Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Katie Winthrop, a detailee from the Bureau of Land Management serving on my staff, for the remainder of this session.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on Monday United Press International reported the good news that our Democratic colleagues do not plan to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito. I hope that UPI report is true, because this body needs to return to our constitutional and commonsense tradition of fully and fairly evaluating and debating judicial nominations. Senators may, of course, vote for or against a judicial nominee for any reason, or no reason at all. Our constitutional role of advice and consent, however, requires that after vigorous floor debate, we must vote. UPI quoted a spokesman for the Democratic leader saying that talk of an Alito filibuster is, in his words, silly and unhelpful. I can only assume that he was speaking for the Democratic leader and, while I agree with his statement, I am afraid the situation is not quite what he would have our fellow citizens believe. In fact, not 24 hours earlier, this very same spokesman was himself engaging in some silly and unhelpful filibuster talk of his own, telling the Associated Press that all procedural options are on the table for handling the Alito nomination. We all know what that means. The list of all procedural options includes the filibuster, by which those who cannot defeat a judicial nomination on the merits try to do so by preventing any confirmation vote at all. Before the Democratic spin machine cranks out a press release accusing me of silly and unhelpful filibuster talk, let me remind everyone of some possibly inconvenient facts. I know that my friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, was on the floor Monday claiming that no Democratic Senator had talked about filibustering the Alito nomination. With all due respect to him, that is simply not accurate and the public record speaks for itself. On November 1, for example, the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, told The Hill newspaper that nothing is off the table. That same day, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, was more specific, telling the Associated Press that, in her words, the filibuster's on the table. The next day, the Senator from Iowa, my friend Senator Harkin, went even further. The Baltimore Sun quotes him saying that he believes Democrats will indeed filibuster the Alito nomination. Other Democrats, some of them my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, have also engaged in what their party's spokesman has branded silly and unhelpful filibuster talk. The distinguished assistant Democratic leader, Senator Durbin, said the Democrats' decision whether to allow the nomination to go forward at all will be made after next month's hearing. Again, we all know what that means. It means the filibuster is still on the table. On November 20, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, a former Judiciary Committee chairman, not only suggested a filibuster was possible, but said its prospects had actually increased. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said last month that Senate Democrats should, in his words, absolutely keep the filibuster option on the table. And finally, the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, himself said back on November 1 that an Alito filibuster is possible. This record is public and very consistent. And this record makes the statement on Monday by the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, that he does not know a single Democratic Senator who has talked about an Alito filibuster absolutely baffling. My Democratic colleagues have certainly done so, early and often. Some Senators, well-meaning Senators, have said that the judicial nomination filibuster issue is really about freedom of speech. The distinguished Senator from West Virginia made that point on Monday here on the Senate floor. We all believe in freedom of speech. We all believe in full, fair, and vigorous debate. When it comes to the legislation over which this legislative body has complete authority, debate can become an end in itself. That is, after all, the definition of a filibuster, when ending debate proves impossible. The filibuster has long been, and I believe should remain, part of the legislative process. Judicial appointments, however, are different than legislation. The Constitution assigns the power to nominate and appoint judges to the President. And judicial, as opposed to executive, appointments also dramatically affect the third branch of government. When it comes to judicial nominations, therefore, debate should be a means to an end. The end of the judicial confirmation process must be an up-or-down vote for nominations reaching the Senate floor. The Senate can vote to withhold consent to a judicial nomination, and we have done so in the past. But refusing to vote at all, especially when a judicial nomination clearly has majority support, goes beyond exercising our advice and consent role and attempts to highjack the President's appointment power altogether. When Republicans were in the minority, we respected President Clinton's primary role in judicial appointments. This body confirmed his Supreme Court nominee Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 by an overwhelming vote of 96 to 3. We confirmed his nominee Judge Stephen Breyer in 1994 by a margin of 90 to 9. Judicial nomination filibusters, then, are not about freedom of speech. When it comes to the judicial confirmation process, our freedom of speech must be shaped and balanced by the separation of powers, by the Constitution's assignment of authority in that process. Until recently, the Senate refused to transfer the powerful tool of the filibuster from the legislative process to the judicial confirmation process. We refused to go down that road and I believe we should put up a permanent roadblock. With all due respect to my Democratic colleagues, they cannot have it both ways. They cannot, as they have been doing now for more than 6 weeks, keep filibuster hopes alive by suggestions and hints, and then claim their political hands are clean when Senators on this side of the aisle respond. I believe that UPI reported the Democratic spokesman's statement accurately, but I am not as confident that his statement is accurate or operative. Does it mean that Democratic Senators have abandoned their earlier statements and decided that the Senate should indeed debate and then vote on the Alito nomination? I believe that is what the American people expect us to do, but is that what Democratic Senators will do? I hope they do. I hope we can fully and vigorously debate the Alito nomination, and then vote on it. I also believe that when the Senate and American people get to know Judge Alito, his experience, his character, and his traditional mainstream views of the law and the Constitution at his confirmation hearing, they will like what they hear. Judge Alito is a good man and a great judge. My Democratic colleagues can help sort out the confusion their earlier statements have created. If they mean what they now say, that talk of filibustering the Alito nomination is indeed silly and unhelpful, then let us take the divisive and politicizing option of a filibuster off the table. Let us agree, right here and now, that this body will do its duty of fully debating the Alito nomination and then voting on it. The Constitution, Senate tradition, and the American people demand no less.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by our colleagues from Mississippi and Oklahoma, the Coburn amendment. First of all, let me say I am sorry this amendment is even necessary. It is obvious to everybody that Dr. Coburn, Senator Coburn, is an intelligent and dedicated medical doctor whose respect and love for helping people is legendary. It is equally obvious that Dr. Coburn is an accomplished legislator whose contributions to the work of this body are important. No one can raise an issue about Dr. Coburn's work ethic, his loyalty to the Senate, to Oklahoma, or his constituents, and I say this as someone who has agreed with him on many occasions and as someone who has clashed swords with him on occasions. There is no question in my mind the Government in general and the Senate in particular benefit from informed legislators. To preclude, Dr. Coburn--a recognized medical expert--from practicing medicine without any profit motive whatsoever is nonsensical. There are a lot of people who depend on him and need his services; at the same time, he needs to keep up his clinical skills so that he can continue to practice medicine whenever he decides to leave the Senate. And he will not be able to maintain his surgical skills or his hospital privileges if he doesn't have this privilege. In fact, it is a simple precept of government life that policymakers should develop some expertise in the issues they are deliberating. To compare him to attorneys--who very often have a profit motive--is the wrong comparison, I think. We all know Dr. Coburn to be a fine man who has a great deal of affection for his patients. I believe he deserves the opportunity to continue to help his patients, continue his medical privileges, and be able to pay for any liability insurance that he may need. He will not make a penny from his efforts, but he will be able to up his skills, which I think is a benefit on all levels. What better way for a doctor to develop that expertise than to continue the practice of medicine, helping real, live people with real, live problems in the real-world hospital or clinic setting? I happen to know a little about this, even though I am a lawyer by training. As my colleagues are aware, I have taken a great interest in health issues since coming to the Congress. It has been my practice to solicit actively medical professionals to help advise me on health legislative matters. I have been fortunate, for many years, to have been aided in my working representing Utahns, by the assistance of very capable Robert Wood Johnson Foundation health policy fellows. These fellows, doctors, nurses, dentists, and health professionals, work each year in congressional offices on both sides of the aisle, and I think all of my colleagues who are fortunate enough to work with RWJ Fellows feel their work as been enriched by the presence of these very capable men and women. I think back on those who have worked in my office, and I am so proud of what we accomplished together--David Sundwall, M.D., now the head of the Utah Health Department, Phil Marion, M.D., Michael Ashburn, M.D., Larry Kerr, PhD, Marlon Priest, M.D., David Russell, DDS, Mark Carlson, M.D., Kira Bacal, M.D.--they are all superstars. Several years ago, before my current health policy director, Pattie DeLoatche, joined my staff, I talked to a previous fellow, Dr. Priest, about joining us in the Senate. I hoped to woo him away from the University of Alabama. Marlon had been an outstanding addition to my office, as an astute emergency room physician who thrived on the give and take of the Senate. His work on many issues, particularly anti-tobacco efforts and radiation compensation, stands out. Marlon would have been a fantastic Hill staffer. And we would have benefitted greatly by his presence. But, you know what? He said to me, ``Senator, as attractive as this offer is, I am almost 50 years old. If I come to the Senate, I can't practice medicine. I will lose my license. And when you leave office, I will no longer have a medical career. I just can't take that chance.'' That was our loss. Similarly, it is our loss if Dr. Coburn cannot practice medicine while he is a Senator. It is the loss of this body, which can benefit so much by his expertise, and it is the loss of Oklahoma, the Nation, and indeed the world, if he cannot practice medicine. Some have suggested, in error I believe, that medical doctors should be treated no differently than other professions, such as lawyers. There is a big difference between those two professions. I can serve here as a lawyer, and I do not lose my license. That is not true for a doctor. With all due respect to my colleagues on the Ethics Committee, and their staff, the ruling by the Ethics Committee is a bureaucratic response to a non-problem. Dr. Coburn is not asking to make a profit here. He has sworn to the committee and to this body that a reasonable reinterpretation of the Senate rules should allow him to practice medicine on a not-for-profit basis. There is no conflict there. But even more, I find it so commendable that Dr. Coburn has pledged to his constituents that he will be a citizen legislator, a central part of his Senate campaign. If Dr. Coburn wants to honor and restore the long-standing tradition in this body of serving as citizen legislators, then so be it. More power to him. And as I noted in the case of my former staffer, a doctor cannot become a Senate employee and retain his or her licensure. So as a consequence, for all practical purposes, dedicated medical professionals, be they Dr. Frist, Dr. Coburn, Dr. Priest, or any other doctor, dentist, nurse or other health care worker, cannot give their expertise to the Senate on any extended basis. What we are asking for here is not a conflict of interest by any means. There would be no profit motive, indeed no profit. So what is the conflict? Indeed, as Dr. Coburn has noted, no pregnant woman will choose him hoping to sway his vote. I think it is also safe to conclude with Dr. Coburn's notation that no PhRMA representatives will line up for a physical at the Oklahoma Senator's office. Mr. President, I think that any objective analysis of the facts would yield one conclusion: the Senate and the American people benefit by having doctors serve here. We should be turning cartwheels that we have such talented individuals as Dr. Frist and Dr. Coburn who want to share their expertise with the Senate and our country. The rules should encourage their working here, not discourage it. I hope my colleagues will agree. All I can say is this. This is a good man. He is in it for the right reasons. This amendment will ensure he keeps his medical privileges active. He is not going to make any profit from it, but he will be able to pay for his medical liability insurance. Most of all, he will be able to help unfortunate people, patients who believe in him, patients this good doctor helps so selflessly. I think everybody in the Senate should feel happy they have enabled our colleague to continue a vital, valuable medical practice without any hint of ethical compromise. That is what this amendment is intended to do, and I urge that it be adopted. I hope our colleagues will give some consideration to this issue and allow this man the privilege of doing this. I will be very disappointed if we don't. I thank my dear friend from Mississippi for granting me this time.

Mr. HATCH. Because of the tight timeframe for action, we were not able to work out language prior to bringing the bill to the floor. Would the chairman be able to give his assurances that he is sympathetic to my constituents' concerns and that he will work to address them in a managers' amendment or in conference?

Mr. HATCH. Will the distinguished Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, yield for a brief question?

Mr. HATCH. The provisions of S. 2020 concerning excise taxes to be levied on transfers of insurance products are of some interest to me. It is clear that there are abuses in the system, and I am appreciative of the chairman and his staff for their substantial work to address those problems. It is my concern that the proposed excise tax language is so broadly drawn that it will stop what I believe are legitimate transactions that constitute best practice in this area. I am aware of a commercial loan structure that relies upon a valid insurable interest between donors and charities, where the lender has isolated both donors and charities from all lending risks. Further, there is an agreeable known benefit to the charity at loan inception, which is not reliant upon the payment of an insurance death benefit, and the loan structure does not include outside investors. The loan is never recharacterized from inception to payoff as anything but a loan. Is it the intent of the chairman in this provision to shut down a straightforward loan transaction?

Mr. HATCH. Does the chairman believe there is room for further discussion in this area?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the tax reconciliation bill the Senate is now considering. As with many of my Finance Committee colleagues, I am both relieved and disturbed to see this bill on the floor in its present form. I am relieved because it includes many important provisions, including some that will serve to help keep the economy strong as well as particular relief provisions for the areas impacted by the hurricanes. However, I am disturbed because we were unable to include in the bill one of the most important provisions to our continuing prosperity--an extension of the lower tax rates for capital gains and dividends. I understand perfectly the reasons some of my colleagues wanted the extension removed. In an era of high deficits it is tempting to preserve revenue any way we can. While I also want to reduce the deficit, I believe that leaving out the extension for the special tax rate for capital gains and dividends will ultimately be counterproductive and harmful to the economy. In an economy where there is universal agreement that Americans are not saving enough, the last thing we want to do is decrease the incentives to save. I urge my colleagues to hearken back to the debates we had over Social Security reform earlier this year. Over the course of those debates, we found that there was substantial disagreement in the Senate over how to reform Social Security. But at the same time, nearly everyone seemed to agree that Americans need to save more for retirement and that our Government can do much better at encouraging us to save. Allowing the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains to expire is going in exactly the wrong direction. The net return on savings is an important determinant for how much people save, and the higher the tax on saving the less saving we do. Work by Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University and Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute has shown that the net return on savings is an important determinant in how much people save. The low returns in the stock market as well as the currently low interest rates throughout the world explain in part the low savings rates that we currently see in the United States. There is no question that reducing the net returns by increasing the tax rate on dividends and capital gains would definitely harm savings. Not only does treating dividend and capital gain ordinary income depress saving, but it is also just plain unfair. This is something I hear again and again from Utahns. Just consider how pernicious the tax on dividends is. The person who buys stock for $1,000 already paid taxes on this money when he or she earned it. The company then pays a corporate tax of 35 percent on its profits. Then, from what remains of its profits, the other 65 cents, it is free to declare a dividend and provide some money back to its stockholders, who also pay a tax on those dividends. Why on Earth should we not have a lower tax on dividends and capital gains? The Government has already made two grabs at that money. What is more, the real cost of the lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains has been consistently overstated. As my colleague, Senator Bunning, remarked in the Finance Committee markup, the revenue collected from these two taxes exceeded the Joint Committee on Taxation's, JCT, estimate by nearly $20 billion in the past year, according to one study. In fact, the unprecedented 15-percent increase in tax revenue collected in the past year demonstrates that the best way to lessen budget pressures is not to raise taxes but to focus on policies that lead to solid economic growth. That 15 percent growth translates into a $100 billion reduction in the budget deficit this year. Let us stop and think about that for a minute, Mr. President. Pro growth tax policies have allowed us to grow our revenues by 15 percent in the past year, this translates into more than $250 billion in higher revenues. If we can find a way to control ourselves on the spending side, this could mean real progress in deficit reduction. As my colleagues well know, we have gone through a great deal of pain just to find $35 billion in spending growth reductions in the spending reconciliation bill Sometimes I think that many of my colleagues ignore, or are not aware of, the power of strong economic growth on our deficit reduction capabilities. If we look back to the late 1990s, when we did for a while eliminate the deficit and create some surpluses, it is easy to see that strong economic growth played a very strong part in that success, as did some curbs on spending. I urge my colleagues not to forget this as we consider the importance of extending these favorable rates on dividends and capital gains. More generally, the attempt to lay blame for our budget deficit entirely at the hands of the tax cuts is mistaken. The process of forecasting budget revenues is still a nearly impossible task despite some hard work done by a group of very talented economists at the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the JCT, and the Office of Management and Budget, OMB. One fact that is clear from our many years of work is that the principal factor driving the amount of revenue collected by the Government is economic growth. Estimates done by CBO showed that the shift from budget surpluses to deficits in the 2001-2003 time period owed more to spending increases, much of which could be attributed to 9/11, and the reduction in economic growth than to the reduction in tax rates. In short, maintaining our pre-2001 tax rates would not have preserved the budget surplus, and in fact would have exacerbated the recession, further reducing revenues. And today, we are seeing the powerful effects that solid economic growth can have on Government revenue. As I alluded earlier, the booming tax revenues of today are reminiscent of the 1990s, when a sustained period of solid economic growth not only filled our Government's coffers but dramatically lowered unemployment, increased incomes at all levels, and reduced poverty in a dramatic fashion. Many opponents of the extension argue that lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains represent yet another tax break for the rich. To boil down the lower tax rate to a tired class-warfare argument is over simplistic and wrong. Reducing the taxation on investment income benefits everyone in America because it ultimately increases productivity and, with it, wages and economic growth as well. Nobel Prize-winning economists Robert Lucas and Ed Prescott have argued that eliminating the pernicious taxation on savings is the closest thing there is to a free lunch. When we save more it means that there is more money available for firms to modernize and expand and compete in the world economy. Former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Greg Mankiw has shown in his research that even those who do not own stocks benefit in the long run from the lower tax rates on investment income. The U.S. economy benefits greatly from the presence of a stable, relatively predictable tax and regulatory regime. Investors do not like to be surprised, and they like predictability. As my colleague Senator Kyl has pointed out, leaving the extension of the special tax rates on dividends and capital gains until later has dramatically increased uncertainty in the minds of nearly every person investing in the United States. Investors are not looking at the tax rates in place today--they are looking at the rates they expect to be in place several years down the road when they plan to take the gains of their investments and pay the taxes. I note that the tax reconciliation bill approved this week by the House Ways and Means Committee included a 2-year extension of the lower rate for capital gains and dividends. I hope that this provision survives intact in the House bill and that bill passes the other body. If so, the capital gains and dividends extension will be an item for discussion in the conference of these bills with the House. Therefore, this tax bill may yet include this important provision before it goes to the President for his signature. Another important provision that needs to be included in this legislation is an extension of the research tax credit. Companies throughout the country, and many in Utah, depend on this credit to remain competitive and to innovate. A robust research credit is vital for our future world leadership in technology and our economic growth. The revised mark includes the credit expansion in the form of the alternative simplified credit. An increase in U.S. R&D spending benefits everyone, by ultimately improving the productivity of the American worker. Increasing productivity invariably results in an increase in wages throughout the economy. It is interesting to listen to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when they talk about these tax provisions in their entirety. They make it appear that this package is nothing more than a large tax cut for the wealthy in our Nation. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, other than those provisions that are designed to give aid to the victims of the hurricanes, and to help rebuild the gulf coast areas that were the hardest hit, this bill is about extending certain provisions that are set to expire. Most of those provisions expire in just a few weeks. I think it is important for Utahns and all Americans to understand that enactment of this legislation is necessary to prevent a very large tax increase on middle-class Americans. Practically every single provision in this bill enjoys plenty of bipartisan support. So while some of my colleagues are deriding this bill as a whole as an unnecessary and unwarranted tax giveaway to the rich, they are quietly promoting the individual provisions in the bill as necessary provisions for their constituents. While I support this bill and certainly want to see it go forward to conference with the House, where we are hopeful it can be improved further, there are several provisions in it that cause me a great deal of concern. One of these items of concern relates to a provision located in the charitable reforms section of the bill. Specifically, it would place a floor of $500 on a joint return on the amount of deduction a taxpayer who itemizes his or her deductions may claim for a charitable contribution. I see absolutely no rationale for this limitation. I do know that it would discourage and mistreat many Utahns who make small contributions to their churches and to local charities. It seems to me that this limitation would hit those who make small donations particularly hard. The entire point of extending the charitable deduction to those who do not itemize is to give an incentive to more people to donate to charity. I believe the non-itemizers deduction would do this, so I have supported it. But why in the world would we want to give an incentive to non- itemizers and then turn around and remove a current incentive to those who itemize? It makes no sense. This provision is unfair to itemizers in another way. The standard deduction already assumes a certain level of charitable contributions. In order to give non-itemizers an incentive to actually give those assumed contributions, we are effectively allowing them to double dip in this provision. I can live with that because I think it will result in increased donations. However, to take away a current benefit from itemizers is beyond the pale. There are many thousands of Utahns who give 10 percent of their income to their church. Because of this, Utah has a higher percentage of taxpayers who itemize. Why should they be penalized for doing the right thing? Why would we remove an incentive to them so we could create another incentive to those who do not give as much? This is totally unfair. I am also very concerned about another revenue raising provision in the bill that seems completely counterproductive and foolish to me. I am referring to the provision that would remove the ability of certain integrated oil companies to use the LIFO method of accounting for their inventories. To me, this seems like a backdoor attempt to place a windfall profits tax on oil companies, which was ineffective the first time it was tried. I am even more concerned that this provision could very well miss its intended target and hit some of the smaller oil refineries around the nation that we have been trying to help in recent tax bills. I am told that it would affect three companies in Utah that happen to have some production, some refining, and are retailers. These three Utah companies are not the large integrated oil firms that this revised mark may be targeting. I do not think this change is good policy for even the large companies, but in addition to being very poor policy, it also seems misdirected. The American Job Creation Act we passed a year ago included a tax incentive to encourage small refiners to comply with the new low-sulfur diesel regulations. The Energy bill we passed this summer included a provision to allow refiners to expense immediately the cost of additional refinery capacity. The provision in the bill before us would totally reverse these incentives and much more. Is not this like giving someone a quarter with our right hand and then taking a dollar away from that same person with our left hand? If we wish to encourage more production of oil and especially if we wish to encourage the creation of more capacity to refine oil products, this is not the way to go about it. I hope these offensive provisions can be removed, or at least mitigated, in the managers' amendment. Mr. President, I know that sometimes one must take one step back for each two steps forward. Well, I think that this bill is an example of us taking one step back to take one and a half steps forward, but in the end, we are at least moving forward. I would rather have an extension of the research tax credit and AMT along with an extension of the low rates for dividends and capital gains, but I will save the battle for the latter for another day. The Finance Committee has an incredible array of legislative provisions that pass before us each year. The chair has, as usual, done a masterful job of satisfying the diverse interests of the members of the committee with his legislation. One day, I hope to see a Finance Committee that takes a small step forward in every single piece of legislation to make it easier and more rewarding to save in America. The importance of increasing saving to the growth potential of our economy cannot be underestimated. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I came over to make some remarks in morning business until I heard the remarks of my colleagues on the other side. I have to say that the windfall profits tax that we enacted a number of years ago, I voted against it. It did not work. It was a disaster. I think this would be an equal disaster. A lot of these folks on the other side are the people who today own a lot of drilling offshore where we know billions of gallons of oil are, who have fought against ANWR where they have estimated at least 6 to 8 billion barrels of oil lie ready to be recovered from a plot of ground as small as 2,000 acres--equal to the Dulles airport acreage. And you could go on and on about how they have made it almost impossible to drill, to build refineries, to do the things that have to be done to bring oil and gas prices down--almost every argument that has come from the other side. And now we are here trying to tax the companies that now are making very good profits, the very companies that are considering how can they find more oil and gas, how can they drill offshore, how can they drill up in Alaska where there is a lot of oil and gas, and how can we duplicate what they have done up there in Canada with their tar sands. Canada has not been stupid about recovery, and it has cost billions of dollars of investment by oil companies to do what they are doing. Today Canada is producing a million barrels of oil a day, and before too long that number will grow to 3.5 million barrels a day, mostly from their tar sands. I might add that they now have the second largest oil reserves in the world today, second only to Saudi Arabia, and that is 1 million barrels a day from the tar sands and approximately 1 million barrels from other energy sources. We have just as big of a resource in the U.S., but our companies can not get access to it. It's becoming too difficult to get the necessary permits which are often completely bottled up by the environmentalists, even in areas where drilling would be environmentally safe. I think the height of stupidity was locking up the Saudi Arabia of coal, which happens to be in Utah, by creating the Grand Staircase- Escalante Monument. President Clinton closed up 60 miles south of Utah, an area larger than the Grand Canyon, without having talked or consulted with one political official in all of Utah--not the Governor, not Members of the Senate or House of Representatives, not even Democrats in Utah. That coal is high-moisture, low-sulfur content, environmentally sound coal, which, if blended with the less clean coal of the east and the central part of our country would save billions of tons of particulates in the air. The arguments for closing off that huge source of clean energy are very similar to the arguments being made today by my two illustrious colleagues, for whom I care a great deal. It is wonderful for some to get out here and beat up on the big old oil companies. It was just yesterday when I was chatting with one of the largest oil companies, and more than anything, they want to invest in new development and take advantage of incentives we put into the Energy bill. They want to develop the tar sands and oil shale in our country, we are 15 to 20 years behind Canada on this, so that we can lower the price of oil and gas in this country, so that our good friends in the eastern and northeastern part of this country do not have to pay the high prices they are paying. These oil companies are often not able, even when they make these profits, to drill because they cannot get permits and, in some areas, cannot even drill where we know there are billions of barrels of oil that would lower the price of oil and gas. That is why I have found this a little hard to take, as I have been sitting here--I didn't plan on talking on this issue. But I am one of those who put into the Energy bill incentives to develop our tar sands and oil shale, our geothermal, our natural gas, and to develop more refineries because over the last 35 years, we have lost 200 refineries and only built 1. Why? Because it is so doggone hard to get approvals to build refineries in this country. We can't even produce the amount of refined petroleum we need for our automobiles on the road now. Why? Because we have gone so far to the left wing extreme that we cannot develop our own resources, even in an environmentally sound way. Also, in that bill I put in the CLEAR Act, which provides incentives for alternative fuel vehicles, alternative fuels, alternative fuel stations, alternative fuel cells. Given some time and some investments, I believe we can solve an awful lot of the pollution problems in our country the right way, through incentives, not by punishing the very companies that make our country work. We need to give incentives and government cooperation so companies can get permits to develop more oil and gas, so that we could bring down the price of oil and gas. But every time they want to do that, every time one of these companies wants to do something like that, guess who is throwing up every roadblock they possibly can and all in the interest of politics, in my opinion, which I think is the sum and total of most of the remarks made today on the floor by my two friends and colleagues--and they are friends--on the other side.

Mr. HATCH. I listened to the Senator from North Dakota, and I will be happy to take a question. I didn't come here to talk about this, but I got a little bit upset listening to what I consider to be political talk, which we have all too much of on this floor. Everyday we have people coming around here giving these populous talks about how we have to bring oil and gas prices down, and yet they make it almost impossible to do it. Come on, America, wake up. I am sick of it. I used to be in the oil business. I know how hard it is. Let me tell you, in eastern Utah, western Colorado, and southern Wyoming, we have upwards estimated 3 trillion barrels of oil, 1 trillion or more of which they say is recoverable, at probably $30 or less per barrel. But developing that oil will take billions of dollars of investment and all kinds of bureaucratic anguish to get the permitting and other steps necessary to go in and do it. And we are 20 years behind Canada. They didn't allow this type of talk to stop them from developing their tar sands. I talked to a company yesterday who said they may be willing to put a tremendous multibillion-dollar investment in there, and when industry is through, it will be over $100 billion, close to $120 billion invested. Mr. President, where do we think this money is going to come from? By the way, that 1 trillion barrels of oil in eastern Utah, southern Wyoming, and western Colorado is more recoverable oil than all the proven reserves in the Middle East. But it is going to cost more to come out because it is a different form of extraction. To do it costs billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of investment over the years. But it will save our country if we have the wisdom and the fortitude and the foresight to go and do it. I might also add that we haven't built a refinery, as I have said, in 35 years--1 refinery and we have lost 200 of them. Why? Because it is so difficult to get anything done because of the so-called environmentalists, and I have to call some of them extreme environmentalists because true environmentalists should want us to get some of the things I put into the Energy bill. I don't believe that oil companies should make excessive profits that they are unwilling to use for furthering their business interests either, but if they are given a chance to use them and go out and get more oil for us and more gas for us, they are going to do it. But every step of the way, they are stymied by the very people here who have been complaining. I am personally tired of it. I feel sorry for the people in the Northeast. I feel sorry for the people in Utah. Our folks are paying more than I wish they had to pay for gas. I feel sorry for those over in Europe, where they have paid more than $4 a gallon for gasoline now for decades, some as high as $6 a gallon for gasoline because they were overrun by the same type of philosophical talk. And that is all it is, talk that we get on this floor. I can tell you, the American people have to wake up. This populist talk is not what is going to get us oil and gas, nor is it going to bring prices down, nor are rebates going to help our people over the long run. What will help our people is to develop, in environmentally sound ways, resources that will help get us out of these difficulties. As for that Saudi Arabia of coal I mentioned in the Kaiparowitz Plateau in southern Utah, we now have the capacity to take that high- moisture, low-sulfur content, environmentally sound coal, and develop clean-burn diesel and clean-burn jet fuel. We have that ability today, and it is locked up because of what I consider to be a political stunt that we are stuck with, for now. It wasn't on this side of the floor or this administration that caused that political stunt. I think it is time to get rid of the populist talk and start talking reality. It is nice to come out and beat up the oil companies who are making great profits, but who would use those profits if they could to develop more of their products.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to.

Mr. HATCH. I would be interested in the corrections because I don't believe you can find what I said to be false.

Mr. HATCH. No, it wasn't wrong. I lived in this industry. I understand it. If you have a question----

Mr. HATCH. OK.

Mr. HATCH. Do you have a question?

Mr. HATCH. First of all, BusinessWeek is not a conservative publication. Anything that is not liberal you consider conservative on that side. Secondly, the fact of the matter is, I have been making a pretty good case that it is pretty tough to get permits and get past the environmentalist roadblocks. It is in my State and every other State that has energy. Thirdly, I mentioned the coal that has been locked up because of the machinations of the Clinton administration, the last administration. Fourthly, I don't think it is even plausible that the oil companies, if they can get permits fast enough to do it, would not invest in more production, since that is their business. Some of them are going to China, to Russia, and elsewhere to make these profits because they are forced to. I think it is very unfair for my colleagues, as much as I admire you, it is very unfair to come on this floor and brand the oil companies as a bunch of antipatriotic companies. Let me finish with my remarks, and I will yield the floor. I have been in this business. I know doggone well what it takes and how much it takes and how much it costs to develop oil and gas. I also know how difficult it is to get past the roadblocks environmentalists put up. I get tired of the populist rhetoric on the other side of the aisle that never gives any consideration to how difficult it is to be in this business. I don't have any financial interest in oil. All I can say is that I have been there, I know what it is like. Of course, these companies are out to make money, and if they have a business plan to buy back their stock, good for them. There are a lot of companies that are buying back their stock so they can compete. I feel strongly about this, which is why I fought for incentives in the Energy bill--and I fought hard to get them there--to develop the tar sands and oil shale, to develop geothermal, to develop refineries. We hear all this rhetoric about how these oil companies are making all this big money and not building refineries, tell me where they can build them; tell me where they don't have to spend billions of dollars to build a refinery or hundreds of millions to build a refinery, all because of what many people would argue are pseudo-environmental arguments and delays. We have gone so far on that side that we made it almost impossible for us to develop our own natural resources for our own benefit. I don't like any company that gouges, and if these companies are gouging, then let's do something about it. But let's not take away, as we commonly do around here, their ability to be able to go out and find oil, drill for oil and do what I think both of my colleagues sincerely want them to do, to go out and produce energy. You talk to any oil company executive and talk about how difficult it is to get permits and to do what has to be done in this country, it is amazing. I again point out--and it was not false--the fact that I chatted with one of the major oil companies recently that is going to go into the tar sands and oil shale at the tristate area, and their estimate is that it could cost industry as much as 120 billion bucks. That is a lot of money even for the oil companies. But, boy, would that save our country. But it will never happen if we keep doing this type of stuff on the Senate floor. I think we have done it for so many years now that we are getting used to it and we ought to answer it. Mr. President, I want to address another subject that I came here to address. I apologize to my colleagues if I offended them, but do not tell me that what I am saying is false. I know it is true. I for one am doggoned tired of this type of rhetoric. I want to address the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and I would like this put in morning business.

Mr. HATCH. I have the floor, do I not?

Mr. HATCH. I just got the unanimous consent.

Mr. HATCH. I will withdraw the morning business request, and I will put it in this Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, who has the floor?

Mr. HATCH. Of course, I will.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to address the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Judicial nominees should be judged on their qualifications and their judicial philosophy. On the first point, there is no question that Judge Alito is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1990, when the first President Bush nominated Judge Alito to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest ``well qualified'' rating. This body confirmed him at that time without dissent. Regarding judicial philosophy, the most important principle is that judges are not politicians. When we hear someone talk only about the results of a judge's decisions, chances are they are applying a political rather than a judicial standard. This is what we heard today on this floor from my Democratic colleagues. The description of Judge Alito's record by the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, was all about results. This is how he put it: In case after case, Judge Alito seems to find a way to rule on the side of business over the consumer; on the side of employer over employee; and often against civil rights, against workers' rights, against women's rights. It would be tough to present a more distorted picture of what judges actually do. Judges do not decide for or against the rights of groups. Judges do not take the side of one group against another. To suggest, as the Senator from New York did, that Judge Alito is actually biased toward certain parties, that he intends to take a particular side, that he, in the Senator's words, seems to find a way to rule a certain way, is just beyond the pale. Perhaps my Democratic colleagues could provide a list of the side that judges are supposed to take in this case or that. Perhaps they could give us a rundown of the groups whose rights judges are supposed to favor, regardless of the facts. It might be something like a rate card or perhaps just a big piece of litmus paper. That would make this confirmation process a whole lot easier for all of us. Nominees could just check boxes and get a confirmation score. Are you for big business or are you for the little guy? Are you for this or are you for that? The facts do not make any difference, no matter how right the big guy might be or the little guy might be. Politicians take sides. Politicians promote political interests. Politicians pursue agendas. Judges are not politicians. Judges settle legal disputes between specific parties by applying the law to specific facts. Without talking about the facts and the law, it is impossible to properly evaluate judicial decisions. It is not enough, as we heard this morning, to toss in words like ``troubling'' since all that means is that the person using that label does not like the result. It is not enough to observe that Judge Alito was alone in dissent or that the Supreme Court declined to review a particular decision. Those would be marks of distinction of judicial courage if the Senator from New York liked the result. If such results-oriented litmus tests are appropriate, Judge Alito's long record contains results to fit every political taste. Judge Alito has voted on the pro-choice side in some of his abortion- related cases. He has voted for civil rights plaintiffs, against prosecutors, and even in favor of death row inmates desiring to file habeas corpus petitions. Imagine that. Judge Alito will likely get no credit from my liberal friends for these votes, but he should. As I said, we must apply a judicial rather than a political standard to evaluate a judicial rather than a political record. This morning, the minority leader, Senator Reid, also spoke about the Alito nomination. I would like to respond to a few of his points. First, he said the nomination was not, as he put it, ``the product of consultation with Senate Democrats as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.'' America's Founders envisioned no such thing but actually advised against it. The Founders gave the power to nominate and appoint exclusively to the President. The Senate's role is to advise the President whether he should appoint someone he has already nominated, expressing that advice through an up-or-down vote. Some of my Democratic colleagues are fond of taking jabs at President Bush by saying that this is the third nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. If that is true, then he should get credit for consulting with more than 70 Senators, more than any President has ever done regarding a Supreme Court nominee. The idea that consultations for the same position must begin all over again when the first nominee is appointed elsewhere is absurd. I hope this will be a fair, honest, and thorough process that results in an up-or-down confirmation vote. I applaud the minority leader for saying this morning that every judicial nominee is entitled to an up- or-down vote. In the 108th Congress, of course, he had a different attitude, leading filibusters against 10 different appeals court nominees, along with Senator Daschle. While the minority leader, this morning, lamented the fact that Judge Alito is not Hispanic, one of the filibusters he led in 2003 targeted Miguel Estrada, a highly qualified nominee to the Federal appeals bench. Perhaps race only matters some of the time. Until Democratic Senators began filibustering judicial nominees in 2003 with partisan, leader-led filibusters, it has been Senate tradition that judicial nominees reaching the floor received up-or-down votes. While I hope the minority leader will help us return to that tradition, and I believe he may, he may have a bit of a challenge on his hands. Although the minority leader claimed this morning that not a single Democrat has talked about filibustering the Alito nomination, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, told the Associated Press on November 1 that ``the filibuster is on the table.'' According to the Baltimore Sun on November 2, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, said ``I believe Democrats will filibuster this nominee.'' The Associated Press reported on November 3 that Democrats have, in fact, raised the possibility of a filibuster. Yes, Democrats are already talking filibuster, and I hope the minority leader meant what he said this morning and urges them to take a deep breath. I urge my colleagues, the media, and the American people to apply the right standard to this and to all judicial nominations. It must be a judicial rather than a political standard when we decide these matters. It must examine the law and the facts of cases as well as the results, and it must be fair to this highly qualified and honorable nominee. I have been kind of tough on my colleagues on the other side, but I believe everything I said is true. I believe it is time to get rid of the populism and start talking about what we can do to help America. One of the best things we can do is to confirm Judge Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the pension reform bill we are now considering. This bill is the product of a great deal of work by members of both the Committee on Finance and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. As a member of both of these committees, I congratulate the chairmen and ranking Democratic members for their leadership and hard work. It is not often that Senate committees share jurisdiction of an issue the way that the Finance and HELP Committees share the jurisdiction of pensions. Bringing the bill to this point required an unusual procedure where the separate bills approved by the two committees, which were quite different in many respects, were combined into one bill for floor consideration. The resulting bill, which is before us today, is complex, controversial, and imperfect. It is also very much needed. Traditional pension plans, also known as defined benefit pension plans, are facing a crisis today. The number of defined benefit pensions is in decline. In 1980, around 40 percent of private sector jobs offered pensions to their employees. Today, only 20 percent do. Since 1985, the number of defined benefit plans backed by the PBGC has declined from 114,500 to fewer than 32,000. Clearly, our economy, and the retirement options for our workforce, are undergoing rapid evolution. This is due to a number of complex factors, but prominent among them is the high expense of starting and maintaining these plans, and the uncertainty and volatility of funding them. The rules governing defined benefit pension plans are among the most complex of all U.S. laws. Another factor in the debate about pensions is that the American workforce is changing in a fundamental way. No longer is the idea of going to work for one employer and remaining with that company for one's entire career considered the norm. Increasingly, workers are mobile and find themselves changing companies and even careers several times over the course of their work lives. For these workers, the traditional pension plan is not necessarily the ideal. For many such workers, and for most companies in younger industries, hybrid pension plans are more beneficial. Unfortunately, these hybrid pension plans are under a legal and a legislative cloud today. So what could be a pretty good answer in today's world to the problems of cost, complexity, and inflexibility of a defined benefit plan has been practically halted by legal challenges and by political controversy over how to best clarify the status of hybrid plans. One of the biggest concerns, however, is that the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) is under increasing financial strain as more and more companies with defined benefit plans have defaulted on their pension obligations and left this agency to carry the load. Just yesterday, the PBGC released in its annual report that it had only $56.5 billion in assets to cover $79.2 billion in liabilities. In addition, the report showed the PBGC's exposure to losses from pension plans sponsored by financially weak employers rose to $108 billion from $96 billion the year before. When I earlier said this pension bill is complex, controversial, and imperfect, it is because, to be effective, the bill must walk the very narrow path between two important public policy objectives. On the one hand, we need to ensure that when an employer establishes a pension plan, and makes inherent promises to its workers, it provides the funds necessary to secure those commitments. Failure to do so does great harm to the millions of employees and their families who depend on those pensions for a secure retirement. It also does harm to our economy, and it puts the PBGC, and possibly the American taxpayer, at great risk. On the other hand, we must not forget that employers have no legal obligation to offer such pension plans to their employees. These benefits are voluntary, and they must stay so. The Congress has an obligation to ensure that the pension laws provide rational and sensible rules that encourage employers to offer these benefits to their employees. This means they should be understandable, predictable, and easy to administer. If we place unreasonable or overly aggressive requirements on employers, many or most will simply terminate their pension plans, leaving employees without the benefits they might have had. I believe we must be careful to ensure that pension plans that are currently fully funded and are sponsored by strong employers are not weakened inadvertently by the reforms in this legislation. However, this is not as easy to accomplish at it may sound. I believe the bill before us goes a long way toward accomplishing the goals of strengthening the pension system, shoring up the PBGC, and not discouraging employers from staying in the system. However, it has certain provisions that, in my view, may not lead us in the direction we need to go. I hope that as the bill goes to conference that it can be further improved. More specifically, I remain concerned about the provision in the bill that would require certain plan sponsors with credit ratings that have fallen below investment grade to fund their plans faster than they would otherwise have to do. While this provision has improved from its first version in the Finance Committee, I believe it is still too onerous. I am also very concerned about the impact of this bill on the struggling airline industry. We simply must provide relief to the airlines in funding their pension obligations or many will have to turn their obligations over to the PBGC. Therefore, I am supporting the amendment of the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and I hope our colleagues will also support it. There is much to be said in favor of this combined bill. I am very pleased to see that many of the defined contribution provisions that the Finance Committee has long worked on getting enacted have made their way into this bill. I am also glad that certain protections were added for the multiple employer pensions plans that are very important to many of the electrical and telephone cooperatives that are common in many rural States, including my home State of Utah. I am also pleased to see that the managers' substitute amendment also includes a provision on which I have been working for several years now with the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Finance Committee. This provision, which is important to many associations around the Nation, including the Utah Auto Dealers Association, ensures that they will not unfairly have to give up their health plans, upon which many employers and their families now rely. And I am happy that we have finally included language that makes it much easier for firms to enroll automatically new employees into a firm's 401(k) plans. One thing we know about human behavior is that inertia is a powerful force--change of any sort can be difficult for even the best of us. The beauty of automatic enrollment is that it uses this inertia to our advantage. The firms that have used automatic enrollment thus far have reported vastly higher savings rates, and employees have been quite pleased with the result. While nearly everyone on both sides of the aisle supports making automatic enrollment easier for firms, we differ on just how much easier we should make it. There have been a number of proposals that would have made it much easier for firms that offer automatic enrollment of new employees to meet the convoluted pension distribution requirements that deter many smaller firms from even offering 401(k) plans. Unfortunately, the version currently embodied in this bill does not, in my view, adequately address this problem. Still, half a loaf is better than none, and I welcome anything that clears the way for firms to offer automatic enrollment. I would like to take another couple of minutes to address more fully the issue of hybrid pension plans, which combine elements of defined benefit and defined contribution plans. I think that corporate America is recognizing the importance of these plans. At the same time, there is a cloud of legal uncertainty hanging over them. My hope is that we address this uncertainty in the conference. Although the defined benefit pension system has helped generations of Americans achieve retirement security, we have witnessed a decline in these plans during the last several years, as I mentioned. While the modern workforce remains interested in the security of employer funding and Federal insurance guarantees, it also demands portability and a greater level of control regarding retirement benefits. Given these diverse criteria it is easy to see why so-called hybrid pension plans have become so popular. These cash-balance and pension equity plans, in which over 9 million Americans currently participate, incorporate the attractive features of a defined contribution plan while offering much of the security associated with traditional defined benefit plans. Hybrid pension plans are nothing new. In 1991 the Treasury issued regulations that described a safe harbor testing method for cash balance pension plans under nondiscrimination rules. Five years later, the IRS issued Notice 96-8 describing the structure and operation of cash balance pension plans as well as citing the previous safe harbor rule. This notice and prior regulation stood as the official authority from Treasury and IRS on how a cash balance pension plan should be designed and operated. Many plan sponsors even received favorable determination letters from the IRS that their converted cash balance pension plans met all requirements to be qualified to preferred tax treatment under the Internal Revenue Code, including all relevant nondiscrimination requirements. More recently, in 2002 the Treasury issued proposed regulations that clearly established hybrid pension plans and plan conversions as nondiscriminatory against older workers. Most employers who made these plan conversions did so as part of a good-faith effort to protect the retirement security of their employees. Although many courts have ruled that these plans do not discriminate based on age, they continue to come under attack. The bill we are currently considering does a good job of establishing the principles for evaluating whether post-effective date conversions of a traditional defined benefit pension plan to a hybrid pension plan are permissible. However, the bill does not clarify that employers who previously adopted hybrid pension plans in good faith, based on generally accepted legal principles and in reliance on guidance issued by the Internal Revenue Service, should not be disadvantaged compared to employers who adopt hybrid pension plans in the future. If Congress does not clarify the legality of pre-effective date hybrid pension plans and plan conversions, it is likely that these plans will be abandoned in favor of programs that shift investment risk for retirement savings back to participants, such as 401(k) plans. The uncertain climate for hybrid pension plans has already had a profound adverse effect on defined benefit plan formation and continuation. I hope that in conference we can consider some moderate and fair retroactive provisions in order to give some legal clarity to these plans. This bill should not be considered the final word on this issue. It represents good progress, and I am encouraged that those who had placed holds on its consideration have agreed to release them. By approving this legislation, we can move into conference where I believe we can improve the bill even further. Again, I thank those who have worked so hard on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it today.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with my good friend and colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, I rise to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2005. We are joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith, the chairman of the Aging Committee, and Senator Herb Kohl, the ranking minority member of that committee. As my colleagues may recall, Senator John Breaux and I introduced similar legislation in both the 107th and 108th Congresses, with the strong support of Senators Lincoln, Smith and Kohl. The bill was reported by the Finance Committee last year, but unfortunately it was not approved before we adjourned. Although the number of older Americans is growing at a rapid pace, thousands of cases of elder abuse go unaddressed every day. The problem of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation has long been invisible and is probably one of the most serious issues facing seniors and their families. Research in the field is scarce, but, by some estimates, up to five million cases of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation occur each year. Without more attention and more resources, far too many of these cases of abuse, neglect and exploitation will go unaddressed and far too many older Americans will suffer. Few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as elder abuse. In fact, 25 years of congressional hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse have found this problem to be a ``disgrace'' and a ``burgeoning national scandal.'' Yet, to date, no federal legislation has been enacted to address elder abuse in a comprehensive manner. During that same time period, Congress passed comprehensive bills to address child abuse and crimes against women, yet there is not one full-time Federal employee working on elder abuse in the entire Federal Government. The cost of elder abuse is high. This is true in terms of needless human suffering, inflated health care costs, limited Federal resources and the loss of one of our greatest national assets--the wisdom and experience of older citizens. S. 2010 is designed to create a national focus on elder abuse to increase detection, prevention, prosecution and victim assistance. It ensures that states, communities, consumers and families will have access to the information and resources they need to confront this difficult issue. By addressing law enforcement, social service and public health concerns, our bill uses the proven approach Congress has adopted to combat child abuse and violence against women. I would like to take this opportunity to describe our legislation in more detail. The Elder Justice Act establishes dual Offices of Elder Justice at the Departments of Justice, DOJ, and Health and Human Services, HHS, to coordinate Federal, State and local efforts to combat elder abuse in residential and institutional settings. In addition, an Elder Justice Coordinating Council will be established to make recommendations to the HHS Secretary and the Attorney General on coordinating activities of Federal agencies related to elder abuse. This Council is specifically mandated to advise us on legislation, model laws and other appropriate action on addressing elder abuse. The bill creates an Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation to establish a short-term and long-term multi-disciplinary strategic plan for expanding the field of elder justice. The board would make recommendations to HHS, DOJ, and the Elder Justice Coordinating Council and submit to HHS, DOJ, and Congress information and recommendations on elder justice programs, activities and legislation. The Elder Justice Act also directs the HHS Secretary to establish an Elder Resource Center to develop ways to collect, maintain and disseminate information relevant to consumers, families and providers in order to protect individuals from elder abuse and neglect. It is our hope that this Center will improve the quality, quantity and accessibility of information available on elder abuse. In addition, the bill establishes a National Elder Justice Library within the Center to serve as a centralized repository for materials on training, technical assistance and promising practices related to elder justice. S. 2010 also improves, streamlines and promotes uniform collection and dissemination of national data related to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. Today, data on elder abuse are very limited. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, is directed to develop a method for collecting national data regarding elder abuse and then create uniform national data reporting forms to help determine what a reportable event on elder abuse is. The legislation includes several grants to combat elder abuse including grants to improve data collection activities on elder abuse prevention and prosecution of elder abuse cases. These grants would establish five Centers of Excellence nationwide to specialize in research, clinical practice and training related to elder abuse. In addition, the HHS Secretary will award safe haven grants to six diverse communities to examine elder shelters to test various models for establishing safe havens. Elder victims' needs, which are rarely addressed, will be better met by supporting the creation of safe havens for seniors who are not safe where they live. Development of safe haven programs which focus on the special needs of at-risk elders and older victims are needed and necessary. The legislation directs the HHS Secretary to award training grants to groups with responsibility for elder justice, eligible entities to provide care for those with dementia and certain entities to make recommendations on caring for underserved populations of seniors living in rural areas, minority populations, and Indian tribes. Training to combat elder abuse, neglect and exploitation will be supported both within individual disciplines and in multi-disciplines such as public health, social service and law enforcement settings. In addition, our bill directs the Secretary to award fellowships to individuals so they may obtain training in both forensic pathology and geriatrics. An individual receiving such a fellowship shall provide training in forensic geriatrics to interdisciplinary teams of health care professionals. Grants also would be awarded to create programs to increase the number of health care professionals with geriatric training. Finally, the Elder Justice Act directs the HHS Secretary to award grants to conduct a national multimedia campaign to raise awareness on elder abuse. Our legislation also requires a number of studies on elder abuse including one on the responsibilities of federal, state and local governments in response to reports of elder abuse. This study would be to improve response time to elder abuse and reduce elder victimization. In addition, the CDC Director is directed to conduct a study on the best method to address elder abuse from a public health perspective, including reducing elder abuse, neglect and exploitation committed by family members. Current statistics indicate that only 20 percent of elder abuse occurs in long-term care facilities and institutions--80 percent of elder abuse is committed in the home. The bill also establishes new programs to assist victims and provides grants for education and training of law enforcement and prosecutors. It requires reporting of crimes in long-term care settings, creates a national criminal background check program for those employed by long- term care providers--something strongly advocated by Senator Kohl--and establishes a national nurse aide registry program based on recommendations by HHS. Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. More and more of us will enjoy longer life in relative health, but with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest seniors. In closing, I must note that our legislation has been endorsed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national membership organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This coalition, which has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Elder Justice Act, has 397 members. This Congress, one of my top priorities is to get this bill signed into law, once and for all, so that elder justice will become a reality for those Americans who need it most. Our seniors deserve no less.