Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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 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. HATCH. Madam President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Texas. There is hardly anybody in this body who can equal the expertise and experience he has, not only as an attorney general in his State but also as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. With that experience, he is someone we should all listen to. I thank the distinguished Senator for his comments. I rise today to discuss the appointment of Elena Kagan to be Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate's role of advice and consent is a check on the President's power to appoint--not a substitute for it. At the same time, the Senate's role must be more than an empty formality or a mere rubberstamp. I have examined Ms. Kagan's record, I participated in her entire hearing before the Judiciary Committee, and I have listened to supporters and opponents both in Utah and across the country. I can say this: I lectured at Harvard when she was dean at Harvard. I appreciated the way I was treated while I was there. It was clear she probably did not agree with some of the things I was saying, but she was courteous and decent. I like her personally. But if I apply the standard I have consistently used for judicial nominees, that standard leads me to conclude that I just cannot support her appointment. Qualifications for judicial service include both legal experience, which summarizes the past, and judicial philosophy, which describes the future. Two categories of legal experience stand out among the 111 men and women who have served on the U.S. Supreme Court. Two-thirds of them, including every current Justice and the Justice Ms. Kagan has been nominated to replace, had previously been a judge. The 39 previous Justices who lacked judicial experience had an average of 21 years of legal practice. In other words, Supreme Court Justices have had experience behind the bench as a judge, before the bench as a lawyer, or both. Ms. Kagan has neither. She was a junior associate in a large law firm for only 2 years. She has never tried a case, never argued before any appellate court before becoming Solicitor General just last year. I am sure the reason they made her Solicitor General was to give her some experience so they could do what they have now done and nominate her to the Supreme Court. Although Harvard law students must contribute at least 40 hours of law-related pro bono service as a condition of graduation, Harvard's former Dean Kagan appears to have done none at all. Ms. Kagan's experience is, instead, academic and political. One of my Democratic colleagues said here on the floor that Ms. Kagan's best qualifications for the Supreme Court are her experience making policy and her ability to build consensus. I, for one, believe that the line between the political and the judicial is already too blurred. While the political or policy mindset focuses on achieving desirable results, judges must focus on following the right process. Without any real experience or grounding in the actual practice of law, Ms. Kagan's experience makes me more, not less, skeptical of her suitability for the Supreme Court. It puts even more emphasis on her judicial philosophy, which is the second and more important qualification for judicial service. As I said at the confirmation hearing for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, there must be clear and convincing evidence that a nominee understands the proper role of the judiciary in our system of government. What is the proper role of judges in our system of government? One of my predecessors as Senator from Utah, George Sutherland, served on the Supreme Court for 16 years. He distinguished between interpreting the Constitution and amending it in the guise of interpretation. Confusing the two, he wrote, converts ``what was intended as inescapable and enduring mandates into mere moral reflections.'' These are fundamentally different judicial philosophies that identify inherently different relationships between the judge and the law. The central confirmation question before us today is what kind of a Justice Ms. Kagan would be. The answer begins with the President who nominated Ms. Kagan. When he was a Senator, President Obama said judges decide cases based on their deepest values, their core concerns, and what is in their heart. As a Presidential candidate, he said he would appoint judges who have empathy for certain groups. As President, he has nominated judges who believe they may find the Constitution's meaning in such things as social practices, evolving norms, practical consequences, and even foreign law. President Obama has clearly taken sides in the judicial philosophy debate. Ms. Kagan has identified a general and a specific source of evidence for us to examine. She told the Judiciary Committee generally that ``you can look to my whole life for indications of what kind of judge or justice I would be.'' And she told one of my Judiciary Committee colleagues specifically that we can learn a lot about her ``by seeing how I did when I worked at the White House.'' In graduate school, Ms. Kagan wrote that the Supreme Court may overturn previous decisions because, as she put it, ``new times and circumstances demand a different interpretation of the Constitution.'' She wrote that judges may ``mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends.'' Ms. Kagan was describing a judicial philosophy guided by moral reflections rather than by enduring mandates. When asked about this thesis at her hearing, Ms. Kagan said, ``Let us just throw that piece of work in the trash, why don't we?'' I cannot do that. While every piece of a nominee's record must be viewed in its proper context, I cannot simply ignore whatever may raise questions or doubts about Ms. Kagan's judicial philosophy. It was Ms. Kagan, after all, who told us to examine her whole life for evidence of the kind of Justice she would be. This obviously includes writings such as her Oxford graduate thesis. Writing as a law professor several years later, Ms. Kagan agreed that in most cases that come before the Supreme Court, the Justice's own experience and values are the most important elements in the decision. If that is too results-oriented, Ms. Kagan wrote, so be it. Well, to be candid about it, it is indeed too results-oriented and echoes the same activist approach Ms Kagan embraced in her graduate thesis. While Ms. Kagan has not herself been a judge, she has singled out for particular praise judges who share this activist judicial philosophy. In a tribute she wrote for her mentor, Justice Thurgood Marshall, for example, she described his belief that the Supreme Court today has a mission to ``safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion.'' Ms. Kagan did more than simply describe Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy but wrote: ``And however much some recent Justices have sniped at that vision, it remains a thing of glory.'' Justice Marshall was a pioneering leader in the civil rights movement. He blazed trails, he empowered generations, he led crusades. But he was also an activist Supreme Court Justice. He proudly took the activist side in the judicial philosophy debate. Some on the other side have suggested that honestly identifying Justice Marshall's judicial philosophy for what it is somehow disparages Justice Marshall himself. I assume that this ridiculous and offensive notion is their way of changing the subject because they cannot defend an activist, politicized role for judges. In 2006, when she was dean of the Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan praised as her judicial hero Aharon Barak, who served for many years on the Supreme Court of Israel. Aharon Barak has been described by U.S. circuit judge Richard Posner, one of the leading lights on the judiciary in this country, as an aggressively interventionist judge who has ``created a degree of judicial power undreamt of by our most aggressive Supreme Court Justices'' and for whom ``the judiciary is a law unto itself.'' Ms. Kagan did not simply describe Justice Barak's judicial philosophy or praise him as a person; she called him ``the judge or justice in my lifetime whom I think best represents and has best advanced the values of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law, and of justice.'' My friends on the other side of the aisle try to spin away Ms. Kagan's praise of Justice Barak by noting that Justice Antonin Scalia once warmly introduced him. But while Justice Scalia said he had ``respect for the man,'' he made clear that he and Justice Barak had ``fundamental philosophical, legal and constitutional disagreements.'' Ms. Kagan, in contrast, said that Justice Barak was her judicial hero and represented the rule of law better than any other judge. It appears that the very first time she distanced herself from his judicial philosophy was at her confirmation hearing. When she was dean, Ms. Kagan had opportunities to choose between her personal views and the law. Federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment, requires that military recruiters have equal access to students as other employers. Harvard protested the don't ask, don't tell law regarding military service by homosexuals by allowing military recruiters access not through its Office of Career Services but through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a private group with no office, no staff, and no budget. The Defense Department told Harvard in 2002 that this policy did not comply with the Solomon Amendment. Ms. Kagan, who had very publicly denounced the military service law, joined a lawsuit challenging the Solomon Amendment. Within 24 hours of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit enjoining it, she again banned military recruiters from the career office even though the ruling did not apply to Harvard, which is in the First Circuit. In other words, she reinstated a policy that she knew violated Federal law and even kept that policy in place when the Third Circuit stayed its own injunction. Ms. Kagan could have opposed the law in various ways but chose to do so in a way that undermined the military and defied Federal law. Her personal views drove her legal views. Ms. Kagan also told us to examine her service in the Clinton administration, a period during which she has said she acted as a policy adviser rather than as a lawyer. She was, for example, a key player behind the Clinton administration's extreme abortion policy, including its defense of the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. In a 1996 legislative strategy memo, she labeled as a disaster a proposed statement by a key medical group that there exists no circumstances in which partial-birth abortion is the only option for doctors to take. That was the organization representing the obstetricians and gynecologists. She drafted and persuaded that group to adopt language with a much different political spin. At her hearing, Ms. Kagan offered the implausible claim that she was merely trying to ensure that the medical group accurately expressed its own medical opinion. In other words, the disaster she identified was a PR disaster for the medical group, not a political disaster for the Clinton administration. That is too hard to believe, especially in light of evidence that Ms. Kagan also sought to persuade the American Medical Association to change its similar conclusion that partial-birth abortion is not medically necessary. Political objectives appear to have trumped medical science. Let's understand what partial-birth abortion is, this barbaric practice. It is where they turn the child around, even a child capable of living on its own outside the womb, until its head is coming first. Then they ram scissors or some other sharp instrument into the back of the skull, suck out the brains, then pull the baby out and say it is not a human being. I don't know anybody who should not consider that tremendously offensive and barbaric. In May 1997, after President Clinton had vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Ms. Kagan wrote a memo recommending that he support a sham ban offered by Democratic Senators. Everybody here knew it was a sham. She argued that this step might attract votes from Senators who otherwise would vote to override President Clinton's veto. Since the substitutes would not pass--she knew they would not--partial-birth abortion would remain legal. Whether you are for or against abortion, most people find that practice barbaric. Significantly, however, Ms. Kagan noted that the Office of Legal Counsel had concluded that these substitute bans were unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. There is no indication that she disagreed with this conclusion. The point is that Ms. Kagan urged a purely political position on abortion that was at odds with what the Clinton administration then believed the Constitution required. That is something that really bothered me and I do not think she was forthcoming about it at the hearing. It especially bothered me because it looked once again like politics trumped the law. Ms. Kagan's hearing did nothing to temper the activist picture that emerges from her record. She chose an approach to answering questions that was far different from what she once argued was necessary for the Senate properly to evaluate nominees and educate the public. I asked three times, for example, if she had written the 1996 memo I discussed a minute ago. Mind you, the memo has her name on it and includes a page of her own handwritten notes. After three tries, Ms. Kagan would say only that it was in her handwriting which I suppose leaves open the possibility that it was forged. It was certainly her prerogative not to give Senators anything meaningful during her hearing, but it leaves the rest of her record as the basis for determining what kind of Justice she would be. Other Senators will discuss in more depth additional troubling issues raised by her record. These certainly include positions she has taken and arguments she has made that signal a sweeping, unprecedented view of Federal Government power. At the hearing, for example, I questioned her about the troubling position she took before the Supreme Court in the Citizens United v. FEC case. She argued that the first amendment allows the Federal Government to determine who may say what, when, and in what manner about political candidates. She argued that the government may ban certain print or electronic books, movies, and pamphlets that mention candidates close to an election. Political speech is the speech perhaps most protected by the Constitution. Yet she argued that the government may silence unions, for-profit corporations, nonprofit groups and even tiny mom-and-pop businesses, if they organize legally as a corporation. Thankfully the Supreme Court sided with freedom of speech. As if that breathtaking degree of Federal power were not bad enough, Ms. Kagan also worked in the Clinton administration to weaken and limit other individual rights such as the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. In her hearing, Ms. Kagan refused to acknowledge any real limits on the Federal Government's power, which the Supreme Court has already expanded far beyond anything America's Founders intended, to regulate everything imaginable in the name of interstate commerce. I will summarize. Ms. Kagan's academic and primarily political experience make critical the need for clear and convincing evidence that she is committed to the proper role of judges in our system of government. The critical confirmation question is the kind of Justice Ms. Kagan would be. Will the Constitution control her, or does she believe she may control the Constitution? Looking where she directed me to look, I believe the evidence shows she embraces an essentially activist view of judicial power. This is a grave decision and it is about more than simply one person. The liberty we enjoy in America requires that the people govern themselves and that, in turn, depends upon the kind of Justices who sit on the highest Court in the land. George Washington said in his Farewell Address: The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. Judges who bend the Constitution to their own values, who use the Constitution to pursue their own vision for society, take this right away from the people and undermine liberty itself. As my colleagues can see, I am very worried about this nomination. I never voted against a Supreme Court nominee before when I voted against now Justice Sonia Sotomayor but I think I have been proven right in a number of instances. Let me mention one. She basically said that the Heller case on the right to keep and bear arms was settled law. Yet within a year or so, she voted that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right. I hope that soon-to-be Justice Kagan proves me wrong. I hope that she will use her legal mind and the abilities she has to uphold rather than tear down the Constitution. I hope she will do what the Founding Fathers expected all Justices on the Court to do. But like Justice Sotomayor, I think the evidence about her judicial philosophy shows that I am right. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I believe I was next.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to express my frustration and disappointment with the decision of the majority leader yesterday that seems to have effectively precluded Republicans from offering amendments to the small business lending bill that is before us today. Let's understand one thing. Since the health care bill, we have not marked up one bill in the Finance Committee. That is just not right. These bills have been brought to the floor through a rule XIV parliamentary procedure without the impetus and agreement of all of us who are on the Finance Committee. I am not going to blame anybody for that other than to say I don't think that is the proper way to do things. Then we get here on the Senate floor and the majority leader fills up the amendment tree so that neither Republicans nor Democrats have a chance to amend this bill. Having said that, let me say that the majority leader has put forward this small business lending bill in an ostensible effort to help the economy create more jobs. Of course, this is what every Senator on both sides of the aisle wants to see happen. This is what every American wants to see happen. Yet once again we are faced with an ``it is my way or the highway'' attitude in dealing with this legislation. Let me be clear. The small business lending bill before us includes many positive provisions. I commend those who have put them in there. It has a number of tax provisions that I fully support and that Republicans and Democrats alike believe would be helpful to small business growth. Yet, I do not believe that any Member in this Chamber truly believes that this bill would do enough to solve our job creation problem. This is because it ignores the main problems that are afflicting the economy and preventing the kind of job creation that we need right now. This is exactly why Republicans want to improve this bill. Many parts of the bill are fine as far as they go. But, again, they do not go nearly far enough. One of the amendments the Republican leader was trying to get permission to offer to this bill is a motion I would like to make to commit this bill to the Finance Committee with instructions to report it back to the Senate with an amendment to address the biggest problem facing small businesses at this time. And that problem is the threat of the largest tax increase in history that is due to hit this country like a monster tsunami in just 155 days. In just over 5 months from now, on January 1, a good share of America's most prolific potential job creators--small businesses that generally employ between 20 and 500 workers--are going to face large tax increases unless Congress acts to stop them. The problem is that President Obama and many of his allies in Congress have already made it clear that they have no intention of stopping these increases. The President called on the Senate yesterday to pass this legislation to help small businesses so they can create jobs. But, ironically, he and his supporters just cannot seem to see that their support for allowing these massive tax increases to hit these fastest growing small businesses will do far more harm than the good that could come from this bill as it now stands. The bill before us, while well intentioned, misses the boat. The real problem that this bill does not address is that the threat of these tax increases, combined with the other business unfriendly changes this Congress has recently passed, have created such an atmosphere of uncertainty in this country, that no one wants to take the jump and risk their capital on new business ventures or expansions. These other changes include the recently enacted financial regulation bill, the tragically misguided health care bill from earlier this year, and the menace of a monstrous climate bill that still hangs over our heads. Let us briefly review what it takes to create a private sector job in our economy. First, we need an entrepreneur--a risk taker. Second, we need an idea. Third, we need some capital. Finally, we need some certainty so that the risk the entrepreneur is facing is manageable. We have plenty of entrepreneurs in our economy. America has always had these, and they are a big part of what has made this country great. We also have lots of good ideas for new businesses. This is another area in which our Nation has never lacked. We also have lots of capital in our economy. Studies indicate that banks are flush with money and corporations have more cash on their balance sheets that at any time in the past 50 years. Investors have money too and are just waiting for the last ingredient. And that last ingredient is what is missing. A degree of certainty that the business climate will begin to improve, or at least not get any worse. This means stable tax rates, a manageable level of regulation, and customers who are not worried about the future. But if we have a situation, as we have now, where the investors and entrepreneurs cannot see any real stability, risk taking freezes up. Everyone decides to stand on the sidelines and wait it out and see how things look in a few months, or next year. The result of this inaction is that the new expansion to the manufacturing plant is put on hold, the bank loan is not extended, and the new equipment is not ordered. The result, of course, is that the new job is not created, and everyone stands and waits. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle and in the administration seem to be puzzled as to why the economy has not yet started to create the jobs we so desperately need. After all, the huge stimulus bill that they pushed through last year was supposed to solve these problems. A very big part of the reason for this lack of jobs is this terrible uncertainty, which has a corrosive effect on the economy. We need to add the lubricating oil of lower taxes, fewer regulations, and certainty to the engine of economic growth. Instead, we have been adding the acid of uncertainty to the engine-- uncertainty about higher taxes, uncertainty about a worse regulatory climate, and uncertainty of what might come next. It is small wonder that the engine is not working as it should. What little certainty that might have existed in the recent past has surely been evaporating because of the President's broken pledge to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 per year and the Democratic leadership's obvious willingness to allow these huge tax increases to go into effect for millions of Americans. This attitude is often excused by the misguided belief that the ``rich'' are not paying their fair share of taxes and need to contribute much more to the Treasury. Many of our colleagues forget that a high percentage of new and small businesses, where most of the new jobs are created in a recession, pay their taxes as individuals. This means that attempts to make the so- called rich pay more will backfire and harm the very people our liberal colleagues are trying to help--those who desperately need employment. This is not so much a question of fairness as it is of economic reality. If we raise the top rates on individuals, we raise tax rates on small and growing businesses and stifle them from fulfilling their job-creation potential. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, tax increases on those making more than the limits the President has pledged to protect will attack one-half of all small business income. Owners of these small businesses, as well as those who want to invest and start new enterprises, are frozen on the sidelines. They are not going to take the risk as long as these tax increases are hovering on the horizon. As long as they do not act, they will not create those jobs. Let us look at the calendar. We simply do not have the time to pass small Band-Aid bills when the patient--our underperforming economy-- needs a blood transfusion. We need to address the real problems facing our economy, not play around at the edges. Our first job should be to reduce the uncertainty that is throwing sand into the cylinders of the job creation engine of small businesses, and the first step of this is to remove the threat of these huge tax hikes. Let us assure investors, entrepreneurs, lenders, and other players in the job creation machine that we will not raise taxes in 5 months. Let us dispel these clouds of uncertainty and let the private sector do what it does best--innovate and create and put America to work. Having said all that, it is important for me to add to this discussion a few other points. Dr. Christina Romer, Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, in last month's issue of the ``American Economic Review'' said this: . . . tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly negative impact on output. . . . [T]he more intuitive way to express this result is that tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects. Senator Kent Conrad, our great Budget Committee chairman--and he is also on the Finance Committee--had this to say: As a general rule, you don't want to be cutting spending or raising taxes in the midst of a downturn. That was in the Wall Street Journal on the 23rd of this month. He also said: In a perfect world, I would not be cutting spending or raising taxes for the next 18 months to 2 years. This downturn is still very much with us, unfortunately. He said that on CNN on the 26th of this month. Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska ``supports extending the expiring tax cuts at least until the economy is clearly recovering and supports addressing them before the fall elections.'' Senator Evan Bayh had this to say: And so raising taxes right now--

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 more minute.

Mr. HATCH. Senator Evan Bayh said: And so raising taxes right now would be the wrong thing to do because it would dampen consumer demand and lessen business investment. `` `We're not creating jobs, and raising taxes now would not be a great idea,' Rep. Michael McMahon, a New York Democrat, said this week.'' This is a quote from the Wall Street Journal on July 21: Martin Vaughan and John McKinnon: ``Bush Tax Cuts Split Democrats.'' ``Rep. Bobby Bright, a Democrat facing a tough reelection race in Alabama, said tax increases, even if limited to the wealthiest families, could imperil the recovery.'' This is a quote from The Hill newspaper on July 22: Alexander Bolton: ``Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy from expiring.'' `` `I think the recovery is sufficiently fragile that we ought to leave tax rates where they are,' said Rep. Gerry Connolly, a freshman Democrat from Virginia. Connolly said Democrats should not allow the 2001 Bush tax cuts to expire for anybody.'' Again, a quote from The Hill newspaper on July 22: Alexander Bolton: ``Democrats may stop Bush-era tax cuts for wealthy from expiring.'' The leader of the Federal Reserve, Dr. Ben Bernanke, said: ``In the short term I would believe that we ought to maintain a reasonable degree of fiscal support, stimulus for the economy . . . There are many ways to do that. This is one way.'' I do not blame the distinguished chairman of the committee because we have not marked up these bills. I blame the leadership here for not realizing that is why we have a Finance Committee, to mark up these bills and let both sides have a chance to make them better if they can. We all have an interest in spurring small businesses and getting the economy going. Bringing these important bills right to the floor and bypassing the Finance Committee, and then doing what has been done on every bill since the health care bill and even before--locking up the parliamentary tree so we cannot have a reasonable shot at even putting up some amendments--is not the way to do business. It is not what creates the bipartisanship we need right now in our Senate. I wanted to make that point and hope we can change our ways so the Senate will be what it ought to be--the greatest deliberative body in the world. I thank my colleague from Montana for granting me additional time. I appreciate him as leader of the Finance Committee. I enjoy working with him, and I enjoy working with my colleagues on the other side. But my gosh, let's stop this business of locking up the tree on everything and not debating the way we should, not giving people half a reasonable shot of bringing up their amendments, and, above all, let's start marking up these very important bills in the Finance Committee. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my dear colleague for his kind remarks. I remember those days we spent on this floor, and the days before that, when we had to convince people throughout the Congress that this was the right thing to do; that civil rights for persons with disabilities were absolutely necessary if we were going to be a gracious and understanding country, setting an example for all the rest of the world. I remember when Senator Harkin and I, after the vote, walked out into the anteroom out there, and there were hundreds of persons with disabilities in their wheelchairs and crutches, with various forms of disability, and both of us stood there and broke down and cried--two tough guys. You know that Senator Harkin was a pilot and went through the war and has a tremendous reputation. I have been tough--too tough for some people around here--from time to time. But we both broke down and cried. And they cried. It was such a wonderful day, as far as I am concerned. I thank my dear colleague from Iowa for his leadership in this matter. He mentioned all of the others we both want to recognize today. I will not repeat those. I will incorporate that in my remarks today. This is a very special anniversary. Twenty years ago last week, we stood on the floor of the Senate and voted 91 to 6 to pass the Americans with Disabilities Act. Twenty years ago next Monday, President George H.W. Bush signed it into law. The ADA is landmark civil rights legislation that represents our ongoing commitment to equality and opportunity for our fellow citizens who suffer with disabilities. The ADA is a special type of civil rights statute. On the negative side, it prohibits discrimination and provides for remedies when wrongs occur. But more important, on the positive side, the ADA requires reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities in the areas covered by the statute, such as employment. This accommodation obligation is what quite literally opens doors and keeps them open, improving lives in innumerable practical ways on a daily basis. The original ADA in 1990 and the revision enacted 2 years ago are examples of both how hard legislating can be and the results sticking with it can produce. I know of few policy areas in which--on the surface, at least--political or ideological interests appear to be more at odds. I also know of few policy areas in which the objectives are more important and for which a deep and broad consensus is more crucial to achieve those objectives. Keeping our eyes on the goal helped keep everybody willing to listen, to compromise, and to do what had never been done before. The result has been a transformation in attitudes, perceptions, and actions throughout our society that have helped make countless lives better. These two statutes, ADA and the ADA Amendments Act, also demonstrate that it is Congress that is responsible for national disability policy. Lawsuits, of course, bring the courts into the picture, and the Supreme Court was called upon to construe and apply the ADA on some questions the ADA itself did not clearly or directly address. I, for one, believe the courts must take statutes as they are and may not make or change them in order to achieve certain results. But whether or not the Court did its part properly, the Constitution gives the power to legislate to Congress. That is why, even if the Court had not had any such cases at all, we have the authority and the ongoing responsibility to establish, revise, and refine laws that help Americans with disabilities. That responsibility will never end. I am pleased with my role in developing and passing both the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act. I am pleased to have been able to partner with my friend Senator Harkin from Iowa. I am proud to stand here today with that friend, Senator Harkin, without whom these statutes would not have been possible. I know these are more than simply statutes, more than pieces of legislation; it is what they represent--our ongoing commitment to making sure individuals with disabilities can participate in the American dream--that makes these statutes so important and this anniversary so very special. I have seen those who are blind now taken care of, in many cases. I have seen those with various disabilities who are able to get jobs and show they are capable--not only capable but better than capable--of doing some things people never thought they could do. I have seen persons with serious disabilities who have become productive members of our society because they have been given a chance. I have seen persons of courage in this area that I have never seen before, who literally live with their disabilities every day with smiles on their face, with an ability to be able to encourage others, and with an exemplary approach to life that makes all of us better people. I think these things have been magnified and blessed by these two acts that my colleague and I and others have been able to put through. I am proud of what we have done. I believe millions of people are better off because of what we have done. This is a very appropriate thing to do--to recognize the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the other statute as well, so that everybody in this country realizes they are part of making these statutes work. I am so pleased with all of our American citizens who have pitched in and done what they could, from architects, to engineers, to skilled tradesmen, as I used to be, who have really made it possible for people to not only embrace life but to be a part of life and to be able to have the accessibility they never had before, and we are a better nation for it. Our people are better for it. Above all, these folks who have suffered with disabilities, who are so courageous, are better for it. I will never forget, I mentioned when we passed the original ADA that I carried my brother-in-law, who was afflicted with both types of polio and, of course, lived in an iron lung but went on to get his college degree in engineering and a master's degree in electrical engineering-- he worked for Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier in Las Vegas, went to work every day and at night got into an iron lung at home. He was a member of my Mormon faith, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I can remember carrying him, with his very light weight, through the Los Angeles Temple for church. It was meaningful to both him and me. I carried him in my arms all the way through that temple. It was a spiritual experience for both of us. I have seen so many others who have suffered from disabilities whose lives have been improved and are better because of what has been done in the Congress of the United States. Again, I pay tribute to my friend Senator Harkin. He understands this as well as anybody and has played a significant and perfect role in helping to bring these things to pass. I have nothing but respect and great love for my colleague and for the others who voted for this particular bill. I am glad to be able to support this resolution, to cosponsor it, and I hope and pray that all of us will continue to help those who may not be as fortunate as are we, who suffer from disabilities, and realize that they are just as productive in our society, in most ways, as we are. I am grateful to be able to stand here today and make these comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. It was.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank the Senator for his kind remarks, but I also recognize his great leadership. This is a complex set of issues. We had complexities among the groups. We had to bring them all together and work with them. We had to try to resolve conflicts between liberals and conservatives, as usual. We also had to work very carefully with various personalities. But we were able to get it done. In large measure, it was due to the work of my friend from Iowa. I think people in the disability community and really throughout the country ought to be very grateful for what he has done. I am grateful to have been able to have played a small role in helping him to do it.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Herb Kohl, in introducing a resolution to designate September 13-19, 2010, as National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week. Polycystic kidney disease, also known as PKD, is a life-threatening, genetic disease which affects more than 12.5 million adults and children worldwide. PKD is of significant interest to me because many Utahns suffer from this illness. The PKD Foundation estimates that roughly 5,000 Utahns have PKD; and ESRD instances in Utah are almost three times the national average. A kidney affected by PKD will develop cysts ranging in size from that of a pinhead to the size of a grapefruit. These fluid-filled cysts increase the size and weight of the kidney from what is normally the size of a human fist to as large as a football. This condition causes great pain and is extremely dangerous to kidney function. As PKD progresses a person may acquire other diseases and disorders such as urinary tract infections, hypertension, and kidney stones. In its most progressive stage, PKD results in kidney failure, or end-stage renal disease, ESRD, for which the only help available is dialysis or a kidney transplant. Autosomal dominant PKD is the most common form of the disease and affects one in every 500 people. This type of PKD is commonly diagnosed in adulthood. Children born to an affected parent have a 50 percent chance of inheriting the disease themselves. In less prevalent cases, a child may be diagnosed with autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease, ARPKD. ARPKD kills approximately 30 percent of infants diagnosed within the first month of life--and of the 70 percent who survive infancy, one-third will require a kidney transplant by the age of 10. There is no cure for PKD. Although minimal treatments can alleviate pain, and a healthy lifestyle can delay kidney failure, currently the only way to truly stop the symptoms is by transplantation. Yet, there is hope in science, awareness, and education. To cure PKD could mean billions of dollars in savings to Medicare and Medicaid. Greater yet, it would offer relief to the suffering endured by the millions of people living with this dreadful disease. With improved awareness and education comes a greater ability to find a cure. That is why Senator Kohl and I have introduced this resolution every year since 2007 to designate a National Polycystic Kidney Disease Awareness Week. I encourage my colleagues to lend their support to this important measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint, in introducing the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which would require the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to prove that consumers are being harmed by the lack of choice before it imposes new regulations. Specifically, the proposed bill would require the FCC to weigh the potential cost of action against any benefits based on a showing of clear and convincing evidence that marketplace competition is not sufficient to adequately protect consumer welfare, and an act or practice is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. I believe this framework, along with a 5-year sunset on any regulation, would foster a vibrant market for Internet services and content. This legislation is necessary to combat the FCC's latest assault on the Internet. In April, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had stepped beyond its authority by regulating the Internet with so-called ``net neutrality'' rules. Yet, it seems the FCC just will not take no for an answer. Just over a month after the appeals court ruled it had overstepped its bounds, the FCC sought to re-categorize broadband services in an effort to more actively regulate the Internet and to establish a set of net neutrality principles. This regulatory overreach could jeopardize hundreds of billions of dollars in investment and accompanying hundreds of thousands of jobs that have resulted from an Internet governed by competition. The only reason the FCC Chairman and his colleagues are taking this path is because there is no way they can get far-reaching and costly net neutrality legislation through Congress. In fact it was recently reported that 282 Members of Congress, including 74 Democrats, asked the FCC to drop its plans to reclassify broadband. Enough is enough. The Government needs to keep its hands off the Internet so it can prosper and grow, benefiting consumers and our economy alike. Net neutrality may sound like fairness but it is actually the opposite. Bandwidth is finite, like the finite number of lanes on a highway, and network providers must innovate in order to accommodate the burgeoning traffic. If the FCC takes control of the Internet, we will have the inevitable result of all poorly designed regulations: business decisions prejudiced by politicians and political decisions prejudiced by corporations. The Internet is about the most competitive, efficient and consumer-driven industry in the global economy. There is a time and place for federal economic regulation, but during a recession is not the time, and the Internet is certainly not the place. Let me conclude my remarks by pointing out that the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act is intended as a starting point for this debate. No doubt further refinements will be made to this bill during the legislative process. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that my colleagues can join efforts to refine and enact this important bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my growing alarm about the excessive amount of government spending that is adding to our national debt at an exponential rate. We simply cannot continue to add these annual trillion dollar-plus deficits to the amount to be repaid by those in generations to come. Today, I am introducing a measure that would ensure that the futures of our children and grandchildren will not be crippled by the reckless spending of those who control Congress and the White House today. After long study of this disturbing trend, I have concluded that the best way to get a handle on this deficit spending is by amending the Constitution by requiring each Congress to put forth a balanced budget. Amending the Constitution is no small task, nor is it a trifling matter. Though hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments to the Constitution have been proposed, this founding document has been amended only 27 times in our nation's history. Amending it now to deal with overspending may appear to be a monumental undertaking. However, Utahns and other Americans across the nation have spoken loud and clear--no more excessive government spending that will add to the debt to be borne by the next generation. The liberals in Congress have had their turn over the past couple of years to try to revitalize our economy, and we still remain with trillion dollar-plus deficits coupled with a stagnant unemployment rate of nearly 10 percent. The economy did not turn sour yesterday. It went south nearly two years ago, and the major accomplishments of the current Administration and its congressional allies is to enact an ineffective $1.1 trillion stimulus bill, an exacerbation of our entitlement crisis through the trillion dollar-plus health care bill, and an invasive and job-killing financial regulatory bill. All of these further harmed our nation's fiscal health. The measure I am proposing is straightforward. It would simply require Congress to submit a budget where the total outlays could not exceed total revenues. It would require Treasury to use any surplus to pay down the Nation's debt. Any tax increase would have to be approved by two-thirds of the Members of Congress. I realize that requiring a balanced budget will not necessarily end the outrageous government spending that has occurred over recent years, but it will at least provide Congress with a stronger incentive for fiscal responsibility. Balanced budgets are about more than sound fiscal policy; they are a moral responsibility that government often fails to meet. Individuals and families who live wildly beyond their means face dire consequences. Government should have to live by the same standards, especially since this money belongs to the people. The Constitution is the most important tool by which the people place limits on government and it appears that the Constitution is what it will take for the government to live within its means. The outstanding public debt is now over $13 trillion. That equates roughly to $42,000 for each American. This year we are estimated to add another $1.3 trillion, which is about what we added last year. This is more than $41,000 added to the debt every second. Most of this spending is going towards increasing the size of the Federal Government, creating and expanding government programs, and providing more entitlements. Economists agree that our Nation must get our outrageous deficit under control. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently released its Long-Term Budget Outlook. In this report, the CBO projects that the national debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year, the highest since the end of World War II. To put this in perspective, at the end of 2008, our debt was 40 percent of GDP and the historic average has been around 36 percent. The CBO also projects that deficits will average about $600 billion annually from 2011 through 2020 and the national debt to grow by 67 percent by 2020. Congress needs to act now. If anyone is still questioning whether this enormous debt poses a threat to our economy, the warning signs are clear. The World Bank cautioned that we could have a double dip recession if the financial markets lose confidence in our ability to repay our debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the House Budget Committee and said ``unless we as a nation make a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the long run, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.'' On Monday, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden scolding Republicans for what he believed was an effort to prevent the unemployed from receiving benefits. What he has failed to acknowledge is that both sides--Democrats and Republicans alike-- agree on extending the additional unemployment insurance. What fiscal conservatives object to adding another $30 billion plus to the deficit. The President said ``It's time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to Washington politics.'' This same logic and rhetoric can be applied to our children and grandchildren who will be held hostage by, and have to pay for, the irresponsible government spending this Congress passes today. It is time for solutions and not just rhetoric. I believe that we can achieve a balanced budget while promoting economic growth. We have the strongest economy in the world, for now. Let us not have our indebtedness create misery for us and generations to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint, in introducing the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which would require the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to prove that consumers are being harmed by the lack of choice before it imposes new regulations. Specifically, the proposed bill would require the FCC to weigh the potential cost of action against any benefits based on a showing of clear and convincing evidence that marketplace competition is not sufficient to adequately protect consumer welfare, and an act or practice is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers. I believe this framework, along with a 5-year sunset on any regulation, would foster a vibrant market for Internet services and content. This legislation is necessary to combat the FCC's latest assault on the Internet. In April, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had stepped beyond its authority by regulating the Internet with so-called ``net neutrality'' rules. Yet, it seems the FCC just will not take no for an answer. Just over a month after the appeals court ruled it had overstepped its bounds, the FCC sought to re-categorize broadband services in an effort to more actively regulate the Internet and to establish a set of net neutrality principles. This regulatory overreach could jeopardize hundreds of billions of dollars in investment and accompanying hundreds of thousands of jobs that have resulted from an Internet governed by competition. The only reason the FCC Chairman and his colleagues are taking this path is because there is no way they can get far-reaching and costly net neutrality legislation through Congress. In fact it was recently reported that 282 Members of Congress, including 74 Democrats, asked the FCC to drop its plans to reclassify broadband. Enough is enough. The Government needs to keep its hands off the Internet so it can prosper and grow, benefiting consumers and our economy alike. Net neutrality may sound like fairness but it is actually the opposite. Bandwidth is finite, like the finite number of lanes on a highway, and network providers must innovate in order to accommodate the burgeoning traffic. If the FCC takes control of the Internet, we will have the inevitable result of all poorly designed regulations: business decisions prejudiced by politicians and political decisions prejudiced by corporations. The Internet is about the most competitive, efficient and consumer-driven industry in the global economy. There is a time and place for federal economic regulation, but during a recession is not the time, and the Internet is certainly not the place. Let me conclude my remarks by pointing out that the Freedom for Consumer Choice Act is intended as a starting point for this debate. No doubt further refinements will be made to this bill during the legislative process. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that my colleagues can join efforts to refine and enact this important bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my growing alarm about the excessive amount of government spending that is adding to our national debt at an exponential rate. We simply cannot continue to add these annual trillion dollar-plus deficits to the amount to be repaid by those in generations to come. Today, I am introducing a measure that would ensure that the futures of our children and grandchildren will not be crippled by the reckless spending of those who control Congress and the White House today. After long study of this disturbing trend, I have concluded that the best way to get a handle on this deficit spending is by amending the Constitution by requiring each Congress to put forth a balanced budget. Amending the Constitution is no small task, nor is it a trifling matter. Though hundreds, if not thousands, of amendments to the Constitution have been proposed, this founding document has been amended only 27 times in our nation's history. Amending it now to deal with overspending may appear to be a monumental undertaking. However, Utahns and other Americans across the nation have spoken loud and clear--no more excessive government spending that will add to the debt to be borne by the next generation. The liberals in Congress have had their turn over the past couple of years to try to revitalize our economy, and we still remain with trillion dollar-plus deficits coupled with a stagnant unemployment rate of nearly 10 percent. The economy did not turn sour yesterday. It went south nearly two years ago, and the major accomplishments of the current Administration and its congressional allies is to enact an ineffective $1.1 trillion stimulus bill, an exacerbation of our entitlement crisis through the trillion dollar-plus health care bill, and an invasive and job-killing financial regulatory bill. All of these further harmed our nation's fiscal health. The measure I am proposing is straightforward. It would simply require Congress to submit a budget where the total outlays could not exceed total revenues. It would require Treasury to use any surplus to pay down the Nation's debt. Any tax increase would have to be approved by two-thirds of the Members of Congress. I realize that requiring a balanced budget will not necessarily end the outrageous government spending that has occurred over recent years, but it will at least provide Congress with a stronger incentive for fiscal responsibility. Balanced budgets are about more than sound fiscal policy; they are a moral responsibility that government often fails to meet. Individuals and families who live wildly beyond their means face dire consequences. Government should have to live by the same standards, especially since this money belongs to the people. The Constitution is the most important tool by which the people place limits on government and it appears that the Constitution is what it will take for the government to live within its means. The outstanding public debt is now over $13 trillion. That equates roughly to $42,000 for each American. This year we are estimated to add another $1.3 trillion, which is about what we added last year. This is more than $41,000 added to the debt every second. Most of this spending is going towards increasing the size of the Federal Government, creating and expanding government programs, and providing more entitlements. Economists agree that our Nation must get our outrageous deficit under control. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently released its Long-Term Budget Outlook. In this report, the CBO projects that the national debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year, the highest since the end of World War II. To put this in perspective, at the end of 2008, our debt was 40 percent of GDP and the historic average has been around 36 percent. The CBO also projects that deficits will average about $600 billion annually from 2011 through 2020 and the national debt to grow by 67 percent by 2020. Congress needs to act now. If anyone is still questioning whether this enormous debt poses a threat to our economy, the warning signs are clear. The World Bank cautioned that we could have a double dip recession if the financial markets lose confidence in our ability to repay our debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the House Budget Committee and said ``unless we as a nation make a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the long run, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.'' On Monday, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden scolding Republicans for what he believed was an effort to prevent the unemployed from receiving benefits. What he has failed to acknowledge is that both sides--Democrats and Republicans alike-- agree on extending the additional unemployment insurance. What fiscal conservatives object to adding another $30 billion plus to the deficit. The President said ``It's time to stop holding workers laid off in this recession hostage to Washington politics.'' This same logic and rhetoric can be applied to our children and grandchildren who will be held hostage by, and have to pay for, the irresponsible government spending this Congress passes today. It is time for solutions and not just rhetoric. I believe that we can achieve a balanced budget while promoting economic growth. We have the strongest economy in the world, for now. Let us not have our indebtedness create misery for us and generations to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to our dear departed friend and colleague, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. I have been deeply moved by the words of remembrance we have heard here in the Senate this week and I am honored to have been here today as Senator Byrd has lied in repose on the Senate floor. It is a fitting tribute to the man who, over the course of an astounding tenure of 52 years, came to embody the Senate, its traditions, and its rules. Robert Byrd was born in North Wilkesboro, NC, in 1917. He was valedictorian of Mark Twain High School and, through the course of his life, attended four separate colleges in West Virginia as well as the American University College of Law. In the early days of his career, he was, at one time or another, a grocery clerk, a butcher, and a shipyard welder before beginning his political career in 1946, when he was elected to the West Virginia House of Delegates. After 5 years in the West Virginia Legislature, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1952, beginning what would be the longest tenure in the history of the U.S. Congress. Senator Byrd came to the Senate in 1959. He served right up until his death on June 28 of this year. During his time on the Senate, he was known for his skills as a parliamentarian and his knowledge of Senate rules and procedure. He put these abilities to great use, serving in the Democratic leadership--as either the whip or the leader--for nearly two decades. Senator Byrd's ability to use the parliamentary rules to his advantage is legendary. Indeed, I can think of few others who had such a great understanding of what can be an arduous and difficult set of rules and procedures. His knowledge of the traditions and history of the Senate were also quite noteworthy. In 1989, the bicentennial anniversary of our cherished Constitution, Senator Byrd published a four-volume series on Senate history, which is a definitive work in describing and outlining the storied traditions of this great Chamber. Senator Byrd's love of this body was known to all. He expressed his love for the Senate at every opportunity and much of his time was spent trying to preserve those rules and traditions he held dear. Mr. President, this Chamber has suffered a great loss. But, my sadness is tempered by the thought that Senator Byrd is now reunited with his wife Erma, to whom he was married for nearly 70 years. I want to express my sincerest condolences to Senator Byrd's family.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 30 years ago today, the Supreme Court of the United States announced its landmark decision in Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, upholding the constitutionality of the Hyde amendment, which prohibits Federal funding of abortions under the Medicaid Program. That decision made it possible for Congress, by annual enactment of the Hyde amendment, to protect American taxpayers from being forced to fund the destruction of innocent preborn human beings. The majority opinion, written by Justice Potter Stewart, established three important principles. First, no matter what unwritten right to abortion may be said to exist in our written Constitution, ``it simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices.'' Second, the Court accepted in full the argument of Solicitor General Wade McCree that the Hyde amendment is rationally related to the interest we all have in preserving nascent human life and encouraging childbirth. Finally, the Court rejected the spurious claims of the Hyde amendment's opponents that the amendment violated the establishment clause of the first amendment because it somehow incorporated into federal law the religious doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. In our recent debate over healthcare reform, we often heard that because the Hyde amendment is already ``settled law,'' there was no need for specific provisions to ban taxpayer subsidies for abortion through the health insurance exchanges or other features of the legislation. That argument, of course, was wrong. The Hyde amendment affects the appropriations that fund the Departments of Labor and of Health and Human Services. The vast health care bureaucracy created by this new legislation will exist outside of those departments. Time will tell whether those who argued so strongly that the Hyde amendment is settled and ``good law'' will nonetheless challenge it again in the future. Let's be honest about a fundamental point: change in our health care system provides another opportunity for abortion advocates to claim that abortion is health care that must be funded by the taxpayers. That claim must be resisted and defeated, just as it was resisted and defeated in Harris v. McRae. Were he still among us, our dear and esteemed colleague Henry Hyde would have reminded our colleagues of this, with an eloquence we cannot muster. The amendment bearing his name, after all, did not become law by accident; nor did it survive other than by the heroic efforts of Henry Hyde and a small cadre of pro-life attorneys who persuaded the Department of Justice to make the very arguments critical to successfully defending the Hyde amendment in court. Henry Hyde was vilified at the time for his amendment, and for his unwillingness to yield or compromise on its principles. Investigators for the plaintiffs in Harris followed the Congressman to Mass, and then argued to the Federal district court in Brooklyn that his amendment was motivated by his religion. What a scandal--that a Congressman's faith would motivate his work. Henry, of course, did more than simply introduce and achieve passage of his amendment. That alone would have been heroic. But he also entered the litigation challenging his amendment as an intervening- defendant, joined by former Senator and now-Judge James L. Buckley, Senator Jesse Helms, and others, to ensure that the amendment would receive the most vigorous defense in court. His New York lawyers, Lawrence Washburn and Gerald Bodell, were joined by the superb legal team at Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund, a fledgling Chicago-based office that suddenly found itself in the biggest case in its short existence. The AUL lawyers, including Northwestern University law professor Victor G. Rosenblum, eminent Chicago trial lawyer Dennis Horan, and AUL staff attorneys Patrick Trueman and Thomas Marzen, were pivotal in framing the legal arguments that prevailed in Harris. They simultaneously represented intervening defendants in Williams v. Zbaraz, defending an Illinois version of the Hyde amendment. In Williams, named for AUL's clients Dr. Jasper F. Williams and Dr. Eugene F. Diamond, Professor Rosenblum eloquently argued to the Supreme Court that neither due process nor equal protection required government at any level to treat abortion on a par with the life-giving alternative of childbirth. The victories in Harris and Williams remain the most significant pro- life legal victories of our lifetimes. But, until the Hyde amendment becomes a part of the United States Code rather than an annual appropriations amendment, so that it covers a government programs and expenditures, we must continue to make the same vigilant effort that made the victories in those cases possible. AUL was a key partner as I and others in Congress fought to put true Hyde-type language in the health care legislation. Undaunted at the loss in Congress, AUL has turned its attention to the States, helping to draft legislation allowing States to ``opt-out'' of coverage for abortion through the insurance exchanges, and to take other steps to ensure that health care reform does not undermine the principles of the Hyde amendment. Many of the courageous warriors who first defended those principles three decades ago have passed from our midst: my friends Henry Hyde and Jesse Helms, attorneys Dennis Horan and Tom Marzen, and Dr. Jasper Williams. Thankfully, some of the young lawyers who worked with them such as Carl Anderson, Robert Destro, and Paige Comstock Cunningham, remain active pro-life leaders today. Meanwhile, the ranks of young lawyers and students eager to follow in the footsteps of these legal pioneers continues to grow. That is what trailblazers do, they lead the way so that others may follow and continue the fight. May their efforts be blessed, and this Nation move swiftly to the day when the lives of the unborn receive full legal protection.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, next week the Judiciary Committee will hold its hearing on the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. The Senate's role of advice and consent, especially for Supreme Court Justices, is one of our most important constitutional duties. I wish to share a few thoughts about how I will approach this task. America's Founders designed the judiciary to be, as Alexander Hamilton described it, the weakest and least dangerous branch of government. Things have not worked out as planned. The judiciary today is, instead, the most powerful, and potentially the most dangerous, branch of our government. Rather than being accountable to the people by being subject to the people's Constitution, activist judges often make the people accountable to them by seeking to control the people's Constitution. My objective in this confirmation process is to find out which kind of Justice Ms. Kagan would be if confirmed to the Supreme Court. Judicial qualifications fall into two categories: legal experience and judicial philosophy. Legal experience is a summary of what a nominee has done in the past and can be described in a resume or on a questionnaire. Judicial philosophy describes how a nominee will approach the task of judging in the future. It is harder to determine, but I believe it is much more important. Let me first look at Ms. Kagan's legal experience. I have never believed that judicial experience is necessary for Supreme Court service or, to put it another way, I have never believed it to be a disqualification if you do not have judicial experience. In fact, 39 Supreme Court Justices--about one-third--had no previous judicial experience. What they did have, however, was extensive experience in the actual practice of law, an average of more than 20 years. These are Justices such as George Sutherland, one of my predecessors as Senator from Utah, who practiced for 23 years, or Robert Jackson, who practiced for 21 years and served as both Solicitor General and Attorney General. In other words, Supreme Court Justices have had experience behind the bench as a judge, before the bench as a lawyer, or both. Ms. Kagan has neither. She spent only 2 years as a new associate in a large law firm. She never litigated a case or argued before any appellate court before becoming Solicitor General last year. And her work in the Clinton administration was focused on policy and legistation. As the Washington Post described it recently, Ms. Kagan would bring to the Court experience ``in the political circus that often defines Washington.'' Some people may see little difference between the legal and the political, but I do and am concerned about blurring the lines even further. Last week, one of my Democratic colleagues with whom I serve on the Judiciary Committee talked about Ms. Kagan's qualifications and claimed that some Senators question her fitness for the Supreme Court solely because she has never been a judge. No one has made that argument. This Democratic colleague identified Justices Byron White, William Rehnquist, Louis Brandeis, and Lewis Powell as among those with no prior judicial experience. These Justices had practiced, respectively, for 14, 16, 37, and 39 years and Justice Powell had also been president of the American Bar Association. There really is no comparison. So on this first element of legal experience, we have to be honest about what the record shows. Unlike other Supreme Court nominees, Ms. Kagan has no judicial experience and virtually no legal practice experience. That leaves her academic and political experience. The Democratic Senator I mentioned identified as among Ms. Kagan's strongest qualifications for the Supreme Court her experience crafting policy and her ability to build consensus. Judges, however, are not supposed to be crafting policy, and consensus-building only begs the question of what a consensus is being built to support. This relatively light record of legal experience only places more importance on judicial philosophy, the other qualification for judicial service. Frankly, finding reliable clues about judicial philosophy is often harder in an academic and political record such as Ms. Kagan's than in a judicial record. This is especially true when, like Ms. Kagan, a nominee has rarely written directly about the topic. This does not mean that reliable clues do not exist, just that they are harder to find. I have to take Ms. Kagan's record as it is because I have to base my decision on evidence, not blind faith. Judicial philosophy refers to the process of interpreting and applying the law to decide cases. That is what judges do, but they can do it in radically different ways. Notice I said this is about the process of deciding cases, not the results of those cases. Many people, including some of my Senate colleagues and many in the media, focus only on the results that judges reach, apparently believing that the political ends justify the judicial means. That is the wrong standard for evaluating either judicial decisions or judicial nominees. Politics can focus on the results, but the law must focus on the process of reaching those results. Rather than the desirable ends justifying the means, the proper means must legitimate the ends. It makes no difference which side wins, which political interest comes out on top, or whether the result can be labeled liberal or conservative. If the judge correctly interprets and applies the law in a particular case, then the result is correct. So I wish to pin down, as best I can, what kind of Justice Ms. Kagan would be. Will the Constitution control her or will she try to control the Constitution? Will she care more about the judicial process or the political results? As I said, those clues come primarily from her record, secondarily from next week's hearing. So let me briefly focus on a few areas of Ms. Kagan's record and mention some questions that need to be answered and some concerns that need to be addressed. First, while in graduate school, Ms. Kagan wrote that the Supreme Court may overturn previous decisions ``on the ground that new times and circumstances demand a different interpretation of the Constitution.'' Not a different application, mind you, but a different interpretation. She wrote quite candidly that it is ``not necessarily wrong or invalid'' for judges to ``mold and steer the law in order to promote certain ethical values and achieve certain social ends.'' In a 1995 law journal article, she agreed that in most cases that come before the Supreme Court, the judge's own experience and values become the most important element in the decision. In her words, ``many of the votes a Supreme Court Justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value.'' That sounds a lot like President Obama, who said as a Senator that judges decide cases based on their own deepest values, core concerns, the depth and breadth of their empathy, and what is in their heart. If that is too results oriented, Ms. Kagan wrote, so be it. While Ms. Kagan has not herself been a judge, those judges she has singled out for particular praise have this same activist judicial philosophy. In a tribute she wrote for her mentor Justice Thurgood Marshall, for example, she described his judicial philosophy as driven by the belief that the role of the courts and the very purpose of constitutional interpretation is to ``safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission. . . . And however much some recent Justices have sniped at that vision, it remains a thing of glory.'' In 2006, when she was dean of Harvard Law School, Ms. Kagan praised as her judicial hero Aharon Barak, who served on the Supreme Court of Israel for nearly 30 years. She called him ``the judge or justice in my lifetime whom I think best represents and has best advanced the values of democracy and human rights, of the rule of law, and of justice.'' That is not simply high praise, but the highest praise possible, for she said that Justice Barak was literally the very best judge anywhere during her entire lifetime in representing and advancing the rule of law. Who is this judge who, for Ms. Kagan at least, is literally the best representation of the rule of law? Judge Richard Posner has described Justice Barak as ``one of the most prominent of the aggressively interventionist foreign judges'' who ``without a secure constitutional basis. . .created a degree of judicial power undreamt of by our most aggressive Supreme Court justices.'' Judge Posner concluded that to Justice Barak, ``the judiciary is a law unto itself.'' These and other examples, over a period of more than two decades, fit consistently together. They indicate that for most of her career, Ms. Kagan has endorsed, and has praised others who endorse, an activist judicial philosophy. She appears to have accepted that judges may base their decisions on their own sense of fairness or justice, their own values of what is good and right, their own vision of the way society ought to be. This activist philosophy, she has said, is a thing of glory and best represents the rule of law. That is what her record shows, and we will have to see what next week's hearing uncovers on this important subject. There are also some specific subjects or controversies that must be explored. These might have been less important if Ms. Kagan did not have the record I just described. If she had not endorsed and praised judges making decisions based on their personal values and objectives, then evidence of her own personal values or objectives would obviously be less relevant. But as Ms. Kagan said in a 2004 interview, since a judge's personal attitudes and views make a difference in how they reach their decisions, ``the Senate is right to take an interest in who these people are and what they believe.'' I wish to note two of the areas in which it appears Ms. Kagan's personal or political views have driven her legal views. The first is abortion. When she clerked for Justice Marshall, she recommended against the Court reviewing the decision in a case titled Lanzaro v. Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that prison inmates have a right to elective abortions and that by refusing to pay for them, the county violated the Constitution's eighth amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Ms. Kagan properly rejected this bizarre holding, even calling parts of the analysis ludicrous. Yet she urged against the Court reviewing this decision because, as she put it, ``this case is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners' rights.'' Broader policy objectives seemed more important than even reviewing a ludicrous constitutional decision. The record also shows that later Ms. Kagan was a key player behind the Clinton administration's extreme abortion policy. In May 1997, after President Clinton had vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, Ms. Kagan wrote a memo recommending that he support the substitutes for the ban being offered by Senators Daschle and Feinstein. She recommended this solely for political reasons, because it might attract some votes from Senators who would otherwise vote to override his veto. Had that strategy worked, of course, the substitutes would not have passed and partial birth abortion would have remained legal. The barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion would have remained legal. Significantly, however, Ms. Kagan noted that the Office of Legal Counsel had concluded that these substitute amendments were unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. There is no indication that she disagreed with this conclusion. The point is that Ms. Kagan urged a purely political position on abortion that was at odds with what the Clinton administration then believed the Constitution required. Once again, it looks as though politics trumped the law. Another controversy involved the military's ability to recruit at Harvard Law School during Ms. Kagan's tenure as dean. Ms. Kagan made her personal views and values as plain as anyone could make them, saying repeatedly that she abhorred the military's policy with regard to homosexuals and calling it a profound wrong and a ``moral injustice of the first order.'' Federal law, known as the Solomon amendment, denies Federal funds to schools with policies or practices that have the effect of preventing military recruiters the same access to campus or to students that other employers have. A group called the Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, or FAIR, challenged the law in court. Ms. Kagan first joined a legal brief filed in support of FAIR's challenge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Within 24 hours of the court enjoining enforcement of the Solomon amendment, Ms. Kagan again banned military recruiters from access to Harvard's Office of Career Services. She was not required to do this because the Third Circuit does not include Massachusetts. She kept the ban in place even after the Third Circuit stayed its own injunction while it was being appealed to the Supreme Court. In other words, Ms. Kagan denied military recruiters access even though the law still required access. She could have opposed the military's policy in various ways, but chose to do so in a way that undermined military recruitment during wartime. And the recruitment ban was lifted only after the president of Harvard University stepped in and overrode Ms. Kagan's decision. Ms. Kagan then joined a group of law professors filing a brief with the Supreme Court. To its credit, FAIR actually agreed with the government about the proper reading of the Solomon amendment. But Ms. Kagan and her fellow professors urged the courts to read the statute in an artificial and unnatural way that actually contradicted both the plain terms of the statute and the position of the very party on whose behalf she had filed her brief. The statute required that the military be treated the same as employers who are granted access to campus. Ms. Kagan argued instead that the military be treated the same as employers who are denied access to campus. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Ms. Kagan's position, saying that her group of law professors simply misinterpreted the statute in a way that would literally negate it and make it ``a largely meaningless exercise.'' She did everything she could, including defying Federal law and making legal arguments that even Justice Stevens could not accept, to pursue her political objective. In closing, I wanted to come to the floor today to describe for my colleagues the approach I am taking to evaluate Ms. Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court. The most important qualification for the position is her judicial philosophy, the kind of Justice she will be. The evidence for her judicial philosophy comes primarily from her record, and I have touched on some areas of concern that must be examined more closely. This is a grave decision. It is about more than simply one person. The liberty we enjoy in America requires that the people govern themselves and that, in turn, depends upon the kind of Justices who sit on the highest court in the land. George Washington said this in his farewell address: ``The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.'' Judges who bend the Constitution to their own values and who use the Constitution to pursue their own vision for society take this right away from the people and undermine liberty itself. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to express my support as a cosponsor of the National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act. At long last, our Nation is finally recognizing the increasing danger posed by cyber threats and the devastating disruption that they can cause because of the interdependent nature of information systems that support our Nation's critical infrastructure. As a Nation, we must develop a strategy that provides a strategic framework to prevent cyber attacks against America's critical infrastructures. As a government, we must reduce national vulnerability to cyber attacks and minimize the damage and recovery time from cyber attacks should they occur. I believe that the legislation that my colleague from Missouri and I are introducing today will provide a sure foundation to put our Nation on a path to begin to address cyber vulnerabilities. The challenge to protect cyberspace is vast and complex and ultimately requires the efforts of the entire government. As a Nation, we must recognize that cyber threats are multi-faceted and global in nature. These threats operate in an environment that rapidly changes. The sharing of information between government and the private sector is crucial to our overall national and economic viability. Last January, McAfee issued a report that concluded that the use of cyber attacks as a strategic weapon by governments and political organizations is on the rise. The U.S. is the most targeted nation in the world--and our military, government, and private sector systems are often attacked with impunity. Our Nation has experienced large-scale malicious cyber intrusions from individuals, groups and nations. These attacks have dramatically increased in number and complexity. Just last year, Google and over 30 other companies linked to our energy, finance, defense, technology and media sectors fell prey to costly cyber attacks. Too many nations either directly sanction this activity or give it tacit approval by failing to investigate or prosecute the perpetrators. Many of the major incidents are presently coming out of Russia and China. The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act would establish a National Cyber Center, housed within the Department of Defense. The mission of the National Cyber Center would be to serve as the primary organization for coordinating Federal Government defensive operations, cyber intelligence collection and analysis, and activities to protect and defend Federal Government information networks. Critical in achieving this mission would be the sharing of information between the private sector and federal agencies regarding cyber threats. This center would be led by a Senate-confirmed director modeled after the Director of National Intelligence position. The director reports directly to the President and would coordinate cyber activities to protect and defend Federal Government information networks. The director would serve as the President's principal adviser on such matters and developing policies for securing Federal Government information networks. In our Nation today, over 3/4 of our Nation's critical infrastructure is under the control of the private sector. One such example is smart grid technology for power grids. The Smart Grid will use automated meters, two-way communications and advanced sensors to improve electricity efficiency and reliability. The nation's utilities have embraced the concept and are installing millions of automated meters on homes across the country. However, cyber security experts have determined that some types of meters can be hacked. As we rely on technology developed by private industry, we must ensure that we harden this technology against threats that could leave our citizens vulnerable. The opening salvos of future conflicts will be launched in cyberspace. In 2008, we saw this occur when Russian forces launched a cyber attack on Georgian defense and information networks. The Russians essentially blinded the Georgian military during the South Ostessia conflict. Our reliance on technology and integrated networks certainly makes our military and critical infrastructure more efficient. However, that efficiency can have its price in the form of cyber vulnerability. As Americans, we must be prepared to fight back should we be attacked. We must also harden our networks against the tools that criminals use to steal a person's identity and a company's trade secrets. These are the same tools that today can and will be used by terrorists in the future to attack and erode our infrastructure and defense systems. The stakes are too high and the risks are too grave to delay. If we don't move now to protect our national cyber infrastructure, the consequences to our economy, security and citizens could be dire. This is a fight we must win. The only way to win is to be prepared.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to express my support as a cosponsor of the National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act. At long last, our Nation is finally recognizing the increasing danger posed by cyber threats and the devastating disruption that they can cause because of the interdependent nature of information systems that support our Nation's critical infrastructure. As a Nation, we must develop a strategy that provides a strategic framework to prevent cyber attacks against America's critical infrastructures. As a government, we must reduce national vulnerability to cyber attacks and minimize the damage and recovery time from cyber attacks should they occur. I believe that the legislation that my colleague from Missouri and I are introducing today will provide a sure foundation to put our Nation on a path to begin to address cyber vulnerabilities. The challenge to protect cyberspace is vast and complex and ultimately requires the efforts of the entire government. As a Nation, we must recognize that cyber threats are multi-faceted and global in nature. These threats operate in an environment that rapidly changes. The sharing of information between government and the private sector is crucial to our overall national and economic viability. Last January, McAfee issued a report that concluded that the use of cyber attacks as a strategic weapon by governments and political organizations is on the rise. The U.S. is the most targeted nation in the world--and our military, government, and private sector systems are often attacked with impunity. Our Nation has experienced large-scale malicious cyber intrusions from individuals, groups and nations. These attacks have dramatically increased in number and complexity. Just last year, Google and over 30 other companies linked to our energy, finance, defense, technology and media sectors fell prey to costly cyber attacks. Too many nations either directly sanction this activity or give it tacit approval by failing to investigate or prosecute the perpetrators. Many of the major incidents are presently coming out of Russia and China. The National Cyber Infrastructure Protection Act would establish a National Cyber Center, housed within the Department of Defense. The mission of the National Cyber Center would be to serve as the primary organization for coordinating Federal Government defensive operations, cyber intelligence collection and analysis, and activities to protect and defend Federal Government information networks. Critical in achieving this mission would be the sharing of information between the private sector and federal agencies regarding cyber threats. This center would be led by a Senate-confirmed director modeled after the Director of National Intelligence position. The director reports directly to the President and would coordinate cyber activities to protect and defend Federal Government information networks. The director would serve as the President's principal adviser on such matters and developing policies for securing Federal Government information networks. In our Nation today, over 3/4 of our Nation's critical infrastructure is under the control of the private sector. One such example is smart grid technology for power grids. The Smart Grid will use automated meters, two-way communications and advanced sensors to improve electricity efficiency and reliability. The nation's utilities have embraced the concept and are installing millions of automated meters on homes across the country. However, cyber security experts have determined that some types of meters can be hacked. As we rely on technology developed by private industry, we must ensure that we harden this technology against threats that could leave our citizens vulnerable. The opening salvos of future conflicts will be launched in cyberspace. In 2008, we saw this occur when Russian forces launched a cyber attack on Georgian defense and information networks. The Russians essentially blinded the Georgian military during the South Ostessia conflict. Our reliance on technology and integrated networks certainly makes our military and critical infrastructure more efficient. However, that efficiency can have its price in the form of cyber vulnerability. As Americans, we must be prepared to fight back should we be attacked. We must also harden our networks against the tools that criminals use to steal a person's identity and a company's trade secrets. These are the same tools that today can and will be used by terrorists in the future to attack and erode our infrastructure and defense systems. The stakes are too high and the risks are too grave to delay. If we don't move now to protect our national cyber infrastructure, the consequences to our economy, security and citizens could be dire. This is a fight we must win. The only way to win is to be prepared.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleague, and I appreciate being here with my two colleagues from Wyoming and also Idaho. Let me start by applauding Senator Murkowski for her strong leadership on this issue, and I stand squarely behind her effort. To summarize what has already been laid out, the EPA has released findings that, No. 1, human carbon emissions contribute in a significant way to global warming, and, No. 2, global warming, which has been going on for about 10,000 years now, is an endangerment to humans. The EPA's foundation for its proposal relies on the assumption that both of these findings are the truth. Madam President, I was sorely disappointed but not too surprised when I learned the EPA based its ``findings'' almost entirely on the work done by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- or the IPCC. I have no problem with much of the science produced by the IPCC scientists, but I have a real problem with the way that science is summarized by the political leaders at the IPCC and by the conclusions drawn by those same political leaders in the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers, which is not a science document. It becomes immediately evident that the EPA relies heavily on these political summaries and conclusions rather than actual science produced by the IPCC because we now have abundant proof that a wide gulf exists between what the science indicates and what the political leaders of the IPCC pretend that it indicates. But I am not asking anyone to take my word for this. Instead, let's listen to what the IPCC scientists are saying about the conclusions that politicians at the IPCC have been selling to policymakers. Here is what Dr. John T. Everett has to say. He was an IPCC lead author and expert reviewer and a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration senior manager. He says: It is time for a reality check. Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. Well, there is one of the IPCC's top scientists saying that the warming we are experiencing is not an endangerment. Let's hear another scientist, Dr. Richard Tol. He was the author of three full U.N. IPCC working groups and the Director of the Center for Marine and Atmospheric Science. He says: There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously. As an illustration, he explains: Warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold- related illnesses like the flu. What is that, Madam President? Here we have another top scientist at the IPCC telling us that warming will actually save lives, not endanger them? Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfeld, a contributing author to the U.N. IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, sends those of us who are policymakers a serious warning. He says: Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. I hope my colleagues in the Senate are listening today because these U.N. IPCC scientists are speaking directly to us. I wonder at what cost to our economy and our competitiveness will we as policymakers continue to ignore the actual scientists at the IPCC? There is nowhere near a scientific consensus on either one of the EPA's ``findings'' that humans are causing warming or that warming is necessarily bad for the environment or for humankind. MIT climate scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen, another IPCC lead author and expert reviewer, dispels the notion there is a scientific consensus in favor of drastic climate policy. He explains: One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a nobrainer. Another top IPCC scientist and lead author was Dr. John Christy. He explained that the U.N. IPCC process had become corrupted by politics. He says: I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol. The politicization at the U.N. was so egregious that Dr. Christopher W. Landsea, U.N. IPCC author and reviewer and expert scientist with NOAA's National Hurricane Center, pronounced: I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre- conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. Now, Madam President, there are many more U.N. and government scientists who have publicly expressed their professional opinions that the IPCC political projections are overblown and not supported by the science. I have put together a sampling of their quotations in a report called the ``UN Climate Scientists Speak Out on Global Warming.'' It is available for download on my Climate 101 link on my Web page. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two documents relating to climate change.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to address an issue that has been very carefully ignored by the EPA; that is, the--get this word-- ``benefit'' Americans can expect from the EPA's actions. As Senators, not many of us are scientists, but each of us is a policymaker. As policymakers, we are expected to fully analyze the costs and benefits of any proposal that comes before us. The endangerment the EPA points to is the warming we are supposedly causing. If warming is the endangerment, then the benefit is the amount of warming the regulations would avoid. Thanks to the IPCC, we have all the numbers and assumptions we need to be able to determine just how much warming we could avoid for the amount of carbon emissions the EPA can stop. Let's go on the assumption that the EPA will successfully reduce human CO2 emissions in this country by 83 percent over the next century. According to the alarmist and some would say overblown assumptions at the U.N. IPCC, Americans can expect a cooling benefit of somewhere between 0.07 and 0.2 degrees Celsius after a full 100 years of effort. That is right, we are being asked to give up trillions of dollars in economic activity, send all manufacturing activity overseas, give up millions of jobs, and put basic human activities under the control of the EPA, all for a benefit that cannot be measured on a household thermometer after 100 years of sacrifice and pain. The EPA tells us our human carbon emissions are leading to a general catastrophe, but then we find out that if we do what they say, it will make no real difference. So I ask the EPA Administrator this question: Have you done a real risk-benefit analysis of these proposed carbon emission regulations? I don't want to hear all the scary scenarios about general global warming; I want to know the actual risk associated with an 0.07 to 0.2 degree decrease in temperature over 100 years because that is what we are talking about here. That is the analysis I want to see because when you stack up the astounding costs on the scale against such a tiny benefit, you have the most lopsided and obvious failure of a cost-benefit analysis I have ever seen. I notice my other two colleagues are here. I have gone on a little longer than I wanted to. Exhibit 1 [From National Geographic News, July 31, 2009] Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change? (By James Owen) Desertification, drought, and despair--that's what global warming has in store for much of Africa. Or so we hear. Emerging evidence is painting a very different scenario, one in which rising temperatures could benefit millions of Africans in the driest parts of the continent. Scientists are now seeing signals that the Sahara desert and surrounding regions are greening due to increasing rainfall. If sustained, these rains could revitalize drought-ravaged regions, reclaiming them for farming communities. This desert-shrinking trend is supported by climate models, which predict a return to conditions that turned the Sahara into a lush savanna some 12,000 years ago. green shoots The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers). Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences. The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. The transition may be occurring because hotter air has more capacity to hold moisture, which in turn creates more rain, said Martin Claussen of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, who was not involved in the new study. ``The water-holding capacity of the air is the main driving force,'' Claussen said. not a single scorpion While satellite images can't distinguish temporary plants like grasses that come and go with the rains, ground surveys suggest recent vegetation change is firmly rooted. In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees--such as acacias--are flourishing, according to Stefan Kropelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne's Africa Research Unit in Germany. Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass,'' said Kropelin, who has studied the region for two decades. In 2008 Kropelin--not involved in the new satellite research--visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory controlled by Morocco. ``The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years,'' Kropelin said. ``They have never seen so much grazing land.'' ``Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,'' he said. ``Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back,'' he said. ``The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.'' uncertain future An explosion in plant growth has been predicted by some climate models. For instance, in 2005 a team led by Reindert Haarsma of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, the Netherlands, forecast significantly more future rainfall in the Sahel. The study in Geophysical Research Letters predicated that rainfall in the July to September wet season would rise by up to two millimeters a day by 2080. Satellite data shows ``that indeed during the last decade, the Sahel is becoming more green,'' Haarsma said. Even so, climate scientists don't agree on how future climate change will affect the Sahel: Some studies simulate a decrease in rainfall. ``This issue is still rather uncertain,'' Haarsma said. Max Planck's Claussen said North Africa is the area of greatest disagreement among climate change modelers. Forecasting how global warming will affect the region is complicated by its vast size and the unpredictable influence of high-altitude winds that disperse monsoon rains, Claussen added. ``Half the models follow a wetter trend, and half a drier.''

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I won't object, but I want to make sure I have enough time to give the remarks I was supposed to give.

Mr. HATCH. They will be wonderful remarks.