Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the leader yield?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, apparently this was a sorry situation. Nobody's vote would be changed. Why can't we ask unanimous consent that these votes be counted?

Mr. HATCH. You would object to it?

Mr. HATCH. I was requesting that we should consider unanimous consent that their votes be counted.

Mr. HATCH. I understand.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as everybody knows, I have been in the CHIP battle since the beginning. I just want to pay a great deal of tribute to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Baucus; the distinguished ranking member, Senator Grassley; and, of course, Senator Rockefeller. In the beginning instance of CHIP, my good friend, Senator Kennedy, and also Senator Snowe, my dear friend--all of these people had a lot to do with the CHIP bill from the beginning. And I have to say that the original Hatch-Kennedy bill became the CHIP bill back in 1997, and, of course, it has come all of this way to today where we are looking for renewal. There are some facts that really ought to be put into the equation here today, and I thought I would just spend a few minutes on some of the facts regarding CHIP. No. 1: The Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization is not full of budget gimmicks. The Senate Budget Committee has certified that this legislation complies with pay-go rules of both the 6- and 11-year base under the pay-go rule. The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed its 5-year and 10-year expenditures and revenue raisers and believes they are balanced on an on-budget basis. This bill is a 5-year authorization and is fully paid for with offsets. This bill is not a 10-year reauthorization, and that is an important point to remember. The CHIP program must be reauthorized in 5 years. Fact two: Some have indicated that the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization imposes up to a $10 tax on a cigar. Well, the tobacco tax included in our bill prorates tobacco rates or taxes on cigars. The tax imposed on cigars is based on the price of a cigar. In very few instances will an individual cigar be taxed at $10. Another fact: The Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act does not increase the crowd-out rate. There is crowd-out because there is always going to be crowd-out when you try to solve some of these very serious problems. Although, because we are covering more children, some have concern that the crowd-out rate will increase, according to CBO, the fact is that the crowd-out rates will not increase. Another fact: The Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act prohibits the Federal Government from granting future State waivers to cover nonpregnant adults through CHIP. Our bill puts the emphasis back on low-income, uninsured children. Simply put, our bill puts an immediate stop to States being granted future waivers to cover nonpregnant adults. Let me give you another fact: The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act eliminates enhanced Federal matching rates for nonpregnant adults. At the beginning of fiscal year 2009, States will receive lower Federal matching rates for childless adults, and in fiscal year 2010, childless adults will not be covered under CHIP. At the beginning of fiscal year 2010, only States with significant outreach efforts for low-income uninsured children will receive enhanced match rates for parents; others will receive the lower Medicaid match rate, or FMAP, for adults. Starting in fiscal year 2011, all States will receive a lower Federal match rate for parents. Those States covering more lower income kids will receive REMAP--that is the mid-point between the CHIP matching rate and the lower Medicaid matching rate. Other States will receive FMAP for CHIP parents. Another fact: The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act provides lower matching rates to States for those individuals 300 percent of the Federal poverty level and above who are covered under CHIP, thus penalizing States that want to cover higher income children. Under the current CHIP bill, States receive an enhanced Federal matching rate for all income levels. Our bill discourages States from covering higher income individuals in the CHIP program. After enactment of our bill, States that have new waivers approved to cover 300 percent of the Federal poverty level and above would only receive a lower FMAP payment for higher income individuals. Let me give one more fact, and then I will make some other points. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act is an effective children's health program and a small part of the overall cost of health. CHIP is not an entitlement program. That is something a lot of people don't understand. We drafted it that way because I didn't want it to be an entitlement program. Now some say we will never be able to stop it. That may be because it works. It has saved literally millions of children. It is a capped block grant program, where States are given flexibility to cover their low-income uninsured children. According to CMS, the agency that has a lot to do with health care, in 2005, we spent a total of $1.98 trillion on our Nation's health care system. Private expenditures were $1.08 trillion. The Federal Government's expenditures were $900 billion. Total Medicare spending was $342 billion in 2005, according to CMS, and Medicaid was $177 billion in Federal dollars. Our bill today funds CHIP at $60 billion over 5 years. That is the $25 billion base figure and an additional $35 billion to cover more children. This is a fraction of the total cost of health care in our country to provide care for low-income, uninsured children. Covering these children is worth every cent. We spend almost $2 trillion on health care, and the equivalent of $12 billion a year is what this program will cost, out of $2 trillion in health care, $900 billion of which happens to be Federal dollars. Only $12 billion goes to these kids, mainly children of the working poor who earn enough that they don't qualify for Medicaid but don't have enough money to buy private health insurance. That is what a lot of people don't seem to understand. The CHIP bill, up to now, has worked quite well in spite of the waivers, which I believe should not have been granted in many respects by the last two Administrations. But I have to say this program has worked very well. I also wish to let everybody know that I support S. 1893, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act. Over the past few days, I have been listening to the floor debate on the bill being considered on the Senate floor this week. I have to admit, at some points during the debate, the descriptions I am hearing don't even sound like the bill I introduced with Senators Baucus, Grassley, and Rockefeller. Indeed, I believe there have been many allegations by opponents of S. 1893 that are not accurate. Therefore, I would like to take a few minutes to correct the record so my Senate colleagues hear from both sides before making a final decision on how to vote on this bill later this week. First, I take issue with the point that our legislation is full of budget gimmicks. I made that point before, but I will remake some of these points. The Senate Budget Committee has certified this legislation does comply with pay-go rules on both the 6-year and 11- year bases under the pay-go rule. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office Director, Dr. Peter Orszag, told us in last week's Finance Committee markup that CBO reviewed the bill's 5-year and 10-year expenditures and revenue raisers, and CBO believes they are balanced on an onbudget basis. In addition, this bill is a 5-year authorization that is fully paid with offsets. This is how our rules operate. Those who talk about its 10-year impact fail to note this bill is not a 10- year reauthorization. That is an important point to remember. They argue that it will be very expensive in 10 years. Who knows? I can't tell you what it is going to cost in the remaining 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years not covered by this bill, but we should all be working to try and keep costs down. We have to look at the CHIP program again in 5 years and reauthorize it. I assure my colleagues that when writing this bill, we did everything possible to comply with the budget rules, and any assertion to the contrary is plain false. Further, I wish to remind my colleagues that when CHIP was established in 1997, we had a set amount of money and, as a result, the budget baseline did not assume any rate of growth for the CHIP program. Additionally, the budget rules did not consider the fact that health care costs are rising by 9 percent each year. That is not CHIP's fault. In many respects, that is our fault in the Congress due the way we run things around here. Some would say that is why we shouldn't have CHIP. I guess that is why we shouldn't have any Federal programs, if that is the argument. The fact is, CHIP has worked abundantly well to help the most vulnerable people in our society, our children. I want to see that continue. The budget rules also did not consider the increasing number of children enrolling in the CHIP program. Therefore, there is only $5 billion per year for the CHIP program in the budget baseline. To me, this number is unrealistic, and I think anybody who looks at it would agree. It creates a situation which is extremely frustrating because health care costs continue to increase in the CHIP program just like every other health care program is going up 9 percent a year. That is somewhat of a victory because it used to go up 13 percent a year. As a result, we had to come up with the money to keep the current program functioning, not to mention additional sums for providing coverage to uninsured, low-income children without health care. There are many incidents of young children who don't have health care beyond the CHIP program or that haven't been covered by the CHIP program. To keep the program running as it currently exists, it will cost the Federal Government $14 billion. We fixed the problem by addressing the shortfall. Simply put, we had to comply with the budget rules in this bill, and we did. So in 5 years, the Congress will have to come up with money to keep the program operating, similar to the challenge we are facing with our $14 billion deficit right now. We need to be realistic. Since CHIP is not a permanent program and not an entitlement program, we in Congress have an even bigger job to keep the program running efficiently in the next 5 years. The current budget rules do not include a realistic rate of growth after the program expires. I can only conclude, then, with this bill, we are doing the best we can under very difficult circumstances for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, our children, the ones left out of the Medicaid process and whose parents don't earn enough money to buy insurance. Another issue I have heard being raised is that our legislation will raise tobacco taxes on cigars to $10 a cigar. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act does not impose a $10 tax on each cigar. In fact, the tobacco tax included in our bill prorates tobacco taxes on cigars. The tax imposed on cigars is based on the price of the cigar. In very few instances will an individual cigar be taxed at $10, and those who can afford that kind of cigar can afford the taxes. I know Senators are concerned about what some term ``crowd-out.'' Crowd-out is having individuals who are currently covered by private health insurance drop their private health insurance to be covered by a government program. This was my concern, as it was for Senator Kennedy, when we enacted CHIP originally. It is a valid concern today as well. But allegations that this bill increases the crowd-out rate are untrue. According to CBO, the fact is, the crowd-out rate will not increase for the basic CHIP program. While crowd-out does remain a serious problem, the crowd- out rate is not worsened by our bill. People will turn to whatever is better for them. If the CHIP bill is better for these kids, they are going to turn to it. I don't think we can blame them for that. Of course, the argument is that this is the camel's nose under the tent for one-size-fits-all socialized medicine. No, it isn't. But some want to make it that type of a program. I believe the House may be well on its way to trying to make it that, but we don't in this bill. In fact, during the Senate Finance Committee markup last week, CBO Director Peter Orszag told us the crowd-out rate for this bill is the same as the crowd-out rate for the original CHIP program. In addition, the CBO Director told us that in the absence of a mandate, this approach is as efficient as you can possibly get per dollars spent to get a reduction in the number of uninsured children, the goal of the CHIP program. This is because the incentive fund which was created in this bill to reward States for lowering the number of uninsured, low-income kids is designed so it provides a payment per child only for new Medicaid children as opposed to new CHIP children. This is helpful with crowd- out, first, because Medicaid is for lower income kids who are less likely to have the option of private coverage, so tilting toward Medicaid is beneficial. Second, the payments for the incentive fund payments are graduated. In other words, they are not based on random noise. The combination of these two is an efficient outcome. According to CBO, the approach we take in our bill is probably the most efficient way to have new dollars spent to reduce the number of uninsured children. Another issue that continues to be raised is adult coverage under CHIP. Unfortunately, the opponents of the bill have not been very clear about how adults are treated under this legislation. If I were the only one drafting the bill, which obviously I am not, I would like to see all adults removed from the CHIP program today, or tomorrow, to be a little more precise. I don't think they have any business receiving health care through a program created for low-income, uninsured children. In fact, I am very disappointed with our administration for continuing to grant Federal waivers to States to cover adults through CHIP. This has been extremely frustrating to me. Of course, our original language allowed them to do it, but we never dreamed for a minute they would allow some States to have more adults on this program than children. Not only is that ridiculous, that was never contemplated. But that is what has happened. This legislation addresses this matter by phasing childless adults off the CHIP program and lowering the Federal matching rate for parents and States who currently are covered under the CHIP program. Recently, Senators Grassley, Roberts, and I wrote both the President and my good friend, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, urging the administration to stop granting States any new adult waivers. I was pleased to hear back from Secretary Leavitt regarding adult waivers. I truly believe the letter Senators Grassley, Roberts, and I sent to the President and Secretary Leavitt, along with the CHIP reauthorization bill we drafted, made some impact with the administration. I am encouraged that the administration says it does not intend to approve any new adult waivers or renew any waivers for adults. I am also encouraged to see the administration is making progress toward removing adults from the CHIP program. However, these decisions should have been made a long time ago. I take issue with the point that our legislation will actually reverse the progress the administration is making with the States. I truly believe that one of the reasons the administration is finally moving forward on this is due to the pressures it has received from Congress to remove adults from the program. I look forward to working with the administration to make this a reality. To be fair, most of these waivers were granted before Secretary Leavitt took over at that position. I don't want to particularly blame him, but some waivers have been approved afterwards as well. I think the same crowd down there has been doing it and, of course, Secretary Leavitt has been the one who some would blame, although I think unjustifiably. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act prohibits the Federal Government from granting future State waivers to cover nonpregnant adults through CHIP once and for all. Simply put, our bill puts an immediate stop to States being granted future waivers to cover nonpregnant adults. Our bill puts the emphasis back on low-income, uninsured children. As one of the original authors of the CHIP program, I am here to tell Senators we did not create CHIP for adults. I wish we could do more for the working poor adults, but we do not have the money, and this program was not created for adults. We created CHIP for low-income uninsured children. On a related matter, our legislation also eliminates enhanced Federal matching rates for adults, with the exception of pregnant women. Today, under CHIP, States receive an enhanced Federal matching rate for those covered under CHIP. The Medicaid Federal medical assistance percentage, known as FMAP, ranges between 50 percent and 76 percent in fiscal year 2006; the CHIP FMAP ranges from 65 percent to 83.2 percent. At the beginning of fiscal year 2009, States will receive lower Federal matching rates for childless adults, and in fiscal year 2010, childless adults will no longer be covered under CHIP. With regard to parents, at the beginning of fiscal year 2010, only States that have covered more low-income uninsured children or have undertaken significant outreach efforts for low-income uninsured children will receive enhanced match rates for parents; the others will receive the lower Medicaid match rate, or FMAP, for adults. Starting in fiscal year 2011, all States will receive a lower Federal matching rate for parents. Those States covering more lower income kids or with significant outreach efforts will receive REMAP. That is the midpoint between the CHIP matching rate and the lower Medicaid matching rate. The other States will receive FMAP for CHIP parents. Many have also raised concerns about the income eligibility level of those covered by CHIP. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act provides lower matching rates to States for those individuals with incomes at 300 percent of the Federal poverty level and above who are covered under CHIP, thus penalizing States that want to cover higher income children. I might add, the original bill had us at 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, and approximately 90 percent of the children covered by CHIP were 200 percent of the federal poverty rate and below. Today, States receive an enhanced Federal matching rate for all income levels. Our bill discourages States from covering higher income individuals in the CHIP program. Once our bill is enacted, States that have new waivers approved to cover individuals 300 percent of the Federal poverty level and above would only receive the lower FMAP payment for these higher income individuals. To me, this is dramatic improvement over current law which allows higher income individuals to receive the same Federal matching rate provided to States for covering low-income children through the CHIP program. Finally, I emphasize that the CHIP program is an effective children's health program and a small part of overall health care costs. I make that point one more time. CHIP is not an entitlement program. It is a capped, block-granted program where the States are given flexibility and control, to cover their low-income uninsured children. It is totally voluntary on the part of a State to participate and offer CHIP program benefits to its residents. According to CMS, in 2005 we spent a total of $1.98 trillion on our Nation's health care system. Private expenditures were $1.08 trillion, and $900 billion in Federal dollars. Total Medicare spending was $342 billion in 2005, and Medicaid was 177 billion in Federal dollars. Our bill today funds CHIP--for 5 years--at $60 billion over the 5- year period. It is a fraction of the overall health care costs. If you want to divide it by 5, it is $12 billion a year out of a $2 trillion expenditure in this country for total health care, and out of a $900 billion Federal expenditure for health care. This $12 billion per year is a fraction of the cost, or should I say, this $60 billion over 5 years is a fraction of the cost to provide care for low-income uninsured children. Now, I think it is pathetic for people to argue that this is running out of control when we are trying to cover kids who have not been covered, as well as those who have--when it costs, like I say, $12 billion a year out of $900 billion spent by the Federal Government. I wish we had a better system in the sense that the private sector could take care of everybody. I think part of our problem is we have too much Federal Government involvement. But the fact is, for the CHIP program to be reauthorized, it is a very minuscule amount of money compared to the $900 billion, every year, the Federal Government pays for health care coverage. Covering these children is worth every cent. If we do not take care of these children, these low-income uninsured children, these kids are going to have serious health care problems in the future, and it is going to cost the federal government a lot more than what reauthorizing the CHIP program is going to cost us. We have to look forward to the future and do everything in our power to help these children. It is my hope that I have cleared up some of the misconceptions that my colleagues may have regarding the bill the Senate is considering this week. Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I apologize that I have taken so long, but I wanted to clear up some of these misconceptions about the CHIP bill that have been stated on the floor by some of my colleagues. I know they are very sincere, and I know they want to be fiscally responsible. But to argue that $12 billion a year or $60 billion over 5 years is too much money to pay for our children--when we are spending $2 trillion on health care--I think that makes our point, the distinguished Senator from Montana and I have been trying to make, even more resilient and effective.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my legislative fellow, Dr. Guy Clifton, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the CHIP reauthorization bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to honor of the thousands of firefighters who, in recent weeks, have literally put themselves in the line of fire to protect our communities and rural economies from countless wildfires throughout the western United States. For the second year in a row, western States have been plagued by continuous wildfires that far exceed those of average years. While July and August are typically considered the peak months for western wildfires, this year's fire season has been exacerbated by continued drought, record-high temperatures, widespread dry lightning storms, and high winds. As of July 23, more than 55,000 wildfires had been reported this year, burning over 4 million acres. That represents an increase of more than 8,000 fires and 1 million acres over the 10-year average. My home State of Utah alone has reported nearly 700 separate wildfires that have burned nearly 700,000 acres. This includes the fire at the Milford Flats Complex, which burned more than 360,000 acres, easily making it Utah's largest wildfire on record and one of the largest of this year's fire season. Idaho is the only State that has been hit harder than Utah this fire season, reporting more than 700 fires that have burned more than 800,000 acres. Utah and Idaho have not been alone in this recent spike of wildfire activity. The Milford Flats fire was ignited during a 3-day period that lasted from July 6th through July 8th, at time period in which more than 1,200 wildfires were ignited in the West as dry lighting storms swept across California, Nevada, Utah, and Southern Idaho. Despite these drastic conditions, Federal, State and local fire crews have been relentless in their efforts to control these wildfires, literally putting themselves between these infernos and our homes, our, communities, and our resources. I also want to express my heartfelt sympathies towards the hundreds of communities and thousands of families affected by this year's fires. Our thoughts and prayers are with them as they begin the difficult task of cleaning up and returning their lives to normal. At any given time, as many as 15,000 fire personnel are assigned to large, uncontained wildfires throughout the West. This year, and every year, these brave men and women overcome extremely volatile weather conditions and terrain to contain nearly 98 percent of all wildfires during their initial attack. That is why I am introducing a Senate Resolution recognizing the heroic efforts of firefighters to contain these dangerous fires in the West. Senators Bennett, Ensign, Wyden, Domenici, Kyl, Barasso, Salazar, Craig, and Cantwell have joined me in cosponsoring this resolution. Clearly, this Senate Resolution already has strong bipartisan support, and I urge my remaining colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I first wish to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and the distinguished ranking member and Senator Rockefeller, Senator Snowe--so many people--Senator Kennedy, others on the committee, Senator Stabenow, Senator Wyden, folks on our side who have really stood up on this issue, the CHIP issue, Senator Snowe in particular, Senator Smith--I could go right on down the line--Senator Roberts who has been a stalwart. I don't want to leave anybody out. This has been the result of tremendous negotiations over a long period of time, meeting virtually every day, led by the distinguished chairman of the committee. We have lots of issues, lots of difficulties, lots of past experience, mistakes that were made by the administration that have caused us a lot of problems, and yet a desire on the part of virtually everybody to try and do what is right for our children who basically are not being helped by our current health care system. As we know, the CHIP bill works remarkably well. Hardly anybody I know has found fault with the way it has operated. The big problem is that we spent $40 billion over the 10-year authorization of CHIP, from 1997 to today, and it expires this September. But the costs of trying to bring on the additional kids who qualify to this program and the extra costs that have been caused by the administration issuing waivers, which has resulted in at least one or two States having more adults on the program than children, has caused some difficulties. We think we have resolved some of those problems, and we hope the vast majority of Senators will recognize that and vote for this bill. We know the House bill is going to be off-the-charts expensive. Frankly, this is the bill people ought to look at, they ought to support, and I believe we ought to support wholeheartedly because we are trying to help the children of this country who are the least likely to be helped because they do not vote. The CHIP bill has helped millions of children, there is no question about it. It was originally decided to help the children of the working poor who were the only kids left out of the process. The poor children were helped by Medicaid, and, of course, those in the middle class or above were able to afford their own health insurance. But these kids were left out of the program and, of course, left out of basic health care. We have been able to resolve many of those difficulties through the original CHIP program. In this program, we will do away with waivers. We can't do away with some of the grandfathered people who are on CHIP right now, but we will get childless adults out of the program, and we will bring into the program pregnant women, which we did not do before. When we did the original CHIP bill, I was against bringing them in because of the high cost of the bill at that time. That bill cost $40 billion over 10 years. This bill will cost $60 billion over 5. But the reason for the original cost happened to be not only inflation, but also the outreach programs that were included, and the fact that we weren't covering upwards of 3 million children. Some estimate even more under the original CHIP program. My personal belief is, if we cover these children properly, we will save billions of dollars in the long run. We will save more than what it costs us to take care of these kids. But even if we didn't, we still ought to be taking care of these children who basically are not problems to society but can be great contributors to society if they are healthy. If we don't take care of them while they are in their youth, it is very likely they will not be as healthy as they otherwise would be and, in the end, they would cost more money than if we had faced the music and done what is right now. That is why this CHIP bill is so important. Again, I want to compliment and thank all of those who have participated in bringing this bill about. Mr. President, I understand Senator Lott wants to speak at 4:30. I have another set of remarks I would like to make. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in another place in the Record and the time be charged against our amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico; that then I be able to complete my remarks on CHIP after he is done.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his remarks. I personally appreciate them.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this week the Senate will focus on how to reauthorize and finance the CHIP program. Therefore, I would like to take some time on the Senate floor today to lay the groundwork for that process by examining the history of the CHIP program and the successes it has had over the last decade. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997--BBA 97--created CHIP as Title XXI of the Social Security Act. Today, all 50 States, the District of Columbia and five territories have CHIP programs. As is allowed by the law, 17 States use Medicaid expansions, 18 States use separate State programs and 21 States use a combination approach of both their Medicaid program and the State program. The CHIP program is financed through both the federal and State governments and is overseen by the States. States receive an enhanced federal match for the CHIP program. This federal match is significantly higher than the federal match that States receive through the Medicaid program. The Medicaid federal medical assistance percentage, known as F-MAP, ranges between 50 percent and 76 percent in fiscal year 2006; the CHIP F-MAP ranges from 65 percent to 83.2 percent. Through BBA 97, approximately $40 billion in federal funding was appropriated for the CHIP program. Overall, States have spent $10.1 billion dollars since it was first implemented through September 30, 2005. Today, approximately 6.2 million children have their health insurance coverage through the CHIP program. As one of the original authors of the CHIP program with Senator Kennedy, Senator Rockefeller, and the late Senator Chafee, I am very proud of the program's successes and I want these successes to continue. When we drafted this legislation in 1997, our goal was to cover the several million children who had no insurance coverage. Their families were too rich to qualify for Medicaid; however, their families did not have enough money to purchase private health insurance. We have gone a long way in meeting that goal, but we are clearly not there yet. Coverage of these uninsured children is still my top priority. I have always believed that we shouldn't even consider expanding this program to other populations until we have covered all children who do not have health care coverage. Unfortunately, that has not been the case and a program that was created for low-income children has covered childless adults, parents of CHIP-eligible children and pregnant women. How has this happened? Both the Clinton and Bush administrations granted waivers to States to cover adults, something that I strongly oppose. Today, 11 States cover parents through State waivers and six States cover childless adults in CHIP through State CHIP waivers. When Senator Rockefeller, Senator Kennedy, Senator Chafee and I worked on the original legislation in 1997, our goal was to cover the several million children who had no health insurance, but I believe that the bill before the Senate today makes great progress in this area. I believe the bill the Senate is considering this week captures the true essence of the 1997 law and builds on that foundation to insure even more children. That, indeed, should be our purpose. The bill drafted by Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, Finance Ranking Republican Member Grassley, Finance Health Subcommittee Chairman Rockefeller and myself is the very essence of compromise. To be fair, it does not make any of us Republicans comfortable to face a veto threat from our President. It does not make me comfortable to face a veto threat issued by my colleague and good friend from Utah, Secretary Leavitt. It does not make me comfortable to advocate for such a large amount in new spending. At the same time, I know none of you on the other side of the aisle are comfortable with the fact that we did not authorize spending up to the $50 billion limit in the budget resolution. Many of my Democrat colleagues made sacrifices in endorsing this bill and in sacrificing program expansions they so dearly advocated. Senator Kennedy and I often like to joke with each other that if neither side is totally comfortable with one of our compromises, we must have done a good job. And in that spirit, I say to my colleagues, we must have done a good job. This bill will make it all about the kids. That was our goal, and we achieved it. Our bill will provide health coverage to 2.7 million of the 6 million currently uninsured, low-income children who are 200 percent of the Federal poverty level and below. I want to circle back to the cost of this bill. I remember so well my conversations with my colleagues in 1997 about the cost of the original CHIP bill and the precedent it could represent. We must recognize that we have already covered the kids who are easy to find. Six million of them to be exact. We can all be proud of that. But one of the lessons we have learned along the way is that it will cost proportionately more to cover the remaining children. They are harder to find and thus harder to cover. This is what CBO told us. So you can't do the simple math and say: It costs $40 billion to cover 6 million kids, so it should cost $40 billion to cover the remaining 6 million kids. It doesn't work that way. CBO told us that we need to give States more money to cover these new uninsured children, and that is what we have done. We have made a number of other important decisions in this bill. We have restored the program back to its intent to cover children, not adults. This was a hard decision for Senators from States with adult waivers, and I commend them for their commitment to the children. The legislation before the committee removes childless adults from the CHIP program by the end of FY09 and afterwards, gives the States the option of covering these individuals through Medicaid. It also prohibits the approval of any new State waivers for parents to be covered through CHIP. Only parents living in states with approved parent waivers will be eligible for health coverage through the CHIP program. The next tough issue was the coverage of pregnant women. While I was not opposed to this in theory, in practice we all know that the cost of one delivery could fund insurance for three or four children. That is why I opposed this coverage in 1997. I have been convinced that States should have the option of covering pregnant women through the CHIP program. This was a difficult decision for me and, again, a true compromise. Third, we included money for outreach and enrollment. This is key for enrollment, but as we found out, it is very expensive. So we made the decision to place a limit on the amount of money dedicated to these efforts. Fourth, our legislation includes premium assistance through CHIP for coverage through private plans. And if it is determined that family coverage would be more cost efficient, the entire family would be covered through this health plan. This is something that was very important to me and Senator Grassley. Utah has started such a program with the hopes of providing affordable coverage to an entire family. Fifth, our legislation includes a cap of 300 percent of the Federal poverty level for eligibility in CHIP. If a State provides CHIP coverage above that level, it will not receive the enhanced match. States with higher eligibility levels when this legislation becomes law would be grandfathered in. Finally, I am pleased that this bill changes the name SCHIP back to CHIP, the way it was before the House added the superfluous S. Madam President, this is a good bill. It accomplishes what we have set out to do--to take care of the children. Yes, I wish it did not cost what it does, but I am persuaded this is necessary spending when I think of the 6 million American children who are leading healthier lives because of our vision and commitment. We should not let the opportunity pass us buy to build on that solid foundation and do even more good for the children, our future. I will add one more point that I want my Republican colleagues to take to heart. This is a bipartisan compromise bill. It is not like the legislation being considered by the House of Representatives that will cost up to an additional $50 billion to reauthorize the CHIP program over the next 5 years. In my opinion, the Senate version of this legislation is the better deal for the American people, and it is my hope that my colleagues who disagree will take one more look at this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to proceed to this bill. I hope in the final analysis, once we do proceed, our colleagues will vote for the bill because it is the right thing to do. How much time do we have remaining on both sides?

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in strong support of Judge Leslie Southwick's nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The evaluations, hearings, and investigations are complete. The American Bar Association's highest rating is in. It is time for this body, the United States Senate, to decide whether to consent to this judicial nomination by voting up or down. That is our role and we should assert it rather than avoid it. Vote yes or vote no, but it is time for this body to do its duty and vote on the Southwick nomination. This Senator will proudly vote to confirm this excellent nominee. Before looking specifically at the Southwick nomination, I must respond to some recent remarks made by my Democratic colleagues concerning the confirmation process. Three of their claims require a response. First, Democrats have said that the three appeals court nominees confirmed so far this year are ``three more than were confirmed in this similar year in the last Clinton term.'' That is a factual claim and it is either true or false. An evaluation of this claim is simple: We are in the third year of President Bush's second term and the Senate is controlled by the other party. The third year of President Clinton's second term was 1999, when the Senate also was controlled by the other party. Democrats, therefore, are claiming that the Senate confirmed no appeals court nominees in 1999. That allegation is patently false. In fact, and this is obviously a matter of public record, the Senate confirmed seven appeals court nominees in 1999, more than twice as many as the Senate has confirmed so far this year. Now, to give my Democratic colleagues the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they intended to refer to a different year during the last Clinton term. If so, the evaluation is the same with the same conclusion that their claim is patently false. The Senate confirmed seven appeals court nominees in 1997, 13 in 1998, seven in 1999, and eight in 2000, a presidential election year. That is an average of nine per year and seventeen per Congress. It was my Democratic colleagues who used appeals court confirmations in President Clinton's second term as a benchmark for appeals court confirmations in President Bush's second term. By my Democratic colleagues' own standard, they will have to pick up the appeals court confirmation pace to match what Republicans did during President Clinton's second term. The second thing Democrats have claimed is that the judicial vacancy rate is at an all-time low. Once again, that claim is false. The judicial vacancy rate has been increasing each year since before President Bush's re-election. Average vacancies this year are 35 percent higher than in 2004, and average district court vacancies are 62 percent higher. I do not know where my colleagues get their information, but the judicial vacancy rate is on the way up, not at an all-time low. The third Democratic claim is that the Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee did not give hearings to 70 of President Clinton's judicial nominees. This, they say, was a sign of great disrespect. This is the judicial confirmation equivalent of an urban legend but, like other urban legends, constant repetition does not make it any more true. We may be entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own set of facts. Not only does this claim, right off the bat, overstate the total by more than 20 percent but, more importantly, it ignores the fact that some judicial nominees do not receive hearings for a variety of perfectly legitimate and obvious reasons. My Democratic colleagues, of course, know this but also know that most Americans will not know the difference and many in the media will not bother to sort it out. President Clinton, for example, withdrew a dozen of his own nominees for various reasons, some involving significant and even embarrassing controversy. Was it disrespectful not to hold a hearing on nominees the President had withdrawn? President Clinton submitted other nominees too late in a Congressional session to permit proper evaluation. Was it a sign of great disrespect not to give a hearing to a nominee not yet ready for a hearing? Other nominees did not receive hearings because they were opposed by their home-State Senators, a tradition of Senatorial courtesy dating well back into the last century. Are my Democratic colleagues arguing that respecting the wishes of home-State Senators, including some of them, was being disrespectful to the nominees? There are even more reasons, but eliminating these three alone-- Presidential withdrawals, late nominations, and home-State Senator opposition--raises the Democratic margin of error to more than 100 percent. The Southwick nomination has none of the problems I just mentioned that prevented confirmation of some Clinton judicial nominees. President Bush has obviously not withdrawn the nomination. He submitted this nomination on January 9, 2007, when the current 110th Congress convened, so there has been more than enough time for evaluation and confirmation. In fact, last year the Judiciary Committee thoroughly vetted Judge Southwick when he was initially nominated to the U.S. District Court. We looked at the same man with the same character, the same qualifications, and the same record. And we sent the nomination to the full Senate without any opposition, including from any of my Democratic colleagues who today are suddenly raising such a ruckus. To be fair, in the name of full disclosure, I must candidly admit that two important things have changed since last fall, when the Judiciary Committee unanimously approved Judge Southwick's nomination. First, Judge Southwick has been nominated to the appeals court rather than to the district court. Second, the American Bar Association has rated Judge Southwick higher for his appointment to the appeals court than they did for his appointment to the district court. It makes no sense to me, but I suppose someone somewhere might think that a higher rating justifies more opposition. The higher rating means Judge Southwick gets even higher marks from the ABA for his compassion, open-mindedness, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice. If someone can explain how that makes him less qualified for the Federal bench, I would like to hear it. Unlike Clinton nominees who did not receive hearings, Judge Southwick has the strong support of both of his home-State Senators. The Senators from Mississippi, Senators Cochran and Lott, are senior and highly respected members of this body. Their support ought to mean something. I have no doubt that if these two fine Senators objected to Judge Southwick receiving a hearing or an up or down vote, the Democrats who run this body would give them the respect they deserve and there would be no vote. It seems, however, that today this traditional courtesy to esteemed home-State Senators is on its way to becoming a one-way street. Both Mississippi Senators have been working with President Bush to fill this same seat for more than 5 years, and I think they deserve our respect and support just like we would seek theirs if the situation were reversed. In the last few years of the Clinton administration, a Republican Senate confirmed a string of highly controversial appeals court nominees who nonetheless had the backing of their home-State Senators. I supported them and today I urge my colleagues to do the same for our colleagues from Mississippi and for Judge Southwick. When I came before this body a month ago, I explained why the tactics being used against Judge Southwick and other judicial nominees are illegitimate. It is illegitimate to focus only on a few of the thousands of decisions in which Judge Southwick participated while on the Mississippi Court of Appeals. It is illegitimate to ignore the facts and the law of those few cases. It is illegitimate to ignore the standard of review that Judge Southwick had to follow as an appeals court judge. It is illegitimate to look only at the political interests served by the results of those few cases. It is illegitimate to create a distorted, twisted caricature of this nominee, a caricature that is simply unrecognizable by those who know him best and have worked with him most. These are some of the illegitimate tactics being used against this fine nominee. I have a hard time believing that any of my colleagues would endorse these tactics or, worse yet, be persuaded by them. As I said, the entire case against this highly qualified nominee rests on just two of the 7,000 cases in which he participated, each involving an opinion which he did not write. If saying that is not enough to reject this empty case against Judge Southwick's confirmation, I fear for the confirmation process and this body's role in judicial appointments. But let me take a minute and look at these two lone decisions that supposedly justify this tirade, this assault, this hatchet job against Judge Southwick. The first is titled Richmond v. Mississippi Department of Human Resources. Last week, one of my Democratic colleagues said that this one lone decision creates a perception that Judge Southwick will be not be fair in civil rights cases as well as in cases about what he called the rights of ordinary people. I agree with the distinguished Judiciary Committee Ranking Minority Member, Senator Specter, who has said that this body should evaluate judicial nominees based on facts, not perceptions. Perceptions, after all, can be created with one press release, sound bite, letter, interview, or floor speech. If all it takes to justify opposition is such a deliberately invented perception, a politically motivated innuendo is all it would takes to defeat a nominee and destroy a good man's reputation. That is wrong, and is another sign that this judicial confirmation process is steadily degrading. In the Richmond case, a State employee used a racial slur one time. The person to whom it was directed did not hear it and later accepted an offered apology. The State review board concluded that these circumstances did not require terminating the employee. To hear the critics describe it, the issue on review before the Mississippi Court of Appeals was whether racial slurs are good or bad, whether racial slurs ought to be tolerated in the workplace. To hear the critics describe it, the appeals court looked at this case from scratch, had all options open, and could have done anything it wanted. The critics know that is not true, but they also know that most people will not know the difference. Apparently, the political or partisan goal of attacking Judge Southwick justifies misleading people about what judges do in general, and about this case in particular. The Mississippi Court of Appeals, on which Judge Southwick sat, was limited to reviewing this decision under a specific, narrow standard called the arbitrary and capricious standard. The appeals court was required to affirm the review board's decision if there was any evidence to support it. That is a very deferential standard, and a judge's personal opinion is not enough to overcome it. On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court agreed with Judge Southwick's court that the facts of this case did not require that the employee be terminated. Let me make this very clear. Judge Southwick's critics are not addressing what the court actually did in this case. They are attacking Judge Southwick because his court did not reach a decision it had no authority to reach. No matter what your personal feelings about the issue in the case, that is the wrong standard. It is wrong to suggest that judges are not fair to parties simply because they rule against them. It is wrong to suggest that judges should prefer politically correct results over legally correct results. Judges do not exist to opine on social problems or address social trends, they exist to decide legal cases. Judges do not exist to serve political interests or pursue policy agendas, they exist to settle legal disputes. Judge Southwick apparently understands this much better than his critics. Properly understanding that judges must follow the law rather than their personal opinions is precisely why Judge Southwick should be confirmed. Some have said that this decision shows Judge Southwick has hostile views on race. It does not show his views on that issue one way or another. But if any question remained about Judge Southwick's personal views, in his confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee--a more appropriate setting in which to do it--Judge Southwick made his views perfectly clear. He said that this particular slur is always offensive and inherently derogatory. If some of my colleagues believe judges should ignore the law and decide cases based on personal views, they should say so. If some of my colleagues believe judges should decide which side is going to win before a case even starts, they should say so. If some of my colleagues really believe that litigants will get a fairer shake before judges who decide cases by personal opinions rather than the law, they should explain such a wrong-headed idea. America's founders did not believe that, I do not believe that, and I think most Americans do not believe that. The other case with which Judge Southwick's critics would indict him is titled S.B. v. L.W. In this custody case, all of the relevant factors such as employment, income, home ownership, and community roots, weighted in favor of the father. State statutes and State judicial precedents at the time also favored the heterosexual father over the bisexual mother. The court's job was to review these factors, and the court upheld the decision to give custody to the father. That is what the law required, so that is what the court did. So what is it about this decision that Judge Southwick's critics offer as the basis to oppose him? That an opinion he joined but did not write used the phrase ``homosexual lifestyle.'' I can accept that some people see this as a negative phrase. But others might see it simply as a factual phrase. The Mississippi Supreme Court used this phrase in the line of cases that Judge Southwick's court had to follow in its decision. The phrase has been used in hundreds of court decisions, on both the State and federal level, all across this country. This includes the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which Judge Southwick's critics no doubt would applaud. It is hardly a stretch to see that this phrase is relevant in a custody case where applicable law makes lifestyle patterns and home life decisions important. This, I say to my colleagues, is the case against Judge Southwick: two decisions, two opinions he did not write, with results some people do not like but which followed applicable law and stuck to the job the appeals court had to do. That so-called case against Judge Southwick is less than unpersuasive, it is no case at all. Before I close, I want to repeat a point I made the last time I addressed this body about this excellent nominee. In their letter opposing Judge Southwick, the Congressional Black Caucus said that we ``should be impressed by the frequency with which Southwick's opinions and concurrences have been overruled.'' That is the standard the Congressional Black Caucus recommends that we apply to this nomination. Judge Southwick authored 927 opinions and concurrences while on the Mississippi Court of Appeals. Only 21 of those 927 opinions and concurrences, or just 2.3 percent, have been either reversed or even criticized by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 12 years. As the Congressional Black Caucus said I should be, I am indeed impressed by the frequency with which Judge Southwick's opinions and concurrences have been overruled. A reversal rate so low is a sign that he is a balanced jurist whose work is highly respected and holds up under scrutiny. This is yet another reason why this excellent nominee should be confirmed. Mr. President, the majority of Americans who disapprove of our job performance has been growing all year, from 56 percent in March and April to nearly 65 percent today. A record low of 14 percent of Americans have confidence in Congress. Perhaps, just perhaps, illegitimate tactics and unfair treatment of good people and outstanding nominees such as Judge Southwick contribute to this dismal picture. I hope that changes, not only for the nominees but also for the vitality and integrity of this institution. The Southwick nomination is ready for the Senate to decide whether to give its consent by voting up or down. The background checks are done. The ABA's highest rating is in. The questionnaire is complete. The hearings have been conducted. The distinguished home-State Senators have given this nominee their strongest endorsement. None of the factors that stopped, held up, or slowed down past nominees exist in this case. There are no reasons or excuses for further delay. The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate should promptly approve this excellent nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Herb Kohl, a resolution to designate the week of September 9-16, 2007, as ``National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week''. This resolution acknowledges the dangers of Polycystic Kidney Disease, also called PKD, which affects over 600,000 Americans. That is more than three times the population of Salt Lake City. PKD is the most common, life-threatening genetic disease in the U.S. There is no cure, and it is one of the four leading causes of kidney failure, also called end-stage renal disease; diabetes being number one. Polycystic kidney disease is characterized by the growth of numerous fluid-filled cysts in the kidney, which slowly reduce the kidney function and can eventually lead to kidney failure. When PKD causes kidneys to fail, the patient requires dialysis or kidney transplantation. About one-half of people with the major type of PKD progress to kidney failure. PKD is especially personal to me because so many Utahns suffer from this disease. The PKD Foundation claims that approximately 5,000 individuals in Utah live with PKD, and that the incidence of end-stage renal disease in Utah is three times that of the national average. To cure PKD would result in billions of dollars in savings to the military, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration for dialysis, transplantation and related treatments. Due to the illusiveness of PKD, many people are simply unaware of the nature of this disease. A National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week will help spread the word about the deadliness of PKD and vast numbers of, not only Utahns, but all Americans affected by this disease. With education comes the ability to know how to help people. Let us make it possible for everyone to know about PKD, so that more people can join the effort in making PKD a disease of the past.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am extremely interested in the comments of the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts. I do not agree with much of what he said, and maybe I can comment about some of the disagreements as I make my remarks this morning. I will begin by saying that on Iraq, absquatulation is not a policy. Today we face a growing movement for the political abandonment of the will to success in the biggest conflict we face in the whole 21st century. There are handfuls of people in pink wandering the hallways here, and the party in the majority claims a growing groundswell to abandon the fight in the midst of the battle. These are perilous times, and the political class of this country is divided among those who desperately want to raise the white flag, those who are fleeing to the tall grasses, and a beleaguered administration, beleaguered in part--and let us be honest at a time when generosity would be misplaced--by many of its own spectacular mistakes. I hear from constituents who are worried--very worried--about the war in Iraq. But Utahns are stalwart in character. Not all of them support the President's policy, and not all of them support me, to be sure. But I think I am being honest to suggest that the vast majority of my constituents are as worried by the prospects of a U.S. unilateral withdrawal as they are by the challenges we face in the middle of a battle whose end many of my colleagues no longer have the patience to imagine, pursue, or achieve. Such abandonment is not an option for our forces in Iraq. I gave a speech on this floor several months ago where I said I was not going to concede to the Democrats' strategy of unilateral withdrawal. I pointed out the irony that the Democrats' legitimate criticism of this administration's policy--that the Bush administration went into Iraq unprepared for the consequences, and without imagining the requirements of the day after we toppled Saddam-- was, in fact, being repeated by the Democrats who now advocate a withdrawal without preparing for the consequences, and with no consideration of what will happen in Iraq, the region, and the world after we decamp. I find this bitterly ironic. While I agree with many of the criticisms of this administration's early failures in the Iraq war, I will not stand quietly against the irony--indeed, the hypocrisy--of suggestions that it is OK to abandon a war without considering the consequences, but damnable to begin one in the same manner. In the months since I spoke on this floor, where I gave my qualified support for the surge, I have listened carefully to the debate on and off the floor. I have talked to my colleagues, to administration officials, to constituents and friends, here and abroad. I have read the intelligence on the prospects for Iraq and the currents in the region. I have traveled to Iraq, and I have traveled in the region. I am a member of the Intelligence Committee, perhaps with the longest tenure in the history of the Senate on the Intelligence Committee, and I do not find things to be as my colleagues on the other side assert. Nowhere have I found a silver lining to these clouds of conflict. But nowhere have I heard anyone say the clouds are less dark on the horizon. The three major problems I am most concerned about--the al-Qaida problem, the Iran problem, and the moral and practical costs of abandoning the moderate Iraqis--have not been addressed in any substantive way in any of the policy prescriptions I have studied. If the majority wants to decamp, they need to propose a policy context that makes the United States safer on the day after, not more in peril. There is an al-Qaida problem. In May, I went to Ramadi. I was briefed on our base by General Gaskin, and then we suited up to go for a walk in the town center. He was with us, and walked with us in that town center. That is correct, we had to suit up in armor for a walk downtown. This was no Sunday stroll for ice cream. But two facts were obvious: One, 6 months before we strolled through those downtown streets, Ramadi was al-Qaida's capital in Anbar Province and Iraq. On that day, 2 months ago, it was the local Sunnis' capital again. And, two, the local Iraqis I saw and met in Ramadi were happy to see us there. Had we walked down those same streets 2 months ago, we would have been killed. However you want to criticize the administration for its past errors, we now have a workable counterinsurgency plan in operation. It is working in Anbar, and al-Qaida is on the defensive. Are they moving out to other places? We are. Are we following them, using the counterinsurgency tactics we have finally mastered? We are. Are we going to abandon the field we have learned to dominate? You tell me. And we will abandon that field in this very Chamber if we keep following what is being spoken to on the other side. Here is what I learned about our successful counterinsurgency campaign from General Gaskin. Al-Qaida declared Ramadi the capital city of the Islamic State of Iraq. There were no police in Ramadi last year. Al-Qaida in Iraq, or AQI, as we refer to it, had destroyed all the police in the city. Starting in mid-February, the coalition cleared the downtown in about 6 weeks. There were approximately 15,000 to 20,000 members of al-Qaida in Anbar initially. Now, about half of them are dead. Others are still trying to discredit the Government of Iraq and discredit the occupation. They represent us as occupiers, infidels, if you will. They advance their goals with brutal methods. All of their financing comes from criminal enterprises. Al-Qaida is very cellular, decentralized, but resilient and regenerative. They are self- sufficient, funding themselves through criminal activities--murder, intimidation, the black market. We have finally learned to deal with the Sunni tribes. It took us too long to understand the tribes, but al-Qaida did not understand the tribal culture either. Al-Qaida's intimidation activities and murder of families--including young boys--enraged the local tribes and tribal leaders. The tribes' response was their realization that the expanded coalition presence was a chance to get al-Qaida out of their lives, and they came to a mutual understanding with coalition forces, sending 1,200 of their boys for enlistment in the security forces in 1 day. That was a turnaround. I was there with Senator Smith approximately a year before then. There was no chance at all in that province. But because of the counterinsurgency, we have made tremendous strides, and they are completely ignored by some here in this Chamber. But the local population in Ramadi and al-Anbar has helped find two- thirds of the IEDs in this area. We have promoted the development of a neighborhood watch system there. Once you clear, you must leave a security presence with coalition support. The locals will not give you intel if you do not leave a permanent presence to provide security. In the words of General Gaskin: We are asking the Iraqis to gain capacity while they are at war. This is very unusual, and it is very difficult. In counterinsurgency, the most important thing is how well you protect the population, and what the level of violence is. We are making progress in al-Anbar. Are we going to abandon this progress? As General Gaskin put it: It's like someone tells you the ship that you're on is on fire. You jump off, but halfway down you discover that it wasn't on fire after all. You still have to deal with your decision to jump: Either swim or drown. As I have said, I am not in favor of jumping ship, but for those who are, the question is: What are we going to do? Swim or drown? Last month, two analysts for the Radio Free Iraq service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty released a compelling report entitled ``Iraqi Insurgency Media: The War of Images and Ideas.'' In addition to cataloging the impressive degree to which the Iraqi Sunni insurgency is using the Internet to purvey a constant stream of images, propaganda, songs, and other images that glorify the fight against the coalition, this report makes clear that this barrage of insurgent media is feeding the global extremist network. According to the report: The Iraqi insurgent media network is a boon to global jihadist media, which can use materials produced by the insurgency to reinforce their message. The images of our precipitous withdrawal will be broadcast endlessly, to inspire and incite extremists throughout the world. In fact, if you talk to the analysts who monitor insurgent media, you learn that there are two prevalent themes today. The insurgents, including al-Qaida, are very media savvy, and they are avid consumers of Western and American media. They watch our floor debates. It is a common theme for them today to declare that we will withdraw. In our withdrawal, they see victory. If we abandon the counterinsurgency gains we have made, al-Qaida will not only declare global victory and vindication, they will attempt to reclaim the territory in Iraq. And don't think anything otherwise. Nowhere have I seen policy prescriptions from the other side or anywhere else, for that matter, other than the counterinsurgency and the work that is going on right now to address this problem. We cannot fight al-Qaida from across the border. And to suggest we can protect all our interests by being in the little country of Kuwait is absurd. We cannot fight al-Qaida and ignore Baghdad. And we cannot walk away from this fight with al-Qaida. For those who want to withdraw without a policy prescription, all I can say is, you may no longer be interested in al-Qaida in Iraq, but al-Qaida is interested in the United States, and always has been. Let's talk about the Iran problem. My colleague from Massachusetts mentioned this as though it is not a problem. I am sure he did not mean that. If you watch the Sunni insurgency media, you also determine an even more prominent theme. They assume, based on watching our media, that we will abandon the cause. And they declare an even bigger threat is Iran. Nowhere have I read of a compelling policy prescription to answer the question of how we will deal with Iran in the aftermath of a withdrawal. Iran is competing with the United States in the region. We are getting unclassified briefs from Multi-National Force in Iraq officers identifying the Iranian agents' role in supporting militias and funding explosively-formed penetrators EFPs, if you will--networks, which target the coalition. Iran is playing a dangerous game, not because they solicit an armed reaction from us--which they calculate will not occur--but they are carefully stoking sectarian and anticoalition conflict, while taking advantage of the relative security our military presence provides. What is our policy toward Iran should we decide to follow the prescription to abandon the fight in Iraq? All I have read is a hopeful repetition of the desire for a diplomatic solution. I always hope for a diplomatic solution. That is always a nice weasel way of hoping we can get out of these problems. I also hope to balance the budget, and I hope to cure AIDS. We are not making much headway in those, either. This will not happen based on hope alone, however. Those who think we can split from Iraq in the middle of the conflict and deal with Iran with a Tehran tea party are not just hopeful, they are delusional. Iran is a totalitarian regime in desperate economic circumstances and desperate economic condition. There have been riots over gas-rationing in a nation awash--or should I say rich--in oil. The population has suffered two generations of economic decline--in a nation rich in oil. The rich Persian culture has suffered the spectacular mismanagement of a corrupt and despotic regime. Just several days ago, the Open Source Center provided an analysis of Iran's treatment of its labor unions. I quote: The abduction of the head of Tehran's transport workers' union is the latest sign of the antagonism shown President Ahmadinejad's government toward trade unions and other civil society institutions. On April 11 it shut down the Iranian Labor News Agency, which often reported on labor discontent arising from Iran's economic failures as well as on student unrest and human rights abuses. Mahumd Osanlu, head of the Workers' Syndicate of the Tehran and Suburban Bus Company, has not been heard from since he was beaten and abducted on July 10 by plainclothesmen, presumably from the government. Do I need to remind my colleagues that Ahmadinejad ran on a platform of helping the lower classes? This is the face of a corrupt and failing regime that is causing havoc all over the Middle East. Just ask the people in Lebanon, if you want to, but you can also ask the people in Iraq. We are spending about $100 billion a year providing various degrees of stability through most of Iraq, stability on Iran's border. If we leave, there will be great instability. How will Iran react? My friend from Massachusetts seems to think they are not going to do one little thing. Once we leave, everything is going to stabilize and it is all going to be just wonderful. I don't think he quite went that far, but he basically said Iran is not going to do much. But do we have a policy in place that will seek to advance our goals of containing the Iranian threat, or is the policy of withdrawal hinging simply on the desperate desire for diplomacy with despots? There are moral and practical costs of abandoning the moderates in Iraq. I disagree with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. There are plenty of moderates. There are plenty of the middle class in Iraq. Large areas of Iraq are not in turmoil. Large areas of Iraq are, but there are plenty of people living there who want this country to work. Eighty percent of them voted for freedom and voted for a representative form of government. What are the consequences for the moderates of Iraq if we withdraw? There are, in fact, many moderates, many Iraqis intermarried between faiths, many Iraqis who are urban professionals, many Iraqi women are educated, in contrast to what the al-Qaida people and the Taliban people would do to women. All of these are attributes of the moderate masses who are today intimidated by the insurgents, by gangsters and terrorists, and who are currently failed by Iraqi politicians. Nonetheless, they are there in significant numbers. They will suffer immensely in the chaos that will follow our withdrawal. If we believe that a principal key to addressing the sources of discontent that fuels violent extremism in the Muslim world was the empowerment of the moderate classes seeking modern civil society, our abandonment of the cause in Iraq will do more than fuel the ferocious violence of al- Qaida, the deadly competition fomented by Iran; it will seal our ability to appeal to the moderate Muslim elements throughout the world, to build civic culture in autocratic societies. Our natural allies in these societies--the young and the educated, the professional, the women seeking to escape the oppression of the veil--will not respond to our entreaties because they will have seen that the United States does not continue to stand with its allies. They will see the images of our withdrawal. They will see the self-satisfied propaganda of the insurgents and al-Qaida, and they will be afraid to be with us. I fear they will see images of the slaughter of innocents. They will go back into the shadows, and the shadows of autocracy or, even worse, Islamic fascism will grow. We will have squandered not just the good will of our natural allies--those who want to modernize into peaceful and productive societies--but we will have squandered the faith of hundreds of millions throughout the world who will see no reason to stand by or with us. Whom will we blame for the slaughter of moderates, and whom will we turn to the next time we seek allies in the Middle East? Should those who advocate withdrawal today succeed in their ill- conceived attempt to run away from reality, reality will not let us escape. Without a policy to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, to compete with an unstable and adventurous Iran, and to prevent the slaughter of Iraqi innocents on a scale much greater than we see today, a withdrawal will be calamitous. The consequences on our ability to conduct foreign policy, to win the war on terror, and to advance our values of democracy and peace will be immense. After the capitulation driven by congressional Democrats that led to our abandonment of Vietnam in the 1970s, the Soviets became emboldened and advanced throughout what was known then as the Third World--in Angola, Central America, and Afghanistan. We regained our footing in a decade, and we won the Cold War because we found our will. Without a strategy to accompany the policy of withdrawal, the consequences--an emboldened al-Qaida, aggressive Iran, and intimidated, harassed, and slaughtered Iraqi moderates--will haunt us much longer than after our Vietnam withdrawal. After all, the Vietnamese did not threaten our country. They did not threaten our mainland. These people have, and these people continue to threaten our mainland. These people continue to say, as was said just a week ago, that they are going to cause havoc over here. I am 73 years old, and I fear that should we concede to the powerful call for withdrawal without a sound policy, the harm to this Nation will last longer than I have years to live. The senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, whom I hold in high esteem, quoted General Petraeus earlier, saying that of all the resources General Petraeus could have, the one he wanted most was time. The one he wanted most was time. This is a very important point, and I commend the distinguished Senator from Arizona for making it. Many people today believe that whatever the outcome this month, we have set a deadline for September. I say: Any progress achieved by September will be incremental, at best. Counterinsurgencies can be won, but they will not be won on a congressional election cycle. We should not be so arrogant as to presume we can make them fit into such an absurd construct. Let us be honest and admit that if we want to sustain the fight in Iraq, we should give it much longer than a September deadline. Perhaps in a year, perhaps in two, we can see a success, but for this, we need more than time. We need will. That is what I see evaporating around all of us here in the Senate. The majority is waving the flag of withdrawal. There is no accompanying policy to shape the way the geopolitical environment will be affected. Our enemies will be emboldened, our competitors encouraged, and our friends throughout the region will be like me: discouraged. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has said we are not talking withdrawal; we are talking a redeployment. Who is he kidding? We are going to leave a small contingency there to do exactly what Secretary Rumsfeld was doing, with an emboldened al-Qaida? Come on. I think they are ignoring the fact that the al-Qaida people have said they are going to establish a worldwide caliphate and impose their will on everybody--especially us. One thing I would just like to say is they have piled into Iraq. They were there before, in spite of what the distinguished Senator has said. Maybe not in as great numbers; of course not, but they have piled into Iraq knowing that if they defeat us there and we turn tail and run for the high grasses, they will have accomplished something they didn't even dream they could accomplish 5 years ago. This is not a simple war. This is not a war against another nation. It is not a war where people on the other side wear uniforms. It is a war where they commit terror all over the world. It is a war where they have threatened us. It a war where they kill innocent human beings. It is a war where they don't think anything of sending their young people strapped with bombs to blow themselves up, to maim and kill innocent civilians. If we do what our friends on the other side want to do, our enemies will be emboldened, our competitors encouraged, and our friends throughout the world will lose an awful lot of faith and confidence in the United States of America. Mr. President, absquatulation is not a policy. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the discussion over immigration reform demonstrates, this body confronts tough issues and can find itself embroiled in some contentious debates. Over the years, it has not been uncommon to see judicial appointment debates at the top of the list of contentious debates. And during those debates, we have seen a lot of tactics and methods used. But some tactics are simply wrong. Some methods are simply inappropriate. There are some means which no ends can justify. Some of these wrong tactics, inappropriate methods, and illegitimate means have been used to attack the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. If we care about the integrity of this body and the good of the judicial branch, if we really believe that there is something more important than raw ideological politics, we should reject this attack on this good man and confirm his nomination. Judge Southwick, who served for a dozen years on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, has received a unanimous well qualified rating from the American Bar Association. He has the strong support of his home State Senators, both of whom are Senior Members. He would fill a judicial emergency vacancy. And though it has been obscured by all the hyperbolic, vitriolic, and over-the-top rhetoric now thrown about, the Judiciary Committee just months ago approved without objection Judge Southwick's nomination. Now, for whatever reason, the nomination is in limbo--first it is on the committee agenda without action and now not on the committee agenda at all. The committee looked at the same qualifications, the same record, the same man with the same character, and found no objection whatsoever. The only difference--which is really a distinction without a difference--is that Judge Southwick was then nominated to the U.S. District Court but now has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals. The disturbing tactics being used against this nominee are certainly not new, and they are no more legitimate or persuasive now than when they have been used against other nominees in the past. Frankly, I am amazed that anyone finds them credible, let alone persuasive. Judge Southwick served on the Mississippi Court of Appeals for 12 years. It is not credible to focus only on a few cases among the 7,000 in which he participated and the nearly 1,000 opinions he wrote. It is not credible to focus only on the results of those few cases, ignoring the facts and the law. It is not credible to demand that judges render decisions that serve certain political interests, whether or not the law actually requires that result. It is not credible to attack Judge Southwick for phrases or language in opinions he did not write. It is not credible to ignore the limitations imposed on appeals court judges by the standard of review they must follow. It is not credible to say that a judicial ruling against a particular party amounts to a judge's personal hostility against a group to which that party might belong. These are some of the misleading tactics that we have seen used against judicial nominees in the past and are being used against Judge Southwick now. These tactics are simply not credible, and I am amazed that my Democratic colleagues seem to be going along with them. One of the sure signs that such illegitimate tactics are in play is that they result in a distorted, twisted caricature of a nominee that those who have long known and worked with him simply do not recognize. Richard Roberts, former president of the Mississippi bar, for example, says that no other lawyer in the State is as qualified as Judge Southwick to serve on the Fifth Circuit. According to Phillip McIntosh, associate dean at the Mississippi College School of Law where Judge Southwick now teaches, a politically and racially diverse faculty unanimously approved Judge Southwick for a faculty position with no question about his integrity, fairness, or impartiality. A. La'Verne Edney, an African-American partner at Judge Southwick's former law firm, clerked for him on the Mississippi Court of Appeals. He says that Judge Southwick applied the law fairly without regard to the parties' affiliation, color, or stature. These and other colleagues and partners of Judge Southwick know him best. I can only imagine their shock and confusion over the wildly derogatory and extreme descriptions offered by Judge Southwick's Washington-based critics. I can only imagine the reaction by those who know Judge Southwick when those who do not know him make such claims without knowing what they are talking about. I think my colleagues would agree that the American Bar Association has never been accused of a conservative bias. And I think we would all agree that the ABA conducts perhaps the most exhaustive and thorough evaluation of judicial nominees. The ABA looks at the whole record; the ABA interviews dozens of people in each case. Let me remind everyone that the previous nominee to this very same Fifth Circuit position ran into trouble when the ABA rated him not qualified. My Democratic colleagues thought that was the most insightful, thorough, accurate, and definitive evaluation ever done on any nominee to any position anywhere. The same ABA has unanimously given Judge Southwick its highest well qualified rating. That means, according to the ABA's own description of its rating criteria, that Judge Southwick gets the highest marks for such things as compassion, open-mindedness, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice. So here is the choice we face. On the one side, critics who do not know and have not worked with Judge Southwick look only at the results of just a few cases and claim Judge Southwick has hostile views on issues such as race, when there is no indication by anybody in Mississippi or otherwise that he has any such hostility. On the other side, the ABA and those who do know and have worked with Judge Southwick look at his entire record and gave him the highest marks for compassion, open-mindedness, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law. These two radically different pictures of this nominee cannot both be true. I think the tactics and standards used by Judge Southwick's critics are wrong and illegitimate, and the conclusions about him based on those tactics are simply not credible. I think they know that. And they certainly do not justify doing an about-face and voting against a nominee who, just months ago, received the Judiciary Committee's unanimous support. Illegitimate tactics leading to less than credible conclusions do not justify disregarding the judgment of our colleagues, the Senators from Mississippi, who are this nominee's home State Senators. Let me close with one more point. In their opposition letter, the Congressional Black Caucus says that we ``should be impressed by the frequency with which Southwick's opinions and concurrences have been overruled.'' That is pure, unadulterated hogwash. Judge Southwick authored 927 opinions and concurrences while on the Mississippi Court of Appeals and only 21 of them have been either reversed or even criticized by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 12 years. I don't know of many judges who have such an unblemished record. I must say that I am indeed impressed by the frequency with which Judge Southwick's opinions and concurrences have been overruled. I am very impressed with such a low reversal rate over such a long period of distinguished judicial service. And I note that Kay Cobb, former presiding justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, the court that reviewed Judge Southwick's decisions, has written with enthusiastic support of his nomination. Justice Cobb, unlike Judge Southwick's critics, has known him for many years and highlights his attention to promoting fairness and equality. Judge Southwick has served his community, volunteering with Habitat for Humanity since 1993. He volunteered to serve his country in the Mississippi National Guard and by joining a line combat unit that served in Iraq. Only months ago, the Judiciary Committee found Judge Southwick's qualifications and character sufficient to report his district court nomination without a single objection. Judge Southwick today is the same man with the same qualifications, the same ability, the same character, and the same commitment to the rule of law. He has the strong support of his home State Senators--both of whom are highly respected--and should be given the opportunity to serve on the Fifth Circuit. The Judiciary Committee should report his nomination, and the Senate should confirm him, without delay, or a manifest injustice will have occurred and will led to even more antagonism between the two sides of this body. We have been used to some of these tactics in the last 2 months of a President's tenure, maybe even the last 6 months, but hardly ever against a person of this man's qualifications, and then we have usually knocked that type of criticism down, as decent, honorable Senators should knock them down. Frankly, this President will serve for another year and a half. He has appointed a sterling, good man who deserves to be brought before the Senate and confirmed. I hope my colleagues will stop this tragedy and put this man on the court. He deserves it. He will be great on the court. He will be a person who will be fair and decent for everybody. I have every confidence in him. I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of my vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1639, the comprehensive immigration reform bill. This issue continues to be a divisive one, both in the halls of Congress and throughout our Nation. Indeed, many people throughout the country have strongly held views when it comes to our Nation's immigration policy. In fact, over the past month, I have heard from countless Utahns who have contacted me with their views on immigration reform. I expect that every Senator's office has been overwhelmed with calls, emails, and faxes from constituents expressing their concerns with various provisions of the bill. While I commend the bipartisan panel of Senators that has worked tirelessly to negotiate this legislation, I must express my disappointment in the manner in which the bill's proponents have sought to move this bill through the Senate. I, for one, am supportive of comprehensive immigration reform and for many of the approaches outlined in this bill. We simply cannot be asked to live with the status quo. However, once again, there are several huge problems with this bill, and I believe that a more thorough vetting of this legislation through debate and amendment could have fixed those problems and ensured that it contained policy changes the American people would support. As many have observed throughout this debate, there are currently millions of illegal immigrants residing within our Nation's borders. No one knows exactly how many, only that they are here, they are working, and, in large part, they contribute to our economy. We also have many businesses and industries that must have access to foreign labor, especially during this time when, while are seeing record lows in unemployment, we still have a shortage of workers. Under the status quo, employers are too often forced to make a decision between hiring illegal workers and wondering whether our inefficient and often arbitrary enforcement efforts will catch up with them or abiding by the law and closing the doors of their businesses. We need to find a fair, compassionate and lawful way to deal with the illegal immigrants already this country. We need to create a guest worker program for those businesses in need of foreign workers. And, we need to improve the system by which we legally distribute visas and green cards to make it more fair and efficient. The authors of this legislation have tried to address these issues in the current bill, and I applaud them for their efforts. However, they addressed them in various ways that, in the minds of many, make this bill completely unworkable and ineffective. The policies proposed by legislation are almost impossible to implement and even if they could be implemented, there are so many loopholes and exclusions that almost every solution in the bill can and will be bypassed by those who want to continue to exploit the system. I am convinced that many of my colleagues understand these concerns and even agree with my assessment, but they are so anxious to end this debate and reach a successful conclusion they compromised several core values that Americans hold dear and made damaging concessions. The provisions of this bill were negotiated and vetted in secret. It was then brought to the floor where the apparently shaky coalition that drafted the legislation have, throughout this process, voted as a block to prevent the passage of any so-called ``deal-breaking'' amendments. At several points during the debate, members of this coalition have admitted that the amendments in question would, in their opinion, improve the overall bill. Yet, in an effort to preserve the coalition, they have worked together to prevent the passage of even some of the most reasonable, commonsense amendments. Then, after an initial attempt to end the debate failed, the majority leader agreed to let the debate go forward and to have votes on a number of amendments. Initially, this sounded good. However, it soon became clear that, in another effort preserve this shaky, flawed compromise, the only amendments that would be voted on were those of the majority leader's own choosing. I don't believe that anyone should be criticized for their willingness to compromise. Clearly, compromise is a vital part of what we do in the Senate. However, we simply cannot value compromise for compromise's own sake. Indeed, we should not push through such fatally flawed legislation simply because it is the product of compromise. Compromise--the means by which the Senate passes legislation that will benefit our Nation--is not an end unto itself. Yet, too many of my colleagues seem all too willing to simply push this legislation through simply to preserve this great compromise. In fact, it almost appears as if some would consider our efforts successful if we were simply able to bring this bill to passage, regardless of what the bill looked like and regardless of what its effect would be on our immigration system. However, I believe that if we were to follow this course, we would be wasting an opportunity to provide real reforms to our Nation's immigration policy and to provide real solutions for our Nation's many immigration problems. It is not a novel idea to suggest that there was a better way to approach this problem. That way, Mr. President, was the process by which we approach all issues of this magnitude. This bill was brought to the floor without having gone through the committee process. This is never a good sign for any piece of legislation. Whenever you bypass the regular order of the Senate, there will undoubtedly be a significant portion of our constituents who feel as if their views don't count. The Senate has used and maintained the committee structure for over 200 years, and it has served the American people well. In this case, refusing to use the time-tested committee structure has been a recipe for disaster. The decision to bring this bill directly the floor robbed many Senators of an opportunity to examine the bill thoroughly and publicly express their concerns. In addition, it made certain that the bill would come before the entire Senate without the benefit of Committee hearings, expert testimony, and a public markup. Strangely enough, this is the precise criticism meted out by the Democrats when they were in the minority last Congress. Now that control of the Senate has changed hands, it seems the Democrat requirement for regular order is not necessary anymore. Mr. President, we have been told that this is our last chance to pass immigration reform for several years. I disagree. Once again, there were other approaches that could have been taken to pass this legislation, and these options remain available. In addition, there are many areas of agreement when it comes to immigration. Therefore, I believe that we can find a way to address our immigration problems that will satisfy the American people. But, to do that, we need a process that is fair and open. The process we have followed in this case has been too limiting and, as a result, we have a bill that the vast majority of Americans will not support. That being the case, I oppose this effort to end debate and to push this bill through. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to eliminate the current dollar limitation on Qualified Funeral Trusts, QFTs. Congress created these savings vehicles in 1997 to assist individuals and families who wanted to plan for, and prepay, funeral expenses. Yet, funeral costs are rising rapidly, and the arbitrary cap that Congress imposed on QFTs makes planning more difficult. Today I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation, along with my colleague from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, Senator Kohl. We are also joined by two of our distinguished colleagues, Senators Specter and Crapo. The change would have a positive impact on the lives of older Americans and on their families. In addition, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would have a slight, but positive, impact on the Federal treasury. When Congress created QFTs, it did so as a tax simplification measure. Unfortunately, it capped the size of these trusts at $7,000, adjusted regularly for inflation. This year, the inflation-adjusted cap is $8,800, but in many instances, this amount is no longer sufficient to cover a family's funeral expenses. In Utah, the average cost of a full funeral and burial is $12,685. I am sure that in many other states it is even higher. Because of this contribution limit, even those who preplan their own funerals too often leave their heirs with substantial expenses. Even those who attempt to cover the entire expense may not have enough money to cover all costs after administrative fees and taxes are deducted. This proposal would make Qualified Funeral Trusts more effective. The principal reason individuals set up Qualified Funeral Trust plans is to lift a financial burden from their children. Ordinarily, trusts for funeral expenses are grantor trusts, and the beneficiary is responsible for paying any tax on income generated by the trust. Congress recognized, however, that this result created an administrative burden for the beneficiary or the funeral director trustee. As a result, Congress enacted Section 685 of the Internal Revenue Code, allowing funeral director trustees to elect to pay the tax on income earned by funeral trusts. This tax simplification measure eased the paperwork burden and administrative costs on funeral director trustees, who were previously required to issue hundreds of 1099 forms to their elderly customers. It also eliminated the tax liability and confusion of many elderly Americans who previously received these forms. Unfortunately, only those trusts under the cap are currently eligible for designation as QFTs. By removing this restrictive cap, our legislation will eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens on beneficiaries and trustees. Let me give you an example of how the current cap creates unnecessary confusion for families. I have used this example before. It remains worth telling. Four years ago, a constituent of mine wrote me about this situation. He was suffering from Parkinson's disease. So he began planning his own funeral in order that these decisions and this burden would be lifted from his children. Because of the cap on QFTs, however, which at the time was $7,800, this Utahn was not able to fully fund the funeral services he desired. It became necessary to have one of his sons complete this planning for him by opening up his own, separate trust that would help to cover the remaining expenses. We should not be making it hard for families to do the right thing. We should not be making families jump through extra hoops when all they are trying to do is make these responsible decisions, well in advance of need. For older Americans, the primary benefits of this legislation are the ability to have all the money they have saved in the trust be applied to final expenses, instead of taxes, and the incentive to increase the amount of their contribution. Sixty percent of prefunded funerals were funded by trusts and elimination of the cap should raise this percentage. For funeral directors, this change would eliminate the burden and expense of issuing information documents to report income earned from the trust. The National Funeral Directors Association supports this legislation. So too do numerous funeral homes that serve the people of Utah. I have no doubt that many more of these funeral businesses, many of which are family-owned and family-run, that serve local communities from coast to coast support this legislation as well. I think we can all agree that we should make it easier for those who are willing to provide for these necessary expenses in advance. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in an effort to enact this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to eliminate the current dollar limitation on Qualified Funeral Trusts, QFTs. Congress created these savings vehicles in 1997 to assist individuals and families who wanted to plan for, and prepay, funeral expenses. Yet, funeral costs are rising rapidly, and the arbitrary cap that Congress imposed on QFTs makes planning more difficult. Today I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation, along with my colleague from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, Senator Kohl. We are also joined by two of our distinguished colleagues, Senators Specter and Crapo. The change would have a positive impact on the lives of older Americans and on their families. In addition, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would have a slight, but positive, impact on the Federal treasury. When Congress created QFTs, it did so as a tax simplification measure. Unfortunately, it capped the size of these trusts at $7,000, adjusted regularly for inflation. This year, the inflation-adjusted cap is $8,800, but in many instances, this amount is no longer sufficient to cover a family's funeral expenses. In Utah, the average cost of a full funeral and burial is $12,685. I am sure that in many other states it is even higher. Because of this contribution limit, even those who preplan their own funerals too often leave their heirs with substantial expenses. Even those who attempt to cover the entire expense may not have enough money to cover all costs after administrative fees and taxes are deducted. This proposal would make Qualified Funeral Trusts more effective. The principal reason individuals set up Qualified Funeral Trust plans is to lift a financial burden from their children. Ordinarily, trusts for funeral expenses are grantor trusts, and the beneficiary is responsible for paying any tax on income generated by the trust. Congress recognized, however, that this result created an administrative burden for the beneficiary or the funeral director trustee. As a result, Congress enacted Section 685 of the Internal Revenue Code, allowing funeral director trustees to elect to pay the tax on income earned by funeral trusts. This tax simplification measure eased the paperwork burden and administrative costs on funeral director trustees, who were previously required to issue hundreds of 1099 forms to their elderly customers. It also eliminated the tax liability and confusion of many elderly Americans who previously received these forms. Unfortunately, only those trusts under the cap are currently eligible for designation as QFTs. By removing this restrictive cap, our legislation will eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens on beneficiaries and trustees. Let me give you an example of how the current cap creates unnecessary confusion for families. I have used this example before. It remains worth telling. Four years ago, a constituent of mine wrote me about this situation. He was suffering from Parkinson's disease. So he began planning his own funeral in order that these decisions and this burden would be lifted from his children. Because of the cap on QFTs, however, which at the time was $7,800, this Utahn was not able to fully fund the funeral services he desired. It became necessary to have one of his sons complete this planning for him by opening up his own, separate trust that would help to cover the remaining expenses. We should not be making it hard for families to do the right thing. We should not be making families jump through extra hoops when all they are trying to do is make these responsible decisions, well in advance of need. For older Americans, the primary benefits of this legislation are the ability to have all the money they have saved in the trust be applied to final expenses, instead of taxes, and the incentive to increase the amount of their contribution. Sixty percent of prefunded funerals were funded by trusts and elimination of the cap should raise this percentage. For funeral directors, this change would eliminate the burden and expense of issuing information documents to report income earned from the trust. The National Funeral Directors Association supports this legislation. So too do numerous funeral homes that serve the people of Utah. I have no doubt that many more of these funeral businesses, many of which are family-owned and family-run, that serve local communities from coast to coast support this legislation as well. I think we can all agree that we should make it easier for those who are willing to provide for these necessary expenses in advance. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in an effort to enact this important measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 1693, the Wired for Healthcare Quality Act. The goal of achieving high quality health care is not reachable without use of information technology. For instance, the 21 quality measures that hospitals now report for Medicare must usually be manually extracted from paper charts. The Government Accountability Office reports that hospitals are near the limit of the number of quality measures that they can report by these antiquated techniques. Implementation of information technology is critical because with it there is no practical limit on the ability to measure quality. Dr. Brent James, a national quality expert from Intermountain Healthcare of Salt Lake City, UT, tells me that a health care provider who wishes to improve performance starts by defining detailed measures of quality health care and then builds information technology around the measures so that routine, automatic reporting of compliance with the measures becomes part of the health information technology platform. The Wired for Healthcare Quality Act does not just impose standards for interoperability of information technology it creates a mechanism by which quality measures are embedded in those standards. The legislation encourages the development of standards by codifying the office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology who coordinates the health information technology policies of Federal agencies. It creates a public-private partnership, the Partnership for Health Care Improvement to advise the Secretary on technical aspects of interoperability, on standards, on implementation, and on certification of compliance with those standards. The bill establishes the American Health Information Community as a body providing recommendations to the Secretary regarding the broad policy issues of implementation of technical standards created by the partnership. For instance, it will advise the Secretary on issues of patient privacy, information security, and appropriate uses of health information. The bill directs the Secretary to provide for the development and use of quality measures in the health information technology platform by an arrangement with a private entity that establishes standards for measurement development and coordinates and harmonizes measures so that providers are able to use the same set of measures, if not the same measures, for all their patients. The legislation requires that all Federal information technology purchases conform to the standards recommended by the Partnership and adopted by the President within 1 year and that all Federal agencies comply within 3 years. Adoption of these standards is voluntary for private entities except for functions they contract with the Federal Government. The legislation encourages the adoption of qualified health information technology by providing grants for the purchase of health information technology systems to providers demonstrating financial needs, by providing low interest loans to states to help providers acquire health information technology systems, and by providing grants to facilitate the implementation of regional or local health information exchanges. The legislation provides for the development of national reports of health care quality based on Federal health care data and private data that is publicly available. Reports are to be contracted to quality reporting organizations. The legislation assures strong privacy protections for electronic health information by forbidding funding under the bill to any information technology system that lacks strong privacy and security protections, by requiring recipients of funding to notify patients if their medical information is wrongfully disclosed and by requiring that the national strategy on health information technology include strong privacy protections. Before I close, I must raise a concern with the bill. Building a national, interoperable health care information technology platform is like building two houses with a common driveway. Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are one house. Private health plans are the other. They both must share common standards for health information technology so that systems all talk with one another. They both must implement from a common pool of quality standards otherwise providers will be impossibly confused. The two houses will not look alike but they must share a common driveway and common building standards. I use this analogy to emphasize that the rules for the quality measures used by the Medicare Program are the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee on which I serve as a senior member. The rules for quality measures in a national health information technology standard, and private health insurance plans, are under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. We must be certain that these distinctions are made with clarity to avoid confusing ourselves and the medical community. I look forward to working with Senators Enzi, Kennedy, and Clinton, and my colleagues Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Minority Member Chuck Grassley on the Finance Committee to ensure that these important distinctions are made. If we do not accomplish the task of integrating quality and health information technology standards between public and private programs, providers will be placed in the impossible position of having one set of quality and information technology standards for publicly insured patients and other requirements for privately insured patients. If such a Tower of Babel is allowed to develop, providers will simply not be able to implement the improvements in care that we all want to see through the use of health information technology. We cannot miss this chance.