Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am grateful to the distinguished majority leader for those comments. I am going to drop in on his speeches more often. Now that I know what to expect, I will show up on all occasions. Senator Reid is a distinguished lawyer and a trial lawyer. He exhibits those skills on this floor with frequency and fluency and erudition. Every now and then our legal training comes through. We have just finished a lengthy proceeding in the Judiciary Committee on the issue of the resignation of the U.S. attorneys. The distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, former U.S. attorney, was there and participated. We are determined to find out all the facts before coming to judgment. In the course of those proceedings, there were a lot of questions, and some of the legal skills of a number of the people were present. We have a great many lawyers on the Judiciary Committee. We have some who are not lawyers. All performed well today. Again, I thank the Senator.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, one addendum to what the majority leader has said; that is, the interaction among Members is not understood unless you either are a keen observer of the Senate or have been here for a while. But the relationships are very important. It is the development of skills on accommodation. One of the facets about the Senate that has always intrigued me is what happens between the votes when we are all captive here, so to speak. You have to wait a while for late Senators to show up--though not as long with the new majority leader--and there are conversations that go on. A tremendous amount of business is transacted. In a sense, it is like there is a certain aspect of a social event--not quite a cocktail party without cocktails--but a lot of business is transacted. There are a lot of accommodations and a lot of learning about personalities and how to come together on issues. We have too much partisanship in this body. This aisle that separates the Democrats and the Republicans is too wide much of the time. But there are also occasions where we come together and work together. I am pleased to say in the last few days I think we are going to meet the majority leader's timetable on an immigration bill, where we have to come together. It is experience and relationships and skills which lead us to many conclusions, notwithstanding all of our problems. Nobody said it better than Churchill, that the system has lots of failings, but it is the best compared to any other system. Sometimes we muddle through, but at least we get through. Well, I see the real Republican leader on the floor, so I am going to give him his podium.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Judge George H. Wu to be U.S. district judge for the Central District of California. Judge Wu currently serves as a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court, where he has presided since 1996, and before that was a judge on the Los Angeles municipal court from 1993 to 1996. He came to those judicial positions with an excellent academic background--a bachelor's degree from Pamona College in 1972 and a law degree from the University of Chicago in 1975. He has an outstanding record in the practice of law. He was assistant professor of law at the University of Tennessee College of Law from 1979 to 1982. He was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the civil division of the Central District of California office in Los Angeles from 1982 to 1989. He later served as Assistant Division Chief in the U.S. Attorney's Office from 1991 to 1993. Judge Wu is very well qualified, rated so by the American Bar Association. They unanimously rated Judge Wu as ``well qualified.'' His nomination to the Federal bench is recognition of the contributions of lawyers from the Southern California Chinese Lawyers Association, where he was a member from 1984 until the present time. I recently spoke at the convention of lawyers from the Asian-Pacific American Bar Association, who made the point to me that there ought to be more representation, more diversity for judges with a background from Asia and specifically from China. There are not very many judges representing that particular group. I think it is a good idea to have diversity on the Federal bench among people from all walks of life, all backgrounds, all national origins, all ethnic representations, and applaud his nomination from that point of view, in addition to the excellent credentials which I have cited. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of his resume and background on two pages be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. I note we are scheduled to vote on Judge Wu at 12:10. As ranking member, I have the balance of the time until that period. I choose to use it to comment briefly on a letter which I received yesterday from John M. Dowd, who is an attorney for Ms. Monica Goodling, who was counsel to Attorney General Gonzales and White House liaison. In this letter, Mr. Dowd asserts the basis for having Ms. Goodling claim her constitutional rights under the fifth amendment, and privilege against self-incrimination, not to testify before the Judiciary Committee on our inquiry into the eight U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign. Mr. Dowd makes the point emphatically that in asserting this privilege against self-incrimination, Ms. Goodling is not saying she has done anything wrong and explicitly denies any wrongdoing but cites Supreme Court authority for the right of an individual to claim the privilege against self-incrimination, even those who are innocent, as well as those who might have something to hide. There is a firm assertion of her innocence by her attorney and her own affidavit. I can understand the reasons for this claim of privilege and the reasons Ms. Goodling does not want to testify before the Judiciary Committee. In Mr. Dowd's letter, he references some of my prior statements and then says: Senator Schumer has no less than five times characterized the Department's testimony to date as ``false'' or ``a falsehood,'' and concluded that there have been misleading statement after misleading statement, deliberate misstatements. If a false statement has been made to a congressional committee, that constitutes a crime under title 18 of the United States Code, section 1001. That was the basis on which the No. 2 man in the Interior Department entered a guilty plea during the course of the past week. Where there have already been characterizations, as cited by Mr. Dowd of Senator Schumer's statement that there are misleading statements which have been made, which I state is a crime, I can understand the sense of a potential witness in not wanting to be ensnared in that kind of proceeding where conclusions have already been reached by Senator Schumer who is in charge of the investigation. Mr. Dowd's letter further goes on, citing comments which I had made earlier, ``that Senator Schumer is using the hearings''--this is Mr. Dowd's statement--``hearings to promote his political party. That is not a legitimate reason for the Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings.'' I have said in the Judiciary Committee hearings, in the presence of Senator Schumer, eyeball to eyeball, so to speak, that I thought there was a conflict of interest. In concluding there was a conflict of interest, I did not ask Senator Schumer to step aside. I said that was up to him. But following the testimony of U.S. Attorney Iglesias, from New Mexico, the very next day the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign had Senator Domenici's picture on it, urging his defeat in the 2008 election. Then, shortly thereafter, there was a fundraising letter from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to raise money, saying the Democrats were elected to clean up Washington and this is an example of what needs to be cleaned up. Any of us may be subject to comment in a political situation. Senator Schumer has a right to make political hay out of whatever he chooses. But I think it is inconsistent with leading an inquiry, and I can understand Ms. Goodling's decision not to testify in this context. I think it is very unfortunate, because it is very important for the Judiciary Committee to get to the bottom of what has happened with the request for eight U.S. attorneys to resign. There is a cloud over U.S. attorneys, and I think it has had a distinctly chilling effect on all 93 U.S. attorneys, not knowing what will come next. It is generally agreed that the President of the United States has the authority, standing, right to discharge U.S. attorneys for no reason at all. When President Clinton took office, in one fell swoop he replaced 93 U.S. attorneys and no one raised any question. But I think not if U.S. attorneys have been asked to resign and have been replaced for an improper reason, for a bad reason. Suggestion has been made that the U.S. attorney in San Diego, Ms. Lam, was replaced because she was hot on the trail of political operatives who may have been connected to former Congressman Duke Cunningham, who is now serving an 8-year sentence; or the allegation has been made--it has not been substantiated but it has been made--that New Mexican U.S. Attorney Iglesias was replaced for failure to prosecute a vote fraud case. An extended article in the New York Times a week ago Sunday gave extensive analysis, which might lead to the conclusion that there was justification for Mr. Iglesias's resignation, or perhaps there was not. But that is up to the Judiciary Committee to make a determination. So it is unfortunate that you have a situation where witnesses are not coming forward. It is my hope we would not rush to judgment on this matter, that we would avoid conclusory statements, and that instead we would wait until we find out what the facts are. If these U.S. attorneys were asked to resign for improper reasons, I will be among the first to say so. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address the amendment offered by Senator Cochran. The Senate finds itself in the same position it was in just 2 weeks ago, when it considered an amendment offered by the majority leader, Senator Reid. Senate amendment No. 643, offered by the Senior Senator from Mississippi, who is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, would strike the language that is essentially that of S. J. Res. 9, which the Senate rejected on March 15, 2007. I draw to the attention of my colleagues my statement in the Record of March 15, 2007, at page 53166. As I stated 2 weeks ago, I would be prepared to cross party lines, as I have done in the past when I thought it warranted, if I agreed with the thrust of the resolution. Seven Senators of the minority joined with the majority in voting for cloture several weeks ago to move ahead with the debate and try to come to a resolution on the Iraqi issue. I was one of the seven. I would not hesitate to do so again if I agreed, but I cannot agree with the language requiring that not later than 120 days after enactment to have phased redeployment of U.S. forces, with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces in Iraq. The thrust of the language in the bill, however, is to leave Iraq in a year, something that will ensure defeat--as setting a timetable simply enables our opponents to wait us out. I think beyond that, the idea of having the Congress of the United States micromanage the war is simply not realistic, and perhaps it may even be unlawful. I note in the case of Fleming v. Page, in 1850, the Supreme Court said: As Commander in Chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. That is a fairly forceful statement that it is not up to the Congress to micromanage a war but that it is up to the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. That is not to say that the Congress does not have authority in the premises. I continue to seek hearings by the Judiciary Committee on the relative powers, authority of the Congress under the Constitution, with our power of the purse and our power to maintain and direct armies, contrasted with the President's power as Commander in Chief. I believe, however, it is impractical and of questionable legal authority for us to seek to micromanage the war if the consequences of giving an order to the President would just enable the enemy to wait us out. That is not to say that at sometime in the future it may be necessary, and there may be a considered joint judgment by the Congress, to use the extraordinary power of the purse to implement our constitutional authority to maintain armies to effectuate a withdrawal. I had one additional thought to the substance of my floor statement of March 15. We may find victory, unexpectedly, as Winston Churchill said in a June 18, 1940 speech, when he was commenting on World War I: During the first four years of the last war the Allies experienced nothing but disaster and disappointment. That was our constant fear: one blow after another, terrible losses, frightful dangers. Everything miscarried. And yet at the end of those four years the morale of the Allies was higher than that of the Germans, who had moved from one aggressive triumph to another, and who stood everywhere triumphant invaders of the lands into which they had broken. During that war we repeatedly asked ourselves the question: How are we going to win? And no one was able ever to answer it with much precision, until at the end, quite suddenly, quite unexpectedly, our terrible foe collapsed before us, and we were so glutted with victory that in our folly we threw it away. Churchill's words suggest that if we maintain our determination we can win although the path to victory, at the moment, is very uncertain. Furthermore, the President has issued a veto threat should legislation contain the provision Senator Cochran's amendment would strike. Such an action would deprive funds vital to U.S. troops and the operations of the Department of Defense.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 613, as modified.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after very considerable negotiation, it is my understanding this amendment is acceptable. I thank Senator Conrad, Senator Gregg, Senator Reid, and Senator Ensign for their cooperation. What this amendment does is eliminate a highly technical point of order that might have been available on asbestos reform legislation, to give the discretion to the chairman of the Budget Committee to approve a reserve fund. The bill will have to be revenue neutral. There are other points of order which could lie, but I think we will be able to establish revenue neutrality when we produce the bill. It has been necessary because some $30 billion to $40 billion have been lost on bankruptcy proceedings to retool the reform bill to cover mesothelioma and other deadly illnesses. We are in the process of working it out. I also thank my colleagues Senators Leahy, Feinstein, and Carper for their work on this issue.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is agreeable with me to move on briefly.

Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. SPECTER. I want to be sure, regarding amendment No. 613, as modified, that the Senator from Oklahoma has withdrawn his objection that it be included in the amendment package.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President. I voted against the Allard amendment because I am not prepared to accept the blanket assessment by OMB as to which programs are effective or not effective. In addition, I don't think it is sensible to eliminate only 25 percent of the ineffective programs. In my judgment, Congress should make the assessment as to which programs are effective or ineffective and then Congress should act to eliminate all of the ineffective programs. Amendment No. 504, as Modified

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to outline my opposition to the Cornyn amendment, Senate amendment No. 511 to the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. While I support reducing the cost of health care, I have concerns with reducing health care insurance coverage for children in low-income families. The Cornyn amendment sought to ensure that only children in families under 200 percent of Federal poverty level--$27,380 for a single parent or $41,300 for a family of four--should receive State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, health coverage. This would have decreased the recent SCHIP change to Pennsylvania's Cover All Children program. The Pennsylvania Cover All Children program, which was approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, allows SCHIP funds to be used to provide insurance to children in families below 300 percent of the Federal poverty level--$41,070 for a single parent or $61,950 for a family of four. The authorization for SCHIP is scheduled to expire this year. I look forward to working with my colleagues to reauthorize and improve this important program.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss briefly two amendments to the budget resolution. The first amendment, which I offer on behalf of Senator Harkin and myself, relates to funding for the National Institutes of Health. The NIH has undertaken miraculous research which has led to breakthroughs on many maladies confronting this country and which benefit the world. Dr. Zerhouni testified on Monday of this week and brought forth statistics showing there has actually been a decrease in cancer in the last 2 years, a decrease in heart disease, and a decrease in strokes. We could go through the long list of ailments where the NIH research has been overwhelmingly successful. I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my comments that the list of the diseases be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. SPECTER. The budget constraints have led to a cut in NIH funding in recent years. The proposed budget by the administration would cut NIH funding by more than $500 million. In one of the recent budget cuts, the National Cancer Institute, illustratively, was cut by some $50 million. In 1970, President Nixon declared war on cancer and, had that war been prosecuted with the same intensity as our other wars, cancer would have been cured. My chief of staff, Carey Lackman, a beautiful young woman of 48, died of breast cancer. One of my best friends, a very distinguished Federal judge, Edward Becker, of Philadelphia, chief judge emeritus, died within the year of prostate cancer. As is fairly well known, I suffer from Hodgkin's. I made a good recovery. All the tests are said to be symptom free. But I was for increasing NIH funding long before I had a personal problem. I have been on the Appropriations Subcommittee of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education since I was elected to the Senate in 1980 and have had the opportunity to chair the subcommittee. With the leadership of Senator Harkin and myself, NIH funding has been increased from some $12 billion to almost $30 billion. We are offering this amendment simply to restore NIH funding to where it would have been had there been an accommodation for biomedical inflation. The cuts have been tremendous, but we have restored the 4.5- percent biomedical inflation rate for fiscal year 2006, which costs $1.3 billion; for fiscal year 2007, which costs $1.1 billion; for fiscal year 2008, which costs another $1.1 billion. We also provide increases for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and restored health professional training programs for nurses and doctors to the 2005 level. This, in the aggregate, when reduced by the assumption for health care programs in the budget resolution, comes to an increase in funding of $2.183 billion. I ask unanimous consent this schedule be printed at the conclusion of my remarks, along with the chronology of funding amendments offered on the increase of NIH funding.

Mr. SPECTER. I would say that this is absolutely minimal to not fall backward. Earlier this week, in addition to Dr. Zerhouni's testimony, we heard testimony from research applicants, and they are falling off. We are losing the best and the brightest of the talent. So this is minimal, just to tread water. Amendment No. 505 I now turn to a second amendment which I propose to offer, and that is an amendment which deals with legislation to reform asbestos litigation. There have been efforts made to deal with the avalanche of asbestos injury cases, with the attendant bankruptcies and with tens of thousands of people left unable to collect for very serious, sometimes deadly, injuries because companies have gone into bankruptcy. On a number of occasions, the Supreme Court of the United States has urged Congress to deal with this problem. In the 109th Congress, the Judiciary Committee undertook an enormous job, reported out a comprehensive reform bill after many hearings and complicated markups-- all of that is part of the record, which I will not repeat now. In the intervening period of time, $140 billion that had been available for a trust fund has been reduced very substantially by the formation of bankruptcy trusts. So we are now compelled to recast the legislation. We are now looking at a reduced trust fund, and we are looking at dealing only with victims of mesothelioma, which is a deadly ailment. Last year, notwithstanding the humongous effort of the Committee, asbestos legislation was defeated on a technical point of order requiring 60 votes. We got 59. Senator Inouye had stated he was going to vote with us, but his wife was ill, and we did not survive the challenge on the budget point of order. The very heavy, crowded calendar precluded our being able to bring it up again. This year we have offered an amendment to the budget resolution which would establish a reserve fund for asbestos legislation, eliminating a point of order under section 302 of the Budget Act. And we have restructured the legislation to make it ironclad that the Federal Government will not have to pay anything because we are creating a fund, which we did not do last year, so that the only money contributed will be from the trust fund. That trust fund is established by the manufacturers who are interested in avoiding the crush of litigation and the attendant costs. We have found that the so-called transaction costs, attorneys' fees, amount to about 58 cents on the dollar, and only 42 cents are going to people who are injured. We have restructured the bill to defer cases where people do not have tangible damages, and we are looking at those with mesothelioma. We are dealing with an award--without a showing of liability, simply the damages of mesothelioma--of $1,100,000, an amount that was established last year after considerable negotiation, and I think it is fair to say it has been accepted as a reasonable figure. So that what will be presented to the body--I am hopeful we can yet work this out. We have gotten consent from staff on one side of the aisle, we are working with staff on the other side of the aisle, and we think we have answered conclusively the concerns that were raised. Senator Leahy was a cosponsor last year when I was chairman and he was ranking. He is the chairman of Judiciary now and has agreed to be a cosponsor as we move this bill forward. So I think we have the votes to get this resolved, but doubtless there will be a necessity for a cloture vote. We are going to have to get 60 votes to carry this bill forward. What I am looking for, what the sponsors are looking for, is not having so many hurdles that it becomes a practical impossibility to have the Senate consider this issue on the merits. But we are long past due, having been tangling with this issue for some 25 years. Legislation was defeated last year on a technicality. I hope we can eliminate the technicalities this year, and the amendment will address one. Then we will face the 60-vote threshold on cloture. We will seek to structure a bill that will meet with the approval of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Exhibit 1 Diseases Aids Autism Stroke Obesity Alzheimer's Parkinson's Spinal Muscular Atrophy Scleroderma

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, for a considerable period of time, there have been a number of counties in Pennsylvania that have been suffering from low Medicare reimbursements, which has caused them great disadvantage in comparison to surrounding areas. I refer specifically to Luzerne, Lackawanna, Wyoming, Lycoming, and Columbia in northeastern Pennsylvania, and there are open disadvantaged counties elsewhere in Pennsylvania. Those counties are surrounded by MSAs, metropolitan statistical areas, with higher Medicare reimbursements in Newark, and New York, to the east; in Allentown to the southeast; and in Harrisburg to the southwest. As a result, a flight of very necessary medical personnel has occurred as northeast Pennsylvania hospitals are not able to provide employees with adequate competitive wages. Further complicating this issue are the exceptions to the Medicare wage index regulations. Since 1987, exceptions have been created to the wage index program for rural facilities, new facilities, and others. In fact, in 1999, Congress passed legislative reclassifications for specific hospitals to allow selected facilities to move to a new MSA and receive greater Medicare reimbursement. While these reclassifications have improved funding for those hospitals, hospitals that did not receive improved funding are being further disadvantaged. It has also come to my attention that inpatient rehabilitation facilities are not provided an opportunity to obtain equitable Medicare reimbursement. Inpatient rehabilitation facilities receive adjustments in their Medicare reimbursement due to geographic disadvantages within the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system. This is based on information gathered from other acute care facilities in the MSA, not from their own wage information. Thus, inpatient rehabilitation facilities cannot apply for reclassification to another MSA that reflects their actual labor costs. As such, the facilities are prevented from being eligible for increased funding to assist with wages like acute care facilities, while being forced to compete for employees with those facilities that have had access to increased funding. I have worked to find a solution to the Medicare wage index disparity in reimbursement for a number of years. During the conference for the fiscal year 2002 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill, the conferees agreed that there should be relief for these areas in Pennsylvania that were surrounded by areas with higher MSA ratings. However, at the last minute, there was an objection to including language in the conference report. To correct this problem I, along with Representatives Sherwood and English, brought the matter forward in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. The language was included in the House version of the bill, and I filed an amendment to Senate bill. During conference negotiations my amendment was defeated and the provisions were not included. As part of the fiscal year 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, $7 million was provided for hospitals in northeast Pennsylvania that continued to be disadvantaged by the Medicare area wage index reclassification. The funding was provided as temporary assistance for those facilities. During the consideration of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, I met with Finance Committee chairman, Charles Grassley, and ranking member Max Baucus about the bill provisions, including the need for a solution to the Medicare area wage index reclassification problem in Pennsylvania. Thereafter, section 508 was included in the bill, which provides $300 million per year for 3 years to increase funding for hospitals nationally to be reclassified to locations with higher Medicare reimbursement rates. The temporary program, which began in April 2004 and was scheduled to expire March 31, 2007, has and will provide Pennsylvania hospitals $69 million over that time, or $23 million per year. On September 29, 2006, I introduced the Hospital Payment Improvement and Equity Act to extend the section 508 Medicare wage index program for 3 more years until March 31, 2010. This legislation would have also expanded the eligibility of the program to include inpatient rehabilitation facilities and facilities that qualified for the program but did not receive assistance due to inadequate funding. As part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act, which was signed into law on December 20, 2006, an extension of the section 508 Medicare wage index program was included. This will provide 14 Pennsylvania hospitals an additional $18.4 million for 6 more months until September 30, 2007. On February 21, 2007, I visited Moses Taylor Hospital in Scranton, PA, and met with representatives of northeast Pennsylvania hospitals affected by this issue. I went over with them the situation that had occurred and asked that they submit memoranda or letters outlining their hospitals' extreme plight, which I could then share with my colleagues in the Senate and have printed in the Congressional Record for everyone to see. A letter prepared by Harold Anderson, president & CEO of Moses Taylor Hospital, Scranton, PA, pointed out the following: Health care facilities in our area are especially disadvantaged in that we must compete for specialized, skilled health care labor in a geographic market that includes easy access to Philadelphia, Allentown, and Stroudsburg, three geographic areas in which the Wage Index reimbursement for acute care hospitals is higher than that found in NEPA [Northeast Pennsylvania]. He goes on to write: Considering the relative scarcity and high demand for a highly skilled work force, such as nurses, pharmacists, imaging technologists, etc., the out-migration to the adjacent MSAs is further exacerbated in that NEPA hospitals are forced to pay higher salary and wage rates, which are not fully compensated by the Medicare reimbursements. As just one example, the starting salary for Registered Nurses has increased by more than 18% over the past three years. Regis Cabonor, president & CEO of Bloomsburg Hospital, Bloomsburg, PA, wrote on February 26 as follows: The significant volume of services provided to Medicare beneficiaries renders the Hospital largely dependant upon Medicare reimbursement to cover the cost of direct patient care. . . He also states: Without the additional reimbursement provided by this [508 wage index] reclassification, our hospital would not be able to attract and retain qualified clinical staff, forcing staff and our patients to travel to the next closest facility for work and care. Similar concerns were expressed in a memorandum from Jim May, president & CEO of Mercy Health Partners, Scranton, PA, pointing out that: The 508 reclass funding has enhanced our ability to compete with our adjacent CBSA's [Core-Based Statistical Area] for registered nurses, technicians, and other medical professionals. Over a three year span we have reduced our registered nurse vacancy rate from 12.2% to 4.5%. Significantly, we have cut our spending for contract agency nurses in half. We believe that reducing those expenses has contributed toward improved care management and quality for our patients. Mary Theresa Vautrinot, President & CEO of Marian Community Hospital, Carbondale, PA, noted that Marian Community Hospital is the largest employer in the Carbondale area. The hospital serves a large Medicare population who would have difficulty accessing health care if not for the hospital, which struggles to find physicians to staff the facility. She notes that, without the 508 wage index funding, the hospital may not be financially viable. Similar concerns were noted by the Community Medical Center Healthcare System of Scranton, PA. John Nillson, interim president and CEO, stated in his letter that: The dramatic differential in Medicare payments between our MSA and the surrounding MSA's will continue to have a negative impact. . . Further: . . . the nursing shortage has intensified and when combined with other skilled labor shortages, has resulted in a highly competitive environment for these skilled caregivers. As a result, it remains difficult to recruit and retain healthcare professionals. John Wiercinski, chief administrative officer, Geisinger South Wilkes-Barre, Wilkes-Barre, PA, and Lissa Bryan-Smith, chief administrative office, Geisinger Wyoming Valley, Wilkes-Barre, PA, noted that: Due in large part to the Section 508 legislation, nurse vacancy rates have decreased significantly at both hospitals. James Edwards, president & CEO, of the Greater Hazelton Health Alliance, which is made up by Hazelton General Hospital and Hazelton-- St. Joseph Medical Center, Hazelton, PA, submitted a memorandum that similarly states: The monies received through the Section 508 reclassification played a major part in the successful turnaround of our health care system, assuring our community that quality health care services will be available to meet their health needs. The Wyoming Valley Health Care System, in a letter from president and CEO, Dr. William Host, points out the problems in retaining registered nurses: Prior to [the Section 508 wage index program], the discrepancy between our reimbursement by Medicare and that of surrounding MSA's was having disastrous effects. Nurses, technologists of all sorts, nurse anesthetists and pharmacists were abandoning northeastern Pennsylvania in droves. Vacancies in these areas were running 14% to 20% and this created a serious threat to quality of care and access. Raoul Walsh, president & CEO, Tyler Memorial Hospital in Tunkhannock, PA, sent a memorandum that shared this concern: If the Section 508 was removed or reduced, the hospital would be forced to eliminate or reduce clinical services . . . James Brady, president of Allied Services, of Clarks Summit, PA, an inpatient rehabilitation facility which did not qualify under the section 508 wage index program, shared that as a result of not receiving funding they have been forced to employ international nurses to fill 13 of the 30 open nursing positions. Neal Bisno, secretary treasurer, Service Employees International Union, district 1199P, which has a number of northeast Pennsylvania hospital employees as members, addressed the issue from the workforce perspective, stating: A permanent solution is needed [to the Medicare wage index program problems] in order to maintain a stable, well-trained health care work force in area hospitals and guarantee continued access to quality health care services in Wilkes Barre/Scranton region. Denise Cesare, president & CEO, Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated February 26, 2007, notes: Due to their current Medicare Wage Index classification, hospitals in the northeast and north central regions receive disproportionately lower reimbursements when compared to similar hospitals that compete with them for services and staff. This reimbursement imbalance drains trained clinical staff, primarily nurses, from the local delivery systems. Our system continues to suffer and decline as medical professionals move to hospitals in neighboring locales because higher Medicare Wage Indexes allow these regions to pay higher salaries. On February 24, 2007, the Scranton Times-Tribune published an editorial regarding this issue in northeast Pennsylvania. The editorial posited that northeast Pennsylvania hospitals are in critical need of reform to the Medicare wage index system to end this cycle and cogently captures the issue: Wage rates at regional hospitals are lower than those for large metropolitan areas, resulting in lower Medicare reimbursements, resulting in the inability of many hospitals to significantly increase wages, resulting in lower reimbursements . . . and on it goes. Congressional action is needed to reform the Mediare wage index system and provide a fair reimbursement for hospitals. MedPAC, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, is scheduled to release a report in late June, 2007 that will offer recommendations on reforming the wage index system. I encourage Finance Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley to examine these recommendations and move forward with improvements to this system in an expedited fashion. Northeast Pennsylvania hospitals are in great financial distress. They deserve fair treatment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these memoranda, letters, and editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I join with the Senator from California in urging the adoption of the present legislation. I am a cosponsor of the legislation. I immediately agreed to join Senator Feinstein on this matter when she called to my attention the situation in the Southern District of California in San Diego, which had resulted from the provision which was added in the PATRIOT Act re- authorization. That provision had been added in the PATRIOT Act conference report and had been available for inspection from December 8, 2005, when the conference report was filed in the House, and March 2, 2006, when the report was adopted in the Senate. Though that conference report was available for some 85 days, it was not noted until we saw its application. Then, when the Senator from California called it to my attention, I immediately said there is a problem here and we ought to correct it, and she introduced the bill. I immediately cosponsored it. There is no doubt there are major problems which we have to confront on the requested resignations of eight U.S. attorneys. The President has traditionally had the authority to replace U.S. attorneys. That has generally been interpreted, to me, that the President may replace U.S. attorneys without giving any reason. But I think implicit in the application of replacement of attorneys is you cannot replace them for a bad reason, you cannot replace because they are seeking to ferret out corrupt politicians, or if they are refusing to yield, or not bringing a case the administration thinks ought to be brought. So those are the parameters. When President Clinton took office in 1993, the President replaced some 93 U.S. attorneys, as a matter of fact--of course, without giving any specific reason--and no one drew any objection to that. We have a situation with respect to the eight U.S. attorneys who have been asked to resign and caused the current issues as to whether they are being replaced for bad reasons. The situation with the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California, Ms. Carol Lam, raised some issues as to whether she was being asked to resign because she was pursuing corruption charges which resulted in the conviction of former Congressman Duke Cunningham and an 8-year jail sentence. It has been reported, for example, that U.S. Attorney Lam sent a notice to the Department of Justice saying that there would be two search warrants and a criminal investigation of a defense contractor who was linked to former Congressman Duke Cunningham. It was further reported that on the very next day, D. Kyle Sampson, the Chief of Staff to Attorney General Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House Counsel's Office saying Ms. Lam should be removed as quickly as possible. Now the communique from Mr. Sampson further reportedly asked Mr. Kelley to call Mr. Sampson to discuss: The real problem we have right now with [U.S. attorney] Carol Lam, that leads me to conclude we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires. Well, the sequence of events raises a question as to whether Ms. Lam was asked to resign because she was hot on the trail of criminal conduct relating to the Cunningham case. We do not know. But that is a question which ought to be inquired into. It is my view, as I review all of these matters, that there are disputed questions as to whether the eight U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign were doing their job or whether they were not. There was a very lengthy article in the New York Times yesterday-- starts on the first page and continues in the interior of the paper for a substantial part of another page--where there are issues raised as to whether New Mexico's U.S. Attorney, David C. Iglesias was doing his job properly. There were reports that he was not pursuing prosecutions as he should. Those were relayed to officials in Washington. Those officials, in turn, then relayed them to the Department of Justice. I think it appropriate that if there are complaints, they be relayed to the Department of Justice so an evaluation can be made as to whether they are justified or are not justified. But the person who relays those complaints is acting in the normal course of business and I suggest is doing what ought to be done. The Judiciary Committee is capable of ferreting out all of the conflicting factors, is capable of getting at the facts and making an evaluation. We have a number of members of the Judiciary Committee who are experienced attorneys, and enough have specific experience as former prosecutors to be able to make an expert evaluation, so to speak, as to whether the U.S. attorneys were doing their job properly. That is what we ought to undertake at the present time. That, of course, can proceed in due course without affecting the legislation which is pending here today. I think there is no doubt we ought to change the provision of the PATRIOT Act which gave the Attorney General the authority to appoint an interim U.S. attorney until the President had submitted another nominee and they are confirmed by the Senate, to go back to the old system where the Attorney General could appoint for 120 days, on an interim basis, and then after that period of time the replacement U.S. attorney would be appointed by the district court. What has occurred here raises broader questions as to whether there ought to be some standards set by Congress on circumstances which would warrant terminating a U.S. attorney either by firing or by asking the U.S. attorney to resign. I certainly think there would be general agreement that you should not be able to remove a U.S. attorney either by way of firing or asking to resign if that U.S. attorney is pursuing corruption cases or if the U.S. attorney was appropriately not initiating a prosecution. That is a discretionary judgment. A prosecuting attorney vested with broad discretion can abuse that discretion, and there is case law to that effect. A prosecuting attorney's discretion is not unlimited. There is comment published in Volume 64 of the Yale Law Journal which goes into that issue in some detail. The question on my mind is whether we ought to use the occasion of this legislation and the attendant controversy about the replacement or asking for the resignation of U.S. attorneys to legislate. Congress has the authority to circumscribe, to some extent, the President's authority to remove prosecuting attorneys. The independent counsel statute, for example, provides that the Congress has provided that the independent counsel may be removed by the Attorney General for cause. That is a legitimate exercise of Congress's constitutional authority under article I and does not impinge upon the President's constitutional authority under article II. With respect to independent commissions, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Commissioners may be removed, but it has to have a higher level of showing of impropriety--something in the nature of malfeasance or its equivalent. In taking a look at what might be done, there could be a provision that U.S. attorneys may be removed or asked to resign only for cause. But that would impinge upon the President's traditional authority to remove for no reason at all. I have doubts as to whether we ought to go that far, but I believe there is a strong case to be made for limiting the authority of the President to remove for a reason which is a bad reason, such as the ones I have mentioned. That kind of legislation would call for a listing of a variety of situations which would justify removal: for example, the U.S. attorney could not be removed for pursuing a corruption investigation; the U.S. attorney could not be removed for declining to prosecute in a situation where that was within the justifiable discretion of the U.S. attorney. This issue has percolated now for some time, and the deeper we get into this issue, the more we think about various aspects which so far have not been examined. My staff and I are looking at the present time at such an amendment. I was informed today that a unanimous consent agreement was entered into on Thursday which will preclude further amendments. On this state of the record, any such amendment would be out of order. But we intend to pursue it to see if we can structure an amendment which would make sense. If we do, there is always the option of asking for unanimous consent that an additional amendment be permitted on this bill under a limited time agreement. I know the majority leader is anxious to move through this legislation and move ahead to other items on the docket. I mention that possibility because it is a work in process, and we may find it structurally possible to provide such an amendment which would address some of the underlying problems confronting us in the present situation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a sequence of events relating to the interim appointment of U.S. attorneys in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note the presence of my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, and yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

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

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senate is now engaged in a historic debate about what the United States of America should do with respect to the conflict in Iraq. We are scheduled to vote on three resolutions at 3:45 this afternoon. I was advised early this morning, about 8 a.m., that we would have four resolutions to vote on and that there would be a time agreement of some 6 hours, with votes to occur late this afternoon. Two of the resolutions among the four were not in existence, one of the resolutions has since been dropped, and the fourth resolution was made available less than an hour ago. This kind of a timetable, it seems to me, is not conducive to the kind of deliberation and thought necessary to make intelligent decisions on the momentous questions which we are facing. We are asking the U.S. military to adopt a timetable to clear out of Iraq no later than a year from now, and we have a tough time establishing even a timetable as to what the Senate will do in the course of a single day. As I review the proceedings, it seems to me that the Congress is not prepared to act on this subject on this state of the record. It may be that the Congress is not competent to act on this kind of an issue. There is a maxim that you can't manage effectively by committee, and what this concurrent resolution seeks to do is to have management by two committees--that is perhaps twice as bad as trying to manage by one committee--a committee of 435 in the House of Representatives and a committee of 100 here. Yesterday, I spoke briefly about S. Res. 9, which has been cosponsored by 41 Democrats, no Republicans. I think it is regrettable that there appears to be a partisan divide on this subject. This matter is too important to be determined by party loyalty. Perhaps a more important aspect of noting that the resolution is supported by 41 Democrats is that it is not supported by 9 Democrats, with 50 Democrats in this body. So perhaps it is significant that it is not supported by 9 Democrats. I would be prepared to cross party lines, as I have done in the past when I thought it warranted, if I agreed with the thrust of the resolution. Seven of us joined with the Democrats in voting for cloture several weeks ago to move ahead with the debate and try to come to a resolution on the Iraqi issue, and I was one of the seven. I would not hesitate to do so again if I agreed, but I cannot agree with the proposal which would require that not later than 120 days after enactment to have phased redeployment of U.S. forces, with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces in Iraq except for three conditions: to protect U.S. and coalition personnel, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations. The thrust, however, is to leave Iraq in about 1 year, and that is to ensure defeat. Setting a timetable simply enables our opponents to wait us out. I think beyond that, the idea of having the Congress of the United States micromanage the war is simply not realistic, and perhaps it may even be unlawful. As I noted yesterday, in the case of Fleming v. Page, in 1850, the Supreme Court said: As Commander in Chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. That is a fairly forceful statement that it is not up to the Congress to micromanage a war but that it is up to the Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. That is not to say that the Congress does not have authority in the premises. Yesterday, I put into the Record a lengthy letter which I had written calling for additional hearings by the Judiciary Committee on the relative powers, authority of the Congress under the Constitution, with our power of the purse and our power to maintain and direct armies, contrasted with the President's power as Commander in Chief. I believe, however, it is of questionable legal authority to micromanage, and it is definitely impractical for us to seek to micromanage if the consequences of giving an order to the President would just enable the enemy to wait us out. That is not to say that at some time in the future it may be necessary, and there may be a considered joint judgment by the Congress, to use the extraordinary power of the purse to implement our constitutional authority to maintain armies to effectuate a withdrawal. Yesterday, I commented on the Senate floor that it would be most helpful to have an update from the Department of Defense and the Department of State as to whether, since General Petraeus went to Iraq, implementing a new strategy as he articulated it to many of us in the Congress in meeting with him, whether there have been improvements, so that there was some realistic prospect of victory, which is what we want. The consequences of defeat are disastrous, but that does not mean that we can be in Iraq forever. The President, in his State of the Union speech, set two objectives for the Iraqis. One was to end the sectarian violence and, secondly, to secure Baghdad as indispensable prerequisites for maintaining U.S. forces in Iraq. The Iraqis have shown neither the capacity nor the will to carry out those objectives. In evaluating the strategy of General Petraeus, it would be helpful to know if there have been any positive signs or negative signs, giving us some clue as to the prospects of victory. Through staff, I made an inquiry of the Department of Defense for some updated material, and none was available. Similarly, through staff, I made an inquiry of the Department of State, asking if there had been any results from the change in policy to negotiate with Iran and Syria, at least on a multilateral basis. One part of the resolution that is supported by 41 Democrats, calling for a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy, has been implemented by the Department of State, at least in the incipient stages. Even in the absence of any indication of any progress, it seems to me unwise, on this state of the record, to set a timetable which would just embolden and empower the enemy to win by waiting us out. The power of the purse is the ultimate constitutional authority of the Congress. Even there, as I noted yesterday in the case of United States v. Lovett, in 1946, the Supreme Court held that Congress cannot use its appropriations power indirectly to accomplish an unconstitutional objective. That still leaves substantial parameters to decide what to do. The second resolution is the one submitted by Senator Gregg, and Senator Gregg articulates a resolution that all of us agree with: That it is the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field. . . . That would be unthinkable. No one disagrees with that. Then the Gregg resolution goes on to say: . . . including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field. That phrase could be interpreted to mean that Congress does not have the authority to stipulate an elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field so that we couldn't say to the President to reduce the troops by a certain date. Or perhaps it should be read in conjunction with taking no action to endanger to say you have to be down to a certain number by a certain date, as Congress did in legislation in 1974, saying that when the war in Vietnam was winding down, there could be no more than 4,000 troops in the field in 6 months and no more than 3,000 troops in the field in a year. That congressional legislation was signed by President Ford, although he expressed some reservations. So perhaps the Gregg resolution does not purport to totally eliminate the authority of Congress to act by cutting off funding if it can be done in a way which does not endanger the troops in the field. Certainly the thrust, the gravamen of the Gregg resolution is one where there would be no disagreement, we simply could not endanger the troops in the field or take any action which would endanger them. Then the third resolution--which was filed less than an hour ago by Senator Murray--sounds very much like the Gregg resolution. It is intended, I think, to provide an alternative to the Gregg resolution, but it is very close. The Murray resolution provides: The President and Congress should not take any action that will endanger the Armed Forces of the United States and will provide 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 missions. We all agree with that. Then it goes on to say: The President, Congress and the Nation have an obligation to ensure that those who have bravely served this country in time of war receive the medical care and other support they deserve. No one could disagree with that. It is a reference to what has happened at Walter Reed. Then the third clause in the resolution. Resolved: The President and Congress should continue to exercise their constitutional responsibilities to ensure that the Armed Forces have everything they need to perform their assigned or future missions. We can't disagree with that. And then: . . . review, assess and adjust United States policy and funding as needed to ensure our troops have the best chance for success in Iraq and elsewhere. That also is apple pie, motherhood, and milk. There is a little implication, on ``review, assess and adjust,'' perhaps a change in policy, but it does not say anything definitive. There was supposed to have been a fourth resolution offered by Senator Warner, who had an earlier resolution which was not taken up by the Senate. Senator Warner is to be commended for his service to the country, heading the Armed Services Committee, 28 years in this body, Secretary of the Navy, served in World War II. He was searching for some alternative. But in the absence of any resolution having been filed, the inference arises that the search continues. That is where I think we are on this issue. The electorate spoke last November in disagreeing with United States policy in Iraq. The House of Representatives has spoken, disagreeing with United States policy in Iraq. The Senate is about to speak, but it is highly doubtful--virtually impossible that a forced withdrawal within a year will be approved by 60 Members of this body. The resolutions by Senator Gregg and Senator Murray are not twins, but they are first cousins. But we are still groping for what to do. My own sense of the situation is we need to pursue some preliminary reports that things are improving and find out if in fact that is true. As I look at Iraq--and I used the metaphor yesterday--it is a tunnel and we can't see the end of the tunnel. Certainly there is no indication that there is a light in the end of the tunnel. I don't like being in the tunnel, but I don't know where else to go at the moment. I am not going to go with a resolution to leave Iraq, micromanage the war, tell the President what to do when we frankly don't know what to do. But we are groping. Just as we are unprepared to deal with these resolutions in a limited time, by 3:45, we are unprepared to tell the military what to do in a year. So I think we need to go back to the drawing boards and I think we need to find out more facts. It may be General Shinseki was right in 2003, that job required a lot more personnel, into the hundreds of thousands, under the Colin Powell doctrine of overwhelming force. Maybe that was the course which should have been followed. Certainly we don't want to deploy more troops now, in those quantities. For General Shinseki's brilliance, he got himself fired, ridiculed and fired. We are trying to find out what to do. I had an opportunity to visit the Mideast and talk to President Assad of Syria last December. President Assad advanced the idea of having an international conference before the idea was advanced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I carried that message back and conveyed Assad's suggestion to Condoleezza Rice. Whether that had any impact on her idea, I don't know. But I do believe--and I said this in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor last June, and in an article which appears in the current issue of the Washington Quarterly--that dialog should be undertaken with Iran and Syria. We have seen the multilateral dialog with North Korea, supplemented by direct contracts, bilateral negotiations, produce what appears to be an answer to diffusing North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons. We don't know for sure because that is a very tentative basis, but we made a lot of progress and we appear to have an answer. I think there is cause for hope that the multilateral talks with Iran and Syria, and perhaps bilateral talks, will produce something there. So I am going to oppose S. Res. 9 and I am going to support the first cousins, the Gregg resolution and the Murray resolution. They say something which is obvious. We are not going to take any action to endanger the American troops. But that does not mean we are without power in the future to use the appropriations power, the power of the purse, to put Congress's imprimatur and decision on what is going on. The President said for a long time he was the decider. I think he has wisely receded a little from that assertion. It is a joint, shared responsibility between Congress and the President. There has been a lot of talk. I think the American people ought to know there has been a lot of--it is more than talk; there has been a lot of very serious thought which has been undertaken by the Members of the Congress, both the Senate and the House, trying to find a way to have a victory in Iraq. Our statements of disagreement with the President do not mean we ought to tell him what to do when in fact we do not know what to do. For myself, I think we need to find out more about what is happening now, both militarily and diplomatically; going back to the drawing board and seeing if we can come up with a better answer than the one we are facing at the present time. I thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who is managing the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, is the pending business the nomination of Thomas Hardiman to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Thomas Michael Hardiman for the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He has served on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He has an outstanding academic record. He has a law degree from Georgetown, bachelor's degree from the University of Notre Dame. He started his practice of law in 1990. He has an outstanding record both academically and professionally. Senator Santorum and I know him personally and can vouch for him. I urge my colleagues to confirm him for the Third Circuit. I ask unanimous consent that my full statements on the nominees be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, a very brief supplemental comment: Judge Hardiman has been on this bench since 2003. He received a unanimous ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association. I ask unanimous consent that the following information be printed in the Record.

Mr. SPECTER. I yield back my time.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the Senate has now commenced the debate on an issue of great importance, really of historic importance, which challenges us on the issue of what course of action we should take in Iraq, in a very complex factual situation, and challenges us on what our authority is under the Constitution, contrasted with the President's authority as Commander in Chief. On the factual issue, when we look at the resolution, which calls for the phased redeployment of the U.S. forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after enactment of this joint resolution, with the goal of deploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces, except for three purposes: one, to protect the U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure; second, training and equipping Iraqi forces; third, conducting targeted counterterrorism operations. We are setting a deadline and our opponents simply have to wait us out. They know if they can hold on until March 31, 2008, a little more than a year from now, we will be leaving, except for those stated limited purposes. That is not a very desirable course of conduct. It is equally undesirable, however, to view the current situation in Iraq, which looks like an endless tunnel--a tunnel without a light at the end. You cannot see the end of the tunnel and, certainly, there is no light at the end of the tunnel in terms of what we can do. Last month, the House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution expressing displeasure, objecting to the President's course of action in Iraq. Last November, in the election, the American people spoke in a resounding manner, in a way that could only rationally be interpreted as rejecting the conduct of the war in Iraq. We are faced with very considerable discomfort in this body. How it will resolve itself remains to be seen. I think it is very important that we debate this matter, that we exchange our views, that we stimulate discussions that will go beyond this Chamber and will resound throughout the country, resound throughout the editorial pages and the television and radio talk shows, and by our colleagues in the corridors and in the cloakroom so that we can try to work our way through an extraordinarily difficult situation where, as I see it, there is no good answer between the two intractable alternatives to set a timetable where our opponents simply have to wait us out or to keep proceeding down a tunnel which, at least at this juncture, appears to be endless and has no light. We don't know where the end is, let alone to have a light at the end of the tunnel. What I am trying to do at the moment is to get from the administration, from the Department of Defense, and the Department of State an evaluation of what has happened since General Petraeus briefed us on what he intended to do before he returned to Iraq several weeks ago. There have been some preliminary reports that the strategy employed by General Petraeus is producing results. There have been some commentaries. The Washington Post last Sunday in an op-ed suggested things are improving. Reports by NBC's Brian Williams suggest that matters are improving, not sufficiently definitive to come to any conclusion, but if there was a sign on the military side that we could see improvement and see a path to victory, that would have a material bearing on what this body would do or at least on the thinking of this Senator. The resolution calls for a comprehensive strategy, and it defines it as ``diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community for the purpose of working collectively to bring stability to Iraq.'' I was pleased to hear the testimony of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, when she appeared before the Appropriations Committee on which I sit on February 27, 2007, announcing the initiative of an international conference to be held in Baghdad and announcing for the first time that there would be negotiations by the United States in a conference which included Iran and Syria, which I think is a very important and sensible change in the foreign policy of the United States. We saw the results in North Korea where we faced a very difficult situation with North Korea possessing nuclear weapons and the various tests they had undertaken. We saw the multilateral discussions and then, more importantly, saw bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea, which Secretary of State Rice obtained the authority of the President to engage in those direct bilateral talks so when she was traveling overseas, she did not go through the normal vetting and analytical processes in Washington which might well have stopped that direct bilateral discussion. It did occur, and it appears to have been instrumental in working out what may well be a diplomatic answer. It appears that way at the present time, although no one can ever be sure in dealing with North Korea. I would like to have an up-to-date evaluation--and I am seeking one-- from the Department of State as to what is happening with those negotiations. Candidly, it is pretty hard when we have one of our sessions in room 407 upstairs, which is the secret room where we are briefed. We very seldom get much information there. I think it would be very useful if we could find information to bring us up to date as to what progress, if any, the administration is making. I know, to repeat, it would be very influential on my thinking as to what course I will take when the roll is called on these resolutions. Beyond the evaluation of the factual situation, there are very complex legal questions involved in what is the authority of Congress. The resolution does not call upon the congressional constitutional authority on appropriations or the so-called power of the purse. We know there is authority in the Congress to cut off funding. I think there is unanimous agreement that we should not even broach the issue cutting off funding if in any way it would jeopardize the troops who are serving in Iraq. The President's powers as Commander in Chief have been the subject of judicial interpretation. In the case of Fleming v. Page--it goes back a long way to 1850--but the Supreme Court said: As commander-in-chief, he is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. On the face of that statement by the Nation's highest Court, there is a real question as to whether Congress has the constitutional authority to order the ``phased redeployment of the United States forces from Iraq.'' The Supreme Court dealt with the issue on the power of the purse in the case of United States v. Lovett in 1946, holding that Congress cannot use its appropriations power indirectly to accomplish an unconstitutional objective. So that brings into play squarely what is the constitutional authority of the President as Commander in Chief. I think it is most unwise for Congress to even broach the subject of micromanagement of the war. When Congressman Murtha suggested some time ago that funding be conditioned on a whole series of requirements, it bore all the earmarks of micromanagement of the war. The resolution at hand calling for a redeployment may well cross that line of micromanagement of the war. It is unclear. But there remains the very deep concern in the country, expressed by the electorate last November, expressed by citizens across the country that reflected in the resolution passed by the House of Representatives last month objecting to the administration's conduct of the war and considerable sentiment in this body so that we are searching for a way to approach this issue rationally. We have to face up to the consequence that if we acknowledge defeat in Iraq, there are very disastrous consequences which will flow from that, disastrous consequences in the region, the issue of whether the terrorists will come at least in part from the Mideast to threaten us on the homeland. But, at the same time, we have to recognize that when the President laid down two markers in his State of the Union speech earlier this year, that the Iraqis accomplish two objectives: One, to stabilize Baghdad, and, two, to end sectarian violence. The Iraqis have not shown either the capacity or the will to accomplish those two prerequisites which the President set down as minimal markers. My thinking is we ought to deliberate on this subject. We ought to hear each other out, and we ought to seek updated information from the administration to see whether there are any signs, in the several weeks since General Petraeus has undertaken the new strategy, whether there are any indications of what may lie ahead on the negotiations, now that there have been contacts by the United States with Iranian officials and presumably also with Syrian officials. I would like to see this Chamber filled with Senators when we undertake this debate. I recollect the debate we had back in 1991, which was classified as historic, when we decided to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force. I know we are all very busy. I am about to go to a hearing of a subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education. This issue warrants the close attention of the Senate. We have been called the world's greatest deliberative body, and this issue now will give us a chance to see if we are entitled to that lofty title. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I sent to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, outlining underlying legal issues in the debate we are now undertaking, be printed in the Record.