Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. The ranking member, my friend from Alabama, summed up the fiscal predicament perfectly. It comes down to a lack of balance. Our friends on the other side simply cannot agree among themselves at this time, and the reason they cannot agree is, most of them are looking to the revenue side of the ledger to resolve what is a spending problem. The Finance Committee has jurisdiction over 50 percent of Federal spending, and that will trend to 60 percent shortly. It has jurisdiction over nearly all revenues. As a member of the Finance Committee and ranking member, I fail to see how a tax-increase-driven budget can be advanced in the Finance Committee on a bipartisan basis. I am keenly interested in how the Budget Committee will come down on the biggest policy question of our time. I am pleased to have the advice and counsel of my friend from Alabama as that process moves forward. I would like to have the advice and counsel of the distinguished Budget Committee chairman, but he cannot get his side to do what is reasonable; that is, bring down spending. That is what we have to do. We are taxing enough. We are spending us into oblivion, and that is the problem.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. He sums it up pretty well, is all I can say. For our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, we need to get this done. Frankly, it ought to be done in the Budget Committee and not by rule XIV on the floor. The reason it should be done in the Budget Committee is because I know the minority will weigh in and at least have their viewpoints expressed. There will be amendments, and people can vote up or down on whatever it is. Then they can bring it to the floor, and we should have a complete consideration of it here as well. That is the way it ought to be done. As a former member of the Budget Committee, I have to admit it is a difficult process, but it is not difficult if we all work together to get spending under control and quit taxing the American people to death. We can do this if we work together. I hate to say it, but I think our friends on the other side are not working together in their own caucus. The distinguished Senator from Alabama has pointed that out--I think courteously--today. I hope they will get together, even though I am pretty sure they are going to come up with a budget that continues to spend and tax such as we have had in the past. I hope they do not. If they do not, I think the American people will breathe a sigh of relief and say they did a good job. If they do, I think it will be more of the same.

Mr. HATCH. Is it time to move to the Liu nomination?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to move to the nomination, if the leader has no objection, so I may give my opening remarks. I withdraw my unanimous consent request and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time be divided equally.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the Republican leader's Offshore Production and Safety Act, S. 953. I have to say it is a breath of fresh air to be discussing a substantive energy policy proposal. Last week in the Senate Finance Committee and yesterday on the Senate floor, we witnessed a cynical charade as some of my colleagues attempted to exploit high gas prices as an excuse to, once again, raise taxes. It is no secret the liberals in Congress have an answer to every problem but unfortunately it has been the same answer for every problem. Whether the problem is health care costs, out-of-control spending, unemployment, or high gas prices, their answer in every case is to raise taxes. The American people have caught on to the uninspired monotony of that particular message. In the last election they sent us their own message: enough with the spending and enough with the taxing. Apparently, though, that message was not loud enough or clear enough because the worn-out big government approach remains the only option being offered by my friends on the other side. Americans are fed up with lame excuses to expand the size of government. What Americans want, need, and deserve is real solutions to real problems. Those problems are real. High gas prices are an indicator of a much deeper problem facing our Nation's energy security. It is a problem that runs deep but it is not too difficult to understand. Our problem is a President who would rather buy foreign oil than produce it here in America. In fact, he not only wants to buy foreign oil, he is willing to subsidize it. These are Brazilian workers, Brazilian oil workers. I hope Americans were watching the news as President Obama handed over more than $2 billion to Brazil's government-owned oil company to produce Brazilian oil. It was a nice gesture, I am sure. But why aren't we spending it here at home? And why aren't we able to drill here at home? Why aren't we, the third largest oil producer in the world, able to go after our own oil to bring these prices down. Liberals spent this last week calling basic tax deductions for American companies ``subsidies.'' Funny thing, because those same liberals appear to have no problem with this gigantic handout of taxpayer dollars to a foreign competitor. I like Brazil, and I am happy they are doing as well as they are, so this is not a knock at Brazil. It is basically a criticism of our President for giving $2 billion to help them with their oil exploration when they seem to be doing just fine by themselves. At least I am assuming the liberals have no problem with it because they have been deathly silent on this subject during this entire debate. I hope Americans were watching because that was their money our President was sending out of our country, out of our economy, and out of the reach of tens of thousands of unemployed American energy workers whom this administration has helped to put out of work. Let me put up another chart. These are our workers. These guys are out of work. These men and women who can develop our own oil are out of work because of this administration. We all know about the President's artificially broad moratorium on drilling in the gulf and how it has devastated that already crippled region. But the President's anti-Midas touch has reached out to kill oil production in other regions of the country as well. Since taking office, President Obama has cut Federal energy lease offerings by 67 percent in the Rockies alone and a whopping 87 percent in my home State of Utah. Is it any wonder we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil? Is it any wonder our jobless rate remains at historic levels? Is it any wonder government revenues are down? Let's not forget that this is the same President using our tax dollars to subsidize Brazilian oil production to the tune of $2 billion. After taking office, one of President Obama's earliest actions was to withdraw 77 energy leases in Utah. These leases had been through almost a decade of environmental studies. They had jumped through every environmental hoop there was and had already been auctioned off and paid for by good-standing energy companies. We know we are dealing with a very aggressive anti-energy agenda when we see leases pulled back that have already been paid for. The energy companies are not blind; they see it too. A recent survey of the energy industry in the Rockies tells us the tragic and unnecessary story. Due to the hostile atmosphere created by the Obama administration, $1.1 billion of capital investment was shifted from the Rockies to other areas, including overseas. If it were not for the anti-energy efforts of this administration, the companies surveyed stated they would invest an additional $2.8 billion in the region in the future. Eighty-nine of the energy companies surveyed said they would continue to divert investment from the Rockies until the current policies become less hostile, and 71 percent of the industry respondents stated that dissatisfaction with the Federal permitting process is the general variable driving investment right out of our Nation. When are we going to wake up? When is this administration going to wake up? Some of my friends on the other side have an extremely difficult time understanding this, but when we deter energy companies, we kill real jobs and we kill domestic energy production, and we make America weaker. These aren't just jobs, these are highly paid jobs. Yet we are willing to subsidize the Brazilian oil workers. I like those workers. I think they are finding oil for their country. I think their country is energy efficient because of their work offshore. Some of those rigs used to be in the gulf but no longer can be there because of the stupid anti-energy policies of this administration. Here we have American companies willing to spend more than $2 billion of their own money to create American jobs and American oil, but President Obama says no--or at least the people around him who advise him tell him to say no. Yet our President does not hesitate to give more than $2 billion in taxpayer funds to Brazil to create foreign jobs. Just wait, because this story actually gets worse. The President then hopes taxpayers will send even more money overseas as we buy Brazil's oil--oil we already have subsidized in the first place. But the President saved the best for last. He now proposes raising taxes on American energy production. This deserves repeating. The President says no to American energy companies wanting to use their own profits to make more American jobs and more American oil, but he then gives away taxpayer money to subsidize foreign jobs and create more dependency on foreign oil. While he is at it, he may as well tax American energy production for good measure. That is what they want to do to us. It doesn't make sense. Look, I like the President. I personally am a friend of the President. I can't believe he is doing this on his own. He has to have these dumbbells down there at the White House feeding him this stuff. But he is bright enough to look through it and see it doesn't work or is it just that their supporters are demanding--the Democratic supporters are demanding--this type of harm to our country and to our people? Well, I said it twice, and it makes less sense the more I think about it. He may as well tax American energy production for good measure. The whole farce would be comical if it weren't so incredibly harmful to our Nation, our economy, and to our American families who have dedicated their lives to providing the United States with the domestic oil and gas we so desperately need. I wish to read an excerpt from a letter I received from Cindy and Bruce of Uintah County, UT, an oil-rich county, if we were allowed to get the permit and go out and find it.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to be permitted to continue my statement.

Mr. HATCH. Cindy and Bruce write: Our family returned to the Vernal, Utah, area . . . after being absent for 10 years. We realized we loved the area and wanted to be back with our families. . . . At that point we decided we wanted to do more than just get by in life working for someone else. . . . Since things looked very promising for the oilfield industry, we started a small oilfield trucking company. We struggled to make all this work and to establish a reputable and trusted company with a good customer base. In February of 2009, as the new presidential administration and new head of the Department of the Interior took over, the oil and gas production companies slowed their drilling and production programs drastically. The RAPID economic change was shocking. Overnight, we went from being a prospering business to a business that is just hoping we can pay our bills. . . . Our story is not unique. It is the same story for many of our friends, neighbors and family members. Our lives and the economy here are in shambles. It is not because we did not work hard, spend wisely, follow all the government rules, or that we made irresponsible decisions. It is because of sudden changes in our government. This was no naturally occurring economic downturn that killed Bruce and Cindy's business. It was hostile government policies intent on slowing domestic energy production on Federal lands. This point is made again and again to me in letters from Utahans from this region. One letter states: As I talk with many people each day at work, there is one common thread: The policies of the current administration have made it a very risky business for companies trying to produce oil in this area. Leases have been canceled, then resold, and then suspended. The confidence of the oil producers has been undermined by these actions. They have lost a lot of money on the bids for these leases. These experiences are duplicated wherever Federal energy leases are offered. I can say I have never seen a more anti-energy administration than the current one, and all Americans are feeling the pain of President Obama's suicidal energy policies. Today, we are talking about a real solid energy proposal. It is a proposal that will create American jobs in the gulf and throughout America's energy industry. The Offshore Production and Safety Act is a proposal that will strengthen our Nation, not weaken it. It will get us producing American oil again in the gulf, and that is a critically important goal. If I had my choice, we would be discussing a more comprehensive energy bill that would also be reopening oil production on onshore and offshore leases. I am an original cosponsor of a bill with my colleague, Senator David Vitter, called the 3-D Bill. The Ds stand for domestic jobs, domestic energy, and deficit reduction. This bill deserves full consideration. It is a bill that would increase jobs, reduce energy costs, and generate significant revenue to State and Federal Governments. In short, the bill would reverse the Obama administration's onerous new constraints on domestic oil and gas production. The 3-D bill would reverse bans of some offshore Federal leases in each Outer Continental Shelf planning area, it would open ANWR to oil production, directing some of the resulting revenues toward renewable energy production, and it would reverse President Obama's recent moves against commercial oil shale production. Unfortunately, we are not discussing that bill today and here is why. Republicans have had to force the Democrats' hand to allow a debate on even a limited proposal such as the one introduced by our Republican leader--and well done. But this issue is not going away, and I will continue to push the issue of onshore and offshore Federal leases and advocate for the 3-D bill. The bill we voted on yesterday had nothing to do with gas prices or energy policy or getting more energy. As we heard from Member after Member on the other side, that bill was about raising taxes for more government spending. The bill we are voting on today is a serious energy proposal. It is a smart proposal that, if passed, would create real jobs, produce real domestic oil and gas, and leave the deficit- busting revenues for the government. As such, I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I hope our friends on the other side will see this. It is time we stand and start changing this, regardless of what this administration is doing to America. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we are discussing a bill to raise taxes. That is what it is. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, S. 940 will raise taxes by $21 billion over 10 years. And what provoked this bill to raise taxes? This time it is high gas prices. I wish could say I am surprised, but since Democrats took control of this Chamber, and since President Obama was elected, this seems to be a recurring theme. No matter the question, the answer always seems to be: Raise taxes. There is rarely any consideration of how this impacts the economy, how it impacts businesses and families who have to shoulder this load. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle too often look at working men and women as an endless source of cash that Washington can rely on for more governmental programs. The Democratic Party's emblem is a donkey. Sometimes I think they would be better off transitioning to a one-trick pony. The Democratic bill we will be voting on later today is called the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act. That is certainly one message-tested name. ``Big oil''--check. ``Tax loopholes''--check. Again, never underestimate the left's ability to underestimate the American people. They think that because American citizens are angry at high gas prices, they are going to run off the cliff and support a measure just because it mentions ``big oil'' and ``tax loopholes.'' I can tell you that the people of Utah are not going to support this bill, and the American people will not either. The American people want and they need energy solutions. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll, 7 out of 10 Americans say that gas prices are causing financial hardship. FedEx and UPS have increased fuel surcharges from 6.5 percent to 8.5 percent. By the time 2011 ends, expect restaurant prices to be 3 percent or 4 percent higher, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The issue of high gas prices is much greater than the price at the pump. The Joint Economic Committee concluded that the weak U.S. dollar has added 56 cents to every gallon of gas. This is a drag on a fragile economic recovery. It inflates the prices of everything from groceries to school supplies. Just recently, we found out that one in seven Americans is on food stamps--one in seven. One writer has dubbed this the ``Food Stamp Recovery.'' And this weak recovery is made weaker by higher gas prices. And to deal with this? Democrats decide that rather than promote a sensible energy policy, it is better to score a few cheap political points at the expense of the politically unpopular oil companies. Americans are rightly upset about the cost of gasoline. But the solution to higher gas prices is not to raise taxes. Raising taxes on domestic energy producers might be a good thing for Hugo Chavez, but it does nothing to lift the burden of increasing gas prices that are afflicting the American economy and working families. Under this bill, Hugo Chavez's Citgo would receive a tax incentive while U.S. companies such as Exxon and Chevron would not. I was amazed to see the advocates of this legislation admit as much during a hearing on this matter last week in the Finance Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an extra 5 minutes for my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. One after one, my Democratic colleagues acknowledged the obvious. The policies they were proposing--higher taxes on oil companies--had absolutely nothing to do with energy policy or sound tax policy and everything to do with generating more revenue for more government spending. They acknowledged that this legislation would do nothing--I repeat, nothing--to lower the price of gas at the pump. Not a thing. They acknowledged that. I can see now why Senator Landrieu of Louisiana and Senator Begich of Alaska called this tax increase proposal a ``gimmick'' and ``laughable.'' These are two Democrats who have been honest about what is going on here. Raising taxes will do nothing to lower the cost of fuel. And for what it is worth, this bill will not help pay down the deficit either. Nothing in this bill mandates that these new revenues would be dedicated to deficit reduction. In fact, any net revenue increase in this bill would be set aside and added to what we call savings on OMB's pay-go scorecard, revenue that can be used to pay for future legislation. We all know that when we increase taxes, our colleagues on the other side are going to spend every dime of it. That has been a matter of fact. So let's be clear about what is going on here. Democrats want to increase taxes to pay for more government spending. They have been refreshingly open about their intentions. One of my colleagues stated that this bill will allow us to spend money on cops and kids. Another said it will ``raise a significant amount of additional revenue for important projects in the United States of America.'' But the choice here is not lower taxes versus assistance for public safety and children. If Democrats want to pay down the deficit and have money for essential projects, there are plenty of options available besides increasing taxes. My colleague from Oklahoma, Dr. Coburn, has led a one-man crusade to identify hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful and redundant government spending and programs. If the entire Democratic caucus spent even half the time investigating wasteful government spending as it does looking through the Internal Revenue Code for ways to increase our taxes, and to malign a business like Big Oil, our fiscal situation would be much better. Make no mistake that this bill is a tax increase on American jobs. Under this proposal, there is a disincentive for domestic energy producers to invest in the United States. Under this proposal, American corporations will be at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign counterparts. Under this proposal, a lot of our oil companies-- especially the larger ones--are going to find it a lot better for them to work offshore, overseas, away from America, to find oil, which is what they are doing anyway, without all of the tragic tax increases that come their way in our country. Sometimes we talk ephemerally about the impact of tax increases on the economy. In practice, this bill is a direct assault on American jobs. And for what? It does not do anything to bring down the cost of energy. Nothing. Nada. It does not do anything to bring down the deficit. Not a thing. But what it does manage to do is gloss over the Obama administration's lack of an energy policy--or should I say war on energy? The angry truth is, this administration abetted by Democrats has an energy policy designed to increase costs at the same time that it purports to stand shoulder to shoulder with working families who cannot make ends meet because of these increased energy costs. This is the President's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu--the current Energy Secretary: Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels of Europe. That is astounding to me. Some of those levels are approaching $10 a gallon. Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe. The administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth. At the same time that it feigns sympathy for the families hit hardest by rising energy prices, it attempts to impose a radical environmental agenda on an unwilling middle class. At the same time American families moved to the suburbs so they could have room to grow and play, buying minivans and SUVs to accommodate their growing families, the environmental left is pushing its agenda of urban living, public transportation and, yes, small families. For all of its righteous anger about high gas prices, it is clear from its policies where the administration stands in this fight. As a Senator who has worked hard to establish a strong energy foundation for America, I have watched with dismay as President Obama has done everything in his power to tear that foundation up, aggressively stop domestic energy production, and leave our Nation vulnerable to our foreign competitors who are smart enough to develop their own energy resources. Since taking office, President Obama has cut new energy leases by more than 60 percent in this country and by more than 80 percent in my home State of Utah. We have a lot of oil there. It is just a matter of getting the permits to be able to drill for it or to develop it in the case of tar sands and oil shale. Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming have an estimated 1.6 trillion barrels of recoverable oil through oil shale and tar sands. We are all aware of the President's efforts to forestall domestic energy development offshore, but less media attention has been given to its successful efforts to move the industry off our Federal lands in the Intermountain West. The Department of the Interior oversees more than 42 percent of the State of Utah, including much of the land where domestic energy production is pursued. One of the early moves of the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, my colleague and dear friend, was his controversial withdrawal of energy leases that had already been auctioned off and paid for by energy developers after years of jumping through environmental hoops--years; some estimate about 7 years, maybe longer, of jumping through environmental hoops. Then, just by a stroke of a pen, they withdrew 77 leases that had been paid for. This is a terrible signal to our domestic energy producers, and companies are now leaving our Federal lands in droves seeking a less hostile regulatory environment on private, State, and foreign-owned lands. Get that ``foreign-owned'' lands part. They are finding it is easier. They do not have all of the rigmarole and the redtape to go through to develop oil on lands overseas. A recent survey showed, in the absence of national constraints, energy companies would be investing an additional $2.8 billion in the Rockies if they did not have all of these constraints and all of this rigmarole to go through. S. 940 is terrible policy. In a long line of terrible policies, it is lousy energy policy, and it is lousy tax policy. Increasing taxes on American production will only stifle our economy. If Democrats want to have a conversation about tax policy and tax reform, we are ready to have that conversation. But do not single out, through selective taxation, one industry to take away these particular tax benefits that have been useful in helping us develop our oil domestically. We should not be exercising our power to tax in a punitive way that singles out particular unpopular industries or just particular industries. Fortunately, I do not think the American people are going to buy this latest installment of ``let's raise some taxes.'' They always leave out the latter part, ``so we can spend more,'' and claim that ``we are doing more for the people'' when, in fact, they are spending us right into bankruptcy. This bill we are debating today will not do anything to address high gas prices. As Democratic supporters have acknowledged, there is nothing to help us with lower prices at the pump. It will not do a thing. But what it will do is raise revenue for the Federal Government to spend. Yet, again, the party of big government has proposed additional taxes to fund that big government. You see, the deficit is not the Democrats' problem. No. For the Democrats, the deficit is always somebody else's problem. It is the fault of business or individual citizens for not doing their ``fair share'' or accepting their ``shared responsibility'' to fund this government. These are new terms that are being used now. The American people deserve better than this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to proceed to S. 940 and to support the motion to proceed to S. 953 when we take it up tomorrow. I know a little bit about oil and a little bit about developing oil. I know one thing. We have lots of oil in our country if we will just give the permits and allow the development of that oil. It does not take any brains to realize we have all kinds of oil offshore. So for the President to go down to Brazil, give them a $2 billion subsidy to develop their oil offshore, and then compliment them for having done so, with rigs that probably were in the Gulf of Mexico before, basically, it was shut down, and then say we will buy their oil from them, I mean, it is laughable, absolutely laughable--and not develop our oil in this country. We know there is all kinds of oil in Alaska. We know there is all kinds of oil in ANWR. If one were to go to ANWR, one would be shocked at how barren the place is. Yet to hear the environmentalists talk, one would think it was the most beautiful, lush part of the planet. The fact is, we can develop oil there without ruining ANWR and help our country in the process, save the taxpayers an awful lot of money, keep our country strong, and make us not dependent on Big Oil or anybody else. Would it not be wonderful if we could just have some good free market principles and allow our people to find our own energy in our country? A lot of people did not realize, until it came out last week, that the United States is the third largest energy producer in the world. Now, we are the largest user by far, but there is a reason for that. We have been the most important country, with the greatest economy, helping people all over the world with our tax dollars. I hope we vote down this bill today and vote up the one tomorrow.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am also pleased to join with my partner on the Senate Finance Committee in producing bipartisan legislation that gives States increased flexibility to improve the lives of children and youth. The legislation we will introduce today is the product of many months of work and is the result of an open and transparent process bringing together relevant stakeholders. The Committee has heard from the state groups, the advocacy community and most importantly, youth both in and out of the foster care system. Young people in ``Foster Club,'' have a saying: ``Nothing about us, without us.'' We have taken their motto to heart and the legislation we are introducing today reflects years of input for youth in and out of foster care. I agree with the Chairman of the Finance Committee when he characterized the State Child Welfare Innovation Act as another step on the pathway to comprehensive child welfare reform. Comprehensive child welfare reform is desperately needed. The current financing system is antiquated, relying on an income eligibility proxy dating back to pre-welfare reform standards. The majority of Federal support goes to the least desirable outcome: the placement of a child or youth into foster care. Federal priorities should be aligned so that States are able to keep families together, safely. But financing reform is not enough. The underlying foster care system needs to be improved. Often times when children enter foster care, siblings are separated. Children and youth are shuttled from place to place. Their education is disrupted. Their ability to play sports or engage in after school activities is thwarted. Under the current system, about 30,000 young people a year exit foster care without a permanent connection and are at risk for homelessness, incarceration and drug abuse. My State of Utah informs me that with flexibility, Utah can improve on the State's decade-old effort to protect children and strengthen families. As we look to make improvements to our social service delivery systems, we should be relying on the States to chart the way through flexibility and innovation. The States are the critical units within our constitutional democracy. The States are the laboratories of democracy, where appropriate solutions to problems are best crafted. The Federal Government needs to give States maximum flexibility in crafting solutions that work for their citizens. I am pleased that this legislation is consistent with that approach and look forward to making further progress to improve the lives of children and young people.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am also pleased to join with my partner on the Senate Finance Committee in producing bipartisan legislation that gives States increased flexibility to improve the lives of children and youth. The legislation we will introduce today is the product of many months of work and is the result of an open and transparent process bringing together relevant stakeholders. The Committee has heard from the state groups, the advocacy community and most importantly, youth both in and out of the foster care system. Young people in ``Foster Club,'' have a saying: ``Nothing about us, without us.'' We have taken their motto to heart and the legislation we are introducing today reflects years of input for youth in and out of foster care. I agree with the Chairman of the Finance Committee when he characterized the State Child Welfare Innovation Act as another step on the pathway to comprehensive child welfare reform. Comprehensive child welfare reform is desperately needed. The current financing system is antiquated, relying on an income eligibility proxy dating back to pre-welfare reform standards. The majority of Federal support goes to the least desirable outcome: the placement of a child or youth into foster care. Federal priorities should be aligned so that States are able to keep families together, safely. But financing reform is not enough. The underlying foster care system needs to be improved. Often times when children enter foster care, siblings are separated. Children and youth are shuttled from place to place. Their education is disrupted. Their ability to play sports or engage in after school activities is thwarted. Under the current system, about 30,000 young people a year exit foster care without a permanent connection and are at risk for homelessness, incarceration and drug abuse. My State of Utah informs me that with flexibility, Utah can improve on the State's decade-old effort to protect children and strengthen families. As we look to make improvements to our social service delivery systems, we should be relying on the States to chart the way through flexibility and innovation. The States are the critical units within our constitutional democracy. The States are the laboratories of democracy, where appropriate solutions to problems are best crafted. The Federal Government needs to give States maximum flexibility in crafting solutions that work for their citizens. I am pleased that this legislation is consistent with that approach and look forward to making further progress to improve the lives of children and young people.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my dear colleague for his kind remarks. I appreciate them.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, yesterday the Finance Committee held a hearing on the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, what we call the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. This agreement will provide significant new opportunities for U.S. manufacturers, agricultural producers, and service providers in the rapidly growing Colombian market. Implementation of the Colombia agreement would also benefit U.S. national security. Colombia is emerging from decades of civil strife, and it is in our interests to see that Colombia continues to heal from its wounds of the past. This free trade agreement will help bring further stability to Colombia, a close friend and ally, while also opening and further building the market for U.S. exports to that country. In short, it is a good agreement for the United States. So what is the holdup? Over 4 years have passed since the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement was signed. It is imperative that the administration submit an implementing bill for this agreement to Congress, and soon. The administration, however, still won't say when it will send an implementing bill to Capitol Hill. During yesterday's hearing, I asked our Deputy U.S. Trade Representative two very simple questions regarding this issue. First, assuming that Colombia fulfills the steps outlined in the labor action plan developed by the Obama administration and the Colombian Government, will the administration submit the Colombia agreement to Congress for a vote? Second, is the administration preconditioning the President's formal submission of the Colombia trade agreement on matters not related to the action plan, such as congressional extension of trade adjustment assistance or permanent normal trade relations for Russia? To me, these questions are pretty clear and can be answered with a simple yes or no. But, unfortunately, we did not get a clear answer. After years of delay, we still do not know if the administration will ever submit the Colombia agreement to Congress for approval. This is very unfortunate. The Obama administration's delay in submitting the Colombia agreement is hurting U.S. exporters. This failure is a drag on job creation and economic growth. While the President has dithered as to whether to implement the trade agreement with Colombia, our trade competitors have been more than willing to enter into agreements with Colombia. Consequently, while Colombia's tariffs on U.S. imports have remained in place, Colombia's tariffs on products from other countries are falling away. For example, Colombia has implemented a preferential trade agreement with Argentina and Brazil. As a result, U.S. farm products are rapidly being displaced in the Colombia market by products from those countries. So it is not too surprising that between 2007 and 2010, U.S. agricultural exports to Colombia fell by more than half, and it looks like matters are going to get even worse. A Montana wheat grower who testified at yesterday's hearing noted that the U.S. share of Colombia's wheat market fell from 73 percent in 2008 to 43 percent in 2010. He also stated that following implementation of the Canada- Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which is expected to occur this year, U.S. exports of wheat to Colombia will drop to zero unless the United States implements its trade agreement with Colombia. So U.S. agricultural exports to Colombia are already falling. U.S. manufactured goods and U.S. services will be next. It does not have to be this way. We do not have to continue giving away the growing Colombia market to our competitors. If we want to boost our exports to Colombia, all we have to do is implement the U.S.- Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The Obama administration had earlier stated that it wanted to address Colombia's internal labor situation before moving ahead with the agreement. But the administration delayed taking any meaningful steps to address their concerns with the Colombian government for years. A few months ago, the administration finally got serious about engaging with Colombia. And, lo and behold, in a matter of weeks--in a matter of weeks--they were able to develop a labor action plan that addressed their concerns in a meaningful and concrete way. The administration discovered that, in their own words, they had a willing partner in Colombia. The fact of the matter is that Colombia has been taking steps for years to address issues related to violence against unionists and has always been willing to do more. Why it took the administration so long to figure it out is a mystery to me. So the Obama administration has now negotiated an action plan that addresses its concerns regarding the labor situation in Colombia. You would think we would have clarity that, once the steps in the action plan are fulfilled, the administration would submit the agreement to Congress for its consideration. But we do not have this clarity. There has been no clear answer to this very simple question. Instead, there seem to be more preconditions on submitting the agreement that are not even related to the agreement itself, such as extension of trade adjustment assistance and permanent normal trade relations for Russia. This is very odd. Most economists would agree that there are likely to be very few workers who will lose their jobs because of implementation of the Colombia trade agreement. After all, the U.S.- Colombia trade agreement will result in almost no growth in imports from Colombia. This is the case as almost all Colombian products have entered the United States duty free over the past two decades on account of U.S. trade preference programs. In contrast, Colombia's average applied tariff on U.S. imports is over 12 percent, and they can reach as high as 388 percent. Moreover, the administration itself testified that implementation of the Colombia agreement: will expand exports of U.S. goods to Colombia by more than a billion dollars--that is with a ``B''--increase U.S. GDP by $2.5 billion; and support thousands of additional jobs for our workers, at a time when we need jobs, and when we need to pull this economy out of the mess it is in. So it is hard to see further extension of the TAA program as a necessary precondition for approval of an agreement that will help our economy and support jobs in the United States. It is a no-brainer. I am also bewildered by any attempts to precondition submission of the Colombia agreement to congressional support for permanent normal trade relations for Russia. These two issues are totally unrelated. Given the current disregard for the rule of law and the many trade problems that persist in Russia today, it is hard to argue that the time is ripe for Congress to grant Russia permanent normal trade relations. Moreover, it would be particularly ironic and sad to condition passage of the Colombia trade agreement with permanent normal trade relations for Russia. Over the past 4 years, Colombia has been a reliable U.S. trading partner, ready and willing to remove its tariffs on U.S. imports through implementation of our trade agreement. During these same years, Russia has seemingly gone out of its way on numerous occasions to prove to the United States that it is an unreliable trading partner. It is fundamentally unfair to continue to treat a friend and ally like Colombia in this ridiculous way. Unfortunately, it is not the first time Democratic leaders have put one of our closest Latin American allies in this position. The U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement was first signed on November 22, 2006--almost 5 years ago. Democratic leaders refused to consider the agreement until their additional demands were met on labor, the environment, and intellectual property. The Bush administration responded by working with then- Speaker Pelosi on a package of changes that were understood would lead to consideration of the agreement. But once they had these changes in hand, the Democratic leadership in the House balked, citing yet more issues that had to be resolved. When President Bush submitted the Colombia agreement to Congress for its consideration utilizing trade promotion authority procedures in April 2008, the Democratic leadership refused to allow the agreement to come up for a vote. Instead, they changed the rules, and the agreement has since languished for almost 5 years. It is time for the excuses to end. Resolution of unrelated issues such as trade adjustment assistance and PNTR for Russia should not be used as further barriers to submission of this agreement. Colombia is taking the steps laid out by the Obama administration that the administration has said are necessary before the President will formally submit the agreement to Congress. Once those steps are taken in June, I fully expect the administration to finally fulfill its end of the bargain and formally submit the agreement for congressional approval without further conditions. If not, the administration is making a conscious decision to continue denying U.S. exporters improved access to the Colombian market, and to undermine our standing as a credible ally in Latin America. It is a no-brainer to realize that Colombia is one of our best friends. When you compare it to some of its neighbors, such as Venezuela--and I can name other countries that are undermining our very country as we sit here and stand here. The fact of the matter is, Colombia is a friend. Friends should not be treated this way. It is ridiculous what is going on. There is very little need for trade adjustment assistance in this particular deal. It is just another way of sucking from the taxpayers more money for purposes that literally do not exist. I hope the administration will wake up and realize this would be a tremendous achievement for them. There is no reason in the world why they should not want to do this. It would be a sure creator of jobs at a time when we need jobs. It will even up a situation that up to this point has been sad. And it will help our country. Let's quit playing games with this free trade agreement. Let's get it up. Let's vote on it, and let's restore our relationship with Colombia to the great relationship it deserves to be. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express support for S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property, PROTECT, Act as introduced by my colleague, Senator Leahy. Chairman Leahy and I have worked together on the protection of intellectual property rights on a number of occasions over the years and I am pleased to partner with him once again on this important bill. I also want to recognize the efforts of Senator Grassley, the distinguished Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is a valued friend and his support is greatly appreciated as we move forward. With this legislation, we are sending a strong message to those selling or distributing counterfeit goods online, namely that the United States will strongly protect its intellectual property, IP, rights. Despite what seems to be a common assumption, just because something is available on the Internet does not mean it is free. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people's lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American IP, and this undermines legitimate commerce. This is why protecting property rights is a critical imperative and is why we have come together to introduce the PROTECT IP Act. Utah is considered a very popular State for film and television production activity. Indeed, many American classics have been filmed in my home State. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Not to mention Utah's workforce, which is one of the most highly educated and hardworking in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. So, IP theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah's economy and its workforce, and this same impact can be seen nationwide. There is no question that the legislative process can be tedious at times, and often it takes multiple Congresses to get things right. We witnessed this first hand in the patent reform debate. It took three Congresses for the Senate to pass patent reform legislation. I was pleased to be the lead Republican sponsor of the America Invents Act, S. 23, which passed the Senate in March by a vote of 95 to 5. I can confirm that the final Senate-passed bill was a product of countless hours of negotiation and legislative fine-tuning. While I hope the bill before us will not take nearly as long, I can confirm that significant and positive changes have already occurred since we introduced the bipartisan legislation last year. These changes include a narrower definition of the type of Internet sites to which the bill applies, specifically those ``dedicated to infringing activities;'' authorization for the Attorney General to serve an issued court order on a search engine, in addition to payment processors, advertising networks and Internet service providers; authorization for both the Attorney General and rights holders to bring actions against online infringers operating an Internet site or domain where the site is ``dedicated to infringing activities,'' but with remedies limited to eliminating the financial viability of the site, not blocking access; requirement of plaintiffs to attempt to bring an action against the owner or registrant of the domain name used to access an Internet site ``dedicated to infringing activities'' before bringing an action against the domain name itself; protection for domain name registries, registrars, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks from damages resulting from their voluntary action against an Internet site ``dedicated to infringing activities,'' where that site also ``endangers the public health,'' by offering controlled or non- controlled prescription medication. It is worth underscoring that the purpose of the PROTECT IP Act is to take down Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities, or in other words, the most egregious offenders in the world of online IP theft. Indeed, the bill authorizes the Department of Justice, DOJ, to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign- registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must seek approval from a Federal court before taking any action. I trust that a Federal judge will weigh all of the facts carefully before issuing an order, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to shut down a Web site dedicated to infringing activities. There is no quick fix to this problem. But doing nothing is not an option. We must explore ways, albeit in incremental steps, to take down offending Web sites. For this reason, I believe the PROTECT IP Act is a critical step in our ongoing fight against online piracy and counterfeiting. I am pleased with the progress that we have made so far on this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements as it moves through the legislative process. We must take steps to combat those Web sites that are profiting from stolen American intellectual property.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express support for S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property, PROTECT, Act as introduced by my colleague, Senator Leahy. Chairman Leahy and I have worked together on the protection of intellectual property rights on a number of occasions over the years and I am pleased to partner with him once again on this important bill. I also want to recognize the efforts of Senator Grassley, the distinguished Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is a valued friend and his support is greatly appreciated as we move forward. With this legislation, we are sending a strong message to those selling or distributing counterfeit goods online, namely that the United States will strongly protect its intellectual property, IP, rights. Despite what seems to be a common assumption, just because something is available on the Internet does not mean it is free. Fake pharmaceuticals threaten people's lives. Stolen movies, music, and other products threaten the jobs and livelihoods of many people. Every year, these online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by stealing American IP, and this undermines legitimate commerce. This is why protecting property rights is a critical imperative and is why we have come together to introduce the PROTECT IP Act. Utah is considered a very popular State for film and television production activity. Indeed, many American classics have been filmed in my home State. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Not to mention Utah's workforce, which is one of the most highly educated and hardworking in our country. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in wages in Utah. So, IP theft has a direct, negative impact on Utah's economy and its workforce, and this same impact can be seen nationwide. There is no question that the legislative process can be tedious at times, and often it takes multiple Congresses to get things right. We witnessed this first hand in the patent reform debate. It took three Congresses for the Senate to pass patent reform legislation. I was pleased to be the lead Republican sponsor of the America Invents Act, S. 23, which passed the Senate in March by a vote of 95 to 5. I can confirm that the final Senate-passed bill was a product of countless hours of negotiation and legislative fine-tuning. While I hope the bill before us will not take nearly as long, I can confirm that significant and positive changes have already occurred since we introduced the bipartisan legislation last year. These changes include a narrower definition of the type of Internet sites to which the bill applies, specifically those ``dedicated to infringing activities;'' authorization for the Attorney General to serve an issued court order on a search engine, in addition to payment processors, advertising networks and Internet service providers; authorization for both the Attorney General and rights holders to bring actions against online infringers operating an Internet site or domain where the site is ``dedicated to infringing activities,'' but with remedies limited to eliminating the financial viability of the site, not blocking access; requirement of plaintiffs to attempt to bring an action against the owner or registrant of the domain name used to access an Internet site ``dedicated to infringing activities'' before bringing an action against the domain name itself; protection for domain name registries, registrars, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks from damages resulting from their voluntary action against an Internet site ``dedicated to infringing activities,'' where that site also ``endangers the public health,'' by offering controlled or non- controlled prescription medication. It is worth underscoring that the purpose of the PROTECT IP Act is to take down Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities, or in other words, the most egregious offenders in the world of online IP theft. Indeed, the bill authorizes the Department of Justice, DOJ, to file a civil action against the registrant or owner of a domain name that accesses a foreign infringing Internet site, or the foreign- registered domain name itself. However, DOJ officials must seek approval from a Federal court before taking any action. I trust that a Federal judge will weigh all of the facts carefully before issuing an order, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to shut down a Web site dedicated to infringing activities. There is no quick fix to this problem. But doing nothing is not an option. We must explore ways, albeit in incremental steps, to take down offending Web sites. For this reason, I believe the PROTECT IP Act is a critical step in our ongoing fight against online piracy and counterfeiting. I am pleased with the progress that we have made so far on this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements as it moves through the legislative process. We must take steps to combat those Web sites that are profiting from stolen American intellectual property.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 minutes.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an unfortunate and, quite frankly, disturbing matter. While we were all back home during the most recent Senate recess, the National Labor Relations Board's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, after 17 months of indecision, issued one of the most far-reaching and outrageous complaints ever issued by the Board against a private business. This complaint against Boeing is one of the most outlandish and regrettable complaints I have seen in all my years in the Senate. The NLRB's acting general counsel--emphasis on the ``acting''-- sitting in his ivory tower in Washington, DC, essentially substituted his business judgment for that of a private corporation. In essence, Mr. Solomon claimed the authority to determine where and how a private company is permitted to do business. This is a specious claim. Boeing did nothing wrong, and I am confident it will ultimately prevail. Yet this complaint carries a potential cost of billions of dollars and thousands of new jobs for the company in the community where it chose to operate. So why make this decision at all? Why attack a private company with a legal challenge that will cost an enormous amount of money to defend, disrupts business, undermines the efforts of States to increase jobs and promote economic recovery but that will fail for its lack of merit? The answer is simple. The unions want it. This is another chapter in the sorry relationship between unions, big government, and the party of big government. I have to say, I admire Mr. Solomon's moxie. By making this decision during a congressional recess, it is almost as if he thought it might avoid our scrutiny. Maybe he thought news such as this might not make its way back to the States. To that I say: Nice try, but you will not escape the scrutiny of the American people when it comes to an action this over the top. Sunshine will fall on a decision this politically motivated. In the light of day, the decision and the decisionmakers are going to look awfully bad. The NLRB's Boeing complaint has been widely criticized in the media, in the Senate by a number of my colleagues, and throughout the business community as a prime example of a Federal bureaucracy run amok. But this is more than another example of an unaccountable bureaucracy harming job creators and employees. What makes this case particularly ugly is, this is a case of regulators conveniently supporting the interests of big labor against private enterprise. What makes this case appalling is, it is a gift-wrapped present to the interests that just so happen to be the largest contributors to Democratic Party campaigns. The NLRB issued its complaint against Boeing--one of our Nation's iconic companies--for allegedly transferring assembly work on its Dreamliner 787 fleet of airplanes from Puget Sound, WA, to North Charleston, SC. Boeing made a legitimate business decision to open a new plant with new workers in a new more business-friendly climate. It chose South Carolina, in part, to avoid labor disputes and crippling strikes which had befallen the company repeatedly over the past few years. When Boeing first made this decision way back in 2009, it had experienced four major labor strikes in 20 years. The most recent work stoppage--a 58-day strike in 2008--cost the company $1.8 billion. Was the decision to bring new work to South Carolina a prudent business decision? Boeing faces significant global competition. The French company, Airbus, is anxious to take Boeing's business with the help--and backing, I might add--of the French Government. Was the decision good for American workers? Clearly, Boeing's decision was. In the current marketplace, many of Boeing's competitors might have considered moving jobs overseas. Instead of following that course, Boeing saved American jobs. The President likes to talk about jobs he has created and saved. Well, not a single job--union or nonunion--was lost in the State of Washington as a result of Boeing's decision. In fact, over 2,000 new jobs have been created in Puget Sound since the company's announcement to begin work on the new facility. This is not to mention South Carolina, where hundreds of new jobs were created. Added jobs in Washington plus added jobs in South Carolina sounds like a win-win for American workers to me. So, yes, Boeing's decision to build its new plant in South Carolina was good for just about everybody. Yet, without asserting any evidence of anti-union animus on the part of Boeing or of an adverse impact on union workers exercising their legal rights, the NLRB filed its complaint and has sought to step in and make Boeing's business decisions for them. As South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley described it in an April 26 Wall Street Journal editorial: The excitement of South Carolina turned to gloom for millions of South Carolinians who are rightly aghast at the thought of the greatest economic development success our state has seen in decades being ripped away by federal bureaucrats who appear to be little more than union puppets. Governor Haley should be applauded for calling the NLRB's decision for what it is: a hand-wrapped present to big labor, courtesy of their friends in the Federal bureaucracy and the administration. Let's take a look at the NLRB's complaint for a moment. First, let's consider the timing of the complaint. It is highly suspect, if you ask me. The Boeing complaint comes just a few short months before the new South Carolina facility was scheduled to open in July and well after most of the construction was completed and the new workers were hired. In other words, after most of Boeing's substantial investments had been made, the heavy hand of the Federal bureaucracy intervened to dictate that its business decision must be reversed. In its April 21 editorial, the Wall Street Journal describes the Boeing complaint saying: After 17 months and $2 billion, the NLRB sandbags Boeing. The editorial continued: There are plentiful legal precedents to give business the right to locate operations in Right to Work states. That right has created healthy competition among the states and kept tens of millions of jobs in America rather than overseas. An opinion editorial by Steven Pearlstein in the April 26 Washington Post is even more telling. Although Mr. Pearlstein was, not unexpectedly, somewhat supportive of big labor and the NLRB's actions in this case, he nevertheless acknowledged that: [i]f the agency prevails and is able to force Boeing to open an additional production line for its new 787 Dreamliner in Seattle, it could finally put a brake on the steady flow of manufacturing jobs to right to work states in the South. Pearlstein hits it on the head here. The decision to file this complaint is an attack on business-friendly States that are attracting companies and creating jobs. It is an effort by Washington Democrats and career bureaucrats to force unionism on the entire country. Yet, in my view, Pearlstein does not adequately state the radicalism of the NLRB's position. The fact is, if the NLRB--doing the bidding of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers--prevails, it will give them the right to dictate business location decisions everywhere, even in non-right-to-work States. There is a great deal of misinformation coming from those who support the NLRB's actions. In this article, Pearlstein inaccurately describes Boeing's new manufacturing facility in South Carolina as a runaway shop. Boeing had no legal obligation to locate any and all new work in Puget Sound. It was not obligated, under any collective bargaining agreement, to keep the work there. It simply chose to locate new work and new expansion in a business-friendly, right-to-work State. Is that a runaway shop? I think not, and I think most everybody would think not. Apparently, the NLRB agrees with me because the complaint does not allege that this was a classic runaway shop. In those situations, bargaining unit work that is contractually obligated to be performed by members of the union is shut down unilaterally by management. Employees are laid off, and the company stealthily slips out of town with little or no notice, only to reopen in a new location to perform the exact same work on a union-free basis. Under the law, that is wrong. The NLRB makes no such allegations because that is not what happened in this case. Instead, the complaint falls back on the broad, catchall argument that Boeing's actions were inherently destructive of union workers' section 7 rights, referring to the rights protected by section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act which, in this case, means the right to strike. If that theory were to apply to all cases such as this one, if companies cannot factor labor conditions into decisions regarding new operations without it being inherently destructive of section 7 rights, there is no logical end to what private decisions can be overruled by the NLRB. This is an agency run amok and trying to take the place of this Congress. Fortunately, the legal precedents dealing with this type of decision do not support the acting general counsel's interpretation in the Boeing complaint. The cases cited in the complaint are all distinguishable. Not one of them deals with fact patterns involving new work because there is nothing unlawful about opening a new facility to perform new work that is not obligated under an existing collective bargaining agreement. Put simply, this is just another effort on the part of the union- packed Obama NLRB to undo years of legal precedent to satisfy big labor. If Boeing's actions are inherently destructive of the union's rights, where is the antiunion discrimination? Once again, not a single union worker lost a job or even lost an hour of work as a result of Boeing's business decision. Let's be perfectly clear. Boeing workers in the State of Washington actually gained new work and gained 2,000 new jobs following the decision in 2009. These jobs are among the best paid in America. Does that sound like anti-union discrimination? Of course not. This was not a stealth move in the dark of the night. No one was surprised or caught off guard. The machinists' union knew Boeing was building a new facility in South Carolina. Boeing had even discussed a new location with them. Workers knew about Boeing's plans as well and so did the NLRB. But before issuing his complaint, the acting general counsel stewed for 17 months, while new facilities were being constructed at great expense in South Carolina, at a cost of billions of dollars, and workers were hired to run the assembly lines. It goes without saying that if Carolina workers wanted a union, they, similar to any other private sector employees in South Carolina or any other State, could file a petition with the NLRB for a union representation election. There was no evidence--zero evidence--of anti- union discrimination by Boeing to any union petition or union representation election. But--and I can't stress this enough--the most important factor is, the work in South Carolina was new work which Boeing was not obligated to perform in the State of Washington under its collective bargaining agreement. Boeing simply decided, for sound business reasons, to open a new facility to perform new work in a business-friendly State. This is something businesses can do all the time and do do all the time; that is, they used to do it all the time before President Obama's acting general counsel and the might of the Federal bureaucracy, under the heavy-handed control of big labor, decided to step in and interfere with Boeing's decision. If this complaint is upheld and this interpretation becomes the new status quo, who knows how it will impact businesses in the future? Every citizen in South Carolina and every Member of Congress-- Republican or Democratic--ought to be outraged by the National Labor Relations Board's decision and action. To borrow from Frank Sinatra, if they can do it there, they can do it anywhere. If the NLRB can do this in South Carolina, disrupting business and killing jobs, it can happen anywhere, including Utah or any other right-to-work State. It can happen even in non-right-to-work States as well. But the most appalling part about this complaint is not the NLRB's borderline frivolous interpretation of the law. No, it is the remedies the agency is seeking. After asserting that Boeing unlawfully transferred bargaining unit work to South Carolina, the acting general counsel--a career NLRB bureaucrat who, throughout his government legal career, has never been responsible for making a single entrepreneurial decision or creating a single job--sought an order stipulating that Boeing's work on the 787 Dreamliner could not be performed in South Carolina and would have to be moved back to the State of Washington. Well, not back; it would have to be moved to the State of Washington. This is a new business. As is typical in these cases, the Boeing complaint will surely be subject to lengthy litigation, while Boeing's foreign competitors eagerly seek to supplant Boeing's business orders. Even if Boeing ultimately prevails in the litigation battle, it could lose the business war to fierce global competition. That is stupid to put them in this position. The Machinists know that and so does the NLRB. Might I remind supporters of the NLRB that justice delayed is justice denied. Here, the longer the wheels of justice turn, the worse it is for Boeing's business and the worse it is for American jobs and prosperity. Delay does not favor Boeing, but it plays right into the hands of its global competitors, as well as the Machinists Union and President Obama's acting general counsel at the NLRB, who, it seems, would force the company into accepting a settlement that cements an untenable business decision in law. This is no less than economic warfare being waged by the NLRB on behalf of President Obama's friends--the labor unions--against Boeing, against the workers in South Carolina and all South Carolinians, and against all the 22 right-to-work States across the country. It may even be against the rights and the privileges and the benefits of the people in Washington because if Boeing, to be competitive, has to move offshore, they are going to lose their jobs. In the end, it is economic warfare by the Obama administration against all business friendly States and against capitalism and free enterprise everywhere. I am not the only one saying this. I note, for example, that the attorneys general in nine States across the country--Nevada, Virginia, Texas, Georgia, Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina--have written to Mr. Solomon asking that the Boeing complaint be withdrawn. Their April 28 letter states: This complaint represents an assault upon the constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states to create jobs and recruit industry. . . . The only justification for the NLRB's unprecedented retaliatory action is to aid union survival. Your action seriously undermines our citizens' right to work as well as their ability to compete globally. Therefore, as Attorneys General, we will protect our citizens from union bullying and federal coercion. We thus call upon you to cease this attack on our right to work, our states' economies, and our jobs. Editorials from newspapers across the country have criticized the Boeing complaint. Even the Seattle Times wrote in an April 22 editorial: This page regretted Boeing's decision, but has never thought of it as something that could be, or should be, reversed by the federal government. The article continues, saying: [T]he National Labor Relations Board has labeled Boeing's decision an unfair labor practice, and is asking a federal court to order the line to be moved to Washington . . . we would celebrate the day Boeing decided to do that--but it is Boeing's decision. Later the same editorial concluded: The company has the right to build assembly plants. It can build them in South Carolina or in Afghanistan if it likes. Its decision may be unwise, but it is Boeing's. These same sentiments were expressed in the President's hometown newspaper. A Chicago Tribune editorial on April 22 described the NLRB acting general counsel's actions a ``gross intrusion.'' The editorial continued: Boeing, the Chicago-based aviation company, already has one government-induced headache. Its main rival, Airbus SAS, has received from European nations about $20 billion in subsidies that are prohibited by international trade agreements. That is challenging enough for Boeing as it tries to compete in an international market. But when the U.S. government tries to dictate where Boeing can do business . . . that's even harder to stomach. The Tribune editorial concluded: The disastrous, unintended message to a major U.S. employer: Keep your mouth shut and find another country to do business. The Detroit News has the President and his pro-union administration pegged. About this decision, the editors wrote: President Barack Obama has made conciliatory sounds seeking to reassure business, but the actions of the NLRB illustrate the real face of his administration. Congress ought to hold hearings on reining in the NLRB. So if the NLRB's complaint is so transparently awful, what is this all about? Let's see. An unfair decision comes late in the game. It threatens to destroy rather than create jobs, and it is based on specious legal reasoning. Rest assured, the issue is not jobs. The issue is union jobs, and the issue is not better pay for workers. The issue is about money in the union coffers. Ultimately, the issue is about the 2012 elections, because money in union coffers means money for Democratic candidates. The International Association of Machinists Union is important to President Obama. It endorsed him and contributed substantial resources to his campaign. While President Obama could not deliver on such legislative initiatives as the Employee Free Choice Act, he appears determined that every level of government--especially at the National Labor Relations Board--will be turned in the union's favor. The contempt for the American people on display in this decision is astounding. The President and congressional Democrats were unable to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, even with supermajorities in Congress. That is the card check bill. But not to worry. Just have some bureaucrats do it for them. Since the Congress could not act, why not have these bureaucrats usurp Congress's position and do it for them? Keep this episode in mind next time we hear progressives talk about the need for enlightened administration. Keep it in mind when we hear progressives--liberals--claim the President is just interested in doing what works and that he is not ideological. Progressives ultimately have little respect for the rule of law or for the people themselves. For all their talk about nonpartisanship and doing what works, what they promote is a supposedly enlightened bureaucracy that, in fact, will push liberal policies, regardless of what the people want. Progressives are to nonpartisanship as Donald Trump is to subtlety. Ultimately, progressives are as partisan as they come, and they push their liberalism through a vast and permanent bureaucracy that plods along day after day, largely out of sight of the American people, who would never elect representatives who would actually promote this leftist, antibusiness agenda. When former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said elections should not matter as much as they do, this is what she meant. Liberalism should advance no matter what the people of this country actually desire. The foot soldiers who will advance the causes of progressive leftism day in and day out are the unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats that churn out page after page of regulation and infiltrate the decisionmaking process of every business, no matter how small the decision or how small the business. Which brings me to the NLRB's acting general counsel. How did he even wind up in a position to cause this level of economic mayhem? Not under the established procedure for appointing an interim general counsel under section 3(d) of the National Labor Relations Act, which provides very clearly as follows: In case of vacancy in the office of the General Counsel the President is authorized to designate the officer or employee who shall act as General Counsel during such vacancy, but no person or persons so designated shall so act (1) for more than forty days when the Congress is in session unless a nomination to fill such vacancy shall have been submitted to the Senate, or (2) after the adjournment sine die of the session of the Senate in which such nomination was submitted. President Obama ignored the clearly established statutory procedure for appointing an acting general counsel under the National Labor Relations Act and instead made Mr. Solomon his personal acting general counsel under the more generous terms of the Federal Vacancies Act, which is intended to apply to government vacancies in general. Even if he is technically authorized to do so, the President should not use the Vacancies Act to supplant or displace specific statutory procedures for appointing Federal employees to vacancies where, as here under the National Labor Relations Act, the organic law is perfectly clear as to the intended process. Why did President Obama make the appointment under the Vacancies Act rather than follow the more preferred and traditional procedure provided under the National Labor Relations Act? The answer is pretty simple. Under the Vacancies Act, Mr. Solomon is allowed to stay in the job in an acting capacity, without Senate approval, for an initial 210 days-- rather than the 40 days provided under the National Labor Relations Act--and then be reappointed again for another 210 days, and a third time for yet another 210 days, until the end of President Obama's term. This is yet another example of the President end running the law in order to ensconce in office individuals who would have a difficult time surviving the constitutionally required confirmation process--a process that ensures the people and their representatives have some meaningful oversight of the appointee. So why did no one complain about this appointment before now? I suppose some should have. I suppose after the battle over the nomination of AFL-CIO and SEIU Associate Counsel Craig Becker to the NLRB, many were convinced they could do a lot worse than having a career NLRB civil servant serve as acting general counsel. I am not so sure anyone feels that way now. In fact, in light of his recent actions, including the Boeing complaint, it is hard to conceive of a worse choice for acting general counsel. That decision should be revisited. That is why I am writing to President Obama to request that he withdraw the appointment of Mr. Solomon. As far as President Obama's nomination of Mr. Solomon for a full term as general counsel is concerned, it is difficult to imagine how Mr. Solomon could ever be confirmed by the Senate, in view of his actions while serving as acting general counsel. Government actions such as the ones we have seen with the Boeing complaint are debilitating to our economy at a time when we are struggling to recover from one of the Nation's worst recessions since the Great Depression. Such bureaucratic decisions cost jobs at a time when we are struggling to reduce unemployment. They delay business decisionmaking and interfere with competition. They undermine business confidence in government. Why should companies invest in expanding business in the United States if, with the drop of a hat, a Federal bureaucrat can simply reverse that decision and destroy that investment? At this point, we are left scratching our heads. Why would the acting general counsel do this outrageous act? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be that the decision to issue the complaint was a political one designed to placate an important ally of the President's--organized labor. That answer, while unacceptable, is the only logical answer. As the April 21 Wall Street Journal concluded: Beyond labor politics, the NLRB's ruling would set a terrible precedent for the flow of jobs and investments within the United States. It would essentially give labor a veto over management decisions about where to build future plants. That must never be allowed to happen. The NLRB should withdraw the Boeing complaint. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. In my home State of Utah, the fiscal year 2012 budget shortfall will be approximately $390 million. That is a lot of money. My State has said: MOE requirements imposed by the Federal Government will cost the State $3.2 million annually. This might not sound like a lot to the people in Washington, DC, who don't bat an eye at trillion-dollar deficits, but in Utah that is a lot of money in the State budget. My close friend in Utah, Governor Gary Herbert, said: Not a State in this Nation is immune to tough budget decisions, and sometimes Washington makes it even harder. Utah must seriously weigh the real cost of Medicaid, one of the largest and most expensive programs we have. Unfortunately, Federal mandates tie our hands. Utah has zero flexibility to respond to economic conditions, or the option to scale the program back in a way that reflects local values and priorities. Governor Herbert and many others across the Nation have repeatedly asked Washington to repeal these onerous Medicaid mandates. We have introduced legislation--the State Flexibility Act, as the Senator mentioned--to do exactly what the Governors have asked. The State Flexibility Act fully repeals these burdensome Medicaid MOE regulations. It starts to put States back in control to balance their budgets while simultaneously lowering Federal entitlement spending. Our legislation will save taxpayers $2.8 billion over just the first 5 years. That is a lot of money. Regardless of political affiliation, I am confident this bill has the potential to garner strong, bipartisan support in Congress, and it represents a strong first step toward achieving comprehensive Medicaid reform. Any Senator who has talked to his or her State's Governor knows we need to pass this legislation to enable States to survive the current fiscal crisis and to better care for the most vulnerable Medicaid beneficiaries in their respective States. It is time for Congress to roll back these unreasonable MOE mandates and put the States, not Washington, back in charge. I personally thank the Senator, my colleague from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, for working with us on this legislation. Without him here, I don't think we would be able to do anywhere near as much as we are doing. The Senator, in particular, brings a unique perspective to the debate over MOE requirements, and I don't know of any Senator who is serving his State any better than he. I would appreciate hearing more of the Senator's thoughts on this matter because he has the experience, and he has operated on countless people, and he has done it whether they have been Medicaid beneficiaries, people who have insurance, or people who have nothing. I know that. I have great admiration for the Senator from Wyoming. These States have been heavily burdened with MOE requirements, which are bureaucratic unnecessaries. I would like to hear from the Senator how important that is.

Mr. HATCH. Right.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I appreciate his perspective on this important issue because he is a physician. The Senator has cared for Medicaid patients, and he understands the Medicaid Program better than anyone in this body. The Senator has also served in the State legislature, so he has that experience. He understands that, unlike Washington, States must balance their budgets every year. I want to talk about the rollback of the Medicaid maintenance of effort or MOE requirement threatening both Medicare beneficiaries and the financial health of many States throughout the country. I think it is important to go through a little history on this subject. When Medicaid was first established as a limited State-Federal partnership, less than 5 million Americans used this program. Today, nearly one in four is enrolled in this government program. Medicaid spending now absorbs nearly one-quarter of all State government budgets, often forcing severe cuts to other critical State programs. Unfortunately, this situation is getting even worse with the Medicaid mandate first imposed in the stimulus bill and again in the partisan health care law. As a result of these Washington mandates, States are being forced to make drastic cuts to important priorities, such as education and law enforcement. Unlike Washington, which too often just prints money to pay for out- of-control spending, States actually have to make tough budget decisions every year. States are facing the worst budget crisis since the Great Depression, with a collective $175 billion shortfall. Washington's micromanagement of State Medicaid programs makes it incredibly difficult for the States to balance their budgets and provide for those who are most in need. Because of the overly generous benefit programs that Washington forces on the States, they are unable to target health services to those most in need of assistance. Governors are unable to undertake commonsense reforms that root out program waste, fraud, and abuse. The result of these MOE requirements is nothing short of a Washington-induced State fiscal crisis.

Mr. HATCH. And give the States flexibility to do what they can do better than the Federal Government. As a former medical liability defense lawyer back in my early days, I represented doctors, health care providers, nurses, and hospitals in defending them from what were, in most cases, frivolous suits that run up the cost of medicine. I cannot tell you what it means to me to have Senator Barrasso in the Senate with all the medical experience he has had. Frankly, the States can do the job, but they cannot do it within budget if we keep piling regulation and onerous burdens on them, such as the partisan health care bill does. Frankly, I want the Senator from Wyoming to know I feel it is an honor to serve with him and an honor to have a couple of medical doctors on our side. Dr. Barrasso and Dr. Coburn are both excellent doctors. They have lived through these problems. They know what they are like. They do not have to have anybody tell them what is wrong with the approaches we are taking. They know what is wrong. Frankly, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for being willing to serve here.

Mr. HATCH. That is right. I believe this will have great bipartisan support among the Governors and hopefully in this body. I thank Senator Barrasso for bringing this to our attention.