Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank the soon-to-be chairman of the Finance Committee and the current chairman of the Finance Committee for the their help. I want to turn to my good friend Bob Casey about this in just a second.

This has taken 8 years to bring to this point. The amazing thing is that we have taken the opportunity to meet with every group on every side of this issue and to find agreement finally, and to go out and tell the American people what we are doing, and they look at us and say this makes commonsense; what took so damned long. I am embarrassed it took so long, but this is a product that Congress, the Senate, can be proud of.

Senator Casey just covered a lot of the specifics of the legislation. I will not go over those again.

I want to say to my colleagues: One of the clues that something was wrong was the fact that we penalized individuals who had disabilities from holding assets. It meant they couldn't buy a car and have it be in their name. It meant they could only earn so much before they were penalized. What we have done is changed the landscape, and we have actually put into effect something that allows them to accumulate something for the later years when parents are gone and when they are going to need the funds. We have tried to be fiscally responsible in capping the annual amounts, capping total amounts, affecting benefits if they exceed those amounts, and automatically reinstate them if they fall back below.

I think this is a bill that the Senate and the House of Representatives can be proud of. I thank the chairs, and I thank Senator Casey. I also want to take the opportunity on behalf of our colleagues in the House to say to Congressmen Crenshaw, Sessions and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers that we couldn't have done it without their leadership and an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to not only vote yes but to be proud of this legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor of the amendment from the Senator from Colorado. This amendment would correct a mistake and level the transportation fuel tax playing field by taxing LNG on an energy equivalent basis rather than a volumetric basis.

It would also put this cleaner and cheaper source of energy on an even playing field with diesel fuel. It would help a new industry get off the ground and become commercially viable simply by leveling the playing field.

When Congress first established the transportation fuel tax on LNG, it was not yet a fuel that had entered the commercial marketplace. There were no LNG trucks on the road. There was no one to educate us on the technical or marketing differences of these two fuels. Now that the LNG market is emerging, however, this unfortunate drafting error has shown its real world consequences.

The current tax system can result in thousands of dollars of additional tax for those who choose to utilize LNG. For example, if a diesel truck travels 100,000 miles at 5 miles per gallon it consumes 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel, however, an identical LNG truck would require 34,000 gallons of LNG to travel the same distance. Both trucks would consume the same amount of energy, measured in BTUs, but the current tax system would result in the LNG truck paying an additional $3,402 in taxes because of the 14,000 more gallons of liquid fuel consumed.

In addition, although we do not yet have any marine vessels operating in the U.S. on LNG, this too is an emerging market with great potential. High horsepower manufacturers are still developing the engines that will be needed to power vessels on LNG and we do not yet have a marine fuel sales infrastructure, but some ship owners are planning ship conversions or new orders that will allow them to utilize cleaner and cheaper natural gas fuel. We should not be raising a new obstacle for the marine industry by perpetuating this differential tax treatment on marine diesel fuel. Furthermore, there should be no scoring penalty from CBO or Joint Tax when we eventually get around to fixing the tax treatment of LNG versus diesel.

This is a commonsense proposal that allows diesel fuel and LNG to compete in the market fairly, opening doors for companies interested in switching to this environmentally friendly domestic energy source. We really need to find a way to fix this issue so that we can realize the economic and environmental benefits of the increased use of domestic natural gas.

Mr. President, I feel surrounded by friends and colleagues who are getting ready to leave, and being part of that original class 20 years ago, there is one thing that I have learned is extremely unique in Washington. I am next to two people who are voluntarily leaving. The toughest decision a Member of Congress ever makes is to leave this institution voluntarily. And I know that for my two friends and my third one, Mike Johanns, this was not easy. It is not easy to stand here and know that in January they are not going to be here any longer, because they are truly friends, and that is tough.

To say that Tom Coburn can be intimidating I think is an understatement, and I think that comes because his breadth of knowledge based upon his experiences in life enable him to be an expert on a lot of issues.

With that in mind, I remember the day Tom sat down--we were leaving that week, and I said: What are you going to do this weekend? And he said: Well, Sarah's future fiance is coming to sit down with me to find out whether he can marry my daughter. And I looked at him and thought, I would hate to be that young man.

Well, the truth is that Tom is a very intimidating guy. He plays hard, and he plays to win.

There is not an individual I know who is more fair and more compassionate than Tom Coburn. I remember the day the Bush administration wanted to extend the PEPFAR Program--the AIDS in Africa program--and when Tom found out that they were going to relax the requirement on how many people were treated and that more money would go to education than to actually saving lives, he grabbed me and he said, ``We can't let this stand. We've got to fight it. We've got to change it.'' And it was Tom Coburn who blocked the reauthorization of President Bush's PEPFAR plan for 6 months--a Republican President, a Republican Senator. Why? On principle.

Tom Coburn, if you didn't know it before this speech today, has never done anything in this institution or in life that wasn't based upon principle. No Member of Congress should ever question whether he thinks he is right because if he didn't think he was right, he wouldn't fight so hard.

It is particularly difficult for me to say goodbye to Tom. We truly are legislative partners. We fought a lot of battles for a long time, and inherently we have a level of trust in each other that I would actually sign on to legislation that I had no idea what it did; I just knew that in that foxhole he needed somebody he could count on, and I knew when he signed on to something that I needed, that there was always somebody there to cover my back.

The institution is losing something significant when we no longer have that legislative expertise Tom Coburn represents.

There are a lot of descriptions that people have used today and that people will use in the future to describe Tom Coburn, but I would boil it down to two words that I think best describe him: Tom Coburn is a good man. In every sense of the word, he is a good man. This institution will lose a great leader when Tom Coburn retires.

Godspeed, Tom.

Mr. President, this moment is bittersweet for me.

I spent more time with Saxby than I have with my own wife for the past 20 years. We have done everything together. Those vacation spots he mentioned--Kabul, Baghdad--I was right beside him.

We traveled to areas of the world that others wouldn't venture to, and there was a reason he was there. He was concerned about America's future, he was concerned about his children's future, and he was in a position to have an impact on it to make it better for them in the future. That is why he served. It is obvious to all of our colleagues that he is a lot older than I am, but he has worked just as hard as the youngest Member of this institution.

Even though we have seen each other's children grow up, and now we have seen them all married off, he deserves the time to go home and spend some time with his grandchildren and, more importantly, to get to know his wife again.

I want to say, Senator Feinstein, I like red wine just as much as Saxby does. I probably can't be bought as cheaply as he could, but I do look forward to continuing to work with you and, more importantly, to continue to do the work on the Intelligence Committee that really does build on what Saxby started in the year 2000 as we went on the House Intelligence Committee together.

There is only one way to sum up Saxby Chambliss. He is a true southern gentleman. He is absolutely a statesman, but what everybody who meets Saxby understands is this. He is a great American, he loves this country, he loves this institution, and some piece of him will remain here when he leaves at the end of this year. He will have an impact on what happens even though his presence may not be here.

We wish him Godspeed in life after.

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor today because in just a little over 2 hours we are going to take up the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014. Let me explain what that is.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant Program was created in 1990 to provide a voucher to meet the childcare needs of families at risk of having to make the decision that one or both parents couldn't work because childcare had such a tremendous expense with it. We wanted those parents to be able to participate in the productive part of our economy and society.

I can honestly say this is one of the most successful programs Congress has ever produced. The program, as is the case with every bill, is required to be reauthorized after a certain period of time. It was started in 1995--I might add the year I got here--and it was reauthorized in 1996. This was the last time this bill was ever reauthorized.

Now, let me point out that authorization and funding are two different things. These vouchers have existed in the system but Congress has not reauthorized the program; therefore, we haven't changed the program since 1996. I ask my colleagues to stop for a moment and think about how society has changed since 1996. The world has changed since 1996. Things we took for granted in 1996 we need proof of today. Things we didn't worry about in 1996 we worry about today. Let me suggest that childcare is no different. There is still a need for some type of vouchers for families who are on the bubble, and I dare say that childcare has gotten incredibly expensive since 1996.

I rise today to congratulate this body because this afternoon, in just under 2 hours, we are going to pass the first reauthorization of the Child Care Development Block Grant program since 1996. I will be really very honest; it wouldn't be possible if it wasn't for my partner in this endeavor, Barbara Mikulski. Senator Mikulski has been tenacious. She has stood by my side, and she has told me when she didn't think we should move forward, because as easy and as common sense as it sounds, it has been really difficult to get to this point. This has been a 3-year process. So for those who criticize Congress, let me assure those people, we have touched every base we can touch.

Several years ago, while we served as chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Children and Families, Senator Mikulski and I promised at that time to address the shortcomings in the CCDBG Program so that children could attend childcare and their families could expect a healthy setting that fostered their development.

Now, for years, we have heard stories about abuse and neglect in many childcare settings--stories that continue to break my heart and, I think, break the heart of every American. We saw numerous inspector general reports that documented unsafe conditions where children were neglected and Federal tax dollars were misused.

Let me stop here and say this. Everything we do in this bill only applies to a childcare facility that accepts CCDBG money. They can be private institutions. They can be faith-based institutions. Their construction can be a combination of all of the above. If they accept one penny of CCDBG money, they are now required to meet the quality standards and safety standards we set in this bill. Now, in North Carolina, that covers practically every childcare facility. But in every State they don't go to the lengths we do in North Carolina nor that we go to in this piece of legislation. I hope my colleagues will go back to the States they hail from, and they will suggest that things such as background checks for workers at a childcare facility is common sense. To say to a parent who is dropping off a young child, whether the Federal Government subsidized with a voucher or not--that parent should feel 100-percent confident that the worker there is not a convicted felon, that they are not a drug addict, that they have passed the minimal background check that most of us would think is common sense.

I might also take the opportunity to stop and say to the Presiding Officer, who represents Virginia, you might think--gosh, this is a financial burden on all childcare centers. No, this is a $15 investment in the safety of every child who is housed in their facility.

For a program that in many States represents almost all the funding used for childcare subsidies, Senator Mikulski and I knew it was an obligation to act to reauthorize this law so appropriate boundaries were put in place. To continue to ignore these realities would have allowed Federal dollars to keep funding abuse, waste--taxpayers, parents, and children deserved our action.

Since then, between the two of us and our staffs, we have held four HELP Committee hearings. We have 236 hours of negotiations. We have dozens of meetings with 44 advocacy organizations supporting this legislation. The Senate had 18 amendments considered and voted on in this institution, the Senate, back in March when the legislation passed this body of Congress 96 to 2. That was March.

We are here today because the House changed the bill a little bit with our blessings, and this afternoon we are going to take up passage of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014.

My hope is this is going to be a unanimous vote by the Senate.

Bringing the HELP Committee together, as the Presiding Officer knows, is very difficult because of the diverse ideology of the makeup of members on the HELP Committee.

It is no small feat we have gotten to this point, and we hold together the support of people who look at the world a little bit differently than I do and may geographically come from a different area than I do.

I wish to publicly say thank you to Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Alexander, Ranking Member Enzi before that, because if it wasn't for the leadership on the full committee, Senator Mikulski and I would not have had the opportunity to mark it up in committee, to pass it on the Senate floor, to work with the House, and now to have a bill back.

As I conclude, let me just say for the 1.7 million children served nationally by CCDBG and the 80,000 served in my State of North Carolina, safe and quality childcare will now be a priority, ensuring working parents trying to better their lives and those of their children will feel safe using their Federal vouchers.

In short, I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this legislation. We waited way too long since 1996 to make the commonsense changes that provide safety and quality in the childcare that we, the taxpayers, provide to those families on the bubble.

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

Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise today to pay tribute to Jerry L. Hedrick, a lifelong North Carolinian, distinguished public servant, a United States Army veteran, and a leader of distinction at many levels in the American Legion, who died on August 25, 2014, concluding a life of superb and selfless service to the veterans of North Carolina and America. Jerry passed away on the eve of the American Legion's National Convention in Charlotte, NC, an event he had been actively planning for almost until the moment his life ended. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that Jerry put his heart and soul into the Legion's mission throughout his life.

Jerry was born in Lexington, NC a year after the end of World War II and spent his younger, formative years in Davidson County, where he was graduated from Lexington Senior High in 1965, just as the war in Vietnam was escalating. Jerry joined the United States Army in 1966 and was trained as an armor crewman. He was subsequently assigned to Alpha Troop, First Squadron, of the Fourteenth Armored Cavalry Regiment, based in Fulda, Germany. This was in the early years of the Cold War that pitted North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces, commanded by the United States, at outposts and in forward bases along the border that divided a free and democratic West Germany from a repressive communist regime in Soviet supported East Germany. The open lowlands around Jerry's base were known then and for the next 25 years as the Fulda Gap, where NATO expected a Soviet invasion of Western Europe would come through. At that time America's attention was turning toward Southeast Asia and the hot war there, but Jerry and his fellow soldiers had a vital mission, one that would continue until the demise of the Soviet Union.

Jerry received an honorable discharge from the Army in 1968 and returned home to North Carolina. Soon after, he joined American Legion Post 8 in Lexington and found work as a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service, where he worked faithfully from 1969 until 2001. In the early post-Army years, Jerry somehow found the time amidst all his activities to study and obtain a business degree from Rowan Technical Community College. Years later, when Jerry was asked what spurred his decision to join the Legion, he simply stated, ``I was asked by fellow workers and I wanted to help veterans.''

Throughout his over four decades of service to the Legion and to North Carolina's veterans, Jerry Hedrick held almost every leadership position from Post Financial Officer, to Post Adjutant, to Post Commander, and went on to serve as both a Department and District Vice Commander and Commander, as well as rising to National level committees that addressed Americanism, Military Affairs, and International Affairs. Jerry was also the North Carolina Department's representative to the dedication of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC and would say in later years that some of his fondest memories were from his time on the National Executive Committee, which is responsible for drafting the annual budget and signing off on the American Legion's spending.

While he devoted much of his life's work to the Legion and to veterans' issues, Jerry Hedrick was also devoted to his wife Marie and to his family, and a prominent figure in his community, through volunteerism for the Moose, Masonic, and Elks Lodges.

When I reflect on the sum total of Jerry's life, I see a man who knew that the calling of service and the value of fellowship were essential elements of the American experience and what truly bind us together. As an advocate for veterans, his legacy is typified in the old saying that the measure of a man is not what he does but what he gives. Jerry lived those words until his last day with us.

I offer his wife Marie and his entire family my deepest condolences. They, all of North Carolina, and this Nation, have lost a lifelong friend, a true gentleman, a stalwart leader for veterans, and a role model for those committed to community and national service.

Madam President, I stand today not to rehash with my colleagues the crisis that exists at the Veterans' Administration or to share it with the American people. They know the story, and especially our Nation's veterans, who have been given the runaround.

I am here to highlight a success in the Senate. See, my colleagues, on July 7, 2014--not even a month ago--we received the nomination for the new VA Secretary from the President.

On July 22 of this month, we had a confirmation hearing on that nomination. On July 23--the next day--Robert McDonald was passed unanimously out of the committee. Today--before the end of July--we are on the Senate floor to confirm Robert McDonald as the next VA Secretary.

I rise to urge my colleagues to support this nomination. The VA needs a confirmed Secretary in place to begin a long, arduous process of reform and cultural change.

By now, our colleagues probably know that Bob McDonald is a veteran himself. He is a graduate of West Point. He served 5 years in active duty, and served most of that time at Fort Bragg, NC. So I consider him one of ours.

He spent more than 30 years working for Procter & Gamble--I think the most competitive manufacturing company in the world. His work led him across the globe. But he also had prominent roles at a number of other organizations--Xerox, United States Steel Corporation, and the Business Roundtable.

Mr. McDonald has frequently lectured to groups on leadership skills, and his leadership philosophy was highlighted in the book ``The Leader's Compass.'' He is the type of leader we need at the VA at this very crucial time.

Bob McDonald clearly has the experience to run an organization as large and as diverse as the Department of Veterans Affairs. Perhaps more importantly, he has selflessly agreed to take the challenge of leading the VA at its most critical time--something many people might have passed on.

I hope this week, in addition to this nomination, we will pass legislation to help the VA and its next leader address the systemic problems with access to VA health care and a corrosive culture that led to this crisis. But that legislation would be just one step. An enormous amount of work must be done from within the VA to rebuild its reputation and to turn it into an agency that will live up to the expectations of our veterans and a nation grateful to them for their service. We need a strong leader to do that, and I am glad Robert McDonald has agreed to serve his country once again in this important role.

The nomination received the unanimous support of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I urge my colleagues: Confirm Robert McDonald as the next Secretary of the VA, and let's get on with the important work of reform at that agency.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to discuss the administration's misguided foreign policy, especially as it relates to Afghanistan and the threat of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani Network. Despite what the administration would have you believe, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani Network remain capable and committed adversaries in Afghanistan. They are a clear strategic threat to the safety, the security, and the stability of the region and continue to commit to acts of violence against U.S. troops and plot against U.S. interests in the region and here at home.

Yet, for some reason, this administration has time and again failed to

recognize this simple fact, or worse, they have chosen to ignore it. Al Qaeda is not decimated--regardless of what Ambassador Rice may have communicated to the American people. Its senior leadership continues to plot devastating attacks and, more troubling, serve as an inspiration to a series of affiliates in Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere. These affiliates are plotting against the United States of America here at home, with the guidance, advice, and financial support of Al Qaeda's senior most leadership.

The Al Qaeda brand is alive and well, and the Obama administration's AfPak strategy to end the conflict, not win it, reveals a profound failure to analyze threats to the region, the world, and the United States of America.

Despite what this administration would have you believe, leaving Afghanistan before our work is done will not--will not--end the fighting. We cannot take the pressure off or our enemies will bring the fight to our doorstep here at home.

But Al Qaeda is not alone in Afghanistan. It is well established that the Haqqani Network, one of our deadliest adversaries, is the link between the Taliban and Al Qaeda--a direct link.

The Haqqani Network is directly responsible for a significant number of U.S. casualties and injuries on the battlefield in Afghanistan and continues to actively plan potentially catastrophic attacks against our interests and the interests of others in the region.

The group routinely targets civilians--civilians--and uses murder as an intimidation tactic against the Afghan people. They have mounted numerous assaults and suicide attacks on civilians and U.S. forces with deadly effectiveness. Yet the administration took until late 2012--at the urging of the Senate of the United States in a bill that I introduced--to actually name the Haqqani Network as a foreign terrorist organization.

Why was that important? Because that act changes the game. It provides us the full range of diplomatic and military tools to use directly against the Haqqani Network. It is against that backdrop that the administration then negotiated with the Haqqani Network the release of five high-level Taliban fighters for SGT Bowe Bergdahl's return. In other words, the President rewarded the Haqqani Network for its incarceration of a U.S. servicemember, strengthened its relationship with the Taliban, emboldened the Taliban, and undermined the Afghan Government--all with one decision.

Does anyone in this administration believe that five high-ranking Taliban officials, when set free, would not return to the fight? If they do, then they have not paid attention for the last decade or longer.

I understand that this Nation is weary of war. I understand the sacrifices made by our servicemembers, and I work every day to ensure that our brave veterans are provided the care and treatment they deserve. Their efforts should not be in vain.

As we are here today, Marine Cpl Kyle Carpenter will receive the Medal of Honor. He was a 19-year-old when he signed up to go in the Marine Corps. The young marine, in combat--to save a fellow marine-- jumped on a grenade. Kyle Carpenter lived--not only lived--after 40 surgeries, today he just completed his freshman year at the University of South Carolina, at 24 years old.

He is an American hero. He could be any one of our children or grandchildren. What makes this country great is that we have people such as Kyle Carpenter who step up, when asked, and they do more than we could ever ask of them.

Our servicemembers served and sacrificed overseas so that we could be safe at home. We cannot in good faith let the administration dishonor their efforts with a misguided policy.

The continued drawdown of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan will provide Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the Haqqani Network with a safe haven to train operatives and plot further attacks against the United States of America and our allies.

Contrary to the campaign statements of the President and Vice President, Al Qaeda is not ``on the run,'' and I urge this administration to avoid further actions that may endanger our Nation.

I yield the floor for Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, last week the Senate passed H.R. 3230, Veterans' Access to Care through Choice, Accountability, and Transparency Act. Today, I rise to address some concerns my colleagues raised about whether veterans will be able to choose their own providers. Some may read section 301 of this bill to mean that VA is still in the driver seat. Specifically, that VA will be able to pick and choose which provider to contract with under this section and not offer veterans a true choice of where and from whom they receive their care. However, that is not our intent.

Our intent is to give veterans the choice of where and from whom they receive their care without interference from VA. Beyond that, H.R. 3230 provides that if a doctor or hospital approaches VA and states they want to help alleviate the current access problems, VA would be directed to contract with that doctor provided they participate in Medicare. Because this legislation requires VA to pay these providers at the Medicare rate, VA would be able to implement a standard contract for the care and services veterans receive and would allow VA to expeditiously implement a contract with that doctor and get veterans the care they need as soon as possible.

Madam President, I wish to congratulate the Bishop McGuinness Catholic High School boys tennis team for securing the North Carolina High School Athletic Association's 1A dual tennis championship. The team proved that hard work pays off by finishing the season 15 to 1 in dual matches.

With the expertise and positive influence of head coach Bob Weckworth and associate head coach Benny Jones, these young men achieved a well- deserved victory.

Winning a State championship is a testament to hard work and dedication. They displayed pride and sportsmanship throughout the season.

I join the students, teachers, friends and family of Bishop McGuinness Catholic High in congratulating Ben Jandzinski, Andrew Balogh, Alek Bissell, Jonathan Ingram, Zack Jones, Max Kreber, Sam McLaughry, Jesse Russell, Will Shannon, John Valle, Lance Dittrich, Adam Chinnasami, Jared Russell, Justin Russell and Dickson Tam on their hard-earned championship.

Madam President, I would like to engage my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Finance Committee, in a short colloquy regarding Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule payment reform provisions included in the SGR patch bill, Protecting Access to Medicare Act.

I thank my colleague and commend his work and the work of his staff in the development of this proposal. Reform of the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule is an important priority. The current system does not allow for changes in reimbursement for specific tests and instead, cuts to lab reimbursement have been broad reductions to the fee schedule overall. This imprecise approach has hampered the ability of labs across the country to continue to innovate and improve the diagnosis and treatment of disease. The Protecting Access to Medicare Act reforms this outdated approach and establishes a system requiring laboratories to report market rates to establish Medicare reimbursement. It is my understanding that the intent of this provision is to ensure that Medicare rates reflect true market rates for laboratory services, and as such, that all sectors of the laboratory market should be represented in the reporting system, including independent laboratories and hospital outreach laboratories that receive payment on a fee-for-service basis under the fee schedule. I ask my distinguished colleague if this is his understanding of the intent of this provision as well.

I thank the Senator for his insights and his work on reform of the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule.

Mr. President, I rise to thank the great people at the Charlotte Motor Speedway for their hard work in honoring our Nation's military and veterans' families. This Memorial Day Weekend, the 55th Let Freedom Race Celebration at CMS will bring together more than 100,000 military guests to celebrate our military heroes and honor their service. This Memorial Day tradition will, once again, showcase our military strength by demonstrating patriotic unity and pride for those who served in our Armed Forces to protect us.

Over the 55 years of the Memorial Day weekend celebration at Charlotte Motor Speedway, millions of race fans have joined together to celebrate America's military heroes and honor their service. Generations of men and women have worn their Nation's uniform with pride and put their lives on the line to protect and preserve our most precious commodity: freedom. Many of them paid the ultimate price and should always be remembered for their sacrifice. I commend all those at Charlotte Motor Speedway, and the wider racing community, for their continuing support of our men and women in uniform.

Please join me in recognizing those at the Charlotte Motor Speedway for their efforts in promoting the Let Freedom Race Celebration each May.

Let me say to my good friend, the Senator from Tennessee-- who not only was a walk-on track member at Vanderbilt, but was the president of the University of Tennessee, the Governor of Tennessee, the Secretary of Education, and now is a Senator--his credentials allow him to say whatever he wants to on this issue with a degree of knowledge.

It was Teddy Roosevelt who identified the challenge of college football, and through his attempt to get Harvard and Yale and a couple of other universities to address the risk, the NCAA was created.

The amazing thing to Senator Alexander and myself is that we have this governing body today that by all practical observations has done a great job of regulating college sports. It is the reason we have fabulous playoffs. It is the reason we have integrity in the scholarship system. But, more importantly, it is the reason we have top-quality athletes who go into these schools, where less than 1 percent become pros. Ninety-nine percent of them are reliant on a great education for a fabulous outcome in life. To do anything that changes the balance of what they have been able to create is ludicrous and I think what troubles me, and I think it troubles Senator Alexander.

These are not some misguided college football players. This is the United Steelworkers. Let me say that again because I do not think people understand it. This is the United Steelworkers who have put up the money so that these players from Northwestern would go to the NLRB and say: We want to unionize at Northwestern University. Well, on the face of it, it creates a great inequity between public and private schools, where we have a governing body that tries to make this process as equitable as it can.

But let me make this point: If you want to drive the rest of the schools out of major sports, then do this. Only 10 percent of our Nation's athletic programs make money. That means 90 percent of them lose in the athletic department. But for the quality of life of

all students, not just athletes, they continue and their alumni continue to subsidize it.

I agree with my good friend from Tennessee. This would be a huge mistake, and it is time for those players at Northwestern to think about more than those individuals who have fronted them the money to bring this case.

Well, let me say to my good friend from Tennessee, I will quote the words of Wake Forest President Nathan Hatch, a former provost at Notre Dame, in an editorial he wrote in the Wall Street Journal just this week.

He says:

To call student-athletes employees is an affront to those

players who are taking full advantage of the opportunity to

get an education. Do we really want to signal to society and

high-school students that making money is the reason to play

a sport in college, as opposed to getting an education that

will provide a lifetime benefit?

President Patrick Harker, president of the University of Delaware, in the same article said:

Turning student athletes into salaried employees would

endanger the existence of varsity sports on many college

campuses. Only about 10 percent of Division I college sports

programs turn a profit, and most of them, like our $28

million athletic program at the University of Delaware, lose

money. Changing scholarship dollars into salary would almost

certainly increase the amount schools have to spend on

sports, since earnings are taxed and scholarships are not. In

order just to match the value of a scholarship, the

university would have to spend more.

At Wake Forest, let me say, today a scholarship is worth $45,600 in tuition in fees, $15,152 in room and board, $1,100 in books. I will say to my good friend from Tennessee, I am not sure if there is still $15 of laundry money a month that exists under a scholarship. That is what it was when I was there. I daresay I hope it is more than that today because I do not think you can do laundry for $15 a month.

Let me say to my good friend, as one who remembers August practices in the South--hottest time of the year, three practices a day--the first thing I would bargain out for all players is that I would have to get my ankles taped at 4:30 in the morning, that I would have to go all day and most of the night, and that I could not take that tape off until 8:30 after three practices.

I would negotiate away the smell of dead grass in August, a memory every college football player, as a matter of fact every football player, has of that dead grass in summer practice in hot weather.

I plead with those who play today: Do you truly believe you can form a team if in fact you have individuals who negotiate individual things for themselves? If quarterbacks negotiate they cannot be hit, how good is the club? But where is the team? If individuals find that it is advantageous to them because they are stars and they can negotiate it, where have we lost the sense of team sports?

The Senator from Tennessee mentioned this to begin with: College sports is a lot about the experience. It builds character. It builds integrity. It builds drive. It builds resilience. It is not the only thing in life that does it, but to me, for many individuals, for many young men and women, this is the most effective way for them to become leaders. I might say it is very much the style of our training in the military. As we raise those young officers, they go through a very regimented training.

Imagine what it would be like if we allowed the military to collectively bargain. Let me tell you, none of us would feel safe at night because we don't know exactly what they have gone through. Today we feel safe because we know they have all gone through the same thing.

I just wanted to address one last thing; that is, the claim that this case was all about health care. The Senator from Tennessee has pointed out as well the options that we have today. But let me speak from a firsthand experience: a college athlete, four operations-- two knees, an elbow, a finger. Probably the only record I hold at Wake Forest is the total number of inches of scars on my body. Because of modern medicine, that record will not be broken because they do not do surgery that way anymore.

But I think it is best summed up by our current Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, when he said this:

When sports are done right, when priorities are in order,

there is no better place to teach invaluable life lessons

than on a playing field or court. . . . Discipline,

selflessness, resilience, passion, courage, those are all on

display in the NCAA.

Why would we do anything to risk that? Not only do I believe this is risky, I think just a consideration of it is enough to make us--or should make us reject this quickly, not embrace it.

I thank my colleague from Tennessee.