Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. We ought to listen to Senator Grassley. He is one of the leaders in this body and somebody we all look up to as totally honest and sensitive on these issues. He has done a wonderful job on the Finance Committee. According to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, perhaps the most time-sensitive problem waiting for congressional action is the so- called patch for the alternative minimum tax. I understand that if we do not take care of this very soon, we could see major delays in the tax filing season that will start on January 1. Is that the understanding of Senator Grassley?

Mr. HATCH. That is the third item on the to-do list. If we do not act, 6 weeks from now the reach of the death tax will greatly expand. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, 10 times the number of estates will be taxable versus the number that would be taxable in the bipartisan Lincoln-Kyl compromise. In the case of farm- heavy estates, 13 times the number of those farm families would be hit by the death tax. That would be unfair because the families would have to either borrow the money or sell the farm in order to pay the death taxes. That is just crazy. The issue of extending the expiring tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003 has been a central question all this year, but we are just now beginning to discuss this in earnest. This lack of action on this vital topic has been a major factor in the low performance of our economy. The outcome of this debate is exceptionally important to the future of this Nation. Its implications go well beyond what many on the other side of this issue might want Americans to believe. This is not merely a question of how well the rich in our society will live if we raise their taxes. Rather, this debate goes to the heart of the burning questions facing American families of all income levels today: Will I keep my job? How and when can I get a new or better job? Will the economy grow enough to allow my family to pay its bills and make progress toward our dreams? Can we afford to educate our children? Will America continue to prosper in the years ahead, or are we in a permanent decline? The President and most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that the answer to the question of fully extending the tax relief provisions that are set to expire in just about 44 days is no. While they are willing to extend them for those Americans earning less than $200,000 per year if a single individual or $250,000 per year if a family, their position is that anyone above these thresholds should get a tax increase. However, the right answer for our country's future is that all the tax relief provisions should be extended. The reasons the President and his allies give for their position largely boil down to the general supposition that the well-off among us can afford to see their taxes go up, and that the Nation cannot afford to forego the revenue lost to the Treasury from these taxpayers continuing to have their taxes as low as they are. Ironically, this second point implies that we can afford the revenue loss from extending the tax relief to those making under the $200,000 and $250,000 thresholds, even though this loss is upwards of 80 percent of the total amount of lost revenue from extending the tax relief for everyone. In other words, the President and his congressional supporters would have us believe that this debate is solely about whether the so-called wealthy among us deserve continued tax relief. They either fail to see an economic connection between the finances of those at the top of the income scale and the rest of us, or they refuse to admit that such a link exists. This may sound somewhat counterintuitive, but it is, nonetheless, true. The essential element to this conundrum is that good permanent jobs, which are the heart and soul of the American dream, are inextricably linked to those in our economy who have wealth. When the income of the wealthy is taxed, particularly in a way that reduces the incentives for saving, investment, and entrepreneurship, that tax is not just paid by those who write the check to the government. Indeed, even those Americans who pay no income tax at all, which is now upwards of half of all adults, can be badly hurt by tax increases on the so- called rich. This is through the loss of opportunities, the lack of jobs or better jobs, and slow or nonexistent economic growth. One vital fact that many citizens do not realize is that a high percentage of this Nation's business enterprises pay their taxes through the tax returns of their individual owners. Taxes on sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, and limited liability companies are all passed through these entities and assessed on their individual owners. Higher taxes on these entities results in less money for investment and expansion, which translates into fewer jobs created and fewer opportunities for those who want to move up the economic ladder. Tragically, especially in this time of economic stress and high unemployment, the real cost of taxation is paid by a group of unintended victims. These are the men and women and their families who do not get a chance to have a job or a higher paying job because the tax destroys the economic growth that might have provided for such an opportunity. A study recently released by the nonpartisan Heritage Center for Data Analysis highlights these facts. This study, which utilizes an economic model owned by the leading economic forecasting firm in the country, concludes that the President's tax plan to allow the tax relief provisions to expire for the so-called well-off would have very serious consequences for millions earning far less than those targeted. Here are just a few of the highlights of these conclusions. First, the President's tax plan would reduce economic growth for at least the next 10 years. Over the 10-year period, our gross domestic product would fall by a total of $1.1 trillion compared to where it would be otherwise if all the tax provisions were extended. This slower economic growth would directly translate into fewer jobs created. In fact, the study projects that 238,000 fewer jobs would be created next year and as many as 876,000 lost jobs in 2016. For the 10- year period, the average would be 693,000 jobs each year that would not be created had we extended the tax relief for everyone. This projection alone should be enough to give anyone pause. In this critical time of job shortage, do we want to purposefully choose a course that would lead to even fewer jobs for Americans? Other economic indicators would also turn negative compared to extending the tax rates as they currently stand. Business investment, personal savings, disposable income, and consumer spending would all be lower. This is exactly the wrong direction we need as the U.S. struggles to recover from this nasty recession. My home State of Utah will not be spared, despite the fact that the downturn has been less pronounced there than in many other States. The Beehive State would lose an average of 6,200 jobs each year, and household disposable income would drop by $2,200. For a relatively small population State, this is nothing but bad news. Another recent study highlights the effect on the economy of increases to the capital gains tax rate as is called for under the President's tax plan. This one was prepared by the respected economist Allen Sinai. In this study, Dr. Sinai concludes that increasing the capital gains tax rates to 20 percent from the current 15 percent, as is called for in the President's plan, would cut the number of jobs available by 231,000 per year. Again, this is exactly the wrong direction for a Congress that is supposed to be focused on job creation. If we were really serious about creating jobs, we should be doing just the opposite; that is, lowering the capital gains tax rate. The Sinai study concludes that a reduction from the current 15-percent tax rate on capital gains to a 5-percent rate would increase the number of jobs by 711,000 per year. That is the kind of job growth we need right now. By lowering the rate down to zero percent, Dr. Sinai says we could turbocharge this rate of job growth to 1.3 million new jobs per year. Of course, this capital gains tax reduction would not be free since the Treasury would lose some revenue. The Sinai study indicates that this loss would be about $23 billion per year after the effects of stronger economic growth are taken into account. While this is not an insignificant number, it works out to a cost of about $18,000 per job. I call this a bargain, particularly when it is compared with the cost per job from the so-called stimulus bill we passed last year. The Congressional Budget Office projected last year that the cost of each job saved or created from the stimulus bill would be between $414,000 and $1.3 million. And most or all of these jobs are temporary, not permanent. Last year, the CBO also projected that the net increase in the number of jobs from the stimulus bill by 2015 would be zero. In other words, we would get no permanent job increase from this gargantuan stimulus bill. I do not believe the contrast between the two approaches to job creation and economic growth could be any more striking. Let me refer back to Senator Grassley.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my leader on the Finance Committee on the Republican side. I appreciate all the work he has done to try to keep this economy going, and we ought to listen to him. Let me just say that the President and congressional Democrats and Republicans agree that small business is the key to a job-based recovery. As the President himself says, small business creates about 70 percent of all of our new jobs. If we fail to prevent the marginal rate hikes, small businesses will be especially hard hit. The Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that half of the flowthrough small business income would be hit by the reimposition of the top two brackets. Ironically, this is what all the resistance from the other side is about. They insist on raising the top marginal rates on small businesses by up to 17 to 24 percent--all of this during a time when we ought to be going the other way and assuring small businesses that they should take steps to grow without paying a tax penalty. There is a bipartisan group that recognizes the merits of preventing these tax hikes on small businesses. But I think the President and the Democratic leadership need to see the light. We are talking about somewhere between 750,000 and 800,000 small businesses, where 70 percent of the jobs are created. If we do not handle this right, we are going to have a pretty long time of an economic system that really does not work in this country. So it is important that we get going here in this lameduck session and resolve this issue. There are people all over the map on this issue, but I think the smartest thing to do would be to keep the tax relief the way it is. I would move it at least 2 years and hopefully 3 years. I would like to make it permanent for everybody in our society because we are a high- taxed society under the current circumstances, but apparently we do not have the votes to make it permanent. But we should have the votes to be able to put it over at least until we can get out of the rough politics of a lameduck session, and hopefully we will be able to resolve these problems in the future in a way that both sides can feel good. Having said all this, let me just say that I have really appreciated serving under the distinguished Senator from Iowa. He is a hard-nosed, practical leader in this body. Everybody knows he is totally honest and totally effective in so many ways. He is a dear friend of mine. I want him to know how much I appreciated serving next to him on the Finance Committee. And we will be serving next to each other on the Judicially Committee in this upcoming year. I look forward to seeing him, as a nonlawyer, take over the controls from the Republican standpoint on the Judiciary Committee because even though the distinguished Senator from Iowa is a nonlawyer, he brings a practical balance to the Judiciary Committee--and to the Finance Committee up until now--that is sorely needed. He is one of the most respected people, by me, in this whole body of very, very strong minds and people. So I am grateful to him. I am grateful he is my friend, and I am grateful we can work together side by side in both of these committees. I thank the Senator for all the hard work he has done in the Finance Committee all these years. I have watched him, I have sat beside him, and I have seen the products he has done, and the Senator has worked in good faith with both sides, and certainly with total honesty, and that is a high accolade right there. Madam President, these are important issues. I know that not just the distinguished Senator from Iowa and myself feel deeply about them, but I hope we can get our colleagues together on both sides, and the President, who has indicated he is willing to compromise on this issue, and get this put over. If we could do that, I think the President will be better off, jobs will be better off, and in the end, our country-- which is the ultimate goal--there is no doubt in my mind would be much better off. With that, I thank my distinguished friend from North Dakota and yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my mixed emotions on S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. With past recalls on spinach, peppers, cookie dough, peanuts and peanut products, there appears to be an increase in the frequency of foodborne outbreaks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimates that foodborne disease cause approximately 76 million illnesses in the U.S. each year, including an estimated 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. These statistics are strong evidence that our current food safety laws and regulations are antiquated and should be updated. We live in a global food economy, but our Nation's current food safety laws and regulations are geared predominately to a local and domestic market. As a result, there are new safety challenges that have risen from this global market that must be addressed. As the former chairman and ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee--it was then known as the Senate Labor Committee--I have a little history on this issue. As chairman of the committee, I introduced the Food Safety Amendments with the intent of ensuring a safer food supply, similar to the goal of the legislation before the Senate today. I would like to point out that S. 510 is one of the few bipartisan pieces of legislation currently in the Senate. We had Republicans and Democrats working across the aisle to come up with solid policies to address some of the major gaps in our current food safety system. And as we deliberated these policies, it was important to me to protect existing laws that already have solid consumer protections. One of those laws is the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Briefly, DSHEA clarified the regulatory structure of supplements to ensure that individuals would continue to have access to safe supplements and information about their use. Under DSHEA, Congress set out a legal definition of what could be marketed as a dietary supplement. We created a safety standard that products have to meet. We allowed the FDA to develop good manufacturing process standards for supplements. We clarified which claims could be made about these products and we said those statements must be truthful and not misleading. Furthermore, the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2006 created a mandatory adverse event reporting, AER, system for dietary supplements and over-the-counter drugs. My friend and chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, Tom Harkin, and I worked on this law very closely with Senator Mike Enzi, who was chairman of the HELP Committee at the time, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who was the ranking member of the HELP Committee at the time, and Senator Dick Durbin on this important legislation. Our legislation created a system to provide the government with information about serious adverse events associated with dietary supplements and over- the-counter drugs. It provides Federal authorities with a better and more effective tool to become aware and to respond to any problems that might occur. I am grateful and appreciative to the sponsors of the bill for including provisions to preserve the DSHEA and AER laws' consumer protections as part of S. 510. In addition, I have heard from many of my constituents that they are concerned with the international harmonization provisions in this bill and its impact on the availability and affordability of dietary supplements--in particular, the Codex Commission which is an international organization that provides guidelines for food safety. Rest assured that the Commission's guidelines on vitamin and mineral food supplements will not affect the regulation of dietary supplements in the United States unless Congress decides to adopt the provisions. Another issue I want to mention is the importance of promoting small businesses. Without a doubt, small businesses are the engine for economic growth in America and represent a powerful vehicle for opportunity. Small businesses contribute greatly to Utah's economy, and I am committed to doing all I can to promote job creation, grow our economy, and ensure America's businesses are competitive in the global marketplace. So I am pleased that S. 510 considers the needs of small businesses. It accomplishes this by requiring the FDA to publish user-friendly guidance to assist firms with the implementation and compliance of new practices. It also gives small food facilities additional time to comply with the new food safety practices and guidelines. In addition, the legislation also requires the FDA to coordinate its outreach activities with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, in order to educate and train growers and small food facilities about the new requirements from this bill. Finally, I wanted to address concerns raised by the Utah farming community, particularly small farmers. First, this bill preserves the current jurisdictional separation between the USDA and the FDA. In other words, this bill does not change those who are currently subject to USDA regulation versus those who are subject to FDA regulation under the existing laws. Second, this bill does not change the existing definition of a facility currently required to register with the FDA. This means that farms that are currently exempt from registering with the FDA under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 continue to remain exempt. Finally, small entities that produce food for their own consumption or market directly to consumers or restaurants are not subject to registration or the new recordkeeping requirements under this bill. This includes food sold through farmers' markets, personal or backyard gardens, bake sales, public events and organizational fundraisers. Unfortunately with all those great provisions that I just mentioned, there is still one major concern that I cannot overlook, the cost of the bill. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has estimated that the legislation will cost $1.4 billion over 5 years. We need to rein in the out-of-control government spending, especially in today's fiscal environment. We simply cannot continue to drive up the national debt. We cannot sustain trillion-dollar deficits. More government spending will push the Nation over a precipice from which we may not be able to recover. Even though this spending is discretionary, it troubles me that if future appropriations are not sufficient to cover the cost of the bill, Congress would be unintentionally giving the FDA an unfunded mandate. If this happens, the FDA would either simply not be able to live up to its new responsibilities or would be forced to shift funds from other important and already strapped agency programs like the regulation of prescription drugs, medical devices, and/or biologics. The latter could cause significant harm to the American public. So it is with deep regret that I cannot support S. 510 without it being paid for. However, I am committed to working with my Senate colleagues to find ways to offset the cost of the bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. We can make progress by starting with the laws that already exist. My bill would enhance our core immigration and enforcement laws for both legal and illegal immigrants. Much has been discussed this Congress on how to proceed on the very complex and, unfortunately at times, partisan issue of immigration reform. Some have introduced non-binding resolutions others have tried to attach immigration-related measures to non-germane legislative vehicles. But, we're never going to get anywhere with these political stunts which do little to get to the root the problem. Throughout my service, I have spent considerable time with my constituents and, quite frankly, have anguished with them on how to best address the considerable strain the illegal alien population is having on Utahns. Among other things, I have taken the initiative to increase immigration enforcement in Utah include bringing ICE Quick Response teams to our state, creating an immigration court, and establishing an ICE Field Office Director position to address Utah's immigration concerns. I also brought the 287(g) cross-deputizing program and just recently the Secure Communities program to Utah. There is no question that more needs to be done. That is something everyone will agree on. Just recently legislation was enacted to enhance border security. I was pleased that this was a bipartisan effort. Some argue that the bill is sufficient to secure our border, but I disagree. There is much work to be done before the border is properly sealed. I continue to work with and support my colleagues whose states are located along the Southwest border. They know what resources we need to deploy to secure the border. While Utah is not a border state, we still share the same concerns of our neighbors along the border. However, our problems result from a residual effect of a porous border and a breakdown of our immigration enforcement system. For years, I have been saying most immigration problems could be solved if we would enforce the laws on the books. Unfortunately, the current Administration continues to explore ways to exploit current law and score political points. During the past several months, the Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status, on a mass basis, to illegal immigrants via deferred action and parole. If the Administration is successful, it would be the equivalent of back-door amnesty for millions. For this reason, my bill specifies that an alien may only be paroled or granted deferred action on a case-by-case basis--not en mass--the way these laws were intended to be used. The 287(g) and Secure Communities programs continue to be valuable tools to our law enforcement officials in detaining and deporting criminal aliens. For example, in Fiscal Year 2010, the 287(g) program was responsible for detaining 29,295 criminal aliens. What I don't understand is why some cities would choose to not participate in these effective programs. That is why my proposed legislation would require eligible states, counties, or cities to actively participate in the Secure Communities or 287(g) programs or forego compensation for incarceration expenses. Turning a blind eye to these law enforcement programs poses a serious risk to the public and creates sanctuary cities. When I meet with my constituents, one of their top concerns is how we fix our visa programs. Many are concerned, and with good cause, about how some of these folks are getting into the country. Disturbingly, some visa holders are active participants in organized crime. They come to this country and infiltrate our communities, wreaking havoc in our neighborhoods. In an effort to address this problem, my bill would provide our State Department consular officers the necessary legal authority to deny members of known gangs from coming into our country. It's not acceptable to allow these thugs to slip through the cracks. After 9/11, many areas of our immigration system came under scrutiny. One of the top recommendations for reform to our system is to create an exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. Departure information is vital for determining whether foreign visitors are departing the U.S., maintaining their visa status, and evaluating future visa eligibility for these visitors. Not to mention, the ability to track departures goes to the heart of keeping America safe. Without such exit procedures, however, the task of determining whether an alien has overstayed their visa in the United States is nearly impossible. Since 2004, the Department of Homeland Security has been testing exit programs and departure controls at U.S. airports for visa holders leaving the United States. As recently as July 2009, another pilot program was concluded by the Department of Homeland Security. To date, we still haven't seen any implementation of exit procedures for our country's visitors, nor have we seen any final conclusions made by the Department. It has been over 6 years since the first pilot program concluded. It is time to act. Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a mandatory exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. This should have been done years ago. Additionally, the proposed legislation would eliminate the fraud- laden visa lottery, known as the Diversity Visa program. At present, applicants of the visa lottery program are open to being defrauded by so-called service providers who offer to assist them in obtaining Diversity Visa status. Unlike other immigrant visa categories, this is one of the few visas that allows people to immigrate to the United States without having any connection to the country. In other words, the applicants may not have any family, employment, or even provide an economic tie to the United States. And because of limited availability of verification, the program presents serious national security concerns. Let me be clear: if anyone is a proponent of a diverse nation, one that enjoys the influence of many cultures, it is me. But what we have right now in the visa lottery program does not accomplish the intended goal. After careful consultation with State Department officials, I have been advised that the Diversity Visa program needs serious reform, and some have even called for complete elimination of the program. In light of this guidance, I propose to sunset the Diversity Visa program, unless the State Department recommends to Congress how best to combat fraud and eliminate abuse currently in the program. One of the most heated issues that is continually raised by my constituents, and many across the country, is the impact that illegal aliens are having upon our welfare programs. It came to my attention that Los Angeles County, California, actually tracks this information. Much to my amazement, L.A. County confirms that in 2009 alone, they distributed over $2.4 billion in Federal-State welfare and food stamp programs. Of that amount, $569 million was issued to households that include illegal aliens. Let me reiterate: the illegal alien population in L.A. County received over a half-billion dollars of welfare benefits in one year alone. In order to have an honest discussion about the drain illegal aliens are having upon our welfare systems, we must be armed with state- specific information to understand the extent of this problem. Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and any other appropriate Federal agency, to submit an annual report to Congress outlining the total dollar amount of Federal welfare benefits received by households of illegal aliens for each state and the District of Columbia. The annual report would also include the overall dollar amount each state spends on Federal welfare benefits. Without having this information, we will continue to dismiss the serious economic ramifications to our country's prosperity. We cannot afford to perpetuate this problem any longer. My legislation also includes a provision which revisits the legal immigrant policy included in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, P.L. 111-3. The CHIP Reauthorization law overturned language requiring a 5-year waiting period before legal immigrants may be eligible for federal health coverage. The 5-year waiting period was included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193. As my colleagues will recall, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act required sponsors of legal immigrants to be responsible for individuals' expenses during the first 5 years of residency in our country. States had the option of offering legal immigrants CHIP and Medicaid coverage with State only dollars. In other words, States could not receive Federal matching dollars for covering these legal immigrants. The 2009 CHIP law overturned that policy. Today, States may still cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women who have been in the U.S. less than 5 years. However, the big difference is states now receive Federal matching dollars for covering those individuals. The provision in the bill I am introducing today would permit states to continue receiving federal matching dollars for covering legal immigrant children and legal immigrant pregnant women but two conditions must be met. First, the state must demonstrate that it has covered 90 percent of its U.S. citizen children and pregnant women eligible for CHIP or Medicaid. These individuals' family income may not exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Second, the State must demonstrate that it is not supplanting state dollars which were being used to cover legal immigrants prior to passage of the 2009 CHIP reauthorization law with Federal dollars. Another top concern I regularly hear about is identity theft--that of both adults and children who have to spend a great amount of their time and money to clear their good names and restore their credit history. In 2006, parents of Utah 2-year old Tyler Lybbert realized their daughter's identity had been stolen by 38-year old Jose Tinoco. By the time the Lybberts became aware of the fraud, Mr. Tinoco had already taken out two loans and opened credit cards--saddling Tyler with over $15,000 in debt. Little Tyler was left holding the bag. Fortunately, when Mr. Tinoco tried to obtain a loan from a local Utah bank, an employee spotted the discrepancy and alerted Tyler's parents. Mr. Tinoco was caught, but the Lybberts were left with countless hours of work to correct the fraud perpetrated against their child. This past weekend, the Utah press reported on another identity theft case. A newly married radiology student at Weber State University has been battling to reclaim his identity for the last 15 years. When Cameron Noble was 7 years old his Social Security number was stolen by Mr. Jose Zavala of California--an over 60-year-old man. Noble's parents thought they had corrected the error but when Cameron began working at the age of 16 he started receiving notices that his wages were being garnished to pay child support. The problem has continued to haunt him ever since--in the form of tax withholdings and credit report confusion. He is now nearing the end of the process to obtain a new Social Security number. It is not a secret that many in the illegal immigrant community perpetuate identity theft with stolen or fabricated Social Security numbers, SSN. The identity theft they commit often affects the very young--who may not notice problems for years or decades until they are old enough to apply for their first job, car or school loan, or credit card. As in little Tyler Lybbert's case, why did it take a bank employee to pick up on the theft? Because there is no formal system established to alert SSN holders when potential fraud or improper usage have occurred. The federal agency that is best suited to track the use of mismatched SSN numbers is the Internal Revenue Service, IRS. That is why my bill requires the IRS to send a notice to an employer that an inaccurate SSN has been discovered for an employee. If the employer does not respond to the notice within 60-days to correct the inaccuracy, my legislation will require the IRS to notify the SSN holder or to parents and guardians of a minor, that a discrepancy has been detected and to do the following: if it is an actual mismatch to contact the IRS; if they suspect fraudulent use, the SSN holder is provided with contact information for the FTC and various credit bureaus to report the problem; and finally if no response is received by the SSN holder, the IRS would be required to refer the account number to appropriate Federal agencies for possible investigation. Let me pause here to underscore a point. Currently, the original SSN holder never receives notice when a mismatch has occurred. Quite frankly, I do not have the assurances that the IRS is requiring much of the employer to correct or verify the submission. That is not acceptable. In this day and age, when at a click of a mouse, someone can apply for credit cards, mortgages, or even car loans, there is no excuse why SSN holders are left in the dark. One can only imagine that if this simple notification step was taken in the case of little Tyler Lybbert or the Noble family that years of laborious efforts and countless hours of notifying credit bureaus, banks, and other authorities, could have been greatly reduced if not avoided all together. To make matters more confusing in this area of the law, the Supreme Court has more or less tied the hands of prosecutors in going after these thieves and those who are involved in so-called document mills. The case of Flores-Figueroa v. United States undermined prosecutors' longstanding practice of using the aggravated identity theft statute by requiring them to also prove that a defendant knew that he or she was using a real person's identity information, as opposed to counterfeit information not connected to an actual person. To clarify the Criminal Code and provide our prosecutors with the latitude they need to pursue these cases, my bill makes clear that defendants who possess or otherwise use identity information not their own, without lawful authority, and in the commission of another felony is still punishable for aggravated identity fraud, regardless of the defendants' ``knowledge'' of the victim. Finally, my bill's identity theft would require the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the FTC, and the Commissioner of Social Security to conduct a study to determine the most feasible and cost- effective ways to protect the credit worthiness of individuals, especially that of children. Mexican Cartel drug violence has been placed front and center by the media and members of this body. Some of my fellow colleagues have called for more resources directed to this problem. As additional federal law enforcement personnel and military units continue to be deployed to the southwest border the focus has been on weapons, drug interdiction and bulk cash smuggling. While I recognize the importance of these border enforcement activities, too little attention is being paid to outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations is causing increasing environmental damage, especially on publicly owned lands. From 2004-2009 more than 11 million marijuana plants have been eradicated from federal public lands. Outdoor marijuana cultivation is the chief source of revenue for Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Growing marijuana in the U.S. saves traffickers the risk and expense of smuggling their product across the border and allows gangs to produce their crops closer to local markets. Illegal alien workers are smuggled in from Mexico to serve as laborers and provide security to the grow plots. Mexican gang plots can often be distinguished from those of domestic-based growers based on their plant volume and security measures. Many of the plots are encircled with crude explosives and are patrolled by armed illegal aliens providing security for the crop. In my home State of Utah, the Drug Enforcement Administration and local law enforcement have seized more than 110,000 marijuana plants this year. Each plant can yield one pound of marijuana with a street value of $1,000. These remote plots were on federal land and nestled under the cover in a national forest or hidden high in the rugged-yet- fertile tracts of federal land. All of the sites were far from the eyes of law enforcement, where growers can take the time needed to grow far more potent marijuana. Growers of these fields have even created irrigation systems to disrupt or divert water sources. They even use illegal fertilizers that damage the environment and the local eco- system. In one recent incident in Garfield County, Utah an illegal alien grow worker was armed with a shotgun and confronted six teenage girls who inadvertently hiked into the marijuana field. The worker brandished a shotgun and demanded to use their cell phone. Fortunately, the group of girls were able to run away from this armed man and prevented what could have been a very tragic outcome. The girls were quite traumatized and reported the incident to local police. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the local authorities apprehended the man a short time later. So far this year in Utah, as a result of joint investigative efforts between Federal, State and local law enforcement, 20 arrests have been made in connection with the outdoor cultivation of marijuana on Federal lands. Out of the 20 arrests made, 19 were illegal aliens. This is not a problem that is unique to Utah. Other States with substantial federal lands are also seeing a spike in marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations, including Colorado, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Michigan. It is for this reason why my legislation would provide tougher penalties for cultivating marijuana on federal lands and destroying the environment. Provisions of this legislation would also require the Office of National Drug Control Policy to formulate a comprehensive and coordinated action plan to address marijuana cultivation on Federal lands. This plan will be a broad strategic approach to disrupt Mexican drug trafficking organizations' central source of revenue and a key reason for organized alien smuggling. The fight to control the border is no longer isolated to just the physical boundary between the United States and Mexico. Securing the border now means 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. Let me conclude by saying this bill represents key issues that are important to my Utah constituents and Americans across the country. They are common sense solutions to strengthen our commitment to legal immigration and American's security. I urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3919, an act to remove Endangered Species Act, ESA, protections for gray wolves. Delisting of this species is long overdue. Gray wolves are listed as endangered under the ESA in the United States, except in Minnesota where they are listed as threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed ESA protection from these wolves in 2009, but subsequently reinstated protection under a court decision following a lawsuit. Legislative action is the only solution to stop the endless cycle of litigation and return the sovereign ability of states to manage their wildlife. Gray wolves are the iconic species of the ESA. But we cannot let the preconceived and inaccurate perceptions surrounding this animal prevent us from doing our due diligence in providing protections and safeguards for other species including elk, deer, moose, and big horn sheep. With a population growth rate of 24 percent, gray wolf overpopulation is now doing significant damage to wildlife populations throughout the West and Midwest. Gray wolf predation is erasing decades of effort and hundreds of millions invested in rebuilding healthy big game populations. Wolves do not know or care where recovery plan lines are drawn. They will roam wherever necessary to find adequate food and habitat. Research indicates that wolf and ungulate populations are generally inversely proportional and cyclical over relatively long periods of time. Ill-advised experimentation and anti-management philosophy continues to be pushed by extreme animal rights and anti-sportsmen special interest groups. This war on the west threatens big game herds, proactive State wildlife management, use of renewable wildlife resources, and the western way of life. This bill, while viewed with suspicion and opposed with philosophical arguments by some environmental organizations, ensures that delicate wildlife populations are restored to healthy levels. When Congress passed the ESA, it envisioned legislation to make certain that species would not become extinct. The key to success of the new law was finding a way to conserve and protect species truly in danger of becoming extinct. The gray wolf is not endangered as a species. There are thousands alive and well in North America. The ESA has become a vehicle by which some organizations and individuals seek to halt all activities on our public lands which they happen to oppose. I would submit to you that such use of the ESA was not envisioned nor would it have been condoned by a majority of those who originally crafted the law. Some groups want to use the gray wolf as a surrogate for other agendas. Others have used it to raise a lot of money from citizens of this country truly concerned about the place of the wolf in our environment. Still others have used it for political purposes. What a shame that the laws of this great Nation can be subverted for purposes other than the reason the law was originally written. The gray wolf has been protected by the ESA since 1973, the year the ESA was passed. The single exception to that classification is in the State of Minnesota where they are classified as threatened. The original recovery plan for the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies was written in 1974. The main States involved are owned largely by the Federal Government. Thirty percent of Montana, 50 percent of Wyoming, and 64 percent of Idaho is federally owned. Access to and use of the public lands and resources on them has a great deal to do with the economy of these sparsely populated States. When the economy suffers, so do these communities and these people. The working men and women of our States have no alternative but to rely on continued access to and the use of grass, water, timber, and minerals from public lands to support their families. Those working people have mortgages to pay just like you and I; they have bills that are due each month; and they want to be able to feed and clothe their children just as you and I do. We must recognize the legitimate concerns of the hundreds of honest, hardworking citizens who are being directly affected by the continued listing of the gray wolf on the ESA. In my opinion, we have a responsibility to protect their right to make an honest living and to live the lifestyle they have chosen. I hope my colleagues will join me in this attempt to resolve this important issue.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. We can make progress by starting with the laws that already exist. My bill would enhance our core immigration and enforcement laws for both legal and illegal immigrants. Much has been discussed this Congress on how to proceed on the very complex and, unfortunately at times, partisan issue of immigration reform. Some have introduced non-binding resolutions others have tried to attach immigration-related measures to non-germane legislative vehicles. But, we're never going to get anywhere with these political stunts which do little to get to the root the problem. Throughout my service, I have spent considerable time with my constituents and, quite frankly, have anguished with them on how to best address the considerable strain the illegal alien population is having on Utahns. Among other things, I have taken the initiative to increase immigration enforcement in Utah include bringing ICE Quick Response teams to our state, creating an immigration court, and establishing an ICE Field Office Director position to address Utah's immigration concerns. I also brought the 287(g) cross-deputizing program and just recently the Secure Communities program to Utah. There is no question that more needs to be done. That is something everyone will agree on. Just recently legislation was enacted to enhance border security. I was pleased that this was a bipartisan effort. Some argue that the bill is sufficient to secure our border, but I disagree. There is much work to be done before the border is properly sealed. I continue to work with and support my colleagues whose states are located along the Southwest border. They know what resources we need to deploy to secure the border. While Utah is not a border state, we still share the same concerns of our neighbors along the border. However, our problems result from a residual effect of a porous border and a breakdown of our immigration enforcement system. For years, I have been saying most immigration problems could be solved if we would enforce the laws on the books. Unfortunately, the current Administration continues to explore ways to exploit current law and score political points. During the past several months, the Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status, on a mass basis, to illegal immigrants via deferred action and parole. If the Administration is successful, it would be the equivalent of back-door amnesty for millions. For this reason, my bill specifies that an alien may only be paroled or granted deferred action on a case-by-case basis--not en mass--the way these laws were intended to be used. The 287(g) and Secure Communities programs continue to be valuable tools to our law enforcement officials in detaining and deporting criminal aliens. For example, in Fiscal Year 2010, the 287(g) program was responsible for detaining 29,295 criminal aliens. What I don't understand is why some cities would choose to not participate in these effective programs. That is why my proposed legislation would require eligible states, counties, or cities to actively participate in the Secure Communities or 287(g) programs or forego compensation for incarceration expenses. Turning a blind eye to these law enforcement programs poses a serious risk to the public and creates sanctuary cities. When I meet with my constituents, one of their top concerns is how we fix our visa programs. Many are concerned, and with good cause, about how some of these folks are getting into the country. Disturbingly, some visa holders are active participants in organized crime. They come to this country and infiltrate our communities, wreaking havoc in our neighborhoods. In an effort to address this problem, my bill would provide our State Department consular officers the necessary legal authority to deny members of known gangs from coming into our country. It's not acceptable to allow these thugs to slip through the cracks. After 9/11, many areas of our immigration system came under scrutiny. One of the top recommendations for reform to our system is to create an exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. Departure information is vital for determining whether foreign visitors are departing the U.S., maintaining their visa status, and evaluating future visa eligibility for these visitors. Not to mention, the ability to track departures goes to the heart of keeping America safe. Without such exit procedures, however, the task of determining whether an alien has overstayed their visa in the United States is nearly impossible. Since 2004, the Department of Homeland Security has been testing exit programs and departure controls at U.S. airports for visa holders leaving the United States. As recently as July 2009, another pilot program was concluded by the Department of Homeland Security. To date, we still haven't seen any implementation of exit procedures for our country's visitors, nor have we seen any final conclusions made by the Department. It has been over 6 years since the first pilot program concluded. It is time to act. Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a mandatory exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. This should have been done years ago. Additionally, the proposed legislation would eliminate the fraud- laden visa lottery, known as the Diversity Visa program. At present, applicants of the visa lottery program are open to being defrauded by so-called service providers who offer to assist them in obtaining Diversity Visa status. Unlike other immigrant visa categories, this is one of the few visas that allows people to immigrate to the United States without having any connection to the country. In other words, the applicants may not have any family, employment, or even provide an economic tie to the United States. And because of limited availability of verification, the program presents serious national security concerns. Let me be clear: if anyone is a proponent of a diverse nation, one that enjoys the influence of many cultures, it is me. But what we have right now in the visa lottery program does not accomplish the intended goal. After careful consultation with State Department officials, I have been advised that the Diversity Visa program needs serious reform, and some have even called for complete elimination of the program. In light of this guidance, I propose to sunset the Diversity Visa program, unless the State Department recommends to Congress how best to combat fraud and eliminate abuse currently in the program. One of the most heated issues that is continually raised by my constituents, and many across the country, is the impact that illegal aliens are having upon our welfare programs. It came to my attention that Los Angeles County, California, actually tracks this information. Much to my amazement, L.A. County confirms that in 2009 alone, they distributed over $2.4 billion in Federal-State welfare and food stamp programs. Of that amount, $569 million was issued to households that include illegal aliens. Let me reiterate: the illegal alien population in L.A. County received over a half-billion dollars of welfare benefits in one year alone. In order to have an honest discussion about the drain illegal aliens are having upon our welfare systems, we must be armed with state- specific information to understand the extent of this problem. Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and any other appropriate Federal agency, to submit an annual report to Congress outlining the total dollar amount of Federal welfare benefits received by households of illegal aliens for each state and the District of Columbia. The annual report would also include the overall dollar amount each state spends on Federal welfare benefits. Without having this information, we will continue to dismiss the serious economic ramifications to our country's prosperity. We cannot afford to perpetuate this problem any longer. My legislation also includes a provision which revisits the legal immigrant policy included in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, P.L. 111-3. The CHIP Reauthorization law overturned language requiring a 5-year waiting period before legal immigrants may be eligible for federal health coverage. The 5-year waiting period was included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193. As my colleagues will recall, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act required sponsors of legal immigrants to be responsible for individuals' expenses during the first 5 years of residency in our country. States had the option of offering legal immigrants CHIP and Medicaid coverage with State only dollars. In other words, States could not receive Federal matching dollars for covering these legal immigrants. The 2009 CHIP law overturned that policy. Today, States may still cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women who have been in the U.S. less than 5 years. However, the big difference is states now receive Federal matching dollars for covering those individuals. The provision in the bill I am introducing today would permit states to continue receiving federal matching dollars for covering legal immigrant children and legal immigrant pregnant women but two conditions must be met. First, the state must demonstrate that it has covered 90 percent of its U.S. citizen children and pregnant women eligible for CHIP or Medicaid. These individuals' family income may not exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Second, the State must demonstrate that it is not supplanting state dollars which were being used to cover legal immigrants prior to passage of the 2009 CHIP reauthorization law with Federal dollars. Another top concern I regularly hear about is identity theft--that of both adults and children who have to spend a great amount of their time and money to clear their good names and restore their credit history. In 2006, parents of Utah 2-year old Tyler Lybbert realized their daughter's identity had been stolen by 38-year old Jose Tinoco. By the time the Lybberts became aware of the fraud, Mr. Tinoco had already taken out two loans and opened credit cards--saddling Tyler with over $15,000 in debt. Little Tyler was left holding the bag. Fortunately, when Mr. Tinoco tried to obtain a loan from a local Utah bank, an employee spotted the discrepancy and alerted Tyler's parents. Mr. Tinoco was caught, but the Lybberts were left with countless hours of work to correct the fraud perpetrated against their child. This past weekend, the Utah press reported on another identity theft case. A newly married radiology student at Weber State University has been battling to reclaim his identity for the last 15 years. When Cameron Noble was 7 years old his Social Security number was stolen by Mr. Jose Zavala of California--an over 60-year-old man. Noble's parents thought they had corrected the error but when Cameron began working at the age of 16 he started receiving notices that his wages were being garnished to pay child support. The problem has continued to haunt him ever since--in the form of tax withholdings and credit report confusion. He is now nearing the end of the process to obtain a new Social Security number. It is not a secret that many in the illegal immigrant community perpetuate identity theft with stolen or fabricated Social Security numbers, SSN. The identity theft they commit often affects the very young--who may not notice problems for years or decades until they are old enough to apply for their first job, car or school loan, or credit card. As in little Tyler Lybbert's case, why did it take a bank employee to pick up on the theft? Because there is no formal system established to alert SSN holders when potential fraud or improper usage have occurred. The federal agency that is best suited to track the use of mismatched SSN numbers is the Internal Revenue Service, IRS. That is why my bill requires the IRS to send a notice to an employer that an inaccurate SSN has been discovered for an employee. If the employer does not respond to the notice within 60-days to correct the inaccuracy, my legislation will require the IRS to notify the SSN holder or to parents and guardians of a minor, that a discrepancy has been detected and to do the following: if it is an actual mismatch to contact the IRS; if they suspect fraudulent use, the SSN holder is provided with contact information for the FTC and various credit bureaus to report the problem; and finally if no response is received by the SSN holder, the IRS would be required to refer the account number to appropriate Federal agencies for possible investigation. Let me pause here to underscore a point. Currently, the original SSN holder never receives notice when a mismatch has occurred. Quite frankly, I do not have the assurances that the IRS is requiring much of the employer to correct or verify the submission. That is not acceptable. In this day and age, when at a click of a mouse, someone can apply for credit cards, mortgages, or even car loans, there is no excuse why SSN holders are left in the dark. One can only imagine that if this simple notification step was taken in the case of little Tyler Lybbert or the Noble family that years of laborious efforts and countless hours of notifying credit bureaus, banks, and other authorities, could have been greatly reduced if not avoided all together. To make matters more confusing in this area of the law, the Supreme Court has more or less tied the hands of prosecutors in going after these thieves and those who are involved in so-called document mills. The case of Flores-Figueroa v. United States undermined prosecutors' longstanding practice of using the aggravated identity theft statute by requiring them to also prove that a defendant knew that he or she was using a real person's identity information, as opposed to counterfeit information not connected to an actual person. To clarify the Criminal Code and provide our prosecutors with the latitude they need to pursue these cases, my bill makes clear that defendants who possess or otherwise use identity information not their own, without lawful authority, and in the commission of another felony is still punishable for aggravated identity fraud, regardless of the defendants' ``knowledge'' of the victim. Finally, my bill's identity theft would require the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the FTC, and the Commissioner of Social Security to conduct a study to determine the most feasible and cost- effective ways to protect the credit worthiness of individuals, especially that of children. Mexican Cartel drug violence has been placed front and center by the media and members of this body. Some of my fellow colleagues have called for more resources directed to this problem. As additional federal law enforcement personnel and military units continue to be deployed to the southwest border the focus has been on weapons, drug interdiction and bulk cash smuggling. While I recognize the importance of these border enforcement activities, too little attention is being paid to outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations is causing increasing environmental damage, especially on publicly owned lands. From 2004-2009 more than 11 million marijuana plants have been eradicated from federal public lands. Outdoor marijuana cultivation is the chief source of revenue for Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Growing marijuana in the U.S. saves traffickers the risk and expense of smuggling their product across the border and allows gangs to produce their crops closer to local markets. Illegal alien workers are smuggled in from Mexico to serve as laborers and provide security to the grow plots. Mexican gang plots can often be distinguished from those of domestic-based growers based on their plant volume and security measures. Many of the plots are encircled with crude explosives and are patrolled by armed illegal aliens providing security for the crop. In my home State of Utah, the Drug Enforcement Administration and local law enforcement have seized more than 110,000 marijuana plants this year. Each plant can yield one pound of marijuana with a street value of $1,000. These remote plots were on federal land and nestled under the cover in a national forest or hidden high in the rugged-yet- fertile tracts of federal land. All of the sites were far from the eyes of law enforcement, where growers can take the time needed to grow far more potent marijuana. Growers of these fields have even created irrigation systems to disrupt or divert water sources. They even use illegal fertilizers that damage the environment and the local eco- system. In one recent incident in Garfield County, Utah an illegal alien grow worker was armed with a shotgun and confronted six teenage girls who inadvertently hiked into the marijuana field. The worker brandished a shotgun and demanded to use their cell phone. Fortunately, the group of girls were able to run away from this armed man and prevented what could have been a very tragic outcome. The girls were quite traumatized and reported the incident to local police. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the local authorities apprehended the man a short time later. So far this year in Utah, as a result of joint investigative efforts between Federal, State and local law enforcement, 20 arrests have been made in connection with the outdoor cultivation of marijuana on Federal lands. Out of the 20 arrests made, 19 were illegal aliens. This is not a problem that is unique to Utah. Other States with substantial federal lands are also seeing a spike in marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations, including Colorado, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Michigan. It is for this reason why my legislation would provide tougher penalties for cultivating marijuana on federal lands and destroying the environment. Provisions of this legislation would also require the Office of National Drug Control Policy to formulate a comprehensive and coordinated action plan to address marijuana cultivation on Federal lands. This plan will be a broad strategic approach to disrupt Mexican drug trafficking organizations' central source of revenue and a key reason for organized alien smuggling. The fight to control the border is no longer isolated to just the physical boundary between the United States and Mexico. Securing the border now means 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. Let me conclude by saying this bill represents key issues that are important to my Utah constituents and Americans across the country. They are common sense solutions to strengthen our commitment to legal immigration and American's security. I urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and support this bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3919, an act to remove Endangered Species Act, ESA, protections for gray wolves. Delisting of this species is long overdue. Gray wolves are listed as endangered under the ESA in the United States, except in Minnesota where they are listed as threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed ESA protection from these wolves in 2009, but subsequently reinstated protection under a court decision following a lawsuit. Legislative action is the only solution to stop the endless cycle of litigation and return the sovereign ability of states to manage their wildlife. Gray wolves are the iconic species of the ESA. But we cannot let the preconceived and inaccurate perceptions surrounding this animal prevent us from doing our due diligence in providing protections and safeguards for other species including elk, deer, moose, and big horn sheep. With a population growth rate of 24 percent, gray wolf overpopulation is now doing significant damage to wildlife populations throughout the West and Midwest. Gray wolf predation is erasing decades of effort and hundreds of millions invested in rebuilding healthy big game populations. Wolves do not know or care where recovery plan lines are drawn. They will roam wherever necessary to find adequate food and habitat. Research indicates that wolf and ungulate populations are generally inversely proportional and cyclical over relatively long periods of time. Ill-advised experimentation and anti-management philosophy continues to be pushed by extreme animal rights and anti-sportsmen special interest groups. This war on the west threatens big game herds, proactive State wildlife management, use of renewable wildlife resources, and the western way of life. This bill, while viewed with suspicion and opposed with philosophical arguments by some environmental organizations, ensures that delicate wildlife populations are restored to healthy levels. When Congress passed the ESA, it envisioned legislation to make certain that species would not become extinct. The key to success of the new law was finding a way to conserve and protect species truly in danger of becoming extinct. The gray wolf is not endangered as a species. There are thousands alive and well in North America. The ESA has become a vehicle by which some organizations and individuals seek to halt all activities on our public lands which they happen to oppose. I would submit to you that such use of the ESA was not envisioned nor would it have been condoned by a majority of those who originally crafted the law. Some groups want to use the gray wolf as a surrogate for other agendas. Others have used it to raise a lot of money from citizens of this country truly concerned about the place of the wolf in our environment. Still others have used it for political purposes. What a shame that the laws of this great Nation can be subverted for purposes other than the reason the law was originally written. The gray wolf has been protected by the ESA since 1973, the year the ESA was passed. The single exception to that classification is in the State of Minnesota where they are classified as threatened. The original recovery plan for the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies was written in 1974. The main States involved are owned largely by the Federal Government. Thirty percent of Montana, 50 percent of Wyoming, and 64 percent of Idaho is federally owned. Access to and use of the public lands and resources on them has a great deal to do with the economy of these sparsely populated States. When the economy suffers, so do these communities and these people. The working men and women of our States have no alternative but to rely on continued access to and the use of grass, water, timber, and minerals from public lands to support their families. Those working people have mortgages to pay just like you and I; they have bills that are due each month; and they want to be able to feed and clothe their children just as you and I do. We must recognize the legitimate concerns of the hundreds of honest, hardworking citizens who are being directly affected by the continued listing of the gray wolf on the ESA. In my opinion, we have a responsibility to protect their right to make an honest living and to live the lifestyle they have chosen. I hope my colleagues will join me in this attempt to resolve this important issue.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 3751, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010 which reauthorizes the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005--P.L. 109-129--through the end of 2015. I am also grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed, Ensign, Franken and Coburn have joined me as sponsors of this bipartisan bill, which was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week. S. 3751, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act, reauthorizes the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program--the Program--and the National Cord Blood Inventory program--NCBI. These programs maintain donor registries for individuals in need of bone marrow and umbilical cord blood transplants. Today, more than eight million Americans are registered bone marrow donors, and in the 5 years since NCBI was established, more than 28,600 cord blood units have been collected. Cord blood transplantation accounts for over 40 percent of all transplants in the country. I believe it is important for Senators to understand the specifics of S. 3751. Our bill reauthorizes the program through the end of Fiscal Year 2015. The authorization levels for the Program are $30 million from FY11 through FY14 and $33 million in FY15. The NCBI authorization levels are $23 million from FY11 through FY14 and $20 million in FY15. The total authorization level for both programs combined is $53 million annually, which is the same authorization level included in the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. Our bill calls for the collection and maintenance of at least 150,000 high-quality cord blood units. In order to collect high-quality and diverse units, the Health Resources and Services Administration--HRSA-- contracts with cord blood banks to collect and maintain umbilical cord blood units for the national inventory. To achieve the goal of collecting at least 150,000 units, S. 3751 requires cord blood banks to provide a strategic plan to increase collection, assist with the creation of new collection sites, or contract with new collection sites when first applying for a contract or extending an existing contract. S. 3751 also requires cord blood banks to submit an annual plan for achieving self-sufficiency and demonstrates on-going measurable progress toward achieving self-sufficiency of cord blood collection and banking operations. The bill also extends the duration of a contract from 3 to 5 years and allows cord blood units to remain part of the national inventory for at least 10 years. Additionally, S. 3751 redefines the term ``first-degree relative'' as a sibling of an individual requiring a transplant. Children are not a match for parents in need of a cord blood transplant, as the original law suggested. The bill also aligns the privacy protections provided to bone marrow donors and patients with umbilical cord blood donors and transplant patients. The legislation encourages the Program to support studies and demonstration projects to increase cord blood donation and collection. More specifically, S. 3751 directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services--HHS, acting though the HRSA Administrator, to submit to Congress an annual report on the National Program's activities including novel approaches for increasing cord blood unit donation and collection. The HHS Secretary also is directed to set an annual goal of increasing collections of high-quality and diverse cord blood units through remote collection or other approaches. In addition, S. 3751 directs the HHS Secretary to identify at least one of these approaches to replicate and expand across the country. If a project is not identified, the HHS Secretary shall submit a plan for expanding remote collection of high-quality and diverse cord blood units. S. 3751 requires the HHS Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Council, to submit to Congress an interim report within 6 months after enactment, describing existing methods used to distribute Federal funds to cord blood banks. The report also would explain how cord blood banks contract with cord blood unit collection sites and recommend how these methods may be improved in order to encourage efficient collection of high-quality and diverse cord blood units. Our legislation also requires the Advisory Council to submit recommendations to the HHS Secretary 1 year after enactment on whether remote models for cord blood unit collection should be allowed with only limited, scientifically justified safety protections. The Advisory Council would also make recommendations on whether HHS should allow for cord blood unit collection from routine deliveries without temperature or humidity monitoring of delivery rooms in hospitals approved by the Joint Commission. Finally, S. 3751 requires the Government Accountability Office--GAO-- to study existing cord blood donation and collection methods and the barriers responsible for limiting donation and collection. GAO also would analyze the methods used to distribute funds to cord blood banks and novel approaches to grow the NCBI. S. 3751 proves that contrary to popular belief, bipartisanship still exists in the United States Congress. The original Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act passed Congress unanimously and became law--P.L 109-129--on December 20, 2005. This law offered a unique opportunity to assist those suffering from a serious illness requiring cord blood or bone marrow transplants. In 2005, our goal was to increase the number of bone marrow and cord blood donors to meet our goal of 150,000 high-quality and diverse cord blood units. Today, our goal remains the same except we are encouraging the collection of at least 150,000 units. The sponsors of this legislation want to do everything in our power to provide patients with the best transplant options and signing this legislation into law is how we achieve this second goal. Transplant patients and their families deserve nothing less. S. 3751 is supported by the following organizations: American Society of Bone Marrow Transplant, Aplastic Anemia and MDS Society, Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Colorado Cord Blood Bank, Duke University Cord Blood Bank, Intermountain Primary Children's Hospital, Jeff Gordon Foundation, Leukemia and Lymphoma Foundation, LifeCord Cord Blood Bank, National Marrow Donor Program, Nevada Cancer Institute, New Jersey Cord Blood Bank, New York Blood Center Cord Blood Bank, Rhode Island Blood Center, St. Louis Cord Blood Bank, StemCyte International Cord Blood Bank, University of Utah's Cell Therapy Facility, Villanova football head coach Andy Talley, and Yale University Hospital. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the section by section analysis of S. 3751.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce Senate Resolution 646, also known as Feed America Day. Feed America Day began in 2002 as a small effort in Provo, UT. From that small beginning, the campaign has received support from over 1,100 large and small cities. This includes over 60 cities that have responded with proclamations, covering a population exceeding seven million. This eighth year of promoting Feed America Day is held on the Thursday immediately preceding Thanksgiving Day. On that day, each person is encouraged to fast two meals and then to contribute to a food bank, church, or charity the equivalent dollar amount saved. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has reported that 35 million Americans, including 12 million children, live in homes that do not have an adequate supply of food. This resolution recalls that selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of thanksgiving, both affirming and restoring fundamental principles in our society. In that spirit, I encourage individuals and families to remember to help those in need one week before Thanksgiving.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank both my colleagues. It has become customary to expect pendulum swings in labor law each time the White House changes hands and appoints new government officials to lead the Federal executive branch and independent agencies. Sometimes the law changes every 4 years, depending on who is sitting at the NLRB, Department of Labor, OSHA, EEOC, and so on. One year a particular issue might favor labor, and 4 years later the very same issue might favor management. By analogy, at the NLRB, for example, 1 year graduate school teaching assistants are students not covered by the National Labor Relations Act. The next year they are deemed to be employees covered by the act. Then shortly thereafter, they are once again deemed to be students. Soon we may learn they will once again be employees. The same is true with regard to the definition of ``supervisors'' excluded from the National Labor Relations Act. One would think that after 75 years, the NLRB would be able to define who is and who is not a supervisor. Instead, the law changes as the political pendulum swings. What has actually changed other than the people confirmed by the Senate to make the decisions, to call the shots? Without any evidence of changed circumstances in the workplace or relieving the agency's own administrative burden--in fact, without any evident rationale--the only apparent reason for the changes in the NMB's representation election process is in the people who call the shots. Obviously, this is not the way to promote stability in labor relations and employment law. It makes it difficult for employers, employees, unions, and the lawyers counseling them to ever be assured what the law is in any given area or any given time. Mercifully, for some issues and at some agencies, it does not work that way. Until recently, that could be said for the National Mediation Board and the process by which it conducted union representation elections. For 75 years, the procedure which has been applied consistently by the NMB for conducting union representation elections has been the same. Boards appointed by Democratic Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton have agreed that the process through which labor organizations obtain certification as the representative of a majority of the craft or class is the cornerstone of stable labor relations in the air and rail industries. That has been the law for 75 years. In fact, the NMB appointed by President Carter unanimously ruled that it did not have authority to administratively change the form of the NMB's ballot used in representation elections and that such a change, if appropriate, could only be made by Congress. That is until now. The new members of the NMB, after assuring this Senate under oath at their confirmation hearings that they had no plans to reverse precedent, after only months on the job, reversed the NMB's longest standing precedent. By rule, the NMB now certifies representatives elected by a minority of the craft or class so long as they constitute a majority of those voting. This is not just a minor change, this change destabilizes the cornerstone of stable labor relations under the Railway Labor Act and 75 years of NMB precedent which was consistent with the plain statutory language and congressional intent. Here is how it is destabilizing. First, the former law which required election of a representative by a majority of the craft or class quelled any doubts about the authority of the selected representative. The new procedure will do nothing but foment dissent. Second, the former certification procedure facilitated the process for employees and their representative to work cohesively toward negotiating and maintaining agreements with an air or rail carrier. The carrier knew the majority of the entire craft or class supported the union, not simply a majority of those voting. This gave the representative more standing. The new procedure will undermine the representative's authority. Third, the former certification procedure discouraged raids by rival unions and interunion conflicts. The new procedure will encourage such raids. Fourth, the former certification process recognized the reality in the air and rail industries that, unlike the National Labor Relations Act, negotiations for collective bargaining agreements cover a broad craft or class of employees spread over multiple, geographic locations. Therefore, there is a strong need to demonstrate majority support across those geographic locations, not as the current procedure, smaller units of employees. So, if anything, the new rules are destabilizing rather than promoting greater stability. The result ignores the clear congressional statutory mandate to maintain stability in the air and rail industries. I repeat, after assuring us they would not do so, the new NMB members overruled 75 years of precedent which had been consistent through both Democratic and Republican administrations. And how did they do it? It certainly speaks volumes that the rule was developed without the input or participation of the sole Republican member of the three-member NMB, former Chair Elizabeth Dougherty, who was notified of the existence of a proposed rule late one morning and given 24 hours to review the rule and draft a dissent--24 hours to comment on a rule that scraps a precedent which had existed for 75 years and which is likely to discombobulate two great industries. I thought this form of arrogant, rushed, exclusionary rulemaking only exists in Congress when the majority wants to steamroll legislation. Finally, while changing the rules for certification of a labor representative, the NMB flatly refused to even consider the democratic procedure of decertifying the labor representative should the employees so freely and independently choose. Now, I have heard of ``one man, one vote,'' but ignoring the right of the employees to decertify a union is more like ``one man, one vote, one time.'' How can you have a democratic process where a minority of employees can vote a union in without having a mirror process allowing the majority of employees to be able to vote the union out if a majority of employees become dissatisfied with their representation? Today, we should stand up and say no--no, you cannot tell us one thing in confirmation hearings and courtesy visits and then do exactly the opposite on the job. We should exercise our voting rights in the Senate under the Congressional Review Act to review this outrageous NMB rule which benefits only one group--labor unions--not employees, certainly not employers, and not the public. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for S. 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, as introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Over the years, Senator Leahy and I have tackled some of the most complex issues related to intellectual property enforcement. With the introduction of today's bill, we narrow our focus on the pervasive practice of online piracy and counterfeiting. In our global economy the Internet has become the glue of international commerce--connecting consumers with a wide-array of products and services worldwide. But it has also become a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods. These online thieves are making hundreds of millions of dollars by luring consumers to what appear to be legitimate websites, where unauthorized downloads, streaming or downloaded copyrighted content and counterfeit goods are sold. Not only do these websites facilitate massive theft of American IP, but they undermine legitimate commerce. We cannot afford to not act, especially when, by some estimates, IP accounts for a third of the market value of all U.S. stocks-- approximately five trillion dollars or more. That accounts for more than 40 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, and is greater than the entire GDP of any other nation in the world. Utah is considered a very popular state for film and television production activity. Nothing compares to the red rock of Southern Utah or the sweeping grandeur of the Wasatch Mountains. Not to mention Utah's workforce is one of the most highly educated and hardworking around. It is estimated that the motion picture and television industries are responsible for over 6,930 direct jobs and $180.8 million in wages in Utah. That is why we must combat online piracy and counterfeiting, for they threaten the vitality of the U.S. economy and its workforce. Just recently the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus, on which I serve as cochairman, introduced the 2010 International Piracy Watch List, a report of those nations where copyright piracy has reached alarming levels. For the first time the Caucus also highlighted the problem of websites that provide unauthorized access to copyrighted works made by U.S. creators. The websites singled out were China's Baidu, Canada's isoHunt, Ukraine's MP3fiesta, Sweden's Pirate Bay, Germany's Rapidshare and Luxembourg's RMX4U. This is a sobering reminder of just how organized and sophisticated these websites have become in perpetrating online criminal activity. There is no quick fix to this problem, unfortunately. But one thing is for certain: doing nothing is not an option. We must explore ways, albeit in incremental steps, to take down offending websites. For this reason, I believe the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act is a critical step forward in our ongoing fight against online piracy and counterfeiting. If enacted, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act would provide the Department of Justice, DOJ, an expedited process for cracking down on websites that traffic in pirated goods or services. The bill would also authorize the DOJ to file an in rem civil action against a domain name, and seek a preliminary order from the court that the domain name is being used to sell infringing material. If this legislation is enacted, the DOJ will be required to publish notice of the action promptly after filing, and it would have to demonstrate that the owners of the site engaged in substantial and repeated online piracy or counterfeiting. The bill also includes substantial safeguards to prevent abuse by the DOJ. For example, a Federal court would have the final say as to whether a particular site would be cut off from supportive services. In addition, the bill would allow owners or site operators to petition the court to lift the order. I am pleased with the progress that we have made so far on this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements as it moves through the legislative process. We must take steps to combat those websites that are profiting from stolen American intellectual property.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague from Iowa. I appreciate his leadership on the Finance Committee and the good work he has done over all of these years. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following motion to commit, which is at the desk with instructions to H.R. 5297. I move to commit H.R. 5297 to the Committee on Finance with instructions to report the same back to the Senate with changes to include a permanent extension of the research tax credit. This motion is a simple one. It is a motion to suspend the rules to allow for the consideration of the motion to commit the bill before us to the Finance Committee, from which both Senator Grassley and I sit, with the specific instruction to add to the bill a permanent research tax credit. It is a simple motion, but I believe it is a significant moment. The American people understand that there is a desperate need for jobs and growth, and they have heard that Washington is partisan, broken, and unable to respond to their genuine needs. Just last week they heard that President Obama proposed a permanent research credit as an additional step ``to grow the economy and help businesses spur hiring.'' Well, we can address all three with my simple motion: Make the research credit permanent, do it in a bipartisan spirit, and give job creation the jump start it badly needs. It seems like a pretty good idea to me, but the track record so far is very disappointing. Making the credit permanent is exactly what Senator Baucus, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, and I proposed to do in the bill we introduced last year. We have been introducing this same idea for many years now. Yet the Senate does not seem to be able to do anything more than extend the credit on a very temporary basis. In recent weeks, I have been trying to add a research credit extension to the small business lending bill that is before us today. Unfortunately, my efforts have been in vain because the leader has filled the amendment tree, and I have not had the opportunity to offer such an amendment to this bill. Frankly, the way this Senate has been run, there has been very much to criticize. This is supposed to be the most important deliberative body in the world. Yet almost every bill that has any controversy to it at all, they bring it to the floor, fill up the tree, forbid the minority to have any chance to have any amendments, and in the process stultify the legislation. It is easy to see why adding a research tax credit incentive to this bill is a high priority. Obviously, President Obama thinks it should have a high priority. He was very specific last week in making it clear that this is a step we should take to grow the economy and to help businesses spur hiring, bringing people onboard to work. Here we have a small business tax bill that has been proposed by the majority party. Yet it does not include a very important provision that has long enjoyed bipartisan support by most Members of the Senate. Now we have the President of the United States specifically calling for this provision to be enacted to grow the economy and help businesses spur hiring, for which I give him great credit. This, too, I believe is the underlying purpose of this small business bill. What is strange is my pleadings for this provision to be added to this bill have so far fallen on deaf ears. Therefore, I have had to resort to this procedural motion to suspend the rules in order for this provision to be added to the bill. Since the parliamentary tree is tied up and we do not even have a chance for amendments, I could not bring it up as an amendment other than this way. I would have thought this would have been unnecessary. After last week's proposal by the President, I would have expected that Members of his own party might have acted to include the research credit extension on the first possible legislative vehicle. This bill is that vehicle. But, no, this bill is moving forward toward passage in the Senate with nary a word from the majority about the provision the President proposed last week. He said it was important. He wants it. It is something we ought to do. Above all, it would be bipartisan, one of the few things we have been able to do in a bipartisan way since this administration took over. Perhaps most of my colleagues on the other side were on the beach and away from the television and the newspapers and did not see or know about the President's call for a permanent research credit. For those of my colleagues who might not have heard about the President's call for a permanent research credit, let me share a couple of facts that he, our President, put forward. He said a permanent extension of the research credit is ``a win-win-- encouraging job growth and investment now that will pay off with stronger economic growth in the future.'' Again, I could not agree more with the President. President Obama also said economic growth is the single best way to bring down the deficit. There are some things our President says that make a terrific amount of sense. This is one of them because this bill before us today is supposed to be all about job creation and growing the economy. Because the President has renewed his call for a permanent extension of the very important research credit, it seems to me this motion would be unnecessary. I would have thought, as I said before, that the leadership would have taken care of adding this item to this bill. I think most everyone will agree that this might very well be the only tax bill that even has a remote chance of passage and enactment before the election next month. Surely the majority leader does not plan to simply ignore the President's call for passing a permanent extension of the research credit. Well, since he either forgot to add this priority or decided to ignore the President, I am offering this motion as a way to remind him and a way to allow it to happen before this bill comes up for a final vote. I urge all of my colleagues to consider the implications of this country dropping to a second tier industrial power. Our economy has been, both short term and long term, filled with problems. In the short run, we are not producing the number of new jobs we need. Our economy is not growing nearly as rapidly as we would all like. It is not generating nearly enough moneys or enough revenue to the Treasury. In the longer run, we are facing some severe competitiveness issues with our U.S. firms in competition with foreign firms. The Federal Government has, unfortunately, saddled them with the high taxation, more onerous regulations, and an unfriendly business climate. We have the second highest corporate taxes in the world. In the high-technology area, along with other sectors of our economy that are even more global in nature, we have even more difficult challenges. Our international tax rules are very inhospitable to U.S.- based firms. This is one of the reasons the United States no longer dominates the list of having the largest companies in the world. In fact, in 1980, of the 50 largest companies in the world, we had 39 of them headquartered in the United States. Today we have just 16. It is because of these stupid rules that have been put in place, these stupid tax approaches that we must change if we want to do something about jobs in our society today. One particular danger is that many of our trading partners have enacted very generous tax incentives in an attempt to lure away research and development from our country to theirs. There was a time not very long ago when the United States was considered the only real place in the world where companies wanted to conduct their research and development. We had the best research scientists and the best facilities in the world. That time is no more. We can no longer make this boast. Many other places offer world-class facilities and scientists just as well trained and experienced as ours, many of whom have been trained right here, and we push them out of our country because we will not expand our H1B immigration rules. Talk about stupidity. Now they also offer tax incentives to companies that are far superior to our country's tax incentives for our companies and for companies overseas. In fact, at this time we can offer no tax incentives for U.S. research and development because the credit expired last December. The research tax credit is a provision that has been in the tax law since 1981. It has been extended by Congress more than a dozen times. This credit has wide and deep bipartisan support in this body as has been demonstrated numerous times. More importantly, however, is the fact that the research tax credit is a vital incentive to business enterprises of all sizes in this Nation. In my home State of Utah, there are hundreds of small high-technology companies, companies and firms, that spend a high percentage of their revenue on research and development. In fact, Utah has more than 5,000 technology companies. Every State wants to attract companies such as these because their jobs are generally better paying private sector jobs than most private sector jobs. On average, high-tech jobs pay 69 percent more. This R&D is vital to the future survival of these firms. No high-tech company can afford to ignore research that wants to be around next year or maybe even in the next quarter. The research credit is, in my thinking, the most urgent and important to our economy, our competitiveness, and to those hundreds of smaller high-technology companies in Utah. We have before us on the Senate floor a small business bill. This bill is designed to strengthen our small businesses, which most of us acknowledge comprise the strongest component of our job creation engine in this economy to help them to do what they obviously are not doing very well at this time, and that is to grow and bring on more new workers. The tax portion of this small business lending bill is a good package that I support. I think we do need to pass the tax provisions in the bill before us. However, it would be a grave mistake for us to think this is all we need to do to solve job-creation problems in our economy--far from it. We should be adding many provisions to this small business tax bill. These include the extension of the tax relief provisions passed in 2001 and 2003. That tax relief is important. However, since that is the subject of an intense partisan debate in the Senate right now, it does not seem possible. It seems reasonable, however, that we could all agree to add the most prominent tax provision the President is calling for--a bipartisan provision, the research and development tax credit-- and make it permanent. It has wide and deep support on both sides of the aisle, here and in the House. Republicans are saying yes to the President on this. It is the members of his own party who seem to be saying no, even though I think most of them will vote for this if it has a chance to be heard and voted upon. As Congress tries to address the job situation, we need to keep in mind that one of the best things we can do to retain and create good jobs in the United States is to incentivize research activities. One of the best ways of doing this is to ensure we have an effective tax policy to keep research here in our own country. Unfortunately, many of our trading partners now have strong tax inducements for companies to perform research overseas. Research and development jobs are high- paying, and they are very desirable jobs. Moreover, R&D very often leads to other kinds of economic development and the creation of even more jobs. We simply cannot afford to lose our lead in research by not keeping the United States as the premier location in the world for research and development. Having a robust research credit is key to this. The President understands it is the key. I surely hope my colleagues will wake up and help make this happen before it is too late and we have to work to get back what once was ours. My understanding is that some might go along with this, but they want to increase taxes on oil and gas. They also want to do some other very obnoxious things that would be difficult for which to get bipartisan support. We know that business in this country is having a very difficult time right now. My understanding is that they may want to add a carried interest provision, which would probably put a lot of venture capital funds out of business and would drive a lot of people out of business and maybe into bankruptcy. We simply cannot support that. We can support--and I think we would have almost 100 percent of the votes here in the Senate--the research tax credit. I believe it would show great bipartisanship at a time when it is needed. I think it would even benefit our Democratic colleagues to work with us on this. But there are things in this underlying bill that really are very difficult to vote for--one part of it is, in the eyes of many, a new mini-TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. We have seen how bad the last one worked. I hate to see us go further down that path when we could, in a bipartisan way, resolve these problems. Last spring, four of us on the Finance Committee worked out an extenders package. We worked diligently together. We agreed on how it should be done. It was bipartisan in nature. I believe my friends on the other side initially agreed to it because it would have gotten at least 95 votes in the Senate. It could have been done early enough to create a lot of jobs this year. Then all of a sudden it became a partisan exercise again. Time after time, if the Democrats can get one Republican to go with them, they call it bipartisan. I guess one could say that, but that is really stretching the term bipartisanship, especially when I think we could have had virtually 100 percent, or at least 95 votes for the extenders package we had worked out. It is amazing to me how difficult it is to work together around here, especially when we want to and especially when we can come up with programs and legislation to which virtually everybody in this body would agree. It is almost like an arrogance of power: We are just going to teach those Republicans that we are not going to do what they think is good. I hesitate to say it, but I think that had we had more bipartisanship around here over the last year and a half, we would be a lot further along. This economy would be back in a much stronger way, and there would have been a lot of jobs created. If we are just going to keep playing partisan games on these very important bills on which we should all agree, then it stultifies jobs and the economy. I think it makes this administration look bad. In the process, it creates a lot of angst and anger throughout the whole country. We would have had this done; it would have been done early this year had it not been for partisanship, in my opinion. There are things to be partisan about. There are things on which both sides disagree vociferously. That is the way this body works. We should go after each other on these matters. But there are some things on which we can all agree. When the President comes out and says we need a permanent research tax credit, after all of the difficulties we have had, one would think our colleagues on the other side would grab Republicans and run with it. We could get it done, as we have always done in the past. There is no certainty with the current research tax credit, or the one that expired last year. Companies cannot plan for the future because we have to reinstate this all the time. Sometimes it is late, and even if we make it retroactive, it is not as helpful as it would be. Making it permanent would be a tremendous boost to scientific companies in this country and all other companies where innovation can occur. We have seen great results from the research and development tax credit.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this is a motion to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering a motion to commit. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I reserve the right to object, and I will object, because this side wants an open amendment process. We are tired of every time a bill comes to the floor in the greatest deliberative body in the world, they tie up the parliamentary tree so we can't have honest amendments. Secondly, the approach of my dear friend and colleague, whom I have worked with all of these years on the research tax credit, is not permanent and would not make it permanent, which is what the President has asked for. I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, last week President Obama called for a permanent research tax credit. We have always extended this tax credit. We failed last December to do it on time. Therefore, we are without it. We are without the jobs that would be created by it. I think it was a terrific move by the President to come out for a permanent research tax credit, and we ought to swiftly move to add it to this particular bill. The only way I can do that, because of the tying up of the tree-- which is happening all too often around here--is by a motion to suspend the rules. This bill is a bill to create jobs. At least that is what it is supposed to be. But the research tax credit would do the most to instantaneously create jobs, and these are high-paying jobs. The only way we can get it is to vote for this motion to suspend. If we do, I think we would have 95 votes--a bipartisan vote--for this particular amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the motion.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend rule XXII, paragraph 2, for the purpose of proposing and considering the following: Mr. Hatch moves to commit H.R. 5297 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to report the same back to the Senate with changes to make permanent the research credit under section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the enactment of legislation that created real estate investment trusts, REITs. The development of real estate investment trusts is among the true success stories of American business. Moreover, REITs legislation enacted over the past 50 years presents a remarkable example of how Congress can create the legal framework to liberate entrepreneurs, small investors, and men and women across the country to do what they do best--create wealth and, more importantly, build thriving communities. When REITs were first created in 1960, small investors had almost no role in commercial real estate ventures. At that time, private partnerships and other groups closed to ordinary investors directed real estate investments, typically using debt, not equity, to finance their ventures. That model not only served small investors poorly, it resulted in the misallocation of capital, and contributed to significant market volatility. Since that time, REITs have permitted small investors to participate in one of our country's greatest generators of wealth--income-producing real estate--and REITs have greatly improved real estate markets by promoting transparency, liquidity, and stability. The growth in REITs has been particularly dramatic and beneficial in the past 15 years, as capital markets responded to a series of changes in the tax rules that modernized the original 1960 REIT legislation to adjust it to new realities of the marketplace. Equity REITs have outperformed the major U.S. equity market benchmarks for all multi-year periods over the past 35 years, as well as over the entire 38-year period since the inception of the U.S. REIT indexes. I am proud of my role in sponsoring legislation that included many of these changes that modernized the REIT rules, and I remain committed to making every effort to ensure that the people of Utah and across our Nation continue to benefit from a dynamic and innovative REIT sector. I have seen firsthand what REITs have done for communities across my State of Utah. It is very much in Utah's interests, and in our country's interests, to make sure that REITs continue to work effectively and efficiently to carry out the mission which Congress intended.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I speak today, along with my colleague, Senator Bob Bennett, in recognition of ``National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week''. Senator Herb Kohl and I introduced S. Res. 592 on July 22 to designate September 13-19, 2010, as the National PKD Awareness Week for 2010, and Senator Bennett was a cosponsor of the resolution. S. Res. 592 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on July 29, 2010. I thank my colleagues for their support. Polycystic kidney disease, also known as PKD, is a life-threatening, genetic disease affecting more than 600,000 adults and children in the United States and 12.5 million people worldwide. In fact, PKD is one of the top three most prevalent life-threatening genetic diseases in the world. It is, in fact, one of the most deadly diseases of which you have likely never heard. To help put it into perspective, more people have been diagnosed with PKD than have been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, muscular dystrophy, Down's syndrome, and Huntington's disease combined. However, these diseases are much more well-known than PKD. I take particular interest in PKD because so many Utahns suffer from the disease. According to the PKD Foundation, approximately 5,000 Utahns have been diagnosed with PKD and end stage renal disease--ESRD--instances in Utah are almost three times the national average. Polycystic kidney disease often goes unnoticed due to the fact there are no telltale symptoms in the early stages of the disease. Many people who have PKD are not diagnosed until the disease has already affected other organs. More than half of individuals diagnosed will reach end-stage renal failure and require dialysis or a kidney transplant in order to survive. When a kidney has been affected by PKD, fluid-filled cysts develop on the kidney. These cysts can range in size from that of a pinhead to the size of a grapefruit. The size and weight of each cystic kidney can grow to that of a football or basketball and weigh as much as 38 pounds. Other diseases and symptoms may show up as the disease progresses and, unfortunately, this is often how PKD is diagnosed. Examples of such symptoms are urinary tract infections, hypertension, kidney stones, high blood pressure, potentially fatal heart diseases, and aneurysms. There are two forms of polycystic kidney disease: autosomal dominant PKD and autosomal recessive PKD. Autosomal dominant PKD is more serious and it affects one in every 500 people and is commonly diagnosed in adulthood. Every child born to an affected parent has a 50 percent chance of inheriting the disease themselves. The other form, autosomal recessive PKD, also called ARPKD, is diagnosed in children. Approximately 30 percent of the infants diagnosed with ARPKD will die within the first month of life; and of the 70 percent who survive infancy, one-third will require a kidney transplant by the very young age of 10. As of today, there is no cure or treatment for PKD. There are ways to alleviate pain, and a healthy lifestyle can delay kidney failure; however, the only way to effectively stop the symptoms is by kidney transplant. Unfortunately, many who are waiting for a transplant will not survive long enough to receive it. Aside from the debilitating nature of the disease, the costs associated with PKD are staggering. The current estimation of what PKD costs Federal health care programs annually is at least $2 billion. This can be broken down as: $78,000 per year, per patient, for dialysis; $100,000-$150,000 per kidney transplant; and $15,000-$20,000 per year, per patient, for post-transplant immunosuppressive drugs. It is clear that PKD is a very serious disease that should be receiving more attention. As we increase our understanding and awareness of PKD, we also increase our ability to find treatments and eventually, a cure for this disease; and that is why I am proud to have helped designate this week as ``National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week''.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act. For years I have been supportive of moving this legislation forward. It not only underscores the importance of the fashion design industry to our economy but will ensure that new and innovative fashion designs are afforded proper copyright protection. Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked on a whole host of intellectual property-related initiatives. There is no doubt that legislating in this area is difficult. It is necessary, however, to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy and to continue our country's leadership in global innovation. Make no mistake about it: piracy and counterfeiting are the new face of economic crime around the world, far exceeding traditional property crimes. These crimes are the very antitheses of creativity--crippling growth and stifling innovation in their wake. Last Congress I worked closely with my Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues and others in passing the PRO-IP Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 13, 2008. There is no doubt the PRO-IP bill will ensure that resources are available to enforce intellectual property laws and coordinate the government's intellectual property policies. Yet there are no laws prohibiting design piracy. Currently, original designs are copied and the apparel is manufactured in countries with cheap labor, typically in mainland China, Hong Kong, Pakistan, and Singapore. The garments are then shipped into the U.S. to directly compete with the garments of the original designer, sometimes before the originals have even hit the market. As a result, the U.S. apparel industry continues to lose billions of dollars to counterfeiting each year. We must ensure that all property rights, including fashion designs, are protected both here and abroad. Counterfeiting and piracy sap our country's economic strength. Plain and simple, when a company loses revenues to piracy or counterfeited goods, it does not have those resources to reinvest into making more of its goods. And that means lost jobs. This domino effect ensnares all within its reach. These crimes not only affect the individual company, but they also adversely affect the companies that would have contributed to or benefitted from the unmade goods. Suppliers of raw materials and components as well as shippers, distributors, and retailers, all take the hit. In my home State of Utah, I am mindful of the designers who make a meaningful contribution to the fashion industry. Utah designers like Nappi, Modurrn, and CherellaUSA are committed to quality and original clothing lines. These designers, and many more across the Nation, must know that after spending their time and money in developing new and unique fashion designs, their works are protected from infringers. They should be able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work. The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act represents a true compromise. The proposed legislation is the product of an intensive year of negotiations with interested stakeholders. Among other things, the compromise language provides protection to truly unique fashion designs. In order to be considered an infringing design, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a design copy is ``substantially identical.'' I am pleased with the progress that has already been made on the bill and look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Reduce and Cap the Federal Workforce Act. This is a simple straightforward bill that would reduce the number of civilian federal employees--excluding those serving in the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security--to the pre-2009 numbers in each government agency through attrition. Once this reduced number is reached, then each agency would cap the number of employees at that level. Each hire would then have to be offset by another employee leaving that agency. It is not hard to locate illustrations where the Federal Government is growing at an exceptionally fast pace. Looking at the number of Government employees as a percentage of America's population, one easily sees how we have increased the size of the government. In 1815, the total population in America was 8.3 million people, yet there were only 4,837 Federal Government employees. That represents nearly \1/20\ of 1 percent of Americans who were Federal employees. From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million. The Obama administration says the Government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year serving roughly 310 million Americans. That is nearly 1 percent of the population, or put another way, is 20 times the number of government employees than there were in 1815 and almost a 50 percent increase since 2008. The actual numbers are likely to be much higher. Some have estimated the newly enacted health care bill could add many thousands of Federal employees--as many as 16,000 new Internal Revenue Service employees alone. It has been reported that the recently enacted financial regulatory bill will result in the hiring of at least one thousand new federal government employees. It has been reported the SEC will need to hire an additional 800 employees alone. I am introducing this legislation in order to ensure that the size of our federal government is reduced to the pre-2009 size and does not expand thereafter. This legislation is supported by Americans for Tax Reform, the American Conservative Union, and Americans for Limited Government. I believe we need a limited federal government and this legislation is one way we can limit the size of the Government while decreasing Government spending. Our Nation, children, and grandchildren cannot be buried in debt created by an agenda to exponentially grow the size of the Government. Enough is enough.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010 which reauthorizes the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005, P.L. 109-129, through the end of 2015. I am also grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed, Ensign and Franken have joined me as sponsors of this bipartisan bill. Over the past few months, we have worked with the National Marrow Donor Program, NMDP, and cord blood transplantation experts, specifically Dr. Linda Kelley of the University of Utah and Dr. Joanne Kurtzberg of Duke University. It is my strong hope that our bill is considered by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions when the Congress returns in mid-September and is signed into law before the end of the year. Our legislation makes several small but important additions to the existing program. First, the bill reauthorizes both the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program, which is commonly referred to as the Program and the National Cord Blood Inventory program, which is often called the NCBI, for an additional 5 years through 2015. The total authorization levels for both programs combined would be $53 million in each of the 5 years, thus staying consistent with the authorization level established in the original statute. Specifically, the authorization level for the program would be $30 million in fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $33 million in fiscal year 2015. The authorization levels for NCBI would be $23 million for fiscal years 2011 through 2014 and $20 million in fiscal year 2015. Second, the original statute intended for cord blood banks to become self-sufficient in the future. Five years ago, it was our intent that cord blood banks would eventually be able to function and operate without federal funding. In fact, the HELP Committee's August 31, 2005 report states the following on this important issue: ``The committee anticipated that the funding authorized for establishing and strengthening the cord blood unit inventory will be devoted primarily to defraying the start-up expenses, including developing the expanded inventory in an optimal fashion. While we feel that such activities clearly have the potential to be self-supporting in time, we also recognize that sufficient funding over an adequate period of time will be necessary for these activities to realize their full potential. It is the committee's expectation that the Secretary will closely scrutinize all costs related to this legislation, so that tax dollars are spent judiciously to achieve the maximum effect.'' Almost 5 years have passed since the original statute was signed into law and cord blood banks are still dependent on Federal funding due to the many obstacles surrounding cord blood collection and cord blood storage. Therefore, our bill includes language to the contracting section requiring qualified cord blood banks to develop an annual plan and demonstrate ongoing measurable progress toward achieving self- sufficiency. While I recognize and understand that cord blood donation and collection is a new, challenging field of research, this modification was extremely important to me to ensure that taxpayers' precious dollars are spent prudently and that public cord blood banks are actually doing what the drafters of the original law intended. The contracting provisions of our bill also require cord blood banks to provide a plan on how to increase cord blood collection, assist with the establishment of new collection sites or contract with new collection sites. Both the self-sufficiency requirements and the cord blood collection requirements would apply to both new cord blood bank applicants and existing cord blood banks extending their contracts. Third, our bill also calls for the collection and maintenance of at least 150,000 new units of high-quality cord blood to be made available for transplantation through the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program. The original statute called for the collection of 150,000 new units, and we believed that there needed to be some flexibility on the total number of units collected. Fourth, in order to ensure that the appropriate science is reflected in this bill, the legislation modifies the definition of a first degree relative as the sibling of an individual in need of a transplant. According to scientists and researchers who specialize in cord blood transplantation, the only immediate family members able to donate cord blood are the siblings of a person in need of a transplant. The original statute defined first degree relatives as parents and siblings. Fifth, the Program would support studies and demonstration projects that would study increasing cord blood donation and collection from a genetically diverse population, including exploring novel approaches or incentives to expand the number of cord blood collection sites partnering with federal cord blood banks. Sixth, our bill extends the privacy protections included in the original statute for cord blood transplant patients and donors to bone marrow transplant patients and donors. Finally, the legislation includes a study on cord blood donation and collection by the General Accountability Office. The final report would be submitted to the appropriate House and Senate Committees one year after enactment of our bill. I am proud of this legislation because it proves that bipartisanship still exists in the United States Senate. This subject is near and dear to my heart. When this legislation was signed into law in 2005, it offered us a rare opportunity to make a difference in the lives of those suffering from a serious illness or those who have family members with illnesses requiring cord blood or bone marrow transplants. Back then, our goal was to increase the number of bone marrow and cord blood donors. Today, our goal continues to be increasing the number of bone marrow and cord blood donations and passage of this legislation will make it easier to do just that. I will continue to do everything possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood transplantation in this country. Patients in need of a transplant deserve nothing less and passing this legislation is the pathway to being successful in that endeavor. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to express my support for the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act. For years I have been supportive of moving this legislation forward. It not only underscores the importance of the fashion design industry to our economy but will ensure that new and innovative fashion designs are afforded proper copyright protection. Throughout my service in the Senate, I have worked on a whole host of intellectual property-related initiatives. There is no doubt that legislating in this area is difficult. It is necessary, however, to maintain our position at the forefront of the world's economy and to continue our country's leadership in global innovation. Make no mistake about it: piracy and counterfeiting are the new face of economic crime around the world, far exceeding traditional property crimes. These crimes are the very antitheses of creativity--crippling growth and stifling innovation in their wake. Last Congress I worked closely with my Senate Judiciary Committee colleagues and others in passing the PRO-IP Act, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 13, 2008. There is no doubt the PRO-IP bill will ensure that resources are available to enforce intellectual property laws and coordinate the government's intellectual property policies. Yet there are no laws prohibiting design piracy. Currently, original designs are copied and the apparel is manufactured in countries with cheap labor, typically in mainland China, Hong Kong, Pakistan, and Singapore. The garments are then shipped into the U.S. to directly compete with the garments of the original designer, sometimes before the originals have even hit the market. As a result, the U.S. apparel industry continues to lose billions of dollars to counterfeiting each year. We must ensure that all property rights, including fashion designs, are protected both here and abroad. Counterfeiting and piracy sap our country's economic strength. Plain and simple, when a company loses revenues to piracy or counterfeited goods, it does not have those resources to reinvest into making more of its goods. And that means lost jobs. This domino effect ensnares all within its reach. These crimes not only affect the individual company, but they also adversely affect the companies that would have contributed to or benefitted from the unmade goods. Suppliers of raw materials and components as well as shippers, distributors, and retailers, all take the hit. In my home State of Utah, I am mindful of the designers who make a meaningful contribution to the fashion industry. Utah designers like Nappi, Modurrn, and CherellaUSA are committed to quality and original clothing lines. These designers, and many more across the Nation, must know that after spending their time and money in developing new and unique fashion designs, their works are protected from infringers. They should be able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work. The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act represents a true compromise. The proposed legislation is the product of an intensive year of negotiations with interested stakeholders. Among other things, the compromise language provides protection to truly unique fashion designs. In order to be considered an infringing design, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a design copy is ``substantially identical.'' I am pleased with the progress that has already been made on the bill and look forward to working with my colleagues on further refinements as it moves through the legislative process.