Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week an event occurred that was a long time coming. I am not talking about the grand opening of the Newseum a few blocks from here down Pennsylvania Avenue. No, last week the Senate finally voted on and confirmed a few nominees to the Federal bench. This event is of historical proportions because not since 1848 had the Senate taken this long to confirm a Federal judge in a Presidential election year. You heard me right. The first judicial confirmation of 2004 was on January 28, the first one in 2000 was on February 10, and the first one in 1996 was on January 2. One of my Democratic colleagues was here on the floor last week trying to shuffle the historical chairs on the judicial confirmation deck by talking about the 1996 session rather than 1996 itself because the second session of the 104th Congress began on January 3. By dicing and splicing the calendar that way, he tried to avoid counting all of the judges we confirmed that year. I am not going to play that game. I am comparing apples with apples, years with years. In 33 of the 40 Presidential election years since 1848, the Senate confirmed the first Federal judge by the end of February. Not mid-April, not mid-March, but the end of February. This is the latest start to judicial confirmations in a presidential election year in 160 years. Now I realize that the Senate cannot vote on nominations that have not been reported to the floor from the Judiciary Committee. And the Judiciary Committee generally does not report out nominees who have not had a hearing. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee has simply not been holding hearings for nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals. There was no judicial confirmation hearing at all last month, and the hearing 2 weeks ago was yet another one with no appeals court nominee. This graph shows the number of appeals court nominees receiving a Judiciary Committee hearing in each of the 16 Congresses since I was first elected to the Senate. These are the 95th Congress in 1977-78 to the current 110th Congress. You can see there is some variation here and there from Congress to Congress, but without a doubt the 110th Congress is the lowest of them all. Appeals court nominees are simply not getting hearings. This graph helps us better evaluate what is going on today. The Judiciary Committee held a hearing for an average of 23 appeals court nominees in the previous 15 Congresses during which I have served in this body. One of my Democratic colleagues last week actually mocked using such an average as a comparison. This average is over many years and includes periods when Democrats as well as Republicans ran the Senate and occupied the White House. It is a much better, much more reliable standard than pulling out the single year or, worse yet, only the portion of a single year that makes a predetermined partisan point. Today, 15 months into the 110th Congress, only five appeals court nominees have received a hearing. That is less than one-fourth the average over the previous 30 years. Now some might say that Presidential election years, and therefore Presidential election Congresses, are different, that everything slows down. OK, fair enough, perhaps that would be a better comparison. Comparing the current Congress with the previous seven Presidential election Congresses, however, only widens the contrast between what the Senate has done in the past and what the Senate is not doing today. It turns out that the Judiciary Committee held a hearing for an even higher average of 25 appeals court nominees during those Presidential election seasons. In the current Presidential election season, however, only five appeals court nominees have had hearings. If the partisan roles were reversed and the pace of hearings for appeals court nominees had slowed to perhaps one-half or one-third of the historic average, I can guarantee you that my friends across the aisle would be down here raising the roof about how we were failing to do our confirmation duty. In fact, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee under the previous President and the hearing pace was much faster than it is today, my colleagues on the other side did complain early, loudly, and often. But the pace today is worse than one-half, worse than one-third, worse even than one-fourth of the historic average. The current Judiciary Committee hearing pace for appeals court nominees is the worst in decades. In fact, there is virtually no current pace at all. It has not been this way in the past, and it does not have to be this way today. I am pleased that last night the distinguished majority and minority leaders spoke about this here on the floor and the majority leader acknowledged that ``we need to make more progress on judges.'' The majority leader said he would do his very best, his utmost as he put it, to confirm three more appeals court nominees by Memorial Day, which is coming in less than 6 weeks. I would like to point out a few highly qualified nominees who have been waiting a long time and who I hope will be included in this effort. Yesterday, this editorial appeared in the Washington Post. It opens with these words: ``It is time to stop playing games with judicial nominees.'' The editorial correctly notes that the Senate confirmed more than twice as many appeals court nominees in the final 2 years of the Clinton administration than the Senate has confirmed so far in the 110th Congress. Even with the three additional appeals court nominees the majority leader has pledged to confirm, we have a lot of ground to make up. The editorial suggests beginning to make up that ground by confirming Peter Keisler to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Rod Rosenstein to the Fourth Circuit. Unlike some other languishing appeals court nominees, Mr. Keisler has at least had a hearing. But it was 624 days ago. Mr. Rosenstein has not been waiting that long but is fully as qualified. As the Post editorial points out, he has admirers on both sides of the aisle and is an excellent and principled lawyer. Two other Fourth Circuit nominees whose consideration by the Judiciary Committee is long overdue are Steven Matthews of South Carolina and Robert Conrad of North Carolina. My colleagues from those States are speaking in more detail on the floor today, but I want to highlight that these fine nominees have the strong support of their home-State Senators. Lack of such support can be a reason why a nominee does not get a hearing. I know, because that is the reason I could not give a hearing to some Clinton judicial nominees when I chaired the Judiciary Committee. But that is not the case with these nominees. And in Judge Conrad's case, this body confirmed him just a few years ago to the U.S. District Court without even a rollcall vote. I hope that this pledge by the majority to make some much-needed confirmation progress is not just a temporary flash in the pan. The majority leader last night suggested that there is some kind of rule that the Senate does not confirm judicial nominees after June. He actually referred to this as the Thurmond doctrine. I want to say to my colleagues that there is no such thing as a Thurmond doctrine, a Thurmond rule, or even a Thurmond guideline for judicial confirmations in a Presidential election year. In 2000, the current Judiciary Committee chairman said that while things might, he said might, slow down ``within a couple months of a presidential election,'' that the best judicial confirmation standard was set in 1992. Like today, his party was in the majority. Like today, a President Bush was in the White House. Senator Thurmond himself was ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. In that Presidential election year, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on appeals court nominees until September 24 and the Senate confirmed appeals court nominees until October 8. The Senate confirmed 66 judges, including 11 appeals court judges, in 1992. So I want to dispel this judicial confirmation myth that there is any kind of rule, let alone a doctrine, that justifies shutting down the confirmation activity which I hope and trust is finally about to begin. There is no doubt that we are way behind where we should be in the judicial confirmation process. But it does not have to stay that way, not if we are serious about doing our duty. As the Washington Post editorial said, the Senate ``should at least give every current nominee an up-or-down vote and expeditiously process the nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.'' That would be a great place to start.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, tomorrow is April 15, the day tax returns are due to the IRS for most citizens. It is a day most Americans meet with fear and loathing. Even though most taxpayers will not file their returns tomorrow because they have already done so or because they have filed for an extension, April 15 remains a symbol of a burdensome tax liability and an even more burdensome tax compliance system for millions of Americans. April 15 is met with apprehension and dread for many reasons. The primary one is understandable. People do not like paying taxes. Who can blame them? Under the best of circumstances, if you owe Uncle Sam, a day spent with your tax return is worse than a day spent with the dentist. Yes, the IRS has become one of the most despised institutions in American life. However, a good share of this agency's reputation is undeserved. In fact, considering all we require the Internal Revenue Service to do and the resources we give them, the folks who work there do a pretty darn good job. Paying taxes is never going to be popular, nor is it ever going to be fun. However, we all know it does not have to be as bad as it is. A great deal of the aggravation, a good share of the complexity, and much of the confusion is probably unnecessary. I could spend many hours speaking about what is wrong with our tax system. It is, in military parlance, a target-rich environment. In fact, I expect we will hear a fair number of our colleagues speaking today and tomorrow on the Senate floor deploring the tax system. But amid all this denouncement of the IRS and the Tax Code, we in Congress should recognize an ugly truth; that is, a great deal of the blame for our far less than first-rate tax system lies right here with us, the Members of Congress who created it and who have the power to improve it. I wish to focus on a disturbing trend we have seen growing much worse in recent years that is adding a great deal of stress to our already troubled tax system. This is the increasing tendency of the Congress to create temporary tax provisions and then allow them to expire while leaving taxpayers in limbo as to what the rules are going to be. If we take a look at over the past dozen or so years, we see a growing proclivity on the part of Congress to enact tax provisions on a temporary basis rather than permanently. This has mostly been done to satisfy the often perverse demands of our budget rules. But whatever the reasons, the effect of not extending these provisions before they expire has been greatly damaging to the tax system and to taxpayers' ability to understand and rely on the law. The effect has been to weaken this country economically and competitively. Let us consider the research credit as an example. This is an important provision that has been in the law since the early 1980s, and it enjoys wide and bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. The research credit provides a strong incentive for businesses to increase their research and development activities in the United States. It probably is universally accepted that R&D investment is the lifeblood of high technology and is vital to the future of our economic leadership. We all know this, and almost to a person, the Members in this body would say they support a strong, vibrant, effective, and permanent research system. Why then have we allowed this credit to expire 13 times? Here we are, once again, in mid-April and our research credit has been expired since the end of last year. The worst part is, while we all believe it will be extended eventually, everyone knows the credit will not be made permanent, and the likelihood it will be allowed to expire again is very high. In the meantime, many of our global trading partners have developed stronger and more permanent research incentives in an attempt to lure away research from our shores. They perceive a weakness in our incentive system, and they are moving to capitalize on this very weakness. It appears these actions are working because we are seeing the amount of research activity in the United States growing much more slowly than it is overseas. We simply cannot afford to lose to other countries our research and the jobs that research brings. Unfortunately, this problem goes way beyond the research credit. Each year, the Joint Committee on Taxation releases a list of expired and expiring tax provisions. The list for 2008 was 28 pages long and included an unbelievable 145 provisions. By contrast, the list released in 2003 was 13 pages and featured 71 provisions. Fifteen years ago, there would not have been much of a list at all. Our habit of adding new expiring provisions in the tax law is out of control and, worse, our refusal to deal with extending these provisions on a timely basis well before they expire is inexcusable. It is the obligation of the majority party in Congress to operate the legislative trains so they run on time and produce laws on which our people can at least rely, if not be proud of. While there is blame to spread between both parties in this area of expired tax provisions, which have such a degenerating effect on our already shaky tax system, we all know who is at fault for the current fiasco. I do not think anyone in this body will have trouble recalling the weeks-long standoff that occurred late last year over the so-called AMT patch. All of us, though, would probably prefer to forget it if we could. Instead of addressing the issue of alternative minimum tax and its expired thresholds early on, which would have lent a degree of certainty to an already obnoxious and insidious tax, the Democrats last year dithered on both the AMT patch and on the other soon-to-expire provisions. The result was a last-minute agreement on the AMT patch that put this year's tax filing season in jeopardy, greatly confused the American taxpayers, and left behind the other now-expired tax provisions. Perhaps most stunningly irresponsible was the fact that we took care of the AMT patch for 2007 only, and now we are facing the same scenario for this year. It must have been so much fun last year that we want to do it again in 2008. I am very aware of the arguments surrounding the question of whether extending these provisions should be offset, and I will address those on another day. Today, however, on the eve of America's most hated day, I call on my colleagues, and especially those on the other side of the aisle, to consider why this is so and what it is we are not doing that is the reason why the words ``April 15,'' ``IRS,'' and ``Congress'' are among the least popular in the lexicon. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to acknowledge the passage of S. 793, the reauthorization of the Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, Program. Both the Senate and House of Representatives have passed this bill and it will now be sent to the President's desk to be signed into law. I thank my colleague and coauthor of the Senate bill, Senator Kennedy, and his staff for their hard work over the past few years. I also extend my gratitude to Senator Enzi and his staff for their diligent efforts in helping to reauthorize this important program. I also must thank the leaders of this effort in the House, Representatives Bill Pascrell, Jr., Frank Pallone, Jr., and their staffs who have been so dedicated to helping individuals with TBI. Also, this bill would not have been possible without the cooperation and input from involved organizations, such as the Brain Injury Association of America, BIAA; the National Association of State Head Injury Administrators, NASHIA; the National Brain Injury Research, Treatment and Training Foundation, NBIRTT; and the National Disability Rights Network, NDRN; and I thank them all for their contributions. It means a lot to the 5.3 million Americans living with TBI, and their families, to reauthorize the only Federal program that helps them. The Federal TBI Program comprises prevention and surveillance activities at the Center for Disease Control, CDC, research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and grants to States from the Health Resources and Services Administrations, HRSA. This reauthorization bill expands and improves those activities, and includes provisions to look at the reintegration of war vets returning to their communities. Each year, 1.4 million people sustain a TBI and face long-term or lifelong need for help to perform activities of daily living as a result. Direct medical costs and indirect costs such as lost productivity of TBI totaled an estimated $60 billion in the United States in 2000. We can help truncate those costs and ensure that people are connected to the services they need by continuing this important program. It has been a labor of love to draft and enact legislation to reauthorize this important program. On behalf of individuals living with TBI, and their families, I thank my colleagues in Congress for passing this legislation and reaffirming our commitment to helping those with who suffer from traumatic brain injuries.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one of my colleagues was recently quoted as saying that facts are stubborn things. The facts are that the majority has virtually shut down the judicial confirmation process. Some say that the process always shuts down in a Presidential election year, so I checked every one since I was first elected. By today, April 10, in each of those Presidential election years, the Judiciary Committee had held hearings for multiple appeals court nominees. But this year, only one appeals court nominee has had a hearing, and there is not another one on the schedule. The Judiciary Committee held no confirmation hearing at all last month, and last week's hearing was yet another one with no appeals court nominee. The facts are just as stubborn when we look at the entire 110th Congress. Since I was first elected, there have been seven Congresses like this one that included a Presidential election year. During each of these Presidential election Congresses, the Judiciary Committee held hearings for an average of 25 appeals court nominees. But today, more than 15 months into the 110th Congress, the Judiciary Committee has held a hearing for only five appeals court nominees. This amounts to just one-fifth of the average for previous Presidential election seasons. If the partisan roles were reversed and the pace of hearings for appeals court nominees had slowed to perhaps one-half or one-third of the historic average, I can guarantee you that my friends across the aisle would be down here raising the roof about how we were failing to do our confirmation duty. In fact, when I chaired the Judiciary Committee under the previous President and the hearing pace was actually much faster than it is today, they did complain early, loudly, and often. But the pace today is worse than one-half, worse than one-third, worse even than one-fourth of the historic average. The current Judiciary Committee hearing pace for appeals court nominees is the worst in decades. In fact, there is no current pace at all. Or look at what is going on or I should say what is not going on, here on the Senate floor. The current Judiciary Committee chairman in the past often insisted that 1992 provides the standard for judicial confirmation progress. Like today, his party controlled the Senate and a President Bush was in the White House. By this time that year, by April 10, 1992, the Senate had already confirmed 25 nominees to the Federal bench. It does not look like the Senate will confirm 25 judicial nominees for the entire rest of the year. This afternoon we will finally have the opportunity, the first opportunity of the year, to vote on a few nominees to the Federal bench. The majority has stalled judicial confirmation votes longer this year than in any Presidential election year since 1848. Yes, you heard me right. This is the latest start to judicial confirmations of any Presidential election year in 160 years. That was the century before last. That was before Utah even became a territory, let alone a State. The last time the Senate waited this long in a Presidential election year to confirm Federal judges, James Polk, the 11th President, was in the White House. What could possibly explain such abject confirmation failure? I might have missed it, but I am not aware of any domestic armed conflict today that is disrupting the Senate's business. Yet the Civil War did not stop the Senate in 1864 from confirming seven judges before April 10. Senators today do not have to use horses or carriages or travel on dirt roads. Yet slow, burdensome travel did not stop the Senate in 1884 from confirming five judges before April 10. The Great Depression did not stop the Senate in 1932 from confirming 14 judges before April 10. The possibility of the Senate majority party capturing the White House did not stop Republicans in 2000 from confirming seven judges, including five appeals court judges, before April 10. Today is April 10, 2008, and we will not confirm a single nominee to the Federal bench until this afternoon and even this late start was noticed only yesterday. Facts are indeed very stubborn things. The majority has already virtually shut down the judicial confirmation process. The Senate has not always operated this way. The majority is refusing to do what the American people sent us here to do because--I guess, simply--they can. That may be the reason, but it certainly is no excuse. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a little over a year ago, I stood before the Senate and recited the words of Thomas Paine--who in his essay titled ``Chaos''--spoke about commitment and sacrifice to a noble cause when it appeared that all hope was lost. His words still resonate today: These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Paine wrote those words when it seemed the American Revolution was lost. However, their effect was to rally what remained of the Continental Army and ensure the success of Washington's raids on Trenton and Princeton. When I recited Paine's words, our Nation faced a dilemma. Despite the great heroism and noble sacrifice of our servicemembers, large portions of Iraq were under the control of al-Qaida. The mainstream media had concluded that, at best, our forces were locked in a stalemate. Many advocated that the only recourse was to bring the troops home and allow Iraq to fall in the abyss of an implosion. For some, including the senior Senator from Arizona and me, that was never an option. The knowledge, experience and, hopefully, wisdom that I have accumulated over the years in this august body allowed me to make only one conclusion: If we are not successful in this war the result will be catastrophic for our Nation, the Western world, and the Middle East. This enemy--and despite what some in the media would lead us to believe, our main adversary in Iraq is al-Qaida--will pursue us home. Imagine the horrors that will follow if al-Qaida, with reinvigorated resources provided by Iraq's oil wealth, were to defeat us in Iraq. However, one of the great historical truths of our Nation is that in our most dire hours, our military has continually provided us with leaders of great resolve and strategic brilliance. General David Petraeus amply fits that mold. The new strategy that General Petraeus proposed--in which he has so ably been assisted by Ambassador Crocker--is based on the classical counterinsurgency tenet of providing security to the population of a nation under attack. Why is this critical? By providing security to the Iraqi people, that Nation's citizens will develop a vested interest in the creation of institutions that will ensure their security for the future. Simply put, only in a secure environment can the majority of Iraqis earn a living, put food on the table, and provide a better life for their families. What once was theory is now becoming reality. The Iraqi people are seeing considerable results from General Petraeus's strategy and their actions and plans for the future increasingly reflect this new reality. How do we know this? Since the beginning of 2007, well over 100,000 individuals have joined the Iraqi Army and security forces. This means that a total of 540,000 Iraqis now serve in that Nation's security forces. This includes the 91,641 individuals, who in little over a year, have joined the Sons of Iraq, the coalition of citizens that are tasked with providing security to their local communities. One should remember that 80 percent of the Sons of Iraq are Sunni Muslims. In addition, it should be noted that al-Qaida receives most of its support from the Sunni. Frankly, this alone is a major triumph. The Iraqi people are also providing us intelligence. One of the methods by which we find weapons and explosive caches is through tips from the local population. In 2006, Coalition forces found and cleared 2,660 such weapons caches. In 2007, after the Petraeus strategy was implemented, that number increased to 6,963. What is even more impressive is that though we have just entered the fourth month of this year, Coalition forces have already seized more weapons caches than in all of 2006. Clearly, this increase in seizures would not be possible without greater support from the Iraqi population. In the area of ethno-sectarian violence, we have seen a dramatic reduction in deaths. When our new strategy was first implemented, there were more than 2,000 ethno-sectarian deaths a month in Iraq and over 1,500 in Baghdad alone. Today, there are fewer than 250 ethno-sectarian deaths a month in all of Iraq. All of these events have occurred during the period of enhanced security brought about by General Petraeus's strategy. For example, shortly after the implementation of this strategy, there were greater then 1,400 weekly security incidents in Iraq. Today that number has dropped to less than half. In addition, the number of high profile attacks, which include car bombs, suicide car bombs and suicide vests--the preferred means of murder by al-Qaida--has also decreased by more than half from March 2007 to the present day. Enhanced security has strengthened the foundations of political institutions and economic ventures. This is evidenced by a poll conducted by the Center for International Private Enterprise which was summarized by Ambassador Crocker in his testimony. That poll, which was conducted last month, concluded that 78 percent of Iraq's business owners ``expect the Iraqi economy to grow significantly in the next 2 years.'' Equally as impressive is the International Monetary Fund estimate that Iraq's gross domestic product will grow by 7 percent in real terms this year--7 percent. That rate of growth will only be matched by some Asian tiger economies and it is a level that I wish that the United States could enjoy. This economic growth and strengthening of political institutions is also evidenced by the fact that the United States will no longer fund major infrastructure projects. Ambassador Crocker reports the reason for this fundamental shift is that Iraq's economy is now earning sufficient funds for the Iraqi Government to independently build their own infrastructure. This does not mean that we should view this conflict through rose- colored glasses. As evidenced by the events in Basra last week, there remain many challenges ahead. The fact is that the Iraqi operations in Basra were not properly planned. However, as General Petraeus said: ``. . . in the wake of recent operations, there were units and leaders found wanting in some cases . . . Nonetheless, the performance of many [Iraqi] units was solid, especially once they got their footing and gained a degree of confidence, and certain Iraqi elements proved quite capable . . .'' In addition, it should be noted that in previous years no one would have dreamed that the Iraqi Government would have launched such an operation. Remember, the Prime Minister gave an order to the security forces. Those orders were executed. In Basra, the results were mixed. Some units did well; some did not. However, the fact that the Government thought they could execute this major operation independently is a positive development. As General Petraeus testified ``operations in Basra highlight improvements in the ability of the Iraqi Security Forces to deploy substantial number of units, supplies and replacements on very short notice; they certainty could not have deployed a division's worth of Army and Police units a year ago.'' Further progress is also being made by Iraq's political institutions. When our new strategy was first being implemented, there seemed to be an inextricable stalemate in Iraq's parliament. During my trip to Iraq in May 2007, Senator Smith and I spoke to senior members of the Iraqi Parliament and strongly urged them to pass legislation vital to the reconstruction and the establishment of effective political institutions. As with any democratic political process, it has been slow going. However, the Iraqi Parliament has recently passed important laws. These include a new pension law, de-Ba'athification reform, and a new Provincial Powers Law, that sets elections for this fall and defines the structure of power between the Iraqi Federal Government and its provinces. These are great strides forward, and all Americans should recognize our accomplishments in Iraq. I believe that Ambassador Crocker summed up the situation best when he said yesterday: Al-Qaida is in retreat in Iraq, but it is not yet defeated. Al-Qaida's leaders are looking for every opportunity they can to hang on. Osama bin Ladin has called Iraq ``the perfect base,'' and it reminds us that a fundamental aim of al-Qaida is to establish itself in the Arab world. It almost succeeded in Iraq; we cannot allow it a second chance . . . . . . the world ultimately will judge us far more on the basis of what will happen than what has happened. In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came. Our current course is hard, but it is working. Progress is real, although still fragile. We need to stay with it. Mr. President, the road has been long and hard. However, as I said 1 year ago, the words of Thomas Paine remind us that great causes require sacrifice, that in any conflict there will be dark days, but if our cause is just and our will is strong, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish as a people. I suggest very strongly that our cause is just and our will is stronger than some in this body believe it to be. Mr. President, our forces have accomplished much. It is now our responsibility to sustain them until they achieve the victory which they deserve, and for which they are fighting. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, thank you for the opportunity today to pay tribute to a wonderful woman, dedicated public servant and loyal friend--Ms. Mary Langston Taylor. Mary is retiring from my staff on May 1, 2008, after 31 years of dedicated service. Mary has been with me from the beginning. She joined my staff on January 1, 1977, the first week I was in office. You could say we have literally grown up in this job together. I believe the very first assignment I ever gave her was to take dictation for letters I wanted to send to all of my new colleagues. She didn't miss a word then and is still one of the fastest people I know at shorthand--a vanishing talent I might add. In the early days of my Senate career, Mary was instrumental in the beginnings of all aspects of running a U.S. Senate Office. She drafted and implemented the initial quality control procedures for all office documents, and correspondence. She managed the ``conversion'' of the office from typewriters to computers--hard to fathom knowing what equipment we now have at our fingertips. She also helped spearhead the first Utah Women's Conference, an annual event Elaine and I have the pleasure of hosting for women across Utah. From its beginnings with Jihan Sadat as the first keynote speaker to today, this conference has served a vital purpose to bring together women from diverse backgrounds to discuss the issues most important to their health and well-being. Her innovation and hard work, along with many others, has made this annual event the huge success that it is. Mary has worn many hats during her years of service: personal secretary, office manager, legislative assistant, special assistant, and currently constituent services representative. In fact, she was even kind enough to wheel me to the Capitol for votes after I severed my Achilles tendon. She got pretty fast with my wheelchair. In her current position Mary helps solve hundreds of constituent cases each year that are brought to my attention by Utahns needing help working with the Federal Government. Mary's areas of expertise include: veterans and military affairs, transportation issues, and the U.S. Postal Service. While working with constituents, Mary has always conveyed her warmth and deep caring for each person. Perhaps her work is summed up best in the words of gratitude expressed to Mary by a happy constituent: ``What would we have done without you? You are our hero. I want to thank you for never giving up. . .Thank you for making all the difference in the world to my mom and us.'' Even in the face of severe adversity, she always came to work each day with a smile on her face and a willingness to get the job done. I have always admired Mary for her courage and fortitude. As a single mother for many years, she raised three wonderful boys--Robby, David, and James. She has taught them well and has sacrificed many things for the happiness of her children. Mary is not only the proud mother of these three boys but the loving stepmother to five children she was fortunate to inherit when she wed Brian Taylor. They have formed a wonderful partnership and it is always a pleasure to see them together. In addition to her Senate service, Mary has been a tireless advocate for conservative ideals, and women's issues. She has served as the president of the Professional Republican Women of Utah, is a member of the Women's State Legislative Council, and is currently finishing her term as the president of the Salt Lake Council of Women. In this position Mary spearheaded the Hall of Fame to honor outstanding women who have provided service to the community. She also created a special committee on domestic abuse to help others learn to spot indicators and educate women on what resources are available to those in need. Mr. President. I am truly grateful for the service Mary Taylor has given to me, to our community, and to Utah. I will miss Mary tremendously but know that life holds many exciting and wonderful new opportunities for her to enjoy. When I think of the best way to describe Mary, the word ``loyal'' just seems to fit. Mary is a loyal friend, mother, wife, and has been a tremendously loyal staff member for 31 years. Someone once said: ``Loyalty cannot be blueprinted. It cannot be produced on an assembly line. In fact, it cannot be manufactured at all, for its origin is the human heart.'' This is Mary--her heart is pure and she is loyal to all. I want to wish Mary the very best in retirement and want her to know that I will pray for her continued good health, success and happiness. May God bless Mary and her family for her wonderful service.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I follow the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the American people sent us here to get things done. One of the most important things we do is consider and vote on the President's nominations to the Federal bench and the Department of Justice. I can put it simply: We are failing to do our duty. Let me first address the judicial confirmation process. The Constitution gives to the President the authority to nominate and appoint Federal judges. The Constitution gives to the Senate the role of advice and consent as a check on the President's appointment power. The Senate gives the President advice about whether to appoint his judicial nominees by giving or withholding our consent. We are supposed to do so through up-or-down votes. That is what the Constitution assigns us to do and what the American people expect us to do. That is what we are failing to do. For the record, since I was first elected, I have voted against only 5 of the more than 1,500 nominees to life-tenured judicial positions the Senate has considered on the floor. Some of my Democratic friends, including those with far less seniority, have voted against more than three times as many nominees of the current President alone. I have strongly opposed all filibusters against judicial nominees, both Democrats and Republicans. Some of my Democratic friends opposed filibusters of Democratic nominees but heartily supported filibusters of Republican nominees. I have not taken a partisan approach to judicial confirmations. But I must say that today this body is failing to do its confirmation duty. At both stages in the confirmation process--in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor--Democrats are failing to meet not only historical standards but their own standards as well. Democrats have vowed not to treat President Bush's nominees the way Republicans treated President Clinton's nominees. Democrats are keeping that promise. Let me refer to this chart. In the past 10 months, for example, the Judiciary Committee, under Democratic control, has held a hearing on only three appeals court nominees. During the same period under President Clinton, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on 12 appeals court nominees--four times as many. And by the way, every one of those Clinton nominees was confirmed, 11 of them within an average of only 48 days after their hearing, and 9 of them without a single negative vote. When I chaired the Judiciary Committee under President Clinton, we held no less than 10 hearings that included more than 1 appeals court nominee--10. While Democrats have controlled this body under President Bush, the Judiciary Committee has not held a single one--not one. Ten to zero. Democrats are certainly not treating Bush nominees the way Republicans treated Clinton nominees. The Democrats are not only failing to meet historical standards in the Judiciary Committee, they are failing to meet even their own standards. When I chaired the committee, Democrats complained about every nomination hearing that did not include an appeals court nominee. With Democrats in charge under President Bush, the Judiciary Committee has held nearly a dozen nomination hearings without a single appeals court nominee. There has already been one confirmation hearing this year without an appeals court nominee, and another one will take place on Thursday. The picture is the same on the Senate floor, where Democrats are failing to meet either historical standards or their own standards. President Bush is the fourth President in a row to face a Senate controlled by the other party during his last 2 years in office. Under his three predecessors, the Senate confirmed an average of 75 district court nominees during their last 2 years in office. More than half of them were confirmed in the final year. Fifteen months into the current 110th Congress, we have confirmed only 31--only 31--district court nominees for President Bush. Similarly, under the previous three Presidents, the Senate confirmed an average of 17 appeals court nominees during the President's final 2 years in office. So far in the 110th Congress, we have confirmed only six appeals court nominees for President Bush. Now, to meet the historical average, we will have to confirm 44 district court and 11 appeals court nominees in the next several months. If anyone believes that will happen, I have some oceanfront property in the Utah desert I would like to sell them. Even if we did the completely unexpected, President Bush would still leave office with a much smaller impact on the Federal bench than his predecessor. President Bush has so far appointed 295 life-tenured Federal judges, well behind President Clinton, who appointed 346 at this same point in his presidency. Now, some around here spin a yarn about a supposed Republican blockade against President Clinton's judicial nominees. Some blockade. It allowed President Clinton nearly to set the all-time judicial appointment record. On the Senate floor, Democrats are not only failing to meet historical standards, they are also failing to meet even their own standards. Eight years ago, when Democrats were in the minority during the last year of President Clinton's tenure, they were crystal clear about what the judicial confirmation standard should be. One senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, for example, came to this floor often in 2000, insisting over and over that Democrats had set the proper standard back in 1992. This is what he said: I say let us compare 1992, in which there was a Democrat majority in the Senate and a Republican President. We confirmed 11 court of appeals court nominees . . . and 66 judges in all. In fact, we went out in October of that year. We were having hearings in September. We were having people confirmed in October. Today, as in 1992, a President Bush is in the White House. Today, as in 1992, Democrats control the Senate. Today, Democrats do not have to badger the majority to meet their judicial confirmation standard. They are in the majority. All they have to do is meet their own standard, and thus far they have failed to do so. After all, if the Judiciary Committee is not holding hearings on appeals court nominees now, if the Senate is not confirming nominees now, what makes anyone think we are going to be doing so in September or October as Democrats once said we should? We will no doubt hear any number of rehearsed responses, retorts, and rejoinders. We will hear, for example, that the White House has not sent us a nominee for every existing judicial vacancy. True, but beside the point. Lacking nominees for vacancies X, Y, and Z is no excuse for failing to hold hearings and votes on nominees to vacancies A, B, and C. We have already heard about the so-called Thurmond rule, supposedly justifying grinding the confirmation process to a halt in this Presidential election year. The Thurmond rule neither is a rule nor can it be attributed to the late Senator Strom Thurmond, a former Judiciary Committee chairman. Here is what the Democrats said about the so-called Thurmond rule in 2000, when a Democrat was in the White House: We cannot afford-- The Democrats said-- to follow the ``Thurmond Rule'' and stop acting on these nominees now in anticipation of the presidential election in November. Well, today is only April, but it already looks as if Democrats are stopping action on judicial nominees in anticipation of the Presidential election. Now, that same Democratic leader spoke on the Senate floor on October 3, 2000, a month before the election. He once again rejected the so- called Thurmond rule and used 1992 as the judicial confirmation standard, even in a Presidential election year. This is what he said: Do you know how long the Democrat-controlled Senate was confirming judges for a Republican President [in 1992]? Up to and including the very last day of the session; not up to and including 6 months before the session ended. That was then. I wonder how long this Democratic-controlled Senate will be confirming judges for this Republican President. We will no doubt continue to hear the cute but misleading phrase ``pocket filibuster,'' a blurb created by the Democratic spin machine to somehow blame Republicans for unconfirmed Clinton judicial nominees. Our constituents may not know it, but my Democratic colleagues certainly do, that every President has nominees who do get confirmed for a host of different reasons. But why let the facts get in the way of a good sound bite? The unconfirmed Clinton nominations include many President Clinton himself withdrew or chose not to renominate. They include others who were nominated too late in a session to even be processed. They include others who did not have the support of their home State Senators. The current Judiciary Committee chairman insists he is not responsible when nominees lacking support from their home State Senators do not get hearings. When he follows this policy, he blames it on Senate tradition and senatorial courtesy. When a Republican chairman follows this policy, he calls it a pocket filibuster. When you sort out the real reasons that Clinton nominees were not confirmed, you find this Democratic sound bite has a margin of error of about 500 percent. One of my Democratic friends was recently quoted as saying that facts are stubborn things. They are indeed. None of this explains, let alone excuses, Democrats' refusal to holding hearings or votes on judicial nominees who do have their home State Senators' support. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, for example, is one-third empty--one of the most important circuit courts in the country. President Bush has sent us nominees to four of the five vacancies on that court. One of them, Robert Conrad, has the support of both home State Senators, our distinguished colleagues from North Carolina. He has been nominated to a position that has been open for 14 years. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has designated it a judicial emergency position. This body confirmed Robert Conrad to the U.S. district court a few years ago without even having a rollcall vote. Yet he has been waiting for more than 250 days without a hearing. Steven Matthews, likewise, has the support of his home State Senators, our distinguished colleagues from South Carolina. He has been waiting for more than 200 days without a hearing. The American people sent us to do our duty, and that includes giving a hearing and a vote on these nominees. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter, dated February 13, 2008, signed by more than 50 grassroots organizations, urging us to do our judicial confirmation duty.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me briefly turn from the judicial to the executive branch and, in particular, to the Department of Justice. My Democratic colleagues have helped drive from office several top Justice Department officials and yet are now slow-walking confirmation of their replacements. On March 11, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Grace Chung Becker to be Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights. Grace served as a counsel on my staff when I chaired the Judiciary Committee and has been a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division for the past 2 years. She currently heads the division in an acting capacity. My Judiciary Committee colleagues will remember Grace as a talented, brilliant, and dedicated lawyer, a person of the highest character and integrity--one of the most likable people who ever served on the committee, one who served both sides, I think, graciously and well. She received her law degree magna cum laude from Georgetown, where she was associate editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. That was after receiving her B.A. magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania and her B.S., once again magna cum laude from the Wharton School of Finance. I think I see a pattern here. After clerking for judges on the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, Grace spent a year in private practice before entering Government service. For the next decade, Grace served in such positions as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Assistant to General Counsel at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Special Adviser to the Assistant Secretary of the Army, and Associate Deputy General Counsel of the Defense Department.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent for another 2 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. At the Justice Department, Grace has been supervising hundreds of lawyers in cases regarding civil rights, housing discrimination, religious land use, education, and fair lending practices. Grace is a special person. She is the child of Korean immigrants whose parents and siblings are all entrepreneurs in New York and New Jersey. She and her husband Brian have been married for 14 years and have 2 wonderful children. Grace is living the American dream and making the most of the opportunities she has found in this great country. She is dedicated to making these opportunities available to others. She has served the community on the board of the Korean American Coalition and on the Fairfax County School Board's Human Rights Advisory Committee. She has finally had her hearing, but now I hear disturbing reports that she has been given literally hundreds of written questions, many about matters occurring long before her tenure or decisions and policies she had absolutely nothing to do with. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, to do our confirmation duty, not only for Grace but also for these qualified judicial nominees as well. I ask my colleagues to do what the American people sent us here to do, and that includes giving timely consideration and up-or- down votes to the President's nominees for the judiciary and the Department of Justice. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for allowing me the extra 2 minutes, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding the passing of former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, who passed away last night at his home in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I think I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that our Nation has lost a principled leader and that Senator Metzenbaum will be missed. Senator Metzenbaum was born in Cleveland, OH in 1917 and spent much of his life serving the people of that great State. He graduated from Ohio State University in 1939 and received a law degree from that same institution in 1941. The early days of his legal practice were devoted to representing labor unions in Ohio. In 1943, he began an 8-year period of service in the Ohio State Legislature, serving 4 years in the Ohio House of Representatives and 4 more in the Ohio Senate. He soon became a prominent figure in Ohio politics. After his time in the Ohio Legislature, he continued his legal practice and also embarked on a very successful career in real estate development, becoming a self-made millionaire through a series of very successful investments. However, he did not stay out of public service for long. In 1974, Senator Metzenbaum was appointed by Ohio Governor Jack Gilligan to fill the vacancy in the U.S. Senate left by Senator William B. Saxbe who had departed to serve as U.S. Attorney General. After losing a tough primary election to future Senator John Glenn later that year, Howard was elected to Ohio's other Senate seat in 1976, the same year I came to the Senate. He served three Senate terms before retiring in 1995. I had the privilege of serving with Howard for his entire career in the Senate. It always amazed me how dedicated Howard was and how he dutifully watched out for his constituents' interests. It seemed like he was always on the floor at the right time and ready to stop any amendment that he thought might go against the principled views he held. For many years, Howard's Senate office was across the hall from my office on the first floor of the Russell Senate Office Building. Frequently, when there was a vote, Howard and I would enter the hallway at the same time and he would immediately make a statement about the loud tie I was wearing. He never failed to notice the unique collection of ties I wore. However, over the years, I noticed his selection of tie choices began to grow louder and louder as well until eventually, we used to see who could wear the most outlandish ties to work each day. We sure did wear some ugly ties trying to outdo each other. We really developed quite a fondness for each other during those years. As you might expect, Howard and I often found ourselves butting heads on many issues. He certainly had a tendency, at times, to frustrate some of our colleagues. However, we all admired him for his courage and conviction. Howard was a tough politician. As we came to the close of each of our Senate work periods right before a recess began, you could always find Howard sitting at his desk on the Senate floor objecting to every piece of legislation that he did not agree with. He spent hour upon hour standing up for the people of Ohio. Howard's enthusiasm in protecting the interests of Ohioans was probably the only thing that exceeded his zeal in guarding against legislation that he viewed as helping large corporations. I recall with some amusement an incident surrounding an amendment I was trying to add to a tax bill on the Senate floor that would have lowered excise taxes for certain companies that supplied materials to mining companies. This amendment had been cleared by the managers of the bill, who were the leaders of the Finance Committee. It appeared that acceptance of the amendment was a done deal. That is, until Senator Metzenbaum found out that a potentially pro- corporation amendment was about to be accepted. Howard began objecting to the unanimous consent request to include this amendment in the bill. During a call of the quorum, I went over to chat with him. I informed him that of the roughly two or three dozen mining supply companies that would be helped by this amendment, three were located in Ohio. I could see in his eyes the difficult nature of his dilemma--on the one hand he did not want to spend money on helping corporations and on the other hand, he always wanted to help his beloved Ohioans. In the end, Howard made what he thought was the best decision for his constituents and agreed to let the amendment go, but not before he had a chance to weigh in his mind the importance of his decision. I remember thinking at the time that I had probably witnessed one of the only times Howard ever changed his mind regarding a piece of legislation. Mr. President, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the Metzenbaum family. As I said, Howard and I didn't often find ourselves on the same side of matters before the Senate, but I can say, without reservation, that he was a dedicated public servant, a man I have always admired and a dear friend.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak about an amendment that would ensure funding for an extremely important program, the Federal traumatic brain injury--or TBI--program. This is the only Federal program that helps the 3.5 million Americans living with TBI and their families. In 1996, when I helped to create the Federal TBI program along with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, most people had probably never heard of a traumatic brain injury. Many more people now are familiar with the term TBI because it has been increasingly highlighted in the media, but they may still not fully comprehend the gravity of such a condition. TBI can strike anyone of any age without warning and with absolutely devastating results. For this reason, it is often called the ``silent epidemic.'' TBI is defined as brain damage from externally inflicted trauma to the head resulting in significant impairment to an individual's physical, psychosocial, and cognitive functional abilities. According to the CDC, brain injuries are among the most likely types of injury to cause death or permanent disability. People ages 15 to 24 years and those over age 75 are the two age groups at highest risk for TBI. Motor vehicle accidents, sports accidents, falls, and violence are the major causes of TBI. TBI is particularly common among young males and people of both sexes who are 75 years and older. Because of its unique nature, TBI affects the whole family and often results in huge medical and rehabilitation expenses over a lifetime. TBI may also be caused by explosives, and medical experts have described it as the signature wound of the Iraq war. Up to two-thirds of injuries in the Iraq war may be brain injuries. TBI affects people like no other condition simply because it affects the brain. Just imagine what the consequences could be if the brain did not work properly. The brain is the control center of the central nervous system and is responsible for behavior and information processing. It controls cognition, perception, memory, and the ability to pay attention. The brain is also in command of posture, reflexes, movement, and coordination, as well as motor skills and other forms of learning. It performs a variety of body functions automatically, such as coordinating blood pressure and body temperature and breathing. Given this, it is clear that an injury to the brain is unpredictable and has the potential to cause catastrophic results. TBI can be mild, moderate, or severe, depending on the extent of the damage to the brain and the actual location of the injury. TBI can cause a host of physical, cognitive, emotional, and social effects. Results can be anything from complete recovery to permanent disability or death. As I mentioned, TBI is different from other disabilities due to the severity of cognitive loss. Most rehabilitation programs are designed for people with physical disabilities, not cognitive disabilities. Cognitive disabilities require more specialized accommodations than physical disabilities. Finding needed services is typically a logistical, financial, and psychological challenge for family members and other caregivers, because so few coordinated systems of care exist for individuals with TBI. The program comprises surveillance and research activities at the CDC and NIH, respectively, as well as grants through HRSA to fund State demonstration projects to improve access to health and other services and for protection and advocacy systems. The passage of the original Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 1996 has improved TBI service systems at the State level and also increased the overall visibility and awareness of TBI. However, more work needs to be done at both the national and State level to build an effective, durable service system for meeting the needs of individuals with TBI and their families. There are still too many dots that need to be connected. We must not stop now. We must sustain this program. That is why I have been working with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, to reauthorize the program once again. I am pleased that our TBI reauthorization bill--S. 793--passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 11, 2007. Just this week, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health acted on its companion bill, H.R. 1418, and amended it with language from our Senate bill. I am hopeful that we can secure a timely passage of this reauthorization and thereby reaffirm our commitment to helping the TBI community. Under the President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal, funding is eliminated for this program. I support my President, and I support the goals of funding programs with proven performance accountability while reducing the deficit; however, I disagree with the proposal to cut this important program--the only program that helps this vulnerable population. And I know that I am not the only one. This is not the first time elimination of the program has been proposed--but it keeps getting funded because others also feel it is an incredibly important program. It is a relatively small program, budgetwise, but that should not be a reason to ignore its significance or to let it fall by the wayside. That is why I have crafted this budget-neutral amendment to create a reserve fund of $9 million for the TBI program. This amendment will ensure the sustainability of this essential program, and the availability of services for individuals with TBI, and I urge my colleagues to support it. amendment No. 4270

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my amendment to the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 70, which condemns the unwise practice of diversion of funds from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO. By stopping the short-sighted practice of fee-diversion, Congress would ensure that all funds collected are available to modernize the USPTO and increase the number of examiners so that U.S. entrepreneurs receive swift, precise decisions to secure their intellectual property. The patent system is the bedrock of innovation, especially in today's global economy. The USPTO is the sole intellectual property policy office in the U.S. Government and a leading agency for intellectual property protection and enforcement worldwide. The nature of the USPTO workload is constantly evolving and increasing year by year, and requires active, responsive management. Considering the value of our Nation's intellectual property and its contribution to building a strong and vibrant economy, it is incomprehensible to siphon these funds away from their intended use, especially during these trying economic times. Patent applications reflect cutting-edge technology, and are increasingly complex. More than ever, resources commensurate with the burdens placed on examiners are needed to efficiently and accurately prosecute patent applications. The backlog of unfinished applications for U.S. patents might reach well over 800,000 this year alone. It makes no sense to me why Congress would siphon off funds from the USPTO at this crucial time. Now is the time to act to protect this important agency, which is so vital to our Nation's economy. Last year alone, more than 467,000 applications were filed at the USPTO. The sheer volume of patent applications reflects the vibrant, innovative spirit that has made America a world-wide leader in science, engineering, and technology. No doubt, the number of applications is hampering the agency's ability to keep pace with the innovative thought of applicants and to be flexible with the emergence of new technologies. By prohibiting the practice of diverting fees to pay for other programs, the agency will be able to ensure that fees paid by inventors are used solely for USPTO operations. The resource-starved agency is still trying to recover from the almost $750 million in patent and trademark application fees that were diverted away from the USPTO between 1992 and 2004. As a result, the agency has been unable to hire, train, and retain the number of qualified examiners needed to handle the ever-increasing number of patent application filings. Moreover, the practice of fee diversion has inhibited the agency from playing more of a key role in combating counterfeiting and piracy, both domestically and abroad. I note that the Congress and the administration have permitted the USPTO to keep almost all of its fees for the last 3 fiscal years. But, there is nothing to prevent this devastating practice of fee diversion from happening in the future. This senseless starving of the USPTO must end. I believe this sense of the Senate is the first step in acknowledging that Congress must act in short order to stop depriving the USPTO of funds it so desperately needs and give the paying applicants the quality and timeliness of service they are due. For all of the above reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this sense of the Senate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment my distinguished colleague from Maine. She does such a great job around here, and we all respect her and know how hard she works. She has terrific ideas, so we are very grateful to have her as a colleague. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment designed to protect Medicare beneficiaries' coverage choices. It will protect beneficiaries living in rural areas. It will protect beneficiaries with chronic conditions such as diabetes, congestive heart failure, and even cancer. It will protect beneficiaries who use preventive health screening benefits. It will protect low-income Medicare beneficiaries from high out-of-pocket costs. Simply put, my amendment creates a budget-neutral reserve fund so that if Congress takes action to improve the Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP Programs, it may not limit coverage choices for Medicare beneficiaries. It also may not reduce the benefits of those who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage Plans. The Medicare Advantage Program was established by the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act. I know; I was on the conference committee and one of the key people in helping to pass that bill. Through the Medicare Advantage Program, health plans receive a monthly payment to provide beneficiaries at least all of the health benefits covered by traditional Medicare. Prior to the MMA, these plans had difficulty existing in rural areas, such as Utah, due to very low monthly payments. In fact, Utah did not have Medicare Plus Choice Programs for any length of time because the plans simply could not exist due to low reimbursement rates, and that was true in almost every rural area in the country. The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 increased payments to these plans, and as a result, every State now has Medicare Advantage Plans that are offered to its residents, and each State's residents are benefiting greatly from this. Medicare Advantage Plans provide a lot more to beneficiaries than traditional Medicare. Medicare Advantage Plans provide a range of additional benefits not available in traditional Medicare, such as vision and dental care, annual physical exams, and hearing aids. Medicare Advantage Plans also have chronic-care programs for beneficiaries with chronic diseases, such as diabetes or congestive heart failure. Through chronic-care plans, these beneficiaries are able to manage their illnesses because their doctors provide a coordinated care approach to their conditions. That is why these plans work. That is why they are so much appreciated by seniors, especially, all over this country. In other words, health care providers actually talk to each other under Medicare Advantage, and they try to figure out the best course of action so that the patients will stay healthier longer. This is not the case in traditional Medicare. A beneficiary in traditional Medicare may see as many as five or six physicians for various health problems--a nephrologist for kidney failure, an orthopedic surgeon for a broken ankle, an endocrinologist for an underactive thyroid, and an internist for general health issues. In addition, medicines are prescribed by each of these physicians without consultation, which sometimes may have disastrous results, all maybe not even understanding the others in the picture. Would these physicians talk to each other when the beneficiary is covered by traditional Medicare? Chances are very high that they would not. That is why Medicare Advantage Plans are so good for beneficiaries. These plans encourage providers to approach health care collaboratively-- something that I believe is in the beneficiary's best interest. Health plans have been covering Medicare beneficiaries for many years through programs authorized by Congress. However, these Medicare health plans were typically limited to beneficiaries living in urban areas. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 prompted Congress to take action to provide more coverage choices for beneficiaries living in rural areas. Mr. President, in Pennsylvania, in your State, there are a lot of rural areas. In fact, I remember my good friend, Senator Chuck Grassley, the ranking Republican of the Senate Finance Committee, pushing for equitable payments in rural areas so that plans could be offered to beneficiaries living in areas such as Pennsylvania, Utah, and Iowa. At that time, payment rates to plans offered in urban areas were higher--in some cases, a lot higher--than payments in rural areas. Unfortunately, we didn't quite get it right in the BBA 1997, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. We should have listened to Senator Grassley because he was right. In fact, my home State of Utah could not keep Medicare Plus Choice plans in the State primarily because the payment rates were too low, and that is true of every rural State. Ironically, many Utahns wanted to participate in these plans because they were the only ones offering the supplemental benefits such as vision care, preventive benefits, and prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries at that time. Now, let me go to chart one here. We finally were able to achieve the appropriate payment rates for both rural and urban parts of the country through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. In fact, this chart shows how many Medicare Advantage Plans are available throughout the country since its passage. While this chart illustrates the different payment levels of Medicare Advantage Plans across the country, it also shows that many Medicare Advantage Plans are available in every county in every State in this country. Think about that. In other words, all Medicare beneficiaries have access to at least one Medicare Advantage Plan, but every part of the United States of America is covered by Medicare Advantage. It has been a terrific thing for our people who have suffered in these areas and who now are covered under Medicare Advantage. Now, these people may choose between traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan. They can make the choice of whatever plan they want. The primary goal of the Medicare Modernization Act was to give beneficiaries a choice of coverage. Now, again, when we first established ceilings for Medicare Plus Choice plans, we discovered that our floor payments for rural areas were too low. Medicare Plus Choice plans simply could not exist in rural areas. Congress learned an important message from that experience, and that is why we adjusted the payment ceilings and floors for Medicare Advantage Plans in the Medicare Modernization Act, to ensure access to Medicare Advantage Plans in both rural and urban parts of the country. They are in all parts of the country today because of the changes we made in that bill. This chart proves that we accomplished that goal. Now, let me go to chart two. This next chart will give my colleagues and everybody in America who is watching an idea of what could happen if Congress eliminates the rural and urban floor payments for Medicare Advantage Plans. The white parts of this map highlight the regions of the country where Medicare Advantage Plans may no longer be offered. It is the vast majority of America, if we do what some are saying we should do. It is very disconcerting to me that my very home State of Utah is almost completely white--right over there. There is only one little yellow spot and one dark-blue spot. In other words, we would decimate one of the programs that has worked so doggone well. In essence, if we eliminate these payments from Medicare Advantage Plans, we will have a repeat of what happened with Medicare Plus Choice. Plans will pull out of the rural parts of the country, and beneficiaries will be left without any choice at all. It will be deja vu all over again. I, for one, do not want to see that happen again. Now, let me go to chart three. This is important because another interesting point about the Medicare Advantage Plans is that beneficiaries are less likely to have problems accessing care compared to beneficiaries enrolled in traditional Medicare. This chart shows that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, as represented by the light blue on the left--there is light blue, green, then dark blue--Medicare Advantage beneficiaries have an easier time accessing care compared to those in traditional Medicare with and without supplemental health care. The light blue are Medicare Advantage enrollees, the green are all fee-for-service enrollees, and the dark blue are all fee-for-service who get supplemental coverage. When we were creating the Medicare Advantage Program, we strongly believed that beneficiaries should be able to have access to health care similar to the health care plans of Members of Congress. Now, let's take a couple of minutes to go through this chart. It is an important chart. Only 2.8 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries have no usual source of care, compared to 11.8 percent of those beneficiaries in traditional Medicare who do not have supplemental health coverage. Only 7.7 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries do not have a usual doctor, compared to 24.6 percent of beneficiaries in traditional Medicare without supplemental coverage. Only 4.5 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had trouble getting care, compared to 8.4 percent of those beneficiaries in traditional Medicare without supplemental health coverage. Only 6.5 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries delayed getting their care due to costs, compared to 18.6 percent of those beneficiaries in traditional Medicare without supplemental coverage. Only 7.5 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries needed to see a doctor but didn't, compared to 14.3 percent of those beneficiaries in traditional Medicare who do not have supplemental coverage. Look at it, starting on the left. No usual source of care--the light blue shows that they do have care compared to the other two. No usual doctor--the light blue again shows that they have their doctors. The third one over in from the left had trouble getting care, and you can see the light blue had less trouble than the other two. Then you go to delayed care because of cost. The light blue again was not delayed, compared to the green and the dark blue. Needed to see a doctor but didn't--the light blue, compared to green, compared to the dark blue didn't see the doctor and saved money over that time. These statistics, based on the 2006 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey, make one point very clear: Beneficiaries in Medicare Advantage Plans have been getting better care. So let me conclude by urging my colleagues to keep in mind the following: Today, beneficiaries across the country, whether they live in a rural State, such as Pennsylvania, Iowa, Utah, or in almost every State in the Union, or urban areas such as Boston, they have better coverage choices. Today, beneficiaries are offered more choices in Medicare Advantage, more benefits, and lower out-of-pocket costs. Today, most beneficiaries are satisfied. Over 90 percent of beneficiaries are satisfied with their Medicare Advantage plans. That is historically an astounding success story. We all need to remember that these policy decisions, in creating the Medicare Modernization Act, were created on a bipartisan basis. I was there. These bipartisan decisions helped achieve these impressive results, and these results should be protected. This is really important, and unfortunately we have people who want to get money out of Medicare Advantage and take away these benefits that have helped so many people in our country today, especially in the rural areas. We just cannot let that happen. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to protect these Medicare Advantage plans and to quit playing with something that is working so wonderfully well. I hope my colleagues on the other side will listen to these remarks I have been making. I know some of them know this is true, and the others, who have not studied it, ought to study it. They should not carve money out of a program that is as effective as is this one. It has exceeded the expectations we had when we were negotiating the Medicare Modernization Act by far. It is one of the most successful Federal programs. Frankly, it has done an awful lot of good to bring health care to those throughout our country and all of those States where plans have proliferated because they work. I hope everybody will vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have 15 minutes, and I have asked for an additional 5.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to and disappointment with the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution before us today. Interestingly enough, I listened to the Senator from New York talk about how the rich are getting away with things. Well, the upper 1 percent of all taxpayers paid 39 percent of all income taxes the last time I heard. The upper 5 percent paid 60 percent of the total income tax in this country. The upper 50 percent pay 97 percent of all the total income tax in this country. The bottom 50 percent generally pay almost nothing, and a good percentage of them get money from the Federal Government. So what is he talking about? I think it was Yogi Berra who once said, ``This is like deja vu all over again.'' I am sure he was not talking about the Federal budget when he uttered these oft-quoted words, but he might as well have been. As I look at the budget resolution before us today, and as I listen to the arguments on both sides of the aisle, it seems to me that we could be talking about last year's budget resolution. The numbers are somewhat larger, but the arguments are about the same. Now this might not be so bad if the budget resolution were a good one. No, you would not hear me complaining about a repeat of a budget that strengthened our economy, addressed our near-term problems, and prepared this country for the longer-term budget challenges of the future. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Once we were through with that resolution last year, it didn't even resemble what the budget resolution was calling for. In fact, I have been here for 31 years, and not one day has the conservative point of view been dominant in the Senate. The liberal point of view, with almost all liberal Democrats and a few liberal Republicans, has held sway. That is where all the spending is coming from. Instead, we are, once again, talking about a budget that raises taxes by an unprecedented amount, which will do untold harm to our economy, exacerbates our near-term problems by not holding spending in check, and totally ignores the longer-term mandatory program challenges of the future. Much has already been said on this floor about the budget resolution and its failings. I could add a great deal more, but instead I choose to focus my remarks on three premises on which this budget is based. Three premises that, unfortunately, are false. And every child in Sunday school knows that false premises are like the house whose foundation is built upon sand. We all know that a house built upon sand, or a budget built upon false premises, cannot stand. The first faulty premise underlying this budget resolution is that it would not raise taxes on Americans. I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said and will continue to say that this budget does not raise one cent in taxes. Technically speaking, this is true. However, while the document before us may contain no actual tax increase language, it does nothing to prevent the largest tax increase ever, which is set to occur at the end of 2010 if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled. The American people need to ask a simple question of this budget. What is it doing to make sure that my tax bill does not go up in 2010? They will be met with deafening silence. Now, those on the other side will try and explain this deficiency away. They will argue that allowing a tax cut to expire is not the same thing as raising taxes. Well, try telling that to the 116 million American taxpayers who will face higher taxes if these tax cuts are allowed to expire. Try explaining this nuance to the 43 million American families who, on average, will owe $2,300 more, and to the 18 million seniors who will pay an average of $2,200 more. This is not small potatoes. Families that do not consider themselves rich, that struggle to make ends meet, and that are doing all they can to make the mortgage and save for college, are going to get hit with massive tax bills. They are going to see their paychecks shrink by hundreds of dollars every pay period. This is real money. Money that families could use to pay medical bills or pay tuition, and instead it is going to go to the Federal Government. It will not be much fun trying to explain this to the owners and managers of 27 million American small businesses. Try telling them that their higher tax bill is not really a tax increase. No, not at all. It is merely the reversal of a temporary lower tax rate they should have been grateful to have gotten for a decade, due to the generosity of Uncle Sam, who no longer deems it necessary to throw such favors their way. Good luck selling that one. I will tell you one thing--I do not want to tell the hundreds of thousands of Utah families, seniors, and small business owners that the extra dollars we were letting them keep for a few years are now needed for more urgent things, such as higher spending in Washington. So if this is not a tax increase, I do not know what is. The other side can call it what it wants. But if the end result is more money coming to Washington, and less money staying in the paycheck, the family budget, or the small business expansion account, this is a T-A- X, Tax! We have heard the other side talk about how they are for extending the middle-class elements of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. We have even heard them say that the budget resolution provides for this, through the adoption of an amendment offered by the Senator from Montana. $323 billion for middle-class tax relief. Does any of this sound familiar? It should, because the same amendment was offered, and adopted, in last year's budget resolution. I have a question about that tax relief. Where is it? What happened? Last year's Baucus amendment offered pretty much the same kind of tax relief as this year's version. But, why did we need to adopt it again? The answer, of course, is that nothing happened because the tax changes necessary to carry out the stated intent of this amendment were never brought up in the Finance Committee or on the floor of this Senate. This is a shell game. The reason why is that you have to look at the fine print on this amendment to see what is really going on. The Baucus amendment allows only for the consideration of so-called middle-class tax relief. It does not, however, provide a means to offset the lost revenue. Under the Democratic pay-go rules, along with the $323 billion of tax relief that the Baucus amendment purports to offer, there is an asterisk with fine print that says, provided that the revenue can be found to offset it. My goodness. So this explains why we need the Baucus amendment again. The reason we did not provide that middle-class tax relief is that we could not find the revenue to offset it. But what about what my friend and colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, says? He points to the tax gap and says we can get the money there. All we have to do is stop some of the leakage in our tax system. I agree with my colleague from North Dakota. I agree that we should be able to reduce the tax gap. It is too large and it is inexcusable why $200 to $300 billion or more in taxes that are due go uncollected each year. But you know what? Our tax system, as leaky and clumsy and unfair and antiquated as it is, is the envy of much of the world as far as the percentage due that we collect. Can we do better? Of course. Do we need to crack down on tax abuse domestically and overseas? Indeed we do. Can we raise enough money by closing the tax gap to offset the revenue loss of the amendment of the Senator from Montana? Not even close. As Senator Grassley very eloquently demonstrated on this floor on Monday, the real potential for revenue from the tax gap is very, very small in comparison to what the other side is claiming. If not, then where are the specific proposals from the other side to do it? Why haven't they been enacted, if it is so easy to get this revenue? The tax increases inherent in this budget resolution will do untold damage to our economy. Even if the other side can find the votes to increase taxes enough to overcome the pay-go problem associated with some of the middle-class tax relief proposed by the Senator from Montana, we would still be doing major harm to the economy. We can perhaps look to the model provided for us by the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in his so-called Mother Tax bill. It is so named because my good friend Chairman Rangel said it represents the Mother of All Tax Reforms. His ranking member, Congressman McCrery, more aptly describes it as the Mother of All Tax Hikes. I can tell you right now, as much as I hate to say this about my friend Charlie Rangel, Congressman McCrery is right. This ``mother'' bill includes plenty of tax offsets. It would increase the income tax rates across the board to where they were in 2001, with the top rate exceeding 40 percent at the margin. This may sound as if it would affect only the wealthy, but this is another false premise. In reality, it would affect millions and millions of small and midsized businesses, the great majority of which pay their taxes through the individual Tax Code. How is this going to help us solve the economic problems our Nation is facing? This budget is nothing but a recipe for disaster. The second faulty premise underlying this budget resolution is that the increase in spending it authorizes will solve our long-term economic problems. Yes, I think we have heard this before as well. Yes, it was last year in the fiscal year 2008 budget debate. That budget resolution called for $205 billion in increased spending over 5 years, and this number ballooned to $350 billion over 10 years. Apparently, this amount was not high enough, so this budget ups the amount to $210 billion over the next 5 years, and it will have the same ballooning effect over the years beyond because the spending gets built into the baseline. That is the danger of a seemingly small amount of additional spending. It is insidious. It seems relatively small in the first year, and so it may be, but the way we do budgeting in Congress has a way of multiplying the seemingly small increases so they are huge in a few years. There is a compounding effect. In his opening remarks on Monday, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee talked about the need for additional investment in America. He spoke about priorities in education, energy, infrastructure, law enforcement, weatherization, health care, uninsured children, food, drug safety, veterans, and much more. I know the Senator from North Dakota is sincere, and I know he works hard and is very effective in presenting his side of the argument. I have much admiration and affection for him. I care a great deal for him. He has a very tough job, and he does it well. The Senator from North Dakota is right about the needs of this country--they are unlimited, just like the needs of the typical American family. The needs of the American people as a whole are unlimited. The problem in both situations is that we do not have unlimited resources, and neither does the family. We have to make choices, and we have to set priorities. It would be nice if we could simply take care of every problem in this Nation by spending the money that is needed, just as it would be great if every American family had enough money to solve all of its problems. But that is not reality. In reality, we are in serious financial trouble in this country. Money trouble, if you will. When a family faces reality and knows it has money trouble, that family will sit down at the kitchen table and decide where to prioritize and what has to go. That is exactly what we need to do at the national level. The Senator from North Dakota is correct about another point, and that is that the discretionary portion of our budget is getting squeezed. According to Comptroller General David Walker, the portion of discretionary spending in 1966 was 67 percent of the total budget. By 1986, this portion had dropped to 44 percent. By 2006, a couple years ago, it was down to 38 percent. This shrinking percentage of discretionary spending, however, is not because we are spending less in terms of nominal dollars. The fact is we spent almost twice as much on discretionary programs in 2007 as we did in 2000. However, our mandatory spending is increasing so much faster. This growth in the entitlement programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, is squeezing out our ability to grow the amount we spend on discretionary programs. But the answer is not to increase discretionary spending even by what the proponents of this budget are calling a very small amount. We are going in the wrong direction, and this small amount will compound into a large amount in a few years. And guess what. Once we spend and it gets built into the baseline, it is almost impossible to get it out. This leads me to the third faulty premise underlying this budget resolution, and that is it is safe to ignore our longer term problems with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I know if I were to separately ask each Member of this body if we need to do something about the growth of these programs, there is a good chance that every single Senator would agree we cannot afford to ignore them and that something has to be done to save our future. But as I looked over this budget resolution, I cannot seem to find the part that addresses the growth of these programs, and yet the Government Accountability Office tells us that between now and 2032, spending on Medicare and Medicaid alone will grow about 230 percent. At the same time, our GDP will grow about 70 percent if we are lucky. Let me share some truly frightening numbers with you. The Government Accountability Office recently computed the fiscal exposures we face as a nation from our unfunded obligations under Social Security and Medicare. In 2007 dollars, our total unfunded liability for future Social Security benefits, assuming the law does not change, is $6.8 trillion--that is trillion dollars. This is a number of galactic proportions, so big that it is hard to comprehend. But I have to tell you, it pales in comparison to the amount of our unfunded liability associated with Medicare, which is more than $34 trillion--that is trillion dollars, $34 trillion. When this is combined with all other major fiscal exposures, the GAO estimates that our total unfunded liability is almost $53 trillion. That is with a T. This amount is nearly as high as the total household net worth of Americans, which is $59 trillion. In other words, we are nearly bankrupt as a nation. Within a few years, we will absolutely be bankrupt if something is not done. It is clear that this path is not sustainable. We all know it. Our children know it, and our grandchildren are going to find it out the hard way. They are going to blame us if we do not act to turn things around. It is as if we are all in a ship floating down a river. The waters are quite calm now, but the map shows that a very high and dangerous waterfall is ahead of us. We know if we do not turn the ship around, disaster awaits. But it is not an easy thing to do. We know we cannot turn it around in 1 year. It will take a lot of work and sacrifice. It will take pain. It is easy to say we should wait, that this is an election year and a new captain and maybe a new crew will be taking over after the election. But I say to my colleagues, we cannot afford to wait. In the midst of the calm water, we can hear the roar of the waterfall. We are coming to it very quickly, and if we wait too long, catastrophe will result. The budget before us does nothing about the cataclysm just down the river. It is a fatal flaw. I started by mentioning that the rich do pay a lot of taxes right now. Actually, the rich are paying more after the tax cuts than they were paying before. The fact is, the upper 1 percent of the rich--the last time I saw the figures, and it is even worse now--are paying about 39 percent of all income taxes--the upper 1 percent of all taxpayers. And the top 5 percent pay about 60 percent of all taxes. And the upper 50 percent pay almost 97 percent of all income taxes. Think about that. The bottom 50 percent pay little or none and many of them get largess from the Federal Government. So this idea that the rich need to pay more is a phony argument. It is time people got called on that argument. It is phony, it doesn't make sense, and we have to get with it around here. We cannot keep bringing up these phony budgets such as this with all the budgetary gimmicks this one has in it. I don't blame the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. He has a side that is fractionated. They want to spend more--that is how they keep themselves in power--and he has to find gimmicks and some way of justifying additional spending, and this budget is filled with additional spending, additional taxes, and a lot of budget gimmicks that should not be in it. I urge my colleagues to reject this budget resolution. Let's get started on one that recognizes the dangers ahead and begins to turn this ship around before we hit that cataclysmic waterfall. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, during a debate about strategy on how to defeat al-Qaida, goal No. 1 should be figuring out their plans. What are their tactics and targets? How do we do this? We use our technological advantages to get this information. That is what the FISA modernization bill allows us to do. The Congress has been working on FISA modernization since April 2007--over 300 days ago. But I guess 300 days is not enough time for a bill of this magnitude, right? But wait, the Constitution of the United States has written in only about 115 days, and that included travel time on horseback for the Founding Fathers. So the entire Constitution of the United States was written in one-third of the time we have spent on FISA modernization. Congress has plenty of time and has had plenty of time to debate this issue. Given that the executive strategy in this instance is paramount, the next President's decision, whoever that may be, will be critical. Like many people, I have watched many of the Presidential debates. One thing amazes me: Out of at least 32 debates and forums, the candidates have yet to receive one question on FISA, the most important piece of legislation certainly in the last number of years and certainly in this Congress. There has not been not one question on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and what we are trying to do here. So we are continuing to talk about the most important bill in the entire 110th Congress, which is apparently not important enough to come up during over 50 hours of discussion with our next Commander in Chief. I did hear an interesting comment during the most recent debate. A decision to utilize military strikes to kill al-Qaida in Pakistan was seemingly supported. That is the irony of this situation. It is OK if we kill terrorists overseas with missiles, but we cannot listen to the phone calls of new terrorists without demonstrating ``probable cause.'' We have to ask what probable cause is and why it exists at all. That will tell us to whom it belongs. Probable cause is a check on Government power rooted in the due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Who may claim such due process protection under the Constitution of the United States? U.S. citizens, not foreign citizens overseas. We are constantly hearing from the leadership in Congress about the need to ``bring people together.'' Yet, at every turn, they seem to be willing to set aside bipartisanship in favor of the preferred policies--in favor of preferred policies of extreme political organizations. If Democrats really want to change the tone in Washington, they are going to have to, at some point, say no to the more radical elements of their base. With the current stalemate on FISA modernization legislation, we have seen both political parties blaming each other for the delay. We have heard notions that we are not in danger due to the lapse of the Protect America Act. While our opinions on this issue will remain in bitter disagreement, the solution to these problems is quite easy. In fact, it should take about 15 minutes to solve this problem. Here is the answer, and it is just four words: Let the House vote. That is it. It doesn't take a genius to come up with a solution. All of the disputes will go away, and the bipartisan majority of the House will approve the bill if given a chance to do so. Is this a novel concept? The House of Representatives has been voting on bills since 1789--over 219 years ago. Will we ever be in a situation as complicated as this again, where the solution to every problem is allowing our elected officials to vote? Back on December 17, on this very floor, I asked one of my Democratic colleagues if he agreed with me that should the FISA bill pass, it would be one of the best examples of bipartisanship in the whole 110th Congress and maybe in the history of this body. He agreed with this notion. Months later, this worthy goal came to fruition in the Senate. As we all know, the Senate approved a FISA modernization bill by a bipartisan supermajority vote, a veto-proof margin. Senators from both sides of the aisle engaged in lengthy and informative debate and came together to pass a bill that met the goals of modernizing FISA. This rare demonstration of unity came to a crashing halt on February 14. Rather than allow a bipartisan majority of the House to vote on and pass this bill, the House leadership refused to allow a vote on this bill. The House spent its last legislative day, before their weeklong recess period, debating and voting on a contempt resolution to further a partisan fishing expedition that has led to no credible evidence of wrongdoing. House Democrats had been sitting on these resolutions since July, for over 201 days. Yet they determined that they were so important that they superseded the needs of our intelligence community and the needs of protecting the American public. So a bipartisan majority of the House was ready and eager to vote on this bill and was prohibited from voting on this bill. While numerous lawmakers stated they would stay in Washington--including me--for as long as it took to get this bill passed, the leadership from the House forced them to go on vacation. So they were prohibited from voting on a bipartisan bill to protect our country but were mandated to take a recess period. You want to stay and vote on this bill? Too bad. We would rather you take some time off. Go back to your districts and take a break. Don't worry about our intelligence community. They have all the tools they need. That is what the House Members heard. These Representatives did not need to be patronized; they needed to be given a chance to vote. The Attorney General, the chief law enforcement official of the United States, and the Director of National Intelligence, the person who is responsible for our intelligence in this country, say that the lapse of the Protect America Act caused us to miss information. These officials have more institutional knowledge on this topic than anyone in either body, and they dispute the notions that ``the intelligence community has everything it needs.'' With all due respect to all of us who serve as politicians, I am going to trust in the expertise of the Attorney General and DNI over the assurances of politicians in an election year. So why doesn't the House leadership allow a vote on this bill? Could it be because they know it will pass, which it would? But we cannot have that. Heaven forbid, democracy would be free to run its course. So rather than vote on this bill, we are hearing that the House leadership wants to conference this bill. Conferences are about resolving disagreements between the Chambers. But remember, a bipartisan majority from both Chambers has no disagreements on this bill. There are no disagreements to resolve between the majority of the Senate and the House. So a conference is entirely inappropriate in this situation. I have also heard an argument that the House needs more time to review the immunity provision--the immunity that would protect these companies that patriotically cooperated with us in collecting the information that protected American citizens, which are now being sued in 40 different lawsuits for hundreds of billions of dollars. I want to make sure everybody is perfectly aware that the immunity provision has been publicly available and unaltered for 133 days. It has not been hidden. It has been available to everybody in Congress. It has been available to the world on the Web site of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It only takes about 3 minutes to read it. It should not take 133 days to analyze it, while putting our American public at risk. I am also amazed at the false descriptions floating around about the terrorist surveillance program, TSP, which is the program the President described on December 17, 2005, during a radio address. We have all heard the terms: the warrantless wiretapping, domestic spying, or eavesdropping bill. The list goes on. Let's look at what the President actually said during his radio address on December 17, 2005: In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our Nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the Government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks. I don't see anything in this statement about domestic spying. I thought the definition of the word domestic was pretty clear. If the program intercepted communications in which at least one party was overseas, not to mention a member of al-Qaida, then it seems fairly obvious that the calls were not domestic. Look at this chart. Is this such a hard concept to grasp? The last time I flew overseas, I didn't fly on a domestic flight, I flew on an international flight. And there is a big difference between domestic calls and international calls. My last phone bill showed a big difference between the price of the two. Is it a domestic call when a foreign terrorist calls someone in our country or someone in our country involved in terrorism calls a terrorist in a foreign country? ``Domestic spying'' may sound catchy and mysterious, but it is a completely inaccurate way to describe the terrorist surveillance program or the FISA modernization bill. Why don't we describe them as we should: international spying. Isn't that a more accurate description? I guess accurate descriptions take a back seat to terms which incite fear and distrust in our Government. What about ``warrantless wiretapping,'' doesn't this sound like a bad thing? Perhaps we should read the fourth amendment to the Constitution. Notice that not all searches require a warrant. Every member of the public who is up in the galleries watching us today went through a warrantless search to get into this building. Every time an American comes into the United States at the border, they go through a highly intrusive warrantless search. Every time an American gets on a plane, they go through a warrantless search. Every time an American goes to see a rally or speech from the President of the United States, thus exercising their first amendment rights, they go through a warrantless search. And there is good reason for it. Remember, foreign citizens overseas receive no protection from the fourth amendment. So ``warrantless wiretapping'' in this instance is perfectly constitutional. In addition, look at what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the highest court to look into this issue, previously said. This is 310 F3rd 717, FISA Court of Review in 2002. It is called In re: Sealed Case: The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . .We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power. That is one of the few formal cases out of the FISA Court. Given the staggering amount of misinformation in the public, how many people have incorrectly stated that the Government can listen to all of their phone calls, read all of their e-mails, spy on American families overseas, even spy on our own military members overseas? How many of these false representations have been made by my colleagues and by others? These accusations are completely false and are meant to incite fear of nonpolitical intelligence analysts who serve regardless of whom the President is. Isn't that the real fear mongering? Terrorists killed 3,000 Americans on September 11 and killed hundreds of other people in Madrid, London, Bali, and Kenya. They have sworn to kill more. They have said that ``the streets of America shall run red with blood, casualties will be too many to count, and the next wave of attacks may come at any moment.'' These terrorists recently called for the President of the United States to be ``received not with roses and applause, but with bombs and booby traps'' during a recent Presidential trip overseas. So they wish death on all Americans and they threaten the assassination of the President of the United States. Yet if we acknowledge their threats, if we try to prepare for these attacks, we are accused of the politics of fear. But there is no problem when numerous individuals completely misrepresent how our Government protects our country. Nobody is calling these tactics ``fear mongering,'' so is it perfectly acceptable to question the integrity of thousands of Americans who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and who have dedicated their lives to preventing our great Nation from suffering these terrorist attacks? I am sorry to break it to people, but our intelligence analysts have more important things to do than look at someone's eBay transactions and listen to phone calls from the Jones family on their family vacation in Italy. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by these conspiracy theories, given the vocal lunacy expounded by those who think the September 11 attacks were an ``inside job.'' The FISA modernization bill should be the best example of how meaningful legislation becomes enacted. This bill passed by a veto- proof majority in the Senate. It came out of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on which I serve, 13 to 2. It was bipartisan. It is supported by the intelligence community, and it has the support of the executive branch. Isn't this about as good as it gets? When a bill has support from all these elements, there is no excuse for it being held up. The House leadership has indicated it intends to unveil a ``compromise'' FISA bill. Apparently, House Democrats are using an unconventional definition of the word ``compromise.'' What would they call the Senate bill? We went through months of hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence asking about pros and cons, asked thousand of questions, met with the top people in all fields, were read into the program, went out to the National Security Agency to look at these programs. What do they call the Senate bill? No one, not the administration or anyone in the Senate, got everything they wanted with the Senate bill. It is a compromise. Is it everything I want? No. Are there things in there I wish we did not put in there? Yes. But it is a compromise, and I voted for it. All sides had to make concessions before a final solution was reached 13 to 2 in the committee and it was bipartisan, 68 to 29 in the Senate--bipartisan. That is precisely what the compromise is all about. I simply do not follow the logic of rejecting a bipartisan result, which is what we already have, in favor of a more partisan solution and calling it a ``compromise.'' I can only assume that when House Democrats say ``compromise,'' they mean something else--capitulation. I don't intend to capitulate on this issue. I hope the Representatives in the House who share my view will weigh in with the House leadership and other Democrats who have been holding this up to the detriment of the citizens of the United States of America. I have been to this floor countless times to discuss FISA modernization, and I will continue to do so. I will continue to fight for this cause because it is the right thing to do and especially since so many in both parties have come together to support the Senate bill and would support it in the House if the chance was given. Madam President, we are still in the month of February. We should be doing our work here in the Senate. We should be working toward legitimate, bipartisan agreements on the issues that matter most to Americans. That is what our constituents sent us here to do. Of course, in an election year, particularly a Presidential election year, we unfortunately slide into a silly season where very little gets done. Instead of listening to each other and trying to come up with commonsense solutions, there is a temptation to use the Senate as an arena to make one's opponents look bad. Usually the flowers of that silly season do not bloom until the summer. We are still in the month of February! We need to be getting the work of the American people done. We are in a time of legitimate economic distress. There are very different ideas about how to deal with this economic slowdown. There is nothing wrong with this difference of opinion. The majority seems to think that the principal way to deal with an economic challenge is to spend money. To be clearer, they think that the answer is to spend taxpayer money. And make no mistake, if there is not enough taxpayer money to go around, the solution to an economic slowdown for the majority is to raise taxes. Conservatives have a slightly different understanding of what it takes to get the economy running again. When the companies that Americans work for are loathe to invest, it hurts employees. When they don't invest, these companies do not create jobs. And when the economy is weak, it makes it more difficult for an entrepreneurial American to take the risks necessary and obtain the credit to start new businesses that will employ the people in his community. So conservatives think we should do more to encourage business investment and capital formation. Both sides want to do what they can to get the economy humming. And both sides think there are different ways to accomplish this. Sounds like an opportunity for compromise to me! But I think that some of my colleagues are more interested in an issue than a solution. We should not elevate politics above solutions. Congress needs to come together. Conservatives believe that their policies will work effectively to help the economy and the families that depend on good jobs and economic growth. We are not asking much. We are simply asking that our ideas be taken seriously. And we should be. Even in the most liberal of States, Members of this body have many conservative constituents. Is it really too much to ask that those ideas be given an opportunity for debate on the Senate floor? It shouldn't be. I am not sure, however, that the majority is interested in that debate. Twice this week, Senate minority voted to proceed to bills offered by the majority leader and my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. Yet after voting to proceed to those bills, we were accused of blocking debate on the bills we helped to bring to the floor. That really is a classic. The majority casts 21 votes against proceeding to a bill the majority leader himself wanted to proceed to debate. The minority casts the votes to allow that debate. And then the minority stands accused of delay. A similar pattern has occurred with this housing bill. The majority rushed a bill to the floor. They bypassed the relevant committees. They bypassed the regular order. In their haste, they made a small mistake with the legislation. Well, maybe it was not that small. The majority intended to spend $2 billion on counseling for distressed homeowners. They accidentally made this a $200 billion program; $200 billion. I understand that this is a mistake. But it is a mistake born of a cavalier approach to legislating. We could have had a consensus bill. Instead, the majority never consulted with the minority as this bill was being put together. In our view, we have a much better plan. It includes titles that would address taxes, capital markets, housing, and tort reform. We would keep taxes low. We would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, preventing a looming tax hike, and making sure that working families do not get socked with thousands of dollars in extra taxes when these tax cuts expire in 2010. We would increase the value of homes and prevent an unfair tax on their sale. We would help to keep jobs at home by encouraging job creation. We would help prevent foreclosures by providing credit stability. We would maintain the value and security of neighborhoods by encouraging the speedy sale and renovation of foreclosed homes. And we would protect small businesses from the threat of excessive and frivolous lawsuits. And let me tell you, when I talk to businesses, businesses that are subject to incessant litigation, tort reform is at the top of the list of things we have to do. It hurts companies large and small, and we need to do something about it. I think if we had been invited to the table to discuss this bill, had been a party to the negotiation, or even been allowed to offer amendments, we could have worked something out on this bill. We could have found common ground. I know that is what the American people want. We have been hearing a lot about common ground these days. Whenever I turn on the television, I hear someone telling us about the need to change our ways in Washington. I hear about the need to bring people together. Well, we certainly have our opportunities. But I feel that they are being missed. We do not have to be consumed by partisanship. In 2005 and 2006, Congress accomplished a number of serious policy reforms. We passed bankruptcy reform, class action reform, energy and highway bills, CAFTA and other trade bills, and the most significant reforms of pension laws in 30 years. And those bills only became law because of debate, negotiation, and compromise. Through amendments, the regular order, and serious debate, the Senate was able to pass consensus legislation. And today? It is not quite the same. Take it or leave it is not the stuff of statesmanship. It is the stuff of the sandlot. Leadership demands a willingness to listen to both sides. It requires compromise and openness to other ideas. The American people have made their position clear. They are tired of business as usual. In the coming months, I hope to work with the majority on the issues of importance to the American people. The last week has not been very promising. Nonetheless, my hope is that Congress will be able to accomplish important reforms for the American people even in this election year. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Jesse Baker, a detailee from the Federal Government, be given floor privileges for the remainder of this session.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday one of our colleagues came before this body and stated for all who cared to listen that he was weary, weary of this war. I, too, am weary, but weariness does not lead me to embrace the policy of surrender or succumb to the nihilistic business that is defeatism. History is replete with examples of leaders who fell victim to the temptation of defeatism. Shall the Senate similarly repeat this folly? No, sir. In this country, commitment and dedication to noble pursuits have defined our great Nation. We must not give way to weariness now. The Senate is where great ideas and thoughts are to be put forth and considered, ideas and thoughts that are designed to lead to a better life for the American people and secure a safer world where the inalienable rights of all are respected. But I, too, am weary, weary of the policies of appeasement that have become the guiding principles of some in the majority party. Have they learned nothing? Has history not taught us, through the pain and suffering of millions, that the philosophy of appeasement only provides a slight respite from the forces of evil before they unleash incalculable pain and suffering on the innocent? What happens if we adopt the troop withdrawal legislation before us? Do they really think al-Qaida is just going to leave us alone? Make no mistake, the majority of the forces that oppose us in Iraq are affiliated with al-Qaida. Do the supporters of this bill think al-Qaida will conclude: ``Well, we have won in Iraq, now let's leave the Americans to live in peace?'' Does anybody really believe that? That is the question the American people have to ask themselves. What will happen if we pick an arbitrary time to leave Iraq based on a policy of appeasement rather than accomplishments of our new counterinsurgency strategy? I have been to Iraq twice. The first time, I admit to being a little discouraged. The second time was a year later. During this second visit, we actually flew into Al Anbar really before it was completely as open as it is today. We walked the streets of Ramadi. We high-fived with the kids who were on the street. The difference between my two visits was striking. It was a complete change and that change is because of our current military leadership. Again, the question the American people have to ask themselves: What will happen if we pick an arbitrary time to leave Iraq based on a policy of appeasement rather than the accomplishments of our new counterinsurgency strategy? Simply put, what happens the day after? Will not al-Qaida use Iraq, with the world's third largest oil reserves, as a bank to fund their worldwide activities? Will they not use Iraq as a base to launch attacks against all those who disagree with their radical policies? What are the answers offered to these questions by the proponents of this legislation? From what I can discern from the Members who have taken to the floor to defend it, the answer is simple: nothing. They simply do not have a plan for the day after. What of the nearly 4,000 servicemembers who volunteered to fight for their country and who have now paid the ultimate sacrifice? Does their memorial in history read: Thank you for your service, but some Members of Congress grew weary, and therefore your sacrifice and the sacrifices of your family were in vain. I know what those sacrifices are like. Our family lost my only living brother in World War II on the Ploesti oil raid. That was the raid that attempted to knock out Hitler's oil reserves and it was one of the most important operations of World War II. My brother's loss was hard on our family. But we were proud of my brother. We were proud that he was willing to sacrifice his life for us, just as we are proud of our young men and women who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today. What is General Petraeus's conclusion, if we begin a precipitous withdrawal? Almost everybody has praised General Petraeus. You just have to. My gosh, the man has completely transformed the situation in Iraq. He has been right in his approach toward these problems over there. He wrote the Army's manual on fighting insurgencies. As recently as February 15, General Petraeus stated what we all know to be true if we were to begin a precipitous withdrawal: You would see a resurgence of ethno-sectarian violence. You would see al Qaeda regain its safe havens and sanctuaries. There's no telling what would happen with displaced persons. In other words, if we leave, the chaos that could result might make the wholesale slaughter that occurred after the fall of Indochina look minuscule by comparison. I wonder what fanciful legislative fix our colleagues will offer then. So what is the alternative? Do opponents of this bill offer only empty rhetoric? No, we support the comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy devised and implemented by General Petraeus. It is a strategy that is producing remarkable results, results that point to only one conclusion. In little over a year, the coalition has regained the initiative. For example, General Petraeus stated in his December 30 briefing that overall attacks have decreased by 60 percent. Civilian deaths are also down by 60 percent. The ethno-sectarian component of those fatalities has decreased by 80 percent. Those findings are supported by other commanders in Iraq, including MG Joseph Fil, the commanding officer of the 1st Cavalry Division and the officer who until December was responsible for our operations in Baghdad. He stated in an interview late last year with the New York Times that coalition forces have dramatically reduced, if not eliminated, al-Qaida's presence in every neighborhood in Baghdad. The general also pointed out that murders in Baghdad are down 80 percent. In addition, during a recent briefing, LTG Raymond T. Odierno, who just returned from Iraq and has been nominated to become the Army's new Vice Chief of Staff, stated that terrorist operations in Baghdad have decreased by 59 percent. In the past year, suicide attacks in Baghdad have been reduced 66 percent, from 12 to 4 a month. The number of improvised explosive device attacks in Baghdad has also declined by 45 percent. Baghdad is not the only area where we have seen success. During my trip to Iraq last year, I was able to witness the dramatic changes that have occurred in Al Anbar, where al-Qaida has been thrown out of vast areas of that province, including its major cities, Ramadi and Fallujah, areas that were once deemed refuges for al-Qaida's vile perversion of a dignified and peaceful religion. The success of Baghdad and Al Anbar is also being repeated throughout Iraq. In the north, Operation Iron Harvest has been launched. This operation has already achieved some important successes. For example, during the month of December, the coalition and Iraqi security forces have killed or captured over 20 al-Qaida emirs in the north. This included the capture of Haider al-Afri, who was the main security emir in Mosul and was responsible for organizing the flow of foreign fighters into the Mosul area. His replacement did not fare much better; he was captured on February 18. The number of attacks in Diyala has also decreased. No doubt that the recent killing of the al-Qaida emir of Diyala helped this trend. In addition, in the past two weeks, the coalition killed Abu Karrar, who was a senior al-Qaida intelligence operative and an individual who has the infamous distinction of organizing murders to be carried out by female suicide bombers. Which leads me to the inevitable question: What do you think these senior al-Qaida leaders would be doing with their time if we left Iraq? I wonder if they ever will grow weary as some in this body have? How are all these successes possible? The answer is our generals over there, led by General Petraeus. His strategy is based upon the classic counterinsurgency tactic of providing security to the local population, thereby enabling the Government to provide services to its people, which in turn creates in the population a vested interest in the success of Government institutions. One of the ways this is accomplished is through the use of joint security stations. Under this tactic, a portion of a city such as a neighborhood is cordoned off, then searched for insurgents. Previously, once this was accomplished, our forces would return to large forward- operating bases, usually on the periphery of the city. The result was easy to predict. The insurgents would return once the sweep had concluded. Under General Petraeus's strategy, our forces remain in the neighborhoods and build joint security stations. These joint security stations then become home to a company-sized unit of American servicemembers as well as Iraqi Army and police units. These facilities not only help secure the surrounding areas but simultaneously enable our forces to train and evaluate Iraqi forces. Much like the local police officer in a major urban area, our forces use the joint security stations to learn about the locale to which they are assigned and can quickly adapt to meet the unique security needs of the individual community. The success of these joint security stations can be seen in their creation throughout Iraq, with over 50 of them in Baghdad alone. However, under this legislation, our forces will no longer be able to conduct operations from joint security stations. In fact, they would be banished to bases isolated from the Iraqi people and unable to accompany Iraqi forces on missions. Under this bill, the few remaining forces would only be able to conduct limited operations against al- Qaida. The security provided to the Iraqi people, which is the foundation of our recent success, would be entirely lost. So let's review the policy advocated by this bill. No. 1, it guarantees defeat. No. 2, it provides al-Qaida with another base of operations, and, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq's oil wealth will provide substantial financial resources to purchase whatever the terrorists choose. In the past, it has been publicly reported that al-Qaida has actively sought the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Neville Chamberlain would be proud. So yes, I, like others, am weary, but I am weary of appeasement. I am weary of such defeatist legislation being debated on the floor of the Senate. This is a Chamber for great ideas and concepts that will ensure the betterment of the American public and lead to the freedom of oppressed people all over the world. This legislation falls far short of that August standard. Just think about it, here we have this country, Iraq, with three different factions who are working together, who are making headway, who have enormous oil wealth that could be used for their people, who are tired of al-Qaida, who have been throwing them out of the various provinces, who are cooperating with the United States of America, and who are starting to cooperate with each other, who sit between two of the most roguish nations in the world, Iran and Syria. All of this success happening, and we have people who want to pull us out prematurely. I don't understand it personally. I respect the sincerity of the sponsors and of those who will vote for this. I think that if we are going to be weary, let's be weary of the way to handle things.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to reflect on the passing of William F. Buckley, Jr. I am aware of my limitations in speaking about Bill Buckley. Anything I might add to the eloquent words that have already come from his friends at the National Review and from his friend, and my friend, the Senator from Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, will seem small by comparison. Still, as someone who knew Bill, as someone who admired Bill, and as someone who learned a great deal from Bill, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about this extraordinary man and his extraordinary life. The life of William F. Buckley, Jr., reads like something from one of his many fiction novels. Growing up in Mexico, his first language was Spanish. As a prep school student, he demonstrated that he was a real entrepreneur, typing his classmates' papers for $1 at a crack. And consistent with the writer America got to know over the years, he would charge an extra 25 cents to correct their grammar. After graduating, he spent time at the University of Mexico, studying Spanish, and he served his country in the Army, making second lieutenant. Only after serving in the Army did he go on to college, something widespread in those days--when a hot war was followed by a long, cold war--and largely unknown today with the exception of those in ROTC and benefitting from the GI bill. As a student at Yale, he distinguished himself. In addition to his studies in political science, economics, and history, he cut his teeth as a debater and was elected chairman of the Yale Daily News. Following college, a year in the CIA, and the publication of his book ``God and Man at Yale,'' he began a career as a writer. In 1955, his public life began as he founded the National Review. The National Review never had a massive circulation. It continues to be subsidized by the contributions of its readers. But its significance was titanic. Simply put, there was no conservative movement before William F. Buckley, Jr., and the magazine he founded and cultivated. For decades, the progressive left had been triumphant. Herbert Croly, The New Republic, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt--there was no real answer to the arguments they made on behalf of higher taxes, a comprehensive state, and a highly regulated economy. For sure, there was a Republican Party, and Republicans continued to have electoral success. But there was no real consistent conservative point of view. The battlefield of ideas had been abandoned to the progressive left. Bill Buckley, foot by foot, began retaking some of that ground, and establishing a framework of conservative ideas--themes of limited government, the protection of human liberty, economic entrepreneurship, and military strength in the face of a totalitarian threat bent on world domination. The development of these ideas was not always pretty. But through fits and starts a movement grew. We first heard its voice in the 1964 Presidential election, an election in which Republicans were trounced. But by 1980, these conservative ideas had become a majority, one that helped to put Ronald Reagan in the White House. Bill was no doubt combative, but I think most would say he was always having fun. He was a real intellectual, but he was no dour academic. He loved to sail. He used to make his way around New York City on a motorcycle. When he made his long-shot run for mayor of New York City and was asked what he would do if he won, he responded, ``Demand a recount.'' He took up the harpsichord at the age of 50. He became a novelist. His television show ``Firing Line'' ran from 1966 to 1999. I enjoyed being on ``Firing Line'' with him, basking in his wisdom, answering his questions, and on occasion irritating him to death. But I loved the man. Bill was a man who loved the written word, and it was fitting that he passed away at his desk and at his home. His son Christopher, also an accomplished writer, noted, ``he might have been working on a column.'' And I have no doubt we would have benefitted from it, Democrats and Republicans alike. As the authors of The Federalist Papers, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan understood, America remains an experiment. It is an experiment in republican self-government. And that experiment is constantly being tested. Bill lived through extraordinary and challenging times, times like our own that tested that experiment, and I have no doubt he was very important in helping us through them. With wit and aplomb, he pushed the envelope. He argued and fought. He made us a better country. He was a great American who led a great American life, and America will miss him. I have to say I knew Bill Buckley. I appreciated Bill Buckley. He had an enormous influence on me. As a former liberal Democrat, he helped me to see the merit in intelligent conservative approaches. He appealed to so many of us, including some of my liberal colleagues, who loved to debate him and loved to chat with him, because he was at bottom a decent, honorable, funny, person who was open to basically everybody. No doubt the absence of Bill will be even more painful to the family he has left behind. But consistent with the Catholic faith, one kept deeply by Bill, I hope this is also a moment of happiness for them as they know that Bill is now in Heaven with the love of his life, Patricia. I offer my condolences to the Buckley family. All of you and Bill are in my prayers. His brother, James Buckley is in my thoughts in particular. It was my honor to serve with Bill's brother in a variety of capacities. His brother is a true gentleman, a wonderful human being. Although he was only here for one term, he was a great Senator. The examples of both Bill and Jim Buckley show how this unique American family has contributed so much to our public life. I can assure you that the Congress, including members who differed with Bill Buckley, will miss his humor and will miss him personally. I know one thing: This Senator from Utah will miss him deeply. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan and yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment my distinguished friend from West Virginia. He has been a very bipartisan worker on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I have been on that committee for an awfully long time, and I have a lot of respect for him. I just want to make that point for the record. I know he spends a lot of time trying to do his job well. We don't always agree, but we do agree on an awful lot. I particularly appreciate his work on the FISA bill. I know it is a very difficult position for him to be in. It is a very technical, very difficult bill, a complex bill, with a lot of matters conducted in public. I think he did a terrific job in seeing this bill through to the Senate floor. I also would like to take a moment to thank my colleague and friend who works with me, Jesse Baker. He is a Secret Service detailee on my staff who has been invaluable in helping me prepare for the important FISA debate. I also thank the very able counsel of the Intelligence Committee, Kathleen Rice, along with Jack Livingston, Mike Davidson, and Chris Healey, all of whom I think played a significant role in the FISA bill, among so many other things as well. I also would like to pay tribute to my colleague on the Intelligence Committee, my staffer who works with me, Paul Matulic, who is one of the most articulate and knowledgeable foreign policy people in government today. I am very grateful for his work and the effort he has put forth to try to assist me in these very difficult times and very difficult jobs. This might be a historic week for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, at least in comparison with the last 3 years. Last night, we passed, after over a year of work and preparation, including the 6- month interim Protect America Act, the FISA modernization bill. I truly hope our House colleagues can expedite this bill and get it to the President for his signature before the legal regime governing our essential technical capabilities expires this weekend. I wish to congratulate both the chairman, as I have said here earlier, and vice chairman, Senator Bond, for their sustained efforts on this issue. It wouldn't have been passed without their sterling leadership and their willingness to make some tough calls and to stick to them. I have often said I am metagrobolized--confounded, you might say-- that we have heard about the asymmetrical advantages that our terrorist enemies have, while we are reluctant to use our own significant asymmetrical advantages to defend ourselves from these terrorists' intentions. The terrorists do have asymmetrical advantages, to be sure: They are substate actors, and they do not operate according to any national or international law, including the law of war. They hide among civilians, target civilians, and terrorize civilization. If al- Qaida could get its hands on a weapon of mass destruction, everything we know about them suggests they would use it against the West. But we in the West also have asymmetrical advantages as well. Two significant advantages are our technological prowess and our adherence to the rule of law. Our technology, as we have revealed in more ways than I think prudent in our open debate, provides us unparalleled advantages in tracking the enemy. Our collection has prevented terrorist attacks against us, and our continued collection makes the enemy dedicate a significant amount of its time to avoiding us--time that it would use plotting against us. In this sense, our technological collection is not just a defensive tool but an offensive tool as well. Americans and their leaders are right to expect that all of this Nation's activities should adhere to the rule of law, and this long debate over FISA modernization should, at the very least, assure everyone that we adhere to a legal regime, even when it seems aggravatingly slow to adjust it to modern technology and threats unimagined in the 1970s when the original FISA Act was enacted. So I again wish to congratulate the chairman and the vice chairman for their leadership in getting this important piece of legislation passed, finally, last night. It was a major banner day for us. This bill was long overdue, and I give credit to those who have worked so hard--long and hard--to see that it was done. The passage of an intelligence authorization bill is also an important measure of how we advance the rule of law. The balance of powers so beautifully articulated in our system of government requires an active role for this body and, since the 1970s, we have institutionalized a role of oversight for intelligence in the two committees of the Senate and the House. Our principal vehicle is the authorization bill. This process has been derailed for several years now, as Members operating with individualized agendas have created a dynamic that has thwarted the institutional need for authorization. It is a fact that, if some concede that an authorization bill is not essential, the self- moderating dynamic that keeps one from offering controversial amendments on a bill is removed. We have seen this with the foreign relations authorization bills. I don't want to see it happen with the intelligence authorization bill. This year's bill has some very important measures in it, most of them in the classified annex and therefore not subject to discussion now. It is, after all, an authorization for the intelligence community--or IC-- which does, after all, require a minimum of secrecy to function effectively. The bill does have measures in the unclassified annex worthy of passage, however, to include additional and needed authorities for the Director of National Intelligence, directions on personnel level assessments for the IC, directions on business enterprise architecture modernization, and limits on excessive cost growths of certain systems. The bill, however, has been strapped by a provision added during conference that was not a part of either the House or Senate bills going into conference that would in this case limit all IC interrogation techniques to the Army Field Manual. Now, this provision is widely seen as a prophylactic against the use of torture, and there begins the misconceptions. The United States does not torture. Whether the process known as waterboarding constituted torture when it was used in three cases in the past--and we cannot discuss exactly how it was used here--is a debate to be held among historians and scholars of the law. I do not wish to inhibit that debate. I also do not wish to violate U.S. domestic law or international law to which we are committed as a nation. The rule of law serves our advantage. But the conflict over what was lawful in interpretation in the first 2 years after the 9/11 attacks recognizes, to the honest analyst, that there is murkiness at the intersection of law, policy, and legal interpretation. That has always been the case. As I say, I do not want to inhibit this debate. I also do not wish that historic debate to inhibit any techniques we need to use for interrogation today. Last week, in an open session of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Director Mike Hayden-- General Hayden--spoke forcefully, openly, and articulately about the issue of waterboarding. He said in public that, No. 1, less than one- third of less than 100 detainees held by the CIA since 9/11 have ever been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. No. 2, of that small sample, only three have been subjected to waterboarding. No. 3, waterboarding has not been used for almost 5 years. Yet we have heard nothing but screaming about this issue, as though it was relevant today. As Director Hayden went on to state, there is a universe of lawful interrogation techniques. This includes FBI procedures, the Army Field Manual, and the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA, but which, I repeat, does not include waterboarding today. The DCI made it plain--the Director of Central Intelligence made it plain that the CIA will play to ``the edges that the American political process allows us. It is our duty to play to that edge.'' The DCI also made it clear that if the Congress directs that line is set by the Army Field Manual, then that will be the line in law that CIA officers will respect and adhere to. So Congress must act soberly and responsibly in addressing the question of enhanced interrogation techniques. As the hearing last week made clear to anyone listening, the various approaches--FBI techniques, DOD's Army Field Manual, and CIA's enhanced techniques--address various subjects under different circumstances with different sets of goals. Director Maples told me he could not imagine that anyone would have objected to the use of current enhanced techniques if they could have gained the intelligence that would have prevented the attack on the USS Cole. In my mind, the greatest advantage of the enhanced interrogation techniques is the public ambiguity surrounding the fact that they are classified. I don't want an al-Qaida operative we have just wrapped up to know what is in our playbook. But I want to make clear, ambiguity is not--I repeat, not--a cloak for torture. I can't go into details here, but I can say I have been constantly amazed as I have studied this issue in the Intelligence Committee over some of the sanctimony that has been used by some people on the Senate floor addressing this issue, and off the Senate floor as well. I can quite comfortably say there are actions the American public has routinely witnessed on some of our most popular television police shows over the past two decades that would exceed anything in the enhanced interrogation techniques allowed by the CIA. I find this to be ironic. I cannot support this conference report if it has the language limiting interrogation to the Army Field Manual. This is a manual written for our soldiers, all of whom I think we all agree are brave, dedicated warriors, but most of whom are young and inexperienced in the needs of interrogation. They should have their manual. I must point out, however, that Army Field Manuals are subject to revision by the Executive at any time, so that we in Congress are acting a little too self-satisfied by this simple gesture if we actually believe we are rectifying the rule of law. I say, let's have this debate and let's really define what it is we wish to proscribe, and let's understand the needs of our intelligence and the consequences for our actions--consequences that could be very grave if we keep playing games with these issues--or should I say political games. Both would be wrong, in my opinion. Much of this debate must be classified, but the Senate has procedures for closed sessions, and, after all, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was created for just this need. I serve on that august committee, and I have served on it for a long time. Sometimes I feel as if I am on the corner of sanctimony and righteousness. Sanctimony has popular appeal--it gains the approving tut-tutting of the chattering masses. Often it is more bombast than substance, more Babbittry than bravery. Righteousness is not always a function of the approval of the masses. Those who go to war to defend do things that are lawful but sometimes unpleasant--sometimes very unpleasant. In the choice between sanctimony and righteousness, I will choose the latter. I do not wish to calumniate anyone in this debate. I presume that people are motivated by the purest of motives, as is always the case in the Senate--or should I say I hope it is always the case in the Senate. I wish, however, that we had more substantive debate on some of these difficult questions. So because this conference report includes a measure limiting interrogation techniques for our intelligence professionals in the Army Field Manual--a measure added at the last minute in conference, something that was in neither bill, the House's or the Senate's--I will vote against the conference report and urge us all to reengage in this debate so that the lines of law we draw, that our intelligence professionals will respect, are lines that also maintain our best defenses within the rule of law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, here is the list of the attorneys general who signed this letter endorsing the immunity provision in the original Rockefeller-Bond bill. They are attorneys general from the States of Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Oklahoma, Colorado, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Utah, Texas, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia, and Washington. In addition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record four letters sent from law enforcement organizations, all in support of the immunity provision of the bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the last 6 months I have come to the floor on numerous occasions to offer my support of the limited immunity provisions in the Rockefeller-Bond bill. In addition to my views on this subject, there are countless Americans who have expressed their support for the immunity provision. In fact, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter sent to the Senate leadership last month, which is signed by 21 State attorneys general, which expresses their strong support for the immunity provision included in this bill.