Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to call up an amendment following the remarks of Senators Dodd and Dorgan.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 1007.

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to propose an amendment that will ensure transparency and prevent egregious cases of fraud against American workers. My amendment is very simple, and I think it is compelling. All it does is prevent the administration from rescinding current regulations that require transparency in the way that union management chooses to spend the hard-earned dues collected from their members. This amendment is specifically directed at preventing the weakening of the Department of Labor's Office of Labor-Management Standards--or OLMS it is called--which is the sole Federal agency tasked with protecting the interests of American workers who pay union dues. Under current Federal law, the OLMS requires financial reporting that ensures the transparency of how labor union management spends labor union dues in the area of compensation of labor leaders, the purchasing of union assets, and additional information regarding various union receipts. This law requires union leaders to disclose how members' money is spent and provides protection from fraud, waste, and abuse. Public opinion and our Nation's dire economic conditions have driven us to require banks, corporations, and even Presidential administrations to do business in the light of day--in full transparency. Therefore, the same expectation of transparency should apply to labor unions. The previous administration took steps to do that in 2003 by updating reporting requirements and forms. These updates allowed the electronic filing of disclosures on the Internet. The Office of Labor-Management Standards--OLMS--was about to implement a second update that would require information about compensation to union officers. This revision also would have required the disclosure of transactions involving union assets. Unfortunately, as was reported this year in the April 21 Federal Register, the Labor Department and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis have delayed the effective date of these revisions. Furthermore, on this same date, the Labor Department has published a notice that seeks to withdraw the rule entirely. By doing this, Secretary Solis has effectively neutralized OLMS in its mission to ensure the transparency in the way labor unions spend the hard-earned money of their Members. Ironically, this is being done by an administration that has told the American public that transparency and change has returned to Washington. It would appear to me that the Labor Department did not get that memo. I feel confident President Obama would be on my side on this, that he would want the transparency. It is in the best interests of union workers. It protects them from fraud. It protects their dues as they put them in there. Unions can run the unions just as businesses run businesses, but they ought to do it honestly. That is why these regulations are so important. That is why this amendment is so important. There should not be any debate as to the effectiveness of the OLMS. From 2001 through 2007, OLMS investigations resulted in 1,000 indictments. The Office of Labor-Management Standards fraud investigations between 2001 and 2007 resulted in 1,000 indictments and convictions of 929 of those indicted. The funds recovered that were illegally taken amounted to $93 million. Think about that: $93 million in restitution was paid back to the victims of those crimes. I am sure I need not remind any Member of this body that union dues are seldom voluntarily given. Men and women who join these unions are often compelled to pay as part of their employment agreement. Union funds are also comprised of pension funds, which have occasionally been targeted by organized crime and used to underwrite mob activities. I know. I was a member of the AFL-CIO. I went through a formal apprenticeship. I paid dues, and I became a journeyman metal lather, a skilled trade, back in those years when I was working in construction. Union funds, as I say, are also comprised of pension funds, which sometimes are targeted by organized crime and used to underwrite mob activities. When I was chairman of the Labor Committee, we did a lot to try and overcome these things, but it has never been done better than between 2001 and 2007. From October 2000 through May 2007, in the State of New York alone, the OLMS conducted 334 audits and obtained 87 indictments, resulting in 82 convictions. That is a high constriction rate, showing this is not some little itty, bitty problem. This, in turn, resulted in the recovery and restitution of $39.6 million. In Illinois, the OLMS indicted 44 persons in connection with fraudulent activity involving union funds, resulting in 42 convictions. These are statistics we can all be proud of. OLMS investigations produced 1,000 indictments and obtained 929 constrictions--a 92.9- percent conviction rate. We are debating legislation that provides more investigators and remedies to prevent fraud and enforce Federal laws. The OLMS enforces the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act, a bipartisan law with roots back to another former Senator who was young, inspiring, and went on to become President: John F. Kennedy. It was then-Senator Kennedy who inserted into this act the union members' bill of rights. It is the union members who are entitled to transparency. The whole world is entitled to transparency in these instances as well. It is the mission of the OLMS to ensure that union business is conducted in the light of day, with its members'--and that is plural--interests at heart. It is for this reason that I have risen to propose this amendment and I ask my colleagues for their support and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH. Well, then I will ask for the yeas and nays at the appropriate time.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am indebted to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his remarks today, and I certainly join with him in requesting the Chinese Government to make this matter right. I am very grateful he has taken the time to come and tell us about Mr. Gao as well as this wonderful woman who is being held in Iran. I wish to compliment him for it and say that I wish to be identified with his remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to pay tribute to CPL Micheal B. Alleman of Logan, UT. Corporal Alleman died in the service to our country on February 23, 2009, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms in Iraq's Diyala Province. He was 32 years old and is survived by his parents Boyd and Susan Alleman, his wife Amy, and their two sons Kai and Kennet. Corporal Alleman served in the 5th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, Fort Wainwright, AK. Two years ago, Micheal Alleman decided to put his teaching career on hold to enlist in the U.S. Army. When he explained this decision to his fifth grade class at Nibley Elementary School, he said he wanted to be like the Nation's first President, who left his career as a Virginia planter to take up arms against the British monarchy. He said that George Washington was his hero. I am proud to talk about another American hero today, CPL Micheal Alleman. He defines what makes our Nation great. With absolute surety, he exhibited a devotion to duty and sense of purpose that transcends personal comfort and desire. Corporal Alleman heard his country's call to duty and in that service he gave his last full measure of devotion. He gave his life so we can continue to remain safe and free each day. As I read accounts from his family and friends, it was readily apparent he was a tremendously selfless and caring man. He was described as a man who deeply loved his family and cared about those around him. His family would bend over backward for anyone. It is no wonder he so readily decided to serve this Nation. Let us not forgot the sacrifice of CPL Micheal Alleman. His service should inspire everyone in this Chamber. I thank him for his service and pray for his family and friends during this tremendously difficult time. His wife Amy stated, ``My boys will always know their father stood up to defend this country.'' Well, so shall we also remember and cherish the memory of his service.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as the ranking Republican on the Antitrust Subcommittee, I rise to voice my support for the confirmation of Christine Varney to be the next Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. This is a role to which, I believe, she is ideally suited. Ms. Varney served as a Federal Trade Commissioner from 1994 to 1997. As we all know, our Nation has two separate agencies, the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission, that are responsible for enforcing our antitrust laws. Ensuring that these agencies efficiently and effectively execute those laws is a major concern of the Antitrust Subcommittee. In fact, I recently posed the theoretical question as to whether a merger of the FTC's antitrust arm and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division would not create a more efficient regulatory regime. Although I believe this question deserves further close consideration by the Antitrust Subcommittee, I was delighted to see that Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC, was present, and even an active participant, at Ms. Varney's nomination hearing. Undoubtedly, this was to support her confirmation and, presumably, to show the intent of these two leaders to bring greater cooperation between the Antitrust Division and the FTC. In addition to Ms. Varney's experience with an executive agency enforcing our antitrust laws, she has also developed a strong reputation in the private sector. Ms. Varney was heavily involved in one of the most important antitrust cases of modern time: U.S. v. Microsoft. In that matter, she represented Netscape. She also represented Netscape in its merger with AOL. Presently, she is a partner at Hogan and Hartson, where she is head of that firm's Internet Law practice group. Her experience in these matters is of particular relevance due to the recent number of proposed mergers affecting the Internet. The importance of these contemplated mergers has only been highlighted by the number of hearings that the Antitrust Subcommittee has held on the issues that have arisen because of these proposed transactions. I also appreciate the commitment she made in her written responses to the committee's questions to work with me on an antitrust issue that is close to the hearts of every Utahn: the inequities that occur currently due to the so-called Bowl Championship Series. The current system is a clear violation of our Nation's antitrust laws and I look forward to working with the Antitrust Division to develop an appropriate remedy. On a personal level, I have had an opportunity to meet and talk to Ms. Varney. I appreciate her collegial and professional manner. I believe she is an individual who will strive to work with Congress to ensure that fair competition is maintained and the rule of law enforced. Therefore, I recommend Ms. Varney's confirmation to colleagues and look to working with her in the years to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has taken steps to give the Federal law enforcement and intelligence community the necessary tools to keep our citizens safe from terrorist attacks. Last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When asked about expiring provisions of the PATRIOT Act, Director Mueller urged Congress to renew these provisions. He referred to them as ``exceptional tools to help protect our national security.'' Director Mueller further provided the committee with information regarding the use of these provisions. From 2004 to 2007, the roving wiretaps provision was used 225 times-- that is--25 times over 3 years. That breaks down to 75 times a year. Roving wiretaps were only used 147 times in 3 years. Congress granted the FBI the authority to use national security letters, NSL, in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. The use of NSLs is invaluable in these investigations. Their use also predates the attacks on 9/11. The uninformed and the paranoid portray these tools as an example of unchecked government monitoring reminiscent of a scene from George Orwell's book ``1984.'' I would submit to my colleagues that these figures show that these necessary tools have not been overused. Fail- safes and checks against overuse and improper application exist at numerous levels in this process. Changing administrations does not diminish the terrorism threat to our country. Two days ago, a Taliban leader responsible for brazen attacks in Pakistan issued a threat to attack the White House.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator Herb Kohl, Senator Olympia Snowe and I will be introducing the Elder Justice Act. The Elder Justice Act we are introducing today was reported by the Senate Finance Committee during the last Congress. In fact, this legislation has been introduced consistently since the 107th Congress. Additionally, it has been reported unanimously by the Finance Committee during the last three Congresses. I want to express my gratitude to Senator Blanche Lincoln, the other lead sponsor of the Elder Justice Act. Senator Lincoln's strong commitment to reducing elder abuse has made a tremendous difference. It has been a pleasure to work with her on this important legislation. In addition, I want to acknowledge the other original cosponsors of this bill, Senator Herb Kohl and Senator Olympia Snowe. Over the years, Senator Kohl has been strong supporter of this legislation and, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Aging, his support has been greatly appreciated by me. Senator Snowe has been a strong supporter of the Elder Justice Act for many years. The Elder Justice Coalition, headed by Bob Blancato, also has been a great ally of the Elder Justice Act. The coalition, which has close to 560 members, is dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in our country. Over the years, coalition members have worked hard to educate Congress about the Elder Justice Act. I also must acknowledge the work of former Senator John Breaux on this important legislation. Senator Breaux was the original sponsor of the Elder Justice Act. In fact, Senator Breaux and I first introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress. Even though Senator Breaux is no longer in the Senate, he has still fought for passage of this legislation and currently serves as the Honorary Chairman of the Elder Justice Coalition. As far as the Elder Justice Act is concerned, one of the most significant provisions of this bill is the creation of an Elder Justice Coordinating Council and an Advisory Board on elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. The Coordinating Council, which would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, would be made up of Federal agency representatives who would be responsible for overseeing programs related to elder abuse. Advisory Board members would include citizens who have extensively studied issues surrounding elder abuse. Together, the Council and Advisory Board would be responsible for coordinating public and private activities and programs related to elder abuse. Today, that goal is unattainable because quite simply, the approach to addressing elder abuse is disjointed among Federal agencies. Therefore, the major goal of the Elder Justice Act would be to encourage a comprehensive and coordinated response by these Federal agencies to elder abuse. I also want to take a minute to address a concern that has been raised by some who believe that the Elder Justice Act is duplicative because federal programs already exist to address elder abuse. I respectfully disagree with that assessment. In fact, last Congress, we spent a lot of time with agency officials to address some of the concerns raised about the bill. It is my hope that we will continue those discussions this year. That being said, I truly believe that our government needs to do more when it comes to elder abuse. As more and more baby boomers retire over the next 3 decades, we can no longer ignore the reality that elder abuse is prevalent within our society and we must do something to address it. Enacting the Elder Justice Act is the first step. Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. Getting this bill signed into law continues to be one of my top priorities. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Elder Justice Act and support the passage of this legislation. Our seniors deserve no less.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, Senator Blanche Lincoln, Senator Herb Kohl, Senator Olympia Snowe and I will be introducing the Elder Justice Act. The Elder Justice Act we are introducing today was reported by the Senate Finance Committee during the last Congress. In fact, this legislation has been introduced consistently since the 107th Congress. Additionally, it has been reported unanimously by the Finance Committee during the last three Congresses. I want to express my gratitude to Senator Blanche Lincoln, the other lead sponsor of the Elder Justice Act. Senator Lincoln's strong commitment to reducing elder abuse has made a tremendous difference. It has been a pleasure to work with her on this important legislation. In addition, I want to acknowledge the other original cosponsors of this bill, Senator Herb Kohl and Senator Olympia Snowe. Over the years, Senator Kohl has been strong supporter of this legislation and, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Aging, his support has been greatly appreciated by me. Senator Snowe has been a strong supporter of the Elder Justice Act for many years. The Elder Justice Coalition, headed by Bob Blancato, also has been a great ally of the Elder Justice Act. The coalition, which has close to 560 members, is dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in our country. Over the years, coalition members have worked hard to educate Congress about the Elder Justice Act. I also must acknowledge the work of former Senator John Breaux on this important legislation. Senator Breaux was the original sponsor of the Elder Justice Act. In fact, Senator Breaux and I first introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress. Even though Senator Breaux is no longer in the Senate, he has still fought for passage of this legislation and currently serves as the Honorary Chairman of the Elder Justice Coalition. As far as the Elder Justice Act is concerned, one of the most significant provisions of this bill is the creation of an Elder Justice Coordinating Council and an Advisory Board on elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. The Coordinating Council, which would be chaired by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, would be made up of Federal agency representatives who would be responsible for overseeing programs related to elder abuse. Advisory Board members would include citizens who have extensively studied issues surrounding elder abuse. Together, the Council and Advisory Board would be responsible for coordinating public and private activities and programs related to elder abuse. Today, that goal is unattainable because quite simply, the approach to addressing elder abuse is disjointed among Federal agencies. Therefore, the major goal of the Elder Justice Act would be to encourage a comprehensive and coordinated response by these Federal agencies to elder abuse. I also want to take a minute to address a concern that has been raised by some who believe that the Elder Justice Act is duplicative because federal programs already exist to address elder abuse. I respectfully disagree with that assessment. In fact, last Congress, we spent a lot of time with agency officials to address some of the concerns raised about the bill. It is my hope that we will continue those discussions this year. That being said, I truly believe that our government needs to do more when it comes to elder abuse. As more and more baby boomers retire over the next 3 decades, we can no longer ignore the reality that elder abuse is prevalent within our society and we must do something to address it. Enacting the Elder Justice Act is the first step. Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. Getting this bill signed into law continues to be one of my top priorities. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Elder Justice Act and support the passage of this legislation. Our seniors deserve no less.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding a troubling situation facing Magna Water District in Utah. Magna's drinking water is threatened by contamination from an underground plume of perchlorate which is heading towards its wells. The perchlorate is the result of decades of rocket motor production at a Department of Defense site currently operated by Hercules, ATK Launch Systems. In order to address the threat to its water system, the district plans to implement a unique water reuse and groundwater recharge project that would serve to demonstrate a bio-destruction process combining wastewater with a desalination brine stream to destroy the perchlorate. This new technology would give water districts throughout the country a more effective and more economical method of mitigating perchlorate contamination. The district has already invested a significant amount of its own funds toward the effort, and it is now seeking a 25 percent match from the Federal Government. This funding would preserve the district's crucial water resources while finding an efficient and beneficial use of treated industrial and domestic wastewater. In addition, this funding is vital in order to provide our Nation with a better way to destroy harmful perchlorate plumes that may threaten community water supplies. As you know, our Nation's clean water supply is a precious asset to our country. In desert places like Utah, the need for the best use of our available water is critical to preserving the limited amounts of clean water available to us. This water reuse and groundwater recharge technology is crucial to ensure clean drinking water for the citizens of Magna. Not only would this funding benefit the Magna district, but it would provide our Nation with an inexpensive and powerful new tool to clean up contaminated water. This is an investment in our Nation that will be paid back many times over. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding a troubling situation facing Magna Water District in Utah. Magna's drinking water is threatened by contamination from an underground plume of perchlorate which is heading towards its wells. The perchlorate is the result of decades of rocket motor production at a Department of Defense site currently operated by Hercules, ATK Launch Systems. In order to address the threat to its water system, the district plans to implement a unique water reuse and groundwater recharge project that would serve to demonstrate a bio-destruction process combining wastewater with a desalination brine stream to destroy the perchlorate. This new technology would give water districts throughout the country a more effective and more economical method of mitigating perchlorate contamination. The district has already invested a significant amount of its own funds toward the effort, and it is now seeking a 25 percent match from the Federal Government. This funding would preserve the district's crucial water resources while finding an efficient and beneficial use of treated industrial and domestic wastewater. In addition, this funding is vital in order to provide our Nation with a better way to destroy harmful perchlorate plumes that may threaten community water supplies. As you know, our Nation's clean water supply is a precious asset to our country. In desert places like Utah, the need for the best use of our available water is critical to preserving the limited amounts of clean water available to us. This water reuse and groundwater recharge technology is crucial to ensure clean drinking water for the citizens of Magna. Not only would this funding benefit the Magna district, but it would provide our Nation with an inexpensive and powerful new tool to clean up contaminated water. This is an investment in our Nation that will be paid back many times over. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to express my deep concern about the tax increases--both explicit and hidden--in President Obama's budget and in the Democratic budget resolution before us today. Erwin Griswold, the former Solicitor General under President Lyndon Baines Johnson, and also President Richard M. Nixon, once said: We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. At least, as one man said, there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets. Unfortunately, this budget would lead to taxes getting worse. In fact, they would get much worse, and not just for the so-called well- off and well-connected, as the budget refers to those who are targeted for explicit tax increases. The title of President Obama's budget is ``An Era of Responsibility-- Renewing America's Promise.'' However, this budget is irresponsible as to its implications for the next generations. As I have mentioned before many times on this floor, I have 6 children, 23 grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren, and I am very concerned about their future and the future of all of our families throughout America, just as all of our colleagues are concerned about their posterity as well. When I think about responsibility and the promise of America, I think about these next generations, both in my family and in the families of my constituents, and others, of course. This is why I am so concerned about this budget, and especially the tax burden this budget would place on the next generations of my fellow Utahans and all Americans. This budget includes a number of tax increases, but I want to focus on just three of the major ones that would particularly affect these next generations. Now, the Obama ``tax-orama:'' There will be a tax hike on America's industrial output and energy, a tax hike on America's job creation, and a tax hike on America's competitiveness. During his address to Congress last month, President Obama promised: [I]f your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. That is what he said. We have heard this promise before. However, from his first days in office, the President has proposed raising taxes and the cost of living on lower income wage earners, as well as on all Americans. Now, how? Through the trillion-dollar-plus cap-and-trade climate change legislation that President Obama is proposing. This proposal, if enacted, would force energy and industrial companies throughout America to either pass these gargantuan costs on to their customers and employees or go out of business. This tax on America's industrial output and energy is not even called a tax in the President's budget. Instead, it is referred to as ``climate revenues.'' However, we should not let that fool us. As the old saying goes: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. This tax, estimated to total between $1.2 trillion and $1.9 trillion over the next 10 years, would be by far the largest tax increase in the history of the world. It is true these new taxes might not be paid directly to the IRS or be withheld from workers' paychecks. Instead, they would be much more insidious. They would show up in the form of higher utility bills, higher costs for consumer goods, lost jobs, and a lower standard of living for everyone. This tax hike on America's industrial output and energy--just think about it, called cap and trade--they refer to as ``climate revenues.'' Potentially, it is a $1.9 trillion tax on energy costs and an increase in the cost of living. Well, the nasty thing about them is the American family may not even know how much they are paying--just that their standard of living has gone down. The administration tries to tell us lower income Americans will be held harmless because the revenues from this new tax will be used to compensate them. Now, we have seen this type of compensation already from this administration, particularly in the stimulus bill. If you look back to last year, before a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Peter Orszag, then CBO Director and now President Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, admitted: Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. That was before the Senate Finance Committee on which I sit, on April 28, 2008. That is what OMB Director Orszag said about cap and trade. Well, passing these costs on to consumers is bad enough and will cause a great deal of hardship to families and to the economy, but my question is, what happens if the firms are not able to pass these costs on to their customers? The answer is, they will go out of business and jobs will be lost. Either way the American family loses under this proposal. As I mentioned, the President's budget says Americans will be compensated for these higher prices. However, I think a better word for the kind of compensation this budget has in mind is ``income redistribution:'' Let's take from those who have and give to those who have not. It is the same philosophy that brought us tax cuts for people who do not pay taxes. Well, I suggest in the name of responsibility that if we want to raise taxes on Americans, let's do it in a straightforward way, where it is visible and does less damage. Raising taxes on anyone at this time of extreme economic vulnerability is a mistake, but this proposal does exactly what the President promised never to do and then excuses it by saying this is not a tax. Now, that is a bunch of hooey. This new tax on America's industrial output and energy would be a colossal error and could cripple the ability of the next generations to reach, let alone exceed, the standard of living we now enjoy. This would be a tragedy because seeing our children and grandchildren do better than we have done is the real promise of America. If this new tax on our industrial output and energy were the extent of the tax increases the President's budget proposes, it would be bad enough. Unfortunately, there is more bad news. The budget goes so far as to undermine and weaken the so-called stimulus bill enacted in February by calling for an increase in taxes that will affect job creation. As we all know, the goal of all of our colleagues is to save or create millions of jobs. The explicit tax increases called for in the budget, however, would take away the very means for the private sector to perform this job creation. It would do this through increases in taxes on capital gains taxes, dividends, carried interest, and by raising the top individual rates where most small business income is taxed. Just ask any small business owner who reports his or her business income on their own tax returns, as most do, and they will tell you if you increase taxes for the top two rates, then they will be forced to either reduce salaries or put a freeze on new hires. With nearly 200,000 small businesses in Utah, I do not think Utah can generate substantial job growth if small businesses face these tax increases. The same is true for other States. Two-thirds of jobs and small businesses are in firms with employees numbering between 20 and 499. These small businesses are the ones owned by individuals and taxed as individuals who would be targeted by President Obama's tax increases. The Small Business Administration tells us that 70 percent of new jobs each year are created by small businesses. Why in the world would we want to harm the ability of America's job-creation engine--small businesses--to help us create or save the jobs we so badly need right now? This is sheer folly. Time and time again, research has shown that decreasing taxes on small businesses increases employment and raises wages. On the other hand, increasing taxes on small businesses hinders investment, including employment. Research by the Tax Foundation shows that raising the marginal tax rate by 5 percentage points reduces the percentage of entrepreneurs who invest by 10.4 percent and lowers their average investment by 9.9 percent. Reducing the tax rate from 39.6 percent to 33.2 percent increases the likelihood of hiring by 12 percent and raises the median wage for those hired employees by 3.2 percent. These tax increases, which target the so-called wealthy, will miss the mark and hurt everyone, particularly those who lose their jobs or who do not get the job that might have been. The tax hike on America's job creation: two-thirds of small business jobs are targeted by President Obama's tax increases. Seventy percent of all new jobs each year are created by small businesses. These tax increases are going to hinder job growth. Tragically, there is even more in this budget that would attack our ability to create jobs. The third leg of this assault is on America's competitiveness in a global economy. Beyond strengthening job growth for small businesses, we must also create an environment that encourages companies to invest in the United States as well as to expand worldwide to meet growing opportunities. Academic scholarship has shown that domestic companies that invest overseas strengthen their employment at home. Unfortunately, we are moving in the wrong direction already. According to last year's listings of the world's largest companies, the so-called Global 500, only 8 of the top 25 corporations in the world were headquartered in the United States. Forty years ago, almost all of the top 25 were headquartered in America and were American firms. This trend has a significant impact on jobs and the economy in the United States. Just this past month, several energy companies have announced plans to move to Switzerland because of that country's low corporate tax. To be frank, after looking at President Obama's budget proposal, I do not blame them. Such a move could become a matter of corporate survival if we are not careful. In fact, our system of worldwide taxation, coupled with one of the highest tax rates in the world, is enough to cause any firm to think twice about locating its worldwide headquarters here. And this is before the changes included in the Obama budget, which make the business landscape far less friendly. How are we supposed to be globally competitive when we have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world? Our corporate tax rate is currently at 35 percent, second only to Japan's, with the average global corporate tax rate around 26 percent. It is no wonder that many companies in the United States are looking elsewhere. These are tax hikes on America's global competitiveness. Think about that. Domestic companies that invest overseas strengthen their employment at home. The United States is one of the few major nations to tax companies on worldwide income. The average global corporate tax rate here is 35 percent. We are the second highest in the world, second only to Japan. The President believes our Tax Code includes incentives for U.S. businesses to ship jobs overseas, and the budget includes vaguely defined proposals that would supposedly put an end to this practice. However, the evidence shows that our tax laws do not lead to U.S. job loss but to increases in U.S. employment when companies invest overseas. In summary, the Obama budget for fiscal year 2010, along with the budget resolution before us today, is a three-pronged assault on American job creation through new taxes on America's industrial output and energy, tax increases on America's job creation for small businesses, and tax increases on America's competitiveness. This assault is a huge contradiction to the stated goals of the President to create or save 4 million jobs. I know he is sincere and believes he can do that, but not with this budget. While it is true that most of these tax increases will not hit until 2011, this is likely to be just as dangerous a time for these job-killing tax hikes as 2009 would be. Most economists believe that if we are lucky, we will just be beginning to recover from this ugly recession in 2011. Instead of these antigrowth policies, we should be enacting policies of support, investment, and growth. The great American satirist Ambrose Bierce once described responsibility as: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck, or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload responsibility upon a star. In President Obama's budget titled the ``Era of Responsibility,'' President Obama is attempting to unload responsibility on future generations. This is the wrong way to go. I hope we can make some changes to the budget this week that will help us grow the economy instead of growing the size of the Government. A stronger economy is the best legacy we can leave to the next generation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, if the Senator will yield on that.

Mr. HATCH. I understand the nominal rate argument. The problem is that we are talking about taxing the corporate profits that are earned overseas. No other major industrialized nation in the world does that. If they do that, they make us globally uncompetitive. In just the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to raise money for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. As I have called around, it is amazing to me how many corporate executives have said to me: We love this country. We want our companies to grow in this country. We want to be able to stay here. Some of them are second-generation folks. But I have had a number of them say that if we do some of the corporate tax changes and some of the tax expenses that are assessed in this bill, they will move. One in particular said: I am going to have to move my company to Switzerland because we will not be competitive if that particular budget passes. Now, I believe we can make arguments that the nominal rate may be something that must be considered, and I think it should, but I don't think you can argue against the fact that we are doing some very stupid things in this budget. Frankly, in the end, we might wind up having a lot more difficulty and we may lose even more of our major businesses because to be competitive they will move, and a lot of them have already moved. So let's wake up around here and let's realize that--look, I respect the distinguished Senator from North Dakota. He has one of the tougher jobs--he and our colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, Judd Gregg, have one of the tougher jobs in the history of the country. Doing these budgets is very difficult with some of the problems we have. But I have listed three things that are going to sock corporate America like you can't believe. Frankly, one of them is the third point on the prong, and that is taxing corporate profits overseas. It is just a matter of reality that if we do this, we are going to reap the whirlwind. It is just that simple.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I believe we need to take a moment to recognize the support the Serve America Act has received from leaders and organizations throughout the country. I actually have in my possession a copy of a letter to the Senate leadership signed by 21 Governors from around the country, including Gov. Haley Barbour from Mississippi, Gov. M. Jodi Rell from Connecticut, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger from California. In the letter, these State leaders express their support for the Serve America Act and give solid testimony regarding the value of national service, particularly of the States' role in our national service programs. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Governors' letter printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I also have a copy of a letter sent by the ServiceNation coalition. It is signed by 441 nonprofit and charitable organizations--all of which support this legislation. They vary from faith-based groups such as Catholic Charities to local groups such as Volunteer Florida and the Volunteer Center of Kalamazoo. Local United Way and Boys & Girls Club chapters have also signed on, as have a number of colleges and universities. These are the kinds of groups we will be empowering with passage of this legislation. They have built-in connections to their communities and know the needs of the people they serve. The Serve America Act will help them put even more boots on the ground in order to provide much needed services to people all over the country. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the ServiceNation letter printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I also have a copy of a letter of support sent by the members of the Campus Compact, a group of 1,100 colleges and universities that promote efforts to create civically engaged campuses. The signees to the letter include the presidents from the great schools of my State, including Utah State University, Salt Lake Community College, Utah Valley University, College of Eastern Utah, Weber State University, Dixie State College, Snow College, Brigham Young University, and the University of Utah. I think the administrators of these schools recognize the value of engaging young people in community and volunteer service. I am proud to see so many schools from Utah on the list, and I am quite certain that when this legislation becomes law, many students from these schools will benefit from it and, in turn, help to benefit others in their communities. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the Campus Compact letter printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I think these letters show the type of thing we are dealing with here. It is truly a national movement that has gotten behind the bipartisan coalition here in Washington that has been pushing to move this bill forward. Once again, I am proud to be a part of this effort, and I continue to urge my colleagues to support the bill as well. Madam President, I would like to take a moment to discuss what I think is one of the most important new programs contained in the Serve America Act, the ServeAmerica Fellowship program. The ServeAmerica Fellowships will basically be vouchers, enabling Americans of all ages and interests to work full or part time in service with nonprofit and faith-based groups. The bill calls for the creation of up to 1,500 fellowships by 2014. Here is how it will work: The Corporation for National and Community Service will make grants to State Service Commissions to allow them to award the ServeAmerica Fellowships. Those receiving the fellowships will work with approved service organizations and nonprofits on projects directed at those areas of national need identified in the bill. Even with these fellowships, we want to make sure our national service efforts are aimed at addressing specific needs and solving specific problems. The ServeAmerica Fellowships will be administered almost entirely at the State level, allowing the States to continue to be 50 State laboratories of innovation for volunteer service programs. The fellowships will be funded by the corporation at 50 percent of the total average annual subsistence allowance provided to VISTA volunteers. The host organizations will contribute the additional funding so that the fellow receives between 70 and 100 percent of the VISTA annual subsistence allowance. Fellows will also receive an educational award identical to that which is awarded to other national service participants. Now let me explain what we are trying to do with these fellowships. I believe that smaller nonprofit or faith-based organizations lacking large-scale capacity can nonetheless benefit from the efforts and presence of national servicemembers. Indeed, committed individual volunteers at startup nonprofits of faith-based charitable groups can provide the human capital needed to dramatically expand the charities' impact and help them recruit other volunteers. Again, this multiplying effect is the aim of almost every program under the bill. These fellowships will help ensure that faith-based, rural, grassroots, and other smaller nonprofits will benefit from this multiplying effect by having access to national servicemembers, even if they lack large-scale capacity. In addition, this program will fulfill one of the main goals we had in drafting this legislation, which is allowing the people the flexibility to choose their own paths of service. The fellows under this program will be chosen for their commitment and ingenuity, and I believe we will see some outstanding new service approaches developed as a result of this program. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland for the wonderful leadership she has provided on this bill for and on behalf of the majority and, I think, all of us. She is a terrific Senator and somebody for whom I have a great deal of respect. It has been a privilege to stand side by side with her and her staff and work together on this monumental piece of legislation. This is landmark legislation, and it will make a real difference in all of our lives. As we close out this debate, I can't help but think about the road that has led us here. I know that I have said that this bill is 2 years in the making, but, given the work that many of our colleagues have done in national service, it is probably been longer than that. I am proud to have played a role in this effort and I believe that, with this as we close out this legislation, we are bringing something of real value to the American people. Once again, my interest in volunteer service began long ago when, as a 20-year-old young man, I spent 2 full years serving as Mormon missionary. That experience was, for me, a pivotal time in my life. It altered my world view and gave a greater understanding of people and of the world around me. I have said numerous times I would not trade my time as a missionary those 2 years with being a Senator. It was that meaningful. I have to say I learned a great deal from that mission--how to deal with people, how to work with people, how to work with people who had problems, how to consult with people, how to counsel people. I can tell story after story the ways I grew in those 2 years and the respect I have for my fellow human beings. Other Members of this Chamber have similar stories to tell about times in their lives when they were able to set aside their own desires to help others in need. We heard many of those stories this week on the Senate floor, including Senator Mikulski's experience as a social worker and Senator Dodd's time in the Peace Corps. The common thread among all these stories is that each of us was left with a lifelong desire to serve. As I mentioned, Senator Kennedy and I have been working on this legislation for nearly 2 years trying to find the right balance of new programs and the best way to expand upon the existing national service system. I have to be honest, I consider him to be among one of my dearest friends. Senator Kennedy and I do not agree on much. We have found ourselves on opposing sides of some of the toughest battles in modern Senate history, oftentimes in fierce disagreement. But throughout our time together in the Senate, we have also been able to come together on a number of efforts that, in the end, have improved the lives of our fellow citizens. Although there have been numerous legislative efforts to bear the Kennedy-Hatch, Hatch-Kennedy label, depending on who is in the majority, I have never been more pleased with a bill than I am with this one. I know he feels much the same way. I am grateful to have had this opportunity to lock arms with the senior Senator from Massachusetts once again on the Serve America Act. What has made this particularly wonderful for me is being able to lock arms with my distinguished friend from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, Senator Enzi, and others who on this floor have expressed how important this legislation is. There has been a lot of good will on this floor this week. Most of the floor speeches have been supportive, and I have appreciated this. As I have been managing this bill on the floor, I have been directing many of my comments toward those who are not as supportive because, from the outset, it has been my hope that whatever bill we end up passing receives broad, bipartisan support. I think we are going to get that in the vote today--at least I hope so. But I wish to make a few final pitches anyway in case any of my colleagues are still on the fence. This is a bill that will address many of our Nation's needs during these difficult economic times, but it will do so not by growing the Federal bureaucracy but by powering individuals and private organizations to work in their communities and to recruit others to join in their efforts. All the programs in this bill have been designed with that purpose in mind. We are not paying people to volunteer, and we are not creating new positions in Government employment. Over the next 8 years, the bill will expand national service participation to 250,000 participants. That is a significant number to be sure, but in a country of 300 million, it cannot be the measure of our efforts. What matters is what these people will do as they participate in national service. The participants in these programs will serve as leaders or as anchors for community efforts driven by faith-based and nonprofit organizations. They will recruit, train, and supervise the efforts of millions of traditional volunteers. The model has a proven multiplying effect, leveraging 30 traditional volunteers for every national service participant. This bill will provide opportunities for people to take the lead in these efforts at all stages of their lives. Everyone from the young adult who wants to make a difference in his or her community and receive some college assistance to the baby boomers and senior citizens wanting to put their skills and experience to good use in all our neighborhoods. What do these participants receive in return? They get a small living stipend; that is, those who are the 250,000, that puts them below the poverty level, and a modest educational award that will pay only some of the costs of higher education. These are not jobs or careers. People do not go into national service because the pay is good. They do it because they have a desire to give back to their country and to their communities. With this bill, we will be giving more Americans the opportunity to do so. I have said it many times this week, but I believe it bears repeating, I believe this is a bill that every Member of the Senate can support without reservation. This is not a Democratic bill or a Republican bill, but it is both. The Serve America Act speaks to the best instincts and ideals of both parties. It is a landmark piece of legislation and, once again, I am proud to have been part of this effort. As we close debate on this legislation, I must express my gratitude to a number of people. Foremost, I wish to, once again, thank Senator Kennedy. His leadership on this bill has been instrumental. Indeed, the Serve America Act basically embodies everything we know about Senator Kennedy. I also thank Senator Enzi, who worked with Senator Kennedy to make sure that along with the new programs in the Kennedy-Hatch bill, we have reauthorized and reformed the existing national service infrastructure. The Corporation for National and Community Service has not been authorized for over 16 years. It is high time we got around to it. Senator Enzi's efforts have ensured that this, too, was a bipartisan effort. Of course, we all need to thank Senator Mikulski who has been an advocate and architect for national service for more than a decade. She is, indeed, the godmother of national service, and she has led us through the final stages of this effort at the negotiating table, in the HELP Committee, and on the Senate floor. All things considered, the floor debate has gone pretty smoothly this week, and that is because of Senator Mikulski's tireless encouragement to keep things moving. I also wish to pay tribute to the President. President Obama is certainly a very brilliant man. He immediately recognized the importance of this bill. I was pleased he mentioned it during his State of the Union Address. He did not have to mention our names, but the fact of the matter is he did because he knows Senator Kennedy played a major role. A number of our staff members need to be mentioned as well. From my own staff, I thank Chris Campbell and Bryan Hickman for their work on this bill. They worked a lot of late nights and early mornings on this legislation. I know about this because they let me hear about it all the time. Senator Kennedy's staff has had to pull double and sometimes triple duty in this effort. I wish to single out the efforts of Emma Vadehra, Portia Wu, and Michael Myers--three great staffers. They have carried the breadth of the Herculean load in getting this legislation introduced in committee and ready for passage. From Senator Enzi's staff, I need to recognize the work of Adam Briddell, Beth Buehlmann, Greg Dean, and Frank Macchiarola. From working on the reauthorization provisions and carrying much of the load on the floor for the Republican side, they have been indispensable. Of course, Senator Mikulski's staff has been wonderful as well, particularly the work of Mario Cardona and Ben Gruenbaum. I wish to say, again, I am grateful to be part of this legislation, and I am thankful to my colleagues for their support. I know there are many other staff members who deserve credit. I hope they realize what they have done is very important. I have a feeling we will see a pretty sizable margin in favor of final passage. I hope so. This bill is worth it. I think we can all walk away feeling like we have done something good, in the most bipartisan way we possibly can, at a time when it is difficult to develop bipartisanship and in a time when our Nation needs it the most. I thank everybody involved who has helped and even those who oppose this bill. I know they have done so out of sincerity. I think they are sincerely wrong but, nevertheless, I respect them for their particular viewpoints. This is an important body. It is the most important legislative body in the world today. This body has more freedoms in it than any other body in the world. Even the filibuster rule, which many decry, is a rule for freedom. It protects the minority. We all know when we were in the majority on the Republican side, it was a great protection to Democrats so they could not get run over on everything we wanted to do. And it protects us as Republicans so we cannot get run over on everything the Democrats want to do. Even though sometimes people say: Why do you have all these problems, stopping all these things, sometimes it is good to stop things. Sometimes it is good to stop bad stuff. Sometimes it is just good to see real debate on the floor of the Senate. In that regard, with this bill, we have had real debate. I think they have been fruitful, they have been helpful, and they have been honest. I thank everybody concerned. I hope that when we vote at approximately 5 o'clock tonight--is what I understand--everybody will consider voting for this bill. It is worth it. It is something that will do an immense amount of good in our society, and it is something we can all walk away and feel pretty good about. Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senators are trying to catch planes, so I am just going to say this much: Thanks. Thanks to those who vote for this. Thanks to this wonderful Senator from Maryland, without whom we could not be this far along. Thanks to Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi. There are so many people whom I would like to thank, and all the staffers who have worked so hard. This is going to be a very monumental, landmark bill that should really help this country and help people to get in the mood of being volunteers. I am very pleased we have come this far. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor, and I hope we can go to a vote. Amendment No. 687, as Amended