Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am going to vote for S. 30. I do not think it does anything more than the current law is but, nevertheless, I appreciate the intentions of the two Senators, my dear friends, who have done this. Mr. President, as this debate draws to a close, I want to take one last opportunity to give my strong endorsement to the need for our country to provide a better level of support for a very promising line of scientific inquiry: embryonic stem cell research. While I will vote in favor of both bills, it is S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, that provides the promise of making a dramatic, yet ethical, difference in the lives of so many. S. 5 offers people hope who have no hope today. S. 5 has the potential to save lives. S. 5 opens up a door to medical research that offers much promise to both the scientific community and the patient community. And why is that? Because S. 5 allows the Federal Government to fund the most promising line of stem cell research--embryonic stem cell research--and S. 30 does not. Make no mistake about it. Under the current policy, the President's policy, our Government does support embryonic stem cell research. All S. 5 would do is expand that policy. To those who raise questions about the ethicality of this bill, I answer this way: If it was ethical to implement such a policy in 2001-- and I have heard little criticism about that--then it should be ethical to adopt S. 5 as well. Let me underscore the need for this bill with what one of the leading embryonic stem cell researchers in our country has had to say. I am speaking about the University of Utah's eminent researcher, Dr. Mario Cappecchi. For the benefit of each Senator, the doctor has boiled down the arguments in favor of the Government funding embryonic stem cell research. I think it bears repeating, as this is knowledge crucial to each Member's understanding of what is one of the most critical issues facing this body today. Indeed, I believe history will judge us very harshly if we allow this great opportunity to pass us by. We have to support this research which to date holds forth more promise than other types of stem cell inquiry. In the interest of all those who suffer from debilitating diseases and hope for deliverance, I implore my colleagues to vote for S. 5 and send a clear message to the American people that we want this research to be expanded for the good of mankind--of all mankind. There should be Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research because: No. 1, it is a potential source of cures; No. 2, embryonic stem cells grow quickly and are versatile; No. 3, in contrast, adult stem cells grow slowly; No. 4, adult stem cells are very restricted in what cell types they can produce; No. 5, the tissue in many important organs does not have adult stem cells so therapies for diseases involving those tissues would not be readily approachable by adult stem cell-based therapy; No. 6, the usefulness of existing embryonic stem cell lines is extremely limited; No. 7, somatic cell nuclear transfer is an important research tool; No. 8, SCNT allows production of patient-specific stem cells to treat complex human diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's; No. 9, lack of Government commitment means lack of future researchers; and No. 10, the health and economic implications of human stem cell research are enormous. Other countries have realized this; we are in grave danger of falling behind. I read Dr. Cappecchi's points again for one reason--I want all of my colleagues to recognize that much is weighing in the balance on today's vote. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to consider carefully the positions they take today. In the interests of all those who suffer from debilitating diseases and hope for deliverance, I urge my colleagues to vote for S. 5. Let me close by making a point I made to President Bush back in 2001: In the opening days of your term in office, scientists have completed the task of sequencing the human genome. While this accomplishment--the work of many in the public and private sectors--is of historical significance, it is only the end of the beginning in a new era of our understanding of the biological sciences. Over your next eight years in office, you have an unprecedented opportunity to provide the personal leadership required to see to it that your Administration will be remembered by future historians as the beginning of the end for such deadly and debilitating diseases as cancer, Alzheimer's and diabetes. That is what S. 5 is all about--providing a potential new avenue of research that may lead to treatments and cures for many diseases that afflict many families across our Nation and the world. While I have no objections to S. 30, let us not delude ourselves into thinking it is the best solution. S. 5 is the bill that will clearly make a significant difference in the future of medical research for all of the reasons I have outlined today. For those who oppose any type of embryonic stem cell research, let me say this: For the life of me, I cannot understand how we can destroy 7,000 to 20,000 live in vitro fertilized eggs every year--just destroy them, kill them--without using those for the benefit of--let's just choose one malady--kids with diabetes, virulent diabetes, who might lose their eyes, their hands, their feet. Why wouldn't we do everything in our power to utilize those rather than cast them aside as hospital waste? I cannot understand that. That is not pro-life; that is prodeath. Frankly, being pro-life is not just caring for the unborn, it is caring for the living as well. While I will be voting for both S. 5 and S. 30, I believe that S. 5 is clearly preferable to S. 30. S. 5 permits Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, S. 30 does not. S. 5 is the bill that will clearly make a significant difference in the future of medical research for all of the reasons I have outlined today. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 5.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my dear colleague for allowing me to make those remarks on the floor. This is an important debate. I hope we can get the 67 votes that are essential because we are going to get them someday. It is just, why put it off another 2 years? I thank my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with my colleagues, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Herb Kohl, I rise to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2007. Senators Lincoln, Smith, Kohl and I introduced similar legislation last Congress and former Senator John Breaux and I were the lead sponsors of the Elder Justice Act in the 107th and 108th Congresses, with the strong support of Senators Lincoln, Smith and Kohl. While the legislation has been reported unanimously by the Finance Committee in the 109th and 108th Congresses, it, unfortunately, has not become law. I am here to say that will not be the case this Congress. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the provision of the Elder Justice Act. This legislation establishes an Elder Justice Coordinating Council to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the coordination of activities of the Federal, State, local and private agencies and entities relating to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. It also provides a first time direct funding stream separate from the Social Services Block Grant for adult protective services. In addition, the Elder Justice Act creates an advisory board to create a short and long-term multidisciplinary strategic plan for the developing field of elder justice. The legislation creates new forensic centers to promote detection and increase expertise--new programs will train health professionals in both forensic pathology and geriatrics. The bill also authorizes $10 million for national organizations or States that represent or train long-term care ombudsman representatives to provide training, technical assistance, demonstration programs and research to improve ombudsman effectiveness in addressing abuse and neglect in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. In addition, the Elder Justice Act requires immediate reporting to law enforcement of crimes in a long-term care facility. It also allows the seven State demonstration projects authorized through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 to be completed and directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report the findings to the appropriate congressional committees no later than six months after the completion of the demonstration projects. The bill also authorizes $500,000 to determine the efficacy of establishing and maintaining a national nurse aide registry. Finally, the legislation authorizes $20 million in grants to enhance long-term care staffing through training and recruitment to establish employee incentives including career and wage benefit ladders and programs to improve management practices. With more than 77 million baby boomers retiring over the next three decades, we cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. One of my top priorities of the 110th Congress is having the Elder Justice Act signed into law. Older Americans deserve nothing less. In closing, our legislation has been endorsed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national membership organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This coalition, which has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Elder Justice Act, has over 500 members. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can provide older Americans the same protections that we provide to our children and victims of domestic violence.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with my colleagues, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator Gordon Smith and Senator Herb Kohl, I rise to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2007. Senators Lincoln, Smith, Kohl and I introduced similar legislation last Congress and former Senator John Breaux and I were the lead sponsors of the Elder Justice Act in the 107th and 108th Congresses, with the strong support of Senators Lincoln, Smith and Kohl. While the legislation has been reported unanimously by the Finance Committee in the 109th and 108th Congresses, it, unfortunately, has not become law. I am here to say that will not be the case this Congress. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the provision of the Elder Justice Act. This legislation establishes an Elder Justice Coordinating Council to make recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the coordination of activities of the Federal, State, local and private agencies and entities relating to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. It also provides a first time direct funding stream separate from the Social Services Block Grant for adult protective services. In addition, the Elder Justice Act creates an advisory board to create a short and long-term multidisciplinary strategic plan for the developing field of elder justice. The legislation creates new forensic centers to promote detection and increase expertise--new programs will train health professionals in both forensic pathology and geriatrics. The bill also authorizes $10 million for national organizations or States that represent or train long-term care ombudsman representatives to provide training, technical assistance, demonstration programs and research to improve ombudsman effectiveness in addressing abuse and neglect in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. In addition, the Elder Justice Act requires immediate reporting to law enforcement of crimes in a long-term care facility. It also allows the seven State demonstration projects authorized through the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 to be completed and directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report the findings to the appropriate congressional committees no later than six months after the completion of the demonstration projects. The bill also authorizes $500,000 to determine the efficacy of establishing and maintaining a national nurse aide registry. Finally, the legislation authorizes $20 million in grants to enhance long-term care staffing through training and recruitment to establish employee incentives including career and wage benefit ladders and programs to improve management practices. With more than 77 million baby boomers retiring over the next three decades, we cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. One of my top priorities of the 110th Congress is having the Elder Justice Act signed into law. Older Americans deserve nothing less. In closing, our legislation has been endorsed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national membership organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This coalition, which has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Elder Justice Act, has over 500 members. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can provide older Americans the same protections that we provide to our children and victims of domestic violence.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on March 1, the other body passed the horribly misnamed ``Employee Free Choice Act,'' H.R. 800, and we may soon be called upon to consider that bill or a similar Senate counterpart. The bill was steamrolled through the House of Representatives in less than a month from its introduction, with only a single day of subcommittee hearings, at which only one expert witness critical of the bill was permitted to testify. It was considered in the House with only limited amendments allowed to be offered. Obviously, it is incumbent on us to make certain the Senate takes the opportunity for fuller debate on a measure of such wide impact. The chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has scheduled a hearing tomorrow, where we will undoubtedly hear how ``unfair'' the current unionization system is and how it must be amended to allow for greater unionization. I am sure we will have a full and robust debate in this body. But as we kick off this debate over whether to deny private ballots to workers who wish to unionize, it is my hope we will be able to at least hold fast and true to the facts. There should be a full debate on these facts. There is ample evidence to indicate that we should be wary of amending the National Labor Relations Act, the NLRA, in a way that would upset the balance in national labor policy between labor and management and employer and employee. We must not rely on slogans, anecdotal stories, and questionable secretly commissioned and selective statistics about alleged unfair labor practices. The NLRA and its attendant volumes of reported decisions and case precedent by the National Labor Relations Board is an extremely complicated, interwoven area of law. Amending it in the way the sponsors of H.R. 800 envision could rip a gaping hole in the precise weave of this complex fabric and have a dramatic impact with many unintended consequences. It must also be considered that amending the NLRA will not only affect the welfare of unions, but it will also have a negative overall impact on workers, employers--especially small employers--and on the economy and America's ability to be competitive in a global economy. So let us begin the discussion of the bill. The Employee Free Choice Act is designed to increase union membership, which currently stands at 7.4 percent of the private sector workforce. The bill would accomplish that through an artificial, union-controlled ``card check'' certification procedure in place of the traditional NLRB-supervised private ballot election or, as some have called it, a secret ballot election. In fact, the bill would radically upset the balance in labor and management and employer-employee relations by amending the National Labor Relations Act in three ways: First, the bill would mandate union representation without a private ballot election among employees. The so-called Employee Free Choice Act mandates that the NLRB certify a union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of employees when the union has demonstrated that a majority of the employees, 50 percent plus 1, have signed union authorization cards--or, in other words, the ``card check'' system without a private ballot election among employees. Not only would this deny employees the right of private, NLRB- protected ballot elections on the question of initial union representation, but through operation of the NLRB's current ``certification bar'' doctrine, it would prevent employees from challenging the union's majority status through a decertification election for the certification year. Secondly, the bill would guarantee union contracts where the Government would impose the wages, the terms, and conditions of employment for 2 years if the parties fail to agree after 90 days of bargaining and 30 days of mediation. That is because the so-called Employee Free Choice Act requires compulsory, binding arbitration of initial union contracts. Specifically, under the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, an employer must begin bargaining within 10 days of the union's demand. Thereafter, if the union and the employer cannot reach an agreement within 90 days, the contract terms must be submitted to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for a 30-day period of mediation. If the FMCS is unable to mediate an agreement between the parties, then it must refer the initial contract to an FMCS arbitration panel with the authority to issue a decision that is binding on the employer and union for a 2-year period. Added to current law, the effect would be to deny employees the opportunity to approve, or ratify, the terms of the contract. They would be prevented by the NLRB's ``contract bar'' from initiating a private ballot decertification election challenging the union's continuing majority status for the 2-year term of the contract. Finally, the bill would impose new antiemployer penalties. These include prioritizing NLRB investigations of unfair labor practice charges alleged to have been committed by an employer during an organizing campaign and possibly pursuing injunctive remedial action in Federal Court. The proposal also provides for liquidated damages in the amount of two times any back pay found due and owing and subjects an employer to a civil penalty not to exceed $20,000 per violation of the NLRA. As this chart shows, the proponents of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act are asking the American worker to accept the denial of access to complete information about the union, the denial of a private ballot vote, the inability to decertify a union for at least 28 months after it is initially certified, the denial of the right to strike for a better deal after binding arbitration, potentially the denial of an employee's opportunity to vote on a contract, and the denial of knowing if a union is organizing at their place of work. Let us look at that again. The effect of the Employee Free Choice Act dissolves workers' rights to access to complete information about the union, to vote in secret, to decertify the union for at least 28 months, to strike for a better deal--takes that away from them--to vote on a contract--takes that away from them--and to know if union organizing is taking place. It takes their rights away as workers. This deceptively named bill has little to do with employee free choice. In fact, it would take away an employee's right to choose union representation through private ballot elections--some say ``secret ballot'' elections--something the unions have always fought for but now are going to throw away in their desire to unionize at all costs. Indeed, it has everything to do with guaranteeing union organizing to increase union membership, at a time when unions represent a steadily declining percentage of America's private sector workforce. As you can see clearly from this chart, since the modern-day union movement in 1935, when you evaluate their percentage of the overall workforce, unions have had good years, up in here, and they have had many bad years. As that chart clearly demonstrates, under the current system of NLRB overseeing private ballot elections in recent years, unions have lost membership. Currently, I must underscore, union membership stands at 7.4 percent of the private sector workforce. Proponents of the Employee Free Choice Act seek to turn back time when it comes to the percentage of the American workforce that is unionized and that they want to be unionized. I have no inherent problem with a fairly considered, fairly elected union. However, this bill attempts to increase union strength through an artificial, union-controlled ``card check'' certification procedure which tosses away the traditional NLRB-supervised private ballot election. Where is the problem we are trying to fix? This bill would replace the time-honored, NLRB-protected private ballot election, the traditional system under which workers decide whether to be represented or not represented by a union. Instead, the system would be supplanted with the mandated ``card check'' procedure, where union organizers can pressure employees to sign union authorization cards which are then presented to the NLRB for certification of the union as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all of the employees. It is important for us to consider that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly denounced union authorization cards as being ``inherently unreliable'' because of the types of peer pressures, some subtle and some not so subtle or benign, to sign the cards. In its 1969 Gissel Packing decision, the Court acknowledged that the use of authorization cards to determine majority support is unreliable and that private ballot elections are the ``most satisfactory--indeed the preferred method of ascertaining whether a union has majority support.'' Unions, likewise, prefer a NLRB-protected and supervised private ballot election, at least when they are faced with a decertification petition from their members to determine whether the union has majority support. That was demonstrated once again last month by union opposition to a proposed amendment to apply the ``card check'' provisions of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act to decertification elections. That amendment was defeated in the House committee's markup. As one court stated with regard to ``card check'' authorization: It would be difficult to imagine a more unreliable method of ascertaining the real wishes of employees than a ``card check'' unless it were an employer's request for an open show of hands. The one is no more reliable than the other. That is in the NLRB v. Logan Packing Company of the Fourth Circuit. It is hard to believe we are seriously considering a bill to deny workers a private ballot vote so soon after the national elections. It is also inconsistent with our Nation's history of promoting private ballot elections for the disenfranchised members of society through the suffragette and civil rights movements, especially when we are fighting for the opportunity of individuals around the world to have the democratic right to a private ballot election that is free of intimidation and coercion. I am reminded of a statement made on January 31 of this year by my longtime friend and colleague from Massachusetts on the need for fair elections: For too long, we've ignored the festering problem of deceptive practices intended to intimidate and deceive voters in our national elections. . . .'' Although I am not able to say this very often, I can say that I am in absolute agreement with my friend on that point. In every election, whether it is for President, local dog catcher, or union organization, we as representatives of the people whom we serve have an obligation to ensure our constituents' votes will be cast without fear of intimidation. I assert--and I think many also would back this up--that a private ballot election overseen by the NLRB, a Government agency, has a better chance to be more free and fair than one in which it is left to the union organizers to solicit cards in secret until they receive a majority of 50 plus 1. What happens to the other 49 percent? Are they just disenfranchised? The answer is yes. Under the ``card check'' system, there is no inducement to allow employees to make an informed decision, learn all the facts, and hear arguments for and against unionization. It is difficult for me to believe we would be considering a bill which would mandate that the Government impose wages, terms, and conditions of employment where the parties, new to collective bargaining, have not reached agreement after 90 days. This would destroy free collective bargaining and the entire labor law concept of ``impasse'' when the parties are unable to agree. Under the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, for first contracts, ``impasse'' would be defined as 90 days of bargaining before the Government steps in. Even basic labor law textbooks term compulsory binding arbitration as the ``antithesis of collective bargaining.'' These are radical changes in collective bargaining which have little to do with employee free choice. In fact, these amendments would disenfranchise workers by denying them private ballot elections and a vote on whether to accept wages, terms, and conditions the Government arbitration panel would impose on them. Who would benefit from the passage of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act? I can tell you. Only unions. They would be virtually guaranteed organizing success, increased union membership, and more union dues. As you can see from this chart, over the past 6 years, unions traditionally win approximately 50 to 60 percent of NLRB-supervised private ballot elections. In contrast, it is reported that ``card check'' elections yield unions success approximately 80 to 85 percent of the time. Who would benefit? I can tell you. Only unions. Look at that chart again. ``Union Win Rates in Elections.'' The NLRB- supervised election, in 2000, the unions won 51 percent; in 2001, the unions won 54 percent; in 2002, they won 56 percent; in 2003, they won 57 percent; in 2004, they won 57 percent; in 2005, they won 61 percent; and in 2006, they won 61 percent. Where ``card check'' elections have been held--because the employers have agreed to them, I guess, because they are certainly not law yet; that is why they are bringing this up--80-85 percent have become unionized even though 49 percent of the people in those companies have had nothing to say about it. It is not right. It is not the way to go. Unions would be guaranteed first contracts for a period of 2 years under this bill. Looking at the big picture, what would the so-called Employee Free Choice Act mean for our economy? Let me read from a recent article written by Jack and Suzy Welch in the March 12 issue of BusinessWeek magazine. Jack Welch is one of the alltime important business leaders in this country. Here is what they had to say: We know it must sound strange to oppose legislation that promises something as motherhood-y as ``free choice.'' But the title of this bill is pure propaganda. It won't encourage liberty or self-determination in the workplace; more likely it will introduce intimidation and coercion by labor organizers, who, after a long slide into near-oblivion, finally see a glorious new route to millions of dues-paying members. Their campaign could trigger a surge in unionization across U.S. industry--and in time, a reversion to the bloated economy that brought America to its knees in the late 1970s and early '80s and that today cripples much of European business. If you want to be reminded of what that looks like, drive through Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, as we did last weekend, and take a look at all the shuttered factories. Steel--like coal, autos, and so many other industries in the global economy--paid the inevitable price of unionization run amok. . . . The advance of the Employee Free Choice Act continues unabated. And so pretty soon, if enough business leaders and legislators don't stand up, it may well be: Hello again, unions. So long, American competitiveness. The change will not happen instantly. Companies will fight unions as if their lives depend on it, because they do. But given the logistics of the Employee Free Choice Act, any management campaign is hobbled. If you can't be at the kitchen table with the organizers and their hard stares, you probably can't win. He sums it up: In those areas where employers have agreed to a ``card check,'' they have invariably become unionized and many employees unionized against their will with the obligation of paying dues. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I assert that this is the start of another historic Senate debate on national labor policy. It is unfortunate that I have to be involved in this because I was raised in the union movement. I am one of the few people who have served in Congress who actually earned a union card, who actually became a skilled building tradesman, who worked in the building construction trade unions for 10 years. I believe unions are important, but I believe they should have to earn their membership and not have it given to them. In conclusion, as we enter this debate, let us not be fooled by the misinformation from the other side. Take a look at this chart. They claim employers coerce employees to vote no. The truth is that in less than 2 percent of cases is it found that an employer has inappropriately interfered in a union organizing election. They claim unions can't win elections under the current system. The truth is that unions won 62 percent of NLRB elections in 2005, the last year for which a complete set of statistics exists. They claim American workers want to form unions using a ``card check'' system. The truth is that, according to a recent poll, 79 percent of Americans disagree with the elimination of private ballots when voting in union organizing elections. The President has issued a Statement of Administration Policy that he would veto the so-called Employee Free Choice Act if it reached his desk. That should not make us complacent in the Senate. Even if a veto were necessary, Senate passage of a bill like that which was passed by the House would put us on record in future Congresses as being against private ballot elections for workers in union representation decisions, in support of Government-imposed wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment through union contracts where workers themselves will be denied a ratification vote. Is that where we want to be a year or two from now? I, for one, do not believe we as a nation should head in that direction, and I urge my colleagues to resist any attempt to force unionization on the American workforce. To paraphrase the movie ``The Godfather,'' I believe union bosses have made the American workforce a deal they can refuse. We must oppose any attempt to pass any iteration of the Employee Free Choice Act, and we must do it on behalf of the American worker. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From Business Week, Mar. 12, 2007] The Unemployment Act (By Jack and Suzy Welch) Are you at all concerned about American competitiveness in the future? --Srikanth Raghunathan, Irwin, Pa. Yes. But not for the standard ``the sky is falling'' reasons, like the twin deficits, low-cost Chinese manufacturing, or intellectual property piracy. We believe those challenges will largely be ameliorated by market, political, and legal forces. No, we're as worried as can be that American competitiveness is about to be whacked by something no one seems to be talking about: the Employee Free Choice Act, which is currently weaving an insidious path through Congress toward becoming law. If it does, the long- thriving American economy will finally meet its match. You didn't read wrong. We know it must sound strange to oppose legislation that promises something as motherhood-y as ``free choice.'' But the title of this bill is pure propaganda. It won't encourage liberty or self-determination in the workplace; more likely it will introduce intimidation and coercion by labor organizers; who, after a long slide into near-oblivion, finally see a glorious new route to millions of dues-paying members. Their campaign could trigger a surge in unionization across U.S. industry--and in time, a reversion to the bloated economy that brought America to its knees in the late 1970s and early '80s and that today cripples much of European business. If you want to be reminded of what that looks like, drive through Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, as we did last weekend, and take a look at all the shuttered factories. Steel--like coal, autos, and so many other industries in the global economy--paid the inevitable price of unionization run amok. Make no mistake, We don't unilaterally oppose unions. Indeed, if a company is habitually unfair or unreasonable, it deserves what it gets from organized labor. But the problem with unions is that they make a sport out of killing productivity even when companies are providing good wages, benefits, and working conditions. It is not uncommon in a union shop to shut down production rather than allow a nonunion worker to flip a switch. Only a union or millwright electrician can do that job! Come on. Companies today can't afford such petty bureaucracy or the other excesses unions so often lead to, such as two people for every job and a litigious approach to even the smallest matters. Yes, managers and employees will sometimes disagree. But in the global economy, they have to work through those differences not as adversaries but as partners. The Employee Free Choice Act undermines that. Here's how. Currently, when labor organizers want to launch a unionization effort, they ask each worker to sign a card as a show of support. If 30% or more employees do so, a federally supervised election can be called and conducted with one of the most revered mechanisms in democracy, the secret ballot. Thus, employees can vote their conscience, without fear of retribution from either union leaders or management. By contrast; under the Employee Free Choice Act, organizers could start a union if 50% of employees, plus one more worker, sign cards. That's right--no more secret ballot. Instead, employees would likely get a phone call with a pointed solicitation, or worse, a home visit from a small team of organizers. You can just imagine the scenario. The organizers sit around the kitchen table and make their case, likely with a lot of passion. Then they slide a card in front of the employee with a pen. Who would say no? Who could? Now, union supporters will tell you that they won't intimidate employees for votes, and regardless, management intimidates all the time by threatening to fire employees who vote union. But the system as it exists has safeguards, including heavy fines against companies that misbehave and automatic new elections. Still, the advance of the Employee Free Choice Act continues unabated. And so pretty soon, if enough business leaders and legislators don't stand up, it may well be: Hello again, unions. So long, American competitiveness. The change won't happen instantly. Companies will fight unions as if their lives depend on it, because they do. But given the logistics of the Employee Free Choice Act; any management campaign is hobbled. If you can't be at the kitchen table with the organizers and their hard stares, you probably can't win. It's too bad. In fact, its terrible. And ironic. First, because the ability to unionize already exists in America, thanks to the secret ballot. And second, because the Employee Free Choice Act ultimately only provides a free choice nobody would ever want: how to spend a government issued unemployment check.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I do, myself, feel a great sense of pleasure and comfort in what has transpired today with regard to Ireland, and I wanted to say so.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 508.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have offered amendment No. 508 to ensure that Congress continues to protect Medicare beneficiaries' coverage choices, especially for those living in rural areas and low-income Medicare beneficiaries. My amendment establishes a budget-neutral reserve fund so that if Congress implements improvements to Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP, it may not do so in a way that leads to fewer coverage choices for Medicare beneficiaries. It also may not reduce the benefits of those beneficiaries who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare Advantage plans provide a range of benefits not available in traditional Medicare such as vision and dental care, physical exams, and hearing aids. Medicare Advantage plans also have chronic care management programs to help beneficiaries with chronic illnesses such as diabetes or congestive heart failure better manage their conditions and stay healthy. I conclude by urging my colleagues to keep in mind the following: Beneficiaries across the Nation--whether they live in a rural State such as Utah or urban area such as New York City--now have more coverage choices. These choices offer beneficiaries more benefits and lower out of pocket costs. Beneficiaries are satisfied. Let's not forget that it was through policy decisions supported by Members on both sides of the aisle that helped achieve those results. And those results, in my opinion, are worth protecting for beneficiaries' sake. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the NAACP and LULAC opposing cuts to the Medicare Advantage Program be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand the time until 8 is relegated to us. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Colorado be given up to 7 minutes and then the rest of the time be turned over to me.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I intend to reserve some time for the distinguished Senator from Alaska.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about an amendment I will offer tomorrow to ensure that as the budget debate continues, Congress works to protect Medicare beneficiaries' coverage choices, especially coverage choices for those beneficiaries living in rural areas and low-income Medicare beneficiaries. My amendment is simple. It would establish a budget-neutral reserve fund so that if Congress implements improvements to Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP, it may not do so in a way that leads to fewer coverage choices for Medicare beneficiaries. It also may not reduce the benefits of those beneficiaries who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Let me give my colleagues a little bit of history on the Medicare Advantage program which was established by the 2003 Medicare law. Under Medicare Advantage, health plans receive a monthly payment to provide beneficiaries all of the benefits covered by traditional Medicare. But Medicare Advantage plans provide a lot more to beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage plans provide a range of additional benefits not available in traditional Medicare--benefits such as vision and dental care, physical exams, and hearing aids. Mdicare Advantage plans also have chronic care management programs to help beneficiaries with chronic illnesses such as diabetes or congestive heart failure better manage their conditions and stay healthy. Now, health plans participating in Medicare is not a new thing. They've served Medicare beneficiaries for many years going all the way back to the 1970s through programs authorized by Congress. For the most part though, up through the late 90s, Medicare health plans were largely available only in urban areas. Going back now for a decade, back to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the fact that beneficiaries in rural areas had few, if any , choices, led Congress to take actions to promote plan availability in those areas. Yes, these actions included increasing payment rates to address the fact that Medicare payments in urban areas were higher--in some cases a lot higher--than payments in rural areas. I know my home Sate of Utah had difficulty keeping Medicare+Choice plans in the state primarily because payment rates were too low. Ironically, many Utahns wanted to participate in these plans because they were the only ones offering supplement benefits such as vision care, preventive benefits and prescription drugs to Medicare beneficiaries at the time. But due to low payments and adverse selection, both Medicare+Choice plans dropped Utah beneficiaries and as a result, my constituents had limited choices for Medicare coverage until the Medicare Modernization Act created the Medicare Advantage program. So let me show you what beneficiary choices look like today. The top map shows where plans were available in 2003. The white space means that only traditional Medicare was available. In 2007, beneficiaries--whether they live in an urban area or rural area--could chose from different Medicare Advantage plans, and all beneficiaries have more choices. All beneficiaries can now choose a Medicare Advantage plan that offers them important additional benefits and lower out-of-pocket costs. Now here is a good example of the benefits of Medicare Advantage--all beneficiaries may choose a plan that has no cost-sharing for breast cancer screening. We all know the importance of breast cancer screening. Beneficiaries with diabetes can choose a plan that offers them diabetes self-management services without any cost-sharing. On cost sharing, according to CMS, millions of beneficiaries can enroll in a plan that limits their out-of-pocket costs to $1,000 a year. For low-income beneficiaries, protection from high out-of-pocket costs, which they don't have in fee-for-service, is a valuable benefit. We know that many low income beneficiaries rely on their plans for this protection. According to CMS, 57 percent of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries have incomes between $10,000 and $30,000 compared to 46 percent of fee-for- service beneficiaries. Another area I want to talk about is quality. Data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey show that Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are more likely to obtain preventive services, including flu and pneumonia shots and cancer screenings. Surveys also show that beneficiaries are satisfied with their plans. So let me conclude by urging my colleagues to keep in mind the following: Beneficiaries across the nation--whether they live in a rural state like Utah or an urban area like New York City--now have more coverage choices. These choices offer beneficiaries more benefits and lower out-of- pocket costs. Beneficiaries are satisfied. Let's not forget that it was through policy decisions supported by Members on both sides of the aisle that helped achieve those results, and those results, in my opinion, are worth protecting for beneficiaries' sake. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. President, today we are debating the size and composition of the Federal budget for fiscal year 2008. This is a critical debate. And it is one that future generations will look to in order to determine where we went wrong or where we went right. Just as adherence to a budget can make or break a family or small business, so too can Congress's development of and adherence to a budget make or break our economy. Whether it is a family budget, or the congressional budget, it must be based on an honest assessment of the facts. The budget must make reasonable projections about what money is coming in and what money is going out. A budget must face hard facts, not hide from them. When I hear from my constituents in Utah, they talk about the need for tax cuts that benefit families and small businesses. They talk about fixing Social Security and Medicare. The 2006 annual reports for those programs showed their unfunded liabilities to be $84 trillion in today's dollars. That was up $7 trillion over the previous year. With 77 million baby boomers about to retire, this is a serious problem. We need a budget that is serious about the challenges we face, the revenues we can anticipate, and the expectations of the American people. We need a budget that swings for the fences, but this budget is playing small ball. It is big spending, without any big ideas, and the result will be big tax hikes on the American people. After reviewing the bill before us today, I must candidly admit this budget falls short of realistic spending and revenue projections. You could even go so far as to say it's filled with deception and fantasy. Simply put, this budget is not honest. It spends more than is brought in. And a lot of the revenues it projects are not really there. If my constituents in Utah budgeted like this, they would have a serious problem making ends meet. The proponents of this budget claim that it is the cure to everything that ails us. But Americans know snake-oil when they see it. This miracle cure will lead to one of two maladies--over time, it will greatly increase the deficit or it will require massive tax increases. Consideration of this budget would not be possible without the good fortune of our booming economy. Perversely, however, this budget provides a recipe for destroying the extraordinary growth created by this economy. I don't believe it is an exaggeration to say--the economy is booming and revenues are up. In fact, revenues are up substantially. They are up because of sound fiscal policy. They are up because of progrowth tax cuts that have increased productivity and wages. It is easy to forget and sometimes our memories are short. But, in the autumn of 2001, our economy was in shambles. We were hit with a one-two punch, and we were down on the mat. The booming economy of the late 1990s went bust. When the dot-com bubble burst, billions of dollars in equity were lost, and millions of people began looking for work. And then in the midst of that recession, our Nation was attacked. It was not a foregone conclusion that a nation at war, already suffering a considerable economic downturn, would emerge with its head held high and an economy on the rebound. But we did. And we did so because President Bush and Congress held strong in pushing through tax cuts and stimulus tax incentive bills that have benefited each and every American. I know that some of my colleagues want to maintain the illusion that our economy is two-tiered; they say that it is great for the rich who are making out like bandits, and terrible for everyone else. And the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have the lead roles in this melodrama. However, the numbers tell a much different story. Americans are paying taxes--a lot of taxes. Between 2004 and 2006, we saw an inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase. This was the largest 2-year revenue increase since 1965. Tax revenues, at 18.4 percent of gross domestic product, are above the 20, 40, and even 60 year historical averages. That is not enough for Democrats, however, who want to soak the rich, but will wind up drenching the middle class. The real devil to them is the tax cut for capital gains and dividends. Supposedly, these capital gains and dividends tax cuts were skewed toward the rich. These class warriors need to take a vacation in the reality-based community. Here's the real deal. First off, stock ownership is not something just for the wealthy. Sometimes I think that my colleagues are using talking points written in 1933. Today, stock ownership is for the middle class. When you turn on college basketball this weekend, you will see commercials enticing people to hire companies to manage their stock portfolios. They are not being marketed to monocle-wearing, sports car driving, plutocrats. They are not being marketed on ``Masterpiece Theatre.'' They are being marketed to average families. You will see people at work, people making burgers on the backyard grill, and people with families living in the suburbs buying stocks and bonds, generating capital gains and dividends to save for their children's college educations. It is not just folks in affluent areas of the country who benefit from lower capital gains rates. A policeman in Salt Lake City, a lineman at an auto plant in Michigan or a schoolteacher in California--all have pensions that are invested in the stock market. And they all benefit from capital freed by these tax cuts. In 2003, our capital gains tax rates were set at 20 percent and 10 percent. Congress reduced these rates to 15 percent and 5 percent. And what were the revenue estimates? The Congressional Budget Office expected that revenues would expand somewhat--from $50 billion to $68 billion. It turns out CBO was a bit off. Capital gains revenues doubled. Let me repeat that. Capital gains receipts jumped from $50 billion to $103 billion. So here is the final take on these tax cuts: They turbocharged the economy. They created jobs. Good jobs. They have led to increased revenues. And they will continue to do so, as long as we do not choke them off with the tax increases contemplated by this budget. But this budget is a recipe for undoing our economic expansion and growth. Some people have characterized this budget as smoke and mirrors. That is too generous. Smoke and mirrors suggests that the supporters of this budget are at least embarrassed about its future implications. It suggests that they are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of hardworking Americans. But there is no subtext to this budget. It is not an esoteric document. The tax and spend message is right there on the surface. It is not exactly the same as Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale going to San Francisco and gleefully promising to raise our taxes. But it comes close. It certainly looks like we are going to get another dose of this San Francisco treat from the Democratic majority. I guess some things never change. This is a big spending budget. And it is a big taxing budget. Tax and spend. Where have we heard that before? Make no mistake about it. The fact that the Senate adopted Senate amendment No. 492, sponsored by the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, does not change the character of this budget. It was an important amendment. But in the end, by omission it actually emphasized the high taxing assumptions embedded in this budget. It did nothing to help alleviate the substantial tax hikes that most middle class Americans will face under this budget. It did nothing to protect the capital gains rates that are so critical for retirement savings and continued economic growth. I know that the criticism of this budget as more tax and spend politics must have bothered some of my colleagues because it prompted them to offer and vote for this amendment. Just a few months ago, many of us were campaigning on a promise of fiscal responsibility. Promises, promises. The authors of this budget seemed to have lost their appetite for fiscal responsibility the minute they stepped off the campaign bus. And so here they are reverting to instinct. Next year, the Senate appropriators will be able to spend $16 billion more than the President recommended. And over 5 years, that number grows to $146 billion. We are going to see discretionary spending rise to 4.2 percent-- higher than the inflation rate. And trust me. They will spend every penny. We are about to get some sense of Democratic fiscal discipline, when the House of Representatives takes up the national security supplemental spending bill. Among the national security priorities in that bill will be: $25 million going to spinach growers. $74 million going to peanut storage. And the list goes on and on. All told, the House supplemental appropriations bill will be larded up with $21 billion in spending unrelated to national security. This is certainly an unusual way to go about fiscal responsibility and taking care of our troops. And it is just a taste of things to come. The increases in spending contemplated in this budget might all be great news for civil engineers in West Virginia. But for future generations who will have to pay the bill associated with this budget, it is not great news. Now, concerning the AMT. This budget also gives us a 2-year AMT patch. Earlier this year, a number of my Democratic colleagues criticized the President for failing to provide a permanent solution to the AMT. Yet this budget does nothing to fix the underlying problem. As inadequate as this fix is, there is a more nagging question. How are we going to pay for all of this? Do you remember that campaign promise? A Democratic Congress will restore fiscal responsibility by restoring pay-go. It will require offsets for any new spending or tax cuts. OK. So where are those offsets coming from? Here is where this budget leaves the land of wishful thinking and enters the realm of unfortunate delusion. We are going to pay for it with--drumroll please--the tax gap. Yes, the magical, wonderful, tax gap. The difference between the amount of money collected by the Government and the amount of money owed. The solution to all of life's problems. To balance this budget, there is an assumption of 3 percent more revenue over 5 years than the President assumed. And where is that revenue coming from? The tax gap! Of course! Why didn't we think of that? You see, this budget does not contain even $1 of mandatory savings. Yet we are going to provide AMT relief, and we are going to increase Federal spending. And we will pay for it by closing some tax loopholes and putting an IRS agent in every small business in the country to make certain that not one dime of potential revenue goes uncollected. Some people have called the tax gap the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Well, it is a pot at least. Here is our best estimate--in 2001 the net tax gap was about $290 billion. Over 5 years, the tax gap is $2 trillion. Wouldn't that be nice? The tax gap is the deus ex machina that will come in and save this budget mess. But everyone admits those are very unreliable numbers. Could we be doing better when it comes to collecting taxes? Certainly. We should be collecting more revenue. But what is a realistic estimate? Our tax collection system, imperfect as it is, already is the envy of the rest of the world. So what is a reasonable estimate of how much we can expect from the tax gap? The President proposed in his budget 16 different options for closing the tax gap. And they would raise $29 billion over 10 years. That's it. And not one person in this body seriously believes that we can collect anything near the amount needed to balance this budget. So we have a $110 billion AMT fix. Fifty billion dollars of this falls in the first year. I cannot even conceive of a tax gap revenue offset that would cover $50 billion in 1 year, unless Congress raises the tax rates. We have $146 billion more in spending over 5 years. We have no reductions in spending. And the tax gap is not paying for it. So who is? Let me be absolutely clear. You will be paying for it. I will be paying for it. We all will be paying for it. Each and every American is going to pay for this budget. We are going to pay for it through higher taxes. We are going to pay for it by working more hours for less money. And ultimately, we will pay for it as economic growth and productivity sag under increased spending, higher taxes, and declining economic growth. There is only one way for this budget to work. It has to assume that we will not extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Make no mistake about it. This means a tax increase on every middle class American. This plan will not just kill the goose laying the golden eggs. It is going to wring its neck, stamp on it, and throw its limp lifeless body in the river. If we in Congress do eventually get our act together and balance the Federal budget over the next few years, it will be despite this budget, not because of this budget. It will be because our economy continues to grow. Because of sound fiscal policy, because of the tax cuts, because businesses will continue to open, jobs will continue to be created, and tax revenue will continue to go up. We have seen this pattern repeated decade after decade in this country. Unfortunately, this budget relies on assumptions that have proven to be false time after time. It assumes that we will balance the Federal budget through massive tax increase. It sets aside no room to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. In President Clinton's first term, he raised taxes by $241 billion. That was quite an achievement. For those of you who have forgotten, and I know that my constituents in Utah definitely have not, it was the single biggest tax increase in American history. And 1 year later the party responsible for this fiscal lunacy was tossed unceremoniously out of Congress. Yet this Congress is set to run circles around President Clinton. This budget assumes a $916 billion tax hike over 5 years. That is real money. And I imagine it will be unacceptable to many of my colleagues. This is fiscal irresponsibility of the highest magnitude. We need to be straight with the American people. I know that the majority is in a bit of a jam. In some ways, I feel sorry for them. They promised to fix AMT. They made promises to special interest groups to hike spending. They made promises about fiscal responsibility and budget balancing. And what did they say about taxes? You could hear crickets chirping when that subject came up. And today they are still sitting awkwardly, avoiding the obvious. Yet it is ordinary Americans who are going to be left holding the bag. This budget is writing checks that the majority cannot cash without asking the American people to pay higher taxes. The most offensive part of this plan is that they know it, and are just hoping to skate by. Call it what you want--a caper, a swindle, fiddling while Rome is burning, Wizard of Oz budget, robbing Peter to pay Paul. The fact is, this budget is a boondoggle. The people of Utah deserve better, future generations deserve better, and the American people deserve better. While I am here, I would like to express my support for the Sessions amendment No. 473, which would refocus alternative minimum tax relief toward families. Unlike the situation we had a few years ago when a majority of this body supported the alternative minimum tax, I doubt if we could now find a single member of the Senate who supports the AMT as it currently exists. In fact, this insidious tax has so encroached upon our tax system, and threatens to do so much more damage to the American taxpayer, that I would be surprised if we could find even one Senator who would not support total repeal or major reform of this flawed tax. Despite widespread contempt for the alternative minimum tax, it is clear that the AMT already has gotten a vice-like grip on our fiscal system. Unfortunately, we are already so reliant on the massive revenue the AMT generates and is expected to bring in over the next few years, that making major changes to this tax seems out of reach, absent major tax reform. Therefore, recent budgets considered by the Senate have included provision for legislation only to help mitigate the effect of the AMT on most American taxpayers, and not to repeal it. This lessening effect has been brought about by temporary laws that raised the thresholds of the tax for 1 year in order to limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax on middle class taxpayers. For example, the so-called ``AMT patch'' that is in effect for calendar year 2006 raised the threshold for married taxpayers filing joint returns to $62,550 from $45,000. The thresholds for taxpayers in other filing brackets were also increased accordingly, but again for only 1 year. According to the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the 2006 AMT patch has kept the AMT at bay for nearly 20 million taxpayers. However, this relief ran out at the end of 2006. For the current tax year, we now need to pass legislation to hold off the alternative minimum tax for millions of middle-class taxpayers. While the budget resolution before us ostensibly provides for a 2- year AMT patch, the details are fuzzy about how we will pay for this relief. For now, however, I will set aside my concerns about that issue and focus on another important one, and that is the issue brought up by the amendment of the Senator from Alabama. The Sessions amendment would change the focus of how we approach relief from the alternative minimum tax. I strongly support this change, for if we cannot repeal the AMT immediately, our relief efforts should be focused first on the most egregious causes of alternative minimum tax liability. Tax liability under the AMT can arise for a number of different reasons. However, one of the most common reasons why taxpayers find themselves subject to AMT is because they have children. As hard as it might be to believe, dependency exemptions are not allowed against the alternative minimum tax. Another leading cause of taxpayers being thrown in to the alternative minimum tax is the fact that State and local taxes are not deductible under the AMT. There seems to be a common misconception that the State and local tax deduction problem is the biggest factor in determining AMT liability. In fact, according to the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, more taxpayers face the ravages of the AMT because of their personal exemptions being denied than for any other reason. JCT projects that for 2007, absent relief, more than 23 million tax returns will be thrown into AMT because of the personal exemption preference, where less than 20 million will be hit by AMT because of State and local taxes. In subsequent years, the difference is even more pronounced. The Sessions amendment is a simple one. It essentially says that since we do not have the resources to repeal the AMT all at once, we should prioritize our relief by first fixing the problem that causes families with children to face the alternative minimum tax before we attack other problems, such as the one caused by the lack of deductibility of State and local taxes. Many families in my home State of Utah find themselves increasingly at risk of the alternative minimum tax. In fact, unless we act soon, an increasingly high percentage of married families with children--not just in Utah, but all over the Nation--will find themselves in the clutches of the AMT. And many of these are not high income families. Seventy-one percent of all married taxpayers with children earning between $75,000 and $100,000 will be AMT taxpayers this year, in the absence of relief. For those families with children making between $100,000 and $200,000, the amount is 97 percent. The rate of AMT paying for single taxpayers is much lower, only 9 percent for those making between $75,000 and $100,000, and 36 percent for those making between $100,000 and $200,000. Although I am the first to agree that we should repeal the entire alternative minimum tax, that is probably not possible this year. Given that we must choose partial relief, it makes sense to me that we should first give the relief to families with children. Let's first remove the personal exemption as an AMT tax preference item. This amendment is profamily, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Texas, who is indispensable to the Senate. Today we are confronted with a struggle that could very well define the world in which our children and their children will live. Many will say this statement is hyperbole or politically expedient and designed to disguise a troubled policy. I only wish that were so. Today we are fighting to prevent Iraq and Afghanistan from disintegrating into failed states, where that chaos will be exploited by those who wish to undermine--and even destroy--mainstream Muslim and Western civilization. In the past, these terrorists used Afghanistan and other developing nations as safe havens from which attacks against Americans were planned and executed throughout the world. One hardly needs to be reminded of the bombings of our Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania or the attack on the USS Cole to see this is true, not to mention the events of September 11, 2001. What would happen if we were to permit these terrorists, and others who wish us ill, to have another such safe haven? Of what would they be capable? Just today we have read in the papers of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's confession to many of the world's worst acts of terrorism. Remember that from Afghanistan, a country without significant infrastructure or resources, these terrorists were able to orchestrate the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. Just imagine what their capabilities would be if they were able to control only a fraction of the oil wealth of Iraq. Is that the world in which we want our children and our grandchildren to live--a world in which uncertainty and fear become a part of everyday life? As one prominent Democrat stated before he reversed his position and announced his intention to run for President: . . . we cannot and will not retreat. We will defend ourselves and defeat the enemies of freedom and progress. Were mistakes made in the conflict in Iraq? In a word, yes. I am sad to say important errors were made. Perhaps one of the greatest occurred over the past 30 years right here in our Nation's Capital. Past and present administrations, Congresses, and Department of Defense leaders primarily concentrated on training and equipping our forces to fight what is called in military circles ``The Big War.'' In such a conflict, large formations of mechanized divisions, corps, and armies seek to fight decisive battles on a conventional battlefield. This is not to say maintaining such a capability is no longer vital to our national security. It remains an absolute necessity. However, in large part, due to the resolve of many of our military leaders not to fight ``another Vietnam,'' for the bulk of our Armed Forces, the skills necessary to fight a counterinsurgency had withered and atrophied. This is exemplified by the fact that the Army-Marine Corps Doctrine for Counterinsurgency had not been updated for 20 years, until December of 2006. As General Petraeus, our new commander in Iraq, wrote 1 year ago: [T]he insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan were not in truth the wars for which we were best prepared in 2001; however, they are the wars we are fighting and they clearly are the kind of wars we must master. Other dire mistakes were made. Many of those errors can be directly attributed to the decisions made by the Coalition Provisional Authority which originated from or were ratified by the senior civilian leadership at the Pentagon at the time. This includes the decision to disband the Iraqi Army without providing alternative means for the employing and sustaining of its former members. These former Iraqi soldiers went on to become the foundation of the initial insurgency. We might have been able to prevent that had we chosen another route. Another mistake was the decision to eliminate the first three levels of leadership, not only in Government ministries but hospitals, universities, and Government-run corporations. Managers, no matter how junior, who were members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist Party were removed. The result was those who had the managerial experience best suited to rebuild Iraq's institutions were arbitrarily dismissed, even if they had not played any role in Saddam's atrocities. In sum, many of the problems we confront today are as a result of our own shortsightedness and the administration's failure to fully and comprehensively develop and execute a plan for stabilization of Iraq after the fall of the Saddam regime. So how do we go forward? We do have options. Some, such as the authors and supporters of S.J. Res. 9, argue that we should unilaterally bring the bulk of our forces home from Iraq. Yet we all know what would happen if that were to occur. Iraq would be a failed state offering a safe haven for terrorists, not to mention the thousands and thousands of Iraqis who would be killed. Those who make this argument forget--or perhaps they do not know--that unlike our war in Vietnam, we face an enemy who is religiously committed to bringing the fight here to our shores. If the terrorists know we will withdraw the bulk of our forces in 120 days, as this legislation calls for, all the enemy has to do is husband its resources or ``lie low'' until that date. Perhaps the terrorists will launch fewer attacks to lull us into a false sense of security that this defeatist strategy is working. Then, with the cold calculation for which these terrorists have become notorious, they will spring on the Iraqi people before their Government's institutions--which were completely destroyed in 2003--can mature and fully take over the reins of fighting and defeating this insurgency. These are not compelling options. At their core these ``solutions'' do not have the goal of victory but consist of resignation to an inevitable defeat. So how do we win? How do we defeat the terrorists and give the Iraqi people a fighting chance to claim a destiny of their own, a destiny that is based upon peace and the rule of law? The answer is not simple, but what great endeavor ever was? First, we must learn from our mistakes. Then we must implement a strategy that harnesses the tactics and strategies that have defeated other insurgents in the past and apply those lessons to the conflict in Iraq. That is what our new strategy, called Operation Fard al-Qanun-- which is Arabic for ``enforcing the law''--sets out to achieve. So what is this operation's strategic objective? Once again, I believe General Petraeus said it best at his confirmation hearing. He said: [T]he mission . . . will be modified, making security of the population, particularly in Baghdad and in partnership with the Iraqi force, the focus of the military effort. I could not agree more. Creating a secure environment is the essential task. This is accomplished not just by conducting operations to clear an area of insurgents but by maintaining an American/Iraqi security force in cleared areas which assists in providing essential services such as clean water and power to the local population and enforcing the rule of law. This, in turn, creates conditions where the Iraqi people can begin to develop a growing economy and where families feel safe to send their children to school. As these goals are achieved, more and more of the population will desire even greater stability and will support and work toward creating Iraqi Government institutions and security services that maintain and enhance this new security environment. How is this strategy different from past endeavors? Unfortunately, in the past there were far too few American and capable Iraqi forces available to provide adequate security once an area had been cleared and, frankly, there are cases where political impediments prevented us from providing adequate security. That is why the additional forces we are sending to Iraq are so important. It is not more for more's sake but to maintain a secure environment for the Iraqi people. This does not mean that our forces will be going it alone. Far from it. A key principle of the new strategy is to enhance and strengthen our efforts to advise and train the Iraqi military and police forces so they may eventually take over primary responsibility for the defense of their own nation. We must also remember that training was one of the major recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Indeed, one of the members of my own party, who has authored legislation disagreeing with this new strategy--despite voting for the nomination of its implementer, General Petraeus--stated that Iraqi forces: . . . while they're not fully independently capable of operating, they're excellent and trustworthy and fighting hard with our troops today . . . I would be willing to serve alongside those Iraqi forces. I believe it is also important to add that, as of last week, three of the four Iraqi battalions that recently entered Baghdad were at above 100 percent troop strength. Another vital element is our new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus. I can think of no better choice for implementing our new strategy. General Petraeus has long been a student of counterinsurgency warfare. In the 1980s, when he received his Ph.D. from Princeton, he closely studied counterinsurgency operations. During the initial race to Baghdad, the General commanded the 101st Airborne Division, and he is largely credited with devising and implementing a strategy that secured the city of Mosul immediately after the initial combat phase. Later, when he commanded our effort to train the Iraqi Army, General Petraeus implemented the Transition Team concept. A Transition Team is composed of a group of advisers, primarily officers and seasoned noncommissioned officers, who serve with Iraqi units from those units' inception, including basic and advanced training and eventually combat operations. This is an important strategy, since experienced U.S. soldiers learn firsthand the operational characteristics and requirements of Iraqi units and tailor a training program to fit the units' needs. It also provides a detailed analysis of the individual Iraqi units' combat capabilities. General Petraeus was also one of the authors of the updated Army/Marine Corps Field Manual on Counterinsurgency which was published in December of last year. I do not know of any other officer with the intellect and experience necessary to carry out successfully this new strategy and win the war in Iraq. He has my confidence and apparently the confidence of most everyone in the Senate since 100 percent voted for him and he clearly articulated this new strategy. But what he needs is our support and time to carry out his new strategy. One must also remember that all of the additional forces needed to fully implement this new strategy will not be in place until early June. As the General stated in a recent news conference: We are, in any event, still in the early days of this endeavor, an endeavor that will take months, not days or weeks, to fully implement, and one that will have to be sustained to achieve its desired effect. . . . I have been on occasion bemused by people ``Hey, how's it going? Have you won yet?'' And the answer is we've just started. Just the second of five brigades [has arrived]. . . . Our soldiers are resolute. They want to see this succeed, as do their Iraqi counterparts, and that is exactly what we're endeavoring to do. So what do we offer him and the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and coastguardsmen under his command? We offer guaranteed defeat in the form of a joint resolution. But with great respect for General Petraeus, I believe we have already seen some preliminary success. For example, Richard Engel, an NBC News reporter who has lived in Iraq for the past few years covering the war, responded just last month about our change in tactics. He said: Night and day. There's a radically new war plan under way in Baghdad right now. For the past four years, U.S. troops have been on main bases, most of them outside the city center, some of them in Baghdad itself, and then have been effectively commuting to work. Now they live at work, they're living in small forward operating bases. . . . It is a very different strategy. We're seeing foot patrols again that we haven't seen in Baghdad for a long time, more hearts and minds campaign. . . . It's very much a new war. A lot of people say that this feels like '03, that the war is starting again and that this is a new battle plan. The battle plan to end the war in Iraq and finally establish some sort of stability. I would also like to address a matter that, more than any other, has weighed on my heart over the past few years. That question is, Do we, not just as a nation but as a people, have the will to see our obligations through? This has always been an important question. But now, during an insurgent war, where the side with the greatest will, not technological advantage, will generally emerge victorious, it has become the essential question. So now we must ask ourselves: Do we have the will to see right triumph? Do we as Americans believe in making sacrifices for the greater good? History provides an answer. Almost 230 years ago, the Continental Army began a retreat, or more accurately a route, from Brooklyn Heights over the island of Manhattan into New Jersey and then across the Delaware River. General Washington had fewer than 1,000 troops and was confronted by the greatest Army of the day. The Continental's enlistments were up and many soldiers, lacking basic supplies and even food, were making plans to go home. For all intensive purposes, the American experiment in democracy, where all men were to be treated equal, was about to end. Then something miraculous happened. A writer named Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet entitled ``Crisis.'' But panic was not his essay's subject. He wrote about commitment and faith that freedom would one day be victorious. His words still echo today: These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Shortly, after the Continental Army heard these words, the morale, which had been crushed by the cold winters of New Jersey, was restored enough for General Washington to launch the raids on Trenton and Princeton, thus saving the young Republic. Commitment and faith had been restored--the faith that freedom is worth fighting for, that it is worth sacrificing for, and that is what we as a Nation must remember now more than ever. I see the leaders are on the floor, and I will not take any more time, so I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to explain why I will vote against S. Res. 107. First, I must applaud Senator Murray for what I believe was the overall premise of her amendment, to show the entire Congress's resolve in supporting our troops. I fully agree with the portion of the amendment that reaffirms the Senate's commitment to providing the ``necessary funds for training, equipment, and other support for troops in the field, as such actions will ensure their safety and effectiveness in preparing for and carrying out their assigned duties.'' This is a policy to which I have dedicated my entire Senate career. However, as a lawyer, I believe that it is also my duty to evaluate and work toward ensuring that all legislation which the Senate passes is strictly within the limits of our constitutional powers. As the preamble states, ``Under the Constitution, the President and Congress have shared responsibilities for decisions on the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, including their mission, and for supporting the Armed Forces, especially during wartime.'' Unfortunately, S. Res. 107 does not meet that test. While at first glance the passage I just cited may seem innocuous, the phrase ``shared responsibilities'' raises important separation of powers questions. As we all know, the Constitution does not speak of shared powers, it speaks of the different branches of government having separate and distinct powers--a point which is at the core of the debate on our nation's policies toward Iraq. Under article II, section 2 of the Constitution, the President is the ``Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.'' However, Congress's role is limited in article I, section 8 which, in part, reads ``. . . The Congress shall have power to . . . provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . . To declare war . . . to raise and support armies . . . to provide and maintain a navy . . . to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; . . . to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions . . . to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States . . .'' These are very different powers; they are not shared. The Constitution provides for only one Commander in Chief. Our troops are facing enough challenges in the weeks and months ahead--they do not need to worry if there will be 435 commanders in chief. It is important that we remember this point now more then ever. And so, it is my analysis that the ``shared powers'' reference in S. Res. 107 clearly raises constitutional concerns, and that is why I voted against S. Res. 107. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health Centers Renewal Act with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Roberts, Dodd, Bond, Harkin, Snowe, Mikulski, Domenici, Bingaman, Murkowski, Reed, Bennett, Clinton, Grassley, Obama, Burr and Brown. The Health Centers program, created over 40 years ago, has an outstanding record of providing quality health care services to many Americans who do not have adequate health insurance. This ranges from children to parents and grandparents, in virtually every comer of the United States. In fact, Health Centers are a necessary component of our nation's health care safety net--they supply health services to over 15 million people in our country. Health Centers include community health centers, which are local, not-for-profit 50l(c)(3) corporations that give community-oriented health care and are governed by Boards of Directors that are made up of at least 51 percent health centers patients, to ensure that the patients and their communities are well represented. From my work in Utah, I know how important Health Centers are. They have made a tremendous difference for Utah's citizens with insufficient health coverage--Utah community health centers serve close to 85,000 patients. Whenever I come home to Utah, I always hear wonderful things about the work of Community Health Centers. Since 2001, Congress has consistently increased funding for Community Health Centers to meet President Bush's goal of having 1,200 new or expanded centers. The new dollars have provided services to four million new patients and have added facilities in over 750 communities across the country. By reauthorizing this program, Health Centers will give low-cost health care to many more deserving individuals. S. 901 I will reauthorize the Health Centers program for 5 more years; it includes funding levels of: $2,188,745,000 in fiscal year 2008; $2,451,394,400 in fiscal year 2009; $2,757,818,700 in fiscal year 2010; $3,116,335,131 in fiscal year 2011; and $3,537,040,374 in fiscal year 2012. These numbers are based on the National Association of Community Health Centers; NACHC, growth plan-- NACHC's goal is for Community Health Centers to serve 20 million patients a year by 2010 and 30 million patients a year by 2015. I believe that Community Health Centers are worth every dime that our government invests in them. Utah Health Centers have made a tremendous difference in the lives of many Utahns--66 percent of patients come from Utah's urban areas and 27 percent are from the rural parts of the state. Ninety-six percent of Utah Health Center patients' incomes are below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Utah Health Centers have literally changed these patients' lives, serving as a link to the health care safety net system for the medically underserved and uninsured. In rural areas, Health Centers are often the only health care provider. Community Health Centers have made a huge impact on people's lives. I am pleased and proud to support them by introducing this legislation today. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill, which not only provides people with essential health care services, but also ensures that the Health Centers will continue to have the funding necessary to provide these services.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Health Centers Renewal Act with my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Roberts, Dodd, Bond, Harkin, Snowe, Mikulski, Domenici, Bingaman, Murkowski, Reed, Bennett, Clinton, Grassley, Obama, Burr and Brown. The Health Centers program, created over 40 years ago, has an outstanding record of providing quality health care services to many Americans who do not have adequate health insurance. This ranges from children to parents and grandparents, in virtually every comer of the United States. In fact, Health Centers are a necessary component of our nation's health care safety net--they supply health services to over 15 million people in our country. Health Centers include community health centers, which are local, not-for-profit 50l(c)(3) corporations that give community-oriented health care and are governed by Boards of Directors that are made up of at least 51 percent health centers patients, to ensure that the patients and their communities are well represented. From my work in Utah, I know how important Health Centers are. They have made a tremendous difference for Utah's citizens with insufficient health coverage--Utah community health centers serve close to 85,000 patients. Whenever I come home to Utah, I always hear wonderful things about the work of Community Health Centers. Since 2001, Congress has consistently increased funding for Community Health Centers to meet President Bush's goal of having 1,200 new or expanded centers. The new dollars have provided services to four million new patients and have added facilities in over 750 communities across the country. By reauthorizing this program, Health Centers will give low-cost health care to many more deserving individuals. S. 901 I will reauthorize the Health Centers program for 5 more years; it includes funding levels of: $2,188,745,000 in fiscal year 2008; $2,451,394,400 in fiscal year 2009; $2,757,818,700 in fiscal year 2010; $3,116,335,131 in fiscal year 2011; and $3,537,040,374 in fiscal year 2012. These numbers are based on the National Association of Community Health Centers; NACHC, growth plan-- NACHC's goal is for Community Health Centers to serve 20 million patients a year by 2010 and 30 million patients a year by 2015. I believe that Community Health Centers are worth every dime that our government invests in them. Utah Health Centers have made a tremendous difference in the lives of many Utahns--66 percent of patients come from Utah's urban areas and 27 percent are from the rural parts of the state. Ninety-six percent of Utah Health Center patients' incomes are below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. Utah Health Centers have literally changed these patients' lives, serving as a link to the health care safety net system for the medically underserved and uninsured. In rural areas, Health Centers are often the only health care provider. Community Health Centers have made a huge impact on people's lives. I am pleased and proud to support them by introducing this legislation today. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill, which not only provides people with essential health care services, but also ensures that the Health Centers will continue to have the funding necessary to provide these services.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one thing I can say for the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is that he has been against this war from the beginning. He has taken what he considers to be a principled position, that we should never have gone into Iraq to begin with. However, much of what he said does not resolve the problems that we are confronting in the War on Terrorism. We hear lots of comments about pulling out of Iraq but not very much in the way of how to defeat the terrorists who are dedicated to destroying almost everything we hold dear and sacred. The fact of the matter is this resolution is an illustration of wishful thinking. No matter what you call it: pulling our troops out, a phased withdrawal, or redeployment, those who support this seem to think everything is going to be hunky-dory and by taking this course we can resolve all our difficulties. Of course, they provide the usual language of diplomacy and some of the other things. Look at what this resolution says. It says: Whereas, U.S. troops should not be policing a civil war; and the current conflict in Iraq requires principally a political solution. The fact of the matter is we have three distinct areas in Iraq: The Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in the center, and the Shias everywhere else, including in the center. There is a long history of animosity between these groups. But look at the progress that has been made: women now have the right to vote; young girls are able to go to school. Eighty percent of the people voted for the representative form of government that they enjoy today. Remember, it took us 10 years to implement our Constitution. What I have not heard from those who oppose the war is, how do we solve the problem of terrorism? Let's be honest. Terrorism is something we have confronted sporadically throughout the years, though not at the same level of intensity as the last couple of years. When the Bader-Meinhof gang paralyzed Europe, a lot of people felt we should back away. But we supported our allies and, today, you don't hear about them. Similar things can be said about the fate of the Red Brigade. However, I fully recognize that these groups were minor compared to the terrorists in the Islamic world. The fact is we are in a different war than we have ever been in before. We are fighting terrorists who don't wear uniforms, who don't represent a country; they represent an ideology. They are Salafi jihadists who, going back to the seventh century, when the Islamic people controlled much of the Mediterranean world, used force freely to achieve their objectives and, if you disagreed with them, they killed you. We lost 3,000 people in 1 day in this country. As the author of the 1996-1997 Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act, I recognized that we did not give law enforcement the tools to be able to prevent terrorism in this country. One reason was we naively thought that we would never suffer from the type of terrorism that occurred on 9/11/ 2001. The PATRIOT Act brought the antiterrorism laws that were deficient up to the level of the anti-Mafia laws. Can you imagine what will happen if we don't take these people on and do what we can to stop them. What happens if one of them--and they are dedicated to doing this--gets a weapon of mass destruction and comes to New York, Washington, DC, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, or any number of other cities, and blows up the city and causes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people? They are dedicated to this. They don't value human life as we do. They believe they are going to be blessed for having killed the infidels. The fact of the matter is that is what we are faced with--radical extremists who would harm our country if they could. The reason they cannot is because we have been taking it to them in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is not pleasant, there is no question. There are sacrifices being made--our soldiers are being deployed and redeployed. There is no question there are mistakes that have been made--everything from throwing the Baathists out of the military, many of whom were not Saddam Hussein loyalists, to thinking this operation would initially be treated by the Iraqi as a liberation. There were lots of mistakes, but there are a lot of things that are good too. The fact of the matter is, there are hospitals up and running, girls are going to school, women have some rights in Iraq--more than ever before--and upward of 80 percent of the people voted for a representative form of government. We should never lose track of that. None of this would have happened had it not been for our soldiers and others in the coalition who were willing to fight, the fact is that When we get into documents such as this, basically what we are doing is making it very difficult for our young men and women serving in combat. Many of whom are risking their lives for us that they might be able to prevent terrorism from taking over the world and especially the USA. We know there are terrorist supporters in our country. If we didn't have a PATRIOT Act, we would not be able to monitor them. This resolution says: The President shall promptly transition the mission of the United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (b). (B) Commencement of Phased Redeployment From Iraq--The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq except for a limited number that are essential for the following purposes: I like that word ``essential.'' (1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure. My gosh, can you imagine if we pull out? The terrorists will come in and try to capture that oil wealth to use against the rest of the world, especially us. (2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces. How are we going to do that if we redeploy our forces out? We know that by training and equipping them, we may be able to help them bolster their representative form of government. Keep in mind, I made the point earlier, it took us 10 years to develop our Constitution and their's is functioning after 2 years. It took us years to solidify the strength of our country so we have this great representative form of government that we have in America today. If we leave who is going to train and equip those Iraqi forces? Are we going to leave a small contingent of our people there to be murdered or are we going to be able to protect them and train and equip the Iraqi forces? Will anyone have any confidence in us if we leave? It is interesting to me that as we have started this so-called surge, al-Sadr and others have left their bases. True, they are probably going away and hoping to come back; but if we can establish--and General Petraeus says we can--ourselves and the Iraqi Government in Baghdad so that they know they can take care of it themselves, it is going to be much more difficult for al-Sadr and the other brigades to come back and cause the havoc they have been causing. Who is going to train and equip these forces? Oddly enough, it is interesting to me that this body voted 100 to 0 to back General Petraeus, and ever since we have done that, some here have done nothing but undermine the very thing he said we have to do. It should also be noted that this new strategy appears to be working. We ought to give General Petraeus the opportunity to do it. He has said he will shoot straight with us. If he finds that the strategy is not working, he said he will let us know. He has been a straight shooter from the beginning. He was been a breath of fresh air. He understands counterinsurgency warfare. He has written the Army's Manual on this subject. We ought to give him a chance to do what he says he can do. (3) Conducting targeted counterterrorism operations. How does this small, ``limited number,'' to use the terms of this particular S.J. Res. 9, target counterterrorism operations? I guess we will have to do it through intelligence gathering. I happen to be on the Intelligence Committee, and I know all too well it is very difficult to establish human intelligence networks. Think about that. Bring them all out, redeploy them by March 31, 2008--all U.S. combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number that are, again, essential for the following purposes: (1) Protecting United States and coalition personnel and infrastructure. How does that small contingency do that? (2) Training and equipping Iraqi forces. (3) Conducting targeted counterterrorism operations. My gosh, every one of them would be murdered on the spot if we didn't have enough people there to provide security. This is ridiculous. (C) Comprehensive Strategy. This is to make it look good, like they are trying to do something good. Here is what it says: Subsection (b) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy . . . In other words, pulling out all our people except for this ``limited number,'' to use their language-- Subsection (b) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy. Diplomatic? I know one thing. If you want to make sure diplomacy works, make sure it is backed up by force. We are not backing it up by pulling all of our troops out, except for that ``limited number.'' OK. How is that diplomacy going to work if they don't realize we are there to accomplish our mission? OK. Again, it says: Subsection (b) shall be implemented as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political . . . What do you think we are trying to do? Maliki, is pulling out the stops to help us. . . . as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy . . . What happens if we pull our troops out of there and, all of a sudden, we have a renewed effort by terrorists to assault us on our mainland because we are not keeping them at bay over there? Can you imagine the cost to our society? Can you imagine if we pull out of there and there is widespread civil war and genocide that will occur, just like in Southeast Asia when we pulled out there? Millions of people died. I am not so sure we should have been in Southeast Asia, but I feel confident we should be here. It says: . . . that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq. Those are nice, high-flying words. If our diplomacy is not backed up by our willingness to take these people on, I suspect we are going to have more than a 9/11, 3,000-person loss in this country. When we have many more people killed as a result of terrorism in our country because they will be emboldened by this type of resolution, then it seems to me that we are going to pay a price that will be much higher than what we are paying now. We have to take these people on. We cannot walk away. There are too many people who have relied on us. Admittedly, we at least need to give General Petraeus and the current forces there a chance to make this work. He says he believes he can do it. But he also is a straight shooter and has said: If we cannot do it, I will tell you we cannot. That may be the time when we will have to say there is not much more we can do there. I know one thing. The moderate Arabs are very concerned about what is going on over there. They know that if the United States doesn't have its full influence in the Middle East, there is going to be chaos. They know that these Wahhabi, Salafi jihadists will make mincemeat of the Middle East, and they will be emboldened if we walk out of there and act like we can work diplomatically on some of these problems. I think diplomacy is very important. But it needs to be backed up by a strong military plan, so they know we are not going to put up with a lot of foolery. Look, I think there are sincere people on both sides of this debate. But I challenge the other side, who believes in this type of a resolution, to show us how you prevent the terrorists from coming here. Show us how you are going to win this war against terrorism. Show us how you are going to make a difference in the lives of all those who have lost loved ones thus far, not only on 9/11 but those who have given their lives for us over in Iraq. Show us how pulling the troops out is going to defeat the terrorists. Tell us what happens after this resolution becomes law. Their plan offers only one option: making the United States look like it lost to the terrorists in the Middle East. That would be one of the worst things that could happen to our Nation and one of the worst messages we could send to the world. I don't find fault with anybody who sincerely believes in a resolution such as this, but I question whether they have thought it through. Have they looked at the intelligence? Have they listened to our Armed Forces, who know they are fighting for something worthwhile, who know they are fighting for freedom, and who know they are fighting for the Iraqi people. Our military fully realizes they are not only fighting, as they had to, to overturn a vicious, cruel dictator, but to create stability in a place that needs stability almost more than anything else. Our servicemembers also know that we have moderate Arab friends who are pulling for us. Allies, in the region, who hope we will succeed because they know they will be next. And if we fail, we will pay a price like nothing we have paid before. As I said, everyone in this body is a friend of mine. However, I strongly disagree with those who think this is a good resolution. I do not question their integrity or their desire to try and find some solution. But this certainly is no solution. This is a walk away that will cause us greater problems in the future. If that happens, we are all going to reap the whirlwind. I have no doubt, as a member of the Intelligence Committee, that there are terrorists who would love to destroy our country. There are some, who if set free, would do everything in their power to destroy our nation. Frankly, we cannot walk away until we give General Petraeus and our servicemembers an opportunity to win this war. We have never fought a war such as this. I do not blame anybody who is concerned that we are paying too high a price. But I ask people to think about the higher price we will pay if we don't win this war. I ask my fellow citizens to understand that we are fighting people who are dedicated to destroying those who disagree with them and there will be a heavy price to be paid if we walk away from our responsibilities. There is a good reason why we have not had a major terrorist incident since 9/11/2001. We have shown the will to take these people on, and to disrupt their plans. We have captured or killed a large number of these terrorists, including members of al-Qaida leadership. We have bottled up Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri. If we walk away because of this resolution, it seems to me we will pay a much heavier price later, and I am very concerned about that. My family lost my only living brother in World War II. He flew on one of the air raids that helped destroy Hitler's oilfields. It was a price our family paid. I am very proud of my brother Jesse. He was fighting for freedom, and he did not walk away from the threat Hitler posed. Today, we once again live in dangerous times, possibly even more dangerous. We cannot leave Iraq until we give General Petraeus and our troops the opportunity to accomplish their mission. We should not undermine their efforts with this resolution. Though I respect my colleagues differing opinions I believe this resolution undermines their efforts--the efforts of those young men and women who are sacrificing for us overseas. We should not decide these matters based on polls. Unfortunately, I think we have far too many people who are paying attention to the polls. I look at some of the candidates for President today, how they have changed their positions gradually because they think the polls require it. We are not here to respond to polls. We are here to do what we believe is in the best interest of our country. Some sincerely disagree with me and I understand that. But I believe it is their solemn duty to explain what we are going to do if we pull out of Iraq. Will we not create a myriad of other problems? Will not the entire Middle East become a war zone? Under such conditions, Israel itself will be threatened as well as moderate Arab countries. We cannot walk away, and we cannot allow the whole Middle East to descend into the Salafis jihadist arms. I hope our colleagues will think these matters through. I certainly hope they will vote against this joint resolution. Many of my colleagues voted to bring forth this debate. I understand their reasoning. However, I could not vote for this debate because the resolution is faulty on its face. I don't know anybody who worries more about our young men and women who are sacrificing over there than I do because our family has lived through it. Not only did we lose a brother in the Second World War, but we lost a brother-in-law in Vietnam. Just a few years ago, my family buried another brother-in-law who served with the Marines in Vietnam and rose to the rank of First Sergeant. I feel deeply about these matters, but if we don't stand up and do what is right, we will reap the whirlwind. It will cost us more than it is costing us right now, and today's cost is significant. Mr. President, I wanted to say these few words. I hope we will defeat this resolution. I think it will be in the best interest of the country and in the best interest of the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, we certainly know how complicated and even vexing the process of reforming the intelligence community is. On the one hand, we now have in place a new structure, with an overarching office of the Director of National Intelligence, that is responsible for addressing many of the institutional and structural impediments that led to our intelligence community's underperformance in the last years of the 20th century, leaving us more vulnerable to the attacks of September 11. The second and recently confirmed Director of the Office of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, assumes leadership in a structure that is up and running, if still on its shakedown cruise. In Mike McConnell we have a leader that will take the DNI to the levels of authority and accomplishment we in Congress who created the Office of the DNI intended. Throughout the IC we have seen many promising developments. Agencies are infused with resources and focus, and they are addressing our priority and hard targets like no other time during my 30 years in the Senate. Mike Hayden at CIA is providing leadership to an organization that is truly beginning to reach out of its petrified structures and mindset of the past to bravely and creatively take on the intelligence challenges of today and tomorrow. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I make every effort to commend and encourage all of these positive developments, and I know I am joined by most of my colleagues. That is the good news. The bad news is that intelligence reform has many unfinished aspects. There are still deep cultural problems with the way certain IC organizations, particularly the CIA, work. We still have far to go and addressing the challenge of hard targets, like North Korea and Iran. All of these challenges will take time and leadership to address. The 9/11 Commission's report on the intelligence failures leading to September 11 also focused how Congress needed to change. The report stated: Under the terms of existing rules and resolutions the House and Senate intelligence committees lack the power, influence, and sustained capability to meet this challenge. The Commission recommended: Either Congress should create a joint committee for intelligence . . . or it should create House and Senate committees with combined authorizing and appropriations powers. We began to improve congressional oversight with S. Res. 445, passed immediately after the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. We removed term limits, raised the stature of the committee to an A Committee, and returned to the use of designated staff. But this was tinkering in comparison to the 9/11 Commission's recommendation. I recognize this is a difficult question, for all of the reasons of congressional resistance and established prerogatives. But I think that we should not abandon addressing the very substantive question of the current structure that greatly limits intelligence committee control over intelligence community appropriations. Therefore, I am pleased that amendment No. 389 has been accepted to S. 4, and I commend the author of this amendment, the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Bond. I am pleased to note that this amendment has the cosponsorship of the chairman of the committee, Senator Rockefeller. This amendment requests a joint review of this question be conducted by both the Intelligence and the Homeland Security Committees, and be presented by year's end. This is not a radical proposal, in and of itself, but keeps the Senate focused on an unresolved question, a question whose importance to the question of congressional oversight of our intelligence community cannot be underestimated. Intelligence reform is an ongoing process. I happen to believe that, when our institutional will flags or is diverted, we should remind ourselves of the costs of intelligence failure, and steel ourselves to the fact that intelligence will play a larger role in our national defense for the foreseeable future. And we should never abandon our oversight of intelligence reform, our dedication to supporting the most dynamic intelligence community, and our responsibility to conducting this oversight in the most effective manner possible.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would correct a property trespass question involving a 25-acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in Garfield County, UT. The parcel is part of the Turnabout Ranch, which hosts a successful and popular program to rehabilitate troubled youth. The trespass conflict is the result of an erroneous survey in January 1999, at the time the Congress approved a major land exchange, P.L. 105-335, between the State of Utah and the BLM and erroneously included a part of the Turnabout Ranch. The land is located along the border of the Grand Staircase Escalante (GSE) Monument. My bill makes a slight boundary change to resolve the trespass question. This would grant the owners of the ranch the opportunity to purchase the erroneously surveyed land at fair market value so that this very important program for at-risk youth can continue unhindered. Since 1995, Turn-About Ranch has graduated some 500 troubled and at- risk teenagers through an intense program of training and rehabilitation. The ranch employs about 35 Garfield County residents. The Turn-About Ranch program has strong support from the local community and the Garfield Country Commission. Historically used for agriculture and grazing purposes, the ranch was purchased by the Townsend Family who leased the land to Turn-About Ranch, Inc., for the exclusive purpose of restoring dignity and self- esteem to wayward teenagers. Because government-owned land administered by the BLM surrounds the private land, the only way to resolve the trespass is for the Congress to pass legislation. This legislation offers a simple and fair solution to a fairly technical problem on our public lands. I hope Congress can use this legislation to resolve this problem in the very near future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would correct a property trespass question involving a 25-acre parcel of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land in Garfield County, UT. The parcel is part of the Turnabout Ranch, which hosts a successful and popular program to rehabilitate troubled youth. The trespass conflict is the result of an erroneous survey in January 1999, at the time the Congress approved a major land exchange, P.L. 105-335, between the State of Utah and the BLM and erroneously included a part of the Turnabout Ranch. The land is located along the border of the Grand Staircase Escalante (GSE) Monument. My bill makes a slight boundary change to resolve the trespass question. This would grant the owners of the ranch the opportunity to purchase the erroneously surveyed land at fair market value so that this very important program for at-risk youth can continue unhindered. Since 1995, Turn-About Ranch has graduated some 500 troubled and at- risk teenagers through an intense program of training and rehabilitation. The ranch employs about 35 Garfield County residents. The Turn-About Ranch program has strong support from the local community and the Garfield Country Commission. Historically used for agriculture and grazing purposes, the ranch was purchased by the Townsend Family who leased the land to Turn-About Ranch, Inc., for the exclusive purpose of restoring dignity and self- esteem to wayward teenagers. Because government-owned land administered by the BLM surrounds the private land, the only way to resolve the trespass is for the Congress to pass legislation. This legislation offers a simple and fair solution to a fairly technical problem on our public lands. I hope Congress can use this legislation to resolve this problem in the very near future.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would take a small but significant step toward identifying and repairing some of the regulatory problems currently found in our country's financial markets. In 2002, our financial markets were in serious trouble. In the wake of Enron and other prominent accounting scandals, the public's confidence in the markets was low. Investors expressed their lack of confidence by taking their money out of the stock market, and the market indices plummeted. In response to this crisis--and that is exactly what it was, a crisis--Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The law did what it was designed to do--re-establish faith in our financial markets--but it came at a cost. Complying with several of the bill's provisions has increased significantly the costs of doing business as a public corporation. Many large corporations continue to spend millions of dollars every year in order to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley law. This, they can afford. However, many smaller firms have found the costs of compliance with the Act to be crushing, burdensome, and negatively affecting their ability to compete in a global marketplace. The result of this problem is twofold. First, a good number of smaller, publicly traded firms have been taken private by investors, with others expected to meet this same fate. Second, we have seen fewer companies going public, at least in the United States. During the year 2000, 50 percent of all new Initial Public Offerings, IPOs, were done in the United States. By 2006 that number had fallen below 10 percent. In 2006, Hong Kong supplanted New York as the number one market for stock offerings world-wide. A number of my colleagues have pointed out that the dearth of IPOs threatens our standing as the premier financial market in the world. In the short term, we worry about this costing us prestige and jobs, but the real costs are much, much greater. Businesses that want to keep growing eventually need to become publicly-traded corporations in order to raise sufficient capital. With the costs of crossing that threshold greatly higher than they were a few years ago, many companies either delay or forego becoming a publicly traded corporation. Companies that become or remain privately-held firms eventually run into capital constraints of some sort that limit their growth. The resulting cost to our economy is a financial market where it is more difficult for corporations to raise sufficient capital to expand capacity or increase productivity, ultimately resulting in slower economic growth. Given the truly awesome problems we face in the upcoming years with regard to our unfunded entitlement obligations, we are going to need every bit of economic growth we can muster to satisfy them. Even those who are ambivalent about the benefits of economic growth on the standard of living of all Americans should appreciate its importance in meeting our future obligations. The bill I am introducing today would help us to identify and, I hope, ultimately address, many of the regulatory problems facing our financial markets. Specifically, it requires the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to annually testify to the relevant Senate and House committees on their efforts to reduce complexity in financial reporting and to provide more accurate and clear financial information to investors. I expect that this requirement would result in more awareness of these problems by policymakers in the Legislative and Executive Branches, as well as in the private sector, along with suggested solutions to these challenges. While this bill would be a relatively small step, I believe it can help us understand exactly what must be done to address what ails our financial markets and help us achieve a consensus on how to fix these problems. Mr. President, a nearly identical bill was passed by the House of Representatives recently with no opposition. I urge the leadership of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, along with the members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to support this bill, and join the House in making this important step toward increasing the efficiency of our financial markets. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that would take a small but significant step toward identifying and repairing some of the regulatory problems currently found in our country's financial markets. In 2002, our financial markets were in serious trouble. In the wake of Enron and other prominent accounting scandals, the public's confidence in the markets was low. Investors expressed their lack of confidence by taking their money out of the stock market, and the market indices plummeted. In response to this crisis--and that is exactly what it was, a crisis--Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The law did what it was designed to do--re-establish faith in our financial markets--but it came at a cost. Complying with several of the bill's provisions has increased significantly the costs of doing business as a public corporation. Many large corporations continue to spend millions of dollars every year in order to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley law. This, they can afford. However, many smaller firms have found the costs of compliance with the Act to be crushing, burdensome, and negatively affecting their ability to compete in a global marketplace. The result of this problem is twofold. First, a good number of smaller, publicly traded firms have been taken private by investors, with others expected to meet this same fate. Second, we have seen fewer companies going public, at least in the United States. During the year 2000, 50 percent of all new Initial Public Offerings, IPOs, were done in the United States. By 2006 that number had fallen below 10 percent. In 2006, Hong Kong supplanted New York as the number one market for stock offerings world-wide. A number of my colleagues have pointed out that the dearth of IPOs threatens our standing as the premier financial market in the world. In the short term, we worry about this costing us prestige and jobs, but the real costs are much, much greater. Businesses that want to keep growing eventually need to become publicly-traded corporations in order to raise sufficient capital. With the costs of crossing that threshold greatly higher than they were a few years ago, many companies either delay or forego becoming a publicly traded corporation. Companies that become or remain privately-held firms eventually run into capital constraints of some sort that limit their growth. The resulting cost to our economy is a financial market where it is more difficult for corporations to raise sufficient capital to expand capacity or increase productivity, ultimately resulting in slower economic growth. Given the truly awesome problems we face in the upcoming years with regard to our unfunded entitlement obligations, we are going to need every bit of economic growth we can muster to satisfy them. Even those who are ambivalent about the benefits of economic growth on the standard of living of all Americans should appreciate its importance in meeting our future obligations. The bill I am introducing today would help us to identify and, I hope, ultimately address, many of the regulatory problems facing our financial markets. Specifically, it requires the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and the Chairman of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to annually testify to the relevant Senate and House committees on their efforts to reduce complexity in financial reporting and to provide more accurate and clear financial information to investors. I expect that this requirement would result in more awareness of these problems by policymakers in the Legislative and Executive Branches, as well as in the private sector, along with suggested solutions to these challenges. While this bill would be a relatively small step, I believe it can help us understand exactly what must be done to address what ails our financial markets and help us achieve a consensus on how to fix these problems. Mr. President, a nearly identical bill was passed by the House of Representatives recently with no opposition. I urge the leadership of the Senate on both sides of the aisle, along with the members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to support this bill, and join the House in making this important step toward increasing the efficiency of our financial markets. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.