Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Herb Kohl, a resolution to designate the week of September 9-16, 2007, as ``National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week''.

This resolution acknowledges the dangers of Polycystic Kidney Disease, also called PKD, which affects over 600,000 Americans. That is more than three times the population of Salt Lake City.

PKD is the most common, life-threatening genetic disease in the U.S. There is no cure, and it is one of the four leading causes of kidney failure, also called end-stage renal disease; diabetes being number one.

Polycystic kidney disease is characterized by the growth of numerous fluid-filled cysts in the kidney, which slowly reduce the kidney function and can eventually lead to kidney failure. When PKD causes kidneys to fail, the patient requires dialysis or kidney transplantation. About one-half of people with the major type of PKD progress to kidney failure.

PKD is especially personal to me because so many Utahns suffer from this disease. The PKD Foundation claims that approximately 5,000 individuals in Utah live with PKD, and that the incidence of end-stage renal disease in Utah is three times that of the national average. To cure PKD would result in billions of dollars in savings to the military, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veterans Administration for dialysis, transplantation and related treatments.

Due to the illusiveness of PKD, many people are simply unaware of the nature of this disease. A National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week will help spread the word about the deadliness of PKD and vast numbers of, not only Utahns, but all Americans affected by this disease. With education comes the ability to know how to help people. Let us make it possible for everyone to know about PKD, so that more people can join the effort in making PKD a disease of the past.

Mr. President, I am extremely interested in the comments of the distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts. I do not agree with much of what he said, and maybe I can comment about some of the disagreements as I make my remarks this morning. I will begin by saying that on Iraq, absquatulation is not a policy.

Today we face a growing movement for the political abandonment of the will to success in the biggest conflict we face in the whole 21st century. There are handfuls of people in pink wandering the hallways here, and the party in the majority claims a growing groundswell to abandon the fight in the midst of the battle.

These are perilous times, and the political class of this country is divided among those who desperately want to raise the white flag, those who are fleeing to the tall grasses, and a beleaguered administration, beleaguered in part--and let us be honest at a time when generosity would be misplaced--by many of its own spectacular mistakes.

I hear from constituents who are worried--very worried--about the war in Iraq. But Utahns are stalwart in character. Not all of them support the President's policy, and not all of them support me, to be sure. But I think I am being honest to suggest that the vast majority of my constituents are as worried by the prospects of a U.S. unilateral withdrawal as they are by the challenges we face in the middle of a battle whose end many of my colleagues no longer have the patience to imagine, pursue, or achieve.

Such abandonment is not an option for our forces in Iraq.

I gave a speech on this floor several months ago where I said I was not going to concede to the Democrats' strategy of unilateral withdrawal. I pointed out the irony that the Democrats' legitimate criticism of this administration's policy--that the Bush administration went into Iraq unprepared for the consequences, and without imagining the requirements of the day after we toppled Saddam-- was, in fact, being repeated by the Democrats who now advocate a withdrawal without preparing for the consequences, and with no consideration of what will happen in Iraq, the region, and the world after we decamp. I find this bitterly ironic.

While I agree with many of the criticisms of this administration's early failures in the Iraq war, I will not stand quietly against the irony--indeed, the hypocrisy--of suggestions that it is OK to abandon a war without considering the consequences, but damnable to begin one in the same manner.

In the months since I spoke on this floor, where I gave my qualified support for the surge, I have listened carefully to the debate on and off the floor. I have talked to my colleagues, to administration officials, to constituents and friends, here and abroad. I have read the intelligence on the prospects for Iraq and the currents in the region. I have traveled to Iraq, and I have traveled in the region.

I am a member of the Intelligence Committee, perhaps with the longest tenure in the history of the Senate on the Intelligence Committee, and I do not find things to be as my colleagues on the other side assert.

Nowhere have I found a silver lining to these clouds of conflict. But nowhere have I heard anyone say the clouds are less dark on the horizon.

The three major problems I am most concerned about--the al-Qaida problem, the Iran problem, and the moral and practical costs of abandoning the moderate Iraqis--have not been addressed in any substantive way in any of the policy prescriptions I have studied. If the majority wants to decamp, they need to propose a policy context that makes the United States safer on the day after, not more in peril.

There is an al-Qaida problem.

In May, I went to Ramadi. I was briefed on our base by General Gaskin, and then we suited up to go for a walk in the town center. He was with us, and walked with us in that town center. That is correct, we had to suit up in armor for a walk downtown. This was no Sunday stroll for ice cream. But two facts were obvious: One, 6 months before we strolled through those downtown streets, Ramadi was al-Qaida's capital in Anbar Province and Iraq. On that day, 2 months ago, it was the local Sunnis' capital again. And, two, the local Iraqis I saw and met in Ramadi were happy to see us there. Had we walked down those same streets 2 months ago, we would have been killed.

However you want to criticize the administration for its past errors, we now have a workable counterinsurgency plan in operation. It is working in Anbar, and al-Qaida is on the defensive.

Are they moving out to other places? We are. Are we following them, using the counterinsurgency tactics we have finally mastered? We are. Are we going to abandon the field we have learned to dominate? You tell me. And we will abandon that field in this very Chamber if we keep following what is being spoken to on the other side.

Here is what I learned about our successful counterinsurgency campaign from General Gaskin. Al-Qaida declared Ramadi the capital city of the Islamic State of Iraq. There were no police in Ramadi last year. Al-Qaida in Iraq, or AQI, as we refer to it, had destroyed all the police in the city. Starting in mid-February, the coalition cleared the downtown in about 6 weeks. There were approximately 15,000 to 20,000 members of al-Qaida in Anbar initially. Now, about half of them are dead. Others are still trying to discredit the Government of Iraq and discredit the occupation. They represent us as occupiers, infidels, if you will. They advance their goals with brutal methods. All of their financing comes from criminal enterprises. Al-Qaida is very cellular, decentralized, but resilient and regenerative. They are self- sufficient, funding themselves through criminal activities--murder, intimidation, the black market.

We have finally learned to deal with the Sunni tribes. It took us too long to understand the tribes, but al-Qaida did not understand the tribal culture either. Al-Qaida's intimidation activities and murder of families--including young boys--enraged the local tribes and tribal leaders. The tribes' response was their realization that the expanded coalition presence was a chance to get al-Qaida out of their lives, and they

came to a mutual understanding with coalition forces, sending 1,200 of their boys for enlistment in the security forces in 1 day.

That was a turnaround. I was there with Senator Smith approximately a year before then. There was no chance at all in that province. But because of the counterinsurgency, we have made tremendous strides, and they are completely ignored by some here in this Chamber.

But the local population in Ramadi and al-Anbar has helped find two- thirds of the IEDs in this area. We have promoted the development of a neighborhood watch system there. Once you clear, you must leave a security presence with coalition support. The locals will not give you intel if you do not leave a permanent presence to provide security. In the words of General Gaskin: We are asking the Iraqis to gain capacity while they are at war. This is very unusual, and it is very difficult.

In counterinsurgency, the most important thing is how well you protect the population, and what the level of violence is. We are making progress in al-Anbar. Are we going to abandon this progress? As General Gaskin put it: It's like someone tells you the ship that you're on is on fire. You jump off, but halfway down you discover that it wasn't on fire after all. You still have to deal with your decision to jump: Either swim or drown.

As I have said, I am not in favor of jumping ship, but for those who are, the question is: What are we going to do? Swim or drown?

Last month, two analysts for the Radio Free Iraq service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty released a compelling report entitled ``Iraqi Insurgency Media: The War of Images and Ideas.''

In addition to cataloging the impressive degree to which the Iraqi Sunni insurgency is using the Internet to purvey a constant stream of images, propaganda, songs, and other images that glorify the fight against the coalition, this report makes clear that this barrage of insurgent media is feeding the global extremist network.

According to the report:

The Iraqi insurgent media network is a boon to global

jihadist media, which can use materials produced by the

insurgency to reinforce their message.

The images of our precipitous withdrawal will be broadcast endlessly, to inspire and incite extremists throughout the world.

In fact, if you talk to the analysts who monitor insurgent media, you learn that there are two prevalent themes today. The insurgents, including al-Qaida, are very media savvy, and they are avid consumers of Western and American media. They watch our floor debates. It is a common theme for them today to declare that we will withdraw. In our withdrawal, they see victory.

If we abandon the counterinsurgency gains we have made, al-Qaida will not only declare global victory and vindication, they will attempt to reclaim the territory in Iraq. And don't think anything otherwise.

Nowhere have I seen policy prescriptions from the other side or anywhere else, for that matter, other than the counterinsurgency and the work that is going on right now to address this problem.

We cannot fight al-Qaida from across the border. And to suggest we can protect all our interests by being in the little country of Kuwait is absurd. We cannot fight al-Qaida and ignore Baghdad. And we cannot walk away from this fight with al-Qaida.

For those who want to withdraw without a policy prescription, all I can say is, you may no longer be interested in al-Qaida in Iraq, but al-Qaida is interested in the United States, and always has been.

Let's talk about the Iran problem. My colleague from Massachusetts mentioned this as though it is not a problem. I am sure he did not mean that. If you watch the Sunni insurgency media, you also determine an even more prominent theme. They assume, based on watching our media, that we will abandon the cause. And they declare an even bigger threat is Iran. Nowhere have I read of a compelling policy prescription to answer the question of how we will deal with Iran in the aftermath of a withdrawal. Iran is competing with the United States in the region. We are getting unclassified briefs from Multi-National Force in Iraq officers identifying the Iranian agents' role in supporting militias and funding explosively-formed penetrators EFPs, if you will--networks, which target the coalition.

Iran is playing a dangerous game, not because they solicit an armed reaction from us--which they calculate will not occur--but they are carefully stoking sectarian and anticoalition conflict, while taking advantage of the relative security our military presence provides.

What is our policy toward Iran should we decide to follow the prescription to abandon the fight in Iraq? All I have read is a hopeful repetition of the desire for a diplomatic solution. I always hope for a diplomatic solution. That is always a nice weasel way of hoping we can get out of these problems. I also hope to balance the budget, and I hope to cure AIDS. We are not making much headway in those, either.

This will not happen based on hope alone, however.

Those who think we can split from Iraq in the middle of the conflict and deal with Iran with a Tehran tea party are not just hopeful, they are delusional. Iran is a totalitarian regime in desperate economic circumstances and desperate economic condition. There have been riots over gas-rationing in a nation awash--or should I say rich--in oil.

The population has suffered two generations of economic decline--in a nation rich in oil. The rich Persian culture has suffered the spectacular mismanagement of a corrupt and despotic regime.

Just several days ago, the Open Source Center provided an analysis of Iran's treatment of its labor unions. I quote:

The abduction of the head of Tehran's transport workers'

union is the latest sign of the antagonism shown President

Ahmadinejad's government toward trade unions and other civil

society institutions. On April 11 it shut down the Iranian

Labor News Agency, which often reported on labor discontent

arising from Iran's economic failures as well as on student

unrest and human rights abuses. Mahumd Osanlu, head of the

Workers' Syndicate of the Tehran and Suburban Bus Company,

has not been heard from since he was beaten and abducted on

July 10 by plainclothesmen, presumably from the government.

Do I need to remind my colleagues that Ahmadinejad ran on a platform of helping the lower classes? This is the face of a corrupt and failing regime that is causing havoc all over the Middle East. Just ask the people in Lebanon, if you want to, but you can also ask the people in Iraq.

We are spending about $100 billion a year providing various degrees of stability through most of Iraq, stability on Iran's border. If we leave, there will be great instability. How will Iran react? My friend from Massachusetts seems to think they are not going to do one little thing. Once we leave, everything is going to stabilize and it is all going to be just wonderful. I don't think he quite went that far, but he basically said Iran is not going to do much. But do we have a policy in place that will seek to advance our goals of containing the Iranian threat, or is the policy of withdrawal hinging simply on the desperate desire for diplomacy with despots?

There are moral and practical costs of abandoning the moderates in Iraq. I disagree with the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. There are plenty of moderates. There are plenty of the middle class in Iraq. Large areas of Iraq are not in turmoil. Large areas of Iraq are, but there are plenty of people living there who want this country to work. Eighty percent of them voted for freedom and voted for a representative form of government.

What are the consequences for the moderates of Iraq if we withdraw? There are, in fact, many moderates, many Iraqis intermarried between faiths, many Iraqis who are urban professionals, many Iraqi women are educated, in contrast to what the al-Qaida people and the Taliban people would do to women. All of these are attributes of the moderate masses who are today intimidated by the insurgents, by gangsters and terrorists, and who are currently failed by Iraqi politicians.

Nonetheless, they are there in significant numbers. They will suffer immensely in the chaos that will follow our withdrawal.

If we believe that a principal key to addressing the sources of discontent

that fuels violent extremism in the Muslim world was the empowerment of the moderate classes seeking modern civil society, our abandonment of the cause in Iraq will do more than fuel the ferocious violence of al- Qaida, the deadly competition fomented by Iran; it will seal our ability to appeal to the moderate Muslim elements throughout the world, to build civic culture in autocratic societies. Our natural allies in these societies--the young and the educated, the professional, the women seeking to escape the oppression of the veil--will not respond to our entreaties because they will have seen that the United States does not continue to stand with its allies. They will see the images of our withdrawal. They will see the self-satisfied propaganda of the insurgents and al-Qaida, and they will be afraid to be with us.

I fear they will see images of the slaughter of innocents.

They will go back into the shadows, and the shadows of autocracy or, even worse, Islamic fascism will grow. We will have squandered not just the good will of our natural allies--those who want to modernize into peaceful and productive societies--but we will have squandered the faith of hundreds of millions throughout the world who will see no reason to stand by or with us. Whom will we blame for the slaughter of moderates, and whom will we turn to the next time we seek allies in the Middle East?

Should those who advocate withdrawal today succeed in their ill- conceived attempt to run away from reality, reality will not let us escape. Without a policy to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, to compete with an unstable and adventurous Iran, and to prevent the slaughter of Iraqi innocents on a scale much greater than we see today, a withdrawal will be calamitous.

The consequences on our ability to conduct foreign policy, to win the war on terror, and to advance our values of democracy and peace will be immense.

After the capitulation driven by congressional Democrats that led to our abandonment of Vietnam in the 1970s, the Soviets became emboldened and advanced throughout what was known then as the Third World--in Angola, Central America, and Afghanistan. We regained our footing in a decade, and we won the Cold War because we found our will. Without a strategy to accompany the policy of withdrawal, the consequences--an emboldened al-Qaida, aggressive Iran, and intimidated, harassed, and slaughtered Iraqi moderates--will haunt us much longer than after our Vietnam withdrawal. After all, the Vietnamese did not threaten our country. They did not threaten our mainland. These people have, and these people continue to threaten our mainland. These people continue to say, as was said just a week ago, that they are going to cause havoc over here.

I am 73 years old, and I fear that should we concede to the powerful call for withdrawal without a sound policy, the harm to this Nation will last longer than I have years to live.

The senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, whom I hold in high esteem, quoted General Petraeus earlier, saying that of all the resources General Petraeus could have, the one he wanted most was time. The one he wanted most was time. This is a very important point, and I commend the distinguished Senator from Arizona for making it.

Many people today believe that whatever the outcome this month, we have set a deadline for September. I say: Any progress achieved by September will be incremental, at best. Counterinsurgencies can be won, but they will not be won on a congressional election cycle. We should not be so arrogant as to presume we can make them fit into such an absurd construct. Let us be honest and admit that if we want to sustain the fight in Iraq, we should give it much longer than a September deadline. Perhaps in a year, perhaps in two, we can see a success, but for this, we need more than time. We need will. That is what I see evaporating around all of us here in the Senate.

The majority is waving the flag of withdrawal. There is no accompanying policy to shape the way the geopolitical environment will be affected. Our enemies will be emboldened, our competitors encouraged, and our friends throughout the region will be like me: discouraged.

Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has said we are not talking withdrawal; we are talking a redeployment. Who is he kidding? We are going to leave a small contingency there to do exactly what Secretary Rumsfeld was doing, with an emboldened al-Qaida? Come on. I think they are ignoring the fact that the al-Qaida people have said they are going to establish a worldwide caliphate and impose their will on everybody--especially us.

One thing I would just like to say is they have piled into Iraq. They were there before, in spite of what the distinguished Senator has said. Maybe not in as great numbers; of course not, but they have piled into Iraq knowing that if they defeat us there and we turn tail and run for the high grasses, they will have accomplished something they didn't even dream they could accomplish 5 years ago.

This is not a simple war. This is not a war against another nation. It is not a war where people on the other side wear uniforms. It is a war where they commit terror all over the world. It is a war where they have threatened us. It a war where they kill innocent human beings. It is a war where they don't think anything of sending their young people strapped with bombs to blow themselves up, to maim and kill innocent civilians.

If we do what our friends on the other side want to do, our enemies will be emboldened, our competitors encouraged, and our friends throughout the world will lose an awful lot of faith and confidence in the United States of America.

Mr. President, absquatulation is not a policy.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, as the discussion over immigration reform demonstrates, this body confronts tough issues and can find itself embroiled in some contentious debates.

Over the years, it has not been uncommon to see judicial appointment debates at the top of the list of contentious debates. And during those debates, we have seen a lot of tactics and methods used.

But some tactics are simply wrong.

Some methods are simply inappropriate.

There are some means which no ends can justify. Some of these wrong tactics, inappropriate methods, and illegitimate means have been used to attack the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

If we care about the integrity of this body and the good of the judicial branch, if we really believe that there is something more important than raw ideological politics, we should reject this attack on this good man and confirm his nomination.

Judge Southwick, who served for a dozen years on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, has received a unanimous well qualified rating from the American Bar Association.

He has the strong support of his home State Senators, both of whom are Senior Members.

He would fill a judicial emergency vacancy.

And though it has been obscured by all the hyperbolic, vitriolic, and over-the-top rhetoric now thrown about, the Judiciary Committee just months ago approved without objection Judge Southwick's nomination. Now, for whatever reason, the nomination is in limbo--first it is on the committee agenda without action and now not on the committee agenda at all.

The committee looked at the same qualifications, the same record, the same man with the same character, and found no objection whatsoever.

The only difference--which is really a distinction without a difference--is that Judge Southwick was then nominated to the U.S. District Court but now has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The disturbing tactics being used against this nominee are certainly not new, and they are no more legitimate or persuasive now than when they have been used against other nominees in the past.

Frankly, I am amazed that anyone finds them credible, let alone persuasive.

Judge Southwick served on the Mississippi Court of Appeals for 12 years.

It is not credible to focus only on a few cases among the 7,000 in which he participated and the nearly 1,000 opinions he wrote.

It is not credible to focus only on the results of those few cases, ignoring the facts and the law.

It is not credible to demand that judges render decisions that serve certain political interests, whether or not the law actually requires that result.

It is not credible to attack Judge Southwick for phrases or language in opinions he did not write.

It is not credible to ignore the limitations imposed on appeals court judges by the standard of review they must follow.

It is not credible to say that a judicial ruling against a particular party amounts to a judge's personal hostility against a group to which that party might belong.

These are some of the misleading tactics that we have seen used against judicial nominees in the past and are being used against Judge Southwick now.

These tactics are simply not credible, and I am amazed that my Democratic colleagues seem to be going along with them.

One of the sure signs that such illegitimate tactics are in play is that they result in a distorted, twisted caricature of a nominee that those who have long known and worked with him simply do not recognize.

Richard Roberts, former president of the Mississippi bar, for example, says that no other lawyer in the State is as qualified as Judge Southwick to serve on the Fifth Circuit.

According to Phillip McIntosh, associate dean at the Mississippi College School of Law where Judge Southwick now teaches, a politically and racially diverse faculty unanimously approved Judge Southwick for a faculty position with no question about his integrity, fairness, or impartiality.

A. La'Verne Edney, an African-American partner at Judge Southwick's former law firm, clerked for him on the Mississippi Court of Appeals.

He says that Judge Southwick applied the law fairly without regard to the parties' affiliation, color, or stature.

These and other colleagues and partners of Judge Southwick know him best.

I can only imagine their shock and confusion over the wildly derogatory and extreme descriptions offered by Judge Southwick's Washington-based critics.

I can only imagine the reaction by those who know Judge Southwick when those who do not know him make such claims without knowing what they are talking about.

I think my colleagues would agree that the American Bar Association has never been accused of a conservative bias.

And I think we would all agree that the ABA conducts perhaps the most exhaustive and thorough evaluation of judicial nominees.

The ABA looks at the whole record; the ABA interviews dozens of people in each case.

Let me remind everyone that the previous nominee to this very same Fifth Circuit position ran into trouble when the ABA rated him not qualified.

My Democratic colleagues thought that was the most insightful, thorough, accurate, and definitive evaluation ever done on any nominee to any position anywhere.

The same ABA has unanimously given Judge Southwick its highest well qualified rating.

That means, according to the ABA's own description of its rating criteria, that Judge Southwick gets the highest marks for such things as compassion, open-mindedness, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice.

So here is the choice we face.

On the one side, critics who do not know and have not worked with Judge Southwick look only at the results of just a few cases and claim Judge Southwick has hostile views on issues such as race, when there is no indication by anybody in Mississippi or otherwise that he has any such hostility.

On the other side, the ABA and those who do know and have worked with Judge Southwick look at his entire record and gave him the highest marks for compassion, open-mindedness, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law.

These two radically different pictures of this nominee cannot both be true.

I think the tactics and standards used by Judge Southwick's critics are wrong and illegitimate, and the conclusions about him based on those tactics are simply not credible. I think they know that.

And they certainly do not justify doing an about-face and voting against a nominee who, just months ago, received the Judiciary Committee's unanimous support.

Illegitimate tactics leading to less than credible conclusions do not justify disregarding the judgment of our colleagues, the Senators from Mississippi, who are this nominee's home State Senators.

Let me close with one more point.

In their opposition letter, the Congressional Black Caucus says that we ``should be impressed by the frequency with which Southwick's opinions and concurrences have been overruled.'' That is pure, unadulterated hogwash.

Judge Southwick authored 927 opinions and concurrences while on the Mississippi Court of Appeals and only 21 of them have been either reversed or even criticized by the Mississippi Supreme Court in 12 years. I don't know of many judges who have such an unblemished record.

I must say that I am indeed impressed by the frequency with which Judge Southwick's opinions and concurrences have been overruled.

I am very impressed with such a low reversal rate over such a long period of distinguished judicial service.

And I note that Kay Cobb, former presiding justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court, the court that reviewed Judge Southwick's decisions, has written with enthusiastic support of his nomination.

Justice Cobb, unlike Judge Southwick's critics, has known him for many years and highlights his attention to promoting fairness and equality.

Judge Southwick has served his community, volunteering with Habitat for Humanity since 1993.

He volunteered to serve his country in the Mississippi National Guard and by joining a line combat unit that served in Iraq.

Only months ago, the Judiciary Committee found Judge Southwick's qualifications and character sufficient to report his district court nomination without a single objection.

Judge Southwick today is the same man with the same qualifications, the same ability, the same character, and the same commitment to the rule of law.

He has the strong support of his home State Senators--both of whom are highly respected--and should be given the opportunity to serve on the Fifth Circuit.

The Judiciary Committee should report his nomination, and the Senate should confirm him, without delay, or a manifest injustice will have occurred and will led to even more antagonism between the two sides of this body.

We have been used to some of these tactics in the last 2 months of a President's tenure, maybe even the last 6 months, but hardly ever against a person of this man's qualifications, and then we have usually knocked that type of criticism down, as decent, honorable Senators should knock them down. Frankly, this President will serve for another year and a half. He has appointed a sterling, good man who deserves to be brought before the Senate and confirmed. I hope my colleagues will stop this tragedy and put this man on the court. He deserves it. He will be great on the court. He will be a person who will be fair and decent for everybody. I have every confidence in him.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak of my vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1639, the comprehensive immigration reform bill. This issue continues to be a divisive one, both in the halls of Congress and throughout our Nation. Indeed, many people throughout the country have strongly held views when it comes to our Nation's immigration policy. In fact, over the past month, I have heard from countless Utahns who have contacted me with their views on immigration reform. I expect that every Senator's office has been overwhelmed with calls, emails, and faxes from constituents expressing their concerns with various provisions of the bill.

While I commend the bipartisan panel of Senators that has worked tirelessly to negotiate this legislation, I must express my disappointment in the manner in which the bill's proponents have sought to move this bill through the Senate.

I, for one, am supportive of comprehensive immigration reform and for many of the approaches outlined in this bill. We simply cannot be asked to live with the status quo. However, once again, there are several huge problems with this bill, and I believe that a more thorough vetting of this legislation through debate and amendment could have fixed those problems and ensured that it contained policy changes the American people would support.

As many have observed throughout this debate, there are currently millions of illegal immigrants residing within our Nation's borders. No one knows exactly how many, only that they are here, they are working, and, in large part, they contribute to our economy.

We also have many businesses and industries that must have access to foreign labor, especially during this time when, while are seeing record lows in unemployment, we still have a shortage of workers.

Under the status quo, employers are too often forced to make a decision between hiring illegal workers and wondering whether our inefficient and often arbitrary enforcement efforts will catch up with them or abiding by the law and closing the doors of their businesses.

We need to find a fair, compassionate and lawful way to deal with the illegal immigrants already this country. We need to create a guest worker program for those businesses in need of foreign workers. And, we need to improve the system by which we legally distribute visas and green cards to make it more fair and efficient.

The authors of this legislation have tried to address these issues in the current bill, and I applaud them for their efforts. However, they addressed them in various ways that, in the minds of many, make this bill completely unworkable and ineffective. The policies proposed by legislation are almost impossible to implement and even if they could be implemented, there are so many loopholes and exclusions that almost every solution in the bill can and will be bypassed by those who want to continue to exploit the system. I am convinced that many of my colleagues understand these concerns and even agree with my assessment, but they are so anxious to end this debate and reach a successful conclusion they compromised several core values that Americans hold dear and made damaging concessions.

The provisions of this bill were negotiated and vetted in secret. It was then brought to the floor where the apparently shaky coalition that drafted the

legislation have, throughout this process, voted as a block to prevent the passage of any so-called ``deal-breaking'' amendments. At several points during the debate, members of this coalition have admitted that the amendments in question would, in their opinion, improve the overall bill. Yet, in an effort to preserve the coalition, they have worked together to prevent the passage of even some of the most reasonable, commonsense amendments.

Then, after an initial attempt to end the debate failed, the majority leader agreed to let the debate go forward and to have votes on a number of amendments. Initially, this sounded good. However, it soon became clear that, in another effort preserve this shaky, flawed compromise, the only amendments that would be voted on were those of the majority leader's own choosing.

I don't believe that anyone should be criticized for their willingness to compromise. Clearly, compromise is a vital part of what we do in the Senate. However, we simply cannot value compromise for compromise's own sake. Indeed, we should not push through such fatally flawed legislation simply because it is the product of compromise. Compromise--the means by which the Senate passes legislation that will benefit our Nation--is not an end unto itself.

Yet, too many of my colleagues seem all too willing to simply push this legislation through simply to preserve this great compromise. In fact, it almost appears as if some would consider our efforts successful if we were simply able to bring this bill to passage, regardless of what the bill looked like and regardless of what its effect would be on our immigration system. However, I believe that if we were to follow this course, we would be wasting an opportunity to provide real reforms to our Nation's immigration policy and to provide real solutions for our Nation's many immigration problems.

It is not a novel idea to suggest that there was a better way to approach this problem. That way, Mr. President, was the process by which we approach all issues of this magnitude. This bill was brought to the floor without having gone through the committee process. This is never a good sign for any piece of legislation. Whenever you bypass the regular order of the Senate, there will undoubtedly be a significant portion of our constituents who feel as if their views don't count. The Senate has used and maintained the committee structure for over 200 years, and it has served the American people well. In this case, refusing to use the time-tested committee structure has been a recipe for disaster.

The decision to bring this bill directly the floor robbed many Senators of an opportunity to examine the bill thoroughly and publicly express their concerns. In addition, it made certain that the bill would come before the entire Senate without the benefit of Committee hearings, expert testimony, and a public markup.

Strangely enough, this is the precise criticism meted out by the Democrats when they were in the minority last Congress. Now that control of the Senate has changed hands, it seems the Democrat requirement for regular order is not necessary anymore.

Mr. President, we have been told that this is our last chance to pass immigration reform for several years. I disagree. Once again, there were other approaches that could have been taken to pass this legislation, and these options remain available. In addition, there are many areas of agreement when it comes to immigration. Therefore, I believe that we can find a way to address our immigration problems that will satisfy the American people.

But, to do that, we need a process that is fair and open. The process we have followed in this case has been too limiting and, as a result, we have a bill that the vast majority of Americans will not support. That being the case, I oppose this effort to end debate and to push this bill through.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to eliminate the current dollar limitation on Qualified Funeral Trusts, QFTs. Congress created these savings vehicles in 1997 to assist individuals and families who wanted to plan for, and prepay, funeral expenses. Yet, funeral costs are rising

rapidly, and the arbitrary cap that Congress imposed on QFTs makes planning more difficult. Today I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation, along with my colleague from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, Senator Kohl. We are also joined by two of our distinguished colleagues, Senators Specter and Crapo. The change would have a positive impact on the lives of older Americans and on their families. In addition, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would have a slight, but positive, impact on the Federal treasury.

When Congress created QFTs, it did so as a tax simplification measure. Unfortunately, it capped the size of these trusts at $7,000, adjusted regularly for inflation. This year, the inflation-adjusted cap is $8,800, but in many instances, this amount is no longer sufficient to cover a family's funeral expenses. In Utah, the average cost of a full funeral and burial is $12,685. I am sure that in many other states it is even higher. Because of this contribution limit, even those who preplan their own funerals too often leave their heirs with substantial expenses. Even those who attempt to cover the entire expense may not have enough money to cover all costs after administrative fees and taxes are deducted.

This proposal would make Qualified Funeral Trusts more effective. The principal reason individuals set up Qualified Funeral Trust plans is to lift a financial burden from their children. Ordinarily, trusts for funeral expenses are grantor trusts, and the beneficiary is responsible for paying any tax on income generated by the trust. Congress recognized, however, that this result created an administrative burden for the beneficiary or the funeral director trustee. As a result, Congress enacted Section 685 of the Internal Revenue Code, allowing funeral director trustees to elect to pay the tax on income earned by funeral trusts. This tax simplification measure eased the paperwork burden and administrative costs on funeral director trustees, who were previously required to issue hundreds of 1099 forms to their elderly customers. It also eliminated the tax liability and confusion of many elderly Americans who previously received these forms. Unfortunately, only those trusts under the cap are currently eligible for designation as QFTs. By removing this restrictive cap, our legislation will eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens on beneficiaries and trustees.

Let me give you an example of how the current cap creates unnecessary confusion for families. I have used this example before. It remains worth telling. Four years ago, a constituent of mine wrote me about this situation. He was suffering from Parkinson's disease. So he began planning his own funeral in order that these decisions and this burden would be lifted from his children. Because of the cap on QFTs, however, which at the time was $7,800, this Utahn was not able to fully fund the funeral services he desired. It became necessary to have one of his sons complete this planning for him by opening up his own, separate trust that would help to cover the remaining expenses. We should not be making it hard for families to do the right thing. We should not be making families jump through extra hoops when all they are trying to do is make these responsible decisions, well in advance of need.

For older Americans, the primary benefits of this legislation are the ability to have all the money they have saved in the trust be applied to final expenses, instead of taxes, and the incentive to increase the amount of their contribution. Sixty percent of prefunded funerals were funded by trusts and elimination of the cap should raise this percentage. For funeral directors, this change would eliminate the burden and expense of issuing information documents to report income earned from the trust.

The National Funeral Directors Association supports this legislation. So too do numerous funeral homes that serve the people of Utah.

I have no doubt that many more of these funeral businesses, many of which are family-owned and family-run, that serve local communities from coast to coast support this legislation as well.

I think we can all agree that we should make it easier for those who are willing to provide for these necessary expenses in advance. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in an effort to enact this important measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to eliminate the current dollar limitation on Qualified Funeral Trusts, QFTs. Congress created these savings vehicles in 1997 to assist individuals and families who wanted to plan for, and prepay, funeral expenses. Yet, funeral costs are rising

rapidly, and the arbitrary cap that Congress imposed on QFTs makes planning more difficult. Today I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation, along with my colleague from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Special Committee on Aging, Senator Kohl. We are also joined by two of our distinguished colleagues, Senators Specter and Crapo. The change would have a positive impact on the lives of older Americans and on their families. In addition, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, it would have a slight, but positive, impact on the Federal treasury.

When Congress created QFTs, it did so as a tax simplification measure. Unfortunately, it capped the size of these trusts at $7,000, adjusted regularly for inflation. This year, the inflation-adjusted cap is $8,800, but in many instances, this amount is no longer sufficient to cover a family's funeral expenses. In Utah, the average cost of a full funeral and burial is $12,685. I am sure that in many other states it is even higher. Because of this contribution limit, even those who preplan their own funerals too often leave their heirs with substantial expenses. Even those who attempt to cover the entire expense may not have enough money to cover all costs after administrative fees and taxes are deducted.

This proposal would make Qualified Funeral Trusts more effective. The principal reason individuals set up Qualified Funeral Trust plans is to lift a financial burden from their children. Ordinarily, trusts for funeral expenses are grantor trusts, and the beneficiary is responsible for paying any tax on income generated by the trust. Congress recognized, however, that this result created an administrative burden for the beneficiary or the funeral director trustee. As a result, Congress enacted Section 685 of the Internal Revenue Code, allowing funeral director trustees to elect to pay the tax on income earned by funeral trusts. This tax simplification measure eased the paperwork burden and administrative costs on funeral director trustees, who were previously required to issue hundreds of 1099 forms to their elderly customers. It also eliminated the tax liability and confusion of many elderly Americans who previously received these forms. Unfortunately, only those trusts under the cap are currently eligible for designation as QFTs. By removing this restrictive cap, our legislation will eliminate unnecessary administrative burdens on beneficiaries and trustees.

Let me give you an example of how the current cap creates unnecessary confusion for families. I have used this example before. It remains worth telling. Four years ago, a constituent of mine wrote me about this situation. He was suffering from Parkinson's disease. So he began planning his own funeral in order that these decisions and this burden would be lifted from his children. Because of the cap on QFTs, however, which at the time was $7,800, this Utahn was not able to fully fund the funeral services he desired. It became necessary to have one of his sons complete this planning for him by opening up his own, separate trust that would help to cover the remaining expenses. We should not be making it hard for families to do the right thing. We should not be making families jump through extra hoops when all they are trying to do is make these responsible decisions, well in advance of need.

For older Americans, the primary benefits of this legislation are the ability to have all the money they have saved in the trust be applied to final expenses, instead of taxes, and the incentive to increase the amount of their contribution. Sixty percent of prefunded funerals were funded by trusts and elimination of the cap should raise this percentage. For funeral directors, this change would eliminate the burden and expense of issuing information documents to report income earned from the trust.

The National Funeral Directors Association supports this legislation. So too do numerous funeral homes that serve the people of Utah.

I have no doubt that many more of these funeral businesses, many of which are family-owned and family-run, that serve local communities from coast to coast support this legislation as well.

I think we can all agree that we should make it easier for those who are willing to provide for these necessary expenses in advance. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in an effort to enact this important measure.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 1693, the Wired for Healthcare Quality Act. The goal of achieving high quality health care is not reachable without use of information technology. For instance, the 21 quality measures that hospitals now report for Medicare must usually be manually extracted from paper charts. The Government Accountability Office reports that hospitals are near the limit of the number of quality measures that they can report by these antiquated techniques. Implementation of information technology is critical because with it there is no practical limit on the ability to measure quality.

Dr. Brent James, a national quality expert from Intermountain Healthcare of Salt Lake City, UT, tells me that a health care provider who wishes to improve performance starts by defining detailed measures of quality health care and then builds information technology around the measures so that routine, automatic reporting of compliance with the measures becomes part of the health information technology platform. The Wired for Healthcare Quality Act does not just impose standards for interoperability of information technology it creates a mechanism by which quality measures are embedded in those standards.

The legislation encourages the development of standards by codifying the office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology who coordinates the health information technology policies of Federal agencies.

It creates a public-private partnership, the Partnership for Health Care Improvement to advise the Secretary on technical aspects of interoperability, on standards, on implementation, and on certification of compliance with those standards.

The bill establishes the American Health Information Community as a body providing recommendations to the Secretary regarding the broad policy issues of implementation of technical standards created by the partnership. For instance, it will advise the Secretary on issues of patient privacy, information security, and appropriate uses of health information.

The bill directs the Secretary to provide for the development and use of quality measures in the health information technology platform by an arrangement with a private entity that establishes standards for measurement development and coordinates and harmonizes measures so that providers are able to use the same set of measures, if not the same measures, for all their patients.

The legislation requires that all Federal information technology purchases conform to the standards recommended by the Partnership and adopted by the President within 1 year and that all Federal agencies comply within 3 years. Adoption of these standards is voluntary for private entities except for functions they contract with the Federal Government.

The legislation encourages the adoption of qualified health information technology by providing grants for the purchase of health information technology systems to providers demonstrating financial needs, by providing low interest loans to states to help providers acquire health information technology systems, and by providing grants to facilitate the implementation of regional or local health information exchanges.

The legislation provides for the development of national reports of health care quality based on Federal health care data and private data that is publicly available. Reports are to be contracted to quality reporting organizations.

The legislation assures strong privacy protections for electronic health information by forbidding funding under the bill to any information technology system that lacks strong privacy and security protections, by requiring recipients of funding to notify patients if their medical information is wrongfully disclosed and by requiring that the national strategy on health information technology include strong privacy protections.

Before I close, I must raise a concern with the bill. Building a national, interoperable health care information technology platform is like building two houses with a common driveway. Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are one house. Private health plans are the other. They both must share common standards for health information technology so that systems all talk with one another. They both must implement from a common pool of quality standards otherwise providers will be impossibly confused. The two houses will not look alike but they must share a common driveway and common building standards.

I use this analogy to emphasize that the rules for the quality measures used by the Medicare Program are the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee on which I serve as a senior member. The rules for quality measures in a national health information technology standard, and private health insurance plans, are under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. We must be certain that these distinctions are made with clarity to avoid confusing ourselves and the medical community. I look forward to working with Senators Enzi, Kennedy, and Clinton, and my colleagues Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Minority Member Chuck Grassley on the Finance Committee to ensure that these important distinctions are made.

If we do not accomplish the task of integrating quality and health information technology standards between public and private programs, providers will be placed in the impossible position of having one set of quality and information technology standards for publicly insured patients and other requirements for privately insured patients. If such a Tower of Babel is allowed to develop, providers will simply not be able to implement the improvements in care that we all want to see through the use of health information technology. We cannot miss this chance.

Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S. 1693, the Wired for Healthcare Quality Act. The goal of achieving high quality health care is not reachable without use of information technology. For instance, the 21 quality measures that hospitals now report for Medicare must usually be manually extracted from paper charts. The Government Accountability Office reports that hospitals are near the limit of the number of quality measures that they can report by these antiquated techniques. Implementation of information technology is critical because with it there is no practical limit on the ability to measure quality.

Dr. Brent James, a national quality expert from Intermountain Healthcare of Salt Lake City, UT, tells me that a health care provider who wishes to improve performance starts by defining detailed measures of quality health care and then builds information technology around the measures so that routine, automatic reporting of compliance with the measures becomes part of the health information technology platform. The Wired for Healthcare Quality Act does not just impose standards for interoperability of information technology it creates a mechanism by which quality measures are embedded in those standards.

The legislation encourages the development of standards by codifying the office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology who coordinates the health information technology policies of Federal agencies.

It creates a public-private partnership, the Partnership for Health Care Improvement to advise the Secretary on technical aspects of interoperability, on standards, on implementation, and on certification of compliance with those standards.

The bill establishes the American Health Information Community as a body providing recommendations to the Secretary regarding the broad policy issues of implementation of technical standards created by the partnership. For instance, it will advise the Secretary on issues of patient privacy, information security, and appropriate uses of health information.

The bill directs the Secretary to provide for the development and use of quality measures in the health information technology platform by an arrangement with a private entity that establishes standards for measurement development and coordinates and harmonizes measures so that providers are able to use the same set of measures, if not the same measures, for all their patients.

The legislation requires that all Federal information technology purchases conform to the standards recommended by the Partnership and adopted by the President within 1 year and that all Federal agencies comply within 3 years. Adoption of these standards is voluntary for private entities except for functions they contract with the Federal Government.

The legislation encourages the adoption of qualified health information technology by providing grants for the purchase of health information technology systems to providers demonstrating financial needs, by providing low interest loans to states to help providers acquire health information technology systems, and by providing grants to facilitate the implementation of regional or local health information exchanges.

The legislation provides for the development of national reports of health care quality based on Federal health care data and private data that is publicly available. Reports are to be contracted to quality reporting organizations.

The legislation assures strong privacy protections for electronic health information by forbidding funding under the bill to any information technology system that lacks strong privacy and security protections, by requiring recipients of funding to notify patients if their medical information is wrongfully disclosed and by requiring that the national strategy on health information technology include strong privacy protections.

Before I close, I must raise a concern with the bill. Building a national, interoperable health care information technology platform is like building two houses with a common driveway. Federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are one house. Private health plans are the other. They both must share common standards for health information technology so that systems all talk with one another. They both must implement from a common pool of quality standards otherwise providers will be impossibly confused. The two houses will not look alike but they must share a common driveway and common building standards.

I use this analogy to emphasize that the rules for the quality measures used by the Medicare Program are the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee on which I serve as a senior member. The rules for quality measures in a national health information technology standard, and private health insurance plans, are under the jurisdiction of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. We must be certain that these distinctions are made with clarity to avoid confusing ourselves and the medical community. I look forward to working with Senators Enzi, Kennedy, and Clinton, and my colleagues Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Minority Member Chuck Grassley on the Finance Committee to ensure that these important distinctions are made.

If we do not accomplish the task of integrating quality and health information technology standards between public and private programs, providers will be placed in the impossible position of having one set of quality and information technology standards for publicly insured patients and other requirements for privately insured patients. If such a Tower of Babel is allowed to develop, providers will simply not be able to implement the improvements in care that we all want to see through the use of health information technology. We cannot miss this chance.

Mr. President, the proponents of this measure have tried to make the case that unions are good and that they deliver higher wages, benefits and overall prosperity for their members. Whether that is true or not is not the issue we are debating here today.

In fact, I am struck by the irony of the proponents' argument. If unions are so valuable to working Americans, unions should not have any difficulty winning an NLRB-supervised representation election. What do good unions have to fear from secret ballot elections?

Whether unions are good for workers is beside the point. This debate is about the method by which workers are allowed to choose a union.

If workers want to have a union in their workplace, they should be able to freely vote for one. But, workers cannot make this decision freely with either the employer or the union looking over their shoulders.

Card check is a recipe for legalized harassment and intimidation. The Senate should not allow this measure to pass.

Mr. President, I want to speak against cloture on the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, because it promotes neither freedom nor choice for employees when it comes to union representation. Rather, the card-check certification, the binding interest arbitration, and the penalty sanctions of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act would deprive employees of their freedom and choice in union representation that the National Labor Relations Act guarantees them and that the National Labor Relations Board secures for them.

The supporters of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act claim that the current system is broken and that the so-called Employee Free Choice Act will correct the deficiencies of the current system. However, they are misguided, because there is no free choice when an employee is bound by signatures on union authorization cards instead of votes in a secret ballot election made after an employee can learn about the advantages and disadvantages of union representation.

There is no free choice when a Government-appointed arbitrator decides the terms of a union contract that is binding for at least two years and employees are denied the right to vote on whether to accept the union contract. In other words, it's mandatory arbitration on both the employees and the company.

Contrary to the claims of the supporters of H.R. 800, the National Labor Relations Act is effective in providing for and protecting the free choice of employees in union representation. In fact, current statistics from the National Labor Relations Board demonstrate that the system does work.

In a recently released study of statistics for 2006, the win rate of unions in secret ballot elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board has increased for the tenth consecutive year. That is correct--unions have a rising in secret ballot elections over the span of the last 10 years.

For example, in 2006, the union win rate was 61.5 percent of all representation elections, which was up from 61.4 percent in 2005. Since 1996, unions have won more than 50 percent of all NLRB-supervised elections in each year. Thus, secret ballot elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board are effective and time-honored avenues for employees to express their free choice on union representation.

More significantly, unions are winning well over 50 percent of these secret ballot elections. Yet the supporters of this bill, H.R. 800, now want to cast aside this effective system and give unions the ability to increase membership and dues by a forced card check system and a guarantee of a Government-imposed initial union contract.

Additional proof that the National Labor Relations Board is conducting union representation elections in an efficient and timely manner is found in reports from the Board itself. For 2006, the median time between the filing of a union's election petition and the election was just 39 days. In addition, 94.2 percent of all initial union representation elections were held within 56 days from the time the union filed its election petition.

In short, the system is not broken. Rather, the system works, and it works in favor of unions in over 50 percent of these secret ballot elections. If there is a breakdown as unions claim, then it may be that it is with unions and their appeal and message to the working men and women of this country. The reason unions are fighting for passage of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is that they are fighting to maintain their political relevance. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor, unions' membership of the private sector workforce in this country is only 7.4 percent today. This is down from 7.8 percent in 2005. It is a continuation of the decline in union membership from 20.1 percent in 1983.

Thus, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is not as important and imperative as organized labor has claimed because it does not protect the free choice of employees in union representation. It has nothing to do with leveling the playing field in a globally competitive market. Rather, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act is a quintessential political power play. It is about changing the law by turning your back on one of the hallmarks of a democratic society--a secret ballot election--and by supplanting the collective bargaining process with a federally mandated union contract. With these changes in the law, it will be easier for unions to increase membership by forced card check and to increase their financial dues to sprinkle around so that unions can maintain their political influence which is disproportionate to their shrinking membership.

I encourage my colleagues to stand up for working men and women by opposing this ill-advised legislation.

Mr. President, I think it is time that somebody stood up to defend the hard-working career employees of the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, who are under attack from organized labor and who are being demeaned by this legislation, this so-called Employee Free Choice Act.

As I said, in 1978, during the labor law reform debate, the NLRB is one of the finest and most efficient organizations in the Federal Government, and its lawyers serve the public interest by representing the Nation's employees--not unions or employers but employees. They are among the best lawyers in Government or, for that matter, anywhere in the private sector, anywhere in private practice law firms, and their representation of employees is free of charge. Although I certainly do not always agree with the NLRB or its decisions, I have consistently defended the agency over the 31 years I have been in the Senate.

NLRB lawyers in Washington and throughout the country in regional and subregional offices are among the most dedicated protectors of employee rights--apparently even more so than unions if one considers the unions' position on H.R. 800 denying secret ballot rights of employees and depriving employees of a vote on wages and terms and employment conditions resulting from a federally imposed union contract.

If H.R. 800 were to pass, NLRB lawyers would have to become, in effect, handwriting analysts, making sure employee signatures on union- solicited authorization cards are not forged or fraudulent. The proud record of the agency and its lawyers in conducting secret ballot elections for union representation and in protecting the rights of employees in the election process would be history. The voting booth, the ballot box, the American flag, the NLRB agent standing guard to make sure the election is conducted without intimidation or coercion by unions or employers--all that would be thrown out and replaced with one role: simply counting union authorization cards submitted by union organizers.

With that, of course, would potentially come the loss of career NLRB jobs, since how many handwriting experts does the NLRB have or need? They deserve better treatment from organized labor, as do the employees the NLRB seeks to protect.

Lost also under H.R. 800 would be the significance for employees of walking into the voting booth to cast a private vote for or against a union. After all, under the card check system in H.R. 800, employees do not get to vote against union representation even though they will be bound by principles of majority rule and exclusive representation.

Let's get that clear. If 50 percent of the employees plus one sign cards, the other 49.9 percent are disenfranchised. If they don't want a union, that is tough; they are automatically unionized. That is not right. Under the card check system in H.R. 800, employees do not get to vote against union representation even though they will be bound by principles of majority rule and exclusive representation. Their vote, if one can call it that, is not signing a card, assuming they are even asked to sign a card, which is far different from having the opportunity of saying no.

Under the current NLRB secret ballot election process, all employees designated as an appropriate unit get to vote, even though some may not exercise that right. Under the card check system in H.R. 800, apparently all a union organizer has to do is define a unit of employees appropriate for collective bargaining--for example, a group of employees who share a community of interest--and then solicit authorization cards from a majority of employees in that unit. Once the organizers reach signatures from 50 percent plus one, all they do is then take the signed cards to the NLRB for certification, regardless of what the other 50 percent of the employees really feel about the process.

As under current law, of course, the NLRB may make a determination that the unit is an appropriate unit for bargaining, although not necessarily the appropriate unit. However, under the card check process of H.R. 800, the other 49 percent of the employees may not even know until after the fact that they were part of a petitioned-for-bargaining unit since they would never have been given an opportunity to vote or even asked to sign union authorization cards. At least under the current system, they are notified that they are part of a petitioned- for-bargaining unit and given the opportunity to vote for or against the union in a secret ballot election.

There are many victims of H.R. 800--employees, employers, the NLRB and its career employees and, most importantly, sound national labor public policy. The only winners under H.R. 800 would be the union leaders and those who slavishly do their bidding in exchange for political support.

Of course, I believe those who vote against cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 800 will be the true political winners since we will have joined the majority of Americans for protecting the rights of employees through a secret ballot election and against fear, coercion, and intimidation by union organizers to have employees sign union authorization cards. We will have stood by employees and not the union bosses. By defeating cloture on this radical legislation, we will have prevented the economic catastrophe of having federally appointed arbitrators impose wages, benefits, and terms of employment.

Ultimately, the employees will be the winners by stopping this antiemployee legislation.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond be given the floor immediately after my remarks and I be granted up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I listened very carefully to my friend from North Dakota. He is a friend and very fine man and good Senator, but I have been a little bit amazed at some of the things he said. First, I have only been here 31 years, but I was one of those who did a lot to help Lech Walesa. My dearest friend in the labor movement happened to be the international vice president of the AFL-CIO, Irving Brown. Irving Brown headed our tripartite representation at the International Labor Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. He was probably the most respected labor leader in the world. He took on the Soviets and their phony trade union organization that was trying to take over the French docks and he beat them. He risked his life every day of his life for free trade unionism, internationally.

When he died I was, as far as I could see, the only Republican invited to his memorial service. He went into Paris at the end of the Second World War--before the end of the Second World War--through the underground, and stayed there and helped topple the Nazis and then stayed there and defeated the Communists who tried to take over the French docks. If they had been able to do that, they would have had a worldwide trade union that would have been anything but in the best interests of the workers. He was the one who came up with the idea for the National Endowment for Democracy, and I worked very hard to get that enacted here and also was one of the first members of the board of directors of the National Endowment for Democracy.

I think he would have been horrified with what this bill does, taking away the right of workers to have a secret ballot election and replacing it with the ability of 50 percent of the workers plus one, who sign cards, mandating a union for every other employee. The fact of the matter is, doing away with secret ballot elections is anything but Democratic.

I have to say I am amazed they are trying to sell this to the American public. I don't think they can. They can't sell it to the union members out there, roughly 70 percent of whom are against doing away with secret ballot elections--and for good reason. Once they start down that road, then you can have Government interference and a whole bunch of other interferences that will take away people's freedoms and rights.

This bill is a disgrace. Even worse is the mandatory arbitration this bill imposes on employers and employees for up to 2 years if they do not agree within 90 days of collective bargaining, which usually always takes longer, and 30 days of mediation. Then the Federal Government can step in and determine the wages, terms, and conditions of employment.

That is a ridiculous approach. That is even more dangerous than the card-check part of this. I can tell you this, as one who helped Lech Walesa, who met with him in Gdansk, who had dinner with him over in Gdansk, and also with Father Jankowski, who was the Catholic priest who held mass on the docks with guns trained upon his back, all I can say is I do not think their belief in free trade unionism consisted of having a card check system. A system that would bind 100 percent of employees to a union when only 50 percent plus 1 decided to unionize through a coerced and nontransparent signing of a card.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1685, the Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act of 2007. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Specter. This bipartisan, balanced effort will adjust the existing statutory ratio for cocaine sentencing to craft a more rational and effective sentencing policy. I must underscore that this bill continues to offer significant penalties for drug dealers and ensures that those who continue to peddle dangerous substances in our communities will endure harsh consequences for their destructive choices; at the same time, though, S. 1685 rectifies a longstanding disparity in cocaine sentencing that should have been fixed two decades ago.

Some background might be appropriate for my colleagues at this point. In 1986, Congress enacted the anti-drug abuse law to address the growing problem of drug use in our country. This legislation created the basic framework of statutory mandatory minimum penalties which are currently applicable to Federal drug trafficking offenses.

The law differentiated between powder and crack cocaine by establishing significantly higher penalties for crack cocaine offenses. It is likely this was done based on assumptions that crack cocaine was considered more dangerous and had increased levels of violence associated with its usage. Based on these assumptions, the law provided for quantity-based penalties which differed dramatically between the two forms of cocaine. Under that law, the current law, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. This penalty structure is referred to as the ``100 to 1 drug ratio.''

Over the last decade, public officials, lawmakers, interest groups, criminal justice practitioners, and judges have all criticized and questioned the fairness and practicality of the Federal sentencing policy for cocaine offenses created by the 1986 law. This 100-to-1 ratio is widely viewed as an unjustifiable disparity. Crack and powder cocaine are pharmacologically the same drug, and although the level of violence associated with crack is higher, it does not warrant such an extreme sentencing disparity.

It should also be noted that during the negotiations in 1986 that produced the 100-to-1 ratio law, a bill was introduced at the request of President Reagan which represented the Reagan administration's views on drug policy. This bill was described as the ``culmination'' of President Reagan's efforts in his commitment to fight drug abuse. The Reagan legislation utilized the same quantity of crack cocaine necessary to trigger a 5-year mandatory minimum as what is called for in the legislation we are introducing today, reducing the sentencing disparity to a 20-to-1 ratio.

While many individuals can disagree on what the appropriate ratio should be, I am completely comfortable recommending the same amount previously requested by President Reagan. I supported his proposed 20- to-1 ratio in 1986, and I support this same ratio today.

Many organizations share our concern, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission has advocated that Congress reduce the sentencing disparity on four different occasions between 1995 and 2007. The Commission has conducted a voluminous amount of research on this topic. This research has led to many conclusions by the Commission, including that the current penalties exaggerate the relative harmfulness of crack, sweep too broadly and apply most often to lower level offenders, and fail to provide adequate proportionality.

The Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act continues to recognize that crack and powder cocaine are not coequal in their destructive effects. On the contrary, the five-fold reduction in the crack-powder ratio corrects the unjustifiable disparity, while appropriately reflecting the greater harm to our citizens and communities posed by crack cocaine.

This legislation also seeks to emphasize the defendant's role in the crime and will require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to examine sentencing enhancements for all Federal drug violations, including methamphetamine. The Commission's examination should include appropriate sentencing enhancements for offenders who brandished a weapon, sold to minors or pregnant women, sold drugs near schools, were involved in the importation of the illegal drugs into our country, or have previous felony drug trafficking convictions.

Finding ways to reduce drug crime is not and should not be a partisan issue. All individuals involved in this process have tried to design a blueprint to curb the spread of drug trafficking and abuse. An easy, straightforward blueprint has unfortunately proven to be elusive. Since the 1970s, Congress has been working to improve Federal sentencing policy and has routinely made necessary changes to make our sentencing structure more just and effective. The bill we introduce today seeks to remedy mistakes of the past and will provide a rational and just sentencing schedule while continuing to reflect the fundamental and befitting goals of the criminal justice system.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1685, the Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act of 2007. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Feinstein, and Specter. This bipartisan, balanced effort will adjust the existing statutory ratio for cocaine sentencing to craft a more rational and effective sentencing policy. I must underscore that this bill continues to offer significant penalties for drug dealers and ensures that those who continue to peddle dangerous substances in our communities will endure harsh consequences for their destructive choices; at the same time, though, S. 1685 rectifies a longstanding disparity in cocaine sentencing that should have been fixed two decades ago.

Some background might be appropriate for my colleagues at this point. In 1986, Congress enacted the anti-drug abuse law to address the growing problem of drug use in our country. This legislation created the basic framework of statutory mandatory minimum penalties which are currently applicable to Federal drug trafficking offenses.

The law differentiated between powder and crack cocaine by establishing significantly higher penalties for crack cocaine offenses. It is likely this was done based on assumptions that crack cocaine was considered more dangerous and had increased levels of violence associated with its usage. Based on these assumptions, the law provided for quantity-based penalties which differed dramatically between the two forms of cocaine. Under that law, the current law, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine than crack cocaine to trigger the same 5- and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences. This penalty structure is referred to as the ``100 to 1 drug ratio.''

Over the last decade, public officials, lawmakers, interest groups, criminal justice practitioners, and judges have all criticized and questioned the fairness and practicality of the Federal sentencing policy for cocaine offenses created by the 1986 law. This 100-to-1 ratio is widely viewed as an unjustifiable disparity. Crack and powder cocaine are pharmacologically the same drug, and although the level of violence associated with crack is higher, it does not warrant such an extreme sentencing disparity.

It should also be noted that during the negotiations in 1986 that produced the 100-to-1 ratio law, a bill was introduced at the request of President Reagan which represented the Reagan administration's views on drug policy. This bill was described as the ``culmination'' of President Reagan's efforts in his commitment to fight drug abuse. The Reagan legislation utilized the same quantity of crack cocaine necessary to trigger a 5-year mandatory minimum as what is called for in the legislation we are introducing today, reducing the sentencing disparity to a 20-to-1 ratio.

While many individuals can disagree on what the appropriate ratio should be, I am completely comfortable recommending the same amount previously requested by President Reagan. I supported his proposed 20- to-1 ratio in 1986, and I support this same ratio today.

Many organizations share our concern, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission has advocated that Congress reduce the sentencing disparity on four different occasions between 1995 and 2007. The Commission has conducted a voluminous amount of research on this topic. This research has led to many conclusions by the Commission, including that the current penalties exaggerate the relative harmfulness of crack, sweep too broadly and apply most often to lower level offenders, and fail to provide adequate proportionality.

The Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act continues to recognize that crack and powder cocaine are not coequal in their destructive effects. On the contrary, the five-fold reduction in the crack-powder ratio corrects the unjustifiable disparity, while appropriately reflecting the greater harm to our citizens and communities posed by crack cocaine.

This legislation also seeks to emphasize the defendant's role in the crime and will require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to examine sentencing enhancements for all Federal drug violations, including methamphetamine. The Commission's examination should include appropriate sentencing enhancements for offenders who brandished a weapon, sold to minors or pregnant women, sold drugs near schools, were involved in the importation of the illegal drugs into our country, or have previous felony drug trafficking convictions.

Finding ways to reduce drug crime is not and should not be a partisan issue. All individuals involved in this process have tried to design a blueprint to curb the spread of drug trafficking and abuse. An easy, straightforward blueprint has unfortunately proven to be elusive. Since the 1970s, Congress has been working to improve Federal sentencing policy and has routinely made necessary changes to make our sentencing structure more just and effective. The bill we introduce today seeks to remedy mistakes of the past and will provide a rational and just sentencing schedule while continuing to reflect the fundamental and befitting goals of the criminal justice system.

I ask unanimous consent that I be given enough time to make this speech, as long as I finish before 2 o'clock.

Mr. President, I rise in fierce opposition to the horribly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act.

When I first came to the Senate, I thought the 1977-1978 labor law reform bill we turned back was bad public policy. The bill we are considering moving to the floor, H.R. 800, is far worse.

Where is the free choice for employees in this horribly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act? In all my years in the Senate, I have to say that the title of this bill is the most misleading of any I can recall. This bill doesn't give rights to employees; it takes away the rights of employees and replaces them with the rights of union bosses.

Back in 1977 and 1978, when we fought the labor law reform bill, there were 62 Democrats in the Senate and only 38 Republicans. But we were able to defeat that bill by one vote. Thank goodness we did because this would be a far different country today.

This bill would more aptly be named the Union Bosses Free Ride Act because it would allow union organizers to skip the efforts of having to convince employees to vote for union representation in secret ballot elections to gain certification as the exclusive bargaining representative. Then it would allow union negotiators to skip the efforts of bargaining for a first contract. Instead, unions need only make a pretense of collective bargaining for an initial union contract before turning to the Federal Government, which can for 2 years impose the wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment binding on employees, without employees' ratification or approval-- binding on the employer as well, without the employer's ratification or approval.

Is this what my colleagues want to support--eliminating secret ballot elections and mandating Government certification of a union based on union-solicited authorization cards? Is this what my colleagues want to support--the Federal Government writing the binding contract terms for private sector wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment? That is what this bill does.

Apparently, it is not what the American public want us to support. According to a January 2007 poll by McLaughlin and Associates, 79 percent of the public opposes this bill, including 80 percent of union households, 80 percent of Republicans, and 78 percent of Democrats.

When asked: ``Would you be more or less likely to vote for a Member of Congress who supported this bill?'' the response was 70 percent less likely.

Recent polls also suggest that 87 percent of voters, almost 9 out of 10, agree that every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised, private-ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. The same survey found that 79 percent, that is 4 out of 5 voters, oppose efforts replace the current private-ballot system with one that would simply require a majority of workers to sign a card to authorize organizing a union. There was virtually no variation in reply among Republicans, Democrats, or Independents in this survey; this sentiment rings true across the board.

Likewise, in a 2004 Zogby International survey of union workers, it was found that the majority of union members agree that the fairest way to decide on a union is for the government to hold a private-ballot election and keep the workers' decisions private. In the same survey, 71 percent of union members agreed that the current private-ballot process is fair. The survey also found that 84 percent of union workers stated that workers should have the right to vote on whether or not they wish to belong to a union.

It is hard to believe that we are seriously considering a bill to deny workers a secret ballot vote so soon after the national elections, and our own elections, given our Nation's history in promoting secret ballot elections for the disenfranchised members of society through the suffragette and civil rights movements. This is especially true since we are fighting for the opportunity of individuals around the world to have the democratic right to a secret ballot election.

Apparently, even congressional cosponsors of the bill acknowledge that it would be bad policy to take away secret ballot union representation elections, at least for workers in Mexico. In a 2001 letter to Mexican Government

officials, the House sponsor of H.R. 800, 16 Members of the House of Representatives including one then-member who now serves in this body, wrote:

We understand that the private ballot is allowed for, but

not required by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the

private ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure

workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they may

not otherwise choose.

If private ballot elections are absolutely necessary for workers in Mexico, why aren't they necessary here? That is what you have to ask.

The answer is simple. Union bosses are more successful under card check. Recently, according to official NLRB statistics, unions have won over 60 percent of NLRB-supervised secret ballot union representation elections. In other words, they are winning the vast majority of elections on secret ballot. They want to win all of them, and that is why they support this card-check approach. At least by political election standards, that 60 percent is a high mark. But not for union bosses. Statistics show that under a card check, unions win approximately 80 percent of the time, and an even higher percentage when the employer remains neutral and does not communicate with workers, as employers are permitted to do under the section 8(c) free speech provision of the National Labor Relations Act.

In effect, forced employer neutrality would be the result of card check under H.R. 800, since union organizers would control the timing of the election by quietly securing a majority of signatures--50 percent plus 1--among a group of employees, large or small, determined by the union organizer, and then springing the demand for certification upon the employer and the NLRB. The result would, in effect, silence the employer and thus deny employees the right to be fully informed about the particular union seeking their support.

Under this bill, the role of the NLRB, which has such a proud history of conducting secret ballot union representation elections, would be reduced to that of handwriting analysts checking to make sure that employees' signatures were not forged, and determining whether the group of employees designated by the union constitutes an appropriate unit. Remember, under NLRB law, the unit petitioned for does not have to be the appropriate unit, or the most appropriate unit, but only an appropriate unit for bargaining where the employees share a community of interest. Thus, in effect, the union organizer can select a group of employees that are most easily organized by means of card check, force NLRB certification by designating ``an'' appropriate unit, and then force a government-imposed first contract, the terms of which could incorporate employer obligations affecting the employer's entire operations, such as contract provisions barring subcontracting of work.

In effect, H. R. 800 is push-button unionism.

Under this bill, to force union representation, union organizers only have to get employees to sign union authorization cards, which the Supreme Court has an ``inherently unreliable'' indicator of true employee support due to peer pressures, intimidation and coercion.

Would the unions like the employers to have the same right, to be able to go privately and intimidate employees as the union organizers will do and get 50 percent plus 1 to throw the union out? Not on your life.

In fact, 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.'' NLRB v. Logan Packing Co., Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Some supporters of the bill have asserted that the bill does not eliminate secret ballot elections. But if they simply read the bill, it provides just the opposite. Just so we are clear, quoting from the bill:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section,

whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or

group of employees or any individual or labor organization

acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees

in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective

bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor

organization for such purposes, the board shall investigate

the petition. If the board finds that a majority of the

employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed

valid authorizations designating the individual or labor

organization specified in the petition as their bargaining

representative and that no other individual or labor

organization is currently certified or recognized as the

exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit,

the board shall not direct an election but shall certify the

individual or labor organization as the representative

described in subsection.

How can one say with a straight face that card check for union representation is any more protective than a private ballot election where employees may be solicited, intimidated, and coerced, subtly or not so subtly, to sign union authorization cards by fellow employees during nonwork hours and nonwork areas at the workplace, or by outside union organizers at the employees' homes or at the union hall or simply on the street or at the plant gates.

How is card check more of a free choice than the long-established and hard-won employee protections of a private ballot election, which is supervised, monitored, and shielded by Government officials of the National Labor Relations Board, who are present at the voting booth to prevent improper electioneering and misconduct by representatives of either labor or management?

The compulsory, first contract, interest arbitration is even a greater departure from sound national labor policy because it destroys free collective bargaining.

Under this bill, to force an initial union contract, union negotiators only have to make a pretense of bargaining for 90 days before calling on federal mediation for 30 days. If not resolved, the contract then must go to a federally appointed arbitrator who will write the employment terms binding on the employees and the employer for 2 years. That is long enough to sour employees on the federally imposed terms of employment, and long enough to bankrupt an employer or make it so noncompetitive that it decides to close operations and do business elsewhere--perhaps and probably overseas.

How can one say with a straight face that it is an employee's free choice to have the Federal Government write the terms of employment through compulsory interest arbitration by a federally appointed arbitrator? Under this bill, the arbitrator has unfettered authority to impose the wages, benefits, terms and conditions of employment of an initial union contract, which is then binding on employees and their employers for two years, without the employees even being able to approve or ratify those terms as they can under current law? How is that employee free choice? How is that open collective bargaining?

And how is it an employee's free choice then, by operation of the current contract bar doctrine, to prevent those employees from challenging the union's continuing majority support by an NLRB supervised secret ballot election?

This bill is not about employee free choice. It is about union leaders calling in their political chits in order to increase membership, and being able to deny workers the protections of an NLRB- supervised secret ballot election.

It is about union leaders then being able to get the Federal Government to impose wages, benefits, terms and conditions of employment and deny workers the right to ratify or approve the first union contract that will govern their employment for 2 years.

This is a huge and radical change in national labor policy, which the bill's sponsors are trying to foist on American workers and employers without even the benefit of a committee mark-up. Imagine, with only one day of committee hearings, completely rewriting and reversing over 70 years of national labor policy by injecting the Government into private sector collective bargaining through compulsory arbitration. The Federal Government steps in, not where the parties voluntarily agree to such intervention, but by congressional mandate, by operation of law, whether the parties agree or not.

That is not the way national labor policy is designed to work. This is not how it worked when the original Wagner Act was enacted in 1935, and in all subsequent amendments including the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act. Consistent with the decisions of every NLRB in Democratic as well as Republican administrations--and enforced by every federal

court including the Supreme Court, it has been bedrock national labor policy that the Federal Government must not set the terms of the private employment contract. The role of the Federal Government through the NLRB and the courts has been to establish the rules for good faith bargaining. And the law does not require agreement, nor does it require a contract, so long as the parties bargain in good faith. Those sound national labor policies are destroyed under H.R. 800, which ignores whether the parties are bargaining in good faith and mandates a first contract binding on both sides.

This bill does not require a finding by the NLRB or the courts that the parties have failed to engage in good faith bargaining. Although misguided and bad policy, at least the 1977-1978 labor law reform bill addressed union complaints about the difficulty of reaching agreement on first contracts by first requiring a finding by the NLRB that the employer was guilty of bad faith bargaining. Then, the so-called make whole remedy proposed was to pay wages equivalent to a BLS index of average hourly manufacturing wages for the period of the employer's refusal to bargain. That, in my opinion, is not something Congress should endorse.

But to show you how truly extreme the current bill is, under H.R. 800 there is no requirement of a finding that the employer had violated the National Labor Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith on an initial contract. The employer may have negotiated completely in good faith, and the parties need not have even reached an impasse in negotiations, to trigger the supreme sanction of having the Government step in and write the contract. The only trigger is when the parties have been unable to agree on a contract after 90 days of negotiations and 30 days of federal mediation. In effect, we are legislating that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer not to reach agreement on a first contract within 90 days of bargaining and 30 days of mediation, and that unless you agree to the union's terms the penalty is that the Federal Government will appoint an outside, third party to impose a contract on you for 2 years. Now that is not American.

Think of the effect of all this on the Nation's small business community. Informed of union certification because of card check, suddenly dragged to the bargaining table within 10 days of the union's demand, and most likely never having engaged in collective bargaining before, the small business owner will be confronted with professional union negotiators insisting on wages, benefits, terms, and conditions perhaps beyond the small business owner's ability to accept and remain competitive. But unless the small business owner agrees, the Federal Government, through a federally appointed arbitrator, will step in and write the contract.

Do we want the Federal Government writing private sector contracts? I don't think so. I cannot stress enough my concern about the bill's provision for first contract compulsory interest arbitration, especially as it would affect small business. That is even worse than the card check scheme to begin with, but without the card check scheme, you can't get to this.

It is close to socialism to mandate that the Federal Government, through federally appointed arbitrators, should dictate private sector wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment. These are not simply my words and my concerns. Let me quote from the Nation's leading basic textbook on arbitration, Elkouri & Elkouri, ``How Arbitration Works,'' the sixth edition, 2003, which is published by the American Bar Association's section of labor and employment law with editors representing labor and management.

The Elkouri text states:

Compulsory arbitration is the antithesis of free collective

bargaining.

The text then lists several reasons against compulsory arbitration.

Broadly stated, that: First, it is incompatible with free

collective bargaining; second, it will not produce

satisfactory solutions to disputes; third, it may involve

great enforcement problems; and fourth, it will have damaging

effects on economic structure.

The text continues.

Compulsory arbitration is a dictatorial and imitative

process rather than a democratic and creative one.

Summarizing the arguments against compulsory arbitration, the text concludes:

Compulsory arbitration means governmental--politically

influenced--determination of wages and will inevitably lead

to governmental regulation of prices, production, and

profits; it threatens not only free collective bargaining,

but also the free market and enterprise system.''

Can you imagine being a small business owner, especially the owner of a family business, confronted with the choice of capitulating to a skilled union negotiator's unreasonable demands after 90 days of bargaining? Imagine the business being, in effect, turned over to a Federal arbitrator to impose whatever wages, benefits, terms, and conditions of employment the arbitrator chose to impose, as Elkouri states, ``affected by the arbitrator's own economic or social theories, often without the benefit or understanding of practical, competitive economic forces''?

Is that what we want to do to our small business community, much less to larger businesses, whose issues for bargaining are even more complex? Since there are no limits on what an arbitrator may impose through interest arbitration, it is conceivable that the terms could include participation in an industry's underfunded multiemployer pension plan, for example, something which could eventually force an employer into insolvency.

Lost in what little debate we have had on this bill is the unfairness of its provisions for anti-employer punitive sanctions. Once again, these provisions in the bill are a radical departure from the balance of traditional national labor policy which for over 70 years has confined the act to ``make whole'' remedies, and, at least since the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, has tried to maintain a balance of the remedies for union unfair labor practices and employer unfair labor practices.

H.R. 800 provides, for the first time, punitive rather than remedial sanctions under the National Labor Relations Act and contains only anti-employer sanctions. That is, H.R. 800 contains revolutionary punitive sanctions only against employers. Regardless of how corrupt the union may be, there are no sanctions possible against the union.

It provides for increased damages against employers in the form of back pay and liquidated damages equal to two times that amount for anti-union discrimination from the initiation of a union organizing campaign and until the first collective bargaining. These increased damages are clearly punitive, not remedial and not designed to make whole an employee for anti-union discrimination. Nowhere in H.R. 800 does the law provide for such punitive sanctions against union unfair labor practices.

In addition to back pay, the bill provides civil penalties against employers of $20,000 for each violation. Since each unfair labor practice charge filed against employers or unions often contains allegations of multiple violations, the $20,000 civil penalty could multiply several times for a single charge. Of course, under the bill, the $20,000 simple penalty applies only against employers. How fair is that? Nowhere does H.R. 800 provide civil monetary damages against unions where they commit unfair labor practices against employees.

Finally, the bill provides for a mandatory injunction against employers' alleged acts of anti-union discrimination, including--and I am reading from H.R. 800--allegations that the employer:

(1) discharged or otherwise discriminated against an

employee; (2) threatened to discharge or to otherwise

discriminate against an employee; or (3) engaged in any other

unfair labor practice that significantly interferes with,

restrains, or coerces employees in the exercise of their

rights guaranteed in section 7.

This is, in other words, the right to organize, bargain collectively, and engage in concerted activities such as strikes.

Supporters of the bill argue this provision mirrors the act's section 10(I) injunction against unions which is mandatory when unions engage in secondary boycotts affecting neutral parties. Of course, therein lies the reason for the injunction. By current definition a section 10(I) injunction applies only where a neutral third party is involved and the injunction is designed

to prevent harm to the public where labor disputes are expanded to those employers not directly involved in such disputes.

That is not the type of unfair labor practice against an employee during the course of a union organizing campaign, where a make-whole remedy of reinstatement with full back pay is available.

Mandatory injunctions are extraordinary penalties, especially involving small businesses, since they involve expensive Federal court litigation. As such, the threat of a mandatory injunction--which, for example, would mandate the employer reinstate the employee during the investigation and prosecution of the injunction--could operate to silence the employer from communicating its views regarding unionization. This is the employer's right under section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act.

There has been much said recently by supporters of H.R. 800 about employer misconduct during union organizing campaigns and collective bargaining for a first contract. This has been used to justify the radical provisions of H.R. 800 denying workers of private ballot union elections, increasing anti-employer sanctions, as well as compelling interest arbitration of first contracts.

Unfortunately, much of what has been said is simply untrue or exaggerated and based on flawed information and studies of dubious quality. I cite as an example one fatally flawed study conducted by Cornell Law School Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner. It is frequently cited regarding the firing of union organizers in over one-quarter of union organizing campaigns. The study is based on a survey of union organizers for their opinion as to how often organizers are fired during a union organizing campaign. That hardly constitutes an objective, unbiased sample, and such anecdotal opinions hardly constitute the type of factual, statistical information we have the right to expect before radically changing over 70 years of national labor policy.

Also, supporters of H.R. 800 claim from an NLRB report that over 31,000 employees received back pay annually and thus presumably were fired during union organizing campaigns, which represent one worker fired every 17 minutes. That figure grossly misapplies the report and its basis. In fact, that number includes a very high percentage of workers who were already represented by unions, some for many years, who were being paid back pay because their employer took some unilateral action, such as contracting out work, without consulting their union. Therefore, a high percentage of such back pay had absolutely nothing to do with union organizing campaigns, and supporters of H.R. 800, who must know better, are simply using this statistic to exaggerate their claims. Also, supporters of H.R. 800 ignore the more accurate number that according to the NLRB's most recent annual statistics only 2,000 employees were ordered reinstated by the Board.

As we debate over whether or not to deny private ballots to workers deciding whether or not to unionize, it is my hope that we will be able to at least hold fast and true to the facts. And there should be full debate on these facts, not simply a cursory one-day hearing, bypassed markup and we move straight to the floor. We must not rely on slogans, anecdotal stories, and questionable secretly-commissioned and selective statistics about alleged unfair labor practices.

In conclusion, those on the other side of this debate have advanced-- with fervor--several misleading arguments about the so-called Employee Free Choice Act. I look forward to a debate on the facts of this legislation. We should debate. Let each side be passionate. And of course we will disagree; but let us be respectful. Most importantly, let's make sure that this is an honest debate.

As we enter this debate we should not be fooled by the misinformation from supporters of the bill:

They claim that employers coerce employees to vote no on unionization. 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 that under the current system unions are not able to win. The truth is that unions won 62 percent of the National Labor Relations Board elections in 2005--the last year where a complete set of statistics exists.

They claim that the use of a card-check system is the best, most reliable and fair way of judging employees' true intentions of unionizing. The truth is that the use of a card-check system is an inherently unreliable indicator of an employee's true sentiments which lead me to a few other truths on their misleading reliability claim. The truth is that the card acquisition process is unregulated, meaning there is no check on potential undue influence when gathering cards; the truth is that we have found that intimidation, coercion, and pressure tactics can be--and usually are--used to obtain signatures; the truth is that often, bounties and financial incentives are paid to union organizers to obtain signatures on cards; the truth is that intentional deception and misrepresentation are often used by unions when obtaining cards; and the truth is that employees are often induced to sign cards by promises of higher pay, better benefits, and waivers of fees--of course the same employees are not made aware of the potential risks and costs of unionization. And finally, they claim that American workers want to form unions using a card check system.

The truth is that according to a recent poll 79 percent of Americans oppose the elimination of private ballots when voting in union organizing elections.

Senators should be aware this is not a free vote! The bill is not passed this year, or is passed but vetoed, it will put those of us who voted for it on record as supporting a radical change in national labor law and labor policy. It will put us in support of a system which denies workers a secret ballot election, which has been the bedrock underpinning of national labor policy--the crown jewel of the National Labor Relations Board.

A vote for this bill, or for cloture, will put us on record as against free collective bargaining on first contracts and in support of a political, government-dictated system of compulsory interest arbitration where a federally-appointed arbitrator will dictate the wages, benefits, terms and conditions of employment binding on employees without their even having a vote to approve those terms.

And it will put us on record as supporting an unbalanced system of remedies where employers are subject to punitive sanctions, rather than remedial make whole remedies while ignoring sanctions for union unfair labor practices.

In the end, H.R. 800 will hurt workers and will take away rights they currently have under federal labor law.

In the end, it will hurt employers, leading some to look elsewhere to do business and foreign investment to turn elsewhere rather than the United States.

We will be on record, and we will be reminded of our vote today in future congresses. We must vote no on cloture, just as we should vote no on the bill.

Mr. President, I hope my statement reflects why this is such a horribly misnamed and bad bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay humble tribute to TSgt Ryan A Balmer, who died of injuries sustained after the denotation of an improvised explosive device in Kirkuk, Iraq. A native of Mishawaka, IN, Sergeant Balmer was a member of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and assigned to Hill Air Force Base, UT.

Sergeant Balmer was truly a special man. He was an individual deeply loved by all who knew him for his kindness, his positive outlook on life, and his infectious smile. Friends close to Special Agent Balmer say he was someone you always wanted to be around. They remembered a man who possessed the unique gift of being able to bring out the best in everyone and at 6 feet 2 inches tall he commanded respect wherever he went.

I understand that Sergeant Balmer was scheduled to come home only days after his passing. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my most heartfelt condolences to his wife Danielle and to his three children. I want to reiterate what they already know, that he saved lives and by his sacrifice that we, as a Nation, enjoy the great blessings of freedom so often take for granted. TSgt Ryan A. Balmer is an American hero in every sense of the word.

The sergeant and his family will be in my prayers forever.

Sergeant Jesse A. Blamires

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to one Nation's fallen sons, SGT Jesse A. Blamires. Sergeant Blamires was a native of Sandy, UT, and a member of the 82nd Airborne Division. He was killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

Sergeant Blamires had a lifelong connection to our Nation's military. His father Craig Blamires, with whom the sergeant enjoyed camping, also served his country in the Army. Eager to pursue his dreams of service, Sergeant Blamires followed his father's footsteps and joined the U.S. Army.

The sergeant was known as a man dedicated to reaching his goals. This was reflected by his recent promotion to crew chief. One day he hoped to become a helicopter pilot, a goal I am certain he would have accomplished.

His service in Afghanistan was not the first time Sergeant Blamires had been in harm's way. In 2005, he served a tour in Iraq. Well- respected by his commanders and fellow soldiers, Sergeant Blamires was known for his ability to make others laugh and his willingness to help others in need.

However, undoubtedly, his most important life's work was as a family man. In addition to two caring parents and five supportive brothers and sisters, Sergeant Blamires is survived by his wife, Kim and their two young daughters.

Sergeant Blamires was a man who truly lived an abundant life. Although his calls to service often required him to be away from the family he loved, there was nothing Sergeant Blamires desired more than to be with his family. Fellow serviceman, SSG Ronald Walton recalls that Sergeant Blamires, ``dreamt of being a better husband and father to his two girls and he talked of it often.''

What a fine man.

What an extraordinary life.

We will always remember his dedicated service to our Nation, and it is my fervent hope that he and his family remain in our prayers.

staff sergeant virgil c. martinez

Mr. President, I stand here today to pay tribute to a hero, SSG Virgil C. ``Chance'' Martinez. Sergeant Martinez was a member of the 1st Infantry Division's 1st Battalion, 7th Field Artillery Regiment and recently gave his life while serving his country in Iraq.

From the time Sergeant Martinez was a 5-year-old boy, he felt a duty- bound responsibility to follow in the footsteps of his stepfather and answer his country's call to service. His sister Kim Austin-Oliver said of her brother ``We knew at a very young age that he was going to be a soldier. It is who he has always been.''

As a teenager, Sergeant Martinez enjoyed playing on his high school ski and football teams. Shortly after graduating from high school in 1992, he would achieve his life long ambition and join the U.S. Army.

I understand that Sergeant Martinez was a man deeply devoted not only to his country but also to his family. When speaking of his lost stepson, Daniel Oliver noted, ``Chance would do anything and everything for his children and for his mother . . . he was like the Disneyland father--wanted to show his children everything.'' Sergeant Martinez was the husband to wife Mandy and father of five beautiful children.

I would like to close my remarks by highlighting an observation made by Sergeant Martinez's sister. Kim Austin-Oliver commented that Sergeant Martinez died doing what he had always wanted to do, and that is, serve his country.

I can think of no truer definition of a hero. Sergeant Martinez and the family he has left behind will forever remain in my memory and in my prayers for his selfless service to our Nation.

corporal michael a. pursel

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to one of Utah's fallen sons, CPL Michael A. Pursel. Corporal Pursel, a member of the 2nd Infantry Division, recently lost his life in Baqubah, Iraq. He was 19 years old.

Corporal Pursel is actually a two-time volunteer. His service began when he joined the Army and he then volunteered to replace other soldiers from the 2nd Infantry Division. In fact, Corporal Pursel not only answered that call, but was one of the first to offer his service.

I have been informed that Corporal Pursel belonged to a family of great patriots, many of whom have served in the military themselves. This includes both of Corporal Pursel's parents. His mother Terry Dutcher, who is a Captain in the Air Force Reserve, said of her son, ``Michael was doing what he always wanted to do . . . he died living his dream.''

In memory of the life of this great soldier would submit to you that the dream of serving one's country--the dream that CPL Michael A. Pursel achieved--is a dream that more Americans must embrace. Although young in years, Corporal Pursel understood the premise that to serve one's country extends far beyond the notion of being active in one's military duty. To serve one's country enables the rest of us to enjoy our Nation's greatest gift: freedom. This was at the very core of his service and how Corporal Pursel lived his life, the life of a hero, the life of one who will forever be remembered in my prayers.

This country owes CPL Michael A. Pursel a great debt of gratitude. He shall forever be remembered and honored for his service to our Nation.