Floor Statements

Mr. President, security and liberty are both essential in our free society. Benjamin Franklin wrote: ``Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' I have been mindful of this since the devastating attacks of September 11, and each time we have considered the USA PATRIOT Act. The American people of today and those of tomorrow--our children and grandchildren--depend on us to do our best to ensure both security and the preservation of our essential liberties.

After September 11, the Government's power to gather information about those suspected of, or connected to, potential terrorists increased. Because such surveillance may, sometimes by mistake, sweep in U.S. citizens, we must vigilantly monitor these laws to ensure that they are implemented appropriately. This calls for public, judicial and congressional oversight to make sure we maintain the proper respect for security and liberty.

After September 11, I introduced the USA PATRIOT Act, Patriot Act, to give the Government the tools needed to defend this country and aggressively pursue those who would do us harm. Even in those dark days, I insisted on oversight. Working with the then House Majority Leader, Republican Dick Armey, we included sunsets for some of the provisions of the bill that had the greatest potential to directly affect Americans.

We debated the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for several months in 2005 and 2006. I again fought to protect the civil liberties and constitutional rights of Americans. Unfortunately, after a series of short extensions, the reauthorization of 2006 lacked sufficient constitutional protections over the vast authorities it granted to the Government. I had worked to secure increased oversight and to include new sunsets in the bill.

With those sunsets expiring on December 31, 2009, we must once again consider the Patriot Act. Three provisions of the Patriot Act are slated to expire at the end of this year, including the authorization for roving wiretaps, the ``lone wolf'' measure, and orders for tangible things, commonly referred to as the ``library'' provision.

In March, I sent Attorney General Holder a letter requesting the administration's views on these expiring provisions. I reiterated that request at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing in June. I have recently received a letter from the Attorney General urging us to extend the expiring authorities. I appreciate the President and the Attorney General's emphasis on accountability and checks and balances, and their willingness to consider additional ideas.

Today I am introducing a bill with Senators Cardin and Kaufman that does just that. It will extend the authorization of the three expiring provisions. The bill also updates checks and balances by increasing judicial review of the use of Government powers that capture information on U.S. citizens, and augments congressional oversight. We propose increasing Government accountability through more transparent public reporting of the use of surveillance, and by requiring audits of how these vast authorities have been used since they were last reauthorized. In addition, we propose that, given their extensive use abuse and intrusiveness, we include a sunset for National Security Letters, NSLs. I introduced a bill in 2006, after the most recent Patriot Act reauthorization, to impose a sunset on NSLs. This sunset provision, combined with a comprehensive audit by the Inspector General, will help to hold the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, accountable in its use of this authority.

In developing this bill, I worked closely with Senators Feingold and Durbin to protect the rights and privacy of Americans, and to expand oversight. Senators Feingold and Durbin have worked tirelessly over the years to protect the civil liberties of Americans, from the first debate over the Patriot Act in 2001, to the reauthorization in 2006, to the FISA Amendments Act enacted last year. I am pleased that Senators Cardin, Kaufman and I have adopted some of the concepts they proposed in the SAFE Act of 2005, and that were included in the broader Patriot Act reauthorization bill they introduced last week, the JUSTICE Act.

I have long been concerned over the issuance and oversight of NSLs. National Security Letters are, in effect, a form of administrative subpoena. They do not require approval by a court, grand jury, or prosecutor. They are issued in secret, with recipients silenced, under penalty of law. Yet NSLs allow the Government to collect sensitive information, such as personal financial records. As Congress expanded the NSL authority in recent years, I raised concerns about how the FBI handles the information it collects on Americans. I noted that, with no real limits imposed by Congress, the FBI could store this information electronically and use it for large-scale, data-mining operations. We now know that the NSL authority was significantly misused. In 2008 the Department of Justice Inspector General issued a report on the FBI's use of NSLs revealing serious over-collection of information and abuse of the NSL authority.

We should reconsider the breadth of the NSL authority. This bill would also impose more judicial oversight and higher standards on the issuance of NSLs. It would require the FBI to include a statement of facts articulating why the information it is seeking is relevant to an authorized investigation.

The bill also addresses the constitutional deficiency recently identified by the Second Circuit Court of appeals in Doe v. Musasey. The Second Circuit found that the nondisclosure, or ``gag orders,'' issued under NSLs are a constitutional infringement. I have long maintained that position. The bill establishes a procedure whereby the recipient of an NSL has 21 days to notify the Government that it wishes to challenge the nondisclosure requirement. The Government then has 21 additional days to apply for a court order to compel compliance with the nondisclosure requirement. This scheme corrects the constitutional defects found by the Second Circuit. The bill would shift the burden of defending the need for a gag order to the Government. This bill also eliminates the NSL nondisclosure provision that allows the Government to ensure itself of victory by certifying that, in its view, disclosure ``may'' endanger national security or ``may'' interfere with diplomatic relations. The bill further strengthens judicial review of nondisclosure or ``gag orders'' associated with NSLs by imposing a one- year limitation on such orders. To protect on-going law enforcement investigations, it permits renewals of the nondisclosure orders in appropriate cases.

The power of the government to collect records for tangible things under Section 215 of the original Patriot Act, commonly referred to as the ``library records'' provision, is another authority that I worked to reform during the last reauthorization. It is time to redefine the way we describe this authority to accurately reflect the broad scope of information it allows the government to collect. Section 215 allows the FISA court to secretly require any entity to produce any document or other tangible thing with a minimal standard of relevance and a presumption in favor of the Government's showing of relevance. This bill correctly identifies Section 215 orders as orders for ``tangible things'' as opposed to only for ``business records'' as it is in current law.

This bill adopts the reasonable constitutional standard that I supported in 2006 for 215 orders. First, it would eliminate the presumption in favor of the government's assertion that the records it is seeking are relevant to its investigation. This bill would require the Government to make a connection between the records or other things it seeks and a suspected terrorist or spy before it is able to obtain confidential records such as library, medical and telephone records. Section 215 orders for tangible things permit the Government to collect an even broader scope of information than NSLs. For that reason, it is critical that the Government show that the records it seeks are both relevant to an investigation and connected to at least a suspected terrorist or spy.

This bill would also establish more meaningful judicial review of Section 215 orders. First, it repeals the requirement in current law that requires a recipient of a Section 215 nondisclosure order to wait for a full year before challenging that gag order. There is no justification for this mandatory waiting period for judicial review, and this bill eliminates it. It also repeals a provision added to the law in 2006 stating that a conclusive presumption in favor of the Government shall apply where a high level official certifies that disclosure of the order for tangible things would endanger national security or interfere with diplomatic relations. These restraints on meaningful judicial review are unfair, unjustified, and completely unacceptable. I fought hard to keep these two provisions out of the 2006 reauthorization, but the Republican majority at that time insisted they be included.

This bill will strengthen court oversight of Section 215 orders by requiring court oversight of minimization procedures when information concerning a U.S. person is acquired, retained, or disseminated. Requiring FISA Court approval of minimization procedures would simply bring Section 215 orders in line with other FISA authorities--such as wiretaps, physical searches,

and pen register and trap and trace devices--that already require FISA court approval of minimization procedures. This is another common sense modification to the law that was drafted in consultation with Senators Feingold and Durbin. If we are to allow personal information to be collected in secret, the court must be more involved in making sure the authorities are used responsibly and that Americans' information and personal privacy are protected.

Finally, this bill addresses concerns over the use of pen register or trap and trace devices ``pen/trap''. The bill raises the standard for pen/trap in the same manner as it raises the standard for Section 215 orders. The Government would be required to show that the information it seeks is both relevant to an investigation and connected to a suspected terrorist or spy. This section also requires court review of minimization procedures, which are not required under current law, and adds an Inspector General audit of the use of pen/trap that is modeled on the the audits of Section 215 orders and NSLs.

I look forward to working with the members of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate, the House and with the administration as this bill moves forward, and I welcome the views of others.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, security and liberty are both essential in our free society. Benjamin Franklin wrote: ``Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' I have been mindful of this since the devastating attacks of September 11, and each time we have considered the USA PATRIOT Act. The American people of today and those of tomorrow--our children and grandchildren--depend on us to do our best to ensure both security and the preservation of our essential liberties.

After September 11, the Government's power to gather information about those suspected of, or connected to, potential terrorists increased. Because such surveillance may, sometimes by mistake, sweep in U.S. citizens, we must vigilantly monitor these laws to ensure that they are implemented appropriately. This calls for public, judicial and congressional oversight to make sure we maintain the proper respect for security and liberty.

After September 11, I introduced the USA PATRIOT Act, Patriot Act, to give the Government the tools needed to defend this country and aggressively pursue those who would do us harm. Even in those dark days, I insisted on oversight. Working with the then House Majority Leader, Republican Dick Armey, we included sunsets for some of the provisions of the bill that had the greatest potential to directly affect Americans.

We debated the reauthorization of the Patriot Act for several months in 2005 and 2006. I again fought to protect the civil liberties and constitutional rights of Americans. Unfortunately, after a series of short extensions, the reauthorization of 2006 lacked sufficient constitutional protections over the vast authorities it granted to the Government. I had worked to secure increased oversight and to include new sunsets in the bill.

With those sunsets expiring on December 31, 2009, we must once again consider the Patriot Act. Three provisions of the Patriot Act are slated to expire at the end of this year, including the authorization for roving wiretaps, the ``lone wolf'' measure, and orders for tangible things, commonly referred to as the ``library'' provision.

In March, I sent Attorney General Holder a letter requesting the administration's views on these expiring provisions. I reiterated that request at a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing in June. I have recently received a letter from the Attorney General urging us to extend the expiring authorities. I appreciate the President and the Attorney General's emphasis on accountability and checks and balances, and their willingness to consider additional ideas.

Today I am introducing a bill with Senators Cardin and Kaufman that does just that. It will extend the authorization of the three expiring provisions. The bill also updates checks and balances by increasing judicial review of the use of Government powers that capture information on U.S. citizens, and augments congressional oversight. We propose increasing Government accountability through more transparent public reporting of the use of surveillance, and by requiring audits of how these vast authorities have been used since they were last reauthorized. In addition, we propose that, given their extensive use abuse and intrusiveness, we include a sunset for National Security Letters, NSLs. I introduced a bill in 2006, after the most recent Patriot Act reauthorization, to impose a sunset on NSLs. This sunset provision, combined with a comprehensive audit by the Inspector General, will help to hold the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, accountable in its use of this authority.

In developing this bill, I worked closely with Senators Feingold and Durbin to protect the rights and privacy of Americans, and to expand oversight. Senators Feingold and Durbin have worked tirelessly over the years to protect the civil liberties of Americans, from the first debate over the Patriot Act in 2001, to the reauthorization in 2006, to the FISA Amendments Act enacted last year. I am pleased that Senators Cardin, Kaufman and I have adopted some of the concepts they proposed in the SAFE Act of 2005, and that were included in the broader Patriot Act reauthorization bill they introduced last week, the JUSTICE Act.

I have long been concerned over the issuance and oversight of NSLs. National Security Letters are, in effect, a form of administrative subpoena. They do not require approval by a court, grand jury, or prosecutor. They are issued in secret, with recipients silenced, under penalty of law. Yet NSLs allow the Government to collect sensitive information, such as personal financial records. As Congress expanded the NSL authority in recent years, I raised concerns about how the FBI handles the information it collects on Americans. I noted that, with no real limits imposed by Congress, the FBI could store this information electronically and use it for large-scale, data-mining operations. We now know that the NSL authority was significantly misused. In 2008 the Department of Justice Inspector General issued a report on the FBI's use of NSLs revealing serious over-collection of information and abuse of the NSL authority.

We should reconsider the breadth of the NSL authority. This bill would also impose more judicial oversight and higher standards on the issuance of NSLs. It would require the FBI to include a statement of facts articulating why the information it is seeking is relevant to an authorized investigation.

The bill also addresses the constitutional deficiency recently identified by the Second Circuit Court of appeals in Doe v. Musasey. The Second Circuit found that the nondisclosure, or ``gag orders,'' issued under NSLs are a constitutional infringement. I have long maintained that position. The bill establishes a procedure whereby the recipient of an NSL has 21 days to notify the Government that it wishes to challenge the nondisclosure requirement. The Government then has 21 additional days to apply for a court order to compel compliance with the nondisclosure requirement. This scheme corrects the constitutional defects found by the Second Circuit. The bill would shift the burden of defending the need for a gag order to the Government. This bill also eliminates the NSL nondisclosure provision that allows the Government to ensure itself of victory by certifying that, in its view, disclosure ``may'' endanger national security or ``may'' interfere with diplomatic relations. The bill further strengthens judicial review of nondisclosure or ``gag orders'' associated with NSLs by imposing a one- year limitation on such orders. To protect on-going law enforcement investigations, it permits renewals of the nondisclosure orders in appropriate cases.

The power of the government to collect records for tangible things under Section 215 of the original Patriot Act, commonly referred to as the ``library records'' provision, is another authority that I worked to reform during the last reauthorization. It is time to redefine the way we describe this authority to accurately reflect the broad scope of information it allows the government to collect. Section 215 allows the FISA court to secretly require any entity to produce any document or other tangible thing with a minimal standard of relevance and a presumption in favor of the Government's showing of relevance. This bill correctly identifies Section 215 orders as orders for ``tangible things'' as opposed to only for ``business records'' as it is in current law.

This bill adopts the reasonable constitutional standard that I supported in 2006 for 215 orders. First, it would eliminate the presumption in favor of the government's assertion that the records it is seeking are relevant to its investigation. This bill would require the Government to make a connection between the records or other things it seeks and a suspected terrorist or spy before it is able to obtain confidential records such as library, medical and telephone records. Section 215 orders for tangible things permit the Government to collect an even broader scope of information than NSLs. For that reason, it is critical that the Government show that the records it seeks are both relevant to an investigation and connected to at least a suspected terrorist or spy.

This bill would also establish more meaningful judicial review of Section 215 orders. First, it repeals the requirement in current law that requires a recipient of a Section 215 nondisclosure order to wait for a full year before challenging that gag order. There is no justification for this mandatory waiting period for judicial review, and this bill eliminates it. It also repeals a provision added to the law in 2006 stating that a conclusive presumption in favor of the Government shall apply where a high level official certifies that disclosure of the order for tangible things would endanger national security or interfere with diplomatic relations. These restraints on meaningful judicial review are unfair, unjustified, and completely unacceptable. I fought hard to keep these two provisions out of the 2006 reauthorization, but the Republican majority at that time insisted they be included.

This bill will strengthen court oversight of Section 215 orders by requiring court oversight of minimization procedures when information concerning a U.S. person is acquired, retained, or disseminated. Requiring FISA Court approval of minimization procedures would simply bring Section 215 orders in line with other FISA authorities--such as wiretaps, physical searches,

and pen register and trap and trace devices--that already require FISA court approval of minimization procedures. This is another common sense modification to the law that was drafted in consultation with Senators Feingold and Durbin. If we are to allow personal information to be collected in secret, the court must be more involved in making sure the authorities are used responsibly and that Americans' information and personal privacy are protected.

Finally, this bill addresses concerns over the use of pen register or trap and trace devices ``pen/trap''. The bill raises the standard for pen/trap in the same manner as it raises the standard for Section 215 orders. The Government would be required to show that the information it seeks is both relevant to an investigation and connected to a suspected terrorist or spy. This section also requires court review of minimization procedures, which are not required under current law, and adds an Inspector General audit of the use of pen/trap that is modeled on the the audits of Section 215 orders and NSLs.

I look forward to working with the members of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate, the House and with the administration as this bill moves forward, and I welcome the views of others.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Am I correct that at 12:30 we will go to the nomination of Judge Gerard Lynch to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit?

Mr. President, prior to going to that, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I rise today to remember one of Vermont's greatest citizens, dairy farmer, and American, my good friend, Harold Howrigan.

Harold passed away at the age of 85 at his home in Fairfield, VT, on September 7, 2009. He was surrounded by his loving family, long and extended and wonderful family.

Harold was a family man. This large extended family included his wife of 56 years, Ann, and three sons and two daughters, 12 grandchildren. He had an optimist's outlook on life. He had a knack for storytelling that cast a spell over everyone in his presence.

Many of his stories were about growing up in a family with nine other siblings, reared by William and Margaret

Howrigan on their hillside farm in Vermont. I can think of more than one occasion when Marcelle and I would be there. We would be listening to one of these stories, and I knew that we might be late for the next thing, but I didn't want it to end. I wanted to hear what else he had to say.

Harold was a man who seemed to accomplish more each year than most of us do in a lifetime. He built his Fairfield, VT farm to over 1,000 acres, including the land that had been worked by his family since the mid 1800s.

It is now tended by the next generation of Howrigans. I remember him as a dynamic man, as genuinely comfortable in his public duties as he was in the dairy parlor or out splitting wood. In addition to running the farm and tending to the family he loved so much, he accepted leadership roles in dozens of civic and agricultural organizations from local to national in scope. He moderated the Fairfield town meeting right up to this year. The town meeting is a sacred institution in Vermont. A town wants to make sure they have the very best and the fairest and the most knowledgeable to be their moderator. It also helps when you have somebody with an Irish sense of humor. This is a position of distinction in any Vermont town.

He was director of the St. Alban's Cooperative Creamery for 25 years and president for another 20. He was appointed by three Governors, both parties, to the Vermont Milk Commission. He was also a local and national leader among maple sugar makers. He served on University of Vermont advisory boards and on county commissions. All the while he tended the fire in the Fairfield sugar house each year and he got the cows milked each day and sang for 60 years on the choir at church. The church, of course, is named, as you would expect in a town full of Irish immigrants and descendants, St. Patrick's.

Nationally, he was a director of the National Milk Producers Federation for 20 years and chairman of the National Dairy Board. In addition to his work on dairy, he was a local and national leader for the maple industry, a prolific sugar maker. I know Marcelle and I and our children, when we were having something at the farm that called for maple syrup--and in our family, that is just about anything from English muffins to pancakes--everybody's eyes would light up if we knew it was Howrigan syrup.

Notwithstanding his prodigious service to his community, his profession and his country, his greatest impact was probably felt through his personal relationships with his family and what he considered, I think, all of Vermont, his extended family. As a friend, he was a trusted adviser on agricultural issues over several decades. I know Senator Jeffords also valued his friendship and advice and Governors consulted him regularly. But as dad and grandpa to a large, active family, he cultivated two new generations of Vermont dairy farmers and maple sugar makers.

We could talk about all the different things he did, but it still does not give a picture of the man. He was known for a deep and spirited Irish pride, a sentiment I obviously share. I find myself comparing that other great Irish American and dear friend, Teddy Kennedy, whose recent loss I also mourn. But I also treasure the trip my wife Marcelle and I took with Harold to Ireland. There he felt he was truly in the Promised Land. We would walk about the streets of Dublin or small towns nearby. He was so proud of his family's Irish heritage, he never stopped smiling throughout his visit.

The day of his funeral, last week, Marcelle wore an Irish pin we purchased with him in Ireland. I, of course, wore a green tie in his honor. I watched his grandsons wearing some of the Irish ties Harold had owned. I listened to his son and daughter and grandchildren talk about him, capturing him in his stories and his nature. I think about the very last conversation I had with him just weeks before he died. In all these things, he never asked for anything for himself. He always asked me to watch out for other people. He led by quiet example and hard work and kindness and love.

I, along with the State of Vermont and many across the United States and across the Atlantic, will miss Harold. He was a dear friend, truly a great American. Similar to all Vermonters, I express my sympathy to his family and I say: Goodbye, Harold, my dear friend.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, it is Constitution Day. Two hundred twenty-two years ago today, the Constitutional Convention finished its work and proposed our fundamental charter.

With this vote, the Senate will finally begin fulfilling one of its most important constitutional duties by granting consent to the President's lifetime appointment to the Federal judiciary. This is the first Federal circuit court judge the Senate has confirmed all year. The Senate has yet to confirm a single district court judge. Judicial vacancies have spiked and could approach 120 soon.

We all know Judge Lynch is an outstanding judge and will make an excellent circuit judge. His nomination has been on the calendar awaiting Senate action for more than 3 months. I am glad his wait is finally over. The President made a good nomination, and the Senate should grant consent so that Judge Lynch's appointment may finally proceed.

Madam President, these videotapes that are the excuse for this amendment understandably have offended most who have heard about them, including me. I detest the stupidity and crassness that they depict. If people have acted improperly, they should be fired, and if they have acted illegally, they should be prosecuted. Period. The Obama administration has been equally critical.

ACORN is not the reason for my vote. There is not even an ACORN office in my entire State. Nor, for that matter, is there any reason to believe that this group ever has or ever would have any interest or expertise in applying for competitive grants under the programs funded in this Interior appropriations bill.

Everyone--except perhaps many of the casual observers who are the target audience of the orchestrated anti-ACORN frenzy--knows that score-at-any-price partisanship is being mixed in an unseemly way with public policy.

For more than a year--since long before these videotapes were made-- it has been well known that a partisan project has been launched to demonize ACORN. ACORN in several ways has made easy work of that.

To me, this knee-jerk injection of politics into the competitive grant process is the real issue here. Congress should not compound the wrongful and stupid actions depicted on these videos by deciding to set political standards for competitive Federal grants. Federal agencies use a nonpartisan review process to award grants to the most competitive applicants. Just as I would be against banning other specific organizations on the right or on the left from applying for competitive grants, I believe it is harmful, even though popular, to approve an amendment such as this.

It is unseemly to allow use of a partisan playbook to run roughshod over long-established competitive grant procedure. The admittedly few votes that were cast against this amendment, against the tide of popular opinion, have at least made it more likely that in calmer moments months or years from now, there may at least be some thought invested before Congress again acts to inject raw political partisanship from the left or from the right--into the competitive grant mechanisms of Federal agencies.

Mr. President, today marks the 222nd anniversary of the signing of the Constitution by the States that assembled in Philadelphia. The constitutional design of our three branches of Government has provided for collaboration in protecting this fundamental balance. Earlier this week, when I addressed the Chief Justice and the Judicial Conference of the United States, I noted the anniversary of the signing of our Constitution. This anniversary deserves more attention than it has received, and I was heartened to see that one of Vermont's great newspapers, The Caledonian-Record, also saw fit to note this anniversary in a recent editorial. The Caledonian- Record noted, ``Our Constitution is timeless and the most relevant guide to continuing our freedoms. Millions of Americans have died in its defense. Celebrate it!''

As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee I am constantly reminded of the Constitution's continued importance and relevance to our daily lives. From the first amendment, which protects newspapers like The Caledonian-Record, to the rights of Americans to vote, the Constitution is the cornerstone of our democracy. We all must

remember how fortunate we are to enjoythe rights our Founders embedded in our guiding document.

I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, our Nation's antitrust laws exist to protect consumers. These laws promote competition, which ensures that consumers will pay lower prices, and receive more choices of higher quality products. The vast majority of the companies doing business in the U.S. are subject to the Federal antitrust laws.

A few industries have used their influence to obtain a special, statutory exemption from the antitrust laws, and the insurance industry is one of them. In the markets for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance, patients and doctors are paying the price, as costs continue to increase at an alarming rate. As the insurance industry prospers behind its exemption, patients and small businesses suffer. I am pleased to introduce today the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009, which will repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance providers.

The health care industry is the subject of a great deal of debate. There are many proposals to bring competition to health insurance providers. While we are debating these solutions, we should not lose sight of the fact that the health insurance industry currently does not have to play by the same, good-competition rules as other industries. That is wrong, and this legislation corrects it.

The lack of affordable health insurance plagues families throughout our country, and the rising prices that hospitals and doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance drains resources that could otherwise be used to improve patient care. Antitrust oversight in these industries will provide consumers with the confidence that insurance companies are operating in a competitive marketplace.

There is simply no justification for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance companies to be exempt from Federal laws prohibiting price fixing. Subjecting health and medical malpractice insurance providers to the antitrust laws will enable customers to feel confident that the price they are being quoted is the product of a fair marketplace. This bill will prohibit the most egregious anticompetitive conduct--price fixing, bid rigging and market allocations--conduct that harms consumers and drives up health care costs.

In the 110th Congress, I introduced a much broader repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act with Senator Lott. While Congress did not reach consensus on that legislation, surely in this environment of rising health care costs, we can agree on this more narrowly tailored repeal. Insurers should not object to being subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else. If they are operating in an appropriate way, they should have nothing to fear. American families, doctors and hospitals rely on insurance. It is important to ensure that the prices they pay for this insurance are established in a fair and competitive way.

I look forward to repealing the antitrust exemption in the health insurance and medical malpractice insurance industries.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, our Nation's antitrust laws exist to protect consumers. These laws promote competition, which ensures that consumers will pay lower prices, and receive more choices of higher quality products. The vast majority of the companies doing business in the U.S. are subject to the Federal antitrust laws.

A few industries have used their influence to obtain a special, statutory exemption from the antitrust laws, and the insurance industry is one of them. In the markets for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance, patients and doctors are paying the price, as costs continue to increase at an alarming rate. As the insurance industry prospers behind its exemption, patients and small businesses suffer. I am pleased to introduce today the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009, which will repeal the antitrust exemption for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance providers.

The health care industry is the subject of a great deal of debate. There are many proposals to bring competition to health insurance providers. While we are debating these solutions, we should not lose sight of the fact that the health insurance industry currently does not have to play by the same, good-competition rules as other industries. That is wrong, and this legislation corrects it.

The lack of affordable health insurance plagues families throughout our country, and the rising prices that hospitals and doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance drains resources that could otherwise be used to improve patient care. Antitrust oversight in these industries will provide consumers with the confidence that insurance companies are operating in a competitive marketplace.

There is simply no justification for health insurance and medical malpractice insurance companies to be exempt from Federal laws prohibiting price fixing. Subjecting health and medical malpractice insurance providers to the antitrust laws will enable customers to feel confident that the price they are being quoted is the product of a fair marketplace. This bill will prohibit the most egregious anticompetitive conduct--price fixing, bid rigging and market allocations--conduct that harms consumers and drives up health care costs.

In the 110th Congress, I introduced a much broader repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act with Senator Lott. While Congress did not reach consensus on that legislation, surely in this environment of rising health care costs, we can agree on this more narrowly tailored repeal. Insurers should not object to being subject to the same antitrust laws as everyone else. If they are operating in an appropriate way, they should have nothing to fear. American families, doctors and hospitals rely on insurance. It is important to ensure that the prices they pay for this insurance are established in a fair and competitive way.

I look forward to repealing the antitrust exemption in the health insurance and medical malpractice insurance industries.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the amended Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, S.1494. I appreciate the commitment of Senator Feinstein, the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to work with me to strengthen this important legislation. The bill the Senate has approved recognizes the shared jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Select Committee on Intelligence, in several legislative areas.

The first opportunity to review this legislation arose on August 5, shortly before the Senate was scheduled to recess, and in the midst of the debate on the confirmation of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. At that time, I recognized several provisions in the bill that fall under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, as well as issues about which the committee shares an interest with the Select Committee on Intelligence. Since that time, Senator Feinstein and I, as well as our staffs, have engaged in serious negotiations concerning these provisions. We negotiated agreements regarding exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, as well as numerous reporting requirements, such as a significant, new requirement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, an agency clearly under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and an important new cybersecurity oversight provision.

The amendment to the intelligence authorization bill agreed to today identifies the Judiciary Committee as a recipient of relevant reporting provisions, narrows the operational files FOIA exemption for information provided by intelligence agencies to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, ODNI, and strikes a FOIA (b)(3) exemption for terrorist identity information. Senator Feinstein has told me she is also committed to ensuring that the Judiciary Committee will receive reports required by the bill's section 340, cybersecurity oversight. I appreciate Senator Feinstein's support for these improvements.

The intelligence authorization bill includes several reporting requirements that involve areas of long-standing interest and jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. The amended bill ensures that the Judiciary Committee is a recipient of those reports. Section 336 of the bill directs the Director of National Intelligence to provide a comprehensive report on all measures taken by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and by elements of the intelligence community to comply with the provisions of applicable law, international obligations, and executive orders relating to the detention or interrogation activities of the intelligence community. These include compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005; the Military Commissions Act of 2006; common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; the Convention Against Torture; Executive Order 13492, relating to lawful interrogations; and Executive Order No. 13493, relating to detention policy options.

The amendment to the intelligence authorization bill modifies section 336 to ensure that to the extent that the report addresses an element of the intelligence community within the Department of Justice, it shall be submitted, along with associated material, to the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate.

I fought for years to obtain information about the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies and practices, and the legal advice from that administration authorizing those policies and practices. The last administration refused to give this information to Congress, instead issuing secret legal advice that misconstrued our laws and international obligations with regard to the treatment of people in our custody. Years later we found out that the administration had sanctioned cruel interrogation techniques, including torture. It is imperative that the Judiciary Committee be fully informed of the extent to which the government is complying with our laws and international treaties relating to detention and interrogation in order to be able to conduct proper oversight and ensure that our government cannot shield policies that authorize practices in violation of our laws. The Judiciary Committee is an important partner in this oversight.

Section 407 of the bill establishes a new office of inspector general of the intelligence community to conduct independent investigations, inspections, audits and reviews on programs and activities conducted under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. Under this new authority, the inspector general is required to submit a semiannual report to the Director of National Intelligence summarizing its activities. The amendment incorporated into S.1494 modifies the reporting provision to require the inspector general to submit reports that focus on Government officials to the committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives with jurisdiction over the department that official represents.

Section 407 of the bill creates an entirely new inspector general with significant authority and responsibility in the intelligence community. That authority will implicate agencies within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, including the Department of Justice and components of the Department of Homeland Security. I believe this modification to the bill provides an important recognition of the Judiciary Committee's need to be involved in the investigations and activities of this new inspector general.

Another significant new provision is section 445 of the bill, report and assessment on transformation of the intelligence capabilities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which creates a broad new reporting requirement for the FBI. The Judiciary Committee has always had primary oversight over the FBI. As the FBI takes on more responsibility in the areas of intelligence and national security, its policies and practices in these areas must be subject to the oversight of Congress. The Intelligence Committees have particular expertise that make them an important partner in this oversight. However, it is the Judiciary Committee that has the primary legislative and oversight responsibilities over the FBI.

I am very pleased that the amendment adopted today contains several

important improvements that I recommended to strengthen FOIA. I am particularly pleased that the bill, as amended, deletes a broad and unnecessary exemption to FOIA's disclosure requirements for terrorist identity information.

No one would quibble with the notion that our government can--and should--keep some information secret to protect our national security. But, in the case of terrorist identity information, our government has successfully withheld this sensitive information under the existing FOIA exemptions for classified and law enforcement information. In addition, the many instances of mistaken identities and other errors on terrorist watchlists and ``no-fly'' lists make it clear that FOIA can be a valuable tool to help innocent Americans redress and correct mistakes on these lists.

Lastly, the revised bill also narrows the exemption to FOIA's search requirements for operational files information that the Nation's intelligence agencies share with the ODNI. The bill now makes it clear that operational files that are already exempt from these search requirements retain this exemption under circumstances where the files are disseminated to the ODNI. This carefully crafted compromise will help ensure both effective information sharing among our intelligence agencies and the free flow of information to the American public.

I believe the amendment strengthens this legislation by recognizing the value and significance of the shared jurisdiction in many areas of national security between the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. I appreciate Senator Feinstein's cooperation in adopting these improvements. In a letter sent to me today, Senator Feinstein has also committed to continuing to work with the Judiciary Committee in the area of cyber matters. I will ask to have her letter printed in the Record.

The agreement to proceed with the intelligence authorization bill today includes a commitment to ensure that the Judiciary Committee receives reports required by the bill's section 340, cybersecurity oversight. The Judiciary Committee has long engaged in oversight and legislative activity regarding cyber threats and cybersecurity. Senator Feinstein and I have worked together in the Judiciary Committee for many years on these issues, and we both recognize the shared jurisdiction and responsibilities of the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees with regard to oversight of cyber matters and cybersecurity.

As Senator Feinstein has described it, section 340 of the bill is intended to provide a preliminary framework for executive and congressional oversight of cybersecurity programs, as defined in the section, to ensure that these programs are consistent with legal authorities, preserve reasonable expectations of privacy, and are subject to independent audit and review. Section 340 of the bill creates several reporting requirements with regard to the executive and congressional oversight of cybersecurity programs. These include Presidential notifications to Congress, reports to Congress and the President from the head of a department or agency with responsibility for cybersecurity programs, in conjunction with the inspector general of that department or agency, and a joint report to Congress and the President from the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security and the inspector general of the intelligence community on the status of the sharing of cyber threat information within one year. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Feinstein in the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate to ensure strong oversight and legislation with regard to cyber matters.

I am pleased the Senate today will pass the amended Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The progress that Senator Feinstein and I have made to improve this bill demonstrates the success we can have when we work together constructively.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to have the letter to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this week we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, one of our most powerful tools to combat domestic violence and other crimes perpetrated against women and families.

The enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 marked an important national commitment to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. This landmark legislation filled a void in Federal law that left many victims without the help they needed. In commemorating this milestone, I would like to recognize the leadership of Vice President Joe Biden. His dedication to eliminating violence against women and families was vital to our success in passing the original legislation and subsequent reauthorizations. I am proud to have worked with him on this important matter for nearly two decades.

As a prosecutor in Vermont earlier in my career, I witnessed the devastating impact of domestic violence and sexual assault. I saw how it affects people from all walks of life, regardless of gender, race, culture, age, class or sexuality. Our Nation has made remarkable progress since that time in recognizing that domestic violence and sexual assault are crimes, and we have responded with better laws, social support, and coordinated community resources.

Since the Violence Against Women Act became law, domestic violence reporting rates by women have increased by as much as 50 percent, and reporting rates by men have risen by 37 percent. At the same time, the number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 24 percent for women and 48 percent for men. These are huge improvements, and we should be proud of the work we have accomplished together. There is, of course, more work to be done. Millions of women, men, children, and families continue to be traumatized by abuse, leading to increased rates of crime, violence and suffering.

Earlier this year, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing on the ongoing importance of VAWA. We heard from individuals around the country who shared with us the impact the law has had on their lives and the continuing need to strengthen it. We have been hearing for some time about important steps we can take to enhance VAWA, which is why at the beginning of this year I introduced the Improving Assistance to Domestic and Sexual Violence Victims Act of 2009, a bill to make several needed corrections and improvements to VAWA. Among other important changes, this bill would bolster privacy protections for victims of domestic violence and offer greater help in rural and tribal areas. These improvements would ensure that the law is as effective and strong as it was intended to be and that it meets the needs of those it seeks to protect. We were able to report this bill from the Judiciary Committee in May but with an amendment that has complicated further progress.

On this 15th anniversary, it is important that we pause to celebrate what we have accomplished. There is no doubt we have made great strides in reducing domestic violence and sexual assault, but we know more work remains to be done. I look forward to working together with other Senators, the Obama-Biden administration, and experts in the field to ensure that VAWA remains a vital resource for prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, victim service providers, and, most importantly, the women and families who are threatened with violence and abuse.

Mr. President, during the past decade we have witnessed tremendous development in the way video content is made available to consumers. Today, as a result of digital technology, we can watch movies, television programs, and other video not only on our television sets, but also on our computers, phones, and other mobile devices. In order to maximize the potential of digital content, Congress must ensure that our copyright and communications laws are modernized and updated to accommodate the digital revolution. Today, I join with Senators Sessions, Kohl, Hatch, and Kyl in introducing the Satellite Television Modernization Act of 2009. Our legislation will reauthorize, modernize, and simplify important portions of the statutory license used by satellite providers that will otherwise expire at the end of this year.

The transition to digital television requires Congress to modernize the statutory copyright licenses that allow cable and satellite providers to retransmit the content of local broadcast stations. In February, many stations across the country, including those in Vermont, made the digital transition and can now offer multiple programming channels over a single, crystal-clear digital signal. In June, the remaining broadcast stations across the country completed the digital transition. The current statutory licenses, however, are based on the now outdated analog standard. In our reauthorization, we seek to ensure that the licenses work properly in the digital world.

In June 2008, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a report on the statutory licenses, and offered recommendations on how to improve the current system. The Copyright Office's principal recommendation was to move toward abolishing the compulsory licenses, in particular the distant signal licenses. Short of that, the Copyright Office offered suggestions on how to harmonize and streamline the licenses.

The legislation we introduce today draws on the recommendations of the Copyright Office and takes important steps toward limiting future reliance on the section 119 distant signal license used by satellite providers. This legislation will move locally oriented elements out of the distant signal license--such as the special exception that allows Vermonters in the State's southern-most counties to receive Vermont broadcast stations by satellite--and place them into the section 122 license, which facilitates the retransmission of local content with the consent of the broadcaster. The bill will also fix an anomaly in the distant signal license, which will make it easier for satellite providers to serve local markets that are missing a network affiliate.

Making these changes will improve the ability of satellite providers to deliver a full complement of network stations to consumers, as well as make it easier for them to offer local stations. In Vermont, these changes will have the additional benefit of fostering competition between DISH Network and DirecTV, by allowing DISH to offer Vermont broadcast stations in southern Vermont, a service DirecTV provides today. The legislation also adds a new provision to the local license that will allow satellite providers such as DISH to import a missing network station from an adjacent market when the local market is not served by all four principle networks, after the provider first obtains the station's consent. This new provision will make it more likely and reasonable for DISH to launch local service in these markets, which is good for local broadcasters, good for satellite providers, and good for consumers.

These changes will not only improve the satellite licenses, but will begin the process of phasing out the distant signal license as satellite providers offer local service in more markets. As the distant signal license fades, Congress should follow the Copyright Office's suggestion and move ultimately toward a market-based system, in which statutory licenses are unnecessary.

One further step we can take toward a marketplace model this year is to allow broadcast stations to opt-out of the statutory licenses. All non-broadcast channels carried by cable and satellite providers, such as ESPN and the USA Network, are able to aggregate a complex series of content rights, and negotiate for carriage in the free market. Local broadcasters should be permitted to do the same if they, too, are able to aggregate the necessary rights to license directly to cable and satellite providers. This is a proposal I expect the Judiciary Committee to examine as the bill moves through the mark up process. I encourage all industry participants to work with the Committee so that we can address any concerns about this market-based approach.

Short of repealing the compulsory licenses, the Copyright Office recommended harmonizing the cable and satellite licenses in order to create regulatory parity between the two industries. The section 111 license used by cable, for instance, is based on FCC rules that have long since been repealed, and the license itself has not been significantly updated since it was established more than 30 years ago. The arcane nature of the cable license can at times produce unintended results, such as cable companies paying copyright holders for content that consumers do not actually receive. This is referred to as the phantom signal problem. In contrast, satellite companies pay a flat, per subscriber rate based on consumers actually receiving a broadcast station. Comprehensive reforms to section 111 that aim to modernize the statute and create regulatory parity between cable and satellite providers would address these disparities. We take a more modest approach in the bill we introduce today. The legislation contains an amendment that will resolve the phantom signal issue. I appreciate that members of the content community and the cable system came together to find a solution on which they can all agree.

The Satellite Television Modernization Act is one component of the reauthorization. Portions of the expiring law are within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, and I look forward to working with the leadership of that Committee, and our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to enact legislation that once again improves the law by fostering competition, protecting broadcasters, and improving service to consumers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, during the past decade we have witnessed tremendous development in the way video content is made available to consumers. Today, as a result of digital technology, we can watch movies, television programs, and other video not only on our television sets, but also on our computers, phones, and other mobile devices. In order to maximize the potential of digital content, Congress must ensure that our copyright and communications laws are modernized and updated to accommodate the digital revolution. Today, I join with Senators Sessions, Kohl, Hatch, and Kyl in introducing the Satellite Television Modernization Act of 2009. Our legislation will reauthorize, modernize, and simplify important portions of the statutory license used by satellite providers that will otherwise expire at the end of this year.

The transition to digital television requires Congress to modernize the statutory copyright licenses that allow cable and satellite providers to retransmit the content of local broadcast stations. In February, many stations across the country, including those in Vermont, made the digital transition and can now offer multiple programming channels over a single, crystal-clear digital signal. In June, the remaining broadcast stations across the country completed the digital transition. The current statutory licenses, however, are based on the now outdated analog standard. In our reauthorization, we seek to ensure that the licenses work properly in the digital world.

In June 2008, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a report on the statutory licenses, and offered recommendations on how to improve the current system. The Copyright Office's principal recommendation was to move toward abolishing the compulsory licenses, in particular the distant signal licenses. Short of that, the Copyright Office offered suggestions on how to harmonize and streamline the licenses.

The legislation we introduce today draws on the recommendations of the Copyright Office and takes important steps toward limiting future reliance on the section 119 distant signal license used by satellite providers. This legislation will move locally oriented elements out of the distant signal license--such as the special exception that allows Vermonters in the State's southern-most counties to receive Vermont broadcast stations by satellite--and place them into the section 122 license, which facilitates the retransmission of local content with the consent of the broadcaster. The bill will also fix an anomaly in the distant signal license, which will make it easier for satellite providers to serve local markets that are missing a network affiliate.

Making these changes will improve the ability of satellite providers to deliver a full complement of network stations to consumers, as well as make it easier for them to offer local stations. In Vermont, these changes will have the additional benefit of fostering competition between DISH Network and DirecTV, by allowing DISH to offer Vermont broadcast stations in southern Vermont, a service DirecTV provides today. The legislation also adds a new provision to the local license that will allow satellite providers such as DISH to import a missing network station from an adjacent market when the local market is not served by all four principle networks, after the provider first obtains the station's consent. This new provision will make it more likely and reasonable for DISH to launch local service in these markets, which is good for local broadcasters, good for satellite providers, and good for consumers.

These changes will not only improve the satellite licenses, but will begin the process of phasing out the distant signal license as satellite providers offer local service in more markets. As the distant signal license fades, Congress should follow the Copyright Office's suggestion and move ultimately toward a market-based system, in which statutory licenses are unnecessary.

One further step we can take toward a marketplace model this year is to allow broadcast stations to opt-out of the statutory licenses. All non-broadcast channels carried by cable and satellite providers, such as ESPN and the USA Network, are able to aggregate a complex series of content rights, and negotiate for carriage in the free market. Local broadcasters should be permitted to do the same if they, too, are able to aggregate the necessary rights to license directly to cable and satellite providers. This is a proposal I expect the Judiciary Committee to examine as the bill moves through the mark up process. I encourage all industry participants to work with the Committee so that we can address any concerns about this market-based approach.

Short of repealing the compulsory licenses, the Copyright Office recommended harmonizing the cable and satellite licenses in order to create regulatory parity between the two industries. The section 111 license used by cable, for instance, is based on FCC rules that have long since been repealed, and the license itself has not been significantly updated since it was established more than 30 years ago. The arcane nature of the cable license can at times produce unintended results, such as cable companies paying copyright holders for content that consumers do not actually receive. This is referred to as the phantom signal problem. In contrast, satellite companies pay a flat, per subscriber rate based on consumers actually receiving a broadcast station. Comprehensive reforms to section 111 that aim to modernize the statute and create regulatory parity between cable and satellite providers would address these disparities. We take a more modest approach in the bill we introduce today. The legislation contains an amendment that will resolve the phantom signal issue. I appreciate that members of the content community and the cable system came together to find a solution on which they can all agree.

The Satellite Television Modernization Act is one component of the reauthorization. Portions of the expiring law are within the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Commerce, and I look forward to working with the leadership of that Committee, and our counterparts in the House of Representatives, to enact legislation that once again improves the law by fostering competition, protecting broadcasters, and improving service to consumers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, last Friday was the eighth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and we solemnly remembered the thousands of innocent lives, of many nationalities and religions, that were so cruelly and indiscriminately destroyed on that infamous day. It was a defining moment for our country, and since then we have sought to address the shocking intelligence and security failures that enabled the perpetrators to so brazenly enter this country and carry out those attacks, as well as to track down the masterminds of that atrocity and to destroy al-Qaida and other terrorist networks that have become a global menace.

We all recognize the threat that violent extremists pose to Americans, as well as to citizens of other countries, and the imperative of countering it. This should not be a matter of partisan politics, but of working together in a common purpose for the sake of law abiding people everywhere. I supported many of the initiatives of the Bush administration, as I have the Obama administration, to make our borders more secure, to improve our intelligence gathering, to track down terrorists and bring them to justice.

But there have been strong differences over what tactics to use, and the effectiveness of military force to combat violent extremism in countries where we are widely seen as invaders or occupiers. No issue has generated more

controversy than the Bush Administration's abuse of detainees, whether at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Bagram prison in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, other secret detention facilities around the world, or through the use of ``extraordinary rendition'' whereby prisoners were secretly delivered to the custody of foreign security forces whose use of torture was well documented.

These policies and practices, conceived and supported at the highest levels of the Bush administration, justified by Department of Justice lawyers who made a mockery of the law, and steadfastly defended as recently as last week by former Vice President Cheney, were abhorrent. They were also dangerous. They violated our international legal obligations, caused grave harm to our reputation as a country devoted to the rule of law, endangered our service men and women who every day face the risk of capture and mistreatment by our enemies, and caused deep embarrassment among the American people who, for generations, have taken pride in the image of our country as a defender of human rights and the highest moral values.

Last Friday, these issues and concerns were eloquently addressed in a timely piece in The Miami Herald by two distinguished retired senior U.S. military officers, Charles C. Krulak, who was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999, and Joseph P. Hoar, who was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994. I urge all Senators to read it, and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I thank my dear friend from Mississippi for his kind words. I know they will be appreciated by the Kennedy family.

Madam President, when I heard the Senator from Mississippi, and before him the Senator from Illinois, the Senator from California, the Senator from Massachusetts, and others who have spoken, it brought back so many memories. On August 26, very early in the morning, we heard the news about Senator Kennedy. Marcelle and I knew that day was coming. We knew the day was coming and that we would lose a close friend of over 35 years, but our farmhouse in Vermont was still filled with grief upon the learning of the news. We walked back and forth on the road in front of the house, looking out over the mountains and finding it hard to put into words how we felt.

We left Vermont to come down and join Vicki, such a dear and wonderful person, and all of Senator Kennedy's family at the memorial service in Boston, where so many offered touching stories of how they remembered Senator Kennedy.

Ted Kennedy, Jr., gave an incredibly moving tribute to his father. I told him

afterward that was the kind of eulogy Senator Kennedy would have liked. It was so Irish. Ted Kennedy, Jr., made us all laugh, and he made us all cry, almost in the same sentence. How Irish, how Kennedy, but how true were the emotions of every man and woman in that church--from the President, to the Vice President, to former Presidents, to Senators, to Members of the House, to close friends, and to so many of the Kennedy family.

I think of being sworn into this body as a 34-year-old nervous Senator. One of the first people who came up to shake my hand after being sworn in was Ted Kennedy, then Mike Mansfield and Howard Baker. I was awed to think I was in the presence of such people.

After serving with Ted for 35 years and speaking with him almost every single day, I look over at his desk, at something I have seen over the 35 years when we have lost colleagues, but I don't know of any time it has hurt so much to see the black drape across the desk, to see the vase of white flowers. I went by there yesterday and just put my hand on the desk. I will admit I was overcome with emotion and left the floor.

I have so many memories, as we all do, of my friendship with Ted. Senator Durbin spoke about how Ted Kennedy had a way of--no matter who you were, if you had tragedy in your family or an illness or something had happened, he would call or write, and he would offer help. It made no difference who you were.

I was very close to my father. He had met Ted a number of times. When my father passed away, virtually the first telephone call my mother received that morning was from Ted Kennedy. I remember my mother taking comfort in that.

Senator Kennedy's office is just one floor below mine in the Russell Senate Building. We both have stayed there all these years. On many occasions, especially when he was going for a vote, we could hear his great laugh echoing down the halls, and it would change our whole mood, our whole day. We often talked about the bond of the New England Irish and spoke about that again when we came back from Pope Paul John II's funeral and refueled the plane in Ireland. It was like following the Pied Piper at Shannon Airport. There were paintings of President Kennedy there. The Senator from Iowa remembers that.

As we walked through, Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd were telling Irish stories. There are memories of when Ted was walking the dogs outside of Russell Building, and we would talk and chat, saying: How is your family? How is this one or that one?

After Ted died, one of our newspapers in Vermont had a front-page picture that my wife Marcelle had taken back in 1968. It showed a young Ted Kennedy in Vermont campaigning for his brother Robert and talking with an even younger State attorney. We talked about Robert Kennedy-- the two of us--and I gave that photograph to Ted a few years ago because I found it in my archives. He chuckled and talked about how young we looked, and then he asked for another copy so he could sign one to me. That day we sat there and talked about his brothers-- obviously, the President, John Kennedy; Senator Robert Kennedy; and also his brother, Joe Kennedy, who had died. I talked about being interviewed by Robert Kennedy, who was Attorney General, when he invited me down to the Department of Justice. I was a young law student, and he talked to me about the possibility of a career in the Department of Justice. That talk meant so much to me, and his brother told me how independent the Department of Justice must be, even from the President of the United States. We never have enough time in this body, and a rollcall started and that conversation stopped. But I remember every bit of that so much.

I remember after that time we campaigned for Robert Kennedy, the next time I saw him was here when I was a Senator-elect. As a former young prosecutor, I walked into his office with trepidation and almost thinking I was going into the inner sanctum. I was going to talk with him about what committees I might go on. This great voice said: Good morning, Senator.

Coming from him, I turned around, assuming another Senator was walking in behind me, and I realized he was talking to me.

Ted's wonderful wife Vicki was part of a small book club, and my wife Marcelle was in that. The days they would meet, Ted would come up and put his arm around my shoulder and say, ``Patrick, we are in trouble today. Our wives are meeting, and tonight we are going to get our marching orders.'' You know what, Madam President. He was right.

All of the years I served on the Judiciary Committee, until this past year, I sat beside him. I am going to miss him on that committee. I am going to miss his help and advice. I am going to miss him on the Senate floor because not having him with us in the Senate is going to make a huge difference in negotiations on legislation, whether it is on a current issue of health care reform or any other issue.

I remember one meeting with Ronald Reagan when he was President. The President turned to Ted--and several of us, Republicans and Democrats, were meeting with him--and said, ``Thank goodness you're here, Ted. You are bringing us together.''

That difference extended beyond our shores. He personally made such a difference in bringing peace to Ireland and ending apartheid in South Africa. I remember going with President Clinton after the peace agreement, and everybody--while they would thank the Prime Minister of Ireland and Great Britain and President Clinton, they all wanted to come over and thank Ted Kennedy.

His sense of history and of our country and his firm and constant belief in America's promise and America's future was inspiring. His willingness to spend time with the most junior Senators as with all others of both parties made him a Senator's Senator. I think every single Senator, Republican or Democrat, would agree he was a Senator's Senator.

It is easy in politics to appeal to the self-interests in each of us. Ted Kennedy appealed to the best in us, to the American verities that are written not on water but in stone. He appealed to our sense of justice, to our sense of responsibility to each other, and to our uniquely American sense of hope and possibility. In the Senate, he labored to help reach bipartisan progress on health care, education, civil rights, voting rights, immigration reform, and so much more.

Madam President, the powerful have never lacked champions. Ted Kennedy was a champion for ordinary Americans and for those who struggle, those who do not have a champion. He believed everyone in this great land deserved the opportunity to pursue the American dream.

I thought last night at the President's speech--I talked before the speech with Mrs. Kennedy and after the speech with Senator Kennedy's three children. It was just impossible to fully put into words how much I miss him.

Marcelle and I miss our friend dearly, but we know it was a privilege to call him our friend. It was a privilege to serve alongside such a public servant dedicated as he was to making better the lives of millions of his fellow Americans.

It is a sad passing of an era, but Ted Kennedy would also tell us it is a time to look to the future.

Madam President, I close with this. I always thought when I left the Senate I would say farewell to this body and Ted Kennedy would be here to wish me Godspeed. I wish him Godspeed.

Mr. President, if information is power, then an informed public is certainly an ingredient that helps make government work better and more responsively for the people.

I have always had a keen interest in technology and the Internet, so it has been encouraging to see the commitment and skill that the Obama administration has invested in applying information technology to the functions of government. One of the clearest examples of this has been in the innovative release of data about funds appropriated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--the so-called economic stimulus package. It is all the more encouraging to see the way these efforts have spawned complementary initiatives by private foundations and entrepreneurs.

As a Vermonter I am especially proud that a project called ThisWeKnow.org became a top-three finalist in the Apps for America 2: The Data.gov Challenge, sponsored by The Sunlight Foundation, which asked contestants to produce Web applications to showcase the benefits of sharing Federal Government data with the public. ThisWeKnow.org, along with the other two finalists, showcased their Web sites this week in the Nation's Capital, at the Gov 2.0 Expo Showcase.

ThisWeKnow.org was selected as one of the three finalists out of 47 applications submitted. ThisWeKnow.org was built by GreenRiver.org and Intellidimension of Brattleboro, VT, to empower citizens to enter in their locations and to explore data related to their communities from across Federal agencies. Their site offers citizens one-stop shopping for information available to them about their own towns, States and communities.

The public's right to know is a cornerstone of our democracy. By using technology, a site such as this can provide citizens with access to data that is relevant to them and that can enable and encourage them to make informed decisions. This site is designed to make what was once a difficult and time-consuming process into a faster and more streamlined experience.

ThisWeKnow.org was designed and developed by Michael Knapp, managing director of GreenRiver.org, and Derrish Repchick, vice president of Product Development at Intellidimension, who are in Washington to attend the Gov 2.0 events this week. Although they did not win the grand prize, we congratulate them for all of their hard work and their public spirit, and encourage them to continue their efforts to promote a more accessible and open government.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a September 8 article from The Brattleboro Reformer be printed in the Record.