Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that helps to prevent children from living in poverty and ensures that noncustodial parents pay child support, instead of fleeing off to hide from their responsibilities. I commend my fellow Kansas colleagues, Congressman Jerry Moran and Congressman Dennis Moore, for introducing similar legislation in the House.

The problem is this: a noncustodial parent could potentially avoid paying their responsible share of child support by leaving the country. State child support enforcement agencies must certify cases to the State Department for passport denial if the child support debt is over $5,000. The $5,000 is slated to be reduced in October 2006 to $2,500 in accordance with Public Law 109-171. The loophole that emerges is for those deadbeat parents who already have a passport. Under current implementation of the law, the next opportunity point of enforcement is at the renewal of the passport, which could be several years down the road. The legislation I offer today closes that loophole, and simply instructs the State Department to revoke, in addition to denying, a noncustodial parent's passport once the individual's child support debt exceeds the amount set in law.

Studies show that the receipt of child support is a key factor that keeps a child and single parent family from living in or near poverty. Beyond that financial security that steady child support provides, there is a greater likelihood that the noncustodial parent is personally involved in their child's life. If a parent shows responsibility financially, there is a bigger chance that he or she is involved emotionally. The impact of a noncustodial parent's involvement in his child's life, in many cases, results in better grades and fewer behavioral problems.

In Kansas alone, there are currently 131,000 child support cases open, including those receiving public assistance, and those above that income bracket. Last year, the Kansas Child Support Enforcement program collected $156 million in child support. However, that number represents only 54 percent of all payments owed to children. Unfortunately, that missing 46 percent of child support overdue averages out to

just over $7,000 per child. That is quite a loss for a single-parent's household budget to absorb.

Now, you might ask: What percentage of the population will this help? I would concede that, although this may not impact a high percentage of those children and families receiving child support, the impact on an individual family is very significant. According to my State's limited records on this issue, approximately 50 passport applications and renewals are denied on a yearly basis. That figure does not include those passports that should be revoked. Coupled with the upcoming reduction in allowable debt, the Kansas Child Support Enforcement Program estimates that the number of deadbeat parents affected would increase to 250. The security afforded by the steady stream of child support could be the lone determinant of a family living in poverty or existing on adequate financial ground.

I encourage my colleagues to add their support to this important fix. We must ensure that the tools provided to the States have the teeth necessary to discourage deadbeat parents from running out on their financial responsibilities.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation that helps to prevent children from living in poverty and ensures that noncustodial parents pay child support, instead of fleeing off to hide from their responsibilities. I commend my fellow Kansas colleagues, Congressman Jerry Moran and Congressman Dennis Moore, for introducing similar legislation in the House.

The problem is this: a noncustodial parent could potentially avoid paying their responsible share of child support by leaving the country. State child support enforcement agencies must certify cases to the State Department for passport denial if the child support debt is over $5,000. The $5,000 is slated to be reduced in October 2006 to $2,500 in accordance with Public Law 109-171. The loophole that emerges is for those deadbeat parents who already have a passport. Under current implementation of the law, the next opportunity point of enforcement is at the renewal of the passport, which could be several years down the road. The legislation I offer today closes that loophole, and simply instructs the State Department to revoke, in addition to denying, a noncustodial parent's passport once the individual's child support debt exceeds the amount set in law.

Studies show that the receipt of child support is a key factor that keeps a child and single parent family from living in or near poverty. Beyond that financial security that steady child support provides, there is a greater likelihood that the noncustodial parent is personally involved in their child's life. If a parent shows responsibility financially, there is a bigger chance that he or she is involved emotionally. The impact of a noncustodial parent's involvement in his child's life, in many cases, results in better grades and fewer behavioral problems.

In Kansas alone, there are currently 131,000 child support cases open, including those receiving public assistance, and those above that income bracket. Last year, the Kansas Child Support Enforcement program collected $156 million in child support. However, that number represents only 54 percent of all payments owed to children. Unfortunately, that missing 46 percent of child support overdue averages out to

just over $7,000 per child. That is quite a loss for a single-parent's household budget to absorb.

Now, you might ask: What percentage of the population will this help? I would concede that, although this may not impact a high percentage of those children and families receiving child support, the impact on an individual family is very significant. According to my State's limited records on this issue, approximately 50 passport applications and renewals are denied on a yearly basis. That figure does not include those passports that should be revoked. Coupled with the upcoming reduction in allowable debt, the Kansas Child Support Enforcement Program estimates that the number of deadbeat parents affected would increase to 250. The security afforded by the steady stream of child support could be the lone determinant of a family living in poverty or existing on adequate financial ground.

I encourage my colleagues to add their support to this important fix. We must ensure that the tools provided to the States have the teeth necessary to discourage deadbeat parents from running out on their financial responsibilities.

Mr. President, like many of my colleagues, I rise today in support of S. 1955, the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization Act. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I am proud to have worked on this legislation and to lend my support as a cosponsor.

First and foremost, I thank Chairman Enzi and Senator Ben Nelson, who have worked so hard on this legislation. The chairman and Senator Nelson did what many thought was impossible: they got the health insurers, State insurance commissioners, and the small business community to sit down together and work to find a compromise for small businesses. After over 10 years of deadlock, the Senate is finally considering a solution that will provide real relief to small businesses. This is truly a milestone. It has been said before, I am sure many times, that the House has passed this eight times, and we have yet to find a solution. Now is the time.

Like many rural States, the Kansas economy is built on thousands of small businesses. Whether it is the farm implement store or the local pharmacy, the beauty salon or the downtown coffee shop, these small businesses and their employees are the backbone of our communities. They are what we are all about. But one nagging problem for virtually every small business owner is the high cost of providing health insurance. Most small businesses can't even afford to offer health insurance to their employees, forcing many to go without health coverage.

In Kansas, only about 41 percent--not even 50 percent, not even half--of our small businesses offer any health insurance coverage. This is in stark contrast to the 97 percent of our larger businesses that offer health insurance to their employees. Without such health insurance coverage, employees are vulnerable to huge health care debts of their own, and it is harder for small employers to attract a good worker. I have literally heard from hundreds of Kansas small business owners and entrepreneurs, local Chamber of Commerce members over the years who say they are forced to choose between staying in business or providing the health care they deserve to their hard-working employees.

Take for example Kimberly Smith of Andover, KS. Kimberly has three children, including a 3-year-old with a mild heart condition. She is self-employed. She is a realtor. She is a good realtor. Like many, she does not have access to affordable health insurance. Because of this, Kimberly and her family have been forced to go without health insurance coverage, and now she must pay all of her medical costs out of her pocket.

Denise Breason from Lawrence, KS, is also facing the same crunch to find affordable health care. Even though Denise is a hard-working small business employee, she has been without health insurance for over a year and a half and had to stop taking all of her medications because she could no longer afford them without health insurance.

Denise Hulse and her husband went without health insurance for their family for years. They prayed their children would remain healthy so they would not have to make a visit to the doctor or the emergency room. In the end, her husband was forced to let his small business go and take a low-paying job, just because it came with health insurance. To quote Denise:

It is sometimes very hard just making it in the small

business community, and very few small business owners are

rich enough to be able to afford the high costs of health

insurance for their families.

Another small business owner in Kansas told me he is paying over $2,000 a month each month in premiums alone for health insurance for his family. This is more than his house payment, more than his utility bills and grocery expenses, all combined.

These stories go on and on, not limited to my home State of Kansas. I heard these stories when I had the privilege of serving in the House of Representatives. Eight times we approached this issue. Eight times we passed a bill. Now it is our turn in the Senate, and it is long overdue. I hear these stories from small business owners and employees across the country. Small businesses all share one main concern: finding affordable health care insurance.

This is why I am asking my colleagues today to support and pass the Health Insurance Marketplace Modernization Act. The real question is, Do we take it up? Do we vote for cloture? Or do we let the House pass the bill the ninth time while we sit in the Senate and do nothing for those who cannot afford health insurance? I cannot imagine us doing that at this particular time.

This legislation allows small businesses to pool together through an association and offer health insurance. Everything has to have an acronym in Washington. This one does, too. It is SBHP. I won't venture into what that acronym will be called, but it stands for small business health care plan. It is going to give small businesses an affordable choice for health care.

The legislation is built on the fact that small businesses, unlike large companies such as Microsoft or others, or unions, do not have the power to negotiate affordable prices for health care.

The concept of small business pooling together is not new. I supported legislation when I served in the House. In fact, the association health plan legislation has passed the House numerous times over the years without any action in the Senate. Now we finally have a solution that will provide meaningful relief to small businesses across Kansas and the country. We all know small businesses face many pressures in running the businesses. I believe we must enact commonsense policies to overcome these hurdles. We should allow the local farm implement dealer to pool together with other dealers in Kansas and across the Nation to purchase affordable care.

Kimberly Smith should no longer have to worry about finding affordable health insurance for her children. Denise Breason should not have to stop taking her medications just because she works for a small business and cannot afford her care. Denise Hulse and her husband should not have been forced to let go of their small business, their dream they loved, just to find affordable health coverage. Instead, we need to find these hard-working folks affordable options that allow them to continue to contribute to our small communities, rural and smalltown America. This is why I support the legislation.

As I stand before my colleagues today, I know there have been strong concerns expressed about this and previous association plan proposals. However, the small business health plans that are created under this bill have the necessary protections in place to address these concerns. I would like my colleagues who have concerns to please pay attention.

The small business health plans will be regulated by the States, not the Federal Government. The small business plans will have to play by the same set of rules as other small group health plans. They must purchase their insurance through the regular insurance market. They cannot self-insure. Finally, the SBHPs may offer coverage that varies from State benefit mandates, but they must also offer an alternative plan that provides comprehensive coverage. This gives the consumer a choice in choosing a health plan that best fits their needs, and that is the key.

I have heard concerns from organizations and individuals who fear this bill will take away their coverage for cancer screenings, mental health benefits, or any other mandates required by State law. However, I stress that this is simply not true. Small business, under this bill, will have access to a more comprehensive plan which will cover screenings, mental health services, or numerous other benefits. However, it is up to the small businesses to decide whether such a comprehensive plan is right for them.

The purpose of this language is to give small businesses the option of choosing comprehensive benefits but not requiring them to buy such a rich package or a package they cannot afford. Simply put, this legislation trusts small businesses to choose a health care plan that best fits their needs and puts these small businesses, not health insurers or the Government, in the driver's seat when choosing their health care coverage. If a small employer wants to choose a more affordable plan for himself, his family, and his employees, he should have that option. Under this legislation, he has that option. However, he should not be forced by law to buy benefits that may be beyond what he can afford or beyond what he and his employees really need.

I want to put the problem of mandating coverage in perspective. While small employers want to provide affordable health insurance for their employees, expensive and burdensome benefit mandates make doing so very difficult. Small firms and self-employed people have almost no leverage with insurance companies. In addition, they have to deal with an enormous array of State-level health insurance regulations. I don't think you read them; I think you weigh them. All of the benefit mandates, all of these regulations add to the cost and the complexity of the coverage.

In contrast, however, big businesses generally don't have to deal with burdensome regulations. Federal law lets large companies, such as Microsoft and GM, and unions bypass expensive State benefit mandates to provide affordable comprehensive coverage for their workers. I ask my colleagues, why shouldn't small businesses be able to enjoy these same opportunities?

Today, there are more than 1,800 State mandates, making it nearly impossible for associations to offer uniform and affordable benefit packages on a regional or national basis. Taken together, these benefit mandates create a confusing web, an unfunded mandate that prices many Americans out of the health insurance market. The Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office and others have found that State-imposed benefit mandates raise the cost of health insurance anywhere from 5 to 22 percent. In addition, CBO estimates that every 1- percent increase in insurance costs results in 200,000 to 300,000 more uninsured Americans. In reality, benefit mandates represent an unfunded mandate on employers because insurance companies simply pass the cost of each mandate along. When the cost goes up, the coverage goes down. You have more uninsured.

The legislation we are debating today simply provides an opportunity for a small business health plan to relax these burdensome mandates to offer affordable health insurance to small businesses on a regional or national basis, just like the big businesses and unions currently do. We should not be forcing small businesses to choose between staying in business or offering health insurance to their employees. Boy, that is a Hobson's choice. Instead, we need to give them more affordable health insurance choices and be willing to trust them to choose the option that makes the most sense for themselves, their families, their employees, and the future of their businesses.

I know this bill is not perfect. Seldom do we or the other body pass a bill that is perfect. I have long said that we usually achieve the best possible bill, but sometimes must settle for the best bill possible.

I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed with this legislation. However, I express to my colleagues that I think this bill is the best opportunity we have for easing the burden on our small businesses and allowing them to finally offer affordable health care insurance to their employees. I am proud to support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same and vote for cloture. Eight times in the House, zero in the Senate. That should not be a moment of pride for this body. Let us vote for cloture and let us support this bill.

I yield back my time.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I agree with the Senator from Oregon that this is a very important report. We were, as everyone knows, viciously attacked on September 11 and in the aftermath of those attacks we wanted answers. Many of those answers have been found during the last 4 years and some of those answers are contained in the report. But the families of the victims of September 11 have a right to these answers and the American people have a right to these answers.

At the same time, I tell my colleague, we need to be sensitive to the fact that there is properly classified national security information that is included in this report, and this information needs to be protected.

While the Senator is correct that the CIA has not been adequately responsible to him or to me, I suggest that rather than release the report immediately in unredacted form, we instead sit down with the inspector general and work to redact any information that needs to remain classified in the interest of national security.

So I object to the Senator's request and suggest instead that we work with the inspector general to review this report and determine what can be appropriately released to the public.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his willingness to cooperate on this issue. It is an important one, and I look forward to working with him on it. This certainly sounds reasonable to me. So I think he is absolutely correct in his suggestion. I will be happy to work with him.

Mr. President, I tell my friend from Illinois that I will be very brief.

I understand all of the discussion has been about cloture. It has been about the process of the Senate. It has been about denying Members--in this particular case, on our side--the ability to offer amendments. Let me say that we are about to go on a 2-week recess without doing anything about trying to secure our borders. We are doing some things, but we are not doing the things we need to do. There are 32,200 reasons why we should move and why we should reach accommodation, if we possibly can, to pass a good immigration reform bill. That is 32,200 people who will be coming across our borders during the 2 weeks we will be in recess. And 2,300 are coming across per day as of today. There have been about 150 come across our borders illegally while we have been speaking.

As a matter of fact, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I know how this affects our national security. I know all the talk has been about procedure and germaneness and allowing amendments. But let me talk a minute about national security.

Mr. President, 1.2 million illegal aliens were apprehended as they came across our borders last year. Two or three times that amount were not apprehended. If you lived in Tucson, the number was about 439,000 who were apprehended. Two or three times that amount were not apprehended. If you lived in Yuma, in California, that number was about 140,000 approximately, and in McAllen, TX, there were 135,000 in just 1 year.

Of the 1.2 million who were apprehended who came across illegally--I am not talking about the ones who came across and were not apprehended--165,000 were persons coming from countries other than Mexico. Where did they come from? We are talking about the Middle East. We are talking about Southeast Asia. We are talking about Eastern Europe. We know because we have apprehended people from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. We have actually apprehended people from Iran, 10 of them, and Somalia and Venezuela.

I want to say something about these folks. Their goals may be to find a job and be part of the American dream, but they may not be as well. And truthfully, I think that is only a snapshot of the reality.

I think the intelligence community can tell you who we caught, but they can't tell you who we haven't caught. So at 2,300 people coming across the border who are illegal every day--every day that we argue or that we don't argue it, that basically we don't have an opportunity to consider the amendments and move this bill forward, national security is being threatened.

I want Members to consider that and see if we can't work toward some solution that will allow a series of amendments to be considered and move on with this bill. Otherwise, in the next 2 weeks, I have to tell my colleagues, the people of Kansas are going to look at me or, for that matter, every Senator and say: What on Earth are you doing going on recess for 2 weeks when you have 32,200 more people coming in, most of whom are not vetted and some could be injurious to the national security of the United States?

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to honor the great life and many artistic contributions of Kansas native Gordon Parks who died Tuesday at the age of 93.

Through his poetry, books, music and photography, Mr. Parks showed America a truth about its society and challenged all of us to make the country a better place.

Born in Fort Scott, KS, in 1912, Mr. Parks's family faced both poverty and discrimination. Yet in spite of these challenges--and inspired by these challenges--Mr. Parks rose to the heights of success through his largely self-taught artistic ability. He found his life experiences helped shape his art as he chronicled the African-American experience.

In 1937, Mr. Parks bought his first camera. By 1948, he was hired at Life Magazine. There, he earned his reputation as a humanitarian photojournalist capturing images of the civil rights movement and of the poverty in America and abroad. Through his photographs he reminded Americans of the harsh realities present in our culture.

In 1968, he directed the movie version of his childhood memoir, ``The Learning Tree.'' His direction of ``The Learning Tree'' also marked the first time an African American directed a major Hollywood production. He won an Emmy for his documentary ``Diary of a Harlem Family,'' and in 1971 directed the critically acclaimed movie ``Shaft.'' He is also known for composing the musical score for ``Martin,'' a ballet documenting the life of civil rights pioneer Martin Luther King, Jr. In 1970, he helped found Essence magazine.

Kansas is forever grateful for his talents. In 1986, he was named Kansan of the Year. In 1999, Kansas City opened the Gordon Parks Elementary School. And most recently, in February, the University of Kansas's William Allen White Foundation honored Mr. Parks with its National Citation for journalistic merit.

Mr. Parks showed unrelenting spirit in his work. His civil rights contributions, as told through his art will go unmatched. Today, we proudly honor a remarkable artist and pioneer for all he did for Kansas and the Nation.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield?

I wanted to explain this tie that the Senator from Mississippi has maligned. I don't know if I could seek a parliamentary ruling. Is that a violation of rule XIX, degrading the tie of a Senator?

This was a tie, if the Senator will continue to yield, that was given to me by my wife.

It was given to me by my wife, it did cost under $50, and it is the color of the ever-optimistic and fighting Wild Cats of the Kansas State University, and I thought it was a pretty nice tie to go with this dark suit. Should I change that under the banner of the bill?

I would appreciate that, but it didn't cause me much of a problem at all.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize the life work of Mr. Tom Campbell as he retires from Dow Agrosciences after more than 40 years of dedicated service. Tom will leave a legacy of leadership and a belief in the unlimited potential of American agriculture.

Mr. Campbell joined the Dow Chemical Company agriculture division in 1965 as a field representative servicing corn and soybean producers in Illinois and Missouri. From there, he transferred to Louisiana to work with producers of sugar cane, rice, soybeans, sweet potatoes, cotton, strawberries, timber, and livestock. He moved to Hawaii in 1973 as manager for the company's Hawaii operations where he worked with sugar cane, pineapple, and fresh fruit producers as well as customers of product groups Dow served. In 1975, Mr. Campbell was moved to Midland, MI, to manage the market introduction of a new insecticide into the cotton and corn markets in North America. Transferring to Dallas, TX, he then managed product sales for Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado. He then returned to Michigan to manage the marketing of agricultural products serving the rangeland and industrial vegetation markets of North America.

In 1989, he became the Federal Government Affairs manager, based in Washington, DC. In this capacity, Mr. Campbell has been responsible for Federal legislative activities, interfacing with governmental agencies on regulatory matters, continued involvement and cooperation with domestic trade associations, and support to business development in other countries. Mr. Campbell held this position until his retirement on December 31, 2005.

On the home front, Tom and his wife Lynda have raised two sons, been members of the St. John's Episcopal Church of McLean, VA, and are active in numerous community groups and boards, from the Langley High School Boosters Club to their local homeowners association.

In this business, there are people who tell you what you want to hear and people who tell you what you need to hear. Tom Campbell has always been someone who tells me and other Members of Congress what we need to hear, and I thank him for that.

The reason that I mention all these things, the reason that Mr. Campbell has had such a long and rich career, of course can be traced back to his roots on a wheat and cattle farm in Mitchell County, KS, and the bachelor's degree in animal science he earned at Kansas State University. Kansans join me in celebrating the many accomplishments of Tom Campbell.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., for Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. I am honored to have the opportunity to again participate in a nomination for the Supreme Court. The casting of our votes from our Senate desks, as set forth by Senate tradition, is indicative of the meaningfulness and the importance of the confirmation vote for a judicial nomination to the Supreme Court. As before, I am humbled and honored to represent my fellow Kansans in this manner.

Over the course of the hearings, the Nation has had an opportunity to learn more about Judge Alito's character, professional experience, and approach to the law. It is clear that Judge Alito's educational background is quite impressive. The son of public school teachers, Judge Alito grew up in a family in which the importance of education and hard work were firmly rooted. His father, who arrived in the United States as an infant, knew firsthand the struggles of growing up in poverty. His ability to pull himself up by his bootstraps and emphasizing education as the window to a better life laid a firm foundation for his family.

It is no surprise that Judge Alito's exceptional educational background boasts of two formidable Ivy League universities--a notable accomplishment resulting from hard work and a keen mind. However, during his testimony, his statements demonstrated that he fully recognized what an opportunity it was to attend these renowned universities and took full advantage. He said:

It was a time of turmoil at colleges and universities. And

I saw some very smart people and very privileged people

behaving irresponsibly. And I couldn't help making a contrast

between some of the worst of what I saw on the campus and the

good sense and the decency of the people back in my own

community.

It is this type of commonsense that resonates with my Kansas constituents.

One only needs to look at Judge Alito's resume to see his extensive experience in both prosecuting and applying the law. His distinguished career includes almost 15 years as a Federal prosecutor within the Department of Justice, 3 years as the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, and most recently, 15 years as a Federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Alito is well versed in the law. While some have alleged that his decisions are biased and that he is an ideologue with a political agenda, his record, his testimony, and the testimony of his colleagues and others who have worked with him dispel those allegations. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Alito stated:

The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable

result for the client in the particular case at hand, but a

judge can't think that way. A judge can't have any agenda. A

judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular

case. And a judge certainly doesn't have a client. The

judge's only obligation--and it's a solemn obligation is to

the rule of law, and what that means is that in every single

case, the judge has to do what the law requires.

His fellow colleagues on the U.S. Court of Appeals affirm his openmindedness, impartiality, and decisions based on the facts and the law. Notably, the American Bar Association--long viewed as the gold standard among my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--reviewed Judge Alito's judicial background and gave him their highest rating of ``Well Qualified.''

In a time of judicial encroachment in which courts are increasingly imposing their political will on the Nation, Judge Alito's judicial record demonstrates his efforts to stem that tide. In his testimony he refers to the role of the judiciary as very important, but limited by the authorities set forth in the Constitution. The judicial branch's responsibility lies in interpretation and application of the law and not enacting policy judgements. In other words, he is guided by the rule of law set forth by the Constitution. Others describe Judge Alito's judicial philosophy as a philosophy of restraint and in accordance with the rule of law. Other witnesses from a broad range of ideologies who know Judge Alito confirm that he is measured and judicial in his decisions.

In closing, I would like to comment on the increasing political nature in which judicial nominees are subjected to during the nominations process. During my remarks on the nomination of now Chief Justice John Roberts, I highlighted the elevated level of partisanship in the Senate. This trend of partisan bickering further threatens the comity and respect that has long been the standard for conducting Senate business. The tenor and manner of questioning, or grilling as referred to in the news headlines, of Judge Alito frays the spirit of our constitutional fabric under which we operate. I call on my colleagues to work together to raise the level of discourse in these hallowed Halls of Congress.

Mr. President, on rollcall vote 354, I voted ``yea.'' It was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome.

Mr. President, I rise today to support the conference report for the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. That is a long title. We are talking about the PATRIOT Act.

I am pleased to report to my colleagues and to the President that the House just passed the PATRIOT Act with a very strong bipartisan vote. We need to do the same. I thank Chairman Specter for his hard work in getting this important legislation to the conference.

This conference report is one of the most important that we will pass this year. We must do it prior to leaving because it contains a number of provisions that are absolutely vital to our national security. I say that from my perspective as chairman of the Senate Committee on Intelligence.

Like the original PATRIOT Act, this legislation does contain a number of compromises that are not to my liking. But it is often said that the mark of a good compromise is that it leaves both sides unhappy. We have a great number, apparently, who are unhappy about this bill. I think we can safely say that no one is entirely happy with all of the provisions in the legislation. Simply put, this is not the best possible bill but the best bill possible under difficult circumstances. Again, it is absolutely needed on behalf of our national security.

My primary concern as a conferee was to ensure that the intelligence community retains its ability to effectively use the important tools that are provided by the PATRIOT Act, and I think we have accomplished that goal.

This act reauthorizes all of the PATRIOT Act provisions that are scheduled to sunset at the end of this year. It does, however, impose a 4-year sunset on the use of FISA court orders for business records and roving electronic surveillance and an additional sunset on the FISA-- what is called the lone wolf authority.

Personally, I am opposed to these extended PATRIOT Act sunsets. I know Congress has conducted extensive oversight of these provisions. I know the Intelligence Committee and other committees have, and we have yet to find any evidence--I know this is not the perception we read about in the newspapers or that we hear on the electronic media, but we have yet to find any evidence of abuse or overreaching with respect to these or any other provisions of the PATRIOT Act.

Moreover, this very legislation makes modifications to address the perceived problems with the FISA business records and roving wiretap provisions. I ask this simple question: If we fixed these provisions, why is there need for additional sunsets? It seems to me that Congress always retains the ability to amend the law that is enacted. We have a duty to conduct vigorous oversight with the use of these provisions. The Judiciary and Intelligence Committees certainly do that. We don't need and should not use sunsets to compel oversight of these important issues. That ought to be our reasonable obligation, and we do meet those obligations.

Having said that, I want to highlight the modifications made to two investigative tools that have been widely mischaracterized, in my view, by critics and some in the media--FISA business record court orders and national security letters.

With regard to the FISA business record court orders, one of the most contentious issues during this conference was whether a relevance-plus standard should be added to the FISA business record provisions. Critics argued this tool could be used for fishing expeditions. Our oversight did reveal that this was not the case, but we agreed that relevance was the proper standard for obtaining a business record court order.

Some are not satisfied with this approach and demand that we include not only a relevance standard but a requirement to specify facts that would tie the requested records to a foreign power or to an agent of a foreign power, a so-called relevance-plus standard. The problem with this is very easy to understand. It is a standard not used on any other subpoena, certainly not requiring the prior approval by a judge like these FISA orders. The standard would also leave gaps in the FBI's ability to use what is in reality a nonintrusive investigative tool. Under relevance-plus, by then the FBI would have lost the use of section 215 in important circumstances.

Ultimately, the conferees reached a compromise to address the misperceptions about section 215. Under the conference report, the standard remains relevance to an authorized investigation. Let me say that again. The standard remains simple relevance to an authorized investigation. There is no increased burden of proof. The standard remains the same as every

other subpoena that Congress has ever enacted.

If the FBI seeks records that are relevant to any authorized, full investigation or a preliminary investigation, it should be able to obtain those records. Under this conference report, it still can. But to address the allegations that the scope of lawful national security investigations is too broad, the conferees included language that does provide for a presumption of relevance if the FBI does provide a statement of facts explaining the link between the requested records and one of three statutory categories. Thus, the compromise language encourages the FBI to seek the protection of presumptive relevance by including a link to one of the three statutory categories in its application, but it also maintains the use of investigative technique in those limited circumstances that fall outside the three categories.

The conferees also placed additional restrictions on section 215 orders. Under the conference agreement, the records obtained with a FISA business record court order must be screened through minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General. These procedures are not required for any other subpoena, grand jury, court order, administrative, or otherwise. In my opinion, minimization procedures should not be required for this low-level investigative activity, especially in light of the requirement for prior judicial approval of an order.

These procedures unfortunately were part of the price we paid to get this legislation passed--a price that I did reluctantly accept to preserve this investigative tool. I urged the Attorney General when this bill was passed to adopt flexible minimization procedures.

These procedures must maintain the ability of the intelligence community to analyze the important foreign intelligence information now obtained by FISA business record orders. That information must be made available over an extended period of time so that the intelligence community will not lose its ability to connect the so-called dots. One current phone number that would be connected to one 2-year-old credit card record that would be connected to one 10-year-old hotel receipt might be the information necessary to stop an attack. We should never forget that, especially in the age in which we live.

Severe retention or any rules of dissemination for these third-party business records will limit the FBI's ability to prevent attacks, and that is the standard we have demanded post-9/11. I can assure you that the Intelligence Committee will examine these procedures with great interest once they are issued.

Next, with regard to national security letters--and the acronym for that is NSL--this conference report makes three important modifications.

First, it will provide for express enforcement of national security letters by creating criminal penalties for noncompliance with the request.

Second, this bill clarifies the process by which the recipients of a national security letter may seek judicial review of requests that are either unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful.

Third, this legislation does replace the current blanket nondisclosure rule with a process that requires a special certification by a high-level official to invoke the protection of the nondisclosure provision. If the official is sufficiently high level, the certification that the disclosure would endanger national security or interfere with foreign relations will not be overturned by a court without a showing of bad faith.

Some have questioned the need for nondisclosure provisions on these national security letters or complained that they can be invoked or defended much too easily. I have an opposite concern. I am concerned that the disclosure of the fact that the FBI has sought business records might hinder the investigation of a terrorist network or an espionage ring. Nondisclosure requirements on these national security letters are absolutely necessary for the protection of our national security. We must all keep in mind that these so-called NSLs are issued in the context of classified investigations of terrorists and spies.

Make no mistake, the national security letter that requests information in support of a classified investigation should also be classified. But because many phone companies, Internet service providers, financial institutions, or credit card companies don't have the facilities to handle classified information, these national security letters are submitted in unclassified form. The FBI relies on the nondisclosure provisions in the NSL statute to prevent the disclosure of classified investigations of terrorists and spies. Without the protection of a nondisclosure provision, the FBI would have to choose between not using a national security letter or taking the risk that its investigation will be disclosed to the spy or terrorist under investigation. We can't afford either option.

If a terrorist becomes aware of an FBI investigation that was directed at him based on the fact that a national security letter has been issued, he obviously can take actions to protect other members of his cell, ensure that the terrorist network does proceed with other planned attacks, or, in the worst-case scenario, speed up the time line of a planned attack.

We also cannot afford for the FBI to walk away from valuable intelligence information from fear the disclosure of a national security letter might undermine an ongoing investigation. These NSLs do provide access to limited categories of third-party business records that form the building blocks of national security investigations. They allow the FBI to identify the activities of a terrorist or spy and others who associate with them.

The conference report maintains the protections of the NSL nondisclosure provision. It does modify the nondisclosure provision so it is no longer automatic; it must be invoked. It provides the recipients with the avenue to challenge the nondisclosure not once, but every single year. Subsequent challenges also require the Government to reexamine the need for secrecy.

With these modifications, it seems to me the conference report strikes the balance needed on this issue. First, we protect the very legitimate rights of the recipients and ensure the sensitive investigations of terrorist and spies certainly are not compromised.

So as my colleagues can see, the protections that are provided in the conference report for privacy and civil liberties are extensive. In fact, I think the modifications to the FISA business record orders and the national security letters should address all concerns raised about these tools. I hope my colleagues who have concerns about this know what is in this bill as opposed to what the perception is.

The conferees did not stop there. In addition to the modifications I have mentioned, the conference report includes the provisions enhancing existing oversight of these tools. For example, the bill requires the Department of Justice Inspector General to conduct extensive audits of both the use by the FBI of the national security letters and FISA business record orders. The bill also expands public reporting on these investigative tools.

I cannot help but note at this point that many of the protections for privacy and civil liberties incorporated in this bill were derived from the protections that the intelligence committee would have applied to the national security administrative subpoena that we reported in June in our bill. This conference report has essentially taken all of the protections that were contained in the national security administrative subpoena provision, but it has failed to provide the FBI with the same ability to access records that now exist in 335 other contexts.

Far too often we legislate to the possible rogue FBI agent, one-tenth of 1 percent who might go beyond the law. When we take this step, we deprive the other 99.9 percent of FBI agents of a lawful investigative tool, and then if something is missed or we have an attack, why, of course, we blame the FBI. Our oversight reveals no abuses. Yet we deprive our national security investigators of these constitutional tools.

I challenge opponents of national security administrative subpoenas to provide one good reason the FBI should not have the authority. I have listened to their arguments. I still have not heard one good reason. Four years removed from 9/11, it is far too easy to put restrictions on the intelligence community that are not necessary or appropriate. It seems to me we must

continue to ensure that we provide lawful access to data with appropriate precautions. We must tear down the remaining walls that prevent access to lawfully collected intelligence information. One of the top priority goals of the intelligence committee is information access. That is the one thing that seems to me that we must reach out and accomplish, and obviously passing this act and not rebuilding walls to make this problem worse is a top goal.

When we needlessly restrict intelligence investigations, we increase the possibility that the next attack will succeed. I will oppose such restrictions and will continue to fight for new authorities for the intelligence community. I believe the national security administrative subpoena is an appropriate tool that would increase our security without sacrificing our civil liberties. I will continue to ask a simple question: Why are we withholding administrative subpoenas from those who investigate spies and terrorists when they are being used every day by those who investigate health care fraud, drug violations, and other similar matters.

As I have asked many times before, why can the Attorney General use an administrative subpoena to stop a dirty doctor or a dirty drug dealer but not a dirty bomber? That does not make sense. This is a tool that the President, the Attorney General, and the Director of the FBI have all asked Congress to provide in regard to our national security investigators. Once again, Congress has denied them.

Before concluding, I want to highlight one more important intelligence-related provision in this bill: section 506. That is the section that will establish a national security division within the Department of Justice that is consistent with the recommendations of the executive WMD Commission. The national security division will be headed by the Assistant Attorney General for National Security who will be appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

This process, in regard to confirmation, will be subject to the shared jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee and our Intelligence Committee.

The provision also requires the Attorney General to consult with the Director of National Intelligence before recommending a nominee to the President. I believe the creation of the national security division will help prevent the rebuilding of these walls that I keep talking about that once hindered access to foreign intelligence information. This new national security division will help ensure that law enforcement and intelligence are indistinguishable partners in the protection of our national security.

Finally, I strongly oppose passing a short-term continuing resolution, as some have suggested, to reauthorize existing authorities. The conferees have already worked extremely hard to reauthorize the existing authorities. I do not believe that any additional time or negotiations will close the gap between the opponents and the supporters in regard to this act.

In fact, on the one issue that prevented some conferees from across the aisle from signing onto the conference report, the so-called bad- faith certification provision, this conference report is actually more protective of national security letter recipients than the version previously passed by the Senate.

I hope the folks who are upset about this know that is in this bill and that this is actually more protective. As convinced as I am that an additional 3 months will not close the gap between opponents and supporters, for those who want a continuing resolution, I am equally convinced that further negotiations will only result in additional concessions that will make the PATRIOT Act tools virtually useless.

I remind my colleagues again that 4 years of oversight of the use of the authorities that are provided by the PATRIOT Act have not revealed one single substantiated--let me emphasize that, substantiated-- allegation of abuse. Yet despite this fact the conference report before us today contains numerous additional checks on the use of the PATRIOT Act tools.

The arguments for these additional checks and restrictions are not based on any factual allegations of abuse but, rather, on unsubstantiated allegations, hypotheticals, innuendo, and perception. I understand the concern, but facts are stubborn things, and there has been no abuse. Nonetheless, this conference report will place more burdens on national security investigators using these constitutional tools to defeat terrorists and spies. Further compromise will only serve to negotiate away these very crucial tools. I urge my colleagues to base their position on this important legislation on facts. Facts are stubborn things, as I said before: The fact that terrorists continue to seek to kill Americans, the fact that they continue to plot attacks against us, the fact that they are determined to continue their war against us, the fact that this conference report does provide significant increased protections for privacy and civil liberties, and the fact that our national security investigators have not abused authorities that are provided under the original act.

We have had plenty of time to oversee the use of authorities that are provided by the PATRIOT Act and plenty of time to separate fact from fiction or the wheat from the chaff.

I am deeply committed to the men and women of the intelligence community. The USA PATRIOT Act has provided them with important tools to keep us safe. We should continue to do that. I will vote for cloture if necessary--I hope it is not necessary--and in favor of this conference report. I, again, am very glad that the House has passed the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act by a large bipartisan vote because this allows the intelligence community to retain these important PATRIOT Act tools and keep America safe. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, at this time, under the regular order and a unanimous consent request, the distinguished Senator from Ohio was to be recognized. He has acquiesced in my behalf that I may be recognized for 15 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business for 15 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Ohio, and that the Senator from Colorado will be recognized after the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. President, today I am submitting a Senate Resolution commending the contributions and record of a most unique and deserving man, the retiring football coach of Kansas State University Wildcats, Bill Snyder.

I suppose some, especially non sports fans, might raise an eyebrow or question a Senate Resolution congratulating a football coach, no matter how successful in wins and losses--after all, as some have said, ``it's only a game.'' But in the case of Coach Bill Snyder his contributions transcend his outstanding record of wins and losses; they represent being a mentor and teacher of leadership and values to young men during a time when collegiate athletics and sports in general face challenge after challenge involving unbecoming conduct and worse. Coach Snyder's contribution--football is a game of course but in the case of Bill Snyder one of his greatest contributions has been to enable young men to win in the game of life by being responsible citizens.

And, this unique ability on the athletic field became a catalyst for alumni interest and a renewal of financial support throughout the university enabling all students in all academic fields to benefit.

Much has been said in Kansas and throughout the football sports world about the amazing turnaround Coach Snyder achieved at K-State; directing and orchestrating a football program success story that is now considered by many to be the greatest in the history of collegiate athletics.

The record in the resolution I have introduced speaks for itself; three time national coach of the year, 11 post season bowl games, only the second program in college football history to win 11 games, 6 times in a 7-year time span, 42 NFL draft picks, 45 All America selections, and 68 first team all conference players. That is quite a record.

The coaches that first started their careers at K-State under Coach Snyder now read like a ``Who's Who'' in college football.

But great as those and the rest of the records are, that does not really tell the Bill Snyder story. Simply put, this is a man who restored and instilled a new sense of pride in a university and throughout our State. This is a man and his family who have given of themselves and contributed countless hours and resources to charitable causes throughout Kansas.

With all of his successes and attributes, this is a man who is humble, self effacing, soft spoken, and who knows you can get a lot more done if you don't care who gets the credit.

In many ways, Bill Snyder is a private man who has God given ability to inspire others in the public arena. He has taught his players that in the games of football and life, success is never final, failure is never fatal and that in the end its courage that counts. By his example, he showed them the attributes of honesty, character and reputation are not old fashioned. On the playing field and in life he instilled the truism that if you don't drop the ball you won't have to complain about the way the ball bounces. The same is true regarding his individual player marching orders, never say bad things about your opponent win or lose, take care of your self, conduct yourself in your best interests and that of your university and teammates. A coach on the field and a coach in life.

I want to get back and emphasize this restoring pride achievement on a more personal basis. I know my example is replete with similar experiences with the thousands of families who make up what is now referred to in the sports pages as the ``Wildcat Nation.''

My Dad was a proud graduate of Kansas State as I was and my son attended Kansas State--three generations. Sports fans and devoted K- State alumni all, we went through what many loyal K-Stater's call the decades of Death Valley Days, seasons of defeat, seasons of eternal optimism always tempered, if not shattered by the reality of yet another loss. There were some average seasons, a few good seasons, but ``depths of despair'' would not be an understatement for many of the faithful who endured and endured and endured. And, the defeats somehow became interwoven with the fabric of our alma mater and apologies for psychological exaggeration but even into the psyche of being a K-State graduate and our self worth.

And then came President Jon Wefald and then came Bill Snyder and both men grabbed K-State by the collar and said: Enough, we're going to win both academically and on the athletic field. And, wonder of wonders, they did just that.

Sports writers have called it a miracle. To many diehard K-State fans that was not an understatement. Winning season followed winning season and generations of alumni witnessed this success story took it to heart, loved it and lived it. It has been a grand experience. When K- State goes to a bowl game, 25,000 to 30,000 diehard fans are in attendance, win or lose.

Bill Snyder and his wife Sharon and their family gave K-State their all and Coach Snyder has given us all pride, self esteem, and confidence. It has been one heck of a trail ride for me and my family as I know it has been for countless others.

I just don't know of anyone in their chosen profession who has made more of a difference in so many people's lives than Coach Snyder. Simply put, Bill Snyder has been a class act and then some and collegiate sports, Kansas State University, the State of Kansas and his players and fans have been the beneficiaries.

Thanks Coach. ``Every Man A Wildcat!''

Mr. President, I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for crafting this comprehensive pension reform measure to strengthen the defined benefit pension system and ensure the solvency of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

One provision that I am pleased we were able to find bipartisan agreement on and include in S. 1783 is language that recognizes the special nature of multiple-employer defined benefit plans. These multiple-employer plans are sponsored by rural electric, rural telephone, and agriculture-related cooperatives. Nationwide, more than 1,700 cooperatives participate in a multiple-employer plan, providing benefits for over 109,000 workers and retirees. In

Kansas, more than 160 cooperatives will benefit from the multiple- employer provisions in this bill.

These cooperatives are not-for-profit, and provide at-cost services to their consumer owners. Multiple-employer defined benefit plans allow cooperatives to pool experience and expenses by maintaining a single plan as opposed to single-employer defined benefit plans that cover just one company's employees.

For companies that sponsor a single-employer plan, if that company goes out of business, the pension plan terminates, and if underfunded, creates risk to the PBGC. Multiple-employer cooperative plans are different because the pension plan continues to operate even if some cooperatives go out of business. Most importantly, no liabilities shift to the PBGC. These cooperative plans are ongoing plans that can outlive many of their participating employers, and are treated as such under this bill.

The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, and the Finance Committee, both recognized the special nature of multiple-employer plans, and their lack of risk to the PBGC, in their respective pension bills. During consideration of the HELP Committee's pension bill, the Defined Benefit Security Act, an amendment I offered to clarify the treatment of multiple-employer cooperatives was approved by unanimous consent. The Finance Committee adopted a different approach to recognize the unique nature of multiple-employer plans.

As the committees worked to bring a bill to the Senate floor, I, along with several of my colleagues, shared our concerns about the need to include multiple-employer cooperative language in a final bill in a letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the HELP and Finance Committees.

While different from the provisions of both the HELP and Finance Committee bills, the multiple-employer provisions in S. 1783 achieve their goal. S. 1783 provides a 10-year delayed effective date for these rural cooperative plans, continues to exempt these plans from the bill's at-risk rules, and provides special funding and premium rules during this 10-year period. With regard to funding, these plans will use the four year weighted average of the third segment rate of the corporate bond yield curve created in this bill. For purposes of the premium rules, these plans will use a spot version of the third segment rate.

Mr. President, I urge the inclusion of the multiple-employer rural cooperative provisions contained in S. 1783 when a final pension reform bill is sent to the President for his signature. These provisions have bipartisan support, recognize the special nature of rural cooperatives, and provide an important benefit for over 109,000 employees and retirees across the country.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.