Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following individuals from my staff have floor privileges during the period of my speech today: Dustin Bradshaw, Nathan Gambill, Summer Price, and Stephen Young.

Madam President, I thank the sponsors of this legislation and the leadership of the Senate for bringing this debate forward. I think it is warranted. I think the issues are serious. I am not a naysayer who would say that global warming is not taking place or that human beings are not contributing to it.

However, when I start discussing this with my constituents with respect to the present bill, they hit me immediately with one single question: What is it going to cost me?

So before I get into any of the aspects of global warming, I want to answer that question. We know we have had a wide range of costs cited on the Senate floor. They have said the increasing gasoline price will be anywhere from 11 percent to 140 percent. We have heard that the increase in cost to electricity will be anywhere from 44 percent to 500 percent. We have heard that the increase in cost in natural gas as a result of this bill would be anywhere from 35 percent to 87 percent.

I do not want to pick a number between those two wide ranges in each case. I went to Utah, and I went to the Utah Petroleum Association and said: All right, you have looked at this bill. What will this cost Utah motorists if this is passed? Do not give me 2030 estimates. Do not give me numbers that are in a wide range. Tell me, what will drivers in Utah have to pay at the pump if this bill passes?

They gave me a range: somewhere between 32 and 34 additional cents price at the pump. How did they calculate that? They said the total cost to Utah's oil refineries of the bill would be $500 million in the first year of implementation. They can extrapolate that $500 million into the price at the pump.

On electricity, I got a wider range. A Utah company estimated it would have to raise electricity rates somewhere between 100 percent and 500 percent in order to cover the cost of their purchasing the carbon allowances.

So we start with this debate answering the constituent question: What will it cost? These are what it would cost in Utahns approximately 32 to 34 more cents at the pump and somewhere between 100 and 500 percent in their electricity bill.

Now, let's get to the heart of the problem. I would like to make a point I think everybody ignores. This is a global problem, and the bill attempts to solve it with a national solution.

On this chart I have in the Chamber I have two lines. The blue line is the projection of what is going to happen in carbon emissions globally. The red line is what is going to happen in carbon emissions in the United States. You can see, the blue line is going up dramatically, whereas the red line is virtually flat.

Now, if the bill passes, and everything works as its sponsors say it will--everything comes to pass in the best possible way--what will be the impact? The dotted line in red shows what will be the impact in the United States. The dotted line in blue shows what will be the impact globally.

The impact globally will be minimal because increasingly the U.S. share of global emissions is going down. So that is why I am opposed to this bill.

I close with a comment from Daniel Botkin, Ph.D., professor emeritus of the University of California, Santa Barbara. He says in his statement:

You may think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers

who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the

contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worried

about global warming, and been concerned about its effects

since 1968. . . .

Then he says:

I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the

scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked

for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve

human life as well. . . .

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

This is his summary:

My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational

lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational

panic about it.

Many of my colleagues ask, ``What's the problem? Hasn't it

been a good thing to raise public concern?'' The problem is

that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely,

we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will

fail to do many of those things that will benefit the

environment and ourselves.

That is the irrational panic I think we would move to if we do this bill without serious amendment.

Mr. President, Memorial Day is a day of reflection. It is a day reserved for remembering those who have given their lives in service to our country. While we may choose to remember these individuals in different ways, each American has a responsibility to recognize the contribution of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to defend the values upon which this Nation was built.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of the men and women serving in our military, many of whom I am proud to say are fellow Utahns. I am always very humbled by this experience. The courage and dedication of these individuals offers much to emulate.

I recognize the sacrifice of the countless men and women who over the decades have selflessly given their lives to uphold freedom and defend the many values we hold dear. Each of these individuals not only gave of their own life but left forever altered the life of a mother, father, husband, wife, son, daughter, brother, or sister. Those

loved ones who are left behind are owed our respect and support. We must continue to work to ensure the fallen are remembered and those they leave behind are not forgotten.

In this time of war, my thoughts and prayers are with all who serve this Nation and with those families who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I am deeply grateful for this service. Please let us not forget the courage and selflessness of these individuals--to them we owe a debt beyond our means to repay. This Nation shall forever stand grateful and proud of each man and woman who has willingly accepted the call to defend our freedoms and provide for our safety at home.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be allowed to proceed as in morning business for the next 5 minutes.

Mr. President, this afternoon, I and a number of others who have been supporting Gov. Mitt Romney for the Presidency of the United States met with the Governor and his good wife Ann to have a postmortem following his announcement that he was suspending his campaign.

I was perhaps the first Member of this Chamber to announce my public endorsement of Governor Romney, so I wish to be among the first to extend my congratulations to Senator McCain, who has now, by virtue of Governor Romney's suspension of his campaign, locked up the Republican nomination.

We all have our understanding of Senator McCain's persistence and his determination to go forward in what he considers to be a good cause. There has never been a demonstration of the importance of that persistence quite as dramatic as his comeback from this campaign.

We can remember the time when all of the pundits and, frankly, all the rest of us, myself very much included, wrote off the McCain campaign, assuming that Senator McCain was lying dead in the gutter by the side of the road. I remember talking with some of his supporters in this Chamber at that time who said the McCain campaign is reeling and we don't know whether it is going to ever come back. I remember the rumors that flowed around this town, where people said: We cannot raise any money for the McCain campaign. No one wants to contribute to a lost cause.

John McCain, perhaps alone--maybe he had the support of his wife; I assume he did--said: No, I am going to go forward. He picked himself off, took himself off to New Hampshire, and did the same kind of thing he did 8 years ago when he ran against President Bush. In this case, he not only won New Hampshire, but he was able to expand that to wins elsewhere, to the point where we have the result today. So he deserves our congratulations as we recognize this truly extraordinary political accomplishment on his part.

I share with my colleagues this comment from Governor Romney. As those of us were supporting him from both the House and the Senate were gathered around him and talking about this, he shared with us this particular insight. He looked at what has happened. He sat down with his supporters. He looked for all the reasons why he should feel good. They pointed out he had won 4 million votes in the various primaries and caucuses and Senator McCain had won 4.7 million. So in terms of the voters who supported him, he was not that far behind. He had won 11 States. Senator McCain had won 13. So on that basis, he was not that far behind.

But the cold calculating reality of it was he was very far behind as far as the delegates were concerned. So he said to his advisers and his political consultants: What would it take for me to win the nomination? And they said to him very bluntly: You must destroy John McCain. That was not his word. I don't remember his exact word, but you must go negative, to use the vocabulary of the political consultant, in such a way as to make it impossible for John McCain to proceed with the confidence of the American people. Governor Romney said: I am not going to try that. Even if it might work, I don't want to try that. I don't want to do that. And he made the decision that was announced today.

Along with my congratulations to Senator McCain on his extraordinary achievement and his assuming the position now as the obvious Republican nominee, I also congratulate my friend, Mitt Romney, on the graciousness with which he recognized what was happening and his willingness to withdraw now rather than drag the party on into a protracted fight that would make it very difficult for Senator McCain to take control of the levers of power in the party and organize himself for the fight in the fall.

These are two good men, each one of different views, each one of very different background, each one of which would bring a different set of talents to the Presidency, each one of which has now exposed himself to the fire of the primary process. One has emerged victorious; the other has recognized that and stepped aside. I think it is a demonstration that the American political system, however messy, works.

Again, I extend my congratulations to Senator McCain.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as the majority leader noted, last night Gordon B. Hinckley, the oldest serving president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the history, passed away. He was 97 years old. Many might think that in lasting until 97 he passed away as a wasted, worn-out man. That is not true. President Hinckley was energetic and enthusiastic and fully engaged within just a day or two of his passing. With my senior colleague Senator Hatch, I have had meetings with him and the other leaders of the church and was always amazed at how well connected he was. He read the papers. He watched the television. He knew what was going on in the world outside the church every bit as much as we did. His memory was phenomenal. There are many people who were 20 to 30 years his junior who could not remember current items of news as well as he could.

So it is appropriate we take a moment or two to comment on the stewardship and contribution of this great man at the time of his passing. We do not mourn for him. He has joined his wife, his parents, and those others who have gone before him who may have a little sense of ``Gordon, what took you so long?'' But he stayed at his job and he fulfilled his stewardship in an impressive manner. The mourning we have on this occasion is mourning for ourselves, for the loss we have sustained in seeing this great and good man go on.

I have made mention of his energy. I should also mention his enthusiasm. He had a great zest for life. He was always looking forward to the next activity and the next opportunity. Along with his energy and enthusiasm, he was a man of humility and humor. You were never quite sure when he stood at the pulpit to speak if he was going to say something that would put you at ease and make you laugh, because that happened much more often than it did with some others who were a little more serious in their message. His messages were always serious, but they always had that touch of humor.

The last message we heard from him, speaking to the entire world in general, and to the church specifically, was his sermon of last October. I am sure he did not know that would be his final sermon to the members of the church. But it started out again with a touch of Hinckley humor. He noted, as he stood to speak, that singers will sing the same song over and over again, as people ask them to perform; orchestras will play the same symphony over and over again; but speakers are always expected to say something new. He said that bothered him a little, as he was going to repeat a sermon he had given before. After we smiled at his early comments, we heard a lecture on anger. He talked about the toxic effects of anger and how we should do our very best, both in our personal lives and in our professional lives, and, if I may, here in the Senate in national dialog, to do away with the sense of anger.

I have just returned from the annual session in Davos, Switzerland, where I heard a lot of people who could benefit from that sermon, as there was a lot of anger people had toward other governments and other government officials.

I will not in any way attempt to capsulize what President Hinckley had to say about anger, except to demonstrate that this was his benediction prior to his death to the members of his church, telling them not to be angry with their families, not to be angry in their communities, and not to be angry with the world.

A former Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, Paul, spoke in his letter to the Corinthians about the three most important attributes of a Christian: faith, hope, and charity. Gordon B. Hinckley spoke of these same attributes and lived them in his life. But he put them, if you will, in modern terms: optimism, confidence, and love. A sermon telling us not to be angry with our fellow men is a fitting capstone to the stewardship of this man. It is a modern way of saying Paul's term ``charity'' or the pure love of Christ. We shall miss him.

I concur with Senator Kohl, the subcommittee chairman, in this action.

Madam President, one of the words we often hear as people talk about relationships is the word ``mentor.'' It is always assumed that the older person mentors the younger person. The record is clear that I am 8 years older than Trent Lott. But the record is also clear that he has acted as my mentor as I have come here to the Senate.

We have all heard about his legislative accomplishments. I wish to pick out three items of my relationship with Trent where he has taught me things that have been valuable. When Trent ran for the whip position, I worked for the election of Alan Simpson. I didn't know Trent all that well. Alan and I were friends from long ago. We first met up in the family gallery when our respective fathers were being sworn in as Senators. He introduced me to his child bride and I introduced him to mine. He made the Simpson-like comment. He said:

Having married younger women, this means in our older age

we will smell perfume instead of liniment.

After I got to know Trent and appreciate his abilities, I made the comment, If I had known you to have been as good a leader as you are, I would have voted for you in the beginning. He corrected me and said, No, your relationship with Simpson was so strong and so personal that you should have supported him, and I didn't even ask you because I respected that relationship.

That was a very important thing he taught me there about relationships and commitments that I have tried to remember ever since.

Second: As a freshman Senator who was sure I understood the institution, I moved out aggressively in a variety of circumstances and suddenly found myself caught in a vice between two very senior, very powerful, very opinionated Senators, whose names I shall not disclose.

I didn't know what to do. Whatever I did, I would offend one or the other and both of them had reputations for very long memories and determination to take revenge. In my moment of great panic, I called Trent and laid this before him, more or less seeking some kind of balm or salve, and received instead a solution. He, with his expertise, knew how to maneuver between these two giants, and what was in some ways my most difficult day in the Senate became, with Trent's help, one of the better days I experienced in the Senate, as I watched these two clash together, with me on the sidelines, staying out of it because of his help. He taught me again: Don't get yourself into that kind of problem in the first place.

Finally, emotions run high around here. People get all wrapped up in the issue of the time. We had one of those, where some members of the Republican conference deserted leadership and there was a sense of great anger. Some people were talking about retaliation. Trent taught me this great truth. He said: The most important vote is the next one. Do not allow your concern over that vote to damage your relationship that you may need on the next vote.

Those among us of the Republican conference who wanted to retaliate-- Trent did his best to say to them: No, don't carry that grudge, don't carry that forward. Understand, the most important vote is the next vote.

Those were the three things I wanted to highlight that I have learned from Trent. But I want to point out that he himself, when the blow fell--as Senator Specter has said, in a vastly overblown reaction to an appropriate comment--he himself demonstrated in his own life his commitment to those principles. He did not allow anything that had happened as a result of that to destroy his relationships, the friendships he had built. Even if there were some who could have been attacked for having abandoned him, he did not attack those relationships. He did not show any desire to retaliate. He may have felt it. Indeed, he would not be human if he didn't. But he came back to the Senate with his optimism showing, his determination to stay calm, his determination to stay engaged and not allow a sense of revenge or retaliation to take him over. That, of course, served him in good stead when he was returned to leadership by the same massive majority that he had when he took the whip's job the first time--by 1 vote.

This is a man we shall miss. This is a man who has taught us a lot. This is a man who served as a mentor to me, and because of him, I now own a pair of white bucks.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to note with some sadness that we are reaching a point at the end of this session where it appears we will adjourn without acting on any of the nominees for the Federal Election Commission. The effect of this will be to leave the Federal Election Commission with only two functioning commissioners, when the law calls for six. It is worse than that. The law insists that no action can be taken by the commission without the votes of at least four. So by having only two left, we will leave

the Federal Election Commission with no capacity to function.

I have a history with the Federal Election Commission which makes me sensitive to the importance of this group. When I was elected, there was an allegation made against me which I considered highly partisan. It went before the FEC and before the entire commission a vote was taken, with the three Republicans upholding the position I took and the three Democrats holding the position on the other side. Because they could not muster four votes, nothing was done. In my view, this was justice. But the thing I found difficult was the fact that the partisanship on the FEC was so heavy, there was an almost automatic 3-3 vote on everything. It makes far more sense for the commissioners to work together to recognize the merits of the case, rather than simply responding in a knee-jerk partisan fashion to the individual or group that is bringing the charge. In my case, that is what was happening. A Democratic group brought the charge that I had violated the law. The three Democrats on the FEC automatically agreed with that, and the three Republicans automatically disagreed. I don't think, frankly, any of them spent any time examining the merits. If they had, I am sure I would have been unanimously exonerated, but that is not the way it worked in those days.

It got to the point here on the floor where a piece of legislation was introduced saying, whenever there is a tie in the FEC, the general counsel will break the tie. Along with Senator McConnell, I and others did our best to defeat that bill because it would have de facto made the general counsel of the FEC the sole decisionmaker for that body.

I am happy to report that those days seem to have passed. We now have an FEC where the vast majority of the votes are unanimous, where partisanship seems to have taken a back seat to an attempt to get things right and act on the merits rather than the partisan challenge.

Four of the members of the FEC are recess appointees who must be confirmed. The President has sent forward four names--two Republicans and two Democrats. In the standard tradition, practice, procedure, and precedent of the FEC, the Democratic leadership in the Congress got to pick the two Democrats. The Republican leadership got to pick the two Republicans. Always before we have moved these nominations forward en bloc, maintaining the balance between Republicans and Democrats, with Republicans approving the Democratic nominations, and Democrats approving the Republican nominations.

In our committee, the Rules Committee on which I have the honor to sit, we sent all four of the names en bloc to the Senate. There was great controversy about one of them, which I will address, but in the spirit of the past history of the committee, instead of singling out this one individual to come to the Senate without recommendation, we said we will treat all four of them alike, and all four names came to the Senate without recommendation so that the Senate could work its will.

Now because of the controversy surrounding one of the Republican nominees, it becomes clear we will not have a vote on any of the four, producing the deadlock I described at the opening of my remarks. We will have only two functioning FEC commissioners beginning next year, and the FEC will not be able to rule on any of the controversies that may arise in the 2008 election. Furthermore, the FEC will not be able to distribute any Presidential matching funds in the 2008 election. This comes as bad news to some of our colleagues in the Senate, because many of them were dependent upon and expecting the matching funds to come out of the Presidential campaign fund. They will not get them, because these nominees will not be approved. Who is the one who is causing all of this problem? His name is Hans von Spakovsky. He has been attacked by outside groups on the grounds that he is somehow insensitive to minority voters.

I wish to spend a moment examining that particular attack. It all comes back to a position Mr. von Spakovsky took when he was at the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and recommended the pre-clearance of a voter ID law. There were those who were career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division who said a voter ID law is terrible and should not go forward. But Mr. von Spakovsky disagreed with them. Then, acting on Mr. von Spakovsky's recommendation, the management of the Justice Department said: No, we are going to go forward.

According to those who have attacked Mr. von Spakovsky, he was overruled by a court. The court did issue an injunction, saying that the voter ID law could not be enforced, thus leaving the impression that von Spakovsky is an ideologue, while the career attorneys were simply doing their job and the court stepped in to protect the country from this ideologue. In fact, the injunction had to do simply with the timing of the implementation of the law and was not a determination on the merits of the case, with the court saying it didn't want the law enforced right now but wanted to wait until the matter could be fully considered.

After the case was heard, a Federal judge, one appointed by President Carter, although that probably shouldn't make any difference, and the one who had initially issued the injunction, upheld the constitutionality of the Georgia voter ID law and, in that fashion, ratified the position Mr. von Spakovsky had taken all along. Mr. von Spakovsky's position was consistent with the ruling of the Federal court that said the career attorneys who argued with him were wrong. He was on the right side of the law; they were on the wrong side of the law. Yet he is being attacked as somehow being the ideologue who must be kept off the FEC lest the FEC be turned into some kind of partisan hotbed of difficulty and dissension.

The fact is, Mr. von Spakovsky has served on the FEC as a recess appointee for 2 years. We need not project what he would do if he were confirmed. We can look at what he has done in that 2-year period. To that point, I repeat that the vast majority of the cases that have been dealt with since he has been on the FEC have been unanimous. He has not been a lone voice seeking to destroy the FEC or turn it into some kind of partisan hotbed. He has acted completely in the mainstream, in the opinion of the other members of the FEC.

Let me quote from one of the Democratic members of the FEC, repeating again these people are appointed for their partisan positions. This is not a circuit court where you want to find someone who is above partisanship. This is where the law specifically says there will be three Republicans and three Democrats.

This is what Mr. Walther, a Democratic member of the FEC, had to say at the December 14 FEC meeting. This is from a very recent article. He said Mr. von Spakovsky was ``a terrific person to work with'' as a colleague, a ``fine commissioner.'' The article continues: ``He (Walther) spoke after Mr. von Spakovsky made a traditional nominating speech, praising Mr. Walther's qualifications to be vice chairman. Mr. Walther's comments echoed a speech during the FEC meeting by Mr. Lenhard to close his year-long chairmanship by praising bipartisan cooperation on the commission and recounting the FEC's accomplishments in resolving enforcement cases.''

One of the things we hear around here during confirmation battles is, the President ought to make more mainstream nominations. Not for this one; this one, by law, is supposed to be partisan. But here is a man who has had 2 years of experience, 2 years of service, being praised for his activities, clearly in the mainstream, being attacked for a position he held before he came to the FEC where polls have been done and found that 81 percent of Americans, with only 7 percent dissenting, agree with Mr. von Spakovsky's position that we ought to have voter ID.

We have photo ID requirements in order to keep cigarettes out of the hands of teenagers. We have photo ID requirements in order to keep terrorists off airplanes. I have had the experience in my home State of Utah, where I like to think I am fairly well known, of being asked for a photo ID when I have presented a credit card, in an effort to avoid identity theft.

Isn't preventing voter fraud as important as keeping tobacco out of the

hands of teenagers or preventing identity theft? Eighty-one percent of Americans agree with von Spakovsky's position on this matter. Yet he is being attacked as being outside the mainstream for what his critics call a partisan position.

Because of the holds that have been placed on Commissioner von Spakovsky's nomination, we now come to this impasse where the FEC will be left with only two Commissioners, unable to rule on any potential violation that may occur in the 2008 election--a Presidential year, along with all of the Senate races that are up, and every Member of the House of Representatives. The FEC will not be able to rule on any violations because they will have only two Commissioners--all because of an ideological bent pushed by groups outside of the Congress saying that this one man, because he agrees with 81 percent of the American people, is somehow disqualified for being too partisan.

The principle has always been that the Republicans pick the Republican nominees for the FEC and the Democrats pick the Democratic nominees for the FEC--a principle that makes sense. I do not know very much about the Democratic nominees for these positions who will not be confirmed, and, frankly, I do not care because they are not mine to select. They have been picked by the Democratic leadership to represent the Democratic position, and I am willing to vote for them on that basis.

Mr. von Spakovsky has a 2-year history of acting intelligently, with great integrity, and great collegiality in this position, and it is a tragedy that the whole Commission will be denied the opportunity to function in a Presidential year; that those Presidential candidates who are depending on Presidential matching funds will not get them because outside groups have demonized this one public servant. It is a sad day that this kind of thing is happening with respect to our governmental appointments.

Mr. President, last week a group of us, both Senators and Members of the House, Republicans and Democrats, had the opportunity to sit down with Frederick Kagan, who is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and listen to his comments about where we are with respect to Iraq.

At the end of that very illuminating session, he gave us each a copy of a new report that he has authored called ``No Middle Way, The Challenge of Exit Strategies from Iraq.'' The report is too long for me to ask consent that it be printed in the Record, but I recommend it to all my colleagues. It is one of the most thorough and thoughtful examinations of where we are in Iraq I have seen. I will be quoting from it, but I wish to make a few observations about the situation in Iraq before I do.

The Iraq debate seems to be mired down in arguments about past decisions and whether they were right. These kinds of arguments are useful, and they are particularly useful in the hands of historians who are reviewing an entire situation from a vantage point of years afterward, but they are not necessarily that valuable as we are addressing the question of what do we do now.

If I can play the historian for a moment and give examples of how we have entered into conflicts and seen the situation on the ground change and, therefore, strategies change, let me go back to the Revolutionary War. At the time of the Revolutionary War, the original strategies the Commander in Chief, George Washington, applied didn't work. Indeed, the Continental Army was defeated again and again and

again by the British troops, and Washington was forced to acknowledge that his original strategic decisions were the wrong ones. This did not mean we lost the war because Washington adjusted to the conditions on the ground, adopted new strategies, and ended up winning the war.

In the Civil War, when Abraham Lincoln made the decision to provision Fort Sumter, he did not understand how long the war would last, how difficult it would be, how much life and treasure it would claim. He was forced to change again and again in reaction to the results that came from the battlefield.

In Iraq, we made some decisions based on intelligence at the time which have proved to be wrong. Spending our time in this Chamber arguing over those decisions instead of recognizing how conditions have changed on the ground becomes a self-defeating exercise.

As I look at the decisions that were made prior to the decision to go into Iraq, the one that strikes me as being the most significant was our failure to understand the degree to which Saddam Hussein had destroyed that country, not just physically, not just in terms of its infrastructure but psychologically.

We believed there were Iraqis who could step forward and lead a resurgence of that country if we simply freed them from the heavy hand of Saddam Hussein. That was a false belief. We found Iraqis so shattered by 37 years of one of the most brutal dictatorships we have ever seen that the leadership vacuum was huge. For us now to spend our time saying, well, we made the mistake, therefore we have to cure the mistake by getting out, is to ignore the conditions on the ground that have evolved as a result of getting into the war in the first place.

Mr. Kagan makes the point that there is no middle way. We are trying to find a middle way in these Chambers. There are those who say the only way is to withdraw immediately, and there are others who say, no, the only way is to stay the course. That phrase has been hackneyed; it doesn't work anymore. So it is natural for many of us to say: Let's find some middle way. Let's stay in there somewhat, but let's eliminate a good portion of the American footprint in Iraq and see if that doesn't help us get out without absolute withdrawal.

Mr. Kagan makes the point that the conditions on the ground rule out such a middle way. I find his arguments persuasive, and I would like to share some of them with my colleagues today.

He looks not at the question of did Saddam Hussein have anything to do with 9/11, a question we hear debated a great deal. He says: Is al- Qaida engaged now in Iraq? The answer is overwhelmingly yes. Whether al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein had any ties prior to our invasion in Iraq is now irrelevant. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. Al-Qaida is a major player in Iraq.

There are those who say Iran is the major threat, and we should be looking at Iran. He points out that Iran is very much involved in Iraq at the present time. These are the conditions on the ground. We are not debating 9/11. We are not debating the U.N. resolutions. We are debating conditions on the ground that very much involve both al-Qaida and Iran. So those are the conditions to which we need to pay attention.

If I may quote from Mr. Kagan's report, he says:

A precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq will likely be

portrayed in the region as a defeat for the United States and

as a victory for Iran. Arab states are already concerned

about the growth in Iranian power and pretensions in the

region, but few have the capability to do more than

complain. The Saudis and the Gulf states are no match for

Iran militarily and would almost certainly seek an

accommodation with Tehran rather than allowing themselves

to be drawn into a major confrontation.

That is a very interesting thing to contemplate as you look ahead-- Iran expanding its power in the region, making some kind of accommodation with the Saudis and the other Gulf States in order to consolidate its power. Is that something America wants to look forward to?

He goes on:

A possible side effect of the U.S. withdrawal is the

establishment of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. Tehran

certainly seeks a predominant position in southern Iraq,

including Baghdad, and it would be in a position to put great

pressure on Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States in the absence

of a large American presence in the region following a

visible U.S. defeat. That pressure might include efforts to

deny the U.S. the use of bases or to support Iranian

initiatives in the region and in the nuclear realm. The

perception of an American defeat at the hands of Iran is

likely to fuel seismic shifts in the politics of the Middle

East, none of them to our advantage.

We are having a great debate about what to do about Iran. We are showing great concern about the possibility of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. The new President of France, Mr. Sarkozy, has talked about the unacceptability of Iran having a nuclear weapon, even to the point of suggesting that military options should be on the table. Military options with respect to an Iranian nuclear weapon, if it comes to that, will undoubtedly involve more American troops and more American treasure than are currently at stake in Iraq.

In the conclusion section of Mr. Kagan's report, he says:

It is simply not possible to design a militarily feasible

plan to draw down U.S. forces dramatically and on a rapid

timeline that still permits the accomplishment of America's

vital interests in Iraq and the region. The CNAS report--

The report he discusses in the group that tries to find a middle way--

has raised the extremely important question of devising a

sound plan for transitioning to an advisory role, and this

question deserves a great deal of careful study in the months

ahead. But now is the time to start thinking about that

transition, not to start implementing it prematurely.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Kagan concludes:

Any plan that requires a withdrawal based on a timeline,

rather than conditions on the ground, is likely to lead to

failure. The notion that imposing timelines would somehow

force the Iraqi government to ``do the right thing'' and

thereby resolve the problems in the country is always

presented without any evidence. It is the logical argument

without substantiation that appears to be contradicted by

past precedent and by facts on the ground. It is a mirage

that some people cling to as a way of convincing themselves

and others that an action likely to lead to complete failure

in Iraq will instead lead to at least partial success. As the

president and Congress deliberate on the best way ahead for

the United States and Iraq, therefore, the choices are quite

stark. Either the United States can continue its efforts to

establish security while improving the capabilities of the

ISF or it can abandon those efforts, withdraw, and allow Iraq

to sink into chaos where terrorists can flourish.

I urge all Members of the Senate to pay attention to the wisdom of Mr. Kagan's report.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague for the thorough and sensitive way in which he has described this Senate tribute to the families and the coworkers of the miners who were killed in the Crandall Canyon mine disaster.

I was there the day after the mine collapsed. The Governor was there as well. Senator Hatch was on his way and joined us later. We welcomed the assistant Secretary of Labor to Utah, and we examined with soberness and concern the facts surrounding the situation. We were not sure whether the miners had survived. There were reservations from those who were experienced with these kinds of mine problems. They were afraid the miners had, in fact, been killed in the initial blast. But we all held out hopes that they could survive, and efforts were undertaken to determine whether they were alive.

To show the ruggedness of the territory, there was no way to drill a significant hole into the mine immediately because there was no road up to the top of the mountain where the drill would have to be placed. So a smaller drill was brought in by helicopter and drilled a 2\1/2\ inch hole through roughly 1,200 feet in an attempt to find out whether we could make contact with any survivors who might be there. A road was built, a larger drill was brought in and followed the 2\1/2\ inch hole with an 8\1/2\ inch hole. Neither one produced any tangible evidence that the miners had survived.

In the briefings we had from the experts onsite, we discussed what might be done further besides drilling the holes. They talked about the dangers connected with trying to dig into where the miners were. It was understood there would be no further attempt in terms of digging in until the seismic activity in the mountain had stopped. The mountain would continue to shift, and as it was shifting, the experts said: We will not undertake any attempt at further rescue.

I subsequently learned they did make an attempt while the mountain was shifting. It was not a reckless attempt, although it was a heroic attempt. They believed they had sufficient protection from the rescue workers that they could get somewhere near where the miners had been trapped and find out if they were still alive, even while the mountain was still shifting. They applied fully known and reliable means of protection for the rescuers, and then the second tragedy occurred. Even with

this protection, the rescuers themselves were caught by a seismic shift in the mountain, and two more miners and one mine inspector were killed, bringing the tragic total to nine. More holes were drilled. More attempts were made to find out what could be found. But the mountain had claimed its nine lives and still has not yielded any of those bodies.

This double tragedy has united the mine community in Utah in the ways Senator Hatch has described. And throughout the State of Utah, far away from the minefields, flags were flown at half staff as the people of our State joined together in mourning for those who had lost their lives in this tragic accident. Hearings have been held. We hope to learn as much as we possibly can, to continue to work as hard as we can as a nation to see that the deaths in the mining world continue to decrease, but we recognize that whatever satisfaction we take from the fact that mining deaths have decreased over the decades, that still does not lessen the tragedy for those loved ones and coworkers who have seen this kind of death occur.

I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Hatch in cosponsoring this resolution and I thank the Senate for its unanimous support of the resolution and extend, once again, my personal condolences and sympathies for all of those who are personally touched by the tragedy.

We must, as a Congress, do everything we can to see that this kind of tragedy is reduced to the point where, ultimately, it ceases to be.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise to make note of an event that the newspapers have talked about and then passed over, but one we should pay a great deal more attention to. This has to do with the number of increasing cyber attacks that have occurred where hackers have gotten into computers and upset their ability to function. I am not talking about the kind of hackers who break into a computer to leave behind an obscene message simply to demonstrate that they could do it. These are amateurs. I am talking about attacks that appear to be state sponsored.

The Nation of Estonia had its computers shut down for a period of a week, unable to perform any kind of connection with the outside world, almost as if it were a test on the part of some nation state to determine whether they could perform this kind of activity. Now we have had further demonstrations of their ability to do it in government computers. This has been going on for years. I remember, when I was connected with the Y2K issue as chairman of the Senate's committee on that problem, going over to the Pentagon and standing in the room where we watched the cyber attacks come in. The officials in the Pentagon would identify for me the countries from which they were coming. They would say: Those are attacks coming from the Philippines. Those are attacks, probing, trying to get into our computers. They come from South Korea. These are coming from whatever other country. That does not mean the attacks originated in any of those countries. It is entirely possible in today's world for someone to have a sophisticated computer attack in one nation and route the attacks through a second or even third or fourth nation as cutouts so the victim of the attack will not be able to know the original source.

The recent attacks that have occurred against our Government computers clearly come from a higher level of sophistication than those I saw 3 or 4 years ago.

I pursued an interest in this issue and then became consumed with other Senate business--that happens to us--and said, a few years later: I probably need to check into this to see what has happened. So I went back to the National Security Agency, I went back to the Pentagon, I made contact again with people at the CIA and said: What is going on in the world of cyberattacks and cyberterrorism?

I was startled that everything had progressed two, three, four, five generations beyond what it had been just a few years before. It is a classic sword-and-shield confrontation. The attack comes--representing the sword--we create firewalls--representing the shield--and then a new sword is invented and a new shield is called for. This game has been going on now to an escalated level where now we are seeing sophisticated nation state-sponsored attacks, and they break through occasionally, and they get a little space in the newspaper and maybe a mention on the evening news, and then we go about business as usual.

I am as guilty as anyone else of going about business as usual. I want to get back into this issue, dig a little deeper, and find out what is going on because eventually this will be the ultimate battlefield. Eventually, the people who wish this country ill will not come at us with tanks and aircraft carriers or cruise missiles; they will come at our computers. Our military is the most sophisticated in the world, but if you shut down their ability to communicate through satellites and by computers, our military becomes crippled and impotent. I remember when I went through basic training being told that an army has to do three things: It has to move, shoot, and communicate. Those who are mounting these cyberattacks are developing the capability to prevent us from communicating. We need to spend more time and effort looking at this issue.

I have one suggestion for the executive branch. During the Clinton administration, the highest official dealing with this issue was in the White House. After President Bush became the President, that official reported to Condoleezza Rice in her role as National Security Adviser. I sat down with Condoleezza Rice to talk about this issue, to try to bring her up to date on what I thought was important. She was very polite, but I became quickly aware she knew more about this issue than I did. She was not patronizing about it, but she was up to speed and up to date on it, and I felt reassured that the White House had that level of understanding.

Well, she has now gone on to other duties, and the highest official now is in the Department of Homeland Security. I am not sure that is the place where it needs to be. It may very well be that it needs to go back into the White House at the high level it held at one point in the past.

I will be discussing this and other issues relating to this question in the months to come. I appreciate the opportunity of alerting my fellow Senators to this very important but often overlooked issue.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I apologize for my voice. Some people may say I need a little health care, but, in fact, I am in good shape.

I wish to thank the ranking member of the Finance Committee for his diligence in this situation as well as his attention to this issue over more than a decade. As a very freshman Senator in 1994, I participated in the debate we had on comprehensive health care that ended up in a situation President Clinton described in his State of the Union Message the following year. He said: Last year, we almost came to blows over health care, and he wanted to know why we couldn't get together on bipartisan lines.

Well, the ranking member of the Finance Committee has signaled his willingness to get together along bipartisan lines. Senator Wyden, a member of the committee, has talked to me about this, and I have been more than happy to join with Senator Wyden, and I thank him for his statesmanship and his willingness to deal with this question in a bipartisan way.

Senator Burr has talked about how universal coverage--the term Republicans always used to hate to use--is now a legitimate concept. Universal coverage used to be code word for a single-payer, government- run system, which Republicans opposed. We now understand that everyone in the country should have access to health care so that the cost shifting Senator Burr talked about can stop and the debates over what can be done for the uninsured can stop, and it can be done if we change the tax laws in an intelligent way.

Our tax laws for the coverage of health insurance go back to the Second World War. I think the economy has changed sufficiently since the Second World War that we can recognize that the tax laws need to be changed. Senator Wyden's leadership on this issue, opening up the question of how we can use tax credits now to achieve what Democrats have wanted to achieve for a long time, which is universal access to health care, and at the same time provide what Republicans have wanted for a long time, which is real market forces in health care, to me is an idea whose time has come.

So I am looking forward to the opening the ranking member of the Finance Committee has suggested, where the Finance Committee can have hearings on this issue when we come back after August. I know that will require the cooperation of the chairman of the committee, and I am not being presumptuous to try to suggest what the schedule should be. But I am grateful that the conversation is taking place, that the recognition that hands must be joined across the aisle to deal with this question that has been raised, and I look forward to participating in the debate in any way that I can be helpful.