the law first and political considerations second.

And recent Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein, who headed the Justice Department's National Security Division, says that Mr. Holder is a man of integrity, a strong proponent of law and order, and more concerned with justice than with politics.

That is high praise from very good company.

This does not mean that I have no concerns about Mr. Holder or do not intend to be vigilant about what the Justice Department will be doing in the months and years ahead. I hope, for example, that Mr. Holder will continue some critical initiatives begun in the last several years, such as the protection of religious liberty and the prosecution of human trafficking. These initiatives were part of the work of the Civil Rights Division, which was led at the end of the Bush administration by Grace Chung Becker, who earlier served on my Judiciary Committee staff.

Religious liberty is the first freedom protected by the first amendment. Human trafficking is, to put it bluntly, modern-day slavery. Upholding human dignity and freedom requires both protecting the one and prosecuting the other.

I also am concerned that enforcement of Federal laws regarding child pornography and adult obscenity will suffer and the exploitation and corrosion that this material causes for individuals, families, and communities will worsen. This is a completely nonpartisan issue for me. I was no fan of the Bush administration's enforcement of the obscenity laws and said so in both confirmation and oversight hearings.

The record of the Clinton administration, in which Mr. Holder served, was even worse. On November 4, 1993, this body voted 100 to 0 to condemn the Justice Department's attempt to adopt a novel, weak interpretation of the Federal child pornography statute. The Justice Department had used this distortion of the law to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn a child pornographer's conviction. This body rarely votes 100 to 0 on anything, but we voted to condemn the Justice Department's action.

I know that was in the first Clinton term, and Mr. Holder did not serve as Deputy Attorney General until the second term. But that is the record of the Justice Department in which he previously served, and I hope that the record of the Justice Department he will now lead will be much different.

Another significant issue which I raised at Hr. Holder's confirmation hearing is the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution. It continues to baffle me how people can claim to see unwritten rights in our written Constitution but refuse to fully acknowledge those that are right there in plain sight. Mr. Holder has argued that the second amendment protects only a collective right related to service in an organized militia rather than an individual right of citizens. He took this position as Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration and since then as a private citizen, most recently before the Supreme Court in the case titled District of Columbia v. Heller.

I believe Mr. Holder is wrong and the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Holder's position in Heller, ruling definitively that the second amendment protects an individual right.

Mr. Holder has also in the past advocated some restrictive gun control proposals that I oppose and which I believe would likely be unconstitutional under Heller.

I asked Mr. Holder about the second amendment and gun control during his hearing and in follow-up written questions. He acknowledged his duty to enforce the Constitution as interpreted in Heller. He said he would respect the right to keep and bear arms as articulated by the Supreme Court in Heller, that is, as an individual constitutional right.

I note that the Senate voted 100 to 0 in July 1997 to allow Mr. Holder to serve as deputy to an Attorney General who was no friend of the second amendment. That was before the Supreme Court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, a ruling Mr. Holder has a duty to follow.

If confirmed, Mr. Holder will take an oath before God to support and defend the Constitution. So while I disagree with his past positions on the second amendment and gun control, I believe and expect that he will take his duty and his oath seriously.

I am also troubled by Mr. Holder's role, while he served as Deputy Attorney General, in the process resulting in President Clinton's clemency for Puerto Rican terrorists and his pardon for international fugitive Marc Rich. In 1999, I joined 94 other Senators in voting to deplore the clemency for the FALN terrorists. Needless to say, I disagree with Mr. Holder's statement at his hearing that he still believes his support of that clemency was reasonable.

I agree with former FBI Director Louis Freeh who said at Mr. Holder's confirmation hearing on January 16 that the pardon of Marc Rich, which happened after avoiding the Justice Department's evaluation process altogether, was a corrupt act. Mr. Holder, however, made neither of those decisions. President Clinton did.

Mr. Holder has acknowledged mistakes and said he has learned from them.

I believe that his actions and decisions in the process leading to those decisions reflect bad judgment but not corrupt character. This confirmation process has certainly focused even more attention on those past mistakes and, I hope, will make Mr. Holder even more diligent in his duties ahead.

I know Eric Holder. My own experience and knowledge of his record and the testimony of so many others whose judgment I respect confirms that he is a man of ability, experience, and integrity.

The issues and concerns I have raised, while not enough to overcome the deference the Constitution requires, do identify areas for work in the future and I hope, when confirmed, Mr. Holder will work with both Republicans and Democrats on these important issues.

Applying the right standard to the whole record leads me to support Eric Holder to become the next Attorney General of the United States.

I reserve the remainder of our time.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the recent college football season and the success enjoyed by our own University of Utah football team.

First, I want to mention that a while back, during last week's festivities, I had the opportunity to meet with members of the University of Utah Marching Band as they were in town to march and perform in the inauguration parade.

I want to publicly recognize the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Ashburn, VA, who offered their homes to these musicians and the band, allowing them the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to perform for the President of the United States of America. The band would not have been able to make it to Washington had it not been for the generosity of these private citizens who housed them and took care of them and fed them. I appreciate their willingness to help some of my follow Utahns.

My meeting with the band out in Ashburn reminded me of what a wonderful year it has been for sports fans in my State. I wish to once again publicly extend my congratulations to the Utah Utes on an outstanding season.

On January 2, the Utes capped an undefeated season with a 31-to-17 victory in the Sugar Bowl over a highly favored Alabama team. Under the scrutiny of the national spotlight, Utah played with poise and precision, silencing the naysayers who claimed they could not compete with a national powerhouse such as Alabama.

Alabama had been rated No. 1 much of the season. This was Utah's second undefeated season in 5 years, demonstrating that school's football team deserves to be considered among the country's elite college football programs.

In particular, I want to congratulate Coach Kyle Whittingham, who, on January 13, was named National Coach of the Year by the American Football Coaches Association. What an honor. Coach Whittingham took over the head coaching job at Utah 4 years ago, following what was, at that time, the most successful season in school history. The Whittingham family is sort of a football institution in the State of Utah. So fans and alumni had high expectations about the future of the program, and Coach Whittingham has not disappointed them. In each of his four seasons, the Utes have finished with a winning record and have won a bowl game. In fact, the University of Utah has won a bowl game in six consecutive seasons and, overall, they have been victorious in their last eight bowl appearances--the longest current streak in college football. Coach Whittingham has been on the staff that entire time, first as defensive coordinator and now as the head coach.

The Utes have been lead on the field by quarterback Brian Johnson. He capped an outstanding college career this past season by winning the Mountain West Conference's Offensive Player of the Year Award. He was also a finalist for numerous national quarterback awards. Brian's story is actually a very inspirational one. Late in the 2005 season, he suffered what is, in many cases, a career-ending injury when he tore his ACL. This injury forced him to sit out the entire 2006 season. Then, in the first game of the 2007 season, he was injured again and missed two more games. But he was able to finish the season, leading the Utes to a winning record and an impressive victory over Navy in the Poinsettia Bowl. He returned for his senior season, fully healed and ready to take the team on his shoulders for what proved to be a historic season.

One of the most popular members of the Ute squad has been kicker and punter Louie Sakoda who, in each of the last three seasons, was the Mountain West Special Teams Player of the Year and named to several All-America teams. Nicknamed ``King Louie,'' this 5-foot-9, 178-pound team captain is something of a celebrity in Salt Lake City. Last year, he offered himself as a date for a campus charity auction and drew the highest bid of any item on sale--though NCAA restrictions kept him from actually going on the date. His parents, according to news stories, can join any pregame party in the parking lot outside Rice Eccles Stadium if they just mention their son's name. He has also lent his celebrity to an ad campaign started by Utah First Lady Mary Kaye Huntsman aimed at combating teenage drinking and driving. Louie can be seen in TV commercials in Utah urging teens and anyone who's been drinking to ``punt the keys.''

Indeed, the entire University of Utah football team has become the toast of every town in my State--even among those who typically root for the Utah's other fine football programs. They have also become one of the most talked about teams in college football nationwide.

Unfortunately, the success enjoyed by the Utah football team has been marred somewhat by the controversy surrounding the Bowl Championship Series. The Utes were the only football team in NCAA Division I to finish the season 2008 undefeated. Their season included victories against a powerhouse team at Brigham Young University, Oregon State, Texas Christian University, and Alabama, all of which finished the season ranked in the Associated Press Top 25--the latter two in the Top 10. In fact, Alabama spent much of the regular season ranked number one in the country before losing to Florida near the end of the season.

Yet despite these accomplishments, even with its perfect record and impressive schedule, the University of Utah finished the season ranked second in the country. Florida, the team that won the so-called BCS Championship Game, had a very good year. But unlike Utah, they were not undefeated; they had one loss, as did at least three other teams in the country. Yet under the BCS system, this unbeaten Utah team was denied an opportunity to even play for the national championship. One has to wonder what more Utah could have done with its season in order to get into the national championship game. It is interesting that the former Utah coach under whom Coach Whittingham served, Urban Meyer, had a championship team. We all admired him. He was a great coach at Utah and one of the greatest coaches in America today. Unfortunately, the answer to this question is even more disheartening than the question itself: nothing. The fact of the matter is that the Utah team was left out of the national championship picture, not due to any competitive shortcoming, but because the BCS system categorically excluded them from consideration.

Under the BCS, the champions of six athletic conferences receive automatic bids to play in the five most lucrative and prestigious bowl games. Collectively, those six conferences include 66 of the 119 teams in NCAA Division I football. So, in short, nearly half of all college football teams begin the season virtually left out of the BCS picture, yet the BCS still wants to call the winner of its championship game the ``national champion.'' I don't know about you, Mr. President, but that strikes me as odd.

Of course, it needs to be acknowledged that teams from non-BCS conferences can play their way into a BCS game. The University of Utah did so both this year and in 2004. In other years, teams from Boise State and Hawaii have earned bids to play BCS bowl games. But in doing so, these teams had to overcome serious competitive disadvantages. For example, it is virtually impossible for a school from a non-BCS conference to get a BCS bid without going undefeated in the regular season, and even that is not a guarantee. Yet this past season, each

of the six BCS conference champions had at least one regular season loss--three of them had two or more. Two non-BCS teams--Utah and Boise State--were undefeated after the 2008 regular season. In addition, Texas Christian University, another non-BCS team, had only one loss and was higher in the BCS rankings than two of the conference champions with automatic berths. Yet of these three teams, only Utah was invited to play in a BCS game.

These are the disadvantages non-BCS teams must face just to get into one of five prestigious BCS bowl games. While mere participation is an uphill battle, the system makes it virtually impossible for a non-BCS team to win the national championship. The BCS relies on a combination of polls and computer formulas to determine its rankings. For decades, these polls have almost invariably tended to favor teams from the bigger BCS conferences, evidenced by the fact that no team from an outside conference has finished a season atop a major college football poll since 1984. So unless a team from a non-BCS conference begins the season with a very high national ranking in the polls, they stand virtually no chance of getting ranked high enough to play in the championship game, even if they go undefeated. This system excludes teams like this year's Utah team, which began the season unranked and spent the season shocking opponents and exceeding expectations, from national championship contention.

The flaws of the BCS system might not be so bad if it helped to clear what traditionally had been a muddled national championship picture. But unfortunately, that is not the case. In at least 6 out of the last 10 years, there has been substantial controversy over the selection of the teams to play for the championship. So the system is not only biased, but ineffective as well.

Mr. President, the BCS system is anti-competitive, unfair, and, in my opinion, un-American. I am not just saying that because my team was treated unfairly. I am making the case that many teams are not treated fairly. In no other sport in this country are champions selected by arbitrary and biased polls and computer ranking systems. Much worse, the BCS ensures that the millions of dollars paid to the participants of these prestigious games remain concentrated among a few elitist conferences. Such exclusionary practices put teams from non-BCS conferences at a monetary, recruiting and competitive disadvantage. This may not only be unfair in the normative sense, it may very well violate our nation's antitrust laws.

In 1984, in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the Supreme Court determined that NCAA is not exempt from the requirements of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That being the case, college football, like most other industries in this country, must conduct business in a manner that does not intentionally stifle competition or systemically favor specified competitors. Specifically, in the words the Sherman Antitrust Act, no ``contract, combination, or conspiracy'' may be undertaken to exclude competitors.

In my opinion, it is quite probable that the BCS violates the Sherman requirements. In 2003, I chaired a series of Judiciary Committee hearings to investigate the antitrust implications of the BCS. I stated at that time that I believed the BCS was anticompetitive and in dire need of reform. Shortly thereafter, the BCS added another bowl game and, to some extent, expanded the field of eligibility. However, as this past season demonstrates, these changes leave much to be desired in terms of fairness and competition. Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff shares this view and is consulting with lawyers and investigators to determine whether the BCS system constitutes an antitrust violation. Indeed, it appears that litigation over this matter may be on the horizon. Also, on at least two separate occasions, President Obama has publicly stated his concern about the fairness of the BCS and his hope to see the creation of a playoff system. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to predict that a Justice Department investigation into the potential antitrust violations of BCS will be forthcoming.

Mr. President, I would prefer that reforms take place without putting the matter before the courts. In addition, given the many problems facing our nation, I hope that the Justice Department will not have to get involved in this issue. And while some have proposed a legislative fix, this also would not be my preferred solution, though ultimately, this may end up being the only effective means of addressing these problems. Instead, I would hope that those with the power to change or eliminate the BCS, including NCAA President Myles Brand as well as the university presidents and the conference commissioners in the BCS conferences, will hear the public outcry against the BCS and voluntarily work to reform the system to ensure that, as in every other American sport, championships are decided on the field and not in arbitrary polls and computer calculations. While a playoff seems like the most natural solution, other means may be available.

That said, I want to say that I believe the University of Utah football team are champions in the truest sense of the word. They won on the field against worthy competition in a year when literally everyone else proved unable to do so. Once again, I want to congratulate University President Michael Young, Coach Whittingham and every member of the team for what proved to be an exhilarating and tremendous season. I also congratulate other teams that qualified for bowl games who were winners and deserve certainly the plaudits of all of us.

I hope this helps to bring this matter to a head. I hope we can change this system that is an unjust system.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the Hatch amendment No. 80.

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

Mr. President, America's Founders built their case for independence on the foundation of self-evident truths; not party platforms or partisan positions, not opinion polls or intellectual fads but self-evident truths. Our Creator, they said, endows us with inalienable rights, including the right to life. Government, they said, exists to secure those rights. They believed that when America was born, and I still believe that today. I offer this amendment in that same spirit. The conviction about the essential dignity of our fellow human beings motivates the Civil Rights movement here at home and the human rights movement abroad. No matter what our income, race, sex, religion, location or age, we all have our humanity in common.

I came to the Senate with the conviction and tried to act on that conviction ever since by working to protect children's lives and promote children's health. These go hand in hand. That is why I worked so hard with Senator Kennedy and others to originally pass the children's health program and bill. It was kind of a miracle that we were able to get it done over 10 years ago when we did it. It was done in the Finance Committee and became the glue that held both the Republicans and Democrats together on the first balanced budget in over 40 years.

As I said, I came to the Senate with very strong convictions. Again, I have tried to act on those convictions ever since by working to protect children's lives and to promote children's health because I believe they go hand in hand. Elaine and I have 6 children, 23 grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren, and we speak for children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and beyond, all over America.

I cannot understand those who insist that we establish hundreds of programs to help millions of people by spending billions of dollars but who do not believe the lives of those very same people should be protected.

The Children's Health Insurance Program is about promoting children's health. My amendment does exactly that. A child in the womb is just as alive, just as human as that very same child will be after he or she is born. The CHIP program exists to help States promote children's health. The children who need help might be in a house or an apartment, in a city or out in the country, in a large family or single-parent home, in a crib or in the womb. That just seems to me, well, self-evident.

Since October 2002, a regulation issued by the Department of Health and Human Services has defined a child as anyone from conception to 18 years of age. It may sound a little odd to call someone who can drive, vote, or serve in the military a child, but it is the most natural thing in the world to say that when those very same individuals were in the womb, they were children.

Under this HHS regulation, States have had the option of providing CHIP coverage to children before as well as after birth. My amendment would codify that regulation to continue helping States protect the health of children.

I would point out to my colleagues that so far, 14 States have approved plans to provide CHIP coverage to children before birth. Those States include Arkansas, California, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

I also wish to clarify that my amendment would also provide health coverage to pregnant women. Some have claimed that under this HHS regulation, pregnant women would only get CHIP coverage for conditions specifically related to their pregnancy. I want to assure my colleagues that my amendment will ensure that States have the option of providing services to benefit either the mother or the child or both.

My amendment also clarifies that States may provide mothers with postpartum services for 60 days after they give birth. Mothers have health needs before and after they give birth and their children have health needs before and after they are born. My amendment ensures that the CHIP program continues to meet those very important needs.

I urge my colleagues not to put the health of children at greater risk by sidetracking my amendment with a bogus debate over abortion. This is about children and their health, not abortion.

America itself is built on the foundation of inalienable rights which we receive from God. Government exists to secure those rights. Those rights do include the right to life, and they specifically include the right to life. My life, your life, the life of each of my Senate colleagues did not begin when we were born. Each of us was just as alive, just as human the day before our birth as the day after--or as we are today. Our efforts to promote children's health, including through the CHIP program, flow from that self-evident truth.

My amendment will continue allowing States to promote the health of children and their mothers before as well as after those children are born. I urge all my colleagues to support it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as always, I care for the Senator from California. We are good friends. You know, I hasten to point out that her own State of California has approved unborn child State plans. Look, this amendment by definition has nothing to do with abortion since women who seek help covering their unborn children's health are not women seeking abortion. They are separate, and the Senator should not try to mix them. This is not an issue about abortion. This is an issue about a living, unborn child and her or his mother.

I might add that 14 States have approved unborn child State plans, including the States of Arkansas, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin have all approved unborn child State plans.

I agree with the Senator, the bill has worked beautifully, the CHIP bill, for the last 10 years. I know. I wrote every word in it and did so with Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, Chafee, and others, as a matter of fact. But I don't think anybody doubts that I carried the ball in getting that bill through the Finance Committee and the whole Congress.

I see a one-sided attempt here to change the bill in ways that will make it less effective and not cover as many children as it should. Some argue the legislation already gives States the option to cover pregnant women, so this amendment is not necessary. But the distinct difference between this amendment and what is in the underlying bill is that this amendment allows States to cover children before birth. Children have health needs as much before as after they are born, so legislation to promote children's health ought to cover them. Let me emphasize that this is a State option, not a State requirement.

Some argue this amendment is an attempt to inject, as I think the distinguished Senator from California has argued, the abortion issue into a bipartisan effort to protect children's health through the authorizing of the CHIP program. The truth is exactly the opposite. As I said when introducing my amendment, this has nothing to do with abortion. It has everything to do with promoting children's health, and any reasonable person ought to be concerned about the unborn as much as they are the born and, of course, the mother involved. This amendment takes care of all three.

I feel very strongly about this. I do not think anybody should try to make this an abortion issue--not myself, not the distinguished Senator from California, or anybody else, for that matter. I don't see how anybody can vote against an amendment that protects the life of the unborn child after having read the Constitution about its great desire to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is what this amendment is all about.

I feel strongly about it. I hope our colleagues will support it, because it would be a great thing to help this bill along. I would feel much better if this was amended. I have to admit, I do not feel good about the approach that has been taken by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

The fact is that Senator Grassley and I carried the ball for the last 2 years, working with Senators Reid, Baucus, Rockefeller, Durbin, and others; working with the House, Speaker of the House Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel and others who were there, including Steny Hoyer.

We worked closely together to do CHIPRA I. We got an overwhelming vote in the Senate. On CHIPRA II, we got an overwhelming vote in the Senate, enough to override the President's veto in the Senate. I do not think that would have happened but for the bipartisan effort we put together. We had a solid, strong vote in the House, but not enough to override the President's veto.

Now, I have heard people run down President Bush for his vetoes on CHIP. I think President Bush followed the advice of some very young advisers in the White House who basically gave him bad advice. Had he allowed CHIPRA I or CHIPRA II to go through, we would not be having this awful debate today; we would all be together. The whole Congress would have been together, and this whole effort would have been truly bipartisan. We could have set a bipartisan tone right off the bat, instead of this partisan tone that has been set by bringing up the bill without even talking to the two lead Republicans who in 2007 worked so carefully, honestly, and diligently to try and bring about a bipartisan resolution for a new CHIP bill.

And, by the way, we took a lot of flack in the process from some in the administration and some on our side for supporting the legislation in 2007. We took it. We took it gladly. And our colleagues on the other side saw us take it. They saw us stand firm. They saw Senator Grassley and myself stand on the floor, along with a whole host of others, in a bipartisan way, putting together what would have made CHIP even better for the next certainly 5 years.

This bill only funds the CHIP program for 4\1/2\ years, because if they had gone the extra half year, it would have priced the bill out of the marketplace. But I have to say, we are going to have to come up with that money anyway, and end up going that extra half year. So everybody better understand all that is being done today by my friends on the left, ignoring people, like me and Senator Grassley, who have worked so closely with them--and they have a right to do that. I can live with that, as I vote against their partisan bill.

All I can say is they have a right to do it. But it is the wrong thing to do. It is the wrong way to start off this Congress after the President himself has shown such a propensity to want to work together. I have to say, I was there when the President came and spoke to our caucus last Tuesday. He was impressive. He was friendly. He was making every effort to be bipartisan. But he apparently had not fully examined the stimulus bill that has been passed only in a partisan way by

the House. I would call people's attention to the Wall Street Journal yesterday and their editorial on all the bad things that are in the bill; or Investors Business Daily and their editorial, and how that it is not a stimulus bill at all, but a great big potpourri of long-wanted liberal programs that are not going to stimulate the economy the way they should.

I am not saying there is not any stimulus in the bill, but there is not much compared to the cost of the bill. When you add interest to the bill, it is well over $1 trillion. Of course, you know, they keep interest off because that would make it over $1 trillion. But interest is going to have to be paid regardless.

Now, this particular bill on the floor right now is one where I have a tremendous interest, namely, children and children's health. I am going to continue to take great interest in it.

I want to caution my colleagues on the left that they are making a tremendous mistake here. I think we could have had 95 votes for CHIPRA II or CHIPRA I. That would send a tremendous message that has not been sent around here in a long time.

Now, the CHIP program, so everybody understands, already covers children before birth at the States' option. I read off the States that have made that an option, including the distinguished Senator from California's State.

This is not a new policy. It is already working. This amendment simply continues that policy by codifying the HHS regulation. Women who want their babies need this assistance. Women in California and other States want this. Please do not deny this type of basic humane assistance or help for women and their children with a fake argument about abortion. Let's have an abortion debate on another day. Everybody knows I am pro life. I feel very strongly about that. I will stand up for the pro-life position. But it has nothing to do with what we are debating here today. Let's help children and their mothers now.

Let's codify what a whole raft of States have said we ought to do, including the very important State of California, one-seventh of the whole economy, one-seventh, I should say, in size in the world economy today, and a State I have a lot of regard for.

Fourteen states have gone along with this regulation. And, frankly, I do not see one good argument against protecting unborn children and their mothers who want those children covered through the wonderful child health insurance program. This is a very important set of issues.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is not an injection of abortion into the debate. This is a children's health bill. I was the original author of the one that worked so well for over 10 years. A raft of States have determined that they should take care of the unborn through their CHIP programs. It is not an issue of abortion. In the world view of those who support abortion, the fact is, they don't want to give recognition to the unborn child. That is their right, if they want to feel that way. I think it is ridiculous. It is unspiritual. It is ignoring life itself. But to make that part of this debate is the wrong thing to do. We are trying to protect children.

The distinguished Senator from California said: All women are going to be protected by this bill. That is not true. It is a state option so they are covered only if a State decides to cover low-income, pregnant women. We want to make sure that if the state has the option to not just cover the woman but the unborn child as well. Anybody with brains ought to want to do that and ought to avoid the whole issue of abortion, which I am trying to do by protecting the mother and the unborn child and codifying the 2002 regulation.

Section 111 of the bill says there is a State option to cover low- income pregnant women under CHIP through a State plan amendment. Some States have chosen to do that. But why not recognize the rights of the unborn child? To try and make this into an abortion debate because they just don't believe the unborn child lives is another thing. The point of my amendment is to ensure States continue to have the option in the future to cover unborn children, plain and simple, without any ambiguity. We codify the 2002 regulation into law. Frankly, it is about time we do things like that in a children's health bill. But to make this abortion argument is--I hate to say it--completely wrong.

I am concerned not only with mothers, but I am also concerned about those unborn children who deserve the best health we can give them. My amendment gives the States the right to do that by codifying this important regulation. I know some supporters of abortion rights are afraid this will legitimize the fact that the unborn child is alive and is a human being. That is another argument. I agree that argument is right; that unborn child is alive, it is a living human being inside the mother's womb. The point of when the spirit enters the body is a legitimate question, I suppose, to some. But why would we be afraid to protect the rights of that unborn child? Why would we be afraid to do that? Why are folks so afraid if we legitimize the understanding that this unborn child actually is a living being, that somehow or other it is going to destroy their political world? It isn't going to do that.

This is a children's health bill. I take a tremendous interest in it. I not only want to protect the pregnant woman, I want to protect that unborn child. I don't know of any pregnant woman who wants her child who would not want this type of protection. To make this into a bogus argument is the wrong thing to do.

I yield the floor.

I don't want to continue it all day. I do believe there are some people who want to speak on this side. I will just make one or two comments.

Mr. President, let's not pit mothers against their children. This is not an either/or situation. Let's protect both mothers and their unborn children. In fact, the purpose of this bill is to provide health care coverage to low income, uninsured children. The Senator and I simply disagree. This amendment concerns unborn children and covering them. She seems to think it is about abortion. I don't. Her own State is covering unborn children through the regulation of the prior administration. Thirteen other States are as well.

Mr. President, I think I have made the case. Let me say that I ask unanimous consent that Senator Robert Casey be also listed as a prime cosponsor on this amendment, along with the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson.

I feel very blessed to have these two very strong Democrats willing to support a recognition that these unborn kids are human beings, they are human life, and that a child health insurance program bill ought to cover them.

With that, Mr. President, I know Senator Bunning is here and I will yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the distinguished Senator's amendment. I am proud of him and very pleased to support his amendment on New York and New Jersey, and I rise in support of that Bunning amendment. He is right. Why on Earth should States be rewarded by getting a higher CHIP match rate for covering kids over 300 percent of the Federal poverty level? That is around $64,000 for a family of four.

Now, when we wrote the CHIP bill in 1997, with Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Chafee, CHIP was created to cover children of the working poor, the only ones left out of the whole financial system--not children from families of four whose income is $77,000 like New Jersey's CHIP program or $88,000 like the CHIP waiver the state of New York has filed. And that does not even count some of the income disregards that may raise the income level to over $100,000. It is ridiculous.

My colleague is right. Senator Bunning is right. These two States should not receive the higher CHIP matching rate. I strongly support my colleague's amendment, and I congratulate him for bringing it to the floor. I hope our colleagues will work to support that amendment because it makes a lot of sense.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Sessions be added as a cosponsor to the Hatch amendment No. 80.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support this amendment of the distinguished Senator from Iowa. Essentially, what we are doing is striking the Baucus bill being considered on the floor and replacing it with the CHIPRA II bill that passed overwhelmingly in this body in 2007, enough votes to override a Presidential veto. Not one Democrat voted against this bill. Not one.

But what my good friend, Senator Grassley, and I are offering is a bill that represents a solid bipartisan agreement that we worked out with Senators Rockefeller and Baucus. I do not blame Senator Baucus for the mess we are in right now, or this partisan approach to CHIP, because he represents his side. But I do believe there has been a real lack of effort by some on the Democratic side to work with us after all of the time that we spent trying to make sure we had something that would work in the last Congress.

What we have is a true bipartisan agreement where we were there from start to finish. Senator Grassley and I, Senators Baucus and Rockefeller, and those in the House--we spent hours together, months together, working out the details of this bill. We spent morning, noon, and night for 6 months to get the bill to that point. It was built on a foundation of tough agreements and tough decisions. We were part of the process from the very beginning and stayed with the process until the very end. That resulted in a true bipartisan agreement.

The bill passed overwhelmingly in both the House and the Senate by a veto-proof margin in the Senate. Senator Grassley and I worked our guts out, put our hearts and souls into both CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II. We were proud of our work with Senators Rockefeller and Baucus because that work not only reauthorized the CHIP program for 5 additional years, it covered more low-income uninsured children. It retained the original goal of the original CHIP program, which, by anybody's measure, has worked very well over the prior 10 years.

The bill before us today does not represent that agreement. We talked to our colleagues at the beginning and then we were not included in the discussions that evolved into the CHIP bill recently considered by the Finance Committee and now on the Senate floor. We were not even invited. It seems to me once we were not needed anymore we were more or less thrown by the wayside because our votes were no longer needed.

This is not the way to start off the 111th Congress, especially after the last campaign where our President said he wants to work in a bipartisan way, he wants us to get together, he wants us to be able to work with each other, he wants us to accomplish a great deal for this country.

I think I am known for bipartisan work around here, and I certainly have taken a lot of flack for some of the President's Cabinet people I supported, and supported right off the bat, because they were qualified people. I believe the President should have his

choice as long as they are qualified and not otherwise disqualified.

Well, I am going to support this amendment of Senator Grassley's, which represents the true bipartisan agreement of 2007. Now, let me mention a few of the highlights in CHIPRA II.

The amendment states there will be no Federal CHIP dollars for coverage of children over 300 percent of poverty; that is around, $63,000 for a family of four. Now, to be honest with you, when we did the original CHIP bill, we wanted it to be 200 percent of poverty because those kids were the only ones left out of the health care system, the children of the working poor. We did it so we would have enough money to try and cover all of the kids who really qualified for CHIP. Even with that, we found we were not able to get to all of them. So you can imagine, with the current economic difficulties, we are going to have even more pressure to get to more and more kids. If we start allowing states to cover over 300 percent of poverty, which at least one State does and another is in the process of doing, it is not going to be long until this program becomes a Federal Government boondoggle where everybody will expect money from the Federal Government for health coverage.

This amendment eliminates the earmark to allow New York to cover children up to 400 percent of poverty, $84,800. By the time they use income disregards, some estimate that families could be making over $100,000 a year and still qualify for the CHIP program.

Now what does that do? That takes money from the 6 million kids who are low income and uninsured. It is crazy. Yet that is what this bill allows. Senator Grassley and I had to agree to go to 300 percent, which is over $63,000 for a family of four in 2007. But to now go to 400 percent of poverty, admittedly New York City is an expensive place, but New York's rural areas are not that different from other States, except they are taxed to death in the State of New York. But that should not be the problem of everybody in the country.

This amendment includes the bipartisan crowdout policy that addresses the issue of families giving up private coverage in order to enroll in a public program. Our amendment would require a number of studies on crowdout, would improve data collection on the coverage of low-income children, would require all States to adopt these ``best practices'' to reduce crowdout, and would provide the Secretary with the authority to hold States accountable for covering low-income children.

With regard to crowdout, we did our best to stop it so people would not drop their health insurance that they can afford so their kids would qualify for the CHIP program. That is one of the problems with covering higher income families, because, naturally, if parents find they are going to be better off opting for CHIP coverage as opposed to private health coverage, they are going to crowd-out lower-income children from CHIP coverage. That is what this bill really does.

It is a shame because it means less money and less health coverage for those who are truly needy, those for whom this bill was meant.

If we covered the children of the working poor, the only ones who were formerly left out of the health care system, we could probably do a much better job if we kept it to 200 percent of poverty. But Senator Grassley and I agreed to go to 300 percent of poverty in the interest of a bipartisan agreement even though each of us felt that probably was a mistake.

This amendment does not include the controversial legal immigrant provision allowing States to claim a Federal match for coverage of legal immigrant children and pregnant women.

Look, I started the Republican senatorial Hispanic task force. I brought Hispanic leaders from the country to Washington at least twice a year to help us understand how we could better assist Hispanic people. We brought together Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. I have a long reputation of trying to help Hispanic people.

Under our immigration laws, sponsoring families who brought others to this country legally entered an agreement to take care of those individuals for 5 years. It has worked. The current bill on the floor, the partisan bill, wipes that all out. In the process, how many children who are U.S. citizens are going to be left out because we have expanded this program in ways that will not take care of them?

Sure.

Heavens no.

Certainly not. And as the Senator knows, many States today provide that care to legal immigrants through CHIP or otherwise. And let me emphasize that all expenses are supposed to be provided by the sponsoring families for 5 years. If that was the wrong time or it should have been shortened, I would have worked with the distinguished Senator to do that. But that was the deal. That was the rule. That was what we worked on. That is what we thought would work. That is what we thought was fair.

What I don't want to do is have our own children who are U.S. citizens be without care while we cover those who were supposed to be covered by their sponsor families who brought them to the United States.

Yes, it is true. And they would be covered by CHIP.

What about those who were brought in who are not legal citizens? I am not against helping them.

If I may take my time back, I am not against any children receiving help. A lot of these children get help through our system of health care. But I am talking about a CHIP bill that cannot take care of our current children who are U.S. citizens and now we have included a provision that would allow legal immigrants to be covered before the 5 year waiting period.

I might add, many States today provide coverage to legal immigrant children. Many States do that. I commend them for doing it. But I am worried about having a bill that can get broad bipartisan support that literally first covers our children who are U.S. citizens. This bill does not do that. Let's be honest about it, it doesn't. Today, there are as many as 6 million or more low income, uninsured children who are U.S. citizens who do not have health coverage some of whom could potentially not be covered by CHIP because legal immigrant children will now be covered through CHIP. It is my hope that their family sponsors will take care of them. And if not, these legal immigrant children and pregnant women are still going to be taken care of by the States. I don't know of any pregnant woman who goes to an emergency room and who isn't going to be taken care of.

I think this is a principle that is very important. We should be doing what we can do. But what is more important is that we agreed to not include the legal immigrant provision in CHIPRA II. It overwhelmingly passed, and every Democrat voted for it. Now we come up with a partisan approach that basically undermines that agreement. I am very concerned about it. Frankly, I think Senator Grassley is right in bringing up this amendment.

But don't let anybody fool you. There isn't a child I don't want to help. In fact, the way this bill arose, two families from Provo, UT, came to me. Both husbands worked; both wives worked. Both husbands and wives worked. Neither family, at that time in 1994, earned more than $20,000 combined income a year. Yet they were working poor who wanted to work and not be on the dole, but they couldn't afford insurance for their children, who were

the only kids, the working-poor kids, the only kids left out of the process. So we came up with CHIP to try to resolve that issue. Even with that, we were not able to do everything we wanted to do, but it worked amazingly well. I don't know anybody who denies that fact. I don't know anybody who would dispute me on this statement. I would like to see them try.

The fact is, the bill worked well. Over the last 2 years, in a bipartisan way, we worked to try to solve some of the problems that arose, even with a good working CHIP bill. We worked in good faith. All of a sudden, we find a bill brought up here without any input from us that is a partisan bill, that makes it even more difficult to cover all these kids.

Everybody knows I believe in health care, and I believe we ought to cover everybody. I would like to do it, but I don't want to do it by bankrupting the country or making those who do work have to take care of those who don't. I am a very strong believer in helping those who cannot help themselves but would if they could, but I am not very excited about helping those who can help themselves but won't. Unfortunately, we have a few of those types of people in this country.

What galls me is that I know the President wants to work in a bipartisan way. But the House just acts like, so what, we are just going to do what we want to do. I can understand that type of thinking because they were irritated with some members in the House, even though we ended up with a very strong vote in the House. It just wasn't enough to override the veto. They were irritated with some of those who didn't agree with CHIPRA I or CHIPRA II. But in the Senate, we had, as I recall, 69 votes--more than we needed to override a veto. The reason we did is because it was bipartisan.

I don't know how many people are going to vote for CHIPRA II at this time, but I just remind my colleagues that every Democrat voted for it when it came up. Frankly, even if we didn't get it passed because the House sustained the veto, it was a tremendous victory.

I am not going to spend the rest of my life griping about it. But the fact is, it is a shame that with a President who wants to be bipartisan, the first thing out of the box, the first real bill out of the box happens to be a bill that they know Senator Grassley and I worked hard on, that we carried a lot of water on, that we took a lot of flak for in 2007. Then we find out they are going to do something that is just plain partisan, that isn't going to work as well, and it is going to cost the American people a lot more.

I hope everybody in this body will support Senator Grassley's and my amendment on the CHIPRA II bill. If they don't, personally, I can live with it, but I won't be happy. I think what is going on is not fair, and it is a direct slap in the face to those of us who worked so hard with our friends on the other side. And they are friends. I mean, they are all friends. I care for them. But this is a particularly important bill to me. Right now, it looks as if it is turning into just a partisan exercise.

I yield the floor.

Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

Will the Senator yield?

I don't think I answered the question as well as I would like to. The question was, Do we want any children of pregnant women, legal immigrant children, not to be helped? Twenty-one States already pay for that. I think most of the others do through emergency rooms. They don't go without health care. But what is happening here is that we are taking what 21 States are actually doing and we are basically just alleviating them from having to do that, that which they are capable of doing and wanted to do, and just taking it over by the Federal Government when, in fact, these problems were solved in a way that was reasonable, with not only families taking care of people they brought into this country for 5 years under their obligation but also because the States would take care of them with State money. I wanted to make that clear. I do appreciate working with my colleagues on the other side, but I am a little disappointed that it has turned out this way.

If the Senator will yield, I thank him for his gracious comments. He knows our friendship means a great deal, and also with the distinguished chairman of the committee. I think he is a very fine man who has done a very good job on this committee. But I am going to have a difficult time supporting this bill without some bipartisan approach that would work a lot better than this is going to work. But I thank the Senator again.

Mr. President, this amendment would codify the 2002 HHS regulation which gives States the option of providing CHIP coverage to children before as well as after birth. Fourteen States have already approved plans to provide CHIP coverage to children before birth: Arkansas, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.

This amendment also allows States to provide health services to the mother for 60 days after the birth of her child. In addition, the amendment also would provide health coverage to pregnant women for issues not relating to the pregnancy. This amendment will continue allowing States to promote the health of children and their mothers before and after birth by codifying the 2002 HHS regulation.

I am happy to have a number of cosponsors on this amendment, including the distinguished Presiding Officer. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support as a cosponsor of S. 150, the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2009, introduced by my colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. As our Nation copes with economic turbulence, we here in Washington are faced with tough decisions regarding the Federal budget. Back in our home States, State and local legislators are facing their own tough decisions and are examining drastic cuts to budgets that could impact law enforcement services provided to citizens. These cuts are leaving law enforcement administrators wrestling to do more with less. Unfortunately, we are finding out that these administrators are forced with the only choice of serving their public with fewer officers, less money for training and less money for tools and resources for the more than 800,000 men and women who keep our citizens safe from crime. I fear we have only seen the tip of the iceberg that is our present economic state. Large cities and small towns are seeing the possibility of not filling vacant law enforcement officer positions due to the recent budget crisis. In my home State of Utah, with the exception of a few law enforcement agencies, most of the departments patrol rural jurisdictions. Some of the hardest hit areas by this economic downturn are rural communities. Police agencies in these communities often lose out to larger metropolitan areas for consideration of justice assistance grants. Under the present form of the Department of Justice's Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, the sheriff's departments and police departments in Utah have seen a 65-percent decrease in justice assistance grant funding received from this program. These areas have their own challenges--issues such as illicit drug use that are not just unique to cities but transcend city limits and have manifested themselves in rural communities in much the same way they do in urban settings.

Press reports in the preceding weeks have been very grim to say the least. Joblessness is on the rise. The combination of revenue losses and budget shortfalls will see an increased demand for services on the part of these rural agencies. These issues will make it challenging to continue to meet the demands of normal calls for service. According to the chiefs and sheriffs in Utah, because of this economic downturn, the cost of everything is going up, including crime.

If passed, the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act would level the playing field by reauthorizing the rural law enforcement assistance grant under the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. This reauthorization will make agencies located in rural States and populous States with rural areas candidates for this grant assistance. These grants can be used to hire officers, pay for officer training, crime prevention programs, and victim assistance programs. For example, in the coming fiscal year some Utah agencies may not be able to purchase essential items and tools like rape-investigation kits which are critical in the gathering of physical evidence after a victim has been assaulted. Grants awarded under the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act could be used to purchase these kits and other critical tools needed for investigations. As a longtime advocate for victims' rights, I find this troubling that there might be agencies in this country that may not have the necessary budget to purchase essential tools needed to investigate these heinous crimes.

For decades criminologists and economists have debated the link between crime and the economy. Some researchers have concluded that there is a ripple effect from the economy and it radiates out and displays itself in the form of increased calls for service, increased domestic violence, and increased property crimes. Presently, we do not have current crime statistics for 2008, but I will use a less scientific method: it is called listening to the professionals who each and every day answer the calls for police services in these rural areas. They tell me that they are seeing an increase in burglaries, domestic violence, emergency mental health committals, and more calls for service. Some agencies are down in personnel numbers. However, these law enforcement professionals are forging ahead doing the very best they can with whatever means they have. They are not looking at these grants as a free pass to purchase frivolous big-ticket items that have little to do with their agency's mission. These administrators tell me they are hopeful this act will pass so that they can continue to serve the rural communities who have come to expect the most basic of police services as a right guaranteed by the Constitution in ``ensuring domestic tranquility.''

My colleagues in this Chamber have taken great pains to examine and discuss a way to lead our country out of this crisis and get our economy moving again. We should be scrutinizing Government spending in this tight economy. But I cannot think of a better form of economic stimulus than making justice assistance grants available to rural communities and metropolitan areas alike. However, rural agencies currently find themselves on the outside looking in under the present JAG formula. The reauthorization of the Rural Law Enforcement Assistance Act would give rural agencies a better opportunity at receiving this grant assistance.

In closing, I quote the Greek philosopher Plato who said the following about communities: ``The community which has neither poverty nor riches will always have the noblest principles.''

This Nation is one large framework of communities and was founded on some of the noblest principles ever recorded in history. Some of our citizens choose a city lifestyle, and some have selected a rural small town life. Crime does not distinguish between urban and rural. The more than 800,000 men and women who make up the law enforcement community that keep our streets

safe in metropolitan cities and Main Street USA know this firsthand. One of the viscous subplots of this economic turmoil is that crime and the need for police services undoubtedly will increase. The small town rural police department may be the only Government entity that answers the phone in the middle of the night when a citizen has just lost a job and is contemplating suicide. A sheriff's deputy or police officer dispatched to the scene might be the only direct intervention that this citizen has with a government service. If there are not enough deputies or officers to go around, the response to this cry for help may be delayed or, worse yet, might not get there in time. When you reframe this issue relative to the scenario that I just laid out, it troubles me deeply and impresses upon me just how much our rural law enforcement community needs this reauthorization.

Madam President, as someone who considers the creation of the CHIP program one of my happiest legislative accomplishments as a Senator, this is a very difficult and disappointing week for me. Like the rest of the Nation, after this historic election, I was so hopeful we would mark this new era with the passage of bipartisan CHIP legislation. However, the partisan process engineered by the other side of the aisle so far on this issue of great importance, has only reinforced the American people's cynicism about Washington's partisan political games. Americans are tired of this, and I am tired of this. Change is not just a slogan on a campaign poster, it is about real action.

I began this year with great hope that we would all come together to complete our work from 2007 and have a bill signed into law that would have overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. But that hope has turned quickly into disappointment and the promise of change into a commitment to remain the same.

It appears that decisions were already made without those of us who worked morning, noon and night for several months in 2007 to create a bipartisan CHIP bill not once, but twice at the consternation of many colleagues on my own side. And I want to make one point perfectly clear to my colleagues in this chamber--Senator Grassley and I were willing to roll up our sleeves and do it again this year. That is because we remain committed to those 6 million low-income, uninsured children who are eligible for CHIP and Medicaid coverage.

I am bitterly disappointed by the outcome of this bill. CHIP is a program I deeply love and built with my friends and colleagues who share my concern about the welfare of uninsured children of the working poor--the only ones who were left out of this process.

Again, in the Senate, we could have had a bill that would have brought the vast majority of members together once and for all to help these children. But that was not to be.

When our new President was campaigning across the country, he made a promise to the American people that he would invoke change and end the bitter partisanship on Capitol Hill. I find it ironic that he will be meeting with GOP members to talk about bipartisan efforts in the economic stimulus package the same week that the Senate is about to pass the very first partisan CHIP bill. The other three bills that this body has passed on the CHIP program were approved with overwhelming bipartisan support--69 votes for; both parties.

When President Obama was elected, I truly believed his promise of bipartisan change. And at risk of sounding overly sarcastic, I believe that if this bill and the process so far on the stimulus legislation are any indicator of what the future will bring, the American people will demand to know exactly what kind of change the Democrats pledge to bring to Washington.

I know my colleagues will agree that we put our hearts and souls into negotiating the reauthorization of the CHIP program in 2007. We stuck together through some very tough decisions--whether or not to allow coverage of pregnant women through CHIP, whether or not to continue coverage of childless adults and parents, whether

or not to allow States to expand CHIP income eligibility levels, how to eliminate crowd-out and, most important, how to get more low-income, uninsured children covered through CHIP. We had some tough discussions, but in the end, we ended up with two bills, CHIP I and CHIP II, that covered almost 4 million low-income, uninsured children. Unfortunately, neither version of the bill was signed into law and, in the end, we simply extended the CHIP program through March 2009.

Back then, we knew that we needed to prepare, once again, for another debate on the reauthorization of the CHIP program in early 2009. But we all felt that the outcome would be different and that the legislation that I developed with Senators Grassley, Rockefeller and Baucus which I believe greatly improved the CHIP program, would be signed into law.

While the CHIP legislation that we passed in the Senate was not perfect, which we fondly refer to as CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II, it represented a compromise and laid the foundation for bipartisanship and trust that was integral to getting the legislation not once but twice to the President's desk.

The bill being considered this week is not that bill because it includes provisions that I feel were not part of our bipartisan agreement such as the inclusion of a State option to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women. Amendments will be offered to improve this legislation but if they are not accepted, I will not be able to support this bill. And I deeply regret it.

I started putting together ideas regarding the CHIP program after I met with two Provo, UT, families in which both parents worked. Each family had six children. Neither family, with both incomes, had more than $20,000 a year in total gross income. They clearly could not afford health insurance for their children. CHIP was the only answer to their plight. They were the only people left out of the process. They worked. They did the best they could.

When Senators Kennedy, Rockefeller, Chafee and I wrote this program in 1997, we wrote it with the intent of helping the children of those Provo families and others like them. Our intent was to help the children of the working poor, the only children who did not have access to health coverage back then. These children's families made too much money to qualify for Medicaid and not enough money to buy private health insurance.

In addition, it came to light that both the Clinton and Bush administrations permitted individuals to be covered by CHIP who did not fit the definition that we had in mind for children of the working poor. In fact, they were not even children. They were childless adults and parents of CHIP eligible children. My good friend Senator Grassley likes to remind us that there is no ``A'' in the CHIP program. There is only a ``C'' and we all know what that ``C'' stands for and it is not adults.

I believe that having adults on this program caused the price tag of CHIP to escalate and even led to some States running out of their CHIP allotments prematurely. To add insult to injury, because States receive a higher Federal matching rate for covering individuals in the CHIP program, States were given financial incentives to continue covering adults.

As part of our compromise in 2007, childless adults would have been phased off CHIP and transitioned to their States' Medicaid programs. Parents would have been covered in a capped program and within a set timeframe, States would have either received the Medicaid matching rate or the matching rate half way between the State's Medicaid matching rate and the CHIP matching rate. This was called RE-MAP. States would have only gotten the RE-MAP Federal match if they covered a certain number of low-income children.

Our two bills from 2007, CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II, brought this situation to light and put a stop to covering future adults once and for all. In fact, States will no longer be allowed to submit waivers to cover adults through the CHIP program once the bill before the Senate becomes law. That seems right.

We have also seen some States cover children whose family income is well above 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Typically, these higher income families have access to private health insurance so they end up having a choice between private health insurance, paid for in part by their employers, or CHIP coverage, almost fully paid for by the Federal and State governments.

Unfortunately, many of these families end up choosing CHIP over private health coverage, thus contributing to higher costs incurred by the CHIP program. Adding higher income families to State CHIP programs also affects the Federal taxpayer who ends up paying for a significant part of the CHIP program.

And, once again, States currently receive the higher CHIP Federal matching rate for covering these higher income children. This is something that really bothers me because it is so contrary to the original goal of the CHIP program.

There are other issues as well--the crowd-out policy that we worked out to address the serious crowd-out concerns raised by Members was not included in this mark.

This policy, section 116 of CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II called for the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to study what States are doing to eliminate crowd-out in the CHIP program. In addition, the Institute of Medicine, the IOM, was directed to come up with the best way for measuring, on a State-by-State basis, the number of low-income children who do not have health coverage and the best way to collect this data in a uniform manner across the country. Today, there is no standard for States to collect data on the uninsured, including uninsured, low- income children.

So right now, it is a guessing game for States to figure out how many low-income, uninsured children reside in their States. To me, it is a no brainer that we should incorporate a standard way to collect this important information to help us figure out how many low-income, uninsured children still need health coverage.

The deleted section also required the Health and Human Services Secretary to develop recommendations on best practices to address CHIP crowd-out. It also directed the Secretary to develop recommendations on how to create uniform standards to measure and report on both CHIP crowd-out and health coverage of children from families below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level.

I simply do not understand why on earth the majority would drop such an important provision. I don't understand that since we worked so hard to solve these problems. Don't we want to eliminate crowd-out to ensure that the children in the most need are the top priority? Don't we want to make sure that the data collected in Utah on uninsured, low-income children is collected the same way across the country? Don't we want to compare apples to apples? Or is it possible that some in this body simply want to continue the guessing game and never truly know how many low-income, uninsured children live in their States?

We will have a vote on this provision during this debate and it is my hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will want to have answers on crowd-out and appropriate data collection. I cannot believe that Members subscribe to the irresponsible, anything goes policy which is exactly what they are advocating if they vote against the amendment to add this provision back into the bill.

Another issue that is very important to me is the coverage of high- income children through the CHIP program. When we were negotiating CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II in 2007, we agreed 300 percent of the Federal poverty level for CHIP was high enough. CHIPRA I provided States with the lower Medicaid matching rate, FMAP, for covering children over 300 percent of FPL. CHIPRA II, the second bill vetoed by the President, went one step further and stopped all Federal matching rates for CHIP children over 300 percent of FPL. That is the policy that I support-- there is no reason on earth that a family making $63,000 per year should be covered by CHIP and that a State should be rewarded with any Federal matching dollars for covering these high-income children.

In fact, there is one State that provides CHIP coverage up to 350 percent of FPL and another State that is trying to cover children up to 400 percent

of FPL. In my opinion, when States start moving in that direction, they are taking a block grant program, one that we felt should be operated by the States to help children of the working poor, to push towards a single payer health system. That is what they are pushing for. That is not what we agreed to in 1997 when we created CHIP.

However, the legislation before us today allows States that had submitted State plan amendments or had their waiver approved to increase their income eligibility levels to over 300 percent of FPL to receive the higher Federal matching rate for the CHIP program. These States are New Jersey, a State that now covers children up to 350 percent of the Federal poverty level and New York, a State that submitted a plan to CMS to cover children up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. I do not support this provision and will be supporting an amendment to prevent these two States from receiving the higher CHIP matching rate. that are willing to work within the limits we set and have worked well under the original CHIP bill.

Another issue that deeply troubles me is the insistence to include a State option to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women, who are not citizens of our country, through the CHIP program.

In 2007, we made agreements that our legislation would not include the coverage of legal immigrant children and pregnant women. I have consistently voted against adding that new category, even if it is at the State option, because I believed then, as I believe now, that before we even consider expanding the CHIP program to legal immigrant children, we need to do the best job we can to cover the children of the working poor who are U.S. citizens.

While we have improved, we still have at least 6 million other children to cover, maybe more, with the dire economic conditions currently facing our country.

Now, before we even started drafting our first CHIP bill in 2007, we agreed that legal immigrant children would not be added to the CHIP program. That agreement was very important to me and to other Republicans who eventually supported the two CHIP bills that we negotiated in 2007.

In addition, we have always struggled to find sufficient dollars to reauthorize the CHIP program. The bill before the Senate is only a 4\1/ 2\ year reauthorization due to limited funds. I understand there is some extra money in the bill for the legal immigrant provision. I believe that we should be using that money to cover low-income uninsured children who are U.S. citizens first. How many children who are U.S. citizens will be without health care because we have decided to cover legal immigrants through CHIP?

I wish to know the answer to that question before this bill becomes law. Now, ordinarily I support helping legal immigrants in almost every way. But we do not have enough money to take care of our own citizens' children. That is a matter of great concern to me and it is of great concern to a significant number of Members of both bodies who probably will vote against this bill because of that provision. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to vote against this bill because it was written in such a partisan fashion.

I might add, the legal immigrant provision is now in this legislation, and, as a result, there are many Members in both Houses of Congress who now oppose the bill. We simply do not understand why we are not taking care of our children who are U.S. citizens first. Once that goal is accomplished, I would be willing to make a commitment to the work on resolving all of the issues regarding legal immigrants once and for all.

But now is not the time. There is not enough money even in this bill to take care of our children who are citizens. This is especially true when our country is in economic crisis and there are more children who are U.S. citizens who need health insurance coverage because their parents may have lost their jobs or may have lower paying jobs. I do not believe this is an unreasonable request. For the life of me, I cannot understand why those who support the coverage of legal immigrant children cannot work with us to resolve this issue, especially if they want a bill that has broad bipartisan support.

But without a doubt, the issue that broke down negotiations between the Senate and House Republicans at the end of 2007 involved Medicaid eligibility. Section 115 of the legislation would allow States to create higher income eligibility levels for Medicaid. When are we going to quit throwing money at programs?

Simply put, a State could establish one income level for Medicaid, a higher income eligibility level for CHIP, and then cover more kids at an even higher income eligibility level through Medicaid. In other words, a State could cover higher income children through Medicaid at an even higher income level than children covered by CHIP.

This provision sets no limits on the income eligibility level for Medicaid. Now, that is ridiculous. It is irresponsible. It is fiscally unsound. Everybody here knows it. In 2007, the House Republicans wanted to put a hard cap of 300 percent of Federal poverty level on State Medicaid programs. I agreed with them, but others did not. I am quite disturbed that the legislation before the Senate still allows States to cover high-income children under their State Medicaid plans. Technically speaking, section 115 of this bill would allow a State to cover children under Medicaid whose family income is over 300 percent, over $63,000 for a family of four.

During this debate, I intend to support and speak in favor of amendments to address this very serious concern of mine. It ought to be a serious concern of everyone here, since there a limited amount of money that may be used.

Additionally, section 104 of the legislation creates a bonus structure for States that enroll Medicaid-eligible children in their State Medicaid programs. The idea is to reward States for covering their poorest children. If a State increases its Medicaid income eligibility levels, using the language in section 115, additional children added to Medicaid would not be eligible for a bonus during the first 3 fiscal years. However, at the beginning of the fourth fiscal year, it is possible that States could receive a bonus for enrolling higher income children in their State Medicaid programs.

Now, this provision simply does not make any sense. I urge my colleagues to drop it once and for all. A State should not be rewarded for covering a high-income child in its State Medicaid program, especially when it is not going to be covering those who need to be covered and should be covered.

Well, I have to admit, Senator Grassley and I went through a lot of pain on this side, and in the House of Representatives, bringing people together for the overwhelming votes that we did have in both the Senate and the House, but especially here in the Senate on both CHIPRA I and

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

My amendment simply says that before a State may exercise an option to provide CHIP and Medicare to legal immigrant children and pregnant women, that State must demonstrate to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that 95 percent of its children under 200 percent of the Federal poverty level have been enrolled in either the State's Medicaid program or the CHIP program.

The Secretary may make this determination based on the best data available, and may use any technique necessary for sampling and estimating the number of low-income, uninsured children in that State.

When legal immigrants enter this country, their sponsors agree, the people who bring them in agree, to be responsible for their expenses for the first 5 years they live in the United States.

The CHIP bill contains a provision which was added during the Finance Committee consideration of the bill that negates that agreement by allowing immediate health coverage of legal children and pregnant women. This is the first reason I am offering this amendment.

The second reason is that there are U.S. children who are citizens of this country who are low income and uninsured. They do not have health insurance coverage. They qualify for Medicaid and CHIP too. I believe these children should be our first priority as far as CHIP and Medicaid coverage is concerned. They should be the priority. Once these children have health coverage, then we can talk about expansions to other populations.

I worked very closely with my Democratic colleagues on creating not one but two bipartisan CHIP bills in 2007, CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II.

As I have explained, I voted against my President because I wanted the CHIP program to be reauthorized in the bill we wrote. One of the first agreements that Senator Grassley and I made with Senators Baucus and Rockefeller was that legal immigrant children would not be covered under the CHIP program because their sponsors made a commitment to be financially responsible for them for 5 years. That was even before we started drafting CHIPRA I.

I simply cannot support a CHIP bill that allows States to cover legal immigrant children while there are at least 6 million low-income uninsured children, 200 percent of poverty and below, who do not have health coverage and are eligible for CHIP and Medicare.

These children ought to be our first priority. My amendment ensures the majority of these children have health coverage before we expand CHIP and Medicaid eligibility to legal immigrants. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a reasonable approach. It might have the capacity of helping to bring some of us together in a more bipartisan manner. I hope our colleagues will pay strict attention to some of the things I have said because I believe I have earned the right to be listened to on all aspects of the CHIP bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, to remind my colleagues, the Hatch amendment, No. 45, says that before a State is permitted to cover legal immigrants through CHIP and Medicaid, it must demonstrate to the HHS Secretary that 95 percent of its State children who are citizens under 200 percent of the Federal poverty level are enrolled in either the State's Medicaid Program or CHIP.

My amendment does not prohibit legal immigrant children from being covered, but it does set some of the parameters. Again, I believe our U.S. children who are citizens should be covered first. If you cover 95 percent, then you can go on and do more. Once those kids are covered, I am happy to work with my colleagues to cover legal immigrant children, but our U.S. citizen kids should be covered first. That is all I am saying, and I think it is reasonable.

Mr. President, I think this is a reasonable amendment. I am prepared to ask unanimous consent to have a voice vote on it.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we withdraw the call for a rollcall vote and voice-vote this amendment.

Mr. President, I stand before the Senate today to voice my great respect and hope in the Senator from Colorado, the Honorable Ken Salazar, who has recently left this Chamber in order to serve as Secretary of the Interior under the Obama administration. It is with sorrow that I say goodbye to my good friend who has served with honor and dedication since 2005. Although Ken only served for a few years in the Senate, he has left his mark on us all and will be remembered for his dedication and service not only to his country but to Utah's neighbor the great State of Colorado.

Ken Salazar's personal history is a testament to his character and accomplishments. His family first settled in America just over 400 years ago, 12 generations back. Ken's parents knew the value of teaching their eight children about hard work and dedication, and from them he learned the worth of industry on his family's ranch growing up. Those early years on the ranch taught Ken about the importance of hard work, integrity, and dedication. It is also from these early experiences that Ken grew to love the beauty of the natural resources our Nation has to offer.

I am confident that the years of experience Mr. Salazar has worked on environmental policy in the West will serve him well in his new position as Secretary of the Interior. He has a deep-rooted passion for clean, renewable, and affordable energy as well as protecting our country's precious natural resources. I believe he will take quite naturally to his new role as our Nation's top public lands manager, and we will be well served by his sensitivity to those natural treasures we value the most.

In short, Ken Salazar has the experience and the passion required for the role he has taken on as Secretary. I thank him for his excellent service in the Senate and look forward to seeing good things from him in the coming years.

I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Janet Phoenix, my health policy fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor during Senate consideration of H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.

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

Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the confirmation of Timothy Geithner as President Obama's choice as Secretary of the Treasury. I am aware this nominee is not free of controversy. My office has received many calls from Utahns who are concerned about Mr. Geithner's admitted errors in initially failing to report and pay his own self-employment tax. Many of them brought up the valid point that the Secretary of the Treasury, the person who is ultimately in charge of collecting taxes from all Americans and who oversees the Internal Revenue Service, should be beyond reproach in his own tax filings. Many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are also uneasy about this problem. I understand and I share this concern.

The Senate has a solemn responsibility in confirming key officials in the executive branch, and the Treasury Secretary is among the very most important roles in the administration, both historically and particularly at this critical time. My guiding principle for approving the President's nominees has always been that the President, as chief executive of the Nation, should be entitled to the person he or she chooses, and that the Senate has an obligation to confirm those choices except in cases where it is obvious the nominee is either incompetent, corrupt, or unethical. While not all my colleagues share this view, I believe it is the correct one, and that it helps us stay above the petty partisanship that sometimes enters into these nomination processes and harms the effectiveness of our Government.

Upon careful examination of this nominee, it is obvious that Timothy Geithner is neither incompetent nor corrupt, and certainly not unethical, and that he should be confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury. I have reached this decision after weighing the facts of his tax situation with his impressive education, experience, and intelligence, and keeping in mind the desperate financial crisis currently facing this country.

In announcing this conclusion, I believe I owe it to the people of Utah to explain that I view Timothy Geithner's tax issue as a very serious matter. He is the top tax officer in the United States of America and, I might add, next to the President himself, is the person who bears the ultimate responsibility for collecting the revenue this Nation needs in order to operate. As such, the Treasury Secretary must be an example to all Americans in tax and financial issues, and any shortcomings in this area can be an impediment to effective tax compliance. The fact Mr. Geithner has had this issue arise, and that he admitted committing serious oversights on several of his tax returns, is indeed regrettable. It has marred an otherwise singularly outstanding nominee's record and has

given pause to some in the Senate about his fitness to serve.

At the same time, it is important to note that people make mistakes and commit oversights. Even the most intelligent and gifted--two adjectives that certainly apply to Mr. Geithner--make errors in their financial dealings. For his part, Mr. Geithner has corrected the problems by filing amended returns and paying the taxes due, with interest. I recognize he did not come forward and pay the taxes for the earlier 2 years which were not covered by the audit until shortly before his nomination was announced. This is true even though he was credited for those taxes by the International Monetary Fund, and I wish this were otherwise. But the nominee has stated that he wishes he had acted differently as well.

Mr. Geithner has admitted his errors and expressed regret for them. I believe he is sincere. I have had a number of meetings with him and I am convinced he is sincere, and that he was when he testified that these omissions were mistakes and were not intentional. I think anyone who would talk to him personally and go through this with him would come to the same conclusion. While these mistakes have, to some degree, cast a shadow on Mr. Geithner's selection, it is important that they not be allowed to overshadow his impressive credentials and the very real expertise he will bring to this job--an expertise that is sorely needed at the present time. And that is acknowledging that Mr. Paulson, our current Secretary of the Treasury, has tried to do a very good job, and has done a very good job under the very pressing conditions he has faced.

Let there be no mistake, Mr. Geithner is not merely acceptable for the job, he is highly qualified. Indeed, his portfolio, knowledge, and skills make him uniquely qualified to serve and are sorely needed by this Nation as we face the current economic crisis. He is intimately familiar with all arms of U.S. policymaking.

For instance, he is no stranger to the Treasury Department, where he served in significant positions for 8 years. That means he knows the agency, the personnel, and the tasks that will face him when he is confirmed. It means he can hit the ground running on day one and has the know-how to get the economy moving again, although that is going to be a monumental job even for Mr. Geithner.

Moreover, Mr. Geithner has already been a major player in addressing the Nation's response to the economic situation. As head of the New York Federal Reserve--actually president of the New York Federal Reserve--he has worked closely with Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in crafting the Government's response to the financial crisis. He knows firsthand what has worked and what has not, and is therefore best equipped to apply the remedies that will be most successful. He knows the issues and he knows the landscape and the tools available to address these problems.

Have our actions to date in responding to this economic calamity been perfect? Almost certainly not. Have mistakes been made? Yes, they undoubtedly have. Unfortunately, it is too early to assess with complete accuracy the effectiveness of our response to this complex and unprecedented situation. However, the fact that Mr. Geithner recognizes mistakes have occurred makes him more valuable, in my view, in the continuing effort to right our economic ship. I would rather have at the helm a battle-hardened veteran who knows the shoals and whirlpools than a neophyte who has to wade into these churning waters for the first time. It is imperative to the Nation to have a Treasury Secretary who won't sink or merely tread water but will swim. In my estimation, Mr. Geithner is that man.

Because of his experience at the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and the fact that he has been working arm in arm with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, Timothy Geithner is more aware of the complexities of the issues facing us than probably anyone else the President might have chosen. Moreover, he knows the financial markets and the counterpart officials to the Treasury Secretary around the world. That is evident from his experience in the Clinton administration as Under Secretary for International Affairs and the critical role he played in devising the successful United States response to the Asian financial crisis--not an easy thing to handle, and he did it amazingly well.

I am comfortable that despite the blemishes of his tax problem, Mr. Geithner should be confirmed to this vital position. The fact that this is an unprecedented and dangerous time makes it all the more imperative that we vote quickly on this nomination. I do not believe we have the luxury of leaving this position unfilled even another day. Rejecting this nominee would lead to a delay of weeks in getting our new executive branch economic team focused on the problems at hand. Such a delay could be hazardous to a timely turnaround to the financial and economic crisis. Moreover, rejection of Mr. Geithner brings about the very real risk that the next person the President might nominate could be less effective for the job, even if he or she had a spotless tax compliance record.

I might add for my fellow conservatives out there, who are very upset about this--some up in arms about it--you are not going to get a better person for this job than Mr. Geithner, and you better be darned happy that the President has been willing to go to somebody who is a lot less ideological than any of us ever expected in this very important position. It is one thing to raise the issues. It is one thing to decide to vote against him. It is another thing to not acknowledge that this is a man who could really help this country at this time.

Moreover, Mr. Geithner will not approach the job of Treasury Secretary from an ideological or partisan perspective. At least that is what he has told me, and I believe he is a man of honor. A less experienced and perhaps more partisan and ideological nominee could prove divisive here in the Senate, thus leading to even more delay, and, if confirmed, that person could find himself or herself engulfed in a maelstrom without the experience from which to navigate. Timothy Geithner, I am convinced, will steer clear of partisanship. I believe he will chart a course for bipartisan cooperation rather than embark on leftwing solutions that would divide the Congress and endanger our beautiful and wonderful country.

As I conclude my remarks, I feel constrained to point out what I see is a double standard, illustrated in this nomination. Having lived through the last 8 years with President Bush, I do not think there is any question that if this had been a Republican nominee with these same problems, many in the media and some on the left of this body would have reacted with such an outcry to the tax compliance issue that the President would have had no choice other than to withdraw the nomination. A Republican nominee in Mr. Geithner's position would not have even gotten a committee vote. We all have seen that. Time after time, some of the most qualified people were rejected, were not even given a chance. I do not believe that was the right thing done then, and I do not think it is the right thing now. I do think people in a principled fashion can vote one way or the other on Mr. Geithner, but I hope for the sake of our country they will vote to support him.

I believe that if Timothy Geithner is confirmed, it will largely be due to the fact that many on my side were willing to put partisanship to the side for the sake of what is best for the country at this time.

Looking forward, I see a real need for continued cooperation on a bipartisan basis. The current financial downturn affects all of us-- everybody in America. I hope all Americans and their elected representatives can continue to put politics aside in our pursuit to find the best policies to help us out of this quagmire.

I expect we will be working closely with Timothy Geithner if he is confirmed today, as I expect he will be. Our expectations of him are very high. A less qualified or talented person might not have expected to survive this confirmation process. Even an equally gifted veteran might not have made it through a less turbulent and risky time.

Mr. Geithner, I just have to tell you, as you resume work on solving our thorniest financial problems, we send with you our best wishes even as we recall your pledge to give it your all because we are going to need everything you have.

Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

I ask unanimous consent that a quorum call be entered and that all quorum calls during this debate on Mr. Geithner be equally charged to both sides.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding the departure of my esteemed colleague from New York, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have known Senator Clinton for many years now, and I have worked closely with her since the time she served as First Lady of the United States and then as she so aptly served the people of New York in the Senate. Today, I am sure that I am joined by many of my colleagues in saying that her compassion, her skill, and her example in this institution will be missed.

As a former First Lady of the United States, I was very impressed with the work Senator Clinton did to increase the level of care for women and children from around the world. You may recall that her service in this capacity knew no boundaries or borders as millions of lives were touched both here in the United States and abroad by her care, by her understanding, and by her tenacity in helping people receive the level of care and attention they so justly deserved. Indeed, Senator Clinton reminded us all that women's rights are not to be separated from human rights and that through this empowerment we have the potential to improve relations, eradicate violence, and increase prosperity. This is the vision and compassion that served her so well as a former First Lady of the United States, and this is the same compassion that continued to highlight her time here in the Senate.

Although her time in this legislative body has been relatively brief, the accomplishments of Senator Clinton have been many. If I may, let me highlight just two contrasting examples. The first example comes from 2007 when I worked closely with Senator Clinton on the Biologics Price and Protection Innovation Act. It was through these tough negotiations, numerous committee meetings, and candid discussions that I again was privileged to witness Senator Clinton's skill in bringing large groups of affected parties together in the spirit of compromise. With so many competing interests and so much attention being drawn to this legislation, I was appreciative of Senator Clinton's skills in negotiation, in understanding competing interests, and in listening to all of the parties involved in passing this important legislation out of the Senate.

The second example I would like to mention comes from 2008 with little fanfare. It is a simple resolution and one that probably did not receive much attention, but it was a resolution that meant something to me and it meant something to Senator Clinton. I speak

of a Senate resolution designating a week in May as National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week. For helping me to pass this simple resolution, I am grateful to Senator Clinton. More importantly, however, I am grateful that Senator Clinton was more interested in doing what was right for substitute teachers across our Nation. Even though this resolution probably never made a headline, Senator Clinton was one of the first in line to sign on as a cosponsor because she knew it was the least we could do for men and women across our country who give so much to our children through their education.

In closing, I share these two examples simply to illustrate the skill and compassion that defined Senator Clinton's service while she was here in the Senate. From the large legislative issues to the small acts of kindness and recognition, I know that Senator Clinton strived to do what she thought was right and what was best for our country. It is this example that we will all miss in the Senate as she begins the next chapter of her service at the State Department. Truly, their gain is our loss, yet it is without hesitation that I extend my deepest gratitude to Senator Clinton for her countless hours of service, her incredible example of compassion, and the years of friendship that she has extended to me, my colleagues, and the people of the United States. I am excited for what the future holds for Senator Clinton. I am certain that many great things still lie ahead in this next chapter of her life, and it is to Senator Clinton that I extend my congratulations as she begins her journey at the State Department.

ken salazar

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the reintroduction of the Serve America Act. I, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts first introduced this legislation in the waning days of the 110th Congress, and I am proud to lend my support to the bill during this session. We are currently joined by 20 cosponsors, both Republican and Democrat.

I have long been a supporter and advocate for volunteer service. I believe that, when private citizens offer their time and talents to serve in their communities, they benefit along with those they have helped. Furthermore, I believe that, if we can encourage people to volunteer their services in their towns and neighborhoods, we can better address our Nation's most pressing problems.

The Serve America Act does many things. Most apparently, it creates new national service corps that will enlist the help of our people to address specific areas of national need, including education, energy efficiency, access to health care, economic opportunity for the disadvantaged, and disaster relief. It also encourages individuals and non-profit groups to come up with new and innovative ways to encourage volunteerism and to use the help of volunteers effectively. In addition, it enlists the help of the private sector in addressing important needs in our nation and community.

As in the 110th Congress, Senator Kennedy and I have agreed that, when this bill goes through the HELP Committee, we will work together to ensure that the spending authorized in the bill will be offset. In this way, the bill will be budget-neutral, providing much needed assistance to the non-profit sector without adding to the Federal deficit. Indeed, the American people have made it clear time and again that they desire fiscal responsibility in Congress. Due to this agreement, the Serve America Act meets those demands.

Senator Kennedy and I are also reintroducing the Incentive to Serve Tax Act as a companion piece to the Serve America Act. This bill would provide tax incentives to encourage companies to allow their employees to volunteer their services on company time. Specifically, the bill would provide companies a tax credit equal to 25 percent of the compensation paid to an employee who performs at least 160 hours of a specified charitable service.

As you might know, a handful of large corporations presently have programs to provide managerial and educational workers to schools and community organizations. This tax incentive would encourage these companies to do even more as well as encourage other companies that, up to now, may not have been able to afford to provide such service. This will allow businesses to utilize their employees with various skills and knowledge to target specific areas that need to be addressed in the communities where those workers live and work. In the end, everyone will benefit.

Mr. President, these two bills represent a bipartisan effort to harness the talents, generosity, and ingenuity of the American people. I believe that this is an effort that Members from both parties can and should support. I urge all my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to support this important legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the reintroduction of the Serve America Act. I, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts first introduced this legislation in the waning days of the 110th Congress, and I am proud to lend my support to the bill during this session. We are currently joined by 20 cosponsors, both Republican and Democrat.

I have long been a supporter and advocate for volunteer service. I believe that, when private citizens offer their time and talents to serve in their communities, they benefit along with those they have helped. Furthermore, I believe that, if we can encourage people to volunteer their services in their towns and neighborhoods, we can better address our Nation's most pressing problems.

The Serve America Act does many things. Most apparently, it creates new national service corps that will enlist the help of our people to address specific areas of national need, including education, energy efficiency, access to health care, economic opportunity for the disadvantaged, and disaster relief. It also encourages individuals and non-profit groups to come up with new and innovative ways to encourage volunteerism and to use the help of volunteers effectively. In addition, it enlists the help of the private sector in addressing important needs in our nation and community.

As in the 110th Congress, Senator Kennedy and I have agreed that, when this bill goes through the HELP Committee, we will work together to ensure that the spending authorized in the bill will be offset. In this way, the bill will be budget-neutral, providing much needed assistance to the non-profit sector without adding to the Federal deficit. Indeed, the American people have made it clear time and again that they desire fiscal responsibility in Congress. Due to this agreement, the Serve America Act meets those demands.

Senator Kennedy and I are also reintroducing the Incentive to Serve Tax Act as a companion piece to the Serve America Act. This bill would provide tax incentives to encourage companies to allow their employees to volunteer their services on company time. Specifically, the bill would provide companies a tax credit equal to 25 percent of the compensation paid to an employee who performs at least 160 hours of a specified charitable service.

As you might know, a handful of large corporations presently have programs to provide managerial and educational workers to schools and community organizations. This tax incentive would encourage these companies to do even more as well as encourage other companies that, up to now, may not have been able to afford to provide such service. This will allow businesses to utilize their employees with various skills and knowledge to target specific areas that need to be addressed in the communities where those workers live and work. In the end, everyone will benefit.

Mr. President, these two bills represent a bipartisan effort to harness the talents, generosity, and ingenuity of the American people. I believe that this is an effort that Members from both parties can and should support. I urge all my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to support this important legislation.

I yield the floor.