Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am hopeful that I can be finished by 4 o'clock.

Mr. HATCH. I have no objection.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's remarks and I appreciate his leadership on the Finance Committee. He is a fine man. We have been friends for a long time. He has had a very tough job on health care. But I was a little amazed that he would suggest the Republicans are opening up the health care bill after the distinguished Senator from Maryland actually opened it up with his amendment. I suspect there is going to be a lot of opening by Democrats, as well as Republicans, of the health care bill because it is a colossally bad bill. There is no sin in doing that. Plus I have to say, coming from one of the States that is one of the major producers of medical devices, most of those device companies hardly agreed to what has happened to them. They are going to have to pass those additional taxes on to consumers. I make those remarks to correct the record a little bit. I realize what my friend is saying. I suspect there will be a lot of amendments to what I consider to be a bill that I think will be a problem for the rest of our lives if we don't reform it. I rise today to express my deep concern about the so-called American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. I also wish to relay my growing frustration with the partisan gamesmanship and lack of leadership by the majority of this body that has brought us to the deplorable state in which we find ourselves in connection with the expired tax provisions. As a long-time member of the Committee on Finance, it has been my privilege to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to improve the tax laws of this country. While we have had our share of partisan fights over the nearly 20 years I have served on the committee, there has been an overall spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship that has set this panel apart from all the others on which I have served. Unfortunately, this positive spirit, which is so badly needed in the Congress today, has been unraveling for some time now. Nowhere is this degradation of bipartisan cooperation more evident than in taking care of what used to be the routine business of extending expiring tax provisions. This, of course, is a major objective of the bill before us. Let us move back a few steps and take an objective look at what we are attempting to do here with this bill. This legislation started out with the purpose of reinstating a growing number of important tax provisions that expired at the end of last year. I recall a time not so long ago when the Senate took care of expiring provisions before they lapsed, not 6 months or even more, after their sunset. The problem is not with the provisions themselves--they almost universally enjoy wide and deep support on both sides of the aisle. Nor is it a problem that these provisions are not important to the American economy. Admittedly, some of them are more significant than others. The research credit, for example, is vital to our battle to keep R&D activities here in the U.S.--which, by the way, is a battle we are in danger of losing to many of our trading partners, who are working hard to attract these activities away from our shores. Rather, the problem is twofold--a lack of taking care of needed business on the part of the Senate leadership and the tendency of the majority to use the expired tax provisions as a pawn in the games of politics they are playing. Let me offer several examples of this. First, it has sadly become commonplace for the leadership of the Senate to not even begin to take the extension of expiring tax provisions seriously until after they have expired. We have, so many times now, routinely extended these provisions after the fact on a retroactive basis, that we have created a sort of expectation that this is a normal and fine way of doing things. This is true despite the fact that we know and admit that this sloppy way of managing public policy will create additional complexity and burdens to the taxpayers that are dependent on these provisions. Second, the majority had ample opportunity before now to take up and pass the tax extenders, but political games got in the way. For example, early this year in a demonstration of bipartisanship worthy of the reputation of the Finance Committee, Chairman Baucus reached out to Senator Grassley and other committee members on both sides of the aisle in an attempt to put together a job creation bill. This bill, which was eventually enacted as the HIRE Act, was to have included the expired tax provisions. Practically everyone agrees that these provisions are job creators, and both sides wanted to put them in the bill. Instead, however, the majority leader essentially hijacked this cooperation and turned it into a partisan game where it was impossible for our side to participate. In the process of doing so, he inexplicably removed from the bill the expired tax provisions and trashed them as Republican-only initiatives. Thus, these tax extenders could have been enacted in March but the Democratic leadership demonstrated that it would rather play political games than get these important provisions taken care of, which we all pretty much supported. Third, when the majority finally did turn its attention to extending these expired tax provisions, it decided to attach unrelated provisions that it felt it could push through the Congress because extender bills eventually become ``must pass'' legislative vehicles. These unrelated provisions include an expansion of the controversial Build America Bonds program and a Medicare ``doc fix'' provision that had been promised in the so-called health care reform bill. Adding these provisions effectively turned the extenders into a pawn in this game of politics. Finally, the majority has engaged in a strange game of insisting that the expired tax provisions be offset with tax increases on other taxpayers, while allowing far larger portions of the bill, such as the extension of unemployment benefits, to remain un-offset under the guise that we are in an emergency. Mr. President, we are indeed in an emergency, but it is an emergency caused by too-high taxes and by lack of spending restraint. And by national debt that is compounding itself day after day, year after year, until we double our deficit in the next 5 years and triple it in 10, if we are lucky. The solution is certainly not to raise taxes and increase spending, yet this is exactly what this bill does. It is to these tax increases included in the bill that I wish to address the remainder of my remarks. Most of my colleagues know that I have been a strong and long-time supporter of many of the expired tax provisions. Let me again mention the importance of the research tax credit. I, along with Senator Baucus, have long championed this provision, and I have worked to make it a permanent credit so we do not have to see these repetitive lapses in its coverage, which only make it less effective as an incentive. I wish this bill included a permanent research tax credit, which many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the Obama administration insist they are in favor of enacting. Knowing that a permanent extension was out of the question, I attempted to strengthen the credit on a temporary basis, along the lines of the bill that Senator Baucus and I introduced last year, but the other side was not even willing to do this. Nevertheless, a straight extension of the current law research tax credit is significant and is of dire necessity. I hasten to point out it would not have been as effective as the strengthening provision that we both had agreed should be in the bill. Why, then, am I planning to vote against this bill? Along with the huge increase in un-offset spending, it is for the same reason that much of the business community is opposed to this legislation--the tax increases added to the bill will damage the economy and job creation and outweigh the benefits of extending the expired tax provisions. That is at a time when we know that unemployment is not coming down, nor is the economy getting that much better. Let us take a look at some of these so-called tax loopholes that this legislation is attempting to close. The largest revenue raiser in the bill is the so-called carried interest provision. For several years now, we have heard it stated with outrage that hedge fund managers get by with paying a lower tax rate on their billion dollar compensation packages than the tax rate their secretaries pay on their relatively meager salaries. Well, if it were this simple, maybe this is a legitimate loophole that we should have closed a long time ago. Unfortunately, it is not this simple. Rather, the carried interest issue is a complex one that permeates through many structures throughout our economy in ways that are difficult to understand. For example, the same partnership structure that is often utilized by a hedge fund is also used by venture capitalists and real estate developers. These structures have long been part of our tax law and many multi-billion dollar deals that have created millions of jobs have been built upon them. I am not here to say that from a tax policy point of view, the way we tax carried interest should not be examined and possibly changed. What I am here to say is that we need to use extreme caution in making any changes to the taxation of these structures. Why? Because the simple fact is that if we increase the tax rates and change the nature of income from these partnerships, the economic hurdle rates will rise, and fewer deals will get done. And if fewer deals are done, less economic activity will be generated and fewer jobs will be created. At this time of economic strife in this country, this is not a chance we should take. The problem Mr. President, is that these offsets are being considered for one reason and one reason only--for the tax revenue they are projected to provide. We are trying to fill a hole and we need a certain amount of new taxes to do it. We are not looking to improve tax policy here. If we were, we would approach this matter with the caution it warrants. Another big tax change in this bill before us also needs to be reconsidered. I refer to the provision to change the way certain owners of S corporations are subject to self-employment tax. This $11 billion plus revenue raiser will create all kinds of headaches for legitimate small businesses that are currently playing by the rules. The proponents of this change say that it is needed to close a loophole made famous by a former colleague of ours who will remain unnamed. However, the Internal Revenue Service already has all the tools it needs, in the form of existing tax rules, to enforce the kind of abuses that have occurred in this area. The provision in this bill to correct this problem would arbitrarily afflict certain small businesses whose only sin is that they might have three skilled professionals rather than four. Essentially, the provision creates a raft of unanswered and complex questions that will likely bedevil hundreds of thousands of small business owners who would much rather be concentrating on surviving the tough economic climate and possibly creating some new jobs. Finally, I must say a few words about another category of offsets in this bill that are entirely unjustified and were not well considered. These are the set of changes to the foreign tax credit rules that suddenly appeared on the scene just a few days ago. Unlike most other tax offsets that we discuss in the Finance Committee, which have been around for a long time and have had the benefit of examination by the professional tax community, these were sprung on us just a few days ago. They were not part of the administration's budget proposal and have not been subject to any kind of hearing in either House. Rather, they were apparently concocted by some backroom bureaucrats in the bowels of the executive branch and brought forth in the guise that these are glaring loopholes that must be closed for the sake of the future of the federal fisc. However, what I have been told by seasoned tax professionals in the business community is that these are, in large part, not loopholes at all but legitimate tax planning techniques that the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service have known about for years. What is worse is that the effective date of these provisions in this bill would have a retroactive effect. We all know that retroactive tax increases belie good public policy. Moreover, many on the majority side, including the chairmen of both of the tax-writing committees, earlier agreed that international tax reform provisions should be discussed in connection with international tax reform, not as a knee- jerk reaction to a perceived need for revenues on an unrelated bill. This is not good lawmaking and we should abandon consideration of these revenue raisers until we can examine them from a tax policy point of view. In conclusion, we are on the low road with this bill. I am frankly ashamed to tell Utahns who ask me about the expired provisions that Congress has not dealt with them yet, and that the reason why is that we are too busy playing partisan games to manage the affairs of the nation in a responsible way. It is not too late. Let us walk away from this mess and start again. Let us take up a clean bill to extend the expired provisions, which we all agree should be enacted, and then deal with these other issues separately. Most importantly, let us not increase taxes on anyone when the economy is in such a precarious position. As our side has stated many times before, these tax provisions have been paid for many times over in previous years, by enacting permanent offsets to go along with their temporary extension. Let us not hurt our constituents in the name of false fiscal responsibility. Let us instead employ real fiscal responsibility and start finding ways to address our runaway spending addiction. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been asked to raise a point of order that the Cardin amendment violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to increase tax fairness for America's primary and secondary school teachers. Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society. These women and men dedicate their careers to educating the young people of America. School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including in my home state of Utah, the salary of the average public school teacher is significantly below the national average. For a variety of economic and organizational reasons, schools across the nation are experiencing difficulties in recruiting teachers-- especially in the fields of math and science. There are at least two sources to this problem. First, schools are experiencing high levels of turnover related to retirement, relocation, and attrition. Second, there is an insufficient supply of new qualified math and science teachers coming in to the schools to compensate for the turnover. As a result of these factors, 31 percent of secondary schools across the nation report difficulties in filling math and science faculty positions. This teacher recruitment problem is especially troubling because it disproportionately affects small schools in urban and rural areas, especially those with limited access to funding. Unfortunately, the problems of retention and recruitment of public school teachers are exacerbated by the unfair tax treatment these professionals currently receive under our tax law. Specifically, teachers are greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of the total amount of out-of-pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying, as well as by the inability to deduct their professional development expenses. Let me explain. As with many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their fields of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to improve their knowledge or teaching skills. For example, in order to be certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, NBPTS, a teacher must pay a fee of $2,500. Expenditures like these are necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas, techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the best education possible. Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves spending not insignificant amounts of money to provide basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. New teachers in their first and second years are especially susceptible to a large financial burden as they must start from scratch in establishing a curriculum and classroom for their students. I realize that employees in many fields incur expenses for professional development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these costs are reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case with school teachers. Other professionals who are self-employed are generally able to fully deduct these types of expenses. Under the current tax law, unreimbursed expenses for all employees are deductible generally, but only as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However, there are two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-deductible for most teachers. The first hurdle is that the total amount of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed 2 percent of gross income before they begin to be deductible. The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the 2 percent floor, if any, combined with all other deductions of the taxpayer, must exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only about one-third of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize. The unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct their professional development and out-of-pocket supplies expenses. Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example. Let us consider the case of a first-year teacher in Utah, whom we will refer to as Michelle. Michelle is newly married. She and her husband together expect to earn $48,000 this year. As a brand-new teacher, Michelle has none of the classroom decorations, materials, or curriculum aides that veteran teachers have accumulated. In an effort to quickly collect some necessary items for her classroom, a new teacher like Michelle will probably spend close to $1,500 of her own money. She will not be reimbursed for any of these expenses by the school district. Under current law, Michelle's expenditures are deductible, subject to the two limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses must exceed 2 percent of her and her husband's joint income before they begin to be deductible. Two percent of $48,000 is $960. Thus, only $540 of her $1,500 total expense is potentially deductible-- that portion that exceeds $960. As a married taxpayer, Michelle's standard deduction this year is $11,400. Her total itemized deductions, including the $540 in qualified miscellaneous deductions for her professional expenses and out-of- pocket classroom supplies, will fall far short of the standard deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $540 of the original $1,500 in out-of-pocket costs is deductible for Michelle. What the first limitation did not block, the second one did, and Michelle gets no deduction at all for these expenses under the current law. The entry-level employees in the teaching field are the first- and second-year teachers like Michelle, who receive the lowest relative salary and yet often incur the greatest school-related expenses. These expenses place a heavy burden on our teachers and can act as a significant barrier to entry to the teaching profession. Many of these new teachers are renting and fresh out of college, and are thus very unlikely to be able to itemize their deductions. Therefore, without the ability to itemize, the teachers with the greatest need of tax relief are the ones least likely to receive it. This problem is not isolated to first-year teachers. Veteran educators, like Kristen Adamson, also an elementary school teacher in Utah, have also expressed their concerns about this tax inequity. Kristen is preparing for a class of 35 fifth-graders next year--the most she's ever had. She, like most teachers, feels that it is her duty to provide all of her students with the materials they will need to successfully complete their school work. There are few careers that I know of in which employees take similar initiative. This year, due to limited state funding, Kristen will be forced to choose between a class set of colored pencils or a class set of crayons. Whatever the district does not provide, Kristen will be forced to purchase herself. Further, the school district provides only one notebook per student, but her pupils require a minimum of four each to organize their work. With 35 students, these costs can add up very quickly. Kristen typically does not have enough deductions to itemize and therefore, like most teachers, will receive little or no tax relief. As you can see, public school educators are at a marked disadvantage under the current tax law, and they deserve better treatment. Not only is the situation morally unacceptable, it is aggravating to our teacher retention and recruitment problems. I have been fighting to pass legislation that will help alleviate this long-standing problem for almost a decade. In 2001, I first introduced the Tax Equity for School Teachers Act. This legislation would have provided an unlimited tax deduction for the out-of-pocket expenses school teachers incur to acquire necessary training and materials. Rather than being available only to those who are able to itemize their deductions, this bill would have made these expenses ``above-the- line'' deductions, meaning they would be deductible whether or not the teacher itemized on their tax return. Unfortunately, only a part of this bill was enacted. The 2001 tax act included an above the-line deduction for $250 for the costs of classroom expenses. While this was a step in the right direction, it was essentially a symbolic gesture as teachers typically spend far more than $250 on school-related expenses. This deduction has expired and has been renewed several times, but it expired again at the end of last year. It is not clear when Congress is going to extend it. The bill I am introducing today would do three things. First, it would reinstate the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of- pocket expenses for classroom supplies, make it permanent, and remove the $250 cap. Second, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the professional development expenses for school teachers. Finally, to assist in the recruitment of teachers in the most-needed fields, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the cost of professionals in the fields of math, science, and technology to certify to become public school teachers. Under my bill, first-year teacher Michelle would be allowed to deduct all $1,500 of her professional development and classroom supplies expenses, whether she itemized or not. Similarly, Kristen would be able to deduct all of the expenses she incurred to provide materials for her students. This would help provide tax equity and a measure of much- needed tax relief for scores of underpaid professionals. It would also help retain current public school teachers and attract new ones to the field. Some might argue that such a generous deduction would be giving teachers preferential treatment. I disagree. Most organizations provide training and supplies for their employees that are fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable to the employee. Yet, public teachers pay for training out of their own pocket, as is the case with NBPTS certification. Others may question the wisdom of my bill granting an unlimited tax deduction. Why not place a limit or cap on the amount that may be deducted, some might ask. Again, I respectfully disagree with such critics. It is important to keep in mind the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit. My bill calls for tax deductions, which essentially act as a cost-sharing arrangement between the teacher and the government. Deductions reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax. A credit, on the other hand, is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of tax that is due. With a tax deduction, a public school teacher is not receiving a cash subsidy or reimbursement for his or her expenses. Rather, he or she is merely obtaining a reduction in the amount of income that is taxed. Thus, the most benefit a teacher would receive under my bill would be a 35 percent reduction in the cost of professional development, supplies, or certification expenses. For the vast majority of teachers, the amount would be far less than 35 percent, because they are in lower tax brackets. This means that the teacher is still responsible for paying for the biggest portion of these costs. In other words, this bill does not provide an incentive for teachers to spend unnecessary funds; it simply provides a discount for teachers who use their common sense and spend their money appropriately. If anything, this deduction is not generous enough, but it would go a long way toward providing help for these dedicated professionals. Support for mathematics and science education at all levels is necessary to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology. I endorse the efforts of some of my colleagues to encourage more of our best and brightest students who choose these fields of study. Sup ort for qualified STEM teachers, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is equally important. If we are successful in increasing the supply of STEM students, we will need to take drastic measures to increase the already strained supply of STEM teachers. This bill would provide incentives for these professionals to enter the teaching profession by allowing expenses in connection with teacher licensing and certification to be fully deductible, above the line, the same as professional development and supplies expenses of teaching professionals. This bill would provide modest tax relief for teachers who, for too long, have been treated unfairly under our tax laws. It would alleviate significant barriers to entry to the teaching profession and would help solve some of our teacher recruitment and retention problems. Our teachers deserve whatever help we can provide. It is time that Congress recognized this unfairness and corrected it. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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 legislation designed to increase tax fairness for America's primary and secondary school teachers. Our public school teachers are some of the unheralded heroes of our society. These women and men dedicate their careers to educating the young people of America. School teachers labor in often difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including in my home state of Utah, the salary of the average public school teacher is significantly below the national average. For a variety of economic and organizational reasons, schools across the nation are experiencing difficulties in recruiting teachers-- especially in the fields of math and science. There are at least two sources to this problem. First, schools are experiencing high levels of turnover related to retirement, relocation, and attrition. Second, there is an insufficient supply of new qualified math and science teachers coming in to the schools to compensate for the turnover. As a result of these factors, 31 percent of secondary schools across the nation report difficulties in filling math and science faculty positions. This teacher recruitment problem is especially troubling because it disproportionately affects small schools in urban and rural areas, especially those with limited access to funding. Unfortunately, the problems of retention and recruitment of public school teachers are exacerbated by the unfair tax treatment these professionals currently receive under our tax law. Specifically, teachers are greatly disadvantaged by the lack of deductibility of the total amount of out-of-pocket costs of classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves supplying, as well as by the inability to deduct their professional development expenses. Let me explain. As with many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their fields of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to improve their knowledge or teaching skills. For example, in order to be certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, NBPTS, a teacher must pay a fee of $2,500. Expenditures like these are necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas, techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the best education possible. Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves spending not insignificant amounts of money to provide basic classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material teachers need to adequately present their lessons. New teachers in their first and second years are especially susceptible to a large financial burden as they must start from scratch in establishing a curriculum and classroom for their students. I realize that employees in many fields incur expenses for professional development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these costs are reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case with school teachers. Other professionals who are self-employed are generally able to fully deduct these types of expenses. Under the current tax law, unreimbursed expenses for all employees are deductible generally, but only as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However, there are two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-deductible for most teachers. The first hurdle is that the total amount of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed 2 percent of gross income before they begin to be deductible. The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the 2 percent floor, if any, combined with all other deductions of the taxpayer, must exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only about one-third of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize. The unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct their professional development and out-of-pocket supplies expenses. Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example. Let us consider the case of a first-year teacher in Utah, whom we will refer to as Michelle. Michelle is newly married. She and her husband together expect to earn $48,000 this year. As a brand-new teacher, Michelle has none of the classroom decorations, materials, or curriculum aides that veteran teachers have accumulated. In an effort to quickly collect some necessary items for her classroom, a new teacher like Michelle will probably spend close to $1,500 of her own money. She will not be reimbursed for any of these expenses by the school district. Under current law, Michelle's expenditures are deductible, subject to the two limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses must exceed 2 percent of her and her husband's joint income before they begin to be deductible. Two percent of $48,000 is $960. Thus, only $540 of her $1,500 total expense is potentially deductible-- that portion that exceeds $960. As a married taxpayer, Michelle's standard deduction this year is $11,400. Her total itemized deductions, including the $540 in qualified miscellaneous deductions for her professional expenses and out-of- pocket classroom supplies, will fall far short of the standard deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $540 of the original $1,500 in out-of-pocket costs is deductible for Michelle. What the first limitation did not block, the second one did, and Michelle gets no deduction at all for these expenses under the current law. The entry-level employees in the teaching field are the first- and second-year teachers like Michelle, who receive the lowest relative salary and yet often incur the greatest school-related expenses. These expenses place a heavy burden on our teachers and can act as a significant barrier to entry to the teaching profession. Many of these new teachers are renting and fresh out of college, and are thus very unlikely to be able to itemize their deductions. Therefore, without the ability to itemize, the teachers with the greatest need of tax relief are the ones least likely to receive it. This problem is not isolated to first-year teachers. Veteran educators, like Kristen Adamson, also an elementary school teacher in Utah, have also expressed their concerns about this tax inequity. Kristen is preparing for a class of 35 fifth-graders next year--the most she's ever had. She, like most teachers, feels that it is her duty to provide all of her students with the materials they will need to successfully complete their school work. There are few careers that I know of in which employees take similar initiative. This year, due to limited state funding, Kristen will be forced to choose between a class set of colored pencils or a class set of crayons. Whatever the district does not provide, Kristen will be forced to purchase herself. Further, the school district provides only one notebook per student, but her pupils require a minimum of four each to organize their work. With 35 students, these costs can add up very quickly. Kristen typically does not have enough deductions to itemize and therefore, like most teachers, will receive little or no tax relief. As you can see, public school educators are at a marked disadvantage under the current tax law, and they deserve better treatment. Not only is the situation morally unacceptable, it is aggravating to our teacher retention and recruitment problems. I have been fighting to pass legislation that will help alleviate this long-standing problem for almost a decade. In 2001, I first introduced the Tax Equity for School Teachers Act. This legislation would have provided an unlimited tax deduction for the out-of-pocket expenses school teachers incur to acquire necessary training and materials. Rather than being available only to those who are able to itemize their deductions, this bill would have made these expenses ``above-the- line'' deductions, meaning they would be deductible whether or not the teacher itemized on their tax return. Unfortunately, only a part of this bill was enacted. The 2001 tax act included an above the-line deduction for $250 for the costs of classroom expenses. While this was a step in the right direction, it was essentially a symbolic gesture as teachers typically spend far more than $250 on school-related expenses. This deduction has expired and has been renewed several times, but it expired again at the end of last year. It is not clear when Congress is going to extend it. The bill I am introducing today would do three things. First, it would reinstate the above-the-line deduction for teachers' out-of- pocket expenses for classroom supplies, make it permanent, and remove the $250 cap. Second, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the professional development expenses for school teachers. Finally, to assist in the recruitment of teachers in the most-needed fields, it would provide an unlimited deduction for the cost of professionals in the fields of math, science, and technology to certify to become public school teachers. Under my bill, first-year teacher Michelle would be allowed to deduct all $1,500 of her professional development and classroom supplies expenses, whether she itemized or not. Similarly, Kristen would be able to deduct all of the expenses she incurred to provide materials for her students. This would help provide tax equity and a measure of much- needed tax relief for scores of underpaid professionals. It would also help retain current public school teachers and attract new ones to the field. Some might argue that such a generous deduction would be giving teachers preferential treatment. I disagree. Most organizations provide training and supplies for their employees that are fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable to the employee. Yet, public teachers pay for training out of their own pocket, as is the case with NBPTS certification. Others may question the wisdom of my bill granting an unlimited tax deduction. Why not place a limit or cap on the amount that may be deducted, some might ask. Again, I respectfully disagree with such critics. It is important to keep in mind the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit. My bill calls for tax deductions, which essentially act as a cost-sharing arrangement between the teacher and the government. Deductions reduce the amount of income that is subject to tax. A credit, on the other hand, is a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the amount of tax that is due. With a tax deduction, a public school teacher is not receiving a cash subsidy or reimbursement for his or her expenses. Rather, he or she is merely obtaining a reduction in the amount of income that is taxed. Thus, the most benefit a teacher would receive under my bill would be a 35 percent reduction in the cost of professional development, supplies, or certification expenses. For the vast majority of teachers, the amount would be far less than 35 percent, because they are in lower tax brackets. This means that the teacher is still responsible for paying for the biggest portion of these costs. In other words, this bill does not provide an incentive for teachers to spend unnecessary funds; it simply provides a discount for teachers who use their common sense and spend their money appropriately. If anything, this deduction is not generous enough, but it would go a long way toward providing help for these dedicated professionals. Support for mathematics and science education at all levels is necessary to improve the global competitiveness of the United States in science and energy technology. I endorse the efforts of some of my colleagues to encourage more of our best and brightest students who choose these fields of study. Sup ort for qualified STEM teachers, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, is equally important. If we are successful in increasing the supply of STEM students, we will need to take drastic measures to increase the already strained supply of STEM teachers. This bill would provide incentives for these professionals to enter the teaching profession by allowing expenses in connection with teacher licensing and certification to be fully deductible, above the line, the same as professional development and supplies expenses of teaching professionals. This bill would provide modest tax relief for teachers who, for too long, have been treated unfairly under our tax laws. It would alleviate significant barriers to entry to the teaching profession and would help solve some of our teacher recruitment and retention problems. Our teachers deserve whatever help we can provide. It is time that Congress recognized this unfairness and corrected it. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and I are introducing the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010, which is similar to the legislation we introduced in the 108th Congress. Our goal in introducing this commonsense bill is to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration properly implements and enforces existing dietary supplement laws--namely the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act, DSHEA, and the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2006. This is important to protect the 150,000,000 Americans who regularly take dietary supplements and to remove ``bad actor'' companies from the marketplace. This issue is extremely important because the laws already on the books are sufficient if the FDA has the resources and the will to fully enforce them. Indeed, previous FDA commissioners--Dr. Jane Henney, Dr. Mark McClellan, Dr. Lester Crawford and Dr. Andy von Eschenbach--have all stated as much in Senate hearings and in my meetings with them. Moreover, current FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg has assured me that she will work with me to ensure these laws are enforced. Bottom line: the FDA already has the regulatory authority it needs under current law. That is why I will not support any changes to existing dietary supplement laws until the legislation we are introducing today has been approved by both the House and the Senate and signed into law by the President. We also need to ensure this legislation is fully funded by this Congress and enforced by the FDA with the full backing of this Administration. It is important to give FDA the resources it needs to accomplish both tasks. The legislation that we are introducing today will do just that. Senator Harkin and I have asked our colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide the FDA with the funds it needs to fully implement DSHEA. We will continue to work diligently to help them succeed in that task. As you know, DSHEA clarified the FDA's regulatory authority over dietary supplements while ensuring that Americans will continue to have access to safe dietary supplements and helpful information about these products. It passed the Senate twice by unanimous consent. The legislation we are introducing today includes a Sense of the Congress and outlines the methods the FDA should use to better implement and enforce laws related to dietary supplements. It further requires the dietary supplement industry to redouble its efforts to comply with the law and cooperate with the FDA. To provide the FDA with the resources necessary to regulate compliance with dietary supplement laws, this bill directs the agency to use part of its 2010 Fiscal Year Budget for that purpose. It also authorizes the National Institutes of Health's Office of Dietary Supplements to expand research and develop more consumer information on dietary supplements. Furthermore, the legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit an annual report to Congress, starting no later than January 31, 2011, regarding HHS activities on dietary supplements. Finally, it directs the FDA to issue its New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) guidance, as recommended by the General Accountability Office, within 180 days and requires the FDA to share any information on tainted NDI with the Drug Enforcement Agency. It is my sincere hope that all my colleagues will support this effort to ensure that dietary supplement consumers and manufacturers are protected and properly regulated. Our constituents deserve no less. This legislation is supported by the Major League Baseball and NFL players associations, the Natural Products Association, the United Natural Products Alliance, Council for Responsible Nutrition, American Herbal Products Association and the Consumer Health Care Products Association. I hope that each of you will see the wisdom in supporting this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and I are introducing the Dietary Supplement Full Implementation and Enforcement Act of 2010, which is similar to the legislation we introduced in the 108th Congress. Our goal in introducing this commonsense bill is to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration properly implements and enforces existing dietary supplement laws--namely the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health Education Act, DSHEA, and the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2006. This is important to protect the 150,000,000 Americans who regularly take dietary supplements and to remove ``bad actor'' companies from the marketplace. This issue is extremely important because the laws already on the books are sufficient if the FDA has the resources and the will to fully enforce them. Indeed, previous FDA commissioners--Dr. Jane Henney, Dr. Mark McClellan, Dr. Lester Crawford and Dr. Andy von Eschenbach--have all stated as much in Senate hearings and in my meetings with them. Moreover, current FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg has assured me that she will work with me to ensure these laws are enforced. Bottom line: the FDA already has the regulatory authority it needs under current law. That is why I will not support any changes to existing dietary supplement laws until the legislation we are introducing today has been approved by both the House and the Senate and signed into law by the President. We also need to ensure this legislation is fully funded by this Congress and enforced by the FDA with the full backing of this Administration. It is important to give FDA the resources it needs to accomplish both tasks. The legislation that we are introducing today will do just that. Senator Harkin and I have asked our colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee to provide the FDA with the funds it needs to fully implement DSHEA. We will continue to work diligently to help them succeed in that task. As you know, DSHEA clarified the FDA's regulatory authority over dietary supplements while ensuring that Americans will continue to have access to safe dietary supplements and helpful information about these products. It passed the Senate twice by unanimous consent. The legislation we are introducing today includes a Sense of the Congress and outlines the methods the FDA should use to better implement and enforce laws related to dietary supplements. It further requires the dietary supplement industry to redouble its efforts to comply with the law and cooperate with the FDA. To provide the FDA with the resources necessary to regulate compliance with dietary supplement laws, this bill directs the agency to use part of its 2010 Fiscal Year Budget for that purpose. It also authorizes the National Institutes of Health's Office of Dietary Supplements to expand research and develop more consumer information on dietary supplements. Furthermore, the legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to submit an annual report to Congress, starting no later than January 31, 2011, regarding HHS activities on dietary supplements. Finally, it directs the FDA to issue its New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) guidance, as recommended by the General Accountability Office, within 180 days and requires the FDA to share any information on tainted NDI with the Drug Enforcement Agency. It is my sincere hope that all my colleagues will support this effort to ensure that dietary supplement consumers and manufacturers are protected and properly regulated. Our constituents deserve no less. This legislation is supported by the Major League Baseball and NFL players associations, the Natural Products Association, the United Natural Products Alliance, Council for Responsible Nutrition, American Herbal Products Association and the Consumer Health Care Products Association. I hope that each of you will see the wisdom in supporting this measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to S. 3217, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act. I am not opposed to financial regulatory reform, but there is precious little of that in this misnamed bill. No, real financial regulatory reform is something that should have been done a year ago, but, instead, Democratic leaders and the Obama administration opted to focus on a Washington takeover of our Nation's health care system. There are a few parts to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act that are worthy of support. In particular, I believe we need to monitor derivatives to require more capitalization and demand issuers maintain a stake in the game when creating and selling certain financial instruments. However, I think this bill is going to do more harm than good to our economy. It will weaken our financial system rather than strengthen it. Furthermore, it not only preserves the fragmented financial regulatory structure that is already in place but adds even more burdensome, costly, and misguided regulations. Before I list my concerns about the bill, I am going to address the specious accusations I have heard from the other side of the aisle that Republicans are being obstructionist or trying to protect the interests of Wall Street over those of Main Street. Give me a break. These accusations are not only false, they are aimed at diverting attention from our solutions to a bad bill by attacking our credibility and motivations. We are not trying to protect anyone except the American people who are the victims of this economic collapse. Let me be clear that every Senate Republican and I want financial regulatory reform in order to prevent a recurrence of what happened a couple of years ago with the collapse of our financial markets. But the problem with this proposal is that it not only regulates Wall Street but also Main Street. It goes beyond regulating large financial institutions that caused the problem and proposes to regulate community banks and credit unions, payday lenders, and other small businesses and almost any business that provides financing to their customers. If the other side is implying that we are trying to protect Wall Street because we have some sort of special relationship with large financial institutions, that is blatantly false on its face and simply not true. Large financial institutions contributed way more to Democrats than Republicans in the last election and elections before that. If anyone is guilty of trying to do a special favor for Wall Street, it certainly isn't this side. That is all I can say. If you look at the financial filings, it is pretty darn clear who Wall Street supported. If anything, I believe this bill will benefit Wall Street in the sense that it is something they can always get around. It would provide a perpetual bailout for large financial institutions. I know there is an argument against that, but look at the bill. It would require higher capitalization for many of the companies in which these institutions invest and place larger financial institutions at an unfair advantage over smaller financial institutions. But don't take it from me. Take it from the CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, who said ``the biggest beneficiary of reform is Wall Street itself.'' He is a smart guy. He deserves to be the president of Goldman Sachs, one of the more important companies on Wall Street. There isn't any way they would not get around whatever we do today. They are the smartest people on Earth. So the claim that Republicans are trying to protect Wall Street doesn't hold very much water at all. Some on the other side of the aisle have claimed our objective is to obstruct passage of any financial regulatory reform bill. I can't agree with that. In fact, I cannot disagree more. Not only did a Democrat join Republicans in voting against proceeding to this bill, another Democrat who serves on the Banking Committee and has been involved in negotiations noted that the concerns being raised by Republicans about potential bailouts of large financial institutions are legitimate. He validated our concerns by stating that ``there are parts that need to be tightened.'' So at the very least, both Democrats and Republicans believe this bill leaves a lot of room for improvement. I would like to turn my attention to the substance of the bill. The reasons I am opposed to this legislation are because, along with many others, I have serious misgivings about its effectiveness, specifically the FDIC's orderly liquidation authority, the overregulation of the consumer protection agency, and the lack of reforming Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The meltdown of our financial markets highlights a major flaw in our financial regulatory system--the expeditious dissolution of a financial institution. I recently finished reading former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's book, ``On The Brink,'' which details the time leading up to the catastrophic failures and the handling of the crisis. I would like to read a short passage: Back in my temporary office on the 13th floor, a jolt of fear suddenly overcame me as I thought of what lay ahead of us. Lehman was as good as dead, and AIG's problems were spiraling out of control. With the U.S. sinking deeper into recession, the failure of a large financial institution would reverberate throughout the country--and far beyond our shores. It would take years for us to dig ourselves out from under such a disaster. What I took away from this book was the enormity and complexity of trying to dissolve these large financial institutions before their assets disappeared. There is no doubt that our current system is incapable of handling such a complicated task. In fact, over the last few weeks, I not only read ``On The Brink,'' but I read ``The Ascent of Money.'' I read ``The Panic of 1907'' and was amazed at the correlation between 1907 and 2007. I read ``On The Brink'' by Hank Paulson. I read Sorkin's book, ``Too Big To Fail.'' Just last weekend I read the book, ``The Big Short,'' by Michael Lewis, which is an excellent read. They have all been excellent reads. That is in the last few weeks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, was established in 1933 to insure bank deposits. It mainly deals with the common brick- and-mortar bank that most of us use on a daily basis. It oversees roughly 8,000 depository institutions and $9 trillion in deposits. In the aftermath of the economic collapse, the FDIC administered 25 bank failures in 2008 and 140 in 2009. That is approximately 2 percent of all the banks they oversee. Despite such a low percentage, the FDIC's deposit insurance fund was nearly depleted. According to the Federal Reserve, there are approximately 5,000 top-tier bank holding companies with roughly $17 trillion in assets. The top 10 largest financial institutions hold $9 trillion in assets. The current financial regulatory reform bill proposes to provide the FDIC with an orderly liquidation authority to unwind not only depository institutions but now large financial institutions that pose a systemic risk to our financial system. With the passage of this bill, the FDIC would be responsible for unwinding nearly double the total number of assets. However, the magnitude of the task is the least of my concerns. By taking the resolution out of the bankruptcy courts, with all of their expertise, and putting it in an executive branch administrative proceeding conducted by politically appointed bureaucrats, we definitely lose transparency and accountability. It is ridiculous. If you would like to see a glimpse of the consequences of losing transparency and accountability, just look at the FDIC's behind-closed- doors handling of Washington Mutual. During a Senate investigatory hearing last month, former Washington Mutual Chief Executive Kerry Killinger denounced the FDIC's handling of the bank failure as ``unnecessary'' and ``unfair,'' partly because the thrift was shut out of hundreds of meetings and phone calls with financial industry executives who determined the ``winners and losers'' in the crisis. Our current bankruptcy courts avoid many of the problems associated with creating a government resolution authority and are a superior way of dealing with failed or failing nonbank financial firms. The bankruptcy courts make dissolving large institutions transparent. That is why we have them. They are experts at it. They know what they are doing. We can all watch what they are doing. We can read the pleadings. We can do a lot of things that bring transparency. The other way will not. That brings me to my next concern with this bill, the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Of course, I think we can all agree we need to strengthen consumer protection within our financial system. But I first believe we need to ask what went wrong with the current system before we create yet another government agency to create more regulations and oversight. This will only make it more difficult for consumers and small businesses to obtain a loan, a line of credit, or a credit card. The entire alphabet soup of Federal Government agencies--the FDIC, OCC, SEC, FTC, and the Fed--all have consumer protection divisions. However, these divisions did not meet the standard of protection we need. Extracting these consumer protection arms from each of the agencies and putting them in a new agency is like taking the worn parts from several clunkers and using them to build another car. You will still have a clunker. Furthermore, think of the costs that new local banks, credit unions, payday lenders, and other industries that deal with credit, such as auto dealers and other small businesses, will incur when trying to comply with all these new, overly burdensome regulations. But the worst part of this legislation is what it is missing--reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two mortgage agencies caused the financial crisis by backing loans to people who couldn't afford them. But that certainly didn't stop Uncle Sam from bailing them out at a cost to taxpayers of some $145 billion. This financial abuse is swept under the rug because the debt is not put on our books. These companies, which the government now fully owns, are not considered government agencies and, therefore, are not included when tallying up our outrageous trillion-dollar deficits. I might add, that is just the beginning. We all know Fannie and Freddie are about to explode into all kinds of bigger problems, some estimate as much as $500 billion. That is scary. Yet we are not doing a doggone thing about it in this bill. We should have faced the music and done whatever we could. A lot of games are played with the budget. As I said before, I support financial regulatory reform. However, this bill falls short of reform and opens the way for another economic collapse to occur. It will unjustly protect companies that are deemed too big to fail by providing them preferential treatment during FDIC- conducted liquidations. It will create costly burdens for the 99 percent of financial institutions that did not cause the financial collapse, and it misses the mark by not addressing the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There are other reasons, but I think I will limit my remarks today to those few. Those few involve trillions of dollars, involve all kinds of future problems for our country, and I think will lead us even further down the path of poor economics, higher debt, higher spending, more and more government, and less and less control by the people. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Williams, a detailee in my office from the Food and Drug Administration; Ron Rowe, a detailee in my office from the Secret Service; Ryika Hooshangi, a foreign affairs fellow in my office from the Department of State; MAJ Ken Kuebler, a military fellow in my office from the U.S. Air Force, all be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the second session of the 111th Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this week marks National Police Week and the observance of National Peace Officers Memorial Day. I want to take this opportunity to remember the brave men and women of law enforcement who have made the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in the line of duty. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been nearly 19,000 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. On average, one law enforcement officer is killed somewhere in the United States every 53 hours. There are more than 900,000 sworn law enforcement officers now serving in the United States, which is the highest figure ever. This year, 116 names will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, DC. We should remember that there are 116 families who grieve the loss of a loved one who gave their life to protect their community and keep their fellow citizens safe. The sacrifice of those brave officers is the price paid for living in open society where freedoms are guaranteed by our Nation's laws. When those laws are violated, we look to our protectors who wear the badge to answer the call. During the dedication of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in 1991, President George H.W. Bush said, ``Carved on these walls is the story of America, of a continuing quest to preserve both democracy and decency, and to protect a national treasure that we call the American Dream.'' That is what our dedicated law enforcement professionals do every day. They protect the American dream. The first recorded law enforcement death in my home State of Utah was in 1853. That was when Salt Lake County deputy Rodney Badger gave his life to try to save a fellow Utahn. Since then, 62 of Utah's finest have made the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives in service to the State of Utah. While there were no police officers killed in 2009, there have already been two members of Utah's law enforcement community who have been killed in the line of duty this year. Their deeds and service will not be forgotten, and my thoughts are with their families. We shall always remember that it is not how these officers died that made them heroes, it was how they lived. That sentiment is embodied in both the Utah and National Law Enforcement Officers Memorials. The deadliest day in law enforcement history was September 11, 2001, when 72 officers were killed while responding to the terrorist attacks on America. On that day, at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and at Shanksville, PA, Americans witnessed firsthand the front line on the war on terror. That was the day when Americans saw courage in the midst of chaos from our brave men and women in law enforcement. Our Nation also recorded deeds of uncommon valor not only from our military, police, and fire personnel, but also from our citizens who sacrificed themselves as patriots for their country. It is that spirit that sets us apart as Americans. It was that spirit of sacrifice on which our Nation was founded. It is our duty to acknowledge and record the sacrifice of those who perished trying to save others. As the recent event in Times Square has shown us, law enforcement has had to bear the responsibility of not only protecting citizens from crime but also from the violence of extreme beliefs and terrorism. The mission of the law enforcement officer has been transformed over 200 years to include being a crime fighter, problem-solver, counselor, social worker, and now protector of the homeland. As the duties of law enforcement continue to expand, we recognize that Federal agents, officers, and deputies never shirk the tasks assigned to them. They do it willingly and eagerly accept the challenge. There are those in Washington who posture, saying ``failure is not an option.'' However, within the law enforcement community, failure is not in their vocabulary. Their steadfast dedication to serve victims, protect the weak, and fight crime motivates them to not accept failure even if it requires making the ultimate sacrifice. In closing, this week I urge my colleagues to take a moment and think about those who walk the beat, patrol the streets, and watch over us. The men and women of law enforcement stand tall to protect us, our families, and our communities. Law enforcement is often a thankless job and is truly, more often than not, more of a calling than a vocation. It takes a special person to answer that call and choose to provide the blanket of security by enforcing the laws of this great land.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Preserving the American Historical Record Act, a bill that I introduced along with Senator Levin today. This is a piece of legislation designed to ensure the protection of important historical documents housed and preserved at the State and local level. Put simply, this legislation would require the Archivist of the United States to make grants to the States for a number of purposes, including protecting historical records, promoting the use of such records in new and creative ways, providing education and training to those who care for historical records and creating a wide variety of access tools of key records maintained by State and local organizations. The bill authorizes $50,000,000 a year--a very modest sum, all things considered--to be distributed among the States according to formulas based on both size and geographical area. We live in a time where there has been a resurgence in interest in family history and genealogical research. With the advancement of internet research tools, millions of Americans have gone online to learn more about their pasts. Indeed, this type of research is among the more prominent uses of Internet resources, as evidenced by the growth of websites and services like Ancestry.com and Family Search. Also, millions of Americans have tuned into hit television shows describing the experience and revelation that comes with the discovery of one's family history. I want to thank Senator Levin for working with me on this legislation, as well as our cosponsors Senators Bennett, Schumer, Kerry, Shaheen, and Gillibrand.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Preserving the American Historical Record Act, a bill that I introduced along with Senator Levin today. This is a piece of legislation designed to ensure the protection of important historical documents housed and preserved at the State and local level. Put simply, this legislation would require the Archivist of the United States to make grants to the States for a number of purposes, including protecting historical records, promoting the use of such records in new and creative ways, providing education and training to those who care for historical records and creating a wide variety of access tools of key records maintained by State and local organizations. The bill authorizes $50,000,000 a year--a very modest sum, all things considered--to be distributed among the States according to formulas based on both size and geographical area. We live in a time where there has been a resurgence in interest in family history and genealogical research. With the advancement of internet research tools, millions of Americans have gone online to learn more about their pasts. Indeed, this type of research is among the more prominent uses of Internet resources, as evidenced by the growth of websites and services like Ancestry.com and Family Search. Also, millions of Americans have tuned into hit television shows describing the experience and revelation that comes with the discovery of one's family history. I want to thank Senator Levin for working with me on this legislation, as well as our cosponsors Senators Bennett, Schumer, Kerry, Shaheen, and Gillibrand.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I agree with my friend from Arizona, no question. Motion to Commit

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending motion to offer a motion to commit.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before I discuss my motion to commit to protect the Medicare Advantage Program for more than 10 million seniors, I would like to take a few moments to discuss the broader issue of health care reform. To be honest, we have never seen anything like the issues facing our country right now. We are at a pivotal point as a Nation. The line between private businesses and public government has never been so blurred. Government effectively owns several of our Nation's financial institutions, insurance companies, and auto manufacturers. CEOs have been fired by government bureaucrats, and Washington is now in the business of running our health care system more than ever before. Our fiscal outlook is bleaker than ever. According to the recent 10- year outlook by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, the current administration's policies would add $8.5 trillion to our already record national debt. The report also confirmed that we would be facing a record deficit of $1.5 trillion this year, along with a dire prediction of our deficits only getting worse after 2015 and beyond. Let me put this in perspective. Our deficit this year is the largest yearly deficit since 1945. It is 10 percent of our entire economy. Our national debt is on a path to double in the next 5 years and triple in the next 10 years. According to CBO, our national debt will explode to $20.3 trillion by 2020 or 90 percent of our GDP. We are literally drowning the future of this Nation and the future of our kids and grandkids in a sea of red ink. I deliver these remarks with a heavy heart because what could have been a strong bipartisan bill reflecting our collective and genuine desire for responsible health care reform turned out to be an extremely partisan exercise resulting in one of the largest big-government spending bills being signed into law yesterday. We are jamming through another 153-page addition of new taxes and spending. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans remain concerned and skeptical about all the promises of reduced deficits and lower costs under this legislation. Why? Because they know there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially when Washington is the one inviting you over. According to the administration's own Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, the health care bill signed by President Obama yesterday will actually raise our total health care spending by $222 billion over the next 10 years. That does not even include the doc fix the distinguished Senator from Arizona was talking about, which is as much as $371 billion more. But the most cynical joke played by Washington on the American people in this entire exercise has been the promise of this $2.5 trillion tax- and-spend bill actually reducing our deficit. Nobody believes that. The biggest bait and switch on the American people about the bill's impact on the deficit is a simple math trick. If something is too expensive to do for a full 10-year period, just do it for 5 or 6 years. Most of the major spending provisions of the bill do not go into effect until 2014 or later--coincidentally after the 2012 Presidential elections. So what we are seeing is not a full 10-year score but rather a 6-year score. According to the Senate Budget Committee, the full 10-year score of the Senate bill would approach $2.5 trillion. We are already spending $2.4 trillion. More importantly, let me also clarify what the Congressional Budget Office has said on the nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts which my friends on the other side argue will magically not only extend Medicare solvency but also pay for a large part of this bill. This is like telling American families that they can spend the same magical dollar to not only pay their mortgage but also their credit cards. It is nonsensical. Here is what the experts at CBO said: The key point is that the savings to Medicare trust fund . . . would be received by government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. By the way, did I mention that at a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, it is interesting to note that more than half of the newly covered lives, 16 million out of the 32 million, are simply being pushed into the Medicaid Program. And if anyone thinks that States, that are facing more than $200 billion in deficits, will not be left holding the bag in the future, then I have a bridge to sell to you. I have said all along that this is not a fight between Republicans and Democrats, but a fight between the Democrats and a majority of Americans who did not want this bill. In townhall after townhall and poll after poll and election after election, Americans begged Washington to listen to their voices. But Washington ignored them and used every means necessary--from backroom deals to procedural trickery--to get this bill passed. We need to remember the real implications of these policies--not simply in terms of political legacies and ideological holy grails--but in terms of its impact on the future of our children and grandchildren. We need to ensure that they have the same opportunities to prosper that we have all been blessed with. I would now like to speak for a few minutes about a motion to commit that I will be offering. My motion to commit states that if the Actuary of the Department of Health and Human Services certifies that 1 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries lose their coverage or benefits, the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program will not go into effect. It is that simple. It is important to point out that the bill the President signed into law yesterday would slash $120 billion from the Medicare Advantage program. This reconciliation bill would cut the program by an additional $66 billion for a grand total of $202 billion. Before the health care reform bill was signed into law, CBO projected that Medicare Advantage enrollment would have increased from 10.9 million in 2010 to 13.9 million in 2019. Now, Medicare Advantage enrollment will be 4.8 million less in 2019 due to the passage of the new health bill or almost 2 million less than today. CBO also projected that rebates for additional benefits and reduced cost- sharing offered through Medicare Advantage would be reduced by 50 percent from $135 per member per month to $67 per member per month in 2019. These lost benefits include lower premiums, lower copayments, and lower deductibles. It will also impact everything from hearing aids to dental and vision benefits. Most importantly, it would violate President Obama's own pledge ``if you like what you have, you may keep it.'' Medicare Advantage works. Every Medicare beneficiary has access to a Medicare Advantage plan. Almost 90 percent of Medicare beneficiaries participating in the program are satisfied with their health coverage. It is time for us to stand up for more than 10 million seniors and ensure that this program is not used as a piggy-bank to finance Washington's big government plans. I appreciate my colleagues allowing me to go maybe a minute longer than I should have, but I urge my colleagues to support my motion to commit this bill.

Mr. HATCH. I will yield back the minute.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before I talk about my amendment to exempt our Nation's wounded warriors from this new medical device tax, let me take a moment to talk about the enormous tax burden imposed under this bill. Republicans in Congress agree with the majority of Americans who believe that simply throwing more hard-earned taxpayer dollars at a $2.5 trillion health care system will not deliver meaningful reform. Simply raising more than $650 billion in new taxes at a time when our national unemployment rate stagnates near double digits is a really bad idea. Now, let us take a look at the claims that despite more than $650 billion in new taxes in this bill, this big government bill will not raise taxes for Americans making less than $200,000 a year, a pledge that President Obama repeatedly mentioned both as a candidate and then as our President. Well, the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, and I commend him for his honesty, in his floor remarks on March 23, 2010, stated: One other point that I think is very important to make is that it is true that in certain cases, the taxes will go up for some Americans who might be making less than $200,000. We have known all along that this pledge is an illusion that will slowly but continuously disappear over time. A recent analysis by former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin based on data provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation revealed some startling facts on the distributional impact of the Senate-passed bill. Let me share these findings with you: Only 7 percent of Americans would qualify for the new government subsidy to help them pay for mandatory health insurance. 93 percent of all Americans will not be eligible for a tax benefit under this bill. Twenty-five percent of Americans earning less than $200,000 a year would see their taxes rise. So what does this all mean? For every one family that receives the government subsidy, three middle-class families will pay higher taxes. Simply put, we will continue our march towards the Europeanization of America as fewer and fewer Americans continue to bear the burden of supporting the needs of a growing majority. By the way, the figures I just discussed, do not take into account all the tax increases in this bill signed by the President yesterday, including hundreds of billions in new taxes on employers who do not provide coverage to insurance premiums, prescription drugs and medical devices. Representatives from both the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation testified before the Finance Committee that these taxes will be passed on to the consumers. So even though the bill tries to hide these taxes as fees, average Americans who purchase health plans, use prescription drugs and buy medical devices will end up footing the bill. Every American knows that there is no such thing as a free lunch in this town. Included in the $650 billion of new taxes in this health bill is a tax hike of $20 billion on medical devices. Of the few exemptions included in the reconciliation bill, there is no mention of the brave men and women in the military and our veterans who have sustained injuries defending this country during the wars. My amendment would prevent this new tax from raising costs or hurting access for American soldiers and veterans by exempting medical devices used by the TRICARE program and the Veterans health care program. We must protect our wounded warriors who rely on these life-saving and life-enhancing medical devices. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our brave warriors and support this amendment. Let me tell you, I hope my colleagues on both sides will stand up for the wounded warriors. I hope they will stand up and realize that these folks should not be hammered with higher costs on medical devices. We owe them a debt of gratitude not more taxes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support my motion to commit. Simply put, this motion protects the 11 million Medicare beneficiaries, both seniors and the disabled, currently participating in the Medicare Advantage program. If the HHS actuary certifies that the Medicare Advantage cuts included in the health reform law would result in 1 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries losing current health benefits, those Medicare Advantage cuts would not go into effect. Medicare Advantage makes a tremendous difference in the lives of beneficiaries. They have told me over and over again how important it is for them to have lower deductibles, premiums, and copayments. And what a difference it makes to have dental and vision benefits. The Medicare Advantage cuts in the health reform law would take away those benefits. For that reason, I strongly oppose these cuts and urge my colleagues to support my motion to commit and do the right thing for Medicare beneficiaries, seniors and disabled individuals, across America.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is a tax hike of $20 billion on medical devices in this bill. These taxes are passed on to patients in the form of higher prices and higher insurance premiums. My amendment would prevent this new tax from raising costs or hurting access for American soldiers and veterans by exempting medical devices used by the TRICARE Program and the Veterans Health Program. We need to protect our wounded warriors who rely on these medical devices for recovery and to live a normal life. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I feel deeply about this. I do not think we should leave these wounded warriors without access to the best medical devices, and I do not think we should be assessing them extra costs. This is a simple amendment. This is one we all ought to vote for.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to discuss the jobs legislation, known as the HIRE Act, on which the Senate will be voting tomorrow morning, and to express my deep concerns with the direction this bill has taken over the past few weeks. Ever since the collapse of the financial markets in late 2008, helping our economy should have been a priority for this deliberative body. However, it has taken more than a year for us to seriously address legislation that would promote permanent job growth. Several of my Finance Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle put a lot of time and effort into the creation of a compromise jobs bill that Chairman Baucus and Senator Grassley were trying to move forward. I had high hopes that we might help thaw the partisan freeze that has had this Chamber gridlocked for so long. But then, just as it looked like we might see some light at the end of this bitter tunnel, the rug was pulled out from underneath us by the majority leader's inexplicable decision to hijack our work and alter it with a piece of legislation that he knew would replace cooperation with acrimony. But if that weren't enough, the majority leader added another slap in the face of the minority; he once again filled the amendment tree, thus shutting off the minority's ability to attempt to improve the bill. To those unfamiliar with the Senate process, when the majority leader fills the amendment tree, he prevents anyone else from being able to offer any amendments to the underlying legislation. Thus, he prevents compromise. I have served in this body for a long time, and I cannot remember an incident that exhibited as much raw political gamesmanship as this one did. The fact that the majority leader chose to choke off the first genuine attempt at cooperation on a major issue of such importance does not bode well for the remainder of this Congress. How are those of us in the minority supposed to have faith that we will not be excluded from future debates? It is easy to label Republicans as the party of no when they are completely excluded from the legislative process. When this happens, ``no'' is the only option that remains. But what puzzles me the most is what, even if they succeed, will the majority gain from this maneuver? The Senate operates on a level of trust that agreements will be honored, but now even that has come into question. Less than 2 months ago, I sat in the House Chamber while the President gave his State of the Union Address where he raised the importance of bipartisan cooperation, especially in the area of job creation. The fact that the President hit a nerve with this plea is evident by the effort to build such a bipartisan bill in the Finance Committee in the weeks following. However, it is obvious that many on the other side cannot stand the thought of working with our side when there might be political points to be gained by trying to embarrass us. Here are a few of the things the President said about the need for bipartisanship in the State of the Union Address: ``And what the American people hope--what they deserve--is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences;'' ``[Americans] are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness.'' ``These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.'' In the same breath, President Obama went on to address the need to promote job growth by saying: ``Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses.'' ``We should start where most new jobs do--in small businesses, companies that begin when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss.'' And finally: ``[We should] Provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment.'' I certainly believed--as did most Republicans--that the President was being sincere. But soon after President Obama addressed the Nation, Senate Democratic and Republican members of the Finance Committee went to work on a bipartisan solution to creating a jobs growth bill. I worked with Senator Schumer to come up with a payroll tax holiday for those companies that hired unemployed workers. Under this incentive, the sooner a company hired someone, the greater the tax incentives the company would receive. This initiative is a perfect example of the kind of bipartisan President Obama was talking about during the State of the Union. Senators Baucus and Grassley joined in this effort by including several other provisions aimed at job growth and remedies to address the symptoms of a failing economy. This was a compromise that included an extension of unemployment insurance, Build America Bonds, and the extension of the expired tax provisions. Let me be clear, there is no doubt in my mind and in the mind of many of my colleagues that passing a jobs bill is crucial. We have seen our unemployment rate remain stagnant at around 10 percent since last September. The American people sent us here to do a job, and it is way past time we did it. This is why it was so shocking, then, that on Thursday, February 11, the Senate majority leader suddenly announced that he was scrapping the compromised proposal only hours after it was unveiled, proceeding instead with a scaled-down bill. In minutes, the majority leader pulled the rug out from not only Republicans but also those Democrats who had been working for weeks on a bipartisan solution. Regrettably, because of the majority leader's decision, it looks as though President Obama's hope for a bipartisan solution to job creation only lasted 2 weeks. What a shame. To illustrate the abruptness and surprise in Senator Reid's unexpected action, just look at the headlines the following day: ``Key Dem: Reid scrapped jobs bill because he did not trust Republicans'' the Hill. ``Reid kills Baucus-Grassley jobs bill''--the Politico. ``Senate leader slashes jobs bill; Despite new support''-- LA Times. But it does not end there. The majority leader sent a pretty strong message when he said that he--and I quote--dared Republicans to vote against his bill. His Democratic colleagues were quick to stand behind this reversal. Some Democratic Senators went so far as to say Republicans are not interested in a bipartisan deal because we were more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. They went on to characterize the tax extenders as only going to people who are making money. They even went so far as to say that what the Democratic caucus is taking to the floor is something that is more focused on job creation than on tax breaks. Now I know the Senate recently passed the expiring tax extenders package as a part of a broader bill. But what continues to astound me is how quickly so many Democratic Senators were to abandon these tax extenders. In fact, most of them support--and even voted to extend-- these tax provisions. The Democratic leadership even erroneously labeled the tax extenders as a solely Republican-supported initiative. And many Democrats, including the majority leader, are cosponsors of legislation that would extend many of the expiring tax provisions. Look at the bills to extend the research tax credit or the alternative fuels vehicle credit or even the new markets tax credit. These are by no means solely Republican initiatives. The exclusion of these tax extenders caused one Democrat to criticize the majority leader's action by saying ``this bill was carefully crafted to achieve significant bipartisan support and contains several important measures to spur business growth and encourage new hires.'' So to label support for extending these expiring tax provisions as part of a solely Republican agenda is misleading, unfair, and unwarranted. These statements were made only to support a desperate, hasty, and ill-considered decision. The icing on the cake was when the Senate ended up passing these very tax extenders last week by a vote of 70 to 28. In fact, only one Democrat Senator voted against these tax extenders. Some have questioned how extending these expired tax provisions relate to job creation. It is a fair question but one with easy answers. The extension of these expired tax provisions only supports proven growth of companies that are slowly beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Government funding would only provide a false sense of job growth because once the government funding is gone so will the jobs. If we need proof that government spending is not as effective as tax relief, we only have to look to what the Congressional Budget Office said last year about the effects of the year-old economic stimulus package. The legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3 million by the fourth quarter of 2009, by 1.2 million to 3.6 million by the fourth quarter of 2010, by 0.6 million to 1.9 million by the fourth quarter of 2011, and by declining numbers in later years. The reason why employment created from the stimulus bill would decline in later years is because government spending does not create permanent lasting jobs. The private sector, however, can create permanent, self-sustaining jobs. The tax incentives give the private sector a much needed boost. If we had included more tax incentives for businesses in last year's economic stimulus bill we would have created jobs that would have lasted well beyond the 2 or 3 years government spending would have created. Originally projected to provide $787 billion in stimulus, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, now puts the 10-year costs of the stimulus bill at $862 billion. This does not include interest owed, which would put the total cost at over $1 trillion. Of the $862 billion stimulus package, only a third has been spent. Another third is expected to be spent in 2010, and the remaining third will be spent after 2010. What ever happened to spending money on projects deemed to be shovel ready? The administration has claimed the stimulus bill is responsible for creating or saving 1 million jobs. If we take a closer look, we see this claim is very misleading. For example, it was reported that a construction company in Nevada reported creating 20 jobs on a project that has yet to receive money. A school district reported saving 665 jobs, even though it only employs about 600 people. A town in Oregon reported creating eight jobs on a contract for rattlesnake stewardship. In January of 2009, President Obama's economic advisers predicted in a report that with an $800 billion stimulus, the unemployment rate would never go above 8 percent. Without the stimulus, they said, the rate would be at 9 percent. The unemployment rate has been near 10 percent since last September. The stimulus package was sold to the American people as an immediate fix. I think the exact words were that it would be a ``jolt'' to the economy. Some of the quotes by the administration were ``you'll see the effects immediately,'' from Larry Summers. ``We'll start adding jobs rather than losing them,'' from Christina Romer, the President's Chair of Economic Advisers. ``This will begin creating jobs immediately,'' from House majority leader Steny Hoyer. Back when he was pitching the stimulus bill, then-President-elect Obama said ``90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private sector--the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs.'' However, in an article dated February 17, the Wall Street Journal reported that government data indicate that most of the jobs supported by stimulus spending belonged to public employees at the State and local level. In fact, only 2 percent of the entire stimulus bill was dedicated toward tax relief for businesses. The public sector does not create permanent jobs; the private sector does. We need to provide a foundation to allow the private sector to nourish and create better paying jobs. That is why many supported including these tax extenders in the HIRE Act. For instance, it is estimated that approximately 70 percent or more of the research tax credit benefits are attributable to salaries of performing U.S.-based research. How can some Senators disregard the effectiveness of some of these tax extenders on job growth? And keep in mind that the research credit has traditionally received more Democratic support in this body than it has Republican support. In fact, there is a bill to extend the expiring research tax credit. Of the 18 cosponsors of this bill, 11 are Democrats. Furthermore, this bill was introduced by the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. The President set the tone at the beginning of the year by calling on Congress to put forth a bipartisan solution to creating jobs in this country. In response, both Democrats and Republicans brought innovative ideas to the table. Then, in a sudden change of events, many Republican ideas have been excluded from the jobs bill the majority leader has brought to the floor. Again, the majority leader has maneuvered this legislation to prevent any amendments from being offered by our side. In fact, the majority leader continues to exclude Republicans from debate. Just look at this chart that shows how many times the majority leader has filled the amendment tree in relation to past majority leaders--25 times. If this is not an arrogance of power, then I do not know what is. I only hope the majority leader heeds to President Obama's plea for a bipartisan solution. I think one Democrat, learning of the majority leader's action, said it best: Most Americans don't honestly believe that a single political party has all the good ideas. I hope the Majority Leader will reconsider.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise, joined by my friend, the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, to discuss the health care legislation being considered in Congress. The current debate is primarily about process. But before addressing that, I wish to remind everyone that in the end, this is about the substance of the legislation that Washington liberals want to impose upon the country by any means necessary. This legislation is bad, both for what it represents and for what it would do. It represents a massive Federal Government takeover of the health care system. The health care and health insurance systems could be significantly improved with policies that respect individual choice, that embrace our system of federalism, in which the States can tailor solutions to their own needs and demographics. It could. But Washington liberals have rejected that path. What would this legislation do? As I have argued in the past, this legislation would bust the limits the Constitution places on Federal Government power. Liberty itself depends on those limits, it always has and it always will. Those limits mean Congress may exercise only the powers listed in the Constitution. None of those powers authorizes Congress to take such unprecedented steps as requiring that individuals spend their own money to purchase a particular good or service, such as health insurance, or face a financial penalty. This legislation would unnecessarily take this country into unchartered political and legal territory. We just heard from the Congressional Budget Office that President Obama's policies will add a staggering $8.5 trillion--that is trillion with a ``t''--to our already sky-high national debt. This is before passage of the health care tax-and-spend bill that would cost another $2.5 trillion. Claims that this boondoggle will lower the deficit result from some pretty impressive accounting tricks. This legislation, for example, would start taking money from Americans immediately but would not provide any benefits to them for years. How about that as a neat way to lower a bill's supposed cost? What do Americans get for all these trillions of dollars? They would be required to buy health insurance, but only 7 percent of Americans would receive any government subsidy to do so. Washington liberals say this bill cuts taxes, but 93 percent of all Americans would not be eligible for any tax benefit. Contrary to President Obama's explicit pledge, one-quarter of Americans making under $200,000 per year would see their taxes go up. Middle-class American families paying higher taxes will outnumber those receiving any government subsidy by more than 3 to 1. And after the higher taxes, increased government control, greater regulation, and paltry help in buying health insurance, this legislation would not control health care costs, which is the main reason for the concern about health insurance in the first place. It does nothing to rein in the junk lawsuits that drive up costs and drive doctors out of medicine. Instead, this legislation would cut $500 billion from Medicare to pay for a massive new government entitlement system that would include 159 new boards and other bureaucratic entities. Last month, the White House released an 11-page document titled ``The President's Proposal.'' Calling it that, I suppose, was to make it appear to be a meaningful step in a genuine negotiation. It is nothing of the kind. One of the most obvious changes suggested in this document was elimination of the Medicaid subsidy that the Senate bill gave to only one State. That was for political rather than policy reasons. And I cannot forget to mention that this 11-page document's suggested changes would add at least $75 billion more to the cost of the Senate bill. That is around $7 billion a page. But it offered nothing to change the real defects in this legislation. For these and so many other reasons, this legislation is the wrong way to address the challenges we face in health care and health insurance. Let me turn to my friend from South Dakota, Senator Thune. Now that we have been debating these issues for the better part of a year, what do the American people think of these liberal Washingtonian proposals and how did we get where we are today?