Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I wish to speak on the occasion of CSM Robin Shipley's retirement after 42 years of honorable service in the U.S. Army Reserve. A native of Ogden, UT, he rose to the highest rank of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps, command sergeant major--a crowning achievement after a long distinguished career. I am most impressed in his recent role as operations sergeant major for the Joint and Special Troops Support Command. The Joint and Special Troops Support Command only recently was activated at Fort Douglas, UT. The difficult task of activating a new command requires tremendous leadership and tireless commitment. True to the finest traditions of the United States Army and the Noncommissioned Officer Corps, Sergeant Major Shipley rose to the challenge and performed his duties in an outstanding manner. This capstone performance was a fitting end to his long remarkable career. Accordingly, as recognition of his exemplary service, Command Sergeant Major Shipley was awarded the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal with second oak leaf cluster, Army Reserve Commendation Medal with third oak leaf cluster, and the National Defense Service Medal. I am sure Command Sergeant Major Shipley would agree, his honorable career would not have been possible if not for the support of his wife, Judy, and son, Cody. To them, we are also grateful. I know I am joined by all of my colleagues in the Senate congratulating the command sergeant major on the occasion of his retirement and extending to him the Senate's sincere gratitude for his dedication to the defense of our Nation. We wish him and his family only happiness in the years to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I certainly grieve and also appreciate all the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Arizona. What a tragedy. But there are heroes there as well. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, in recent months President Obama has frequently discussed our Nation's disturbing fiscal situation. He is right to do so. Our yearly deficits and accumulated debt hang over the futures of our children and grandchildren like a sword of Damocles. Though he was late to the table on this issue, President Obama seems to have finally recognized the frustration and anger of the American people over our Federal fiscal policy. Recognizing that you have a problem is an important first step, and I applaud the administration for speaking about our Nation's structural deficits. But this is a critical issue, and any solution will require that those responsible give a full and fair accounting of the policies that led to this crisis. Unfortunately, rather than own up to his administration's complicity in our fiscal imbalance, the President prefers to blame our current and future fiscal problems on the previous administration. For this President, the buck always seems to stop over there. This trope is getting old. Well before citizens began organizing against this administration and its historic spending spree, the President and his Democratic allies in Congress were justifying their stimulus program by blaming the previous administration. Yet trying to pass off the consequences of the last 2 years on a long-retired President and a Congress that ended over 4 years ago is no longer plausible. Try as they might, revisionist fiscal history will not absolve our friends on the other side for the fiscal decisions made on their watch. I will explain that point separately, and in detail, in a few days. It is well past time that this administration stop pointing fingers. The American people are demanding that their elected Representatives, in Congress and the White House, act like adults and fix this fiscal mess. In a few weeks, President Obama will send Congress his third budget. The fact that Treasury Secretary Geithner has already written us requesting legislation to raise the debt ceiling does not bode well for citizens seeking greater spending restraint from this administration. The people of Utah and of this Nation deserve a fair accounting of the spending decisions that have led to this request. Let me be clear. The President's desire for a larger level of public debt is a consequence of the fiscal policy choices that he and a Democratic Congress have made over the last 2 years. Between 2007 and 2010, Democrats enjoyed unprecedented control over Federal policy. When the President was inaugurated 2 years ago, he set to work with historic majorities in both the House and Senate. Never letting a crisis go to waste, he sought a fundamental restructuring of the American economy, one in which government would play a starring role. Thanks to our Founders' design, the American people were able to go to the ballot box and give their opinion about these spending policies. Unfortunately, the administration and its allies did not curb their spending in response to democratic uprisings. The people spoke--first in Virginia and New Jersey, then in Massachusetts, and finally, last summer, nationwide. But the Democrats, rather than adjust their policies accordingly, just kept on spending. The tab for this binge is almost beyond description. In the 2 years that Democrats controlled Washington, our debt has risen by almost $3 trillion. I have a chart documenting these staggering hikes in the debt limit. During the short period of all-Democratic rule, the law was changed to raise the debt ceiling on three separate occasions. On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed a debt limit increase bill of $789 billion, the cost of the stimulus bill at that time. On December 28, 2009, President Obama signed a debt limit increase bill of $290 billion. And on February 12, 2010, President Obama signed a third debt limit increase bill of $1.9 trillion. These dollar figures, in terms of the percentage of the economy they represent, are breathtaking. I, like most other Members on both sides of the aisle, eagerly await the President's State of the Union Address. The President is a gifted speaker. And in his usual, eloquent manner, I am sure he will skillfully lay out his fiscal and economic policy goals. As the incoming ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, let me be the first to say that Republicans are happy to hear the President contemplating serious deficit reduction proposals. We would be overjoyed if he actually took a stand for a meaningful attack on structural deficits and the debt. But we will judge his proposals harshly if they provide mere window dressing, rather than bold efforts to address a spending trajectory that is approaching crisis status. Willie Sutton, the infamous bank robber, was asked why he robbed banks. By the way, here is a chart depicting a photo of Mr. Sutton from Life.com. How would Willie respond? He allegedly said he robbed banks because that is where the money is. If President Obama wants to propose credible deficit reduction proposals, he needs to go where the deficit dollars are. And what is the source of those deficits? Taking Willie Sutton's answer to heart, where do we look for those deficits? They are in the trillions of dollars in new spending that the American taxpayer has been burdened with by this administration. Non-defense discretionary spending, by itself, has grown by 24 percent over the last couple of years. And that 24 percent figure does not include the stimulus bill spending. If stimulus spending is included, nondefense discretionary spending has grown by 84 percent. That is right, Madam President, 84 percent. How many typical taxpaying American families have grown their budgets by that much in the last couple of years? Let's take a look at the Gallup weekly survey of daily consumer spending as a comparison. I have a chart which shows the trend line in daily consumer spending. Over here, we can see from the chart consumer spending before the financial crisis of fall 2008 and the recession. It is running near or above $100 per day. Then what happens? Americans cut back their extra spending. It is right here on the rest of the chart. Is it any wonder Americans are telling us to cut our spending? They have cut spending. Why can't we in Washington do the same? When the President laid out his last two budgets, the loudest bipartisan applause came when he stressed fiscal discipline. That reaction should surprise no one. Though conservatives led the way, the American people understand that deficit reduction is not a partisan issue. If the promises of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution--promises of liberty and opportunity--are to mean anything for future generations, our country needs to take up deficit reduction now. Republicans are going to insist on meaningful deficit reduction as a course correction to our currently unsustainable fiscal path. As our Nation comes out of this painful slow-growth period--hopefully sooner rather than later--we must focus on cutting the deficit and the debt. As Republicans, we agree with the President on the priority of fiscal discipline. But deeds mean more than words. And twice, the President's budget, in spite of rhetorical nods to fiscal discipline, has gone in the direction of unpaid-for spending, new government programs and entitlements, and massive financial burdens on the next generation of American taxpayers. The numbers don't lie. The President and the Democratic leadership have dramatically expanded the deficit and piled onto the debt. Two years ago, Republicans and Democrats dramatically disagreed on the stimulus bill. Out of all the Republicans in the House and Senate, only three supported the stimulus bill conference report. Along with most of my Republican colleagues, I rejected this stimulus bill for several reasons. First was the size and the form of the stimulus. Most on our side understood that $1 trillion in deficit spending was an unacceptable burden on the people who would ultimately foot the bill. Second, we questioned the focus of the stimulus. We weren't keen on trying to grow the economy by priming the government pump. Spending $1 trillion of taxpayer money on the academic theory that you have to spend money to make money was a gamble the American taxpayer could not afford. And last year, while the administration and its allies were out promoting recovery summer, citizens in Utah and around the country had long before figured out that the administration's stimulus bet was a big loser. Finally, what disturbed us most was the hidden fiscal burden built into the bill. Although sold as a $787 billion bill, the real cost of the stimulus was, in fact, much higher. I am going to use a chart to show this hidden cost of the stimulus bill. This chart was produced last year but will be updated when we receive the Congressional Budget Office baseline. According to the nonpartisan CBO, if popular new programs in the stimulus bill are made permanent, the cost will be $3.3 trillion. To use Washington speak, the greatest threat of the new stimulus bill was that it raised the baseline. This is a nifty trick if you can pull it off. Its purpose is to open any future spending cuts, no matter how modest, to withering attack. Here is how it works. First, Democrats raise spending for some program--to borrow from George Costanza, we will call it The Human Fund. After Democrats take control of Congress and the White House, spending for The Human Fund goes up by 25 percent, from $1,000,000 to $1,250,000. Then, when the people reject this spending and send Republicans to roll it back, efforts to cut that spending by a meager 5 percent, from $1,250,000 to $1,187,500, leads all of the interest groups dependent on this federal money to scream that the sky is falling. An attack on The Human Fund is an attack on all that is decent in this country! Never mind that this program is still substantially better off than before the Democrats' massive increase in spending. All that we will hear is that Republicans are ruthlessly seeking to cut 5 percent from this program's budget. And so it goes. Our deficit and debt continue to grow as irresponsible and unaffordable increases in spending are baked into our budgetary cake. This strategy of raising the baseline is on full display in the stimulus bill and the threat that its programs--sold to the public as temporary--will become permanent. This chart details CBO's analysis of the stimulus. Let us move from left to right on the chart. The first column is the basic cost of the bill. If the making work pay refundable tax credit is extended, there is $571 billion in future deficits. It is in the second column. If the new entitlement spending in the stimulus is made permanent, then the cost of the bill more than doubles. It means almost $1 trillion in new hidden entitlement spending right here. In the fourth column, we have the appropriations spending. If those increases become permanent, then there is $276 billion in new nondefense discretionary appropriations in this bill. Finally, we have the rent on all this borrowed money. That is the interest expense. CBO tells us that the interest cost alone on the overt new spending and the hidden new spending from the stimulus totals $744 billion. Total it all up, and we get $3.3 trillion, not $787 billion. The total cost of the stimulus is $3.3 trillion. Our Nation can simply no longer afford this. These are CBO figures. They are not from a conservative think tank. There are a couple of simple ways for the stimulus bill supporters to correct this trajectory. If they want to keep the long-term cost of the stimulus down, they could agree to make all of the stimulus provisions temporary. Or they could agree to offset extensions of stimulus spending with other spending cuts. But our friends on the other side have done just the opposite. They have insisted on extending the policy in the stimulus bill without offsets in other areas of spending. You will recall then National Economic Council Director Larry Summers' three Ts tests for stimulus. To be effective, the stimulus needed to be timely, targeted, and temporary. It is failure on that third T, the temporary test, which has been very troubling. Two years into this failed economic experiment, and Democrats still refuse to agree that temporary stimulus proposals should remain temporary. The path forward is not going to be easy. While we do have a recent example of deficit reduction, it was not generated by this administration or its congressional allies. If you want to look at enacted legislation over the last decade, there is one significant spending reduction bill. It was the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It contained a modest amount of deficit reduction. The deficit reduction attained was $35 billion. And how did we achieve those savings? That bill was accomplished through reconciliation. The other side opposed it in lock step. In the end, only Republican votes carried that stand-alone deficit reduction measure. Yet now American taxpayers are being asked to believe that Democrats have found religion on deficits and debt. Our friends on the other side will, no doubt, say time out. We have produced a significant deficit reduction bill, they will say. They will point to last year's ObamaCare legislation. They will argue that this bill, which creates massive new entitlements, somehow saves money. Our Democratic friends will even cite a CBO score showing $230 billion in deficit reduction from this bill. This assertion does not pass the laugh test. Anyone who looks beyond the basic score will see that ObamaCare is another huge deficit generator that will burden the American taxpayer for generations to come. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released an analysis, derived from CBO data, that tells the full story of ObamaCare's deficit impact. Here is what Chairman Ryan said: Claims of deficit reduction exclude the $115 billion needed to implement the law. The score double-counts $521 billion from Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare cuts. It strips a costly doc-fix provision that was included in initial score. It measures 10 years of revenues to offset 6 years of new spending. There is no question that the creation of a new trillion-dollar, open-ended entitlement is a fiscal train wreck. Add it all up and the fiscal reality is that ObamaCare busts the budget by $701 billion. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Chairman Ryan's analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. This double counting of the Medicare cuts is a dangerous accounting gambit. Former Senator Gregg and I warned the Medicare trustees about it in a letter last year. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. A clear pattern has emerged with respect to Democratic rhetoric on the budget. They speak loudly about deficit reduction, while continuing to write checks that this Nation cannot cash. Consider the last debt limit increase bill, which included the much ballyhooed statutory pay-go scheme. My friends on the other side speak of it frequently. But they have also been the most frequent violators of both the spirit and letter of statutory pay-go. The Senate Republican Policy Committee analyzed all of the spending offsets and other budget restraints rejected since statutory pay-go was adopted. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Total it up and you will find that the cost of Democrats end-running their own pay-go rule meant almost $280 billion in additional deficit spending. I think this point needs to be very clear. Senate Republican attempts to force our friends on the other side to abide by the letter or spirit of their own pay-go rule were rebuffed for almost all of last year. This was not some academic exercise. And now the American taxpayers are on the hook for roughly $280 billion, courtesy of Democrats purportedly committed to spending restraint. Still, we are heartened that Democrats are at least claiming a commitment to deficit reduction. Talking tough is a necessary--though not sufficient--step toward getting our fiscal house in order. Similarly, it is a positive development that the President has endorsed passage of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Maybe the administration is waking up to the importance of our pending trade agreements for our exports and the workers who make them. But the proof of his commitment to our exporters must go beyond the Korea FTA. We can no longer let our trade agreements with Panama and Colombia languish as we lose competitiveness and allow other countries to seize these markets for their workers. Talking about trade does not produce jobs. We need the President to take action and submit these agreements to Congress. And we need that action now. The U.S. worker cannot afford to wait. Passage of these trade agreements can boost our economy and our competitiveness without additional spending. They are important tools that we must put to work. If the President chooses this route, I believe he will find an important ally in Congress. I look forward to President Obama's proposals for prioritizing deficit reduction. There is no issue more critical to this Nation's future. And I expect we will hear quite a bit about it in the State of the Union Address. The President can count on applause from our side of the aisle if he presses for reductions in out-of-control spending. But merely relabeling new spending as investments will not make our deficits go away, and it will do nothing to tackle our escalating debt. The President must give serious attention to the legitimate arguments and concerns of conservative citizens if he wants to achieve anything more than a pleasant sounding rhetorical flourish. President Obama did inherit a serious budget deficit. And our friends on the other side will, once again, applaud that line. They will cheer the assertion that they merely inherited deficits. They will spin the convenient tale that Republicans alone bequeathed the deficit to President Obama. But that is certainly not the case. And the record is clear. A Democratic Congress and a Republican President created this deficit from bipartisan policies they jointly developed. To those Democrats who claim Republicans have no right to discuss deficits, they need look no further than their own actions. Take a look at the fiscal effects of the stimulus bill they crafted 2 years ago. Take a comprehensive look at the real deficit impact of ObamaCare. Take an honest look at the appropriations bills that piled on double- digit increases in spending. American families don't have the luxury of 84 percent or 24 percent increases in their spending. They have made their priorities and restrained their spending. If American families can prioritize, deleverage, and live within their means, I hope the President will push his allies in Washington to do the same. All of us in Congress await the arrival of President Obama's third budget. The American people are demanding that he make deficit reduction a priority. And they are asking Congress to approach this subject in an intellectually honest fashion. We need to acknowledge that when it comes to the budget, the road to fiscal ruin has been paved with good intentions. In the name of fixing the economy, the Democrats' stimulus bill has imposed both short-term and long-term costs on American taxpayers, jeopardizing economic growth and, with it, liberty and opportunity. That damage has been expanded with un-offset extensions of what we were told were temporary provisions. As we start writing a budget, let's do it with all the fiscal cards on the table. Let's remove the political blinders and deal with the fiscal facts. And that means being realistic about expiring tax relief, its merits, its economic growth effect, and its political popularity. This is not a problem that we can tax our way out of. Getting our fiscal house in order is going to require hard decisions on spending. We need to put our shoulders to the wheel. We owe it to the people who sent us here. There is an old saying that applies here. I am not the first person, nor will I be the last, to reference it in the context of our fiscal troubles. The saying is: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. We need to use our shovels to fill this fiscal hole, not dig it deeper. I look forward to this debate on spending. It will not be an easy one. But the American people have demanded that Congress take up this cause, and I fully intend to. Ultimately, I am confident that we will achieve meaningful deficit reduction. Yet I go into this debate with my eyes open. President Reagan, in the foreign policy arena, reminded us to trust, but verify. As we await the President's State of the Union speech, Republicans trust that Democrats will make a nod toward deficit reduction, but we need to verify whether they are serious about getting this problem under control. Democrats do not have a great track record when it comes to cutting spending. But hope springs eternal. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express support for the Patent Reform Act of 2011, S. 23, introduced today by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. Senator Leahy and I, along with a number of our colleagues, have worked for years to enact much-needed reform to our Nation's patent system. Last Congress, the Managers' Amendment to the Patent Reform Act of 2009, S. 515, enjoyed strong bipartisan support for Senate floor consideration and passage; the momentum undoubtedly will continue under the leadership of Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Minority Member Charles Grassley. Similarly, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Minority Member John Conyers are true partners in this important legislation. They share the same desire to streamline our patent system in a way that will improve the clarity and quality of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, which in return will provide greater confidence in their validity and enforcement. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: we must ensure that our patent system is as strong and vibrant as possible, not only to protect our country's premier position as the world leader in innovation, but also to secure our economic future. Patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology. Now, more than ever, it is important to ensure efficiency and increased quality in the issuance of patents. This in turn will create an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and the creation of new jobs. One single deployed patent has positive effects across almost all sectors of our economy. As a result, properly examined patents, promptly issued by the USPTO, creates jobs--jobs that are dedicated to developing and producing new products and services. Unfortunately, the current USPTO backlog of applications now exceeds 700,000 applications. The sheer volume of patent applications not only reflects the vibrant, innovative spirit that has made America a world-wide leader in science, engineering, and technology, but also represents dynamic economic growth waiting to be unleashed. If enacted, the Patent Reform Act of 2011 would move the United States to a first-inventor-to-file system, which will bring greater harmony and improve our competiveness. Also, among other things, the bill would improve the system for administratively challenging the validity of a patent at the USPTO; improve patent quality; create a supplemental examination process for patent owners; prevent patents from being issued on claims for tax strategies; and provide fee-setting authority for the USPTO Director to ensure the Office is properly funded. This bipartisan bill also contains provisions on venue; changes to the best mode; increased incentives for government laboratories to commercialize inventions; restrictions on false marking claims, and removes restrictions on the residency of Federal Circuit judges. We have been working on this legislation since 2006. Reforming our patent system is a critical priority whose time has more than come. It is essential to growing our economy, creating jobs and promoting innovation in our Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join in this effort and help move this important legislation forward.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express support for the Patent Reform Act of 2011, S. 23, introduced today by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy. Senator Leahy and I, along with a number of our colleagues, have worked for years to enact much-needed reform to our Nation's patent system. Last Congress, the Managers' Amendment to the Patent Reform Act of 2009, S. 515, enjoyed strong bipartisan support for Senate floor consideration and passage; the momentum undoubtedly will continue under the leadership of Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Ranking Minority Member Charles Grassley. Similarly, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and Ranking Minority Member John Conyers are true partners in this important legislation. They share the same desire to streamline our patent system in a way that will improve the clarity and quality of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, which in return will provide greater confidence in their validity and enforcement. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: we must ensure that our patent system is as strong and vibrant as possible, not only to protect our country's premier position as the world leader in innovation, but also to secure our economic future. Patents encourage technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology. Now, more than ever, it is important to ensure efficiency and increased quality in the issuance of patents. This in turn will create an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and the creation of new jobs. One single deployed patent has positive effects across almost all sectors of our economy. As a result, properly examined patents, promptly issued by the USPTO, creates jobs--jobs that are dedicated to developing and producing new products and services. Unfortunately, the current USPTO backlog of applications now exceeds 700,000 applications. The sheer volume of patent applications not only reflects the vibrant, innovative spirit that has made America a world-wide leader in science, engineering, and technology, but also represents dynamic economic growth waiting to be unleashed. If enacted, the Patent Reform Act of 2011 would move the United States to a first-inventor-to-file system, which will bring greater harmony and improve our competiveness. Also, among other things, the bill would improve the system for administratively challenging the validity of a patent at the USPTO; improve patent quality; create a supplemental examination process for patent owners; prevent patents from being issued on claims for tax strategies; and provide fee-setting authority for the USPTO Director to ensure the Office is properly funded. This bipartisan bill also contains provisions on venue; changes to the best mode; increased incentives for government laboratories to commercialize inventions; restrictions on false marking claims, and removes restrictions on the residency of Federal Circuit judges. We have been working on this legislation since 2006. Reforming our patent system is a critical priority whose time has more than come. It is essential to growing our economy, creating jobs and promoting innovation in our Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join in this effort and help move this important legislation forward.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer some remarks on the departure of my friend, the junior Senator from Indiana. Senator Evan Bayh has served the good people of his State for two full terms and will be leaving the Senate at the end of this session. He will most certainly be missed. Senator Bayh was born in Shirkieville, IN, in 1955. He is, of course, the son of the distinguished Senator Birch Bayh, who served in this Chamber for 18 years. Evan attended college at Indiana University, where he graduated with honors. He received his law degree from the University of Virginia. After graduating from law school and serving a year as a clerk to a Federal judge, Evan returned to Indiana to go into private law practice. Senator Bayh's career in public service began in 1986, when he was elected to serve as Indiana's secretary of State. He held that position for 2 years before he was elected Governor of Indiana in 1988. As Governor, Senator Bayh earned a reputation as a fiscal conservative and a voice of moderation. He was able to work with members of both parties to achieve the best results for the people of Indiana. During his tenure, taxes in Indiana remained low, while the State enjoyed multiple budget surpluses. He also had great successes in areas such as education, crime, and job creation. Indeed, he was a very effective Governor throughout his two terms in office. Two years after completing his second term, Evan was elected to serve in the same Senate seat held by his father. And, he brought with him the reputation and skills that had made him such a successful Governor. As Indiana's Senator, Senator Bayh has demonstrated that one can be a proud member of their party and still find ways to work with the other side. No one can doubt that Evan is a Democrat. He comes from a family of Democrats and I think his credentials as a supporter of his party's agenda are beyond dispute. However, he has often been looked to as a deal-maker here in the Senate. Senator Bayh has demonstrated sound judgment and strong leadership throughout his career in public service. That, coupled with his willingness to reach across the aisle and find common ground, has made his one of the most respected voices in the U.S. Senate. Earlier this year, Senator Bayh announced his retirement. As he explained his decision not to run for re-election, said the following: For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress--too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving. Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples' business is not being done. In a lot of ways, I agree with Senator Bayh's assessment of Congress. Too often, the peoples' business gets set aside in favor of politics and partisan agendas. While I think we all hope that things will get better in the future, one thing is certain: we need more people like Evan Bayh in both parties. I am certain that Senator Bayh will be successful in whatever endeavor he chooses. But, while I am sure he doesn't need it, I want to wish him and his family the very best of luck. Russ Feingold Mr. President, I rise today to offer some remarks on the departure of my friend, the junior Senator from Wisconsin. Senator Russ Feingold, the fierce and independent Democrat who has served the good people of his State for 18 years, will be departing at the end of this session. He will certainly be missed. Senator Feingold was born in 1953 in Janesville, WI. He received his bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin and then went to University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship. After returning to the U.S., he attended and graduated from Harvard Law School and then went back to Wisconsin to begin a career as a lawyer in private practice. While Russ was a long-time political activist, having volunteered and worked on a number of election campaigns, he began his career in public service in 1982 when he was elected to serve the first of two terms in the Wisconsin State Senate. Ten years later, he was elected to serve in the U.S. Senate, and he has been here ever since. I don't think it is any secret that Russ and I tend to disagree on most issues. But, I have always admired his commitment to his principles and his devotion to his beliefs. Now, I may give Democrats a hard time every now and then with my criticism, particularly when I find myself at odds with their agenda. But, I have never been able to fault Senator Feingold personally because I believe he is principled public servant who is simply trying to do what he believes is best for the country. He has been willing to do so even when it has been unpopular or when the majority of his own party was moving in a different direction. Russ has a reputation for being contrarian at times. To be honest, I think he is probably proud of that fact. While he has certainly earned that reputation, I have always believed his actions and his positions-- including those I have strongly disagreed with--have been rooted in his sincerely held beliefs. Throughout his time in the Senate, Senator Feingold has been a fierce, articulate, and effective advocate for his ideals. While he and I have rarely been in agreement, he has always had my respect and admiration. I want to wish him the best of luck in any future endeavors. Christopher Dodd Mr. President, I rise today to offer some remarks on the departure of my good friend, the senior Senator from Connecticut. After five terms and 30 years in the Senate, Senator Christopher Dodd will be leaving us at the end of this session. He will most certainly be missed. Chris was born in Willimantic, CT, in 1944. He was the fifth of six children born to his parents, Grace Mary Dodd and another Connecticut Senator, Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd graduated from Providence College and then spent 2 years in the Peace Corps. When he returned to the U.S., he enlisted in the Army National Guard and later served in the U.S. Army Reserves. After graduating from the University of Louisville School of Law in 1972, Chris practiced law in New London. However, just 2 years later, he would answer the call to public service. Chris was elected to the House of Representatives in 1974 and has represented the good people of Connecticut in Congress ever since. All told, Senator Dodd spent three terms in the House before coming to the Senate in 1980. Throughout his time in the Senate, Chris has been an unwavering presence. He's chaired the Rules Committee and the Banking Committee. He has been among the most prominent members of the HELP and Foreign Relations Committees. Over the years, our paths have crossed numerous times. Of course, most of the time, we have been on opposing sides. But, there have been a few times--some significant times--where we have been able to put our differences aside and work together. Most recently, I worked with Senator Dodd on passing the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America. Chris talks often of his service of the Peace Corps and the lessons he learned during that time. As a Senator, has been a tireless advocate for the Peace Corps program and for volunteerism in general. In that regard, he and I have much in common. As a young man, I served a full-time mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I too learned much about the benefits of selfless, volunteer service while serving as a missionary and those 2 years were instrumental in my understanding of the world and instilled me with a desire to serve and help others. The Serve America Act was meant to embody these ideals and provide similar opportunities for others. It could have very easily been a purely Democratic endeavor. But, in the end, we were able to work together in drafting and passing this legislation. With Chris's help, the Serve America Act became one of very few bills passed during this Congress with a broad, bipartisan majority here in the Senate. It was, in my opinion, a piece of legislation that represents the best of what both parties have to offer. Fittingly, we named the bill after Chris and my mutual friend, the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I want to wish Senator Dodd and his wife Jackie the very best of luck going forward.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak today to recognize the departure of my good friend, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. Senator Arlen Specter has been present here in the Senate through some of its most contentious times. He and I have worked side-by-side-- sometimes in agreement, other times in opposition--for many years. His presence will be sorely missed. Arlen is the son of immigrant parents. He was born in Wichita, KS, in 1930 to Lillie Shannin and Harry Specter. Harry served in World War I in the U.S. infantry, just a few years after migrating to the U.S. from Russia. While in combat in France, Arlen's father was seriously wounded. Yet a few years later, the Federal Government, strapped for funds, broke its promise to pay World War I veterans a bonus. This, of course, led to a veterans march on Washington and a tragic encounter between the U.S. Army and the protesting veterans. It also led, indirectly, to Senator Specter's career in public service as he has been fond of saying that he came to Washington to get his father's bonus and that he would run for reelection until he got it. Arlen attended college at both the University of Oklahoma and the University of Pennsylvania, graduating from the latter in 1951. He served in the Air Force during the Korean war as an officer in the Office of Special Investigations. In 1953, he married Joan Levy, with whom he has raised two sons and four grandchildren. In 1956, he graduated from Yale law school and entered into private practice. Senator Specter's career in public service began in 1959 when he became an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia. In 1963, he was appointed to serve as assistant counsel on the Warren Commission, investigating the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Two years later, he was elected to serve as the district attorney for the city of Philadelphia, a position he held for 8 years. After another brief stint in the private sector, Arlen was elected to the Senate in 1980 and has been the longest serving Senator in Pennsylvania's history. Arlen has had his hand in a number of high-profile efforts here in the Senate. However, I will always remember him for his role in some of the most contentious Supreme Court confirmation fights in our Nation's history. He and I both served on the Judiciary Committee during the confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork, which were, at the time, the most contentious in our Nation's history. In the end, Arlen and I reached different conclusions as to whether Judge Bork should have been confirmed. I still think Arlen was wrong to oppose Judge Bork, but, I have never doubted that his decision to do so was sincere. Arlen and I once again found ourselves at the center of a Supreme Court fight during the nomination hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas. During those hearings, Senator Specter had the daunting task of questioning Ms. Anita Hill for the Republican side. I was and continue to be impressed with the manner in which he handled that responsibility. Those were difficult, sensitive issues. None of us wanted to disrespect Ms. Hill, but we believed it was important to ensure that the truth be examined and brought to light, and I've always thought that Arlen handled the matter with the necessary professionalism and respect. In the years that followed the Thomas hearings, a number of people expressed their displeasure for the way I treated Ms. Hill during those hearings. I was always quick to remind them that it was Arlen who questioned her, not me. I was the one who questioned Justice Thomas. But, in the end, I think the historical memory of that time has tied the two of us together. Senator Specter has a reputation for being a fighter. And, having been on both sides of the debate with Arlen, I have to concur with that assessment. His was among the sharpest minds we have known here in the Senate and I am grateful for the privilege I've had to serve alongside him. I want to wish Arlen and his family the best of luck. Sam Brownback Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of my good friend, the senior Senator from Kansas. Senator Sam Brownback has been a devoted public servant and a friend to all of us here in the Senate. And, at the end of this session, he will be moving on to bigger and better things. I will miss him dearly. Senator Brownback was born in Parker, KS, in 1956. He was raised on a farm--a farm on which his parents still live to this day. Sam was leader in all aspects of his life before coming to the Senate. In high school, he was the State president of the Future Farmers of America. While attending college at Kansas State University, he was student body president. And, he was president of his class when he attended law school at the University of Kansas. After law school, Sam went to work as an attorney in Manhattan, KS. In 1986, he was the youngest person ever appointed to serve as the Kansas Secretary of Agriculture. In 1990, he went to work in the White House of President George H.W. Bush as a White House fellow. After another stint as Kansas's Secretary of Agriculture, Sam was elected to the House of Representatives as part of the 1994 Republican revolution. And, in 1996, he was elected to replace the former Senate majority leader, and my good friend, Senator Bob Dole. The people of Kansas have kept him here ever since. Looking over his career in public service, it is clear that Sam Brownback is Kansas man in every sense. The voters of Kansas have recognized this more than anyone else. That is why they have elected him three times to serve in the Senate. And, of course, that is why he is currently the State's Governor-elect. Throughout his time in the Senate, Sam has been a tireless advocate for the rights of those who have no voice, whether it is the rights of the unborn, the rights of refugees, or the rights of the victims of human trafficking. I believe this is due, in no small part, to Sam's religious faith. For as long as I have known him, Sam has never been afraid to speak publicly about his religious convictions and his belief that those convictions required action on his part. As a religious man myself, I have always admired that part of Senator Brownback's personality and found his openness refreshing. Over the years, Sam and I have typically found ourselves in agreement on most issues. We have worked together on numerous occasions. While I regret that we won't be working together any more after this session, I want to congratulate him once again on his recent victory in the Kansas gubernatorial election. I am confident that he will be an effective and popular governor for the people of the State he loves so much. Kit Bond Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of my good friend Senator Kit Bond. Senator Bond has represented the people of Missouri in the U.S. Senate for the last 24 years, and, at the end of this session, he will depart for greener pastures. I think I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that his presence will be missed. Kit was born in St. Louis, MO, in 1939. He is a sixth generation Missourian and, after knowing Senator Bond for many years, I know that the people of Missouri have never been far from his thoughts. As a young man, he left Missouri for a short time to attend college at Princeton University and law school at the University of Virginia, where he graduated first in his class. After law school, he served as a law clerk for the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals before going to Washington, DC, to practice law with the renowned law firm Covington & Burling. Senator Bond returned home to Missouri in 1967 to begin a long career in public service. After losing a brutally close congressional election in 1968, Kit went to work for the Missouri attorney general's office, serving under the great former Senator John Danforth. In 1970, Kit was elected Missouri State Auditor at the age of 31. Then, 2 years later, when he was only 33 years old, he was elected Governor of Missouri. Kit was the first Republican Governor that State had seen in nearly three decades. For me--and this may be a little selfish--the most important accomplishment of Kit's first term was rescinding Executive Order No. 44, which had been issued by Missouri Governor Liburn Boggs in 1838 and ordered the expulsion or extermination of all Mormons from the State of Missouri. On June 25, 1976, then-Governor Bond rescinded that order and issued an apology to the Mormons on behalf of all Missourians. I remember that day clearly. And, while I was not yet acquainted with Kit, he earned my gratitude and respect. As Governor, Senator Bond's star rose dramatically. He was even considered as a potential running mate for President Gerald Ford in 1976. Yet, in a surprising upset, Kit lost his reelection bid for governor that year. But, Missourians soon came to regret this mistake and reelected him to the Governor's office in 1980. After finishing his second term as Governor--a successful term by almost all accounts--Kit was elected to the Senate in 1986. And, thanks to his good judgment, his commitment to his home State, and to his character, he was relected in 1992, 1998, and 2004. For several years, I have had the pleasure of serving with Kit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he currently serves as vice chairman. From that position, I have been able to see his wisdom and good judgment firsthand. It can be difficult serving on that committee, working on important issues that, if everything goes right, will never see the light of day. But, I can say this--Senator Bond's commitment to our Nation's security is second to none. Mr. President, it has been an honor and privilege to serve next to Senator Bond for these many years. I want to wish him, his wife Linda, and their family the best of luck in any future endeavors. Jim Bunning Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of my good friend, Senator Jim Bunning. Senator Bunning will be departing from the Senate at the end of this session. I wanted to take a few moments to offer some remarks. Now, Jim is a distinguished two-term Senator whose career in public service has spanned more than three decades. Yet when the history books are written, it is likely that he will be more well known for his first love, the game of baseball. Jim was born in Southgate, KY, in 1931. He graduated from Xavier University in Cincinnati, OH, with a degree in economics. Most know that Senator Bunning was a Major League pitcher for 17 years, mostly with the Detroit Tigers and the Philadelphia Phillies. He was, not to put too fine a point on it, one of the greatest pitchers to ever put on a glove. Jim retired with the second-highest strikeout total in baseball history. He was only the second pitcher in history to record 1,000 strikeouts and 100 victories in both the American and National Leagues. Before Jim, only the legendary Cy Young had accomplished that feat. And, of course, on June 21, 1964, Jim pitched a perfect game against the New York Mets, achieving one of the rarest and most sought-after feats in all of sports. Senator Bunning was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1996, 2 years before he came to the Senate. After retiring from baseball, Jim chose a life of public service. In 1977, he was elected to the city council of Fort Thomas, KY. Two years later, he was elected to the Kentucky State Senate, where he became the Republican Leader. And, in 1986, he was elected to the first of his six terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. And, in 1998, Senator Bunning was elected to the Senate and has served here ever since. Throughout his time in Washington, Senator Bunning has been an advocate for a number of causes, including the preservation of Social Security for seniors, fiscal and financial reform, and ending America's dependence on foreign energy sources. He's played a key role on some of this chamber's most influential committees, including the Banking, Energy, Budget, and Finance Committees. For the last several years, I have had the opportunity to work with Senator Bunning on the Finance Committee. I have always admired his commitment to his principles and his willingness to speak plainly when it became necessary to do so. His presence on the committee and in this Chamber will certainly be missed. I want to wish Jim and his family the best of luck going forward. Judd Gregg Mr. President, I rise to speak today to recognize the departure of my good friend Senator Judd Gregg. Senator Gregg has been a tireless advocate for the people of his State and devoted public servant. He will most certainly be missed. Senator Gregg is a New Hampshire man through and through. He was born in Nashua, NH, in 1947. His father, Hugh Gregg, served as Governor of New Hampshire when Judd was just 6 years old. Judd graduated from Phillips Exeter in 1965 before going on to earn his baccalaureate from Columbia University and his law degree from Boston University School of Law. After finishing law school 1972, Judd returned to Nashua to commence his law practice, though it wouldn't be long before he would answer the call into public service. From 1978 to 1980, Judd served on the New Hampshire Governor's Executive Council. Then, in 1980, he was elected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served for four terms. In 1988, he followed in his father's footsteps and was elected Governor of New Hampshire and was reelected in 1990. In 1992, after two successful terms as Governor, in which he was able to balance the budget and leave the State with a surplus, Judd was elected to represent New Hampshire here in the U.S. Senate. And, after serving for three terms, he is stepping down at the end of this session. If one were to describe Judd's political philosophy, I think they would have to say that he was for fiscal discipline even when fiscal discipline wasn't cool. As chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and senior member of the Banking Committee, his has always been a voice of warning and restraint, even when restraint wasn't the status quo around Washington. His knowledge and expertise on these issues made him one of the most respected voices in our debates over health care, economic and fiscal policy, and financial regulatory reform. While Judd has always been a conservative, he's never let go of his independence, refusing to put party before his principles. Everyone in Washington claims that they are that way, but Senator Gregg is one of the few that has walked the walk. That, more than anything, is why he has won the respect and admiration of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The State of New Hampshire has been well-represented here in the Senate and I know the people of his State are grateful for Judd's service. It has been both an honor and a privilege to have served alongside Senator Gregg. While I am certain that Judd will be successful in whatever endeavor he chooses next, I am even more certain that the Senate will be a lesser place without him here. I want to wish Judd and his wife Kathleen and their family the very best. George LeMieux Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the junior Senator from Florida. Though Senator George LeMieux has only been here a short time, he has been an effective advocate for the good people of Florida. I want to wish him the best of luck. Senator LeMieux was born in Homestead, FL. He is the son of a building contractor. He grew up in Coral Springs, FL, and attended college at Emory University, earning a degree in political science. George then went on to obtain his law degree from Georgetown University. Senator LeMieux's career in public service began in 2003 when he went to work in the Florida attorney general's office. He would eventually be named deputy attorney general, a position he held for 2 years. He would later serve as the Florida Governor's chief of staff, overseeing numerous state agencies. After his time in the Governor's office, George returned to the private sector and was headed down what had to be a lucrative career path in the private sector at one of Florida's most prestigious law firms. But, he answered the call to public service once again in 2009 when Senator Mel Martinez announced his retirement and Florida was in need of a Senator. Since being appointed to the Senate, George has served on the Armed Services Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging. He has had a reputation for being pro-growth, pro-business, and a deficit hawk. In fact, he has been one of the few people in the Senate who put their money where their mouth is and actually proposed a plan to address our fiscal problems. Frankly, I think we could use more people like that here in the Senate. It is just a difficult fact that, here in the Senate, some are here only for short periods of time. But, every State deserves to be represented in this Chamber. Senator LeMieux answered the call to serve during what has been an extremely difficult time in the Senate. He has done so with dignity and an unwavering commitment to the people of Florida. Once again, I want to offer my best wishes for George and his family in all their future endeavors. Byron Dorgan Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the departure of junior Senator from North Dakota. Senator Byron Dorgan, a devoted public servant who has spent most of his life serving of the good people of North Dakota, will be leaving the Senate at the close of this session. He will certainly be missed. Senator Dorgan was born in Dickinson, ND, in 1942 and was raised in Regent, ND. His family worked in the petroleum and farm equipment business and they also raised horses and cattle. Byron attended college at the University of North Dakota and graduate school at the University of Denver. He began his career in public service at the young age of 26, when he was appointed to be the North Dakota State Tax Commissioner. He was youngest constitutional officer in the history of North Dakota. Senator Dorgan came to Washington, DC, in 1980 when he was elected to serve in the House of Representatives. He served six terms in the House before coming to the Senate in 1992. And, for three full terms, he has ably and energetically represented his native State. During his time here, he has been a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, and, of course, chairman of the Democratic Policy Committee. The people of North Dakota have benefitted from his efforts on those committees and, I think he would be the first to tell you, that his home State has never been far from his thoughts here in the Senate. While Senator Dorgan and I have, more often than not, disagreed on the issues, he has always been sincere in his belief that what he was doing was in the best interest of our country. Such commitment to principle has to be admired, even if, in the end, you disagree with the conclusion that is reached. And, I should note that there have been times, actually in some high-profile moments, in which Byron has voted differently than the majority of his party. In the Senate, which, of late, has been highly polarized and extremely partisan, going against the grain takes courage and independence, qualities I have admired in Senator Dorgan. Senator Dorgan is a good man. I want to wish him, his wife Kim, and their family the very best of luck. Blanche Lincoln Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of my good friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas. Senator Blanche Lincoln will depart from Senate at the end of this session. She will certainly be missed. Senator Lincoln is seventh-generation Arkansan. She was born in Helena, AR, in 1960 to family of wheat, soybean, and cotton farmers. Her first elected office was president of the student council at Helena Central High School. She got a bachelor's degree from Randolph Macon Women's College in Lynchburg, VA, and then went to work on the congressional staff for Representative Bill Alexander. She left the Congressman's office after 2 years to pursue private sector work in Washington, DC, but would return home to Arkansas to run against her former boss in 1992. Her campaign for Congress was successful and Blanche became the first woman ever to represent the Arkansas First District in the House of Representatives. All told, Senator Lincoln served two terms in the House before running for Senate in 1998. That year, at the age of 38, Senator Lincoln became the youngest woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate and only the second female Senator in the history of Arkansas. Blanche's career in the Congress has been defined by her willingness to reach across the aisle and work with Senators from both parties. She is a proud Democrat but has never been an ideologue. Her devotion has never been to a party line or platform, but to her own convictions and to the people of Arkansas. I have had the privilege of working close with Senator Lincoln on a number of occasions. Much of the time, we found ourselves on different sides of the issues. But, there were also a number of times where we were in agreement. In fact, I can think of several occasions where she defied her own party's leadership and was, at the end of the day, a difference-maker on a number of important efforts. Here in the Senate, things have a tendency to get contentious in a hurry. Far too often, partisanship gets in the way of good policymaking. We should commend those who are willing to see past the politics of the day and focus on the long-term impact of the things we do here in the Senate. Senator Blanche Lincoln is one of those people. I want to wish Senator Lincoln and her family the very best of luck going forward.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask the Record reflect that if I would have been present for yesterday's vote on the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors--DREAM--Act of 2010, H.R. 5281, that I would have voted against cloture. My wife and I had a long standing family commitment to attend my grandson's graduation. The American people sent us a clear message on November 2, 2010, to focus on getting our economy moving again. It bears repeating: our country's unemployment rate is nearly 10 percent. Yet instead of listening to the true needs of this Nation, the majority in the Senate is moving full speed ahead with legislation in order to curry favor with political constituencies. Pushing this bill through during a lameduck session of Congress is not how Utahns or Americans want Congress to operate. The bill before us is one of many versions of the DREAM Act introduced in the last 2 months. Though H.R. 5281 would result in a significant change to U.S. immigration law, the bill never received 1 day of a committee markup. An issue as important as this one needs to follow the regular order of the legislative process. Now more than ever, our Nation's porous border is flowing over with increasingly violent crimes--fueled by drugs, gangs and even human trafficking. Unfortunately, this chaos is spilling into our communities. That is why, when it comes to immigration, my primary focus is on how we can finally secure our borders and how best to fix our broken immigration system. The fight to control the border is no longer isolated to just the physical boundary between the United States and Mexico. Indeed, it now includes addressing Mexican cartels; prohibiting mass deferral or parole; streamlining the visa process; requiring participation in key law enforcement programs; clamping down on identity theft; tracking the amount of welfare benefits being diverted by illegal immigrant households; ensuring that dollars are being used to cover newly eligible American children in CHIP and Medicaid; and keeping our great national parks and federal lands safe and free from drug traffickers, drug cultivation, and environmental damage. All of these important issues are addressed in my recently introduced bill, the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act, S. 3901. Mr. President, I remain understanding about individuals who, through no fault of their own, were brought to this country for a better life. However, the urgent challenges facing our country must take priority.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was regrettably absent for the vote on the cloture motion to H.R. 2965, The Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act as my wife and I had a long standing family commitment to attend my grandson's graduation. If I had been present, I would have voted against cloture. I have long stated that our troops should not be held hostage to controversial social policy changes at a time when our Nation is at war. Several top military leaders have concluded that changing military policy could jeopardize our soldiers fighting for our Nation. That is something I cannot support. These concerns were only reaffirmed a few days ago when the Commandant of the Marine Corps, GEN James Amos was quoted as saying, ``I take that very, very seriously . . . I don't want to lose any marines to the distraction [of implementing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell] . . . I don't want any marines that I'm visiting at Bethesda [National Naval Medical Center military hospital in Maryland] with no legs be the result of any type of distraction.'' This opinion was echoed by Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz, who stated in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he opposed implementing any reform until 2012 because he did ``not agree with the study assessment that the short-term risk to military effectiveness is low.'' Moreover, the recent report also showed that the percentage of those servicemembers in combat arms units which predicted a negative or very negative effects on their unit's ability to ``work together to get the job done'' stood at an alarming 48 percent within Army combat arms units, and 58 percent within Marine combat arms units. Our military leaders and front-line forces have spoken. They do not believe repealing don't ask, don't tell is appropriate at this crucial time in our Nation's history and neither do I.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have always pledged to the people of Utah that I would fight any tax increase that gives Washington more of their hard-earned money to spend. Allowing middle-class families, small businesses, and investors to keep more of what they earn, while denying this government hundreds of billions in new tax revenue to spend, is the right thing to do. Opposing this bill is tantamount to supporting massive tax increases that threatens our economic future. If this tax relief expires, Utah would lose an average of 6,200 jobs each year and household disposable income would drop by $2,200. Over 150,000 Utah families would be hit with the alternative minimum tax. Small businesses would see their marginal tax rates go up by as much as 24 percent and our GDP would take almost a 2 percent hit. I say to my colleagues in the House who want to change this proposal to impose more taxes on American families, you act not only at your own peril, but that of the American people. You had 4 years to stop these tax hikes, but refused. If you change this package for the worse now, with only 2 weeks left in this Congress, I will do everything in my power to ensure your changes never pass the U.S. Senate. Some argue, why not wait until after January when Republicans control the House to get a better deal. I appreciate that position, but that is a gamble I am not willing to take. Democrats will retain control of the White House and the Senate they will simply drag their feet while blaming conservatives. The collateral damage of inaction will be hard- working families who will see lower paychecks starting on January 1. Experts point to the damage to the economy, but I am as concerned about the damage to the budgets of Utah families. In this case, tax relief denied to all those families, if delayed indefinitely, could be tax relief denied. I also want to mention the death tax--an insidious tax that disproportionately hits small businesses and family farms. This year it was fully phased out. From my viewpoint, that is the right policy. But, if we don't act, on January 1 it goes back up to what it was in 2000--a $1 million threshold and a top rate of 55 percent. The proposal before us today includes the bipartisan Lincoln-Kyl compromise. That bipartisan proposal puts in place a $5 million threshold--$10 million per couple--and a top rate of 35 percent. When Republicans were in control in 2006, we couldn't even get this proposal through Congress. So this is a pretty good deal and to my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, I applaud his efforts. If Congress fails to act, on January 1, 10 times the number of estates will be hit, including 13 times as manner farm-heavy estates. If I had my way, all the income tax rates would be made permanent-- that is the kind of certainty our economy and job creators need. Furthermore, I would never extend some of the so-called temporary tax provisions that look like tax relief, but in reality are little different than welfare through the Tax Code. Far too much new spending is mislabeled as tax relief. Thankfully, some of those provisions were dropped, like the so-called build America bonds tax credit. We also should pay for this extension of unemployment insurance so it doesn't add to the debt. Lastly, to those who believe that instead of this proposal, we should be undertaking wholesale tax reform: you are absolutely right. We need to reform our Tax Code to broaden the base while lowering rates to make our economy more competitive. But we don't have time to reform the code before January 1. As the next lead Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, I will lead the fight to simplify the Tax Code, and cut back on out-of-control Washington spending. Once we stop these tax hikes, we can then begin the long-overdue national discussion about how best to overhaul our overly burdensome and inefficient tax system. The bottom line is that this package is not perfect. But it does at least one very important thing it allows the American people to keep more of their hard-earned money and not hand it over to the Federal Government.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to SFC James E. Thode, who gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country. On December 2, 2010, he died of wounds suffered after an improvised explosive device detonated on a roadside in Sabari District, Khowst Province, Afghanistan. He was 45 years old. Sergeant First Class Thode served with the Utah National Guard, 118th Engineer (Sapper) Company, 1457th Engineer Battalion, 204th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, in Salt Lake City. His unit's mission was vitally important, as it provided route-clearance support to coalition forces. Identifying and clearing IEDs was part of their dangerous job. Sergeant First Class Thode called Farmington, NM, his home and grew up in Tucson, AZ. However, boundaries are blurred in the Four Corners area and soldiers are drawn from the neighboring states. I am proud, and, indeed, Utah is proud to call Sergeant Thode one of our own. He was one of our finest. This was to be Sergeant First Class Thode's third deployment overseas. In 1991, he served during the first gulf war, although he did not see combat. He never shied away from duty. Like so many of the fine men and women serving in the Armed Forces today, Thode felt it was his duty to serve. He exemplified this attitude by not only serving his country abroad, but by serving on the Farmington Police Department for the last 14 years. In that time he worked as a training officer, a member of the SWAT team. He was well- respected. He was a great friend. He was a great leader. He had the qualities we would want in a police officer and protector of a community. His decision to serve our country came at an early age. He was inspired by his uncle who served in the military. As a young boy, he learned how to shoot a BB gun and later his father took him to the shooting range and taught him how to handle a rifle. He joined the military in 1984 and had served long enough to retire from military service by the time he went on his third deployment, this time to Afghanistan. His father told him he could have retired, but he insisted that the young men and women he served with needed someone to take them to war and help keep things together. He was a father figure to many of his fellow soldiers. He was the glue that held people together. A warrior that led by example. My thoughts and prayers go to his loving family. He leaves behind his devoted wife Carlotta; their 18-year-old daughter Ashley; their 8-year- old son Tommy; his mother Evelyn; father Ernest; and other family and friends. With his ultimate sacrifice, they are sacrificing, too. God bless them.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, be given time on the floor for his remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to someone who is very special and very dear to me, my former Chief of Staff, Jace Johnson. Over this past recess, I learned that my Chief of Staff, Jace Johnson, would be leaving the Senate to pursue opportunities in the private sector. Change often catches us by surprise. As the Presiding Officer can imagine, I had come to rely on the talents and insight that Jace offered over many these past years. He was my strong right arm, someone in whom I had complete confidence, and still do. For 8 years, Jace worked on my staff and dedicated his efforts to serving Utah and improving our country. Undoubtedly, his work ethic and his straightforward approach to public service have greatly benefited us all. Jace is sorely missed by all of us on our staff and all of us in our office. He provided strong leadership at a time when it was absolutely crucial to us. To fully understand the void created by Jace's absence, one has to know a bit more about him. When you walked into Jace's office, you were greeted by proudly displayed Utah college and university pennants. Aside from making an interesting and welcoming environment, the banners proclaimed Jace's passion for sports. Like me, he spent his boyhood as an avid basketball player. I regret we never had the opportunity for a one-on-one game, but I am still convinced I would have kicked his tail and I would have won. Although when I think about it, he is in a lot better shape than I am. His love of hoops led Jace to play basketball at Snow College in central Utah. Soon thereafter, Jace served a 2-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints in the Philadelphia, PA area. Being from smalltown Idaho, I can only imagine the new experiences Philadelphia had to offer. It undoubtedly left quite an impression. His wife Cori credits her husband's time in Philadelphia for his willingness to venture back to the east coast after college. Jace and Cori met while they were attending college at Brigham Young University in Provo, UT. They have three wonderful children--Ashley, Benjamin, and Christian. Upon finishing school at BYU, Jace and Cori made the move to Washington, DC, so he could attend graduate school at George Washington University and earn his MBA. While Jace was still in school, he actually worked in my office as an intern. He didn't stay long, however, because as the saying goes, he had bigger fish to fry. By the time he returned to Capitol Hill to work on a more permanent basis, he had already achieved remarkable success in the business world. After working for a few years at Visa International, he became the director of finance at the Corvis Corporation, a cutting-edge network and media solutions company. Jace was the third employee to be hired at Corvis when it was still a startup, and while he was there he helped secure financing for the company as it prepared to go public in the year 2000. Jace's contribution to Corvis allowed the company to grow from a small startup employing a handful of people into an international company with more than 3,000 employees and a value of $40 billion. Jace joined my staff in 2002, coming on as a legislative assistant, working mostly on telecommunications issues. In that position, he demonstrated the keen understanding and strategic thinking that had made him such a success in the business world. After 3 years, I appointed him to be my legislative director, and in that position he continued to excel and became a vital and integral part of my efforts here in the Senate. I grew to depend on him more and more, and in January of 2008, Jace took over as my Chief of Staff. I used to joke with him that working for me was only a hobby, because he didn't need the money. Of course, anyone who knew and worked with Jace can attest that is simply not true. He put his heart and soul into his work in the Senate. For Jace, failure wasn't permissible, so he spent early mornings and late nights ensuring the work was done and done right. His commitment to me personally and to my work here in the Senate was rooted in his belief--a belief he reiterated at every opportunity--that what we were doing was in the best interests of our country and for the people of Utah. I think what I appreciated most about Jace is his unwavering honesty. In a town filled with people who only want to tell you what they want you to hear, Jace was refreshingly direct and straightforward. I have always attributed this to the fact that he is, to put it bluntly, just a little bit smarter--maybe not just a bit smarter, a whole lot smarter--than most people. People who don't see the big picture and who can't predict what might happen down the line have the need to hedge bets, cover bases, and speak without committing. Jace Johnson has never had that problem. When a goal is identified and a plan set in motion, he is usually a few steps ahead of everyone else and he can see where problems might arise. Chances are he has already come up with solutions to those problems. An individual with that kind of rare insight and understanding has the license to speak directly where others would hem and haw. I was lucky enough to be the beneficiary of Jace's ability to speak frankly and honestly, and on more than one occasion that meant I was on the receiving end. I think I can speak for every Member of the Senate when I say that that kind of support from staff is a treasured commodity. It is very clear I will miss Jace Johnson on my staff. However, I think it would be even more telling to hear from some of the people of Utah who have high praise for Jace and the service he has rendered. Utah Governor Gary Herbert had this to say: Jace is a man of great insight and understanding. He is able to think strategically and anticipate potential roadblocks, which has, and will continue, to serve him well. I wish him the best of luck and success in his new position. Jason Perry, Governor Herbert's Chief of Staff, said: I have had the opportunity to work with Jace for many years. His uncanny ability to diffuse potentially difficult situations, coupled with his pleasant and approachable nature, has proven invaluable on several occasions. Utah Senator-elect Mike Lee said: I have looked to Jace Johnson on many occasions for his keen insight, depth of wisdom, and wise counsel. He has proven to be a tremendous resource and has truly made a difference for me, Senator Hatch, the people of the great State of Utah, and for our country. His legacy of service will stand as a benchmark of excellence for years to come. Former Utah Republican Party Chairman Stan Lockhart said this: Jace Johnson is a class act. In positions of responsibility and authority, he is approachable and down to earth. In an environment of hardball politics, he maintains integrity. With many issues to deal with on a daily basis, he understands the big picture and small nuances of good policy. I always liked the fact that he understands the private sector, with a successful background in the technology industry before he came to Washington, D.C. I'll miss Jace. A prominent Salt Lake City lawyer and a political leader, Doug Foxley, in the State said about Jace: Behind that I-am-just-a-boy-from-Blackfoot-Idaho, was a keen, astute political mind who always had Orrin's interest at heart and had a quality of making everyone feel that he was their best friend. Not diminishing any other person who has worked for Orrin, but Jace was a delight and any trip to D.C. without seeing Jace was not a trip. A true committed conservative who was not an obnoxious ideologue, but one who truly believed what he espoused: hard work, honor, commitment, dedication to family, Church, and country and imbued with a belief in limited government and in the private sector were guiding principles. This, coupled with compassion for those less fortunate, is the Jace Johnson legacy. Mr. President, that is high praise, and we have lots of others who feel the same way. I will leave it at that. During my time here in the Senate, I have been extremely fortunate when it comes to my staff. I have had the privilege of serving with some of the most gifted and devoted individuals our Nation has to offer. Each of them has brought something unique and important to the table. But I have to say that, even among the select fraternity of talented Senate staffers, Jace Johnson belongs in the hall of honor, an elite class that very few have been or will be able to attain. I have no doubt that Jace will succeed in the new position. Success has been the defining characteristic of every endeavor he has undertaken. While the selfish part of me wishes he would have stayed in the Senate just a little bit longer, I want to wish Jace, his wife Cori, and his whole family the very best going forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to personally thank the distinguished chairwoman of this committee. I have been in the Senate a pretty long time, and she has done one of the best jobs I have ever seen done. There aren't very many impeachments--or should I say trials of impeachment, but of the ones I have seen, she ranks right up there in the top. All I can say is she ran a very good committee. She made very good decisions, she wasn't afraid to rule, she treated everybody with dignity and respect. She expected a lot of the members of the committee, which has to be the way, and she is a very intelligent and articulate and knowledgeable person. It has been my privilege to be able to serve with her and under her as vice chairman of this committee. This is when you realize how important the Senate is, when all the Senators come together and they make decisions such as this, pro and con. Nobody should misjudge not guilty votes or guilty votes. I think every Senator voted the way he or she felt they should vote, and that was important. I think much of the credit for the way this was all handled should go to the distinguished chairwoman, Senator McCaskill. She is an excellent human being, a wonderful leader on this committee, and, frankly, I am very proud of her for what she was able to do because this is not easy, and it does take a lot of time. It is similar to herding cats, trying to make sure you can get all these busy people on the committee or at least a quorum every time to be able to do business on the committee. She was able to do that. I wish to compliment every member of the committee. Every member showed up and did a lot of work on this committee--some more than others, of course. But every one of the members of this committee worked to try to be fair and do what is right and to do justice in this matter. Having said all that, I wish to pay tribute to Derron Parks myself. This young man deserves a lot of credit. To be thrown into an impeachment committee, when his main job was to work on health care, tested the legal acumen of this young man. I have to say he was one of the kindest, most decent, most honorable, most knowledgeable, and most intelligent people I have worked with in the Senate. He is a terrific person and I am very proud of him. Thomas Jipping, on my staff. There are very few people around who have the experience Tom has. He is a very good lawyer. He was a constant guide and provided me with leadership. I don't think either Senator McCaskill or I could have done this without these two leaders on the committee. The others were equally important to us and did very good work: Justin Kim, a wonderful human being; Rebecca Seidel. She worked with me long ago on the Judiciary Committee, is a very experienced lawyer and did a terrific job. Erin Johnson and Susan Smelcer were both critical to the work on the committee; Lake Dishman, who is on our staff and a very fine young man, who was willing to go every extra mile he could-- as were all these other folks on the staff--to do what was right; Morgan Frankel and Pat Bryan from the Senate legal counsel's office. We couldn't have asked for better people, with more knowledge or more ability to lead and assist us. Impeachment committees--or should I say the trial committee and the hearing of this is a very difficult undertaking. You are dealing with people's lives, you are dealing with people's reputations, and you have to do this in a completely fair and honest way, which I believe we did. This is one of the most important tasks the Senate does--extremely important--and I think the Senate acquitted itself very well today. Every Senator voted his or her conscience today and, in some instances, that wasn't easy. Nobody should misjudge anybody's vote. Judge Porteous was convicted on all four articles and the vast majority of our Members felt that was proper. At that point, I have to compliment the attorneys from the House. They were terrific. I have complimented them personally, and they know how I feel toward them, but the counsel for the House were very respectful, very knowledgeable, tremendously articulate in what they did and, frankly, acquitted themselves with great dignity and deserve all our respect. We should respect counsel representatives. It is not easy to impeach somebody in this day and age, but they did, and these folks did a terrific job and their counsel as well. They are Alan Baron, Harold Damelin, Mark Dubester, and Kirsten Konar. Having said that, the defense counsel did the very best job they could. Jonathan Turley is an imminent professor at George Washington University. I have known him for a long time. He is very innovative and creative. Some thought, in this particular matter, he was quite innovative and creative as well. But let me say he is a very intelligent and very knowledgeable man. His other cocounsel deserve great recognition for what they did here. I feel sorry for Judge Porteous. To rise to the dignified position of a Federal district court judge and then have this happen, after 30 years in public service or more, I am sure is absolutely painful and a problem and damaging to his reputation. I wish him well. I hope he will analyze these things and make some changes in his life that will be better for him and for his family and others. He has a lot of friends down there in Louisiana, and I think probably earned a lot of friendship, but the Senate has ruled properly in this matter and the impeachment should be upheld. He should have been convicted of at least one of these articles, if not all four. I don't believe he should have been convicted on two of them--and there were good legal reasons for not going that far in the case of the chairman and myself--but, nevertheless, I respect the votes of all my colleagues on the floor. I know they paid strict attention, sat through almost all the proceedings and the closed session as well, and I commend them. Finally, I wish to commend our two leaders. The two leaders conducted these proceedings with dignity and with respect, upholding the highest standards of the Senate. You can't ask for more than that, and I am very proud of both our leaders and others as well. It has been a privilege for me to serve on this committee. I have tried to do the best I possibly could, and I believe the result today is an honest and just result. I just hope this sends a message to all our judges on the Federal bench, and others as well, that it is important to live up to our responsibilities and to do the things we know we should be doing. Having said all this, I wish to again thank the staff on this committee. What a tremendous bunch of young people, who did a terrific job and who deserve the bulk of the credit of any credit that is due. I am just grateful to have been able to know them and work with them and to love them for the work they have done. This is one of the most important things the Senate can engage in, and I wish to thank our Parliamentarians. Many times people don't realize how important the Parliamentarians are in the Senate. We couldn't function without them. We are very blessed to have the Parliamentarians whom we have helping us in the Senate. They go unrecognized many times but not by me. I have a great deal of admiration for them. They keep us out of a lot of difficulties. Sometimes they get us into some difficulties--because of the rules, not because of them. But I want to pay tribute to them as well. This was a just result. It is what I think had to be done. The country will be better for it. It does send an appropriate message, or messages, I should say, and I feel blessed to have been able to participate on this committee and on this Senate floor. It is a great honor to serve in the Senate. Days such as this help bring that home to me, and I wanted everybody to know it. I wish to again thank the distinguished chairwoman and tell her how much I appreciate her work. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I appreciate my colleague, Mr. President. This is a first for him to yield to me and appreciate me. That is not quite accurate because we are real good friends. My friend, the senior Senator from New York, has come forward with an amendment. The essence of the amendment is a marginal tax rate hike on taxpayers earning more than $1 million. It has been dubbed the ``millionaires' tax.'' Folks on the other side must know two things. One, this may be well designed from the other side's political viewpoint. Supporting the tax probably registers well with some of the Democratic polling mavens. By the same token, these polling mavens might be indicating to their patrons that this lameduck session vote might supply some good campaign material. As the debate ensued this past week, it almost seemed as though my friends on the other side were giddily rubbing their hands together. Maybe they view this vote as the equivalent of a Hanukkah gift or Christmas present. But their holiday political joy stands in sharp contrast to the dreary situation facing America's unemployed. Two years of wall-to-wall Democratic rule has only made the situation worse. There is a second thing my friends on the other side must know. They know Senator Schumer's amendment will surely fail. Does anybody doubt it? Thirty-three days ago, the American people sent a message: Work together. Take care of the people's business. Nothing is more fundamental to the people's business than how much they are taxed. In this weak economy they said: Keep taxes low. Keep taxes low. We should not meddle with the great sovereign power of taxation. It is especially true in this harsh economic climate. On April 19, 1774, Sir Edmund Burke tried to persuade the British Parliament to repeal the last of several controversial colonial taxes. His wisdom is instructive for today's vote. Remember, this is Sir Edmund Burke arguing for the colonists in America: Could anything be a subject of more just alarm to America, than to see you go out of the plain high road of finance, and give up your most certain revenues and your clearest interests, merely for the sake of insulting your Colonies? Burke's point was that the Parliament was acting unwisely by maintaining a tea tax primarily to spite the colonists. Four Saturdays from today, we will mark New Year's Day 2011. The tax law, as it now reads, will impose a punitive hike on virtually every American taxpayer. That date of reckoning has been clear since my friends took power almost 4 years ago in both Houses of Congress. My friends on the other side, with all due respect, your actions this morning amount to meddling. You possess part of the sovereign power to change the tax law to prevent this tax increase. Instead, you have forced this body into a political showdown. The proponents of the so-called millionaires' tax say the reason to do so is ``fiscal discipline.'' This proposal preserves less than half of the revenue of the related positions in the Reid-Baucus substitute. If that is the case, and revenue is the goal of the proponents of the millionaires' tax, they ought to stick with the Reid-Baucus substitute. But let's set aside for a moment the fact that the revenue raised is a fraction of the broader tax hike on the Reid-Baucus substitute. Does anybody take seriously the amendment proponents' claims that the revenue raised will go to deficit reduction? Does anybody really believe that? You know they are going to spend every dime of it, if there were any revenues. Where is the mechanism to assure taxpayers of that? More important, what is the record of my friends on the other side on this point? You need to only look at the fine print in the revenue and spending tables of the President's budget. As an aside, the President's budget is the most transparent presentation of the fiscal features of the agenda of my friends on the other side. Hiking marginal tax rates on singles making more than $200,000 and families making over $250,000 translates to about six- tenths of 1 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP, per year over 10 years. The new above-baseline spending initiatives in the President's budget translate to seventy-five one-hundredths of 1 percent of GDP per year over 10 years. What does that mean fiscally? The revenue raised by the broader tax hike in the Reid-Baucus substitute is less than the new spending in the President's budget. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. As I stated earlier, the revenue raised by the amendment of my friend from New York is less than half of that of the Reid-Baucus substitute. Does anybody really believe that lesser amount of revenue is less likely to be spent? So much for the fiscal discipline argument. There are some disturbing points to ponder on this so-called millionaires' tax. I am going to alert my friends on the other side to them. The first point is that capital is the lifeblood of business. Pump more capital into business and it will respond: the business will gain economic energy. Curtail the flow of capital to a business and it will respond: the business will lose economic energy. That is what is happening in America. According to the latest Internal Revenue Service statistics of income--or SOI--data, a lot of capital gain income is earned by taxpayers targeted by Senator Schumer's amendment. Statistics of income data states that 56.6 percent of the net long-term capital gain from traditional capital assets is reported by taxpayers with $1 million or more in income. More important, if capital gains from transactions involving partnerships and other flowthrough entities are concerned, that percentage rises to 64.7 percent. There can be little doubt that we are talking about a large pool of capital. If my friends on the other side were to prevail, it would be a game- changer for the tax treatment of a large pool of income from capital. The change in the capital gains would surely be a negative one. I have a chart that illustrates the change in the playing field for capital transactions. It shows where we are today; that is, 15 percent capital gains rate. If my friends on the other side are successful, in a little over 27 days from now, the marginal rate will rise to 20 percent. The health care reform bill has baked in another 3.9 percent rate hike. That kicks in a little over 2 years from now. So that is 23.9 percent. This chart shows that the marginal rate on nearly two-thirds of taxable long-term capital gains transactions could be affected. It means investors who supply that capital, the lifeblood of business, will see the marginal tax rate on capital gains rise by nearly 60 percent in a little over 2 years. Everything else being equal, a rise in the marginal tax rate means a decline in the after-tax rate of return. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation always cautions us about this effect in their revenue estimates. Here is what Joint Tax said: We anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased marginal rate by utilizing tax planning and tax avoidance strategies that will decrease the amount of income subject to taxation. My gosh, what more do you need to understand economics? Capital is the lifeblood of business. Raise the marginal rate on capital gains transactions, and the result will be a decrease in the after-tax rate of return on capital investments. What will happen? Capital will go out of taxable activities, in many cases. Capital, the lifeblood of business, will be constricted. With capital constricted, does anybody see business activity affected in any way that is positive? It would be hard to imagine that outcome. When most folks hear about a so-called millionaires' tax, they probably think it would have minimal impact on the business environment. The data I have discussed shows exactly the opposite. It also shows that any revenue raised will likely be spent. Anybody who believes that by raising revenues we are going to pay off the national debt has not lived in this country for the last 34 years I have been in the Senate. Our friends on the other side will always spend that money. That is how they keep themselves in power. Does it make sense to send a tax policy signal to investors to move their capital out of taxable business activity? In the worst economic environment in many years,--now with 9.8 percent unemployment--should we not be going in the opposite direction? Instead of finding ways to kill jobs when the unemployment rate continues to stagnate near 10 percent, let's focus our time on finding a bipartisan solution to protect all Americans, especially our job creators, from crushing tax hikes. It is time to put a stop to this nonsensical political theater and get down to the people's business. One last thought. Over the last summer, President Obama said this: The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession, because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy, and put businesses in a further hole. I think the President was right. I think the economists think that statement was right. The last thing we should do is raise taxes in the middle of this downturn, which now is even more down because of the 9.8-percent unemployment rate. But that tells only part of the story. If you talk about the underemployment rate--those people who don't have jobs, those who can't find jobs, those who are dependent on the Federal Government, and those who stopped looking for jobs, and there are a lot of people like that--you are talking about 18 percent or better. We have to wise up. The last thing on Earth we need to do is increase taxes at this late date. This is an important debate. The Democrats have had 4 years to change this, where they controlled both Houses of Congress. In the last 2 years, they controlled not only the Houses of Congress but the Presidency. At this last minute, to say that we have to do something, it shows a lack of--well, you name it; I won't name it. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to my colleague from New York. He is one of the brightest people in this body, he is one of the toughest, and he has been a very dear friend all these years. I might mention that the Schumer-Hatch bill is now law, a bipartisan bill we did put through. That was a good step in the right direction as far as gaining jobs. I would also like to point out that 56 percent of all capital gains that create jobs are paid for by people who earn over $500,000 a year. I also would care to point out that I absolutely guarantee to everybody watching us today what would happen if there were these tax increases. I think the distinguished Senator knows his suggestion polls very well. Is that the reason we should do it? No. But I guarantee, and I do not think anybody could doubt this guarantee, that if his approach wins, the Democrats will take every dime of that and spend it. In fact, the President's budget spends more toward the end than it does now--I mean a lot more. That is one of the problems. We know a good 50 percent of small businesses would be affected. They are the ones who create jobs--25 percent of the employees and about 50 percent of small businesses would be affected if we do what the Democrats would like to do. Be that as it may, those are some of the differences. But I am going to explain why at the last minute this Congress--after the upheaval that happened during the election--this Congress cannot seem to get together during a time of economic distress and put over these tax reliefs that were started in 2001-2003--that we cannot do that and at the last minute to come in and want to change the game again and do that at a time when we have the economic difficulty and problems we have. It is more of the same. Over the last few days Americans watching C-SPAN would have seen a lot of speeches about widespread tax hikes that will arrive with the new year. Many of my friends on the other side deployed several attacks. C-SPAN viewers probably were not surprised the attacks were exclusively aimed at those on this side. I will not get into correcting the record any more than I have on all of that misinformation right now. I would like to focus on two themes we heard. We heard them over and over. The first theme was repeated many times. It was this: Republicans are accused of holding hostage tax relief for middle-income taxpayers. The second theme took some creativity. If you listen to our friends on the other side you would think they had hired a psychic or mind reader, that somehow this mind reader had successfully read the minds of 42 Republican Senators. Our friends spoke as if they had determined the motives of 42 Republican Senators. Perhaps not surprisingly, the motive ascribed was not very favorable. Republicans' alleged hostage taking was described as solely motivated by a desire to cut taxes for high-income people. If our friends in the Democratic leadership hired a mind reader, I advise them to seek a refund because it did not work. You have been had, my friends. You didn't need a mind reader. You need not come to the floor and spend all day ascribing motives to your colleagues on this side. The record is clear today. It has been clear for a decade that the tax relief program has been in effect. Actions speak louder than words. Votes speak louder than talking points or press releases. When first passed over 9\1/2\ years ago, nearly all of the Republican conference supported the bipartisan tax relief plan. Roughly one-fourth of the Democratic caucus supported the plan. Because of the opposition of the Democratic leadership, efforts to make these policies permanent law were rebuffed. Check the record. During the years of the Republican majority, the Democratic leadership opposed efforts to make the widely applicable tax relief measures permanent. Those efforts were also opposed by the other side. What is even more revealing is the record since the Democratic leadership assumed control of the Congress almost 4 years ago. A few moments ago, I said actions speak louder than words. Votes speak louder than speeches. After obstructing permanent tax relief in the minority, what did our friends in the Democratic leadership do when they gained power? Let's take a look. I have a series of charts. The Democrats have taken power. These charts chronicle the record of the Democratic leadership on this time- sensitive matter. The first chart chronicles the first year of the new Democratic Party majority. The year is 2007. The Democrats took power on January 4, 2007. You will see it circled on the chart right here. That is January 4. Look at the rest of the year in 2007. Think about it. No action was taken on the tax hikes that come down in less than 1 month. No action, none, nothing, zilch. Let's take a look at 2008. This chart is pretty simple. Take a look. It is completely blank other than the calendar on there. No action, nothing, none, zilch. Here is a chart for 2009. It is an important chart as well. There were big changes in Washington. Democrats gained a large majority, 60 votes in the Senate. It was basically a filibuster-proof body. That is circled here on January 6. President Obama takes office on January 20, right here. It is circled right there. You can see it. A little over 3 months later an event occurred that many on our side of the aisle will not forget. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania crossed the aisle to give Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. Let me just point to that third circle right here. Nothing happens for the rest of the year, not a doggone thing happened for the rest of the year. We had a larger Democratic majority sworn in; President Obama was sworn in. Then my dear colleague Senator Specter decided he wanted to be a Democrat, and he switched parties. That got 60 votes in the Senate. Nothing happens for the rest of the year, nothing else happens. On December 3, 2009, 1 year ago, the House Democratic leadership passes a long-term death tax reform. That is right here on December 3. This represents a milestone. Almost 3 years into their majority, one portion of the congressional Democratic leadership took comprehensive action on one piece of the 2001 tax relief expiring provisions. Let's take a look at 2010. It is the fourth year congressional Democrats have controlled both bodies, abjectly controlled them, in this decade. The House-passed death tax reform was placed on the Senate calendar on January 20, 2010. When Senator Scott Brown was sworn in on February 4, the Democratic majority fell, if that word is appropriate, to 59 majority votes. What has happened for the balance of this year? What action has the Democratic leadership taken as the big tax hikes approached? With the economy slumbering and a big tax hike coming, what actions has the Democratic leadership in both Houses taken? With the Nation's job creators, America's small businesses, expressing pessimism about the business environment and a looming tax hike on the horizon, what actions has the Democratic Party leadership taken? With unemployment announced today at 9.8 percent and a big tax hike coming, what action has the Democratic Party leadership taken over these last 4 years? By the way, this latest data indicates that the unemployment rate is going the wrong way; that is, upward. It is going up again. More Americans are out of work. I remind my friends in the Democratic leadership to pay close attention to this data. It should concentrate the mind on policies to counter the problems at hand rather than politics. With a big tax hike less than 1 month away and this horrible economic data arriving this morning, what action has the Democratic Party leadership taken and the Democratic leadership in the Senate? Let's take a look. Over the past several months, Republican Senators have come to the floor to urge our friends in the Democratic leadership to address a time-sensitive topic. I am referring to a package of unfinished tax legislative business. I am on the Finance Committee. I sit right next to our ranking member, Senator Grassley. I expect to take over as ranking member in January. Ranking Member Grassley and I used this chart in a colloquy a couple of weeks ago. Here is our checklist chart. The only piece of legislation the Senate has considered is one small but important piece of unfinished tax legislative business. It is what we call tax extenders--something we almost automatically have passed in the past. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate and House scuttled a bipartisan agreement between Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley about 10 months ago. After we put it right out of the Democratic-controlled Finance Committee, they basically canceled it. That includes the research and development tax credit that helps our high-tech world to remain competitive, to mention one. The reason I mention that is because it is something almost everybody wants. It is one of the glues that bind everything together. Over this whole year after we put that tax extender bill out, look where we are. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership scuttled the bipartisan agreement between Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley about 10 months ago. After that, a partisan strategy was pursued by our friends on the other side. Not surprisingly, it failed several times. I will give them a checkmark on the chart for doing the minimum. My friends in the Democratic leadership did at least bring up a bill. As the chart shows, the tax extenders--right here--which are overdue by almost 1 year, are not alone. There are three other major areas of unfinished business, and there are others as well. But I decided to talk about these. One area Senator Grassley and I discussed at length a couple weeks ago applies to millions of middle-income families this year. It is the 2010 alternative minimum tax. Another area is the death tax. In less than 1 month from now, the number of States to be hit by the death tax will shoot dramatically upward. Small businesses and family farms are going to be lost unless we do something about it. But here we are in the last few weeks of this session. They haven't done a doggone thing on the AMT patch. The House did something on death tax reform, but we have done nothing. Both bodies have done nothing. And they have done absolutely nothing on these tax hikes. When compared with the Lincoln- Kyl compromise on death tax reform, the number of taxable estates will be 10 times higher. In the case of family farms, it will be 13 times as high. The third area is the 2001 and 2003 tax rate cuts. As important as extenders, the AMT patch, and the death tax are, the impact of this tax package down here is monolithic in comparison. I am referring to the marginal income tax rate reductions that are current law until the end of this month. I am also referring to family tax relief. Both pieces were the core of the bipartisan tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003. For an example of the importance of this package, we need look no further than a typical family of four. For a family of four earning $50,000 of income, the tax hike they face will be $2,136. In this slow- growth environment, who among us thinks it makes sense to hike this family's taxes by almost $200 a month? That is where we are. Unless we can get this all done by the other side cooperating, it seems to me, a family earning $50,000 is going to be socked an extra $2,136. Contrast the record I have laid out with the two attacks directed at Republicans over the last 2 days. Just tell me, how could we possibly have held hostage any bill with the votes the Democrats have had over the last 4 years? The folks taking these partisan shots have had almost 4 years with an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate to deal with a massive tax hike set to kick in in less than a month now. Republicans have not controlled the House for 4 solid years. For almost 2 years, the other side has ruled with one of the most robust majorities in modern times. The motives of the minority in the House hardly ever solely determine the fate of any bill there. It is likewise in the Senate. A filibuster-proof majority has a lot of power. A majority that is slightly less than filibuster proof needs to work with the other side. That is the way the Senate has always worked. Even if we Republicans were to decide to filibuster, how could we have filibustered something that doesn't exist? Look at all those prior charts. Not one doggone thing done. It is something that has not existed for almost 4 years of Democratic Party control of both Houses of Congress. Go back through the record. In the 4 years of majority rule, show me the Senate Democratic leadership bill that Republicans could obstruct. There hasn't been any. Yesterday, finally the dam of inaction broke, but it broke on the House side. House Democratic leadership sent a bill late in the second week of this lameduck session. The bill does not prevent a tax hike on virtually every American taxpayer. But what kind of action is the House bill? It is political action, pure and simple. It is political. Look no further than the statements of the bill's authors, the House Democratic leadership. We can view that bill as an expression of partisan sentiment in the House Democratic caucus. It will not become law, and we all know it. It is up to the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leadership to work with Republicans. The aim should be a bipartisan transaction or deal, if you want to call it that. Real legislating on these time- sensitive tax hike prevention issues is long past due. What kind of actions are the American people receiving from the Senate Democratic leadership? The majority leader has used his procedural power to jam Republicans. He has a right to do that. But it has been consistent. Call a bill up, fill up the parliamentary tree, prevent any and all amendments in the greatest deliberative body in the world, and then try to ram it through. I have to say that these tactics also jam any Democrats who might differ with the Democratic leadership's scheme. And there are some who do. The sum and substance of the Democratic leadership procedural jam is to guarantee that we will waste yet more procedural and more precious time. If Members don't believe me, ask the congressional press corps outside the Chamber. Taking a bet on a successful legislative outcome of the two jammed votes would not be a good wager. It could be akin to accepting an offer to sell the Brooklyn Bridge from a fast-talking New Yorker. No one is fooled by this move by the Senate Democratic leadership. I challenge any of my friends on the other side to show me the votes. How will the actions of the Democratic leadership advance the ball if the two votes are designed to fail? Sure, maybe from their perspective there is some cheap political benefit to the Democratic leadership and Democratic Party staging these jammed votes. As one member of the Democratic leadership implied yesterday, maybe there will be some campaign material produced. Is that what this is all about? Is that what the greatest deliberative body in the world is all about in the last few weeks of this session when this country is in the fiscal problem it is in? I ask my friends to step back and take another look at the political calculation they may be making. The American people are angry. I have held seven townhall meetings in the last few months, plus two tele- townhall meetings. The American people are very angry. The American people know it has taken almost 4 years for our friends in the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate to address this looming tax hike. They have had monumental majorities that would have enabled them to put just about anything through that they wanted, such as the looming tax hike they all knew about when they took power long ago. Is it really worth running through this political charade with a couple of partisan votes and campaign commercials that may be used 2 years from now? Is it really that important? I ask my friends in the Democratic leadership and the Democratic side to consider the political calculation further. Especially consider it when these two partisan jam votes fail. If they want to keep playing politics with a big tax hike on virtually every American, what will they say when we hit the last day of this calendar right here? Will they say: Too bad, American families. Will they say: Too bad, small business folks. Will they say: Jamming the other side with partisan votes was our foremost goal. What will they say after wasting the hard- working taxpayers' time and money on these jam votes? Let's go to the partisan allegation that it is not helpful to the goal of a bipartisan deal. It is the second theme to which I referred. Many on the other side ascribed to Republicans a motive to take whatever action necessary solely to provide tax relief for high- income taxpayers. Now, let's be clear. Senate Republicans and Democrats both want to prevent tax hikes on middle-income families. The only difference is Senate Republicans want to do more. On this side, in this slow-growth environment, we do not want to raise taxes on anyone right now. Yesterday, I discussed some of the reasons for preventing any tax hikes, even preventing the so-called millionaires' tax hike. It is a hit on small businesses, and we all know it. It is a hit on the after-tax rate of return on investment. This so-called millionaires' tax hike will slow the flow of the lifeblood of business--capital. Let's be clear. On our side, we want, just as much as the Democrats want, to protect middle-income taxpayers from a tax hike. Nearly every Republican in 2001 supported it then, tried to make it permanent, and we support it now. You need look no further than our leader's bill. It is right there in the bill. On our side, we want more of these middle-income taxpayers to keep their jobs. We want a business and investment environment that reduces the punishingly high unemployment rate of close to 10 percent now. That does not even talk about the underemployment rate which is a little more than 18 percent when you include people who do not even want to look for a job anymore and those who have given up. Almost 4 years ago, in the 2006 election, the American people provided the Democratic Party leadership with control of the Congress. In the 2008 election, almost 2 years ago, the American people provided the Democratic leadership with the largest majorities in more than a generation. They also provided the Democratic leadership with a President of their party. The Democratic leadership spent the period of 2001 to 2006 thwarting efforts to make the bipartisan tax relief of 2001 and 2003 permanent. Upon assuming control, they spent almost 4 years with no legislation, as you can see on this chart, to make permanent or even extend the marginal rate cuts and family tax relief packages. No Senate legislative action, no Senate committee and floor action, no Senate action until this late lameduck session partisan jam vote. The Senate Democratic leadership needs to engage. Engagement is defined as a constructive activity with the goal of changing the law. Engagement is not defined as repeating a dead-end partisan process like we have seen with the extenders bill--something we should have passed long ago and we were willing to. Time-sensitive tax legislative business should go through the regular order process. It is too late for that now, as you all know, as we all know. It is too late for partisan stunts. The American people need action. Actions speak louder than words. It is too risky for all of our constituents to aim for partisan stunts. The clock is ticking, and soon this calendar, in this year right here--this whole calendar--will be history. Well, the Americans deserve real legislative action. As I have said, it is one thing to come on the Senate floor now and try to raise the thresholds and so forth at this late date. But the fact is, small businesses are mainly partnerships, sub S corporations, entities where the income comes to the small businessperson who, in most cases, if they want their business to grow, puts a lot of that income back into creating jobs and opportunities. I have even heard the phony argument over the years that, well, it is only 3 percent of small businesses. Well, that 3 percent is 750,000 businesses that create 70 percent of the jobs in this society. I would like to see jobs recreated. I would like to see us do the things we are here to do. I would like to have the White House--they have brilliant people in the White House, brilliant people, not one of whom, to my knowledge, has been constructive in his or her lifetime in creating private sector jobs. They are great at creating public sector jobs, as we have all seen over the last couple years, as Federal jobs have jumped dramatically. But hardly anybody down there even knows how to create a private sector job. I do not want to be mean to the President or anybody else. These are brilliant people. Maybe there is something there that they can come up with. But they sure as heck are not helping us get through this end of session in a way that will create jobs. I hope our negotiators on both sides will wake up and realize we have to do what is right for this country, and we have to do some things that will help small businesses in this country create jobs. At a time when unemployment has now jumped to 9.8 percent, with the underemployment rate over 18 percent the last time I checked, it seems to me the worst thing we could possibly do is mess it all up with tax increases against anybody. I personally have suggested that since Republicans want this tax relief of 2001 and 2003 to be permanent, since we have wanted that, and the Democrats have wanted only those at $200,000 and $250,000--below those figures--to have the tax relief, and they want their so-called middle-class tax rates to be permanent--which we would keep going because we believe as much in middle-class tax relief as they do--in fact, I think actually more--it seems to me we ought to get together and we ought to at least give this economy a chance over the next 2 or 3 years, as much as I would like to make this statute permanent, and give us a chance to be able to regenerate jobs in this society in ways that make sense. Keep in mind, when we start talking about the so-called millionaires' tax, we are talking about 56 percent of all capital gains rates paid by people, many of whom are small businesspeople who will create jobs if we can get rid of the uncertainty that, I have to say, has been continuous over the last 4 years, and certainly over the last 2 years. I just hope we can get together. I hope nobody will construe my remarks as trying to pick on anybody. I do not want to do that. I just want to make these points because I think they are relevant, they are truthful, and, frankly, it is time we get together and get these problems solved. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are a few hours into the month of December, 2010. Normally, the month of December means holiday times for most American families. For Jewish Americans, Hanukkah starts at sundown. As anyone who visits a department store knows, Santa Claus is already as much a fixture as the shelves and lights. The congressional Christmas tree will be lit in a few days. This should be a happy time for families. But the festive mood is dampened by the high unemployment and the slow economic growth rate in this country. Too many businesses are struggling. Too many investors are holding back their capital. Too many workers are idled. And here in Washington, we hear too much talk and take too little action to effectively address these problems. For almost 4 years, our friends on the other side have failed to take action on the tax increase that will soon hit virtually every income taxpaying American. There is bipartisan resolution staring us all in the face. It is the only bipartisan compromise. I am talking about a seamless extension of current bipartisan tax policy that was enacted in 2001 and 2003. How is it the only bipartisan compromise on the table? Look no further than the statements of members themselves. I am aware of no Republican in the House or Senate favoring less than a full prevention of the widespread tax hikes set to kick in in 31 short days. Democrats are split. That is why we have seen no action for almost 4 years. It seems they may be split three ways. I have heard rumors that many Democrats in both bodies would privately prefer current law; that is, they would prefer to leave the law as it is and let the tax hikes kick in. But that is a privately held sentiment. The politics of advocating a tax increase on virtually every American income taxpayer are not, shall we say, compelling. This is the first group. The second group is aligned with President Obama's budget. That position would guarantee a marginal tax rate hike on all small business owners with incomes above $200,000 if single or $250,000 if married. That's the second group. A significant number of Democratic House and Senate Members have signaled that a short-term seamless extension of all current law tax relief is their preferred course. That is the third group. There might be a fourth group who think that we ought to raise that $200,000 to $500,000, and that $250,000 to $1 million. But that still hits small business right in the face at a time when we need to create jobs. We Republicans understand that. I cannot understand why my Democratic friends do not seem to understand that. The Presiding Officer understands that. Republicans generally support a permanent tax freeze. That position is embodied in Leader McConnell's bill. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that bill. But we Republicans know that, as good as that policy is, we will not likely find at least 18 Democrats to join us. We likely will not get 60 votes for it now. We would make it permanent if we could. The wisdom of the bipartisan compromise is that it keeps intact the political glue that made the bipartisan tax relief possible in the first place. Republicans supported the original plan because of the mix of two key tax relief policies. The first policy was tax relief for America's families. The second policy was tax relief designed to spur economic growth. The fact that we are divided now is due to the Democratic leadership's insistence that the growth incentives part of the compromise be broken off. They want to break it off, using language like ``decoupling,'' and discard the pro-growth policy. That is the essence of the difference. Democrats are split, but the Democratic leadership is united on the point of breaking off the pro-growth piece of the policy. In an effort to avoid the obvious compromise, two members of the Senate Democratic leadership have put forward a new proposal. The proposal would apply the pending rate hikes to single taxpayers at $500,000 of income and married couples at $1 million of income. This latest partisan proposal is said to be necessary for fiscal reasons. Finance Committee Republican staff, using data from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, conducted a preliminary analysis of this proposal. They concluded that less than half the revenue sought by the Democratic leadership would be raised by this proposal. That tells me the reason behind this new proposal may be ideological. Now, some may ask why Republicans do not give in and agree to hike taxes on those earning over $500,000 or $1 million. Certainly, it puts a fine point on the usual political game of class warfare. To those of us on this side of the aisle, the sting of the proposal's political shot is far outweighed by its economic harm. Why is it so important? Let me turn to two broad principles where Democrats and Republicans generally agree. The first principle is that a healthy growing economy is a very good antidote to our fiscal ailments. The second principle is that small business will be the source of new jobs. Do not think you'll find much daylight between Republicans and Democrats on these principles. Now, let's consider the merits of this so-called ``millionaire'' tax in light of these bipartisan principles. Fiscal history shows, without question that revenues will grow and temporary social safety net entitlement spending will drop if the economy grows. I have a chart that shows this history. If you follow this chart, you will see revenue is very sensitive to the changes in growth. Revenue is red, GDP is green. Growth goes up. Revenue goes up. Growth goes down. Revenue goes down. It is well established that capital is the lifeblood of business. According to Answers.Com and I quote: CAPITAL is the life by which the body [of business] operates. A business without finance is like a body in coma. No matter how great the environment is, the entity is considered dead. It is the blood that keeps men alive. Drain the blood and watch life end for even the strongest and most privileged human that exists. No one disputes the notion that taxpayers with incomes above $500,000 for singles and $1 million for married couples are a small fraction of the taxpaying population. But they account for a lot of capital gain income. A proposal to raise the marginal rate on capital gain income by 33 percent on this group may seem like it would have minimal impact on the pool of capital income. Internal Revenue Service data indicate the contrary is true. The latest data from IRS Statistics of Income division are revealing. According to SOI, taxpayers at $1 million and over accounted for 56\1/2\--percent of the net long-term capital gain income for 2008. This figure reached close to 70 percent the year before. Keep in mind that statistic understates the impact. The reason is that the capital gain income for single taxpayers with income between $500,000 and $1 million is not counted. The proposed so-called millionaire's tax would pile up rates on this large pool of capital income. I have a chart that illustrates the impact. The chart shows the current tax rate for this group of taxpayers rising to almost 24 percent in a little over two years. That means an almost 60 percent higher tax take on earnings from capital from current law. If capital is the lifeblood of business, does it make sense to make the investment of it dramatically less attractive? Considering the current slow growth, jobless recovery, should we put in place policy that drives down the after-tax rate of return on capital? I have talked only about the hike on capital income since flow- through small business income would be adversely affected by the tax hikes on ordinary income. You can see I am concerned. Look what that means. It is true that these small business owners would be earning over $500,000 if single and over $1 million if married. They represent a significant portion of the ownership of small businesses that will create new jobs. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the President's tax hikes would hit half of flow-through small business income. I do not have the same calculation for this revised proposal. But do we have the margin for error? In this rough patch of our economic history, shouldn't the policy bias be towards business expansion? Why should we send the opposite signal? In this economic climate, what justifies a higher marginal rate of 17 percent on the most successful of our small businesses? Why hit the small businesses most likely to expand and hire people and give them jobs? The way is clear. To my friends in the Democratic leadership, and they are my friends, I dare say, everybody in this body is a friend of mine. There are good people here. Why are we not working in a bipartisan way to solve these proposals? I say throw down the partisan weapons. Don't sharpen them with a more partisan, edgy proposal, like the so-called ``millionaire's tax.'' On our side, we would like to keep the current low tax rates in effect. We want them to be permanent. We, however, recognize that the legislative calendar of this session is about to end. We are ready to take a short-term time out with a seamless short-term extension of current tax relief. I ask our friends on the other side to do the same. Now, it is no secret that 42 all 42 Republicans have said we should go to work on these problems right now and quit playing games around here. And we are unwilling to let anything else go forward until we solve these problems. These problems are the problems of extending the current tax relief for everybody. We would like it to be permanent. Most of the Democrats would not like it to be permanent. There has to be a way of bringing us together. We are not going to agree, it seems to me. We are not going to be free to go to what our friends on the other side want to do and increase taxes at this time in the economic history of this country. All 42 Republicans have signed a letter making it clear we will not get cloture on anything until we resolve these problems. Then let's go to work after that. If the leadership does want to keep playing around in December, in the holiday season, let's at least go to work on other problems. I can think of a lot of other problems. For instance, the so- called SGR doc fix. The Democrats have taken $500 billion out of Medicare. If they took $282 billion of that, that solves the doc fix. We don't have to worry about it every year as we do right now. That money is there. What about the death tax? If we don't solve the death tax, it dramatically goes up. Who does it hurt? Small businesspeople, farmers, and others who don't have all the lawyers in the world to help them evade those taxes. What about the alternative minimum tax? That was a tax that was supposed to affect 155 multimillionaires who didn't pay taxes that year. Today it will affect 23 to 26 million people, many in the middle class. Democrats always talk like they want to get rid of it, but they love it because it means more revenue for them to spend. Why don't we get rid of it? Even if we don't have an offset, I prefer to get rid of it because it goes up every year. We have to patch it every year, it costs billions of dollars, where if we do it once, it is a one-hit thing that at least we know where we are and we can work the deficit down from there. What about the research and development tax credit? Virtually everybody in this body knows how important that is to our high-tech industry, which in some ways is not competitive because we always foul it up. It has now been absent for a year because even though the Democrats have had abject control of this body and could have done anything they wanted to do to preserve it and protect it, they haven't done a doggone thing. As somebody who works on intellectual property issues day in and day out and has done so for 34 years in the Senate and has done so in a bipartisan way--and I don't think anybody on the other side can say I haven't worked with them in these areas; Senator Leahy and I worked together very closely on these issues--why aren't we making it possible for our high-tech world to create jobs by being more competitive, by giving them what we all basically agree they should have and do it permanently; that is, the research and development tax credit. These are just a few things I think we ought to be able to get together on in a bipartisan way and accomplish at the end of this year. If I was the President--and I am not, but if I was, and it is nice to speculate every once in a while, especially on the floor of the Senate, when we see all these problems--I would be banging on Democrats and Republicans to resolve these problems I have been discussing today. The President would have all December. He would have all January, virtually, since we don't get geared up and going very much until February. He would have most of February, and he might even have most of March almost all to himself and to his organization in the White House. I can't understand, for the life of me, why the President isn't weighing in to get this problem solved now as well as the problems I have been talking about. It is to his advantage. Instead, we will play these phony political games right up to Christmas Day. We have done that before. I can live with that. I can work on Christmas Day, as far as I am concerned. But it is ridiculous what is going on around here. It is ridiculous. Here we have 3 or 4 days gone, where hardly anything is going to be done, where we could resolve these problems. We have this group together. It is a good group with good representatives from the House and Senate and, of course, the Treasury Secretary and the Director of OMB. I have high hopes they will wise up and come to a conclusion that this is what we have to do and do it as quickly as we can, in the best interests of the country, so there is some certainty for our business community to create jobs and our banks to start loaning again and for others to get involved in the economy. This is to the advantage of the President. I don't understand why he is not beating on the guys on the other side and over there in the House to wake up and do what is right. Then let's get this over with and get this country back on track again. Republicans are dedicated to try to resolve the problem. We will not get pushed around on this. Frankly, we want to solve it with our friends on the other side. I just hope we can. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the retirement and the departure of my great friend, Bob Bennett. Senator Bennett and I have jointly represented the State of Utah for many years. We are close. During that time, we have worked together as partners, collaborators, but most of all as good friends. Bob's presence in the Senate is going to be sorely missed. Senator Bennett is a lot of things. He is honest, he is thoughtful, he is knowledgeable. But more than anything else, Senator Bennett is a fighter for the people of Utah. Bob has served with unwavering devotion to our State, its people, and its interests. Throughout his 18 years in the Senate, the State of Utah has been foremost in Bob's thoughts, and I don't believe he has made a single decision he didn't believe was in the best interests of our State and of our Nation. Senator Bennett is the son of Frances and Wallace F. Bennett. Wallace F. Bennett, we should all remember, was also a great U.S. Senator from Utah who served four terms between 1951 and 1974. I think that is accurate. Bob is also the grandson of Heber J. Grant, the seventh President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. After attending East High School in Salt Like City, Bob graduated from the University of Utah, where he was elected the student body president and obtained a degree in political science in 1959. His first political job was managing his father's 1962 successful reelection campaign. Bob then spent several years working as a Mormon chaplain in the Utah Army National Guard before becoming a chief congressional liaison at the U.S. Department of Transportation. After his time at the Transportation Department, Senator Bennett moved on to a successful career in public relations. For over a decade, he presided over some of the most successful and high-profile public relations organizations in the country. He became well known for his hard work, his leadership ability, and his entrepreneurial prowess. This was solidified in 1984 when Bob was named the CEO of the Franklin International Institute, which is now known as Franklin Covey. Franklin Covey is now one of the premier personal and organizational effectiveness firms in the world. The products and services provided by the company impact literally millions of people every year. But when Bob joined the company they had only four employees. During his tenure that number grew to over 1,000. By the time he left to run for the Senate, the company was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. It was at that time an already thriving corporation, a world leader in its industry, thanks in no small part to Bob's leadership. For his efforts, Bob was named Inc. Magazine's Entrepreneur of the Year for the Rocky Mountain region. Bob was elected to the Senate in 1992 after a hotly contested Republican primary and a hard-fought general election. His father--once again, the great Senator Wallace F. Bennett--lived just long enough to see his son win an election and serve in the Senate for almost a full year. I know that must have been a great source of pride for the senior Senator Bennett and his family. Over his 18 years in the Senate, Bob has continued to demonstrate sound judgment and strong leadership. Republican Senators have considered him a trusted resource when it comes to strategy and policy. He has been a consistent resource for those who seek thoughtful answers to difficult political questions. For these reasons, among others, Bob has served on the leadership teams of our current minority leader, Senator McConnell, as well as his predecessor, Senator Bill Frist. While he is more well known for his quiet, contemplative demeanor, Senator Bennett has always been an outstanding orator. He comes often to the floor to discuss various issues at length, rarely reading from notes and almost never skipping a beat. His contributions to our debates in the Senate have always been very valuable, and I think people on both sides of the aisle will acknowledge that and have appreciated the type of advocacy he has brought to the floor of the Senate--always courteous, always well thought out, always reasonable, and always, in my opinion, right. As I mentioned before, I know few Senators who can match Senator Bennett's commitment to the people he represents. Every single person in the State of Utah has benefited from the work of Senator Bennett. One cannot ride on a train or drive on a freeway in Utah or avail oneself of so many other assets and attributes in Utah without seeing the results of Senator Bennett's service in the Senate. Our State has seen a lot of growth in recent years due to the expansion of our population and the fact that more and more companies have recognized that Utah is a great place to do business. Utah's infrastructure has for the most part been able to keep pace with the rapid growth, thanks in large measure to the work of Senator Bennett. I will miss working with Senator Bennett to help the people of our State, but I will miss him more as a friend. Bob and his wonderful wife Joyce--and she has been a tremendous companion to him, tremendous helpmate to him over these years--have been married for 48 years. They have 6 children and 20 grandchildren. I know every one of them is proud of the great service Bob has rendered to his country and the Senate, and they should be. I too am so pleased and proud of my friend, Senator Bennett, and I am certain that Bob will be successful in any endeavor he chooses in the future upon leaving the Senate. Bob Bennett is a wise counselor. He is a truly honest man. He cares not only for the people he represented but everybody in this country and many people throughout the world. He lives his religious beliefs. Other than family, I can't compliment anybody more than that. He lives his religion. He is exemplary. He is one of the most thoughtful people I have ever known. I value his friendship and I value his advice and I have valued it over these years that we have served together. He has always been a serious and productive leader who also has a tremendously great sense of humor. After all is said and done, he is a great father, grandfather, husband, and friend--just to mention a few. Bob will be successful in whatever he chooses to do. He is a good man. I personally will miss him. I think everybody in the Senate will miss him, and I believe it is safe to say everybody in Utah will miss him as well--some more than others. Nevertheless, if they look at his record and they look at the things he has done for our State, for our people, they are going to thank God that Bob Bennett was a Senator for 18 solid years. I personally thank the Father in Heaven for having him here as a partner to me, as a friend, and as somebody on whom I could rely and with whom I could counsel on some of these very earthshakingly important matters that come before our Senate. I have such a great opinion of Bob Bennett, I don't think even he has known--maybe not until today--how great that opinion has been. I think the world of him. I love him as a human being, and I wish him the very best, he and his family. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my and Senator Grassley's colloquy, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota be recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Senator Grassley has been the ranking Republican or chairman of the Finance Committee for a long time now. We have seen times when the expiring tax provisions have been dealt with in as timely a manner as they should have been, but have we ever seen a state of affairs like we have now with the extenders? What has this meant for job creation and economic growth?

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, my colleague, Senator Grassley, and I come to the floor to discuss very urgent business for the American people that has been put off for far too long. I am talking about the outstanding tax issues this Congress has so far failed to address. As I count them, there are five major tax issues that collectively represent a looming crisis for the economy. These are, first, the set of tax provisions that expired almost a year ago on December 31, 2009, and have yet to be extended. Second is another set of important tax provisions due to expire at the end of this year, which is only 44 days from now. The third item is the need to once again address the threshold of the alternative minimum tax so that about 25 million more American families are not caught in its clutches for the tax year about to end. Fourth is the estate tax issue which has been haunting us and the American people all year long. I submit it is way past the crisis stage and is about to enter into even a worse stage. Finally, and certainly not least, is the looming expiration of the tax relief provisions we passed in 2001 and 2003 which are swinging over the future of our economy like a hangman's noose. It is this situation that I particularly would like to address the bulk of my remarks to, but before doing so, let me turn to my colleague for his initial comments, the ranking member on the Finance Committee and a great friend, Senator Grassley.