Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the division of time under the quorum call be divided equally.

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help protect children from Internet predators and pornographers. I am joined by the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, with whom I serve on the Judiciary Committee and who is herself a former prosecutor. The same bill has been introduced in the House by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Technology can do so much for us today, but it also has a dark side. Students and Senators can use it, but so can predators and pornographers. Sadly, in some ways children are more at risk than ever and we must do whatever we can to protect them. This means equipping law enforcement with the tools they need to combat the sexual exploitation of children wherever it occurs. This bill does several things. First, it makes it a crime to financially facilitate access to child pornography. Second, this bill requires companies such as Internet service providers to retain information such as subscriber network addresses for at least 18 months. Third, it expands existing authority to issue administrative subpoenas while investigating federal offenses involving the sexual exploitation or abuse of children. Fourth, it provides for protecting from intimidation or harassment child witnesses and victims in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Finally, it provides for enhancing criminal penalties or sentences for crimes such as the sex trafficking of children or child pornography. Several of these provisions may look familiar. The provisions relating to subpoena authority, protection of child witnesses, child sex trafficking, and sentencing come directly from S. 2925, the Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2009, which Senator Wyden introduced in the 111 Congress. In preparing this bill for introduction today, Senator Klobuchar and I met or spoke with law enforcement groups, financial institutions, communications companies, and child advocates. Many of them are stepping up their own voluntary efforts through coalitions such as the Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography and the Family Online Safety Institute. I have worked with many of these organizations and companies for years and look forward to doing so again on this important legislation. This is a strong bill, a balanced bill, which will provide effective tools for addressing these threats to our children. I know that many divisions exist today, in the country and in the Congress, on many issues. But I trust that those divisions will disappear when it comes to protecting children from sexual exploitation. That must be an ongoing commitment and I hope that all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle and across the political spectrum, will join me and Senator Klobuchar in supporting this legislation and helping us get it enacted into law.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help protect children from Internet predators and pornographers. I am joined by the distinguished senior Senator from Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, with whom I serve on the Judiciary Committee and who is herself a former prosecutor. The same bill has been introduced in the House by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Technology can do so much for us today, but it also has a dark side. Students and Senators can use it, but so can predators and pornographers. Sadly, in some ways children are more at risk than ever and we must do whatever we can to protect them. This means equipping law enforcement with the tools they need to combat the sexual exploitation of children wherever it occurs. This bill does several things. First, it makes it a crime to financially facilitate access to child pornography. Second, this bill requires companies such as Internet service providers to retain information such as subscriber network addresses for at least 18 months. Third, it expands existing authority to issue administrative subpoenas while investigating federal offenses involving the sexual exploitation or abuse of children. Fourth, it provides for protecting from intimidation or harassment child witnesses and victims in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Finally, it provides for enhancing criminal penalties or sentences for crimes such as the sex trafficking of children or child pornography. Several of these provisions may look familiar. The provisions relating to subpoena authority, protection of child witnesses, child sex trafficking, and sentencing come directly from S. 2925, the Trafficking Deterrence and Victims Support Act of 2009, which Senator Wyden introduced in the 111 Congress. In preparing this bill for introduction today, Senator Klobuchar and I met or spoke with law enforcement groups, financial institutions, communications companies, and child advocates. Many of them are stepping up their own voluntary efforts through coalitions such as the Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography and the Family Online Safety Institute. I have worked with many of these organizations and companies for years and look forward to doing so again on this important legislation. This is a strong bill, a balanced bill, which will provide effective tools for addressing these threats to our children. I know that many divisions exist today, in the country and in the Congress, on many issues. But I trust that those divisions will disappear when it comes to protecting children from sexual exploitation. That must be an ongoing commitment and I hope that all of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle and across the political spectrum, will join me and Senator Klobuchar in supporting this legislation and helping us get it enacted into law.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my Republican colleagues.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today we are beginning what might prove one of the most consequential debates in American history. The American people are demanding that Congress debate and pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. They are going to get that debate, and I am confident that if Congressmen and Senators listen to their constituents, the citizens of this Nation are going to have the opportunity to ratify a balanced budget amendment this year. All 47 Republican Members of the Senate are of one mind on the need for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. We have listened to our constituents who are pleading with us to take action that will permanently resolve our debt crisis and keep us from getting into this situation again. The situation is a disaster. We all know the numbers: three straight trillion-dollar-plus deficits; $14.5 trillion in debt and rising every day; $62 trillion in total liability that this government owns. Since Democrats last passed a budget--that was over 790 days ago--our national debt has risen by $3.2 trillion, and now the administration is asking for more. We simply cannot do this anymore. Madam President, 100 percent of our tax revenues are spent on mandatory spending and interest on the debt. Every other penny is borrowed. The money is simply not there to finance a government of this size, and everyone knows this, although not everyone will admit it. They know deficit spending and skyrocketing debt have come to an end. Our Nation's current debt-to-GDP ratio is 95 percent. Countries with debt above 95 percent of GDP have growth that is 1 percent below normal, resulting in a loss of 1 million jobs. Our debt is a lead weight around the neck of the economy. But in the current negotiations over the debt limit, the administration insists that it is Republicans who, by refusing to pass an increase of the debt limit that does not include meaningful efforts to address our fiscal situation, are holding back the economic recovery and undercutting the stock and bond markets. This has things exactly backward. The markets understand that our long-term deficit projections are moving toward a full-blown debt crisis. The markets understand that we are currently on the glidepath to Greece. The markets would respond like gangbusters to spending cuts, spending caps, and a balanced budget amendment that brings our long-term fiscal problems under control. I am more convinced than ever that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is essential if we are to right our fiscal ship. This is not the first time we have been down this road, but the stakes could not be higher this time, and the amendment could not be better designed to address the crisis. Our amendment is not just an amendment for fiscal balance, it is an amendment that takes on the root cause of our current debt crisis; that is, government spending. Our amendment requires a balanced budget. It establishes a spending cap of 18 percent of GDP, and it establishes supermajority requirements for tax increases or future debt-limit increases. We will hear a number of tired arguments against the BBA. Its opponents will say the amendment is not properly vetted. We have been talking about the balanced budget amendment for decades, and if we had passed it back in 1997, when it fell by 1 vote short of being sent to the States for ratification, we would not be in the mess we are in today. They will say it stacks the deck by requiring spending cuts rather than tax increases to balance the budget. This is an issue I will address at length, but the American people understand the solution to a spending crisis is not to give the government more money to spend, especially this government. They will say a balanced budget amendment is unnecessary and Congress just needs to do its job. But we have heard this over and over before, and the American people know that waiting for Congress to balance the budget and shrink the size of government without a constitutional amendment is less fruitful than waiting for Godot. They will say the spending cuts required as a result of this BBA will hurt children and the elderly. But the real harm to our children will be when we hand them a future of national indebtedness and dim economic prospects, and the real harm to the elderly will be the coming bankruptcy of the Nation's entitlement programs--the guaranteed result of the President's failure to lead on entitlement reform. Finally, they will say the Constitution should not be amended. I agree that it should not be amended lightly, but the Founders themselves expected that changing circumstances and national emergencies would demand amendments to the Constitution from time to time. The American people understand that this is one of those times. In this country, the people are sovereign, the Constitution is their Constitution, and they are demanding that Congress pass a balanced budget amendment and send it to them and the States for ratification. My hope is that the party of Thomas Jefferson will listen to their constituents and follow their founder's lead, keeping faith in the people and their good sense and stewardship over the Constitution. Later this summer we will vote on a balanced budget amendment. God willing, this fall the people in the States will start down the road to ratification. I am proud to be joined this morning by several of my colleagues who have been critical leaders on the balanced budget amendment. Each brings a unique perspective to this debate, and I think it is great that they are standing up to lead on this issue. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague, the junior Senator from Kentucky. He is a remarkable spokesperson for limited government, and I am glad to have him on my side in the coming fight for the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Well, that should go way beyond partisanship. If we pass it here by the requisite two-thirds vote and we pass it in the House, which we will, this will be submitted to the States, and then the States can make their determination whether or not we have a balanced budget amendment. The Democrats who hate the balanced budget amendment--some of them; in fact, most of them--all they have to do is get 13 States to defeat it. We have to get 38 States to win. Frankly, we will win this because the American people are with us. And this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do at this time. It is the only thing that is going to get us to right this fiscal ship.

Mr. HATCH. Gramm-Rudman lasted all but a year and a half, 2 years, before the same people went on a spending spree again, although it was a light spending spree compared to today. Today it is multitrillions of dollars. I have to tell you that has never worked. We have to put a straitjacket into this matter where the Congress has to live the way 49 States have to live. There is only one State that doesn't require a balanced budget in its State constitution. Why should we have a requisite desire--not only desire but rule to have a balanced budget as well? I am convinced that we have to do it after being in the Senate for 35 years and seeing, year after year after year, people unwilling to do this.

Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Senator. I think the Senator makes very good points there. Frankly, I know this body very well. I am the most senior Republican. I have been here 35 years. I have seen year after year after year excuses to go into debt, excuses to deficit spend, excuses for why they are putting our country into this terrible state of bankruptcy--just plain excuses. And, of course, they hide behind the fact that they are trying to do it for the good of the people. It is not for the good of the people. It is not good to not live within your means, and unfortunately that is what has been going on here all of the time I have been here.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I think he states it very well. That is the whole purpose of the balanced budget amendment. So I thank him for his cogent remarks and his erudition. Last week, I signed a pledge that many people in this body are hearing about from their constituents. It is called the cut, cap, and balance pledge. Those of us who signed this pledge committed ourselves to significant spending cuts, a cap on government spending, and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as a condition for supporting any increase in the debt limit. I was pleased to work with my colleague from Utah, Senator Lee, in developing a balanced budget amendment that is supported by every Republican in this body. Of course, we worked with many others as well, especially Senator Cornyn. I am now pleased to be working with him on the goals of the cut, cap, and balance coalition, a remarkable group of grassroots activists committed to getting our Nation's spending under control. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Lee.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Utah. He is a wonderful Senator and he serves as a leader in this area. I don't have enough good words to say about my friend from Texas, my colleague, Senator Cornyn, who was a judge on the Supreme Court in Texas before coming here. From the minute he set foot in this Chamber, he has been a strong conservative, committed to constitutional government. From the beginning of this Congress, he knew we needed to pass a balanced budget amendment, and we are going to need him in this fight. I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn.

Mr. HATCH. The Senator did. Back in 1997, we lost by one vote. I was leading the fight on the floor. We had 67 votes and one of our Senators flipped on us at the last minute and we lost it by one vote.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleague for those cogent remarks. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven, knows a thing or two about balancing budgets. As a former Governor, he knows this is something States have to do every day. Governors and legislatures balance their books by making the tough decisions the Federal Government is too often unwilling to make. So I yield the remaining time to my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute and to give the other side an additional minute.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Acting President pro tempore. I thank my colleagues. They have made some very prescient points on how important this balanced budget amendment is. By the President's own Actuary, by 2020, our national debt will be over $20 trillion. The interest alone will be over $1 trillion. We will not have any money for the poor, the sick, and the needy because we have not lived within our means. We simply have to get spending under control. The only way to do that is to do what all these 49 States have to do every year; that is, balance our budget through a requisite constitutional amendment. Let me make one last point; that is, I do not know why the Democrats--some Democrats--fight against this. Because literally, even if we pass it through both Houses of Congress by the requisite two- thirds vote, there is still going to be a big battle in the States, and if they hate it, they can fight it out there in the States. I think the reason they fight it is they know if we pass it here, it is going to pass through the States very fast because almost every State knows what we have to do. Almost everybody of intelligence knows what we have to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to the Utah Shakespeare Festival, the Nation's premier regional theater and one of our State's crown jewels, on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Great things often evolve from small or modest beginnings. That was certainly the case in 1961 when Fred C. Adams and his late wife, Barbara, founded the event in Cedar City with lofty goals, a bargain- basement budget of $1,000, and 21 volunteers. They envisioned what few others could see--that the 150,000 tourists who flocked to the area each summer might also be gathered for a theater festival. Today, the Utah Shakespeare Festival is the proud recipient of a Tony Award for being the ``outstanding regional theatre in America.'' It operates year-round, boasts a $6.6 million budget, employs 26 Equity actors and has another 300 community volunteers. Its repertoire has also expanded. Yes, Shakespeare is still the main attraction, but the festival also stages plays from three centuries of playwrights from all across Europe and the United States. Not bad for a festival that is 250 miles from Salt Lake City, the State's largest metropolitan area. Geography, though, can hardly be the sole consideration for theatre aficionados who wish to attend the festival. It is simply too good and too glorious to miss, for mileage's sake. That is why I and millions of others have eagerly gone the distance many times to take in Shakespeare's plays at the open-air Adams Memorial Theatre--modeled after the playwright's famed Globe Theatre in London--and other offerings at the indoor Randall L. Jones Theatre. Every time I have gone, I have been thoroughly entertained and richly rewarded. But the past is past, or, as Shakespeare put it, ``What is past is prologue.'' I look forward to many more productions there, and for the event to capture ever-more acclaim and captivate ever-larger and more appreciative audiences. Perhaps the Bard of Avon's words best sum up the festival's future: ``The golden age is before us, not behind us.'' I firmly believe that to be true. On this, the 50th anniversary of the Utah Shakespeare Festival, I salute the visionaries like Fred and Barbara Adams, Executive Director R. Scott Phillips, and the scores of organizers, performers, and volunteers who have and continue to make this wonderful event possible. I commend them for a wonderful 50 years and wish them well as they embark on the next 50 and continue to carry out the festival's mission to ``entertain, enrich and educate.''

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the great city of Perry, UT, on the 100th anniversary of its incorporation. Today, Perry is a beautiful city of nearly 4,000 residents nestled at the foot of northern Utah's majestic Wasatch Mountains. Its fame and acclaim are extensive for a variety of reasons. First, it is the apple of many a person's eye because of its location on Utah's famed Fruit Way. Its fruit stands along highway 89 are laden with apples, cherries, apricots, peaches, pears and other produce. I have never found any fruit nearly so sweet in all my travels. Perry is also home to the legendary Maddox Ranch House, where succulent steaks, fried chicken, homemade rolls and other fare have been food for thought and the palate for locals and many a weary traveler--this Senator, included--for more than six decades. Best of all, though, are the wonderful residents of Perry. I have always been unfailingly impressed with their work ethic and civic- mindedness their eagerness and willingness to pitch in and build a better future and community for their children and grandchildren. They also are warm and welcoming. Whenever people pop in, they never seem to be put out. It has been my experience that they are always eager to lend a hand or extend the hand of friendship. I always feel better for being there. It doesn't hurt that my wife Elaine hails from nearby Newton. Little wonder that every time I am in Perry I feel right at home. Great places like Perry don't just happen. It takes vision and hard work--a trait Orrin Porter Rockwell and his brother Merritt undoubtedly had in abundance when they laid claim to a piece of land in the area adjacent Porter Spring. They were followed in 1851 by the Mormon pioneers, settlers of faith and fortitude who befriended the Native Americans there and founded what became known as Three Mile Creek. Many milestones have come and gone since then. In 1861 the first school was built, followed by the groundbreaking for the Northern Utah Railroad 10 years later. And the settlers also weathered some adversity, including harsh winters and the Great Flood of 1896. Two years later, Three Mile Creek was renamed Perry in honor of Orrin Alonzo Perry, who served as an LDS bishop there for more than two decades. June 19, 1911, the date of Perry's incorporation, was another major event and marked a new beginning. Over the ensuing years, the people of Perry, under the guidance of some remarkable and visionary leaders, kept right on building, bringing electricity, drinking water, a town hall and more schools to the city. Just this year, Perry added a wastewater treatment plant and a soccer park to the mix. And I trust many more chapters remain to be written in Perry's illustrious history. As Perry celebrates its centennial over the Fourth of July weekend, I salute its visionary and hardworking citizens, both past and present, who have made the city what it is today. I am sure Orrin Porter Rockwell and Orrin Alonzo Perry would be proud. You can be certain that this Orrin is.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will be happy to be interrupted by the managers of the bill if they decide to come. imf bailout Madam President, there have been several recent warnings of large and growing risks in global markets from the European debt crisis. If Greece defaults, which investors see as likely, and European officials are unable to agree on how to restructure Greece's debt, lack of confidence in sovereign debt could spread. Investors could run away from liabilities issued by other highly indebted Eurozone countries or even the debt of the United States. Unfortunately, the President continues his disengagement in our debt problems. The administration continues to advocate more runaway deficit spending, continuing down the path toward European-style big government. Our debt-financed unsustainable debt is pushing us toward our own fiscal crisis. Yet the President has failed to lead us to a sound fiscal solution. My concern about the European debt crisis is about the possible exposure of the U.S. to a European-led contagion that could lead to catastrophe in the global market for U.S. Treasury securities. The U.S. financial system has exposures to liabilities of the public sectors, the banks, and the private sectors of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain, four highly indebted Eurozone countries. The extent of the exposure is unclear but is potentially greater than half a trillion dollars. Given the interconnectedness in global financial markets, ultimate risk exposure is difficult to disentangle. Most importantly, I am concerned about what all of this means for American taxpayers. Americans have made it crystal clear, they do not want more bailouts. Let me remind everyone of President Obama's pledge when he signed the Dodd-Frank banking act into law last year, an act which, by the way, is turning out to be a job-killer and is itself a threat to our financial markets. The President clearly stated, ``[t]here will be no more tax- funded bailouts--period.'' Unfortunately, that promise has proven hollow. Recall that a Democrat-led Congress, urged on by President Obama, upped the U.S. ante with the International Monetary Fund in 2009. Additional funding of up to $108 billion was provided to the IMF which can now be used to bail out profligate European governments. Make no mistake, bailouts are continuing and there are threats of even more on the horizon. Let me be clear now, before any crisis hits. There can be no further bailouts, of banks or foreign countries or private companies or unions or states that are funded by innocent American taxpayers. The people of Utah, whom I represent, and the vast majority of Americans want to hold the President to his promise. They are done with taxpayer-funded bailouts. The administration and the agencies responsible for oversight of our financial system need to bring some sunshine to this situation, and make clear to the American people just what the bailout risk is from the Eurozone or anywhere else. I am proud to cosponsor with Senator DeMint and several of my colleagues an amendment that will roll back the funding provided to the IMF in 2009. To make the President's pledge of no more tax-funded bailouts meaningful, and to do what the American people are clearly demanding of Congress, it is imperative to protect taxpayers from bailouts of profligate European countries through the IMF. American taxpayers deserve assurance now that they will not be again forced to assume risks and losses that they did not create. Taxpayers deserve to know that they will be protected from future bailouts. That is precisely what the amendment that I am cosponsoring will do. It is a simple amendment and its message is clear. No more taxpayer bailouts. If the President is unwilling to fulfill his pledge on his own, there are those of us in Congress who are happy to hold him to his word. I urge my colleagues to stand up for taxpayers and vote for this critical amendment. So far I have been speaking about this administration's abuse of power with regard to the IMF. I would like to switch gears for a few minutes and talk about another series of abuses that are no less outrageous. I am speaking about the Obama administration's labor agenda. Over the last month or so, many in this Chamber have expressed concern about the National Labor Relations Board's complaint against Boeing. That complaint has been almost universally criticized, if not outright condemned, from all corners of the country. Just last week, the Washington Post, not exactly known for having an anti-union bias, had some harsh words for the board's case against Boeing. I ask unanimous consent to have the Post's editorial printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Also last week, the NLRB released a notice of proposed rulemaking, aiming to drastically reduce the time between the filing of a union election petition and the vote to certify the union. The motivation behind this proposal is simple, the less notice the employers have regarding a union election, the less time they will have to make their case to the workforce. Unions and their democratic allies have sought these kinds of so- called reforms for decades. I want to be clear. For all of their talk about representing the little guy, and standing for the people, these reforms are an affront to the spirit of democracy. They show disrespect for employees by attempting to deny them critical information that could inform their choices in these elections. Their genesis is not in a concern for the common man but in the unholy alliance between union apparatchiks who want to grow their power and union dues, and the latte left that depend on those dues to elect representatives who have little in common with the workers whose paychecks get docked to elect them. Unfortunately, now that President Obama has packed the NLRB with former union lawyers, they look poised to get these rules. Let us be clear. This is a win for union bosses. But it is a big loss for the workers they purport to represent. I will have much more to say about the NLRB in the coming days. But, today, I want to focus on another runaway Obama agency that is setting aside established rules and procedures in order to pay back the President's union supporters. The National Mediation Board, which has jurisdiction over labor relations in the railroad and airline industries, has, like the NLRB, aggressively pursued a unionization-at-all-costs agenda. While the NMB's activities have not received the same attention as those of the NLRB, their actions are every bit as egregious. Last summer, the NMB, at the behest of big labor, changed the voting procedures for all union elections under its jurisdiction. For 75 years, an airline or railroad union had to win the support of a majority of the entire workforce in order to be certified as the representative. Under that system, workers who did not vote in an election were counted as no votes. The logic of this rule was sound. Unions do not seek to represent just the workers that vote in an election. A union claims to represent the entire workforce. The established rule ensured that the results of an election accurately reflected the will of a true majority of a given workforce. Unfortunately, logic and common sense often stand in the way of the big labor agenda. So in 2010 the NMB unilaterally changed the rule to lower the bar. Now these elections are decided by a majority of those voting in an election, regardless of how many workers actually voted. In other words, under the new rule a union could be certified even if a majority of the workers did not support it. Given the timing of this decision, one can only conclude that the pro-union appointees on the NMB were specifically targeting Delta Airlines for unionization after its merger with Northwest Airlines. I think it would be naive to assume otherwise. But here is the remarkable thing. The stage was set for a union cakewalk. Shortly after the NMB fixed the rules to secure a pro-union outcome, there was an election among Delta's flight attendants to determine if they wanted to be represented by the Association of Flight Attendants or AFA. All the rails were greased for the union. And the union still lost. The result was a triumph of employees over the union bosses. The employees had three options. One, voting yes to certify AFA representation; two, voting no to reject certification or, three, writing in an alternative choice for representation. The NMB did its best to fix this for the union. They counted the write-in votes, votes clearly supporting an option other than the AFA, as votes in favor of the union. But when the dust settled, with 94 percent of Delta's flight attendants voting in the election, the union still lost. Of course, the unions cried foul and have challenged those results. The NMB, which has shown little desire thus far to vindicate the rights of non-union workers, let alone those of employers, is currently investigating the AFA's claims that Delta interfered in the vote. I think we can guess how this investigation will turn out. This recent election was not the only setback the unions have received at the hands of Delta employees. Last fall, three other Delta workforces, the ticket agents, the bagging agents, and the reservation agents, all held separate union elections, all of which ended with similar results. The NMB is also investigating claims of interference in those elections, even though no substantive evidence has been presented. With these latter three elections, the union suitor was the International Association of Machinists, the same union whose interests the NLRB is serving with its absurd complaint against Boeing. If the Obama administration's commitment to serving IAM is consistent between agencies, and there is absolutely no reason to assume otherwise, I think we can predict just how those investigations will turn out. There is no time limit on the NMB's investigations. Delta has no way of knowing whether it is in the clear or whether it needs to prepare for more elections. More importantly, Delta's workers, who have repeatedly rejected unionization, will likely see no end to the bothersome pressure that comes with a union election campaigns. I think it is safe to say that, with the Obama NMB in charge, the number of union elections among Delta employees will be limited only by the time it takes for the unions to finally win one. The NMB is behaving like the bureaucratic equivalent of the scorer's table at the 1972 men's basketball gold medal game. They are going to give the unions as many chances as they need to win this fight. Labor law and policy plays an important role in our economy. In many respects, it determines which businesses will succeed and which will fail. It plays a significant role in decisions as to whether companies should invest in the U.S. or somewhere else. Sadly, it has become customary to expect pendulum swings in labor law each time the White House changes hands and appoints new government officials to lead the Federal executive branch and independent agencies. While this should not be the case, I do not think we've ever seen the pendulum swing as far as it has under the Obama administration. Unions represent less than 8 percent of the private sector workforce. Yet with President Obama in office, the union influence has been virtually immeasurable. This should not be surprising. During the 2008 campaign, President Obama addressed a gathering of the SEIU, probably the most politically powerful union in the country. During his speech, the President told the crowd if he were elected, ``we are going to paint the Nation purple with SEIU.'' Apparently, Madam President, this is the one campaign promise President Obama intends to keep. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he produced an argumentative masterpiece. He announced to a candid world that all people--regardless of their circumstances-- are created free and equal in their natural God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. After announcing these fundamental principles, this great lawyer then turned to proving his case--that King George III and Parliament had violated these principles so repeatedly, and so extensively, that Americans were justified in a revolution that would secure us as a free nation committed to the principles of the Declaration. Though it does not compare to the ringing rhetoric of the philosophical commitment to rights in the Declaration, we should not forget Jefferson's listing of the colonists' grievances--the long train of abuses that justified our revolution against King George. Among those grievances, Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress claimed that the King ``has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.'' Since 1776, even before our Constitution was conceived of, much less written, Americans have resented their subjugation to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. Americans strove to establish an accountable government that left them free to build their own families and livelihoods. King George had fair warning. A government that views the people as a draft horse to be exploited for power and resources will be bucked off, and that is what the colonists did. Following the Revolution, our Founding Fathers sought to construct a government consistent with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In an effort to keep their new republic accountable to the people, and to provide for the balance of powers between our three branches of government, our forefathers were careful in their assignment of powers regarding executive branch personnel in article II, Section 2 of our Constitution. In speaking of the powers of the President, that section reads in part, ``he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:'' Let me repeat that. By and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In our country, the people are sovereign, and that sovereignty is reflected in the accountability of executive branch officials not only to the President but to the people's elected representatives in Congress. Even with these constitutional safeguards, we have met with only mixed success in making sure that government officials are accountable to the people. In remarks originally delivered in 1980, former-Senator James L. Buckley--who also went on to be one of our Nation's great appellate court judges here on the DC Circuit--issued the following lament about the growing power of government bureaucrats. ``We have, in short, managed to vest these individuals with a degree of authority over others that the Founders of the Republic went to great pains to prevent anyone from acquiring.'' Things have only gotten worse since Senator Buckley gave that warning, and I think that in no small measure this growing lack of accountability is reflected in citizens' growing despair, and occasional anger, about the responsiveness of their government. That is why I am very surprised that this body is considering legislation that would further eliminate the accountability of roughly 200 powerful executive branch positions. I can tell you that I am hearing from my constituents on this. For them, this is more than an academic separation of powers, or checks and balances, issue, where Congress further delegates authority to the executive branch. For them, it is another example of Congress permitting the government bureaucracy to operate with less and less public accountability. Quite simply, the Federal Government is massive. And for all of the increases in its size since the founding, for all of the traditional powers of the States that it has displaced, the increases of the last few years stand out as historic. Congress passed a $1 trillion stimulus, on a largely partisan basis. It has passed Dodd-Frank, massively burdening our financial and banking sectors with new government mandates. And the icing on the cake was ObamaCare, a $2.6 trillion spending bill that has resulted in tens of thousands of pages of regulations drafted secretively by unaccountable Washington bureaucrats. And in this environment, we are urging legislation that would decrease oversight of the executive branch? With a national debt of more than $14 trillion and deficits that have topped $1 trillion in each of the last 3 years, we are ready to give the President greater discretion? We are going to give the administration more freedom to act without the oversight of the people's elected representatives? It is little wonder that the American people are increasingly concluding that no matter what they say or do, Washington won't listen to them. Commensurate with the increase in the size of government is the employment by the executive branch of unelected and unconfirmed special assistants and advisers with substantial power. These positions are commonly referred to as czars. President Obama is not the first President to appoint these so-called czars, but over the past few years their numbers seems to have increased. In a 2009 Washington Post editorial, current House Majority Leader Eric Cantor discussed his concerns with the administration's reliance on 32 identified czars who have not been examined by the legislative branch. The legislation before us will only increase the number of executive branch staff that are beyond the scope of effective congressional oversight. I appreciate the arguments of my colleagues who are promoting this legislation, but I respectfully disagree with their conclusions. Proponents believe that many of the positions where advice and consent is eliminated do not exercise a substantive policy role, have responsibilities that are managerial in nature, or have responsibilities that overlap or are duplicative of those of another confirmed officeholder. I am not able to speak on behalf of other committees, but as ranking member of the Finance Committee I can say that the Finance Committee was not consulted on this legislation until less than a week before the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Reform reported its bill. I am concerned that, though well-intentioned, the architects of this bill did not have the detailed knowledge of the positions being impacted to determine fully the appropriateness of advice and consent. A list of the positions that was circulated by the Rules Committee prior to the Homeland Security markup actually misidentified several Finance Committee nominees as falling within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and to my knowledge an updated list has not been made available. Chairman Baucus and I sent a letter to the leadership of the Homeland Security Committee before their markup, and I will ask that the letter be printed in the Record. That letter discusses the impact of this legislation on seven positions currently subject to the Finance Committees jurisdiction, and we both oppose this bill's removal of our constitutional power of advice and consent with respect to these nominees. However, the fundamental matter of accountability that we raise in that letter is an issue far broader than the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. I would like to highlight the position of Assistant Secretary for Legislation, and Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. In light of the controversial passage, and now implementation, of ObamaCare, does it really make sense to relinquish direct oversight over the Assistant Secretary of Legislation, a position which, according to the HHS Web page, ``is responsible for the development and implementation of the Department's legislative agenda''? Regardless of how one voted on the passage of the health care law, does anyone in this body really think that it makes sense for Congress to deliberately minimize oversight of its implementation? Additionally, I know some Members of this body have been concerned with how HHS has publicly discussed health care reform and have taken issue with the accuracy of information provided to the public. Regardless of whether this applies to any particular Senators, don't all of us want to ensure that HHS provides accurate and substantive information to the public regarding health reform? The Constitution in general terms provides Congress with the vital function of exercising oversight over the executive branch to ensure that our laws are carried out appropriately. Let me put that another way. The people, in ratifying their Constitution, gave to their elected representatives in Congress the solemn duty of supervising the administration of the law. And the constitutional power that guarantees this critical responsibility is the power of Senate confirmation. Some justify the legislation before us on the grounds that the Senate takes too long to process nominations for various reasons. I'm not here to say that these claims are totally without merit. However, I am confident that eliminating the constitutional requirement for advice and consent for hundreds of positions is the wrong solution. Any issues with the nomination process could and should be handled at the committee level, if not by the Senate as a whole, through the rules adopted by this Chamber. If some of us believe that we could carry out our responsibilities better, I am open to those ideas. However, I do believe that each Senate Committee should be able to determine how that committee will handle nominees, and then reexamine that decision as time passes. Enacting this legislation would significantly diminish, if not completely destroy, the possibility for reexamination of our decisions. If we surrender our jurisdiction over hundreds of executive branch positions and turn them into czars, that decision will likely be permanent. The choice we have to make now is whether we will abdicate part of our constitutional responsibilities or gives ourselves the opportunity to examine how we exercise those responsibilities. Will we share in the madness of King George? Or will we follow the trail blazed by or forefathers, like Thomas Jefferson? I think it is critical that we recommit ourselves to a government of the people, one that guarantees the representative character of executive branch officials. For that reason, I will be voting against cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I ask unanimous cnosent to have printed in the Record the letter to which I referred.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to stand with my friend from Florida, Senator Rubio, as he introduces an important piece of legislation, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill, which today is being introduced in the House by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, is based on the belief that children should not make profound life-changing decisions by themselves and that parents are generally in the best and most responsible position to help them. One of the many disturbing ironies in the abortion debate is that parental consent is needed for such things as tattoos or school fieldtrips but not always for abortions that will end one life and change another forever. Abortion advocates say that abortion should be treated as any other surgical procedure, but many of them oppose requiring the same parental consent for abortion that is required for any other procedure. What is worse, there are individuals and organizations out there who appear to care more about money an about kids. They are willing to help young girls get abortions by any means necessary, including taking them to other States without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Mind you, those same parents will be responsible for the aftermath, for the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of the abortion. If parents are to be responsible at the end, they have the right to be there at the beginning. If it were possible, just for a moment, to take the abortion politics out of the picture, every parent knows that kids have to develop over time the judgment and maturity to make decisions. No one is more committed to them, no one has more love for them, no one has more responsibility for them than their parents. This bill has two parts. First, it prohibits taking a minor across State lines for an abortion if doing so evades the parental involvement law in her home State. In the 109th Congress, this portion of our bill passed the Senate with 65 bipartisan votes. More than 80 percent of our fellow Americans support it. Second, this bill requires abortionists to notify parents of an out-of-State minor before performing an abortion. Fifty-seven Senators voted for cloture on this combined bill in 2006. I urge my colleagues to read the bill. It does not apply when an abortion is necessary to save a girl's life or if the girl is a victim of abuse or neglect. Again, please read the bill. It is carefully drafted with the appropriate exceptions and safeguards in order to focus on what unites the vast majority of Americans, that parents should be involved before their child has an abortion. The majority of States have laws requiring parental involvement and, with its interstate component, this bill is a legitimate and constitutional way for Congress to help protect children and support parents.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to stand with my friend from Florida, Senator Rubio, as he introduces an important piece of legislation, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill, which today is being introduced in the House by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, is based on the belief that children should not make profound life-changing decisions by themselves and that parents are generally in the best and most responsible position to help them. One of the many disturbing ironies in the abortion debate is that parental consent is needed for such things as tattoos or school fieldtrips but not always for abortions that will end one life and change another forever. Abortion advocates say that abortion should be treated as any other surgical procedure, but many of them oppose requiring the same parental consent for abortion that is required for any other procedure. What is worse, there are individuals and organizations out there who appear to care more about money an about kids. They are willing to help young girls get abortions by any means necessary, including taking them to other States without the knowledge or consent of their parents. Mind you, those same parents will be responsible for the aftermath, for the physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences of the abortion. If parents are to be responsible at the end, they have the right to be there at the beginning. If it were possible, just for a moment, to take the abortion politics out of the picture, every parent knows that kids have to develop over time the judgment and maturity to make decisions. No one is more committed to them, no one has more love for them, no one has more responsibility for them than their parents. This bill has two parts. First, it prohibits taking a minor across State lines for an abortion if doing so evades the parental involvement law in her home State. In the 109th Congress, this portion of our bill passed the Senate with 65 bipartisan votes. More than 80 percent of our fellow Americans support it. Second, this bill requires abortionists to notify parents of an out-of-State minor before performing an abortion. Fifty-seven Senators voted for cloture on this combined bill in 2006. I urge my colleagues to read the bill. It does not apply when an abortion is necessary to save a girl's life or if the girl is a victim of abuse or neglect. Again, please read the bill. It is carefully drafted with the appropriate exceptions and safeguards in order to focus on what unites the vast majority of Americans, that parents should be involved before their child has an abortion. The majority of States have laws requiring parental involvement and, with its interstate component, this bill is a legitimate and constitutional way for Congress to help protect children and support parents.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator McCain's amendment to prohibit the use of Federal funds for the construction of ethanol blender pumps and ethanol storage facilities. My vote today is not a vote against ethanol as a transportation fuel. I strongly support the greater use of alternative transportation fuels and alternative- fuel filling stations in the United States. In certain cases, I have even advocated for government support of these goals. But government support for a source of energy should create a temporary boost, not a long-term Federal dependency. It is just as foolish to attempt to build an economy on subsidized energy as it is to build a house on the sand. I have been criticized for opposing a Democratic proposal to raise taxes on domestic oil producer, but there is a difference in the size of the Grand Canyon between allowing oil companies to keep a portion of their own profits, which they use for more domestic energy production, versus handing out very large amounts of taxpayer cash to ethanol companies. Ethanol companies not only have a lower tax rate than oil companies on average, they also benefit from the ethanol excise tax credit, from government handouts for ethanol filling infrastructure, a large Federal mandate forcing refineries to produce ethanol whether it makes economic sense or not, and an ethanol import tariff. I cannot conceive of any justification for a program that hands out taxpayer funds for an activity as it does for ethanol blender pumps and storage facilities when it already has a Federal mandate forcing it into what used to be the free market. In my book, there is no greater subsidy than Federal mandate, and that alone is more than ethanol deserves. I have supported broad-based incentives for alternative fuels in the past, but enough is enough, and in the case of ethanol, it is more than enough by far. Affordable energy is basic to a strong economy just as a healthy blood supply is basic to human life, and a long-term handout is no substitute for affordability. I will continue to support reducing our dependency on foreign oil by increasing domestic energy production, increasing the efficiency of our transportation sector, and increasing the diversity of our transportation fuels. But those goals should focus on energy sources that can compete in the free market. Reliance on noncompetitive energy sources will only drag down our economy. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support more competitive America by voting for Senator McCain's amendment.

Mr. HATCH

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