Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for about 5 minutes on Gordon B. Hinckley.

Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett.

He basically stated in very articulate terms how important President Gordon B. Hinckley was, not just to Senator Bennett and myself, but to people all over the world.

I express my deepest empathy, sympathy, and love to the family of Gordon B. Hinckley. I agree with Senator Bennett, that President Hinckley in dying was happy to go and again be with his beloved eternal companion, Marjorie, whom he missed, who died about 4 years before him, and to be with others he has known here on this Earth, and others he would like to know who helped to make this country the greatest in the world, and many others as well. I extend my deep sympathy to his family--a wonderful family; they are terrific people.

President Hinckley was as ecumenical as a person could be. He led a worldwide church, the fifth largest church in America, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He basically taught all of us to understand that all religions are good and that we should work together. I don't think there has been a humanitarian mission or a major disaster anywhere in the world where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--nicknamed the Mormons--hasn't cooperated with Catholic charities and other Christian charities--especially Catholic charities--to immediately go into action and provide the needed food, clothing, pharmaceuticals, et cetera, all over the world. These two charities have done so much. He made sure our members--13 million strong around the world--participated in each humanitarian concern. In fact, we have thousands and thousands of humanitarian missionaries all over the world. Many are older people who are retired and are giving 18 months, or even more, of their time--and some less--to be able to bring humanitarian help to people all over the world. This man led that. He was also a great business leader. Imagine, we had a man like this run this very important worldwide church.

Senator Bennett mentioned his sense of humor. You hardly heard a set of remarks by President Hinckley where he didn't very wittily make his points even better than he would have if they were just stern and tough. He was never stern and tough, unless it was essential. He was always kind and loving. He was kind to me. Elaine, my wife, and I personally love him and we are going to miss him very much. He traveled all over the world. I have traveled all over the world, and generally have done it on military planes with military liaisons helping us and carrying our bags, doing everything to make it a reasonable trip. I come back beat every time. In every case, I wanted to kiss the ground when I got back here. He traveled extensively all over the world, almost a million miles. In that regard, I pay tribute to Jon Huntsman, Sr., who made it possible in his later years for him to have a very good airplane that I think extended his life for a longer period of time for the benefit of mankind all over this world. It was a wonderful thing.

He had love for all human beings and he expressed that love not only through his words but also through his actions.

I might add that, as Senator Reid mentioned, he established the perpetual education fund where members of our faith donate millions of dollars every year to help unfortunate young people in these foreign lands to be able to go to school and raise their educational level so they can become leaders in their own country, and so they can make great contributions. I think it is one of the most inspired things I have ever seen. We have thousands of young men and women who are now leaders in their countries--teachers, doctors, lawyers, and others--all because of the vision of this great man, whom we call a prophet.

I might mention that in his travels he dedicated dozens of temples, the most of any president of the church, all over the world. To LDS people those temples are extremely important. We believe marriage is so sacred and it is for all eternity, not just this life. Frankly, we try to live that way. Many do. These temples are extremely important to us. He went all over the world doing it.

I can truthfully say this is a man I loved. He was a profound influence on Senator Bennett, me, and millions of others. He was a man who got along with leaders of other faiths. He taught us we must respect everybody.

Today I add my voice to those of 13 million other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in bidding farewell to our beloved prophet, President Gordon Bitner Hinckley. His death late yesterday in his home in Salt Lake City has reminded us that all good things must come to an end. It is a sad day for all Utahns. We have lost our friend, our leader, and our fellow servant. President Hinckley lived great, and he died great in the eyes of God and his people, leaving behind him a fame and a name which will be known for generations to come.

In our effort to follow in President Hinckley's footsteps, Latter-day Saints found they had to lengthen their stride to keep up with him. Even into the sunset of his life, President Hinckley was indefatigable. He set a vigorous pace, traveling the world and sharing his message of service, love, and compassion with millions of all faiths. Everywhere our prophet traveled, he succored the weak, lifted the hands which hung down, and strengthened the feeble knees. When I think of the blessing President Hinckley was to those around him, I am reminded of the words from the great Mormon hymn, ``Every day some burden lifted, every day some heart to cheer, every day some hope the brighter, blessed honored pioneer.''

President Hinckley was born to humble surroundings on June 23, 1910, in Salt Lake City, UT. He attended public schools, and graduated with a bachelor's of arts from the University of Utah. His first job was as a newspaper carrier for Utah's Deseret News. This modest start with a newspaper was a prelude of things to come. President Hinckley became the most media savvy leader the LDS Church has ever known, sharing his warmth and spirit with countless reporters, cultivating great friendships with notables like Larry King and Mike Wallace. Wallace once described President Hinckley as ``a man I admire and I love really, because he's just an extraordinary guy.''

As many Latter-day Saints do, Gordon B. Hinckley served a mission for the church while he was young. President Hinckley served in Great Britain in the 1930s, sharing the gospel's message of peace and hope during a time of great political and economic turmoil. Discouraged by the lack of receptivity he found among the Britons, he confided his dismay to his father, who instructed the young Gordon to ``forget himself and go to work.''

Young Gordon did, both in Great Britain and in the 70 years of service that followed.

His love of God fueled his love of country. President Hinckley carried the torch of patriotism, and the spirit of America burned in his heart. He once said, ``I love America for [its] great constitutional strength, for the dedication of its people to the peace and the prosperity of the entire earth. I love America for the tremendous genius of its scientists, its laboratories, its universities, its researchers, and the tens of thousands of facilities devoted to the improvement of human health and comfort, to the extension of life, to better communication and transportation. Its great throbbing and thriving industries have blessed the entire world. The standard of living of its people has been the envy of the entire Earth. Its farmlands have yielded an abundance undreamed of by most people of the Earth. The entrepreneurial environment in which has grown its industry has been the envy of and model for many other nations.''

President Hinckley's patriotism inspired him to great acts of civic service, in addition to his church duties. He was a chairman or board member of many businesses and educational entities. He received honorary doctorates from five colleges and universities, the Distinguished Service Award from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Silver Buffalo Award from the Boy Scouts of America, and special recognition for his contributions to tolerance from the National Conference of Christians and Jews.

President Hinckley's ministry earned him national prominence. In 2004, President George W. Bush awarded our prophet with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Nation's highest civil award. President Hinckley was one of the spiritual leaders President Bush invited to the White House following the

September 11 attacks. It was a great honor, both for him and our faith, that the President invited him to that gathering. A few months later, on the eve of the Winter Olympics in 2002, President Bush said, ``President Hinckley represents a great religion, he is a strong part of the American scene.''

But President Hinckley never let his love of the United States obscure his vision for the rest of the world. Prior to becoming the LDS president in 1995, Hinckley supervised the church's organization in Asia, Europe, and South America. During his tenure, the number of members living inside North America was surpassed by those living outside of it. The nations of the Earth heard his voice and he brought them a knowledge of the truth by the wonderful testimony which he bore.

As president, he administered to both the ecclesiastical and temporal needs of the church, whose 13 million members are spread over some 160 nations and territories. President Hinckley lifted his voice on every continent, in cities large and small, from north to south and east to west across this broad world. One global vision President Hinckley had for the LDS Church was a perpetual education fund, whereby members in wealthier nations could donate to the education of those in developing nations, thereby empowering them to help themselves and strengthening the infrastructure in struggling parts of the world, particularly Latin America.

When he became president of the church in 1995, the church had only 47 temples, our special meeting houses such as the magnificent one in nearby Kensington, MD. Thanks to President Hinckley's vision of expansion, today there are 124 in operation, and 12 more are under construction.

One of his first messages upon becoming our prophet in 1995 was a proclamation to the world, declaring the divine nature of the family unit and providing direction on how to nurture strong family relationships. There is no greater duty or privilege among the Latter- day Saints than to serve our families. President Hinckley admirably demonstrated that service as a grandfather, father, and husband to his eternal companion, Marjorie, who walked side by side with him for two- thirds of a century.

Now he and Marjorie are walking together in the fields of paradise, enjoying a richly deserved peace in the Lord. I am sure at this time he would remind us that death is the great equalizer. No matter what a man or woman may accomplish in this life, this final inevitability is waiting for them. Shortly before his own passing, perhaps seeing the end was nigh, President Hinckley told church members, ``A man must get his satisfaction from his work each day, must recognize that his family may remember him, that he may count with the Lord, but beyond that, small will be his monument among the coming generations.''

Our heads are bowed now, as we bid him farewell. Gordon Bitner Hinckley joins the ranks of departed prophets, on whose shoulders he stood and in whose mighty company he can now proudly mingle. God be with you, our friend, till we meet again.

I have to say, he stood for everything that was good, and I love him.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have at least 10 minutes to give my remarks on FISA.

Mr. President, I have been to this floor on numerous occasions to aggressively support the immunity provisions of the FISA modernization bill. I cannot understate my

passion for this issue. I am of the firm belief that the lawsuits facing the telecom providers constitute a grave threat to national security. The potential risks from inadvertent disclosure of classified information cannot be understated. The potential damage to our intelligence sources and methods from allowing these lawsuits to go forward is substantial. Unfortunately, the more we delay this legislation, the more likely it is that our sensitive intelligence methods will be exposed, and not just exposed to the American people but to al-Qaida and thousands of other terrorists and enemies around the world. Remember, the very point of these lawsuits is to prove plaintiffs' claims by disclosing classified information through the discovery process.

Let's think about this. Do we really want any person to be able to make accusations that are utter hearsay and then be given the ability to jeopardize the intelligence community's sources and methods by demanding discovery during frivolous litigation?

We simply cannot do this. We should never reveal our intelligence agencies' technical capabilities, who they work with, who they target, or what their strengths and weaknesses are. We on the Intelligence Committees have that assignment because we are expected to honor the classified nature of those matters. The reasons should be obvious to all of us.

Here is an example that illustrates this point: If criminals are running drugs northbound along I-95, they may have an idea that they will encounter police checkpoints. But they need to transport the drugs, so they will balance this risk. But what if they know for sure there is a checkpoint in a specific State? What if they then find out the checkpoint is at a specific mile marker? Will they change their routes and methods? You better believe they will. They are not stupid and neither is al-Qaida. Does it really make sense for us to broadcast across the globe, over the Internet, how we work? Do we want to replace the uncertainty of how we track terrorists with established fact?

Confirmations or denials of the allegations in the lawsuits will certainly reveal certain intelligence agencies' sources and methods. Even when the proceedings are in camera or ex parte, this risk is still apparent. I cannot stress this point enough: The identity of any company that may or may not have cooperated with the Government with the terrorist surveillance program is highly classified. Accusations and hearsay do not confirm any relationship. The very activities these cases seek to disclose could reveal whether a company has or hasn't assisted the Government. In addition, any verdict in the case would likely provide the same type of information, and replacing the Government for these companies in the litigation does not solve the problem.

Our enemies have tough decisions to make regarding how they communicate. They cannot stay silent forever, and they have to weigh the need to communicate against the chances that their communications are intercepted. We know they are carefully watching us and following every proceeding to see how our Government collects information. If they think they see a weakness in our collection capabilities, they will certainly try to take advantage of it. Make no mistake, al-Qaida and the other terrorist organizations would benefit tremendously from learning the identity of any company that assisted the Government following the attacks of 9/11.

A few of my colleagues and many in the outside media have highlighted accusations from a former telecom employee. His name is Mark Klein. Mr. Klein claims he has proof that computers diverted domestic electronic communications from a phone company directly to the NSA, the National Security Agency. In fact, his accusations play a major role in one of the lawsuits currently facing a telecom provider.

It is important to note the Government chose not to classify Klein's declarations or exhibits in one of the lawsuits. The Government could have, but it didn't. So Klein's court documents are public. Due to the ongoing litigation, I do not want to speak directly to his claims, but I will highlight a statement that was made by an official representing the Government during a court proceeding in one of the lawsuits against a telecom provider. This statement was from the Assistant Attorney General on June 23, 2006, in front of Judge Vaughn Walker. Here is what was said about the decision not to classify Klein's declarations. This is the Government statement regarding Mark Klein:

We have not asserted a privilege over the Klein

declarations or exhibits. Mr. Klein and Marcus never had

access to any of the relevant classified information here,

and with all respect to them, through no fault or failure of

their own, they don't know anything.

I cannot understate the importance of this quote as it has never been mentioned during this debate. No further commentary on it is needed, but I think its meaning is extremely important when Senators and the public weigh the relevancy and reliability of Klein's accusations. I am particularly hopeful that three of my distinguished colleagues who have highlighted Klein's claims on this floor are aware of these statements from the Government. I hope we all realize Klein's accusations highlight only one side of the story.

I also want to draw attention to another claim repeatedly made on this floor: the false declaration that the immunity provision in this bill will ``close the courthouse door.'' These claims seek to convey the false impression that the immunity provision in this bill will halt all litigation relating to the terrorist surveillance program, or TSP.

This is absolutely false. There are no fewer than seven lawsuits currently pending against Government officials that are related to the TSP. The immunity provision in this bill will not--I repeat that, will not--affect any of those cases. These cases are completely unaffected by the immunity provision in this bill.

Here are the cases. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. George W. Bush; ACLU v. National Security Agency; Center for Constitutional Rights v. George W. Bush; Guzzi v. George W. Bush; Henderson v. Keith Alexander; Shubert v. George W. Bush; Tooley v. George W. Bush.

Finally, it is imperative for us to understand national security is greatly dependent on the cooperation of telecom providers. We cannot do it by ourselves. Yet many foreign governments are in quite the opposite situation, one which gives them an advantage in certain electronic interceptions. Many foreign telecoms are run by the respective host government. Many others have government officials with controlling authority. These countries do not have to worry about telecom cooperation. They can simply force the telecoms to comply.

We have chosen not to have that system in our great Nation. Rather, we rely on the voluntary assistance of telecommunication providers. When these companies are asked to assist the intelligence community based on a program authorized by the President and based on assurances from the highest levels of Government that the program has been determined to be lawful, they should be able to rely on these representations.

For those who argue we need a compromise, let me be clear: We already have a compromise. The Government wanted more than what is represented in this bill, and they did not get it. The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stated the following in the Intelligence Committee report:

The [Intelligence] Committee did not endorse the immunity

provision lightly. It was the informed judgment of the

Committee after months in which we carefully reviewed the

facts in the matter. The Committee reached the conclusion

that the immunity remedy was appropriate in this case after

holding numerous hearings and briefings on the subject and

conducting thorough examination of the letters sent by the

U.S. Government to the telecommunications companies.

The immunity provisions in this bill are limited in scope. Not everyone is going to be happy with them, and that is the whole point. I, for one, wanted to see more protection for companies and Government officials in this bill, but I am willing to accept the compromise, and my colleagues should be willing to do the same. We are not all getting what we want. We are getting what the public has to have--what the public needs.

We have been working on legislation to modernize FISA since at least April

of 2007. I am extremely proud of the bipartisan efforts that led to this bill in the Intelligence Committee where all of the investigations were made, where the intelligence was protected. We found a balance. Let's show the confidence and resolve to vote on this compromise, not back away from it.

I will support cloture on the Rockefeller-Bond substitute amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

In that regard, I pray that my colleagues will listen to the distinguished ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond, who has played a significantly proper and important role in helping to get this bill through the committee and to the Senate floor. This is a major bill of protection for our country, and I attribute much of the success of it to Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the committee, and Senator Bond, the ranking member, both of whom have been sterling leaders on this issue. I hope it is not true that anybody in this body will support some of the amendments that may be brought to the Senate floor because we have looked at this issue frontwards, backwards, all over the place. We have examined it. We spent many months on this subject in the Intelligence Committee. That should not be ignored. It passed the Intelligence Committee 13 to 2 compared to the substitute we defeated with cloture that was 10 to 9 in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, I ask that we support cloture on this bill.

Mr. President, I thank my dear colleague from Missouri for the leadership he has provided, along with Senator Rockefeller, on the Intelligence Committee and throughout this process. We ought to be listening to him. This is a very important bill,

one of the most important in the history of the country, and we have to get it right. I congratulate him and thank him for the hard work he has done, and also Senator Rockefeller who, as chairman of the committee, led us in this matter.

As the only Republican on both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, I have been very involved in the process of developing the FISA modernization bill with a unique understanding of the journey this bill has taken through the Senate. I continue to express my full support for the bill as passed out of the Intelligence Committee and encourage my colleagues to reject the risky and problematic Judiciary substitute amendment.

The seeds of discontent with the Judiciary substitute were sown from the very beginning of that committee's consideration. Late in the afternoon the day before the markup, a Judiciary substitute amendment was circulated that replaced the entire first title of the Intelligence Committee-reported bill. This substitute included 10 Democratic amendments and no Republican amendments. It was eventually adopted on a party-line vote. Unfortunately, the careful bipartisan balance crafted by the Intelligence Committee was irrevocably altered and effectively nullified by partisan maneuvering. The Judiciary Committee was not able to coalesce to advance a compromise bill, as evidenced by the consistent 10-to-9 party-line votes on amendments and final passage. These votes typified the approach the Judiciary Committee undertook.

We know that this bill, like all national security legislation, needs bipartisan support to pass. The Judiciary substitute simply doesn't have it. I remind my colleagues that on November 14, 2007, Attorney General Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence McConnell sent a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee stating:

If the Judiciary substitute is part of a bill that is

presented to the President, we and the President's other

senior advisors will recommend that he veto the bill.

In addition, on December 17, 2007, a statement of administration policy was distributed for S. 2248 which stated:

If the Judiciary Committee substitute amendment is part of

a bill that is presented to the President, the Director of

National Intelligence, the Attorney General, and the

President's other senior advisors will recommend that he veto

the bill.

Both of these letters illustrate extensive problems with provisions included in the Judiciary substitute and in very specific terms. These warnings from the very people in the Government who are asked to protect us from terrorist threats should be heeded. We disregard these warnings at our own peril.

I ask unanimous consent that both of these letters be printed in the Record.

On numerous occasions I have voiced very specific concerns with the Judiciary substitute. I again want to list some of the reasons that illustrate why I oppose this measure. One phrase that has been expressed on the floor of the Senate is that the Judiciary substitute supposedly ``strengthens'' oversight. That might sound like a good talking point, but what does it mean? Does it mean that the Intelligence Committee version is weak on oversight? Based on their previous statements, some of my colleagues seem to believe this. One of my colleagues described the Intelligence Committee bill as ``a bill of token oversight and weak protections for innocent Americans.'' This same colleague also stated that ``it really reduces court oversight nearly to the point of symbolism.'' Another colleague stated the bill will allow the Government to ``review more Americans' communications with less court supervision than ever before.''

The truth is actually much different. The Intelligence Committee bill contains extensive new oversight provisions for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and Congress. I think it should be perfectly clear that it is a fallacy to claim that the Intelligence Committee bill does not have adequate oversight. On the contrary, it has a level of oversight that is unprecedented and quite possibly provides the most comprehensive oversight of any historical bill relating to foreign intelligence gatherings.

We have also heard the contention that this bill would provide broad new surveillance authorities. Since I have discussed the expanded oversight, I wish I could put up some charts that illustrate this so- called massive expansion of surveillance authority. The problem is that expansion is not in the bill. It doesn't exist. Despite the phrase being repeated over and over, this bill simply contains no new broad and unprecedented surveillance authorities.

For the first time, the Federal Intelligence Court will review and approve targeting procedures used by the intelligence community. For the first time since 1978--it wasn't done before--FISC will determine whether the procedures

are reasonably designed to ensure targeting is limited to persons outside the United States.

This bill simply accounts for the technological change in international communications from over the air to cable. It is the bare minimum, but it does give them what they need.

Given the amount of opposition to the Judiciary substitute, I wish to highlight one of the controversial provisions added in the Judiciary Committee relating to ``reverse targeting.''

One of the basic requirements of any FISA modernization proposal is that we should not have any provisions which could be interpreted as requiring warrants to target a foreign terrorist overseas. Quite simply, foreign terrorists living overseas should never receive protections provided by the fourth amendment to the Constitution. They never have and they never should. Reverse targeting refers to the possibility, as alleged by critics of lawful Government surveillance, that the Government could target a foreign person when the real intention is to target a U.S. person, thus circumventing the need to get a warrant for the U.S. person. Reverse targeting has always been unlawful in order to protect the communications of U.S. persons. Contrary to what most people believe, the legitimate definition of U.S. persons is not limited to U.S. citizens.

What is a United States person? ``An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence'' and ``a corporation which is incorporated in the United States.''

So from an intelligence-gathering standpoint, reverse targeting makes no sense. From an efficiency standpoint, if the Government were interested in targeting an American, it would apply for a warrant to listen to all of the American's conversations, not just conversations with terrorists overseas. But let's not let logic get in the way of good conspiracy theory.

Even though reverse targeting is already considered unlawful, a provision is included in the Intelligence bill which makes it explicit. This provision is clearly written and universally supported. However, the Judiciary Committee passed an amendment by a 10-to-9 party-line vote which altered the clear language of this provision. Where before the provision said you cannot target a foreign person if the ``purpose'' is to target a U.S. person, the new language adds the ambiguous term ``significant purpose.'' If this amendment became law, an analyst would now have to ask himself the following question when targeting a terrorist overseas: Is a ``significant purpose'' of why I am targeting this foreign terrorist overseas the fact that the terrorist may call, A, an airline in America to make flight reservations or, B, a terrorist with a green card living in the USA? If the answer is yes, then the language in this amendment would require a warrant to listen to that foreign terrorist overseas. Do foreign terrorists overseas deserve protections from the courts in the United States? Of course not. The ambiguous and unnecessary text of this amendment should not be left up to judicial interpretation. Enactment of this amendment could lead to our analysts seeking warrants when targeting any foreign terrorist, since the analyst may be afraid he or she is otherwise breaking our new law.

Now we should remember that the Intelligence Committee spent months working on a bipartisan compromise bill. This amendment I have been talking about was not in the Intelligence bill. So people should assume that the Judiciary Committee spent a great deal of time debating this amendment, right? Wrong. The Judiciary Committee spent 7 minutes debating this amendment before it was adopted on a 10-to-9 party-line vote. Let me repeat that number: 7 minutes.

Now, the inclusion of this amendment alone would cause me to vote against this Judiciary substitute. But there are many more provisions that were added via party-line vote which I strongly oppose.

The Judiciary Committee also adopted an amendment to shorten the length of the sunset in the Intelligence Committee's bill. There are a few quick things we should realize when talking about sunsets.

It takes a great deal of time to ensure that all of our intelligence agencies and personnel are fully trained in any new authorities and restrictions brought about by congressional action. This is not something that happens overnight. We cannot just wave a magic wand and have our Nation's intelligence personnel instantaneously cognizant of every administrative alteration imposed by Congress. Like so many things in life, adjusting for these new mechanisms takes time and practice.

While certain modifications are necessary, do we want to make it a habit of consistently changing the rules? I do not think so. Don't we want our analysts to spend their time actually tracking terrorists? Or is their time better spent navigating administrative procedures that may constantly be in flux? I can tell you clearly what I want, and that is for our analysts to use lawful tools to keep our families safe. I do not want to see them unnecessarily diverting their attention by burying their heads in administrative manuals whenever the political winds blow. After all of the efforts to finally write a bill that provides a legal regime that governs contemporary technological capabilities, I am certainly not alone in my opposition to this sunset provision. In fact, my views are completely in line with what this body has done in the past when amending FISA. Remembering that FISA itself had no sunset-- the 1978 bill had no sunset--let's look at how Congress has previously legislated in this area: Sunsets are not common in previous laws amending FISA. Other than the PATRIOT Act and the PATRIOT Act reauthorization, seven of the eight public laws amending FISA had no sunsets on FISA provisions, and the remaining public law had a sunset on only one of the provisions.

Now this statistic speaks for itself. What is so different about this bill? I do realize that it contains massive new oversight which could possibly hinder our collection efforts, and that we may need to revisit it for this reason. However, if this is the case, we obviously do not need a sunset to do this. We can legislate in this area whenever we want to.

The fact that the Judiciary Committee shortened the length of an already unnecessary sunset is yet another example of why I will oppose the Judiciary substitute amendment.

We all realize that the Judiciary Committee's bill also removed the bipartisan immunity provision. I have come to the floor on numerous occasions to articulate why this provision is so vital and so necessary. I will do so again when we debate the misguided amendment to strike this bipartisan compromise provision.

We are enacting national security legislation, and it is our responsibility to ensure that this bill does not lead to unintended consequences which provide protections to terrorists. I have no doubt that provisions in the Judiciary Committee substitute could significantly harm--significantly harm--our national security. I am not willing to take that chance. I am not willing to support a bill which raises operational hurdles that impede collection of foreign intelligence. I am not willing to support initiatives that would allow our collections to go dark during the appeal of a ruling from one judge. I am not willing to support a bill which handcuffs our intelligence agencies. I am not willing to support a bill which provides excessive and obtrusive oversight that placates fringe political groups at the possible expense of national security. The stakes are too high. The damage that can be done if we get this wrong is too great.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds to finish.

I will never apologize for voting in favor of provisions which protect national security and civil liberties. During the remainder of this debate, I will continue to support initiatives that properly protect the lives and liberty of Americans. I am hopeful my colleagues will do the same. And I hope we will table this Judiciary Committee partisan amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I could make one comment. I have known Katherine for a long time. She is one of the truly great staffers on Capitol Hill.

I want you to know how much all of us have appreciated the work you do, and with this great Senator you have been working for. I appreciate it.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota has asked that I yield for a unanimous consent request, and then I would like to retain the floor.

Mr. President, I may need a little more than 10 minutes because this is an important speech for me.

I am grateful for the opportunity today to pay tribute to a wonderful woman, dedicated public servant, health policy expert and my chief of staff, Patricia Knight, or as many know her in the Senate--Trisha.

We were all sad to learn last week that, after over 34 years of public service, Trisha has decided to leave the Senate family at the end of the year, which in the arcane ways of the Senate could be any number of days between now and December 31. In fact, had I been able to convince her to stay until January 7, we would have been able to celebrate with her the 34th anniversary of her first job on Capitol Hill.

Trisha was born here in the District and grew up in Arlington. She progressed through Jamestown Elementary School, Williamsburg Junior High School and Yorktown High School. We like to kid her about the fact that this is the pathway that launched CBS newswoman Katie Couric.

When I first approached Trish about being my chief of staff, she quickly pointed out that she was not from Utah. However, always thinking on her feet, she rapidly concluded that graduating from Syracuse University, or Syracuse U, was close enough to 4 years in Syracuse Utah! And that became her story.

I might add that she graduated magna cum laude from Syracuse University, where she majored in anthropology and photojournalism, which makes her in my mind uniquely qualified to work in this body.

Trisha never intended to work on Capitol Hill. She is the daughter of a pair of Washington journalists, both deceased. But, I know they are watching over her and are very proud of what she has accomplished.

She always reminds the young people who come to work in my office that she got her first Federal job by walking up and down Constitution Avenue passing out resumes and the old Civil Service form SF-171.

She was initially hired as a temporary typist at the U.S. Department of Commerce, which it turned out was a lucky career start, because she found out later she had flunked the typing test but they hired her anyway.

That became her launching pad for work in the office of our former colleague, and then House member, Senator Jim Broyhill of North Carolina, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

He trained her well. She moved from caseworker, to legislative correspondent, to legislative assistant. I would like to say it was a meteoric rise--but in those days the average Hill staffer stayed more than 2 years. Trisha was there for almost 8 years--day, night, and many weekends.

I knew she would be a real asset to my staff because of her considerable government experience.

Before coming to the U.S. Senate, Trisha served in the executive branch for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. It is interesting that she worked at two cabinet agencies twice--the Commerce Department and Health and Human Services. The Cabinet secretaries she served include Richard Schweiker, Margaret Heckler, Otis Bowen, M.D., Lou Sullivan, M.D., and Bob Mosbacher.

Trisha is perhaps best known for her work at HHS--she served twice as a deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services and is considered by many as one of the top health policy experts in Washington, D.C. In that job, she was a line officer in the Public Health Service, as well as a staffer for the Secretary, and she worked for some of my favorite people--Dr. Ron Docksai, Dr. Bob Windom, and Dr. James O. Mason.

In addition to her work for Senator Broyhill when he served in the House, she has also served on the staff of the House Appropriations Committee, where she was minority clerk for the legendary Silvio Conte of Massachusetts on three appropriations bills: Commerce-State-Justice; Legislative Branch; and Foreign Operations.

I felt very fortunate when Trisha agreed to work in my office as a volunteer after the defeat of President George H.W. Bush. In fact, I tried to hire her the first week, but she flippantly informed me I didn't have the budget to do it.

A few months later, I found that money, and she joined my health staff, rising quickly to become my health policy director.

She is one of the shrewdest, smartest, most effective legislative minds in the Senate. She deeply understands the legislative process and has cultivated relationships with health policy experts throughout this country and

around the world. She truly knows everyone and the proper way to get things done, on health care, and a whole range of issues. She has a rare combination of policy expertise and legislative know-how. In other words, she not only knows what to do, she knows how to make it happen. Those are rare qualities anywhere; certainly around here.

She is very proud of her work in Senate infrastructure development, including her active membership in the Senate Chief of Staff organization and its executive committee. She has been a real leader in that organization. She has worked hard to be a capable administrator and manager and to help develop our staff and our institutional knowledge.

She also takes pride in the young people whose careers she has helped launch on Capitol Hill. I often hear her tell young legislative staff-- in the words of her good friend and mentor, Don Hirsch: ``Read the bill,'' as only she can say. I am a poor substitute.

The legislation she has worked on is really among the most important in my service on Capitol Hill. Trisha was by my side when we finally persuaded Congressman Waxman, Congressman Dingell, and Senator Kennedy to allow the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act to go through. The Governor of New Mexico, now running for President on the Democratic side, was my prime cosponsor on that bill.

It was a journey of several years. It was a legislative campaign that has served as the model for many pieces of legislation since. And, I might add, it was the only major health bill to be enacted in 1994, the year of President Clinton's Health Security Act.

She was by my side in 1997, when Senator Kennedy and I worked with Senators Chafee and Rockefeller to enact the CHIP legislation in a record 144 days. People know how important that bill is. Virtually everybody in our society today recognizes the importance of the CHIP legislation. I know she had hoped to stay on and see the reauthorization finished this year, but we will do all we can to get it done next year. She has played a pivotal and extremely important role in that remarkable landmark legislation.

She has had an influential role in development of so many other pieces of law--reforming the Food and Drug export laws, allowing medical volunteers at Community Health Centers to be covered under the Federal Tort Claims Act, so many of the budget reconciliation bills, including the landmark Medicare Modernization Act, all of the major FDA bills we have considered in the past 2 decades, including the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts and the Medical Device User Fee Acts. That is only mentioning a few of the bills and mainly in the health care area--not counting all of the other areas where she has played a pivotal and very important role. She also served on the Judiciary Committee, where she worked on nominations, patents and controlled substances issues, among many, many others.

This week, as she is delighted to note, she assisted in seeing the first bill she drafted pass unamended--legislation to rename the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development as the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. I think most people who really know, knew how close I am to Sargent and Eunice Kennedy Shriver and how much I love Eunice Kennedy Shriver. This woman has given so much to our country. Frankly, she is one terrific human being, as was her husband when he worked in so many positions in the Federal Government.

This was a bill that Trish drafted, helped to push through, along with myself, and I am really pleased that Eunice Kennedy Shriver will be memorialized. It is something she always took credit in--the National Institue of Child Health and Human Development. She has worked with children all over the world and deserves that distinguished honor.

The list on and on. There are some that have not become law yet--and I know she regrets that--but I think we may still see the Knight agenda enacted. Two of these are allowing vitamins to be purchased with food stamps--a commonsense measure for good nutrition, and even more importantly, allowing FDA approval of biosimilars, my high priority.

Trish spearheaded for me the Kennedy-Hatch Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2007, reported earlier this year by the HELP Committee.

Trisha also is a walking rolodex. She knows everyone--including just about every health policy expert in the country. When she made her announcement on Friday, a flurry of e-mails came into the office. I would like to share just a few of them which I think you will enjoy, and which show her true character.

One of my former staff directors for the Senate Labor Committee noted in response to her announcement:

I can't believe you plan to hang up your whip. Ringmasters

occasionally take breaks, but that doesn't mean they quit the

circus. Senator Hatch thinks the world of you, as do we all.

Whatever your final decision, I hope it keeps you in public

affairs.

One of Senator Kennedy's former staff directors said,

The planets are realigning. The tectonic plates of the

earth are shifting. The sea is parting. The world will never

be the same again.

Those Kennedy staffers always do go in for the hyperbole, don't they? That is why they are so successful.

A leadership staffer noted:

It truly will be a loss to the whole Senate.

A Utah mayor and CEO told Patricia:

I cannot tell you how much we have appreciated your help.

You will be sorely missed. Your ability to make a difference

on Capitol Hill is evident. You have been a great friend and

ally. Your work ethic is unmatched by anyone I have seen on

the Hill. When you combine that with your knowledge of key

areas like HHS issues, you have been a very effective

government operative.

A Utah political leader noted:

Trisha is the brightest political strategist I have known

in all my years in politics. She has the ability to put

together a long-term strategy to deal with a crisis before

the crisis occurs. Her perspective and insight into issues is

unsurpassed.

And one last example, a former Robert Wood Johnson fellow in my office noted:

You know, you were singlehandedly responsible for my whole

perspective change on the reality of government and its

operation . . . The amount of information you have in your

mind, from your experiences, and all that you have done for

others, is staggering.

You will always be a close and dear friend and my life/

career has been better for knowing you in that role. No

matter where you find yourself, my admiration and respect

will only grow. While I was there (and since), you made sure

that I had a life changing experience and got to see and hear

it all.

People on the ``outside'' who deal with many, many congressional staff, hold Trisha in the highest regard--for her expertise, her masterful strategic thinking, and for her straightforwardness, scrupulous honesty and sense of fair play. But more importantly, they genuinely like her because she is, above all, a wonderful, generous person.

Over the years, Trisha has spent weeks traveling through Utah, meeting with county and city officials and getting a good feel for the issues and challenges Utahns are facing throughout our State. She has made it a point to get to know our great State and know it well. She brought to that task all she had learned in her government career, an experience that undoubtedly helped our State in innumerable ways. In fact, when he heard she was leaving, our House colleague, Representative Chris Cannon, said:

It is the State's great loss.

Trisha has the love and respect of everyone in the Senate, in Utah and those whose lives she has touched.

I will always appreciate her wise counsel and deep commitment to me, to my staff and to the citizens of Utah. Her sense of humor has defused many a tense time.

Trisha has been my right hand for many, many years--indeed, she is my longest-serving chief of staff and I will miss her greatly. In fact, one wag blogged upon hearing this news in the Salt Lake Tribune--I hope when she leaves she'll take Hatch with her. I thought that was a little coarse myself.

I ask unanimous consent that these articles be printed in the Record at this point.

I will always be extremely grateful for the service she has rendered. But more than that, she is a dear friend who could always be counted on to tell me the truth. That was really important to me and has always been.

Mr. President, I have been blessed to have superb staff in my 31 years here in the Senate. The devotion staff have to the institution of the Senate is understandable--we are all privileged to serve an institution that embodies the liberty and deliberation among free people that the Senate represents.

But the devotion of staff to a Member is, for me, quite humbling. For 15 years, Trisha Knight has given me and the Senate her expertise, her knowledge, and her advice.

I have been able to rely on her, literally, 24 hours a day during these 15 years. I have depended on her to help me pass landmark legislation, and surmount difficult challenges. I have relied on her advice--even when she felt obliged to tell me what I didn't want to hear.

I have relied, without exception, on her integrity, and I am grateful for every day I have had the pleasure of her good character.

We will all miss Trisha, but I suspect we will be seeing a lot of her in the future. We do have a saying: ``Once a Hatch staffer, always a Hatch staffer,'' and we will expect her to adhere to that rule. And all the other applicable rules and laws, I hasten to add.

So, as the first session of the 110th Congress draws to a close, I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing appreciation for Patricia Knight for her loyalty, her service, her counsel, her sacrifice, and her commitment to good policy.

Let me say I have worked with some wonderful people in my days. I have had some terrific people help me. I have had people who have been loyal, decent, honorable, kind, honest people who have set examples around here and, frankly, every one of them has become a very good friend.

In particular, I love Trisha Knight. I believe she has more than given her best to the Senate, the Congress, and to the Government of the United States of America. I care for her, and I hope she will continue to stay in touch with me and with others in our office because we are going to need her help. We are going to need her advice from time to time. I hope she will always be there for us. I wish Trisha the very best in whatever she chooses to do next. I pray for her continued good health, success, happiness, love, and joy. She is a great one. I have been very privileged to have her with me.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, when I came to the Senate after the election of 1976, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee was a very distinguished gentleman from Mississippi named James Eastland. I can remember the first time I met Senator Eastland as a citizen newly elected to the Senate, when nobody thought I was going to make it. I was invited into his office and the first thing he did was offer me a cigar. I said: ``Well, I am sorry, sir. My faith does not permit me to smoke.'' He said: ``Well, then, have a drink.'' I replied: ``Well, sorry, sir, but my faith doesn't permit me to drink.'' Senator Eastland then exclaimed very loudly: ``What the expletive is the matter with you Mormons?''

I want everybody to know Senator Lott has never offered me a cigar nor has he ever offered me a drink, although I think he has been tempted a few times.

Let me say this: I have such admiration for Senator Lott and his wife Tricia and for the love and respect they have shown to all of us and this institution, and for all of their hard work.

It is no secret that I bitterly resent the way Senator Lott was treated after Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. It was wrong, and it was hitting below the belt. It would have crushed any one of us to go through what he went through, facing such harsh attacks knowing that he certainly did not mean to say what others tried to put in his mouth. But Trent fought his way back, kept his head high, became a friend to everybody in the Senate again the very next day, and, of course, won the respect of virtually everybody who has ever known him or what he stands for.

I have tremendous respect and love for Trent and Tricia for the sacrifices they have made for their State and for this country. He and Senator Cochran have been one of the best duos in the history of the Senate--two real gentlemen, two strong, tough people. But, they are also two people who have shown respect for this body and all of its members in ways that not many others have.

All I can say is I wish Senator Lott and Tricia the best of luck in all of their future endeavors. While I am certain he will be an asset to any effort

with which he becomes involved, I am equally certain the Senate is going to be a lesser place without him.

Supporting Senator Lott throughout his time in the Congress is one of the most beautiful and noble women in the history of the Senate. Tricia Lott has been the quintessential Senate wife, and I doubt Senator Lott would have been as great as he has become had it not been for his relationship with Tricia.

Elaine and I are going to greatly miss you, Trent. I know I am not supposed to refer to you by your first name, but I am going to make an exception in this case. We will always be pulling for you, your success, and your happiness in this life. This old Senator is going to miss you greatly. We are going to miss the efforts you put forth. We are going to miss the talents you have. We are going to miss the energy you bring to the Senate. And, we are most certainly going to miss your ability to bring us together, making better Senators out of us all.

God bless the Lotts. We in the Senate will surely miss them.

Mr. President, I rise in support of this package and want to commend my colleagues on a job well done.

To be fair, it would have been my preference to do a broader bill and resolve the myriad of Medicare-, Medicaid- and CHIP-related issues we have been discussing for many months now. Given that this has proven impossible, my overriding concern is that we move ahead with flawed correction to the physician reimbursement formula, as this bill does.

Indeed, while most of us would have preferred to have a longer term physician fix, this bill is a reasonable compromise. Physicians will be able to practice medicine without having their Medicare reimbursement rates significantly reduced. And that means that Medicare beneficiaries will continue to have access to quality health care.

I also am pleased about other provisions in this legislation, particularly those related to policy on long-term care hospitals and inpatient rehabilitation facilities, IRFs. With regard to long-term care hospitals, Senator Conrad and I introduced legislation, S. 1958, Medicare Long-Term Care Hospital Patient Safety and Improvement Act of 2007. I am proud that the long-term care hospital provisions in today's Medicare legislation are based on the legislative language from the Conrad-Hatch bill. The legislation before us provides regulatory relief to allow continued access to current long-term care hospital services; requires new facility and medical reviews to ensure that patients are receiving appropriate care; and authorizes a study by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, HHS, on long-term care hospitals and patient criteria. This legislative language reflects compromises that were made between the various trade groups for long-term care hospitals and finding policy solutions which generate savings for Medicare.

As a proud cosponsor of S. 543, Preserving Patient Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospitals Act of 2007, I am also pleased that the Medicare bill eliminates the 75 percent rule implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, for rehabilitation hospitals. Instead, this legislation permanently freezes the inpatient rehabilitation services compliance threshold at 60 percent and allows comorbid conditions to count toward this threshold. Finally, it requires the Secretary of HHS to study beneficiary access to inpatient rehabilitation services and care at IRFs and make recommendations on how to classify inpatient rehabilitation facility hospitals and units.

Additionally, the legislation before the Senate extends the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, through March 31, 2009. Let me make one point perfectly clear on this provision I--am not going to give up on reauthorizing the CHIP program for an additional 5 years. I am still committed to that goal and intend to work with my colleagues early next year. I will not rest until this program is reauthorized and all eligible, low-income children are covered by the CHIP program.

On balance, while this bill is not what any of us would have liked, it does address many of the immediate concerns of Medicare patients, their physician and other health care providers. I strongly support this bipartisan legislation and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an unintended oversight by my office in connection with the disclosure of a congressionally directed funding project in the House message to accompany H.R. 2764, the Omnibus appropriations bill. When I filed my original requests for funding for projects in May of this year, I did not realize the letter included a request to fund the Old Dome Meeting Hall Renovations project in Riverton, UT. Subsequently, with the enactment of Public Law 110-81 on September 14, 2007, along with other Members of the Senate, I was asked to sign, and did sign, various certification letters in connection with our requests for project funding.

Upon a review of our files last night, with respect to the forthcoming House message to accompany H.R. 2764, the Omnibus appropriations bill, we determined that the certification letters sent to the committee may have been incorrect, as a member of my family may be deemed to have an indirect pecuniary interest in one of the items requested in my letter to the Appropriations Committee dated May 15, 2007. Upon discovering this oversight, I forwarded a letter to the attention of Appropriations Committee chairman, Robert Byrd, and ranking Republican member, Thad Cochran, which I believe to be in accordance with the facts now known to me.

I have chosen to address these issues openly on the floor of the Senate to clear up any facts regarding this completely unintended and unfortunate oversight. I want my colleagues to know that I always have and will continue to do everything possible to ensure I meet all ethics laws, rules, and requirements here in the U.S. Senate.

For the reasons I have outlined and in an effort to meet the highest ethical standards, I will be voting present on the Omnibus appropriations bill when I otherwise would have supported the legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter to Chairman Byrd and Ranking Republican Member Cochran be printed in the Record.

I would be happy to discuss this important issue with my good friend from Vermont.

I am proud to be a leading cosponsor of patent reform. The inventiveness of our citizens is the core strength of our economy. Our Founding Fathers recognized the critically important role of patents by mandating in article 1, section 8, of the Constitution that Congress was to enact a patent law. The Congress has periodically seen fit to update the law to ensure it meets the changing needs of both science and our economy. But the current law has not seen a major revision since 1952. Much has changed since then. The courts have struggled valiantly to interpret the law in ways that make sense in light of change. but that piecemeal process has left many areas unclear and some areas of the law out of balance. So action by the Congress is needed, and needed urgently.

Thank you. I was among the members of the committee who expressed the view that while I believed we were reporting a very sound bill, further improvements should be considered. I very much appreciate your willingness to work with me and other Senators and very much appreciate your commitment.

I agree with my colleague, further improvements should be considered to key provisions of the bill, including damages, postgrant review, inequitable conduct defense, and venue.

Let me just say a few words about the need to make further reforms to the inequitable conduct defense. I commend Senator Leahy for working to develop an effective solution to the problem of the inequitable conduct defense during committee deliberation in July. No doubt he has done a good job in initiating this process. We certainly share many perspectives on how to reform this area of the law, but I believe more must be done to change the use of this defense as an unfair litigation tactic.

I know some have opposed any meaningful changes in this area because of how it would affect the generic pharmaceutical industry. As a coauthor of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Restoration Act, informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, I certainly understand the generic drug industry, but S. 1145 is an innovator's bill. Unless we promote and protect a structure that fosters a strong and vibrant environment for innovators, there will be fewer and fewer drugs for the generics to manufacture--and all, including patients, will suffer.

Much like Senator Leahy, my staff and I have met with many interested stakeholders and individuals about these provisions, and they have stated that further refinements to these four key provisions would garner even greater support of S. 1145. I firmly believe that compromise on each of these provisions is achievable, and I know that my good friend from Vermont would agree.

I agree with your intentions and applaud your plan. I stand ready to work with you and each of our colleagues. I also agree that this should not become an excuse for further delay or for doing nothing. Unfortunately, some would like to play political football with this bill to pursue other agenda items. Make no mistake: this bill is far too important and should not fall prey to such partisan tactics from either side. The Senate has a tremendous opportunity and responsibility to further strengthen our Nation's competitiveness through meaningful patent reform.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Performance Rights Act of 2007, S. 2500, introduced today by Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy and myself. There is no doubt the subject of performance rights is important and deserves the Senate's attention.

I recognize that there is no easy solution to the performance rights issue because it is a complex area of the law. However, I believe the time has come for Congress to begin the process of balancing the interests of all involved and forging a fair and reasonable compromise.

I have had the opportunity to get to know some of the finest and talented individuals this country has to offer. Some are under the wrong impression that artists in the music industry are making a fortune, but they are not aware that all too often it is a struggle to survive for the overwhelming majority of them in the cut-throat music industry.

By amending sections 106 and 114 of the Copyright Act, the Performance Rights Act of 2007 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.

S. 2500 further includes a per program license option for terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings. Finally, the legislation strengthens the provision in section 114 that preserves the rights of songwriters and clarifies that nothing in the Performance Rights Act of 2007 shall adversely affect the public performance rights of songwriters or copyright owners of musical works.

I believe in the legislative process and hope that concerns raised by interested parties can be resolved in a fair and equitable manner. I do not have an ax to grind, nor do I want to hurt any industry. To my friends in the broadcasting community, let me say that I am acutely aware of your circumstances and concerns, and I cannot stress enough that my primary goal is to make sure that Congress handles this in the most even-handed way. Let me also stress that I look upon creating a performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions as the first step in addressing some of the major issues affecting the music industry. And I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy and my

colleagues in carefully considering what additional measures are needed.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Performance Rights Act of 2007, S. 2500, introduced today by Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy and myself. There is no doubt the subject of performance rights is important and deserves the Senate's attention.

I recognize that there is no easy solution to the performance rights issue because it is a complex area of the law. However, I believe the time has come for Congress to begin the process of balancing the interests of all involved and forging a fair and reasonable compromise.

I have had the opportunity to get to know some of the finest and talented individuals this country has to offer. Some are under the wrong impression that artists in the music industry are making a fortune, but they are not aware that all too often it is a struggle to survive for the overwhelming majority of them in the cut-throat music industry.

By amending sections 106 and 114 of the Copyright Act, the Performance Rights Act of 2007 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.

S. 2500 further includes a per program license option for terrestrial broadcast stations that make limited feature uses of sound recordings. Finally, the legislation strengthens the provision in section 114 that preserves the rights of songwriters and clarifies that nothing in the Performance Rights Act of 2007 shall adversely affect the public performance rights of songwriters or copyright owners of musical works.

I believe in the legislative process and hope that concerns raised by interested parties can be resolved in a fair and equitable manner. I do not have an ax to grind, nor do I want to hurt any industry. To my friends in the broadcasting community, let me say that I am acutely aware of your circumstances and concerns, and I cannot stress enough that my primary goal is to make sure that Congress handles this in the most even-handed way. Let me also stress that I look upon creating a performance right in a sound recording to all audio transmissions as the first step in addressing some of the major issues affecting the music industry. And I look forward to working closely with Chairman Leahy and my

colleagues in carefully considering what additional measures are needed.

Mr. President, I have listened very closely to the remarks of my dear friend from Connecticut. I have a lot of respect for him. However, it was an easy thing for 13 members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to vote to grant retroactive immunity to companies that patriotically

adhered to legal letters to provide the means whereby we might be able to protect citizens in this country and perhaps all over the world.

Because of that work, we have been able to protect this country in ways that most people will never know because this area is one of the areas that we don't talk about. It is, this whole area, highly classified. We can talk about the law here.

Close inspection of the lawsuits against the telecoms reveals dubious claims. The plaintiffs have confused speculation for established facts. This is dangerous and the continuation of these lawsuits could lead to serious consequences for our national security.

It is very simple--Congress should not condone oversight through litigation.

A quick scan of what plaintiffs seek in many of these cases should send a chill down our spine. They are not, as many are suggesting, simply saying: ``You went along with the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program, now give us money.'' Rather, the lawsuits seize on the President's brief comments about the existence of a limited program to go on a fishing expedition of NSA activities. But this is really worse than a fishing expedition; this is draining the Loch Ness to find a monster. Sometimes what you are looking for just doesn't exist.

The lawsuits represent irrational fears of Government conspiracy, and seek to expose classified information, regardless of who is harmed in the process.

We all realize that the sources and methods our intelligence community utilizes to conduct surveillance are highly classified. The risks that classified details could be revealed through these lawsuits are severe. Remember, the very point of these lawsuits is to prove plaintiffs' claims by disclosing classified information.

Our enemies have tough decisions to make regarding how they communicate. They can't stay silent forever, and they have to weigh the need to communicate against the chance that their communications are intercepted. Given this, they are carefully watching us and reading every proceeding to see how our government collects information. If they think they see a weakness in our collection capabilities, they will certainly try and take advantage of it.

Given the legitimate problems that these lawsuits pose, the Senate Intelligence Committee adopted a bill which will alleviate them. The committee worked in a bipartisan manner to craft an immunity provision that met the needs of Congress, the Government, and the American people.

In an overwhelmingly bipartisan tally, the committee voted to include retroactive immunity for service providers that were alleged to have cooperated with the intelligence community following 9/11. Senators from both sides of the aisle, after careful consideration, came to this conclusion. Make no mistake, this was the right conclusion.

It was the right conclusion for the Intelligence Committee, and it should be the right conclusion for the full Senate today.

Our Senate Intelligence Committee has already noted that the intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without the assistance of these companies. It goes without saying, companies in the future will certainly be less willing to assist the Government if they face the threat of extremely costly lawsuits each time they are alleged to have provided assistance.

The companies will shy away. Their attorneys will scour future Government requests, feverishly looking for any technicality to avoid compliance. And even if these private attorneys approve future participation, the company will have to listen to cautious stockholders, whose financial interests will undoubtedly make them adamantly opposed to situations which could lead to any financial risk or exposure.

But let's be clear: The telecoms are not threatening anyone. They are not saying ``do this, or we will never help you again.'' But, they don't need to say these things for us to understand the obvious. If the financial foundations of these companies crumble due to frivolous litigation, they will rebuild it to withstand future Government requests that may again lead to their collapse.

Now some have asked a valid question: If the companies did not break the law, why do they need immunity? Quite simply, the Government's assertion of the state secrets privilege prevents these companies from defending themselves.

This assertion by the Government is absolutely essential, as the possible disclosure of classified materials from ongoing court proceedings is a grave threat to national security. Simply put, you don't tell your enemies how you track them. This is why the NSA and other Government agencies won't say what they do, how they do it, or who they watch. Nor should they! To confirm or deny any of these activities, which are at the heart of the civil lawsuits, would harm national security. We should not discuss what our capabilities are.

Given the necessity for the state secrets privilege, the drawback is that the companies being sued are forbidden from making their case. In fact, the companies cannot even confirm or deny any involvement in the program whatsoever. They have no ability to defend themselves, and that is after patriotically doing what has to be done to protect each and every citizen in this country.

Ordinarily, these companies would be able to address allegations and make their case. However, the classified nature of the topic means the companies are not free to do so. They cannot even have discussions with shareholders or business partners.

But we need to remember, lawful silence does not equate to guilt. There is no guilt here. These are companies that cooperated with the Federal Government in helping us track terrorists to protect our citizens.

The identities of any company that assisted the Government following the attacks of September 11 are highly classified. While there have been numerous allegations, they are nothing more than accusations. If the identities of these companies are revealed and officially confirmed through litigation, they will face irreversible harm: harm in their business relations with foreign governments and companies and possible harm to their employees both here and abroad, who are truly soft targets for terrorist attacks.

My admiration and respect for the companies that did their part to defend Americans is well known. As I have said in the past, any company that assisted us following the attacks of 9/11 deserves a round of applause and a helping hand, not a slap in the face and a kick to the gut.

When companies are asked to assist the intelligence community based on a program authorized by the President and based on assurances from the highest levels of Government that the program has been determined to be lawful and necessary, they should be able to rely on those representations. For those who argue we need a compromise, let me be clear: We already have a compromise. The Government certainly wanted more than what is represented in this Intelligence Committee bill. And they did not get all they wanted. I think they should have. The chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence stated the following in the Intelligence Committee report:

This immunity provision is not the broad and vague immunity

sought by the administration. The committee did not endorse

the immunity provision lightly. It was the informed judgment

of the Committee after months in which we carefully reviewed

the facts in this matter. The Committee reached the

conclusion that the immunity remedy was appropriate in this

case after holding numerous hearings and briefings on the

subject and conducting a thorough examination of the letters

sent by the U.S. Government to the telecommunications

companies.

That is after numerous top-secret Intelligence Committee hearings. The immunity provisions in this bill are limited in scope. Not everyone will be happy with them, and that is the whole point. I, for one, wanted to see more protections for companies and Government officials in this bill. But I am willing to accept a compromise. My colleagues should be willing to do the same.

We are not all getting what we want. We are getting what the public needs for its protection. I will continue to oppose any efforts to weaken the Rockefeller-Bond immunity provision.

For nearly 2 months, Congress and the public have had the ability to review the immunity provisions in this

bill. Today we are hearing a great deal about how the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees handled the immunity provision. So let's look at how they voted.

The Intelligence Committee rejected an amendment to strip immunity from the bill, 12 to 3, and the committee voted to favorably report the bill, including the immunity provision, 13 to 2.

In addition, the Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment to strike the immunity provision from the bill, 12 to 7. What do all those votes have in common? They supported immunity and they were bipartisan. How many times are we going to hear about alternatives to S. 2248 which simply do not address the problem? How many trial balloons are going to be released? The first alternative we heard was the Government should indemnify the companies following possible adverse rulings in the cases.

There are myriad reasons why this option was lacking. The idea of indemnification apparently was not well received, as we now hear very little discussion of it. So let us call indemnification the first trial balloon to pop.

The next alternative we heard was the Government should be substituted in place of the companies being sued. But this alternative was full of problems, given that there is no way to remove the companies from the litigation. Remember, it is their very conduct that is in question. In order to try to prove their claims, plaintiffs will continue to seek discovery, including: document requests, depositions, interrogatories, technical data, trade secrets, proprietary company information and confidential, secret and highly classified information and the list goes on and on.

Obviously, the companies would still face many burdens of litigation, even though they are not parties because the Government is substituted for them.

This idea has also been skeptically viewed and the Judiciary Committee on Thursday rejected an idea in a resounding 13 to 5 bipartisan vote. So let's call Government substitution the second trial balloon to pop.

Now we are hearing another alternative which would dramatically expand the jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and utilizes ambiguous terms such as ``objectively reasonable belief.''

The FISA Court was not created to review classified programs or the conduct of private companies. This new proposed alternative would completely revise the mission of the FISA Court, putting them in a role they have not had in their nearly 30 years of existence. This judicial expansion should be the third trial balloon to pop.

How long are we going to entertain inadequate alternatives and appease fringe political groups? Is it not time that we embrace the bipartisan compromise that puts the interest and safety of Americans over political interests? How long will it take? Are we willing to take that stand?

Let me also take a few minutes to unequivocally state my opposition to the Judiciary substitute. One of the basic requirements of any FISA modernization proposal is we should not have any provisions which could be interpreted as requiring warrants to target foreign terrorists overseas.

Quite simply, foreign terrorists living overseas should never receive protections provided by the fourth amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution never contemplated that. One of the controversial provisions added in the Judiciary Committee relates to ``reverse targeting.'' Reverse targeting is the practice of targeting a foreign person when the real intention is to target a U.S. person, thus circumventing the need to get a warrant for the U.S. person.

Reverse targeting has always been unlawful, in order to protect the communications of U.S. persons. Now, contrary to what most people believe, the legal definition of ``U.S. person,'' is not limited to U.S. citizens. See this chart: What is a U.S. person?

An ``alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,'' a

``corporation which is incorporated in the United States.''

Now, that is according to 50 U.S.C. 1801. The U.S. person definition includes aliens lawfully admitted, legal residence, legal permanent residence. A U.S. person is also defined as a business incorporated within the United States.

From an intelligence-gathering standpoint, reverse targeting makes no sense. From an efficiency standpoint, if the Government was interested in targeting an American, it would apply for a warrant to listen to all the American's conversations, not just his conversations with a terrorist overseas.

But let's not let logic get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Even though reverse targeting is already considered unlawful, a provision is included in the Intelligence bill which makes it explicit. This provision is clearly written and universally supported. However, the Judiciary Committee passed an amendment by a 10-to-9 partisan party-line vote which altered the clear language of that provision.

Now, where before the provision said you cannot target a foreign person if the purpose is to target a U.S. person, the new language adds the ambiguous term ``significant purpose.''

Now, words have meaning and in this context have very serious meaning. If this amendment becomes law, an analyst would now have to ask himself this question when targeting a terrorist overseas: Is a ``significant purpose'' of why I am targeting this foreign terrorist overseas the fact that the terrorist may call an airline in America to make flight reservations or a terrorist with a green card living in the

To my distinguished colleagues, I urge you to support the bipartisan Rockefeller-Bond compromise bill, one that has been superbly debated within the Intelligence Committee and has been carefully thought out.

It provides protections to civil liberties and ensures that technological changes do not outpace our laws.

I wanted to personally pay tribute to the distinguished Chairman of the Intelligence Committee and the distinguished Vice Chairman. They know what they accomplished in the Intelligence Committee was very important, and it should be followed by us on the floor.

We cannot even begin to talk about some classified issues on this floor. We cannot even begin to talk about the dangers that will come from going beyond that bill that passed 13 to 2 in the Senate Intelligence Committee. I refuse to place our country at risk. I refuse to do anything that would make our country be at risk. I suggest to you that if we follow the Judiciary Committee bill, I think we would be doing exactly that.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, on numerous occasions in the FISA debate, we have seen dramatic fear mongering. Many individuals, particularly on partisan blogs, are spreading misleading and malicious information in order to incite fear of alleged governmental activities. This bill should not include text which panders to people who believe in imaginary Government conspiracies. There is such a thing as irrational fear of Government.

Let's not forget, our Government did not kill thousands of innocent Americans on September 11. Our Government did not kill hundreds of people in car bombings in U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Our Government did not kill 191 people in the Madrid train bombings. Our Government did not kill 52 people in the London train bombings. Our Government did not kill 202 people in suicide bombings Bali, Indonesia. The indisputable fact is terrorists have committed heinous attacks on Americans and have pledged themselves to conduct more. It is not politics of fear to acknowledge this. If we bury our heads in the sand and pass legislation that ignores these risks, we make ourselves and all our people more vulnerable. I will not stand by and see Congress pass laws which could create vulnerabilities for our people, vulnerabilities which expose our families and our friends to danger.

Let me tell you what our Government does to protect us. It hires the finest men and women of this great country to utilize their skills to help prevent these types of attacks. Our job in Congress is to make sure these people who have sworn to defend us have the necessary tools to try and prevent terrorist attacks. What they don't need are laws with ambiguous language, as has been proposed, making their jobs more difficult.

One of my colleagues previously stated:

The authority in this bill greatly expands the Government's

ability to conduct surveillance of foreign targets.

How in the world he can make that statement, I don't understand. The only great expansion I see in this bill is judicial jurisdiction. In fact, I am amazed we don't rename the bill the unlimited expansion of judicial authority act. We have advocated so much new responsibility for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that I wonder whether people realize that court is composed of only 11 judges. Where is this great expansion in surveillance authority that has been argued on the floor?

Since FISA was passed in 1978, the Government has been able to target terrorists overseas. This bill amends FISA so we can continue to target foreign terrorists when they utilize communications over a wire, not just communications over radio or satellite. This does not sound to me like a great expansion. Maybe that is why the Government has continued to say FISA needed to be ``modernized,'' not that it needed to be greatly expanded. There is, however, a key expansion in the bill. It is a statutory warrant requirement when targeting U.S. persons, regardless of who they are, what they have done or where they are located. Notice I said U.S. persons, not U.S. citizens. This idea may sound great to everyone, but we should realize, with eyes wide open, what this means. We have heard some individuals claim the Government could use the power of the Protect America Act to spy on innocent Americans. We have heard the fear

mongering that the Government can spy on innocent Americans when they travel overseas. We have heard all about American families on vacation overseas in the Caribbean or in Europe. We have even heard our Government could spy on American military members who are overseas defending our country.

I find these scare tactics not only ridiculous but extremely offensive. They walk a fine line in seemingly questioning the integrity and the judgment of these fine men and women who work for us and who don't have a political agenda, who have dedicated their professional lives to prevent catastrophic attacks on Americans. Do we think our intelligence analysts are sitting around waiting for the Smith family to go on their family vacation to Italy so they can tap their cell phones? Give me a break. To imply that our country's intelligence analysts are more concerned with random innocent Americans than foreign terrorists overseas is a slap in the face to the people who protect our Nation. Our Government is focusing their attention on terrorists who wish us death, not on innocent Americans.

When some decry the lack of statutory protection for Americans overseas in the Protect America Act, I wonder if they realize the 1978 FISA law itself provides no statutory protections for Americans overseas. Yet we have called that the gold standard all these years. I would, however, tell my colleagues that Americans overseas are protected by the most important document in the history of our great Nation, and that is the U.S. Constitution. The fourth amendment to the Constitution provides protection from unreasonable search and seizure. That is the question. Is it always unreasonable for the Government to target an American overseas without a court order? Of course not. I would suggest the process that has worked for 26 years is the best approach. It is Executive Order 12333. Since 1981, the Government could only target Americans overseas if the Attorney General determined via probable cause that the American was an agent of a foreign power. Do we think an intelligence analyst is going to disregard an executive order and wiretap innocent Americans overseas? Of course not.

Now, with the policy change included in both the Intelligence and Judiciary bills, I want to give an example of how this provision will apply in real life.

Adam Gadahn is an American citizen from Orange County, CA. He is also one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists now believed to be living overseas. He has been indicted for treason and providing material support to al-Qaida. Here is what he said:

The streets of America shall run red with blood . . .

casualties will be too many to count and the next wave of

attacks may come at any moment.

He has appeared on multiple al-Qaida propaganda tapes. Here is another quote:

The magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will

make you forget all about September 11.

Here is something that should make all Americans scratch their heads. Before September 11, the Government would not need a warrant to target this criminal. After September 11, the Government would not need a warrant to target Gadahn. But after this bill is signed, the Government will be required to get a warrant to target Gadahn. This bill does require that.

Let's explain that one to the American public.

Would a warrantless interception of Gadahn's communications be ``unreasonable'' under the fourth amendment? Of course not. But we are requiring something that even the Founding Fathers did not--a warrant for all electronic searches of U.S. persons.

Now I understand the administration is willing to accept a modified version of this amendment that does not include unintended consequences. It is yet another example of how far this proposal goes to satisfy determined detractors who never seem to be satisfied that we are doing enough to ``protect'' innocent Americans.

I am also amazed at the false descriptions floating around the Internet of the program which the President described on December 17, 2005, during a radio address. We have all heard the terms: ``warrantless wiretapping'' or ``domestic spying.'' But let's look at what the President actually said during his radio address on December 17, 2005. This is what he said:

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our Nation,

I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with

U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international

communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and

related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these

communications, the government must have information that

establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

Now I do not see anything in this statement about domestic spying. I thought the definition of the word ``domestic'' was pretty clear. If the program intercepted communications in which at least one party was overseas, not to mention a member of al-Qaida, then it seems fairly obvious that the calls were not domestic.

Here, as shown on this chart, is a call from the United States of America to overseas; or a call from overseas to the United States of America. Is that a domestic call? I hardly think so. Is this such a hard concept to grasp? The last time I flew overseas, I did not fly on a domestic flight. I flew on an international flight. ``Domestic spying'' may sound catchy and mysterious, but it is a completely inaccurate way to describe the terrorist surveillance program. Why don't the partisan blogs describe it as ``international spying''? Isn't that a more accurate description? I guess accurate descriptions take a back seat to terms which incite fear and distrust in our Government.

Since so many are so interested in the opinion of the FISC, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, on these matters, I wish to draw attention to a recent decision. On Tuesday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denied a motion by the ACLU for release of court records related to alleged NSA surveillance programs. This FISC opinion was publicly released, which is only the third time in the entire history of the FISC in which this has occurred.

Given the rarity of this event--this issued public opinion that denied a motion by the ACLU for the release of court records related to alleged NSA surveillance programs--I want to highlight a few sentences from that ruling:

[T]he identification of targets and methods of surveillance

would permit adversaries to evade surveillance, conceal their

activities, and possibly mislead investigators through false

information. Public identification of targets, and those in

communication with them, would also likely result in

harassment of, or more grievous injury to, persons who might

be exonerated after full investigation. Disclosures about

confidential sources of information would chill current and

potential sources from providing information, and might put

some in personal jeopardy. Disclosure of some forms of

intelligence gathering could harm national security in other

ways, such as damaging relations with foreign governments.

All these possible harms are real and significant, and, quite

frankly, beyond debate.

Now, that is in re: Motion for release of court records of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, December 7 of this year.

I think we can all agree this is a vitally important public opinion from the FISA, and I commend it to my colleagues.

Regardless of how we came to this moment, it is time to do what is right for our country. The time has come for us to work together. We all know it is going to take bipartisan support to get this legislation passed. Let's represent our constituents with our heads held high, knowing we are doing our very best to balance the necessity for protections of civil liberties with the need to keep American families safe from deadly attacks. We owe our people this much.

I hope we can continue to work, as the Intelligence Committee did, in a bipartisan way to resolve these very difficult problems. I have to say that the 13-to-2 bipartisan approach is one of the highlights of this year. It is probably the best example of bipartisanship we have this year. I have to tell you, to try to change that with some of the language from the Judiciary Committee--where it was a pure partisan vote on both sides--to try to change that is not the way to do it.

So I hope our colleagues will realize that in the Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan way, we have worked together to come up with the ways of solving these very technical and difficult problems, and to do so in the best traditions of the intelligence community, in the best traditions of gathering intelligence information, and in the best traditions of protecting our

country that this country has ever known.

Frankly, I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the distinguished vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and my fellow Senators on the committee, Democrats and Republicans, who were willing to put partisanship aside and pass that bill 13 to 2 out of that committee.

Mr. President, I notice my dear friend from Florida is desirous to speak on the floor, so I will withhold my further remarks and turn the time over to him.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. He was one of the Senators who helped to put this bill together, and a distinguished Senator at that.

Would the Senator agree with me that should this bill pass, it would be one of the best illustrations of bipartisanship in this whole Congress so far?

Mr. President, I would like to take just a moment to talk about the cloture vote on the Energy bill today. I have worked very closely with my good friend, Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, to restructure the energy tax provisions in a way that reflects a more balanced energy policy. I have consistently opposed the energy tax package up to this point. I voted against the proposal in the Senate Finance Committee because I believed it did not reflect a balanced energy policy. Rather, it imposed new taxes on our Nation's oil companies, while doing too little to address one of our Nation's most pressing energy needs: our lack of domestic refining capacity.

I also voted against cloture on the energy proposal on the Senate floor in June before it was sent to conference, or what should have been a conference on the proposal. So many of us were not even afforded the courtesy of basic Senate procedure, and that was appalling. Thus, when the bill came back from the House with a House amendment earlier this month, I voted against cloture once again. It was my understanding that when cloture failed, solid commitments had been made to ensure the minority would be included in the formulation of a bill that would really address some of the very real energy problems we have in this country.

Based on this understanding and as a senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, I worked with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to improve the tax package. To the credit of Chairman Baucus and several members on both sides of the aisle, significant and important modifications were made to the tax portion of the Energy bill.

The new tax provisions included in this bill take some important steps toward balancing this bill in a way that will benefit U.S. consumers. The new severance tax on offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico had been dropped from the revised bill. This move alone restored more than $10 billion toward the effort to increase our domestic production of oil, provision to extend for 3 years a tax incentive that I had originally sponsored to increase refining capacity. Senator Baucus also dropped a tax increase on natural gas lines, which restored over $500 million to our natural gas infrastructure. Finally, a

provision that would provide incentives for the conversion of hybrid electric vehicles to plug-in hybrid vehicles was included. This restored an important aspect of my legislation known as the FREEDOM Act, or S. 1617.

To say this bill is perfect would be an enormous stretch. I believe the tax package was improved, but it could still be a whole lot better. However, given the realities of Congress, I believed the more balanced tax bill was worthy of my support.

Also of great concern, this bill would apply new Davis Bacon requirements to energy production activities. Expansion of Davis Bacon is poor public policy and absolutely terrible energy policy. Now that cloture has failed and it is apparent the Energy bill cannot proceed, I encourage my colleagues to remove these provisions prior to any additional votes on an energy bill. I believe these provisions are one of the main reasons this bill is unable to secure enough support to proceed.

Mr. President, today I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Iowa.

Our Nation has been blessed with a judicial system dedicated to the principle of the rule of law. Each one of us no matter how: rich or poor; strong or weak; big or small; receive equal justice under the law.

In part, that is one of the reasons why our national competition policy is framed in general, universal terms. Specifically, the Sherman Act prohibits every ``contract, combination or conspiracy, in restraint of trade;'' and the Clayton Act prohibits all acquisitions whose effect ``may be substantially to lessen competition.''

There are many instances, where we have diverged from these principles, even for good cause. However, in many of these instances we have encountered numerous difficulties and our economy harmed by unexpected consequences.

One need only look at correcting legislation that the chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee, Senator Kohl, recently offered eliminating railroad antitrust exemptions.

Senator Kohl believes, with a great deal of merit, that many shippers are being charged exorbitant prices to transport their goods by the railroads. In fact, the Antitrust Subcommittee, of which I am ranking Republican member, received a letter, as part of the subcommittee's hearing into railroad antitrust exemptions, from several States' attorneys general that discussed how foreign corporations are very reluctant to invest in new American manufacturing facilities if the proposed location of these facilities is serviced by only one railroad.

Senator Kohl's solution to this problem is to eliminate the special antitrust exemptions granted to railroad mergers.

Indeed, many Senators have argued for the repeal of the McCarran- Ferguson Act. As my colleagues know the McCarran-Ferguson Act exempts the business of insurance from Federal antitrust laws when and to the extent that business is regulated by State law.

These Senators believe that certain insurers took advantage of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption to implement a collective agreement to raise insurance prices on gulf coast residents still recovering from Hurricane Katrina.

Clearly, there is evidence of unattended consequences when special provisions are permitted in antitrust law.

That being said, there is a substantial difference between railroad antitrust exemptions, McCarran-Ferguson exemptions and creating new agriculture antitrust guidelines as called for by the Grassley amendment. I thoroughly recognize that the market relationship between the producer and the food packer desires special attention. However, the underlining concern is well founded: special antitrust rules for specific industries can have profound undesirable consequences and violate one of our national competition policies fundamental tenants: that antitrust law should be framed in general, universal terms. So the question I believe that we should be asking is if the remedy to this situation is additional, special legislation, or greater enforcement? Currently, the Department of Justice has devoted considerable effort to investigate agricultural mergers but the time might be coming where we need to increase those resources for the Department. Perhaps the creation of a new Deputy Assistant Attorney General, whose responsibilities are solely to investigate agriculture mergers, is the correct path.

My trepidations of industry-specific rules, such as those called for by the Grassley amendment, are that they are likely to create legal difficulties. First, industry-specific rules add to the danger of inconsistent enforcement across industries. Second, industry-specific rules introduce additional uncertainty, since it will not always be clear in which industry a particular product should be classified, and thus not clear which legal standard will apply. Finally, has shown that once you enact industry-specific rules other industries and constituency groups will request there own special antitrust rules.

So what should we do? Do we maintain our national competition policy which is framed in general, universal terms, or should we embrace through industry-specific enactments.

Well let's look at the record. During a period of ever increasing complex laws and regulations having general and simple rules makes antitrust law more understandable to both the legal and business community. The general language of current statutes provides courts and enforcement agencies valuable flexibility to incorporate the latest developments in business and economic learning. It should also be noted that, where industry-specific factors are important to reaching a correct decision in a particular case, the agencies and the courts are already fully authorized to consider those factors under current law. In particular, current antitrust principles can address issues of buyer power that have concerned some observers of agricultural mergers.

One should also remember that congressionally created Antitrust Modernization Commission concluded that ``the basic framework for analyzing mergers followed by the U.S. enforcement agencies and courts is sound.''

Therefore, I oppose Senator Grassley's amendment. Senator Grassley has a well-deserved reputation for standing up for and defending the American farmer. I agree that we must be vigilant in ensuring that the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission are diligent in enforcing antitrust laws--but those laws should be for all American economic endeavors, not fragmented as all too many of our laws have become.

Mr. President, I am hopeful we will approve tonight a bill I have authored with Senators Mikulski, Enzi and Harkin, The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development Act. This act will change the name of the National Institute of Child Health and Development to the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development.

Our bill honors a truly great American who has played a unique role in advancing children's health, and particularly in shaping how we treat individuals with intellectual disabilities. Few Americans have ever played such a profound role as Ms. Shriver has played in her life and it is entirely fitting that we rename NICHD on her behalf.

Yes, this legislation is only meant to change the name of the single institute within NIH and to have no other effect on the NIH or its organization.