Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, although I have been an active participant in the Judiciary Committee's Sotomayor confirmation hearings, I have followed with great interest the floor debate on continuing the production of the F-22A Raptor. Unfortunately, over the years I have heard a number of incorrect assertions made about this aircraft, and I have tried to correct them. But after listening to this week's debate and reading misleading articles, especially in the Washington Post, about the F-22's performance and capabilities, I believe the Raptor's opponents have hit bottom--and have begun to dig. Therefore, I would like to set the record straight about the F-22 and its extraordinary war-winning capabilities. Fact No. 1: The F-22 is, and will continue to be, the preeminent fighter/bomber for the next 40 years. The F-22 is the stealthiest aircraft flying today. Unlike the F-117 Nighthawk and the B-2 bomber the F-22s can be deployed on stealth flight operations not just at night, but 24 hours a day. This one-of-a- kind capability provides our combatant commanders with unprecedented flexibility to engage ground and air targets at a time of their choosing--thus denying any respite to the enemy. The Raptor is equipped with supercruise engines that are unique because they do not need to go to after-burner to achieve supersonic flight. This provides the F-22 with a strategic advantage by enabling supersonic speeds to be maintained for a far greater length of time. By comparison, all other fighters require their engines to go to after- burner to achieve supersonic speeds, thus consuming a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limiting their range. The F-22 is the deadliest fighter flying today. During a recent military exercise in Alaska, the Raptor dispatched 144 adversaries versus the loss of only one aircraft. Further advantage resides in the F-22's radar and avionics. When entering hostile airspace, the F-22's sensor-fused avionics can detect and engage enemy aircraft and surface threats far before an enemy can hope to engage the F-22. At the same time, its advanced sensors enable the F-22 to be a forward-surveillance platform capable of gathering crucial intelligence on the enemy. Often overlooked, the F-22 is a very capable bomber. It can carry two GPS-guided, 1,000-pound joint direct attack munition bombs or eight small-diameter bombers. Fact No. 2: The F-22 is not a Cold War dinosaur. It is designed to meet and eliminate the threats of today and tomorrow. As the longest-serving member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know full well the greatest air threat of today and tomorrow is, and will continue to be, the advanced integrated air defense system. Such a system is composed of two parts. The first component is advanced surface-to-air missile systems such as the Russian-made S-300, which has a range of over 100 miles. The second are highly maneuverable and sophisticated fighters like the Su-30, which have been sold to China and India. Coupled together, these anti-access systems make penetrating hostile airspace extremely difficult, if not deadly, for those aircraft lacking the F-22's advanced stealth technology and sustained supersonic speeds made possible by its supercruise engine. It is also important to remember the mainstays of our aerial fleet, the F- 15, F-16 and F/A-18, are not stealth aircraft and are not equipped with supercruise engines. Unfortunately, integrated air defense systems are relatively inexpensive, placing them within the purchasing potential of nations such as Iran with its seeming insistence on developing nuclear weapons. The advanced integrated air defense system is exactly the threat the F-22 was designed to neutralize. In addition, the F-22 will almost simultaneously be able to turn its attention to other ground targets that threaten the national security of the U.S. and our allies. In a related argument, some argue the United States should devote more of its military resources toward bolstering its counterinsurgency capabilities. This is a fair point. Unwisely, the United States did permit its counterinsurgency capabilities to atrophy after the Vietnam war. As events in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, we continue to pay dearly for that error. However, as we reconstitute our ability to successful prosecute counterinsurgency campaigns, we cannot make a similar mistake and undermine one of the fundamental foundations of our military strength: hegemony in the air. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this January, ``Our military must be prepared for a full spectrum of operations, including the type of combat we're facing in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as large scale threats that we face from places like North Korea and Iran.'' I could not agree more, and the aircraft that will enable our Nation to decisively defeat our adversaries in the air is the F-22. Mr. President, others point out the F-22 has not been deployed in support of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is true. However, there were recent plans to deploy the F-22 to the Persian Gulf. But according to the July 9, 2008, edition of the widely respected Defense News, the Pentagon overruled those plans, citing concerns about ``strategic dislocation.'' This means the F-22 is hardly a dinosaur. It is a weapon that can change the balance of power in a region and deter our adversaries. Fact No. 3: 187 F-22s is an insufficient number to meet the minimum requirements of our national military strategy. Our Nation's military requirements are decided upon in detailed studies of the threats our Nation and its allies confront. These studies also recommend force structures to deter and, if necessary, defeat threats to our national security. Accordingly, the Department of Defense and the Air Force have conducted a number of studies to determine how many F-22s are required to meet our national military strategy. I am unaware of any comprehensive study that has concluded F-22 production should cease at 187 aircraft. Specifically, unclassified excerpts from the Air Force's sustaining air dominance study stated ``180 F-22s was not enough,'' and the Department of Defense TACAIR optimization study concluded the procurement of additional Raptors ``was the best option.'' On April 16, these conclusions were reinforced by comments made by GEN Norton A. Schwartz, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, after the F-22 procurement termination was announced. General Schwartz stated, ``243 [Raptors] is the military requirement.'' Opponents of the Raptor will most likely dispute this, pointing to comments made by General Cartwright during his July 9 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. During his testimony the general stated the decision to terminate production of the F-22 is supported by a ``study in the Joint staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force.'' However, my staff has inquired about this study and was informed a recently completed comprehensive, analytic study does not exist. No doubt, the Joint Staff has prepared some justification for F-22 termination.Yet I believe it is only natural to question the objectivity of any assessment which justifies previously reached decisions. Unfortunately, yesterday, my suspicions about this so-called analysis were proven correct when Geoffrey Morrell, the Pentagon's press secretary, stated General Cartwright was referring to ``not so much a study [as a] work product.'' Therefore, I believe the Congress should place great significance on the June 9 letter by GEN John Corley, the commander of air combat command, who stated ``at Air Combat Command we have a need for 381 F- 22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed, asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term. To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.'' I believe these are important words from the four-star general who is responsible for the Air Force command which is the primary provider of combat airpower to America's war-fighting commands. Fact No. 4: The Washington Post article that alleged technical and maintenance difficulties of the F-22 was misleading and inaccurate. In fact, the Air Force has written two rebuttals to this article. After viewing the first rebuttal, I found it striking the Air Force stated six of the points made in the article were false, four were misleading, and two were not true. Specifically, the primary assertion made by the Post was the F-22 cost far more per hour to fly than the aircraft it is replacing, the F- 15. However, this is misleading. Only when you include all of the one- time costs that are associated with a new military aircraft is this true. A far more accurate measurement is to compare variable flying hours. The F-22 costs $19,750 per hour to fly versus $17,465 for the F- 15. The F-15 costs less to fly, but the 1960s-designed F-15 does not have nearly the capabilities of the F-22. The article asserts the F-22 has only a 55-percent availability rate for ``guarding U.S. airspace.'' This is misleading. Overall, the F-22 boasts a 70-percent availability rate, and that has been increasing every year over the past 4 years. Finally, the article states the F-22 requires significant maintenance. This is true. But the Post article misses the critical point: the F-22 is a stealth aircraft. Making an aircraft disappear from radar is not accomplished through magic. It is achieved through precise preparation and exacting attention to detail. I believe we can all agree it is far better to expend man hours to prepare an airplane that will win wars than to buy replacement aircraft after they have been shot down, not to mention the moral cost of not exposing our pilots to unnecessary dangers. Fact No. 5: The F-22's detractors argue erroneously that the Raptor's role can be filled by the F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. But the Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter were designed to complement each other, not be substituted for each other. The F-22 is the NASCAR racer of this air-dominance team. Fast and unseen, the Raptor will punch a hole in an enemy's defenses, quickly dispatching any challenger in the air and striking at the most important ground targets. The Joint Strike Fighter is the rugged SUV of the team. Impressive, but not as maneuverable or capable of sustained supersonic speeds, the F-35 will exploit the hole opened by the F-22 and attack additional targets and directly support our ground forces. This is not to say the F-35 is not a highly capable stealthy aircraft. But the F-35's role is to supplement the F-22, not substitute for it. Only by utilizing the strengths of both aircraft do we ensure air dominance for the next 40 years. Fact No. 6: Our allies recognize the critical capabilities of the F- 22 and are eager to purchase the aircraft. This is one of the most compelling reasons for purchasing additional numbers of F-22s. The Japanese and Australian governments have consistently approached our government about purchasing the Raptor for themselves. If the F-22 is such a boondoggle, why would these nations be willing to spend billions of dollars to purchase them. Australia already plans to purchase up to 100 F-35s. Why does it need the Raptor? Perhaps it is because these nations realize a number of the threats to their security can only be defeated using the F-22 Raptor. In conclusion, we have an opportunity to ensure this and future generations continue to benefit from one of the foundations of our national security: the ability to defeat any air threat and strike any target anywhere in the world. The world is changing; threats are growing. Today we have an opportunity to ensure those air threats are met. To be honest with you, our young men and women who fly deserve the very best equipment we can give to them, not equipment that is getting old, outmoded, and cannot do the job. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting against the Levin-McCain amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to speak about the Hatch amendment which will be called up later. As we have had the debate in this Chamber over hate crimes legislation, one obvious fact is revealed again and again. The proponents of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act have not taken the time to answer what should have been a threshold question: Is it necessary? Just a few short weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder was gracious enough to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this legislation. During that hearing, I asked him specifically whether there was any evidence of crimes motivated by bias and prejudice that are not being adequately addressed at the State level; whether there was a specific trend indicating that, with regard to hate crimes, justice is not being served in State courts. His answer was not surprising to anyone who has been following this debate for these many years. But if your only knowledge of this issue came from the statements made by the Democrats in support of this legislation, you would probably be very surprised. His answer was: No. There is not any statistical evidence indicating that the States are not up to the task of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing crimes motivated by bias and prejudice. None. None whatsoever. The Attorney General said quite openly, in fact, that the States were doing a fine job addressing these crimes. This is not a new revelation. In the years Congress has been debating hate crimes legislation, many of us have been asking similar questions, and we have received similar answers. But in light of the Democratic Attorney General's own testimony regarding the States' laudable efforts to punish hate crimes, it is even more clear that the supporters of this legislation have not answered what would be a threshold question: Is it necessary? The truth is that the vast majority of States have hate crimes statutes on the books. The acts associated with this legislation-- murder, assault, et cetera--are punishable in every jurisdiction in the United States. Under our legal system, defendants will, at times, receive penalties that many believe are not sufficient given the nature of their crimes. In addition, because our criminal justice system is designed to protect defendants and place the heaviest burdens on the government, some guilty parties undoubtedly go unpunished. But I have seen no evidence whatsoever proving that these inevitable occurrences happen more often in cases involving bias-motivated violence and, to date, no such evidence has been provided. My amendment is similar to legislation I have introduced in the past. Instead of expanding the powers of the Federal Government, it would mandate a study that would provide us with the information we should have before we even consider taking such an approach. Specifically, my alternative would require a study to compare over a 12-month period the investigations, prosecutions, and sentencing in States that have differing laws with regard to hate crimes. In addition, it would require a report on the extent of those crimes throughout the United States and the success rate of State and local officials in combating them. The amendment would also provide a mechanism for the Department of Justice to provide technical, forensic, prosecutorial or any other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of any crime ``motivated by animus against the victim by reason of the membership of the victim in a particular class or group.'' And it would authorize the Attorney General to make grants to States that lack the necessary resources to prosecute these crimes. Contrary to what some of my colleagues may believe, Congress does not have the power to act in any manner that it chooses. There are a number of constitutional issues raised by this legislation, including the extent of Congress's power under the commerce clause and prohibitions that could chill free speech in certain sectors of this country. Most apparently, this legislation would impede on grounds that are traditionally left to the States. Worst of all, it would do so when, if the Attorney General is to be believed, the States are by and large doing a fine job at addressing these crimes. No one in this Chamber wants to see bias-motivated crimes go unpunished. That is not the question we are facing today. The question is whether, given the current state of affairs in most States and the limitations on Congress's power, this measure is appropriate. It seems to me before we even consider such a broad and sweeping change in the Federal criminal law we should at the very least have enough information before us to determine whether such law is necessary. My amendment would have us get that information and, in addition, establish a role for the Federal Government that is more appropriate respecting the sovereignty of the States and the limits on Federal power established under the Constitution. It should be noted that this bill that has been called up is named the Matthew Shepard bill. What happened to Mr. Shepard was brutal, heinous, awful, unforgivable. But the fact is, the perpetrators are now spending the rest of their lives in prison because the local judiciary and system tried and convicted them. There is a real question whether we should put into law this hate crimes bill that I believe is going to cause a lot more problems than it will help, especially since there is no basic evidence that the State and local governments are incapable or unable to take care of these types of crimes. I think there is a lot of beating of the breasts and acting like we are doing something when in fact all we are doing is gumming up the law if we pass this bill, and I think doing so unconstitutionally, in the end, basically is making it possible to bring hate crimes actions all over the country in a multiplicity of ways that will cost the Federal Government untold amounts of money that should not be spent. All of us are against hate crimes. Every one of us would do everything we possibly can to get rid of them. But until there is evidence that the State and local governments are not doing the job-- and that evidence we have asked for, for years now, and they have never been able to produce any. Until that is produced we should not go ahead and pass legislation like this. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1611 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the purpose behind this amendment is simple. The proponents of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act have yet to answer what should have been the threshold question: Is it really necessary? My amendment would mandate a study to determine whether the States are adequately addressing bias-motivated violence. To date, we have seen no evidence that they are not. In fact, we have asked the Attorney General, for years now, to come up with any evidence they can. In the hearing before the Judiciary Committee recently, he specifically stated the States are doing a good job at addressing hate crimes. It would also authorize the Justice Department to provide limited aid and assistance in State prosecutions of bias-motivated crimes. In almost every case raised by the proponents of a horrific act of violence motivated by prejudice, the perpetrators have been dealt with adequately at the State level. In the Matthew Shepard case, the two perpetrators are spending life in prison. In other cases, some have had the death penalty, and others have spent life in prison. Before we start overriding State efforts, I believe we should at least make an effort to determine whether there is a legitimate Federal role in the prosecution of hate crimes. That is what my amendment would do, and I hope our colleagues will consider voting for it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my amendment does not kill the hate crimes opportunity. It says, let's do a study. Let's know what we are talking about. Let's see if there is a real need for this bill. With all of the constitutional ramifications this bill has, it says: Let's be cautious. Let's just not go pell-mell into the maelstrom without knowing what we are talking about.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, all it says is, we would go a different route. We would do the study first, so we do not go off half cocked and do something that may be unconstitutional and unsound. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Williams, a detailee in my office from the Food and Drug Administration, and LTC Lyle Drew, a military fellow in my office from the United States Air Force, both be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the first session of the 111 Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I note the Senator from Oregon has to read some things, but I have a brief additional comment to make and then I ask unanimous consent I be given the floor thereafter.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Oregon is one of the leading figures on health care in this Congress and has been in the past. He is thoughtful. He works very hard. He is one of the most contributing members of the Senate Finance Committee and I, personally, respect him very much and we have a very dear friendship. I appreciate the kind remarks he has expressed about me here today.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon and appreciate his remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the richest nan in the world, the new king of the hill. No, you won't find this financial titan in Forbes magazine's list of the world's billionaires. He hasn't started a mega-computer software company like Bill Gates. Nor has he made shrewd investments like Warren Buffet or even inherited this money like the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame. No, the billions amassed over the years by those business magnates are chump change compared to that collected by the current champ, who has ascended to the title of the world's wealthiest man by collecting trillions of dollars in a mere 155 days. He now owns two auto-manufacturing companies, oil sands and offshore drilling leases, interest in several hundred banks, and enough real estate holdings to make Donald Trump envious. In fact, managing this vast portfolio has become too time-consuming and too much for him to handle. He recently said, ``I don't want to run auto companies. I don't want to run banks. I've got two wars I've got to run already. I've got more than enough to do. So the sooner we can get out of that business, the better off we're going to be.'' I doubt even John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie or William Randolph Hearst could ever have dreamed about having that amount of control. But despite his professed eagerness to divest himself of his newfound, unprecedented wealth, the reigning world's richest man, President Obama, seems reluctant to relinquish his vast holdings. Indeed, I am beginning to think he actually enjoys this--well, what I call ``Obamanopoly.'' Soon, he will own all the railroads, all the utilities, Park Place and Boardwalk. And when taxpayers pick up the yellow or orange cards from the stacks, they will have to dig deeper in their wallet to fund this high-stakes Obamanopoly. OK, I realize that our President does not really personally own all this wealth. But while I am speaking tongue in cheek, my remarks do point to the very real serious consequences of an ever-expanding U.S. Government. I care a great deal for the President, and I don't want to personally offend him. But I think the point is made. We are moving toward what I have referred to as the ``Europeanization of America.'' On the spectrum between anarchy and a centralized government invested with complete power and control, our current government is so far removed from the limited government that our Founding Fathers intended that they must be rolling over in their graves. There is method to this unprecedented meddling in the private sector. As the government acquires more auto manufacturers, banks, insurance companies and other private-sector businesses, we become more dependent on the government. The Obama administration's answer to everything is to take control of companies, increase regulation and spend, spend, spend. They are now talking about taxing and taxing more. Not only does the government have more control over the economy, but it has a freer rein to regulate and restrict free speech. Modern political thought is, in many respects, based on a distinction between the public and private spheres. Liberal democracies--using the word ``liberal'' in the classical sense--have historically been based on the notion that there are realms that are ripe for government involvement-- the public sphere--and others that should remain unaffected by government--the private sphere. This was one of the central ideas behind the drafting of our Constitution and the founding of our Nation. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were all too aware of the problems that could arise under a government that is too expansive and too powerful. As James Madison, one of the main architects of the Constitution argued, ``All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.'' Because of this inherent distrust of those holding power, our Nation's Founders devised a government that was allowed to exercise its enumerated powers. As Alexander Hamilton stated, when it comes to framing a desirable government, ``[Y]ou must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.'' He also said, ``Indeed, the genius of our Constitution is that it provides an effective government that is subject to strict limitations.'' But it isn't only in the Constitution that we can observe the relevance of this public-private distinction during the Founding Fathers' generation. The beliefs, practices, and culture of that era further demonstrate just how separate and distinct our nation has traditionally viewed the public and private spheres. French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, in observing the uniqueness of American government and culture, described how private citizens in America addressed needs in their communities. He stated: When a private individual mediates an undertaking, however directly connected it may be with the welfare of society, he never thinks of soliciting the cooperation of the Government, but he publishes his plan, offers to execute it himself, courts the assistance of other individuals, and struggles manfully against all obstacles. Undoubtedly he is often less successful than the State might have been in his position; but in the end the sum of these private undertakings far exceeds all that the Government could have done. I believe this spirit of private determination still exists in our country today. I have argued many times that the American people are the most inventive and innovative people in the world. However, in an era when the President can impact huge portions of the American economy, that spirit is given little opportunity to work its magic in the private sector. Indeed, James Madison argued that ``there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.'' I wonder how Madison would have viewed some of our current President's recent decisions. Ours is a government that from the very beginning has been limited in what it can do and how far in may encroach into the private sphere. Those limits are not defined by the Nation's economic circumstances or political winds. There is not an exception in the Constitution that allows popular Presidents to exercise more power than unpopular ones. Ours is the oldest functioning constitutional republic on the planet, not because of change, hope, or adaptation, but because of consistency and respect for the limitations imposed upon our institutions. I believe many of the times we have struggled have been those in which we have strayed from the principal obligation that our Constitution imposes on the Federal Government--the obligation to control itself. One such example--one often cited by the administration and my Democratic colleagues to justify the steps the President has taken--is the Great Depression. Some may say the Great Depression was the last time we saw such an expansion of government power. It came in the form of FDR's New Deal, which is now the model for how the majority and this President intend to remake the Federal Government and our economy. They credit the New Deal with ending the depression and claim that this new expansion will cure our current economic ills. I hope, for our country's sake, that they are wrong. What New New Deal proponents don't mention when making their case, is that even with Roosevelt's policies in place, the depression lasted for over a decade and, in fact, deepened in the late 1930s. Coincidentally--and I use that word sarcastically--the New Deal's supposed effect wasn't fully realized until the United States entered World War II. Now, I don't mean to argue that our current situation is directly comparable to the Great Depression. I would say it is far from it. But I do hope that the Democrats' long-term plan isn't to keep expanding the Federal Government for several years, wait for an unforeseen outside calamity to take place and rescue the economy, and then take credit for the recovery. To be sure, Roosevelt's New Deal was not without some success. But it largely failed to restore prosperity to the American economy because instead of implementing policies aimed as fostering economic growth and expansion, it was designed as a top-down restructuring of the economy-- making the government the major decisionmaker in economic matters. The results were labor policies designed to preset wages at levels preferred by unions, regardless of market conditions; trade and manufacturing polices designed to set production at levels other than those set by supply and demand; and taxes on businesses that stifled growth and prevented them from hiring new employees. Sadly, the President and the majority leadership in Congress have apparently decided that despite hat these shortcomings, the New Deal should be repeated. We have seen it in the President's efforts to seize control of auto companies, only to hand it over to his labor union supporters. We see it in proposals here in Congress to use the bankruptcy code to basically preset interest rates for lenders--and at a time when credit is is already getting harder to come by. And we are seeing it in their proposals to raise taxes on small businesses despite harsh economic times and rising unemployment. President Obama may be the richest man in America these days, but he is doing so on the back of the American taxpayers. If history is any indication, his efforts will not leave anyone else in America any richer or better off. It is not hard to find examples of the government growing at an exceptionally fast pace. Just by looking at the number of government employees as a percentage of America's population, one can easily see how we have increased the size of the government. In 1815, the U.S. numbered 8.3 million people, 4,837 of which were government employees. In other words, only about one-twentieth of 1 percent of Americans worked for the government. In 2007, our Nation numbered 281 million Americans, 2.7 million of them government workers. That is nearly 1 percent of the population, or about 20 times the number of government employees in 1815. That percentage will certainly increase, given this President's budget, which contains 121 new government programs. Another indication of the growth of government power can be illustrated through the amount of government spending. Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development figures show that government spending in the U.S. is on the rise, comparable with that of many European countries. In fact, government spending has decreased in most European nations, while it has increased in the United States. In France, for example, government spending is close to 50 percent of GDP, while England's government spending is roughly 44 percent of GDP, and Germany's is 45 percent of GDP. In the United States, Federal Government spending has been around 20 percent. However, to accurately compare the U.S. to European nations, it is necessary to include State and local spending. Once that is factored in, U.S. Government spending exceeds 37 percent of GDP, and that is before President Obama's stimulus package and budget for this year are taken into account. Thus, it is almost a forgone conclusion that by the end of this year, total government spending in the United States will approach that of many European governments. We have jumped way ahead from the 2008 figure, with the current figure on that chart, just barely behind the European countries. If you take a look at President Obama's past 5 months in office, you will see the largest proposed 10-year spending increase in our Nation's history. We have a stimulus bill worth $787 billion, or close to $1.3 trillion if interest is taken into account. We have nearly exhausted the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, and we have a budget proposal estimated to create a $9 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that is what is going to happen. To put that another way, Federal spending would be nearly 24 percent of our Nation's GDP. Government spending, alone, in 2009 will reach 27 percent. That is Federal Government spending alone. In 2009, it will reach 27 percent. When you add in State and local spending, that would put us nearly on par in total government spending with Germany. You can see from this chart, we are almost right there. The American people, especially Utahans, are speaking out against this increase in the size of government. They are organizing ``Tax Enough Already,'' or TEA, rallies around the country, and they are fed up with government bailout after bailout. They correctly wonder when or if this government expansion will ever stop. That is why I have introduced two pieces of legislation to reduce government spending. One is called the Limitation on Government Spending Act, the LOGS Act, to limit government spending to 20 percent of GDP. The second is called the Stop TARP Asset Recycling Act, the STAR Act, and that is to prevent perpetual bailouts and to repay our national debt with returned TARP funds--don't just take them and spend more. Give them back to the taxpayers. Give them back to the government so we can pay down some of these deficits and some of these problems that are going on. They are two very important bills. Let me discuss them again. The Limitation on Government Spending Act would limit government spending to the national historic average of 20 percent of GDP. While I believe government spending should be much lower than that, the least we can do is ensure that government spending does not get out of control like the way it is currently headed. Furthermore, the Stop TARP Asset Recycling Act would require all funds paid out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP--and that amounted to $700 billion--as to all those funds that are returned or paid back, they must be placed in the general fund to pay down the Nation's debt instead of being recycled back into TARP or more spending. Otherwise, TARP could become a revolving slush fund for the Treasury Department to bail out or seize companies. It is time we put an end to that. The Obama administration's honeymoon is over. More Americans than ever agree we need to rein in this administration's runaway government spending. I might add, we better be prepared for massive taxation too. Their belief is to spend and tax and build the Federal Government at all costs. More Americans than ever agree we need to rein in this administration's runaway government spending. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, barely half of Americans are now confident that President Obama's $787 billion stimulus measure will boost the economy. Think about it: barely half of all Americans. Furthermore, a USA Today poll reveals that a 51-percent majority disapproved of the job he has done in controlling Federal spending. Even President Obama agrees with this. After the massive amounts of government spending he has signed into law, President Obama had the audacity to proclaim in an April 18 weekly address that we need to restore responsibility and accountability to our Federal budget. Who are we kidding? The President cannot put us on the course to a $9 trillion deficit and then tell us we need to be more fiscally responsible. That is akin to someone killing their parents, and then complaining about being an orphan. In the same address, the President continued this hypocrisy by saying, ``We are on an unsustainable course'' and ``we need to restore the people's confidence in government by spending their money wisely.'' But wait. It gets even better. After signing into law a $787 billion stimulus and a $3 trillion deficit, he nobly stated: If we want to spend, we need to find somewhere else to cut. If you doubt the hypocrisy, you do not have to look further than the current health care debate or the cap-and-trade program he proposes to pay for by levying even more taxes. The closest the President has come to cut spending was by calling upon his Department heads to find $100 million in savings--$100 million. I guess you would call that ``pocket change'' we can believe in. Enough is enough. No more spending. No more taxes. No more government expansion. We are not looking for a new New Deal. We are looking for smaller, more efficient government. We are not looking for another government bailout. Whatever happened to: Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country? Where ``Obamanopoly'' is concerned, it is time to say: Game over. It is time to pull the reins on this headlong rush toward the Europeanization of America. As former President Gerald Ford said: A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. I am concerned about what is going on. I admit that President Obama is a very attractive human being. I personally like him. But I think this tax-and-spend set of policies we are seeing is taking our country down to the point of ruin, and we have to stand up and stop it. I have to tell you, if we do not do it, our kids and our grandkids and our great-grandkids--and Elaine and I have all three--are going to be paying a huge price.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to speak in honor of the service of my good friend, Senator Norm Coleman. Senator Coleman was among the more thoughtful and intelligent Senators that I have known. His presence in this Chamber will be sorely missed. Senator Coleman came to the Senate with more insight into the lives and needs of his constituents than most obtain after years of service in Congress. He was elected mayor of St. Paul, MN, in 1993. Of course, at that time he was a Democrat, but I don't hold it against him. He eventually realized the error of his ways and was reelected as a Republican in 1997. He became the most popular and well known mayor in Minnesota, mostly because he shared something in common with Minnesotans: a love of hockey. In 1993, the Minnesota North Stars became the Dallas Stars, leaving the State of Minnesota without a franchise in the National Hockey League. Norm shared the view of probably every Minnesotan that this was just not right. Honestly, how can you have an NHL without a team in Minnesota? Due in large part to Mayor Coleman's lobbying efforts the NHL awarded St. Paul an expansion franchise in 1997, the Minnesota Wild. You would think that bringing hockey back to Minnesota would be enough to get him elected to any office he wanted in the state. But, as many have observed, the people of Minnesota are unpredictable. In the 1998 gubernatorial election, in a race that grabbed the attention of many people throughout the country, Norm finished just 3 percentage points behind Jesse Ventura, whose preGovernor career was, to put it lightly, a colorful one. Though this result had to be difficult for Norm, I think we all ultimately benefited from the outcome of that race. Norm was elected to the Senate in 2002 and immediately became known for his thoughtful demeanor and his dedication to the people of Minnesota. He was a loyal Republican, but he was also willing to work with those in the opposing party to help the State of Minnesota and the Nation as a whole. He supported President Bush, but, as should be expected of any loyal supporter, he was not afraid to express his disagreement or offer his advice with regard to changes and reforms. Indeed, I think Republicans and Democrats alike have had a good working relationship with Senator Coleman because, as many have noted here today, he was more concerned with getting things done and being true to his convictions than he was about being political and towing the party line. Mr. President, while I welcome Senator Coleman's successor, I must admit that I was disappointed when I heard of the final decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court. Obviously, I don't like seeing the number of Republicans in the Chamber go down. But, more importantly, I am sad to see the Senate lose such a vibrant and intelligent voice. Indeed, I think his views and statements on the legislation being considered by the Senate this year would add greatly to the debate. I want to wish Senator Coleman the best of luck in his future endeavors. While I am sure that he will be a valuable asset for any effort with which he becomes involved, I am more certain that he will be missed here in the Senate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the regular order.

Mr. HATCH. With respect to a modification to amendment No. 1428. I send the modification to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Cornyn and Pryor to offer this amendment to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. This bipartisan amendment will bring clarity to the definition of what should be classified as a switchblade knife. This amendment is in response to a proposal by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP, to revoke four ruling letters that would change the definition of a switchblade knife. The definition of what is a switchblade has been clear and settled since the Federal Switchblade Act was passed in 1958, and it has been reaffirmed by many years of legal decisions. The act is very clear that a switchblade must have an automatic mechanism that is activated by a button usually located on the handle. Without a button, it is not a switchblade, and this has been upheld by numerous cases on many levels over the years. This amendment will clearly define that any knife that can be opened with one hand is not and should not be classified as a switchblade. This amendment conforms to the original intent of Congress when it passed the Federal Switchblade Act in 1958. According to knife industry sources, 80 percent of pocketknives sold today are one-hand or assisted openers. On a daily basis, good working folks use these knives in their daily tasks as electricians, carpenters, and construction workers. As such, Leatherman-type multitools with one-hand opening features, as well as folding utility knives that have a stud on the blunt portion of the blade to assist one-hand opening, would have been defined as a switchblade. The amendment offered today will provide a permanent statutory remedy to this issue. This amendment will continue to prohibit switchblades, but not at the expense of knives that were never meant to be categorized as a switchblade. Because of that, I saw the need to offer this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to my friend's amendment. For the past several years, there has been a provision in this appropriations bill that says that Customs and Border Protection cannot stop an individual from bringing in on their person 90 days' worth of a prescription drug from Canada. While I am not crazy about that language, it has been law for some time and codifies what had been an existing practice at the border. However, my colleague from Louisiana is proposing to radically alter what happens at the border. This amendment is bad policy, and I hope our colleagues will vote against it. It is not adequate to protect the public health, and it will not keep Americans safe. This amendment would strike three important elements of existing law. Instead of just individuals, anyone could bring in drugs. There would be no license required for businesses to get into this line of work. There would be no inspections of their facilities, no minimum qualifications, no background checks, no limits on resale, no oversight whatsoever. This would be an open door for criminals to get into Americans' medicine cabinets. The amendment removes the limit on the method of importation. Instead of bringing in the drugs on your person, you could do it by mail order or more likely via the Internet. This creates a problem with drugs coming not from Canada but through Canada. Many of the drugs ordered online today are purported to be from Canada, but when GAO and others investigate, they are found to be from other countries. Finally, there would be no limits on the quantities permitted to be imported. Canada has only one-tenth the population of the United States. They cannot serve as our pharmacy. The drugs will be sourced from somewhere else. It is inevitable. While many people may be comfortable with drugs from Canada, I doubt they will have the same level of comfort with drugs from Pakistan, China, or Malta. There is nothing in this amendment to ensure that the drugs come from Canada, but there is every incentive for them not to come from Canada. Most Americans who turn to imported drugs do so because of cost, but a counterfeit, tainted, or substandard drug is unsafe at any price. As we consider the issue of drug importation, the safety of our citizens must be our primary concern. I support finding ways to reduce the cost of drugs but never at the expense of safety. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is a well-intentioned amendment, I am sure. I care a great deal for my colleague, but I think we should oppose it and vote it down. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back my time, also.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside, and I call up amendment No. 1428.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill that will extend, for 3 years, the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program and the Conrad 30 Program. In addition, my amendment addresses the immigration-related hardships caused by the death of a sponsoring relative. Let me say a few words about the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program. The program provides for up to 5,000 special immigrant visas per year which religious denominations or organizations in the United States can use to sponsor foreign nationals to perform religious service in our country. To date, the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program has been extended six times. However, Congress has started a very poor practice of extending this program in 6-month spurts--making it extremely difficult for agency officials to administer the program and for religious groups to make long-term plans for their critical staffing needs. Lest some people think this is not an important program worthy of our attention, let me tell you about the services nonminister religious workers perform. These selfless workers provide human services to the most needy, including shelter and nutrition; caring for and ministering to the sick, aged, and dying; working with adolescents and young adults; assisting religious leaders as they lead their congregations and communities in worship; counseling those who have suffered severe trauma and/or hardship; supporting families, particularly when they are in crisis; offering religious instruction, especially to new members of the religious denomination; and helping refugees and immigrants in the United States adjust to a new way of life. I am aware of the concerns that some of my colleagues have about fraud within this program, and I am equally concerned. Yet I want to make it clear. The figures used to taint this program are outdated and not reflective of where things stand currently. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, is in the process of completing the implementation of rules and procedures promulgated in November 2008 to eliminate fraud. This includes regular site visits. Additionally, an inspector general report, just issued a few weeks ago, confirms that USCIS has developed a credible process to deter and detect nonminister petition fraud. To ensure that we continue to keep on top of this issue, I have insisted that language in the proposed amendment require a report from USCIS, within 90 days of enactment, to identify the risks of fraud and noncompliance by program participants. Additionally, USCIS will be required to provide a detailed plan that describes the actions taken by the agency against noncompliant program participants and future noncompliant program participants. Three months after providing this report to Congress, USCIS will be required to provide a report on the progress made in reducing the number of noncompliant participants of this program. I want to assure my colleagues that fraud in any government program is totally unacceptable to me. And I believe the extra steps included in the legislation will further the progress USCIS has made in eliminating and preventing fraud in this important program. Mr. President, please note that there are several religious organizations that support passage of the Special Immigrant Non- Minister Religious Worker Visa Program, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the American Jewish Committee, the Agudath Israel of America, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., the Church Communities International, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the Mennonite Central Committee, the United States National Association of Evangelicals, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai of the United States, The Church of Scientology International, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, MA, the United Methodist Church, the General Board of Church and Society, the World Relief, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. No doubt our country's religious organizations face sometimes insurmountable obstacles in using traditional employment immigration categories to fit their unique situations. Fortunately, the Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program allows our country's religious denominations to continue uninterrupted in their call to serve and provide support to those who are in the greatest need. I commend their service and hope they know how much I respect their work. Let me take a moment to say a few words about the Conrad 30 Program, which was created in 1994. The Conrad 30 Program allows foreign doctors, who are already in the United States, and who have been trained in the United States, to extend their stay in the country if they agree to practice in medically underserved communities in the U.S. for 3 years. The program, which is run at the State level, has brought over 8,500 doctors to underserved areas across the country, and to all 50 States. However, it expires in September. My amendment also will extend the Conrad 30 Program for 3 years. The Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, imposes what has become known as the ``widow penalty,'' requiring the deportation of individuals whose pending applications for green cards are rejected because their citizen spouse died within the first 2 of marriage. This amendment remedies this unintended and unjustified administrative procedure. Under current law, when a U.S. citizen marries a noncitizen, the noncitizen is eligible to become a legal permanent resident and receive a green card. During the first 2 years of marriage, the only way this can be accomplished is through a petition that the citizen files on the noncitizen spouse's behalf. The noncitizen cannot self-petition for legal permanent resident status until the marriage has lasted for 2 years. If, however, the citizen spouse dies while the petition, through no fault of the couple, remains pending. This is often unfair; delays are often caused by agency workload or issues which are not the fault of the petitioners. The petition automatically is denied. The noncitizen is immediately deemed ineligible for legal permanent residence and therefore becomes deportable. This is the case even if ample evidence of a bona fide marriage, such as cohabitation, shared finances, exists. It is often the case even if a couple had a U.S. born child. Because of the widow penalty, well-intentioned widows who have played by the rules face immediate deportation. During the 110th Congress, efforts to persuade the USCIS to address the issue administratively were unsuccessful. In the current administration, Secretary Napolitano has directed that the Department of Homeland Security to review a number of immigration issues, including the ``widow penalty,'' and has decided to defer action on deporting widows for up to 2 years to allow time for Congress to fix the problem. There have been more than 200 ``widow penalty'' victims, including a woman whose husband died while serving overseas as a contractor in Iraq; a woman whose husband died trying to rescue people who were drowning in the San Francisco Bay; and a woman who was apprehended by Federal agents when she went to meet with immigration authorities to plead her case she was placed in shackles, and sent to a detention facility. This amendment will end the harsh and unfair ``widow penalty'' by allowing the petition to be adjudicated even though the spouse has died. The proposed legislation affects only a small class of individuals who still would be required to demonstrate that they had a bona fide marriage before receiving a green card. Thus, USCIS would retain the discretion to deny petitions, but they would no longer deny them automatically in response to the death of the citizen spouse. The amendment also includes provisions to clarify that the government should continue to process the immigration applications of immigrants who are already waiting to receive an immigrant or other visa under certain conditions. Specifically, the bill would protect orphans, parents and spouses of United States citizens by allowing them to continue their applications through the family immigration system in cases where the citizen's or resident's relative died if the individual self-petitions within 2 years; allow the spouse and minor children of family-sponsored immigrants and derivative beneficiaries of employment-based visas to benefit from a filed visa petition after the death of a relative or adjust status on the basis of a petition filed before the death of the sponsoring relative if the application is filed within 2 years; allow the spouse and minor children of refugees and asylees to immigrate to the U.S. despite the death of the principal applicant and allow them to adjust their status to permanent residence; provide processes to reopen previously denied cases and allow individuals to be paroled into the U.S. in cases where the sponsoring relative died after submitting an immigration application, and promote efficient naturalization of widows and widowers by allowing the surviving spouse to continue with a naturalization application as long as the deceased spouse was a citizen of the United States during the 3 years prior to filing. The bill ensures that all widows and orphans would have to comply with affidavit of support requirements to ensure they do not become a public charge. The bill includes provisions to make sure that all widows and orphans who benefit under this act are subject to current numerical limitations on visa issuance. The bill also provides a limit on issuance of visas for widows where the spouse died over 10 years ago: only 100 visas would be available for individuals whose spouses died before 1999. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce with my colleague, Senator John Kerry, the Arts Require Timely Services, ARTS, Act. For some time, I have been working to improve the processing of visa petitions filed by nonprofit arts organizations. Unfortunately, years of delays, errors, and unpredictability have forced some U.S.-based nonprofit arts organizations from even trying to bring international artists into the United States. We must eliminate some of the bureaucratic barriers that have been negatively affecting performing artists. There is no doubt that nonprofit arts organizations across the country engage foreign guest artists in their orchestras, theatres, and dance and opera companies. In my home state of Utah, I am aware that many organizations that will benefit from passage of the ARTS Act, including Brigham Young University, Cache Valley Center for the Arts, The Orchestra of Southern Utah, University of Utah, Murray Symphony Orchestra, Salt Lake Symphony, and the Utah Shakespeare Festival, to name a few. The ARTS Act would apply only to temporary, nonimmigrant visas for foreign artists visiting the United States. The legislation would require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to treat as a Premium Processing case, or a 15-day turn-around, free of additional charge, any nonprofit arts-related O- and P-visa petition that it fails to adjudicate within 30 days. In November 2007, the Congressional Budget Office issued a cost estimate for the ARTS Act, stating that the bill would have no significant cost to the Federal Government. It is my hope that my colleagues will support passage of this legislation in the near future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce with my colleague, Senator John Kerry, the Arts Require Timely Services, ARTS, Act. For some time, I have been working to improve the processing of visa petitions filed by nonprofit arts organizations. Unfortunately, years of delays, errors, and unpredictability have forced some U.S.-based nonprofit arts organizations from even trying to bring international artists into the United States. We must eliminate some of the bureaucratic barriers that have been negatively affecting performing artists. There is no doubt that nonprofit arts organizations across the country engage foreign guest artists in their orchestras, theatres, and dance and opera companies. In my home state of Utah, I am aware that many organizations that will benefit from passage of the ARTS Act, including Brigham Young University, Cache Valley Center for the Arts, The Orchestra of Southern Utah, University of Utah, Murray Symphony Orchestra, Salt Lake Symphony, and the Utah Shakespeare Festival, to name a few. The ARTS Act would apply only to temporary, nonimmigrant visas for foreign artists visiting the United States. The legislation would require U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to treat as a Premium Processing case, or a 15-day turn-around, free of additional charge, any nonprofit arts-related O- and P-visa petition that it fails to adjudicate within 30 days. In November 2007, the Congressional Budget Office issued a cost estimate for the ARTS Act, stating that the bill would have no significant cost to the Federal Government. It is my hope that my colleagues will support passage of this legislation in the near future.