Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is a great honor that we have been able to add the name of a distinguished Senator--one of the most distinguished of all time--to this bill. We expect this to multiply into 7 million volunteers. To call it the Edward M. Kennedy bill is a great honor for all of us, even for those who voted against it. It was an overwhelming vote under the circumstances. There were a lot of sincere people on both sides. I am very happy we could name this after our friend and colleague whom we have served with all these years, who has made such a great difference. What is great about it is the whole Kennedy family has been a service family. I look at Ted's sister Eunice and what a whirlwind of great achievement and giving she has been all these years. I am sure she is very proud of her brother this evening. I am very pleased we could do this, and I am very grateful to all our colleagues for having participated in this. It is an honor for all of us to honor our friend, Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I, personally, congratulate the distinguished Senator from Alaska for her comments. She has a very important amendment to this bill. I assure her we will work that out so we don't have to have a vote on it. If we do have to go to a vote, we will, but the fact is I think we can work that out. It is a very good amendment. Personally, we want to have those funds as part of this bill. We will work it out. I want to take a few minutes and pay tribute to some of the wonderful national service efforts that have gone on in my home State of Utah. As I have said throughout this debate, Americans are the most generous and energetic people in the world. Indeed, a volunteer spirit is encoded into our country's cultural DNA. Nowhere is this concept better exemplified than in my home State. According to the Corporation for National and Community Service, between 2005 and 2007, an average 792,000 Utahns gave 146.9 million hours of service every year. Using Independent Sector's estimate of the dollar value of a volunteer, the estimated contribution of these efforts is $2.9 billion annually. Nearly 44 percent of all Utahns do some sort of volunteer service every year, making Utah's volunteerism rate No. 1 in America, more than 4 percent higher than the State ranked second. Salt Lake City, UT the second-highest volunteerism rate of any major metropolitan area in the country at 37.2 percent. Among midsize cities, Provo, UT has the Nation's highest volunteerism rate at 63.8 percent, with Ogden, UT coming in at No. 4 with a rate of 41 percent. Much of this volunteer work is done by members of the Mormon church in food canneries and storehouses as they stockpile food and supplies for those in need, whether they be members of the church or nonmembers. As with any community, volunteerism in Utah comes in a variety of forms. In addition to the privately-led projects throughout the State, national service programs have had a profound impact on communities throughout the State of Utah. For example, there is the Utah AmeriCorps Literacy Initiative, which currently manages programs in 66 schools covering the entire State of Utah, including both urban and rural communities. There are 87 AmeriCorps members in the program who recruit and train community volunteers to tutor struggling readers. Unfortunately, the current budget situation in Utah is similar to those faced by State governments around the country. As a result, Utah schools have been required to cut their budgets 4 percent this year and 5 percent for next year. However, national service participants have been able to step up and fill the void in schools left by the reduction in the State education workforce. Several teachers' aides whose positions have been downsized due to the budget cuts will be qualified to participate in the Literacy Initiative next year and, accordingly, will receive a small living allowance and an educational award which will allow them to get further training, broadening their skills to obtain gainful employment. Over the past 5 years, this program has helped over 8,000 elementary schoolchildren serve as mentors, helping younger children improve their reading. The average growth in reading for both the mentor and the mentee they are helping has been one full grade level over the course of the 9-week program. In addition, through this initiative, over 2,000 children have received one-on-one tutoring from community volunteers twice a week over the course of a 30-week program. These are children who did not pass the Utah State End of Level tests the previous year. After 1 year of tutoring through the Utah AmeriCorps Literacy Initiative, 62 percent of the students passed that test at a proficient level. I think this program exemplifies what we are trying to accomplish with this legislation. All of this work, which has improved the education of literally thousands of students and leveraged the efforts of thousands of other students and community volunteers, has been anchored by a small group of only 87 AmeriCorps members. That is pretty phenomenal when you think about it. Why wouldn't we want to expand this approach? It seems to me it is something we ought to be doing everywhere. I am convinced that, once this bill is passed, we will see more programs such as this spring up over time, not only in Utah but throughout the country. They will be buoyed by the increased direction, efficiency, and accountability that this legislation will add to the existing national service structure. In the end, more people will be helped, more traditional volunteers will be put to work in their communities, and more of our Nation's problems will be solved. That is precisely the point of this legislation. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, thus far, we have had what I believe to be a constructive discussion regarding the Serve America Act. We have seen some fine amendments, and Senator Mikulski and I are working together to try to accommodate as many Members as possible. I said at the outset that I hope we can avoid a situation where too many changes to this bill would eventually split the bipartisan support the bill has enjoyed. So far, this does not appear to be a problem. As we continue to debate this important piece of legislation, it is my hope these constructive efforts will continue. This is a good opportunity for us to set aside partisan differences and do some good for the American people. I once again thank Senator Mikulski for her efforts here on the floor to see this effort through. I thank Senator Kennedy as well. Even though he has not been here, except for the last cloture vote, he certainly has been working it from home, and he has been on the phone regularly. We also have others who have worked on our side very diligently to try to make sure this bill passes, and in the form it is in. I mentioned yesterday that I believe the Serve America Act should be a bipartisan bill, not because I believe it is either liberal or conservative but because it is both. I think the bill plays to the greatest strengths of those on both sides of the aisle. It marries what is typically thought of as a ``liberal'' instinct for Government to make proactive efforts to help those in need with the typical ``conservative'' desire to place more power in the hands of individuals instead of the Government. It is not all that often we are able to work together to find ways to satisfy both of these ideals, but I believe we have done so with this legislation. For me, the conservative case for this legislation has been obvious from the beginning. Indeed, many of the provisions in the bill have what I consider to be very conservative roots. In 1990, William F. Buckley, Jr., one of the fathers of modern conservatism, who had served in World War II, published a wonderful book called: ``Gratitude: Reflections on What We Owe to Our Country.'' He became a staunch advocate of national service, which he believed, ``like gravity, is something we could accustom ourselves to, and grow to love.'' Buckley believed we owe a debt of gratitude to our country and offered creative ideas for a plan for universal voluntary national service for men and women 18 years and older. While the Serve America Act is not so ambitious as to contemplate that national and community service will become universal, it does provide more Americans opportunities to serve, in the belief that our democracy and the values of our free society take constant vigilance to preserve their vitality and health. It is citizens, acting at the local level, who should play the prominent role, not Government. For the past several years, I have supported efforts to reposition our Government's support of national and community service from the perception of paying Federal ``volunteers'' to a more effective model where Government provides a small amount of infrastructure and support to community-based groups that are recruiting, training, and deploying traditional volunteers. That model has worked. The number of traditional, nonsubsidized volunteers who are leveraged into service by existing national service programs dwarfs the number of participants receiving Government assistance--by a ratio of nearly 30 to 1. We have heard that statistic quoted many times during this debate, but I believe it bears repeating. This model is based on our faith in civil society--not distant Government agencies--and a focus on the efforts of the traditional volunteer. We know so many Americans show up to volunteer--to help with a cause or to serve in the aftermath of a disaster--and are turned away or are not well used. This is a waste of very precious resources. The Serve America Act will help fix that by establishing a volunteer generation fund that will help already successful service programs devote more resources for the recruitment of volunteers, allowing them to expand their efforts. Help offered by a compassionate neighbor will always be superior to Government-driven approaches designed in Washington. In recognition of this fact, the Serve America Act ensures that the vast majority of service efforts will be generated by local and private organizations responding to community needs. Young Americans, whose rates of unemployment have soared to more than 21 percent in a tough economy, with college graduates having the highest unemployment rates ever, will be given new opportunities to serve. The good news is that research tells us this is a sound and efficient investment. Not only does it put many unemployed Americans to work at a low cost to Government and meet urgent national needs, those young adults most at risk in our communities gain more by serving others than they do by being passive recipients of services. During their terms of service, they gain valuable skills that help them secure permanent employment at higher wages. They also outpace their nonnational service peers in remaining committed to volunteer service for the rest of their lives. These platoons of civil society more often than not consist of faith- based institutions. More Americans perform volunteer service through church-sponsored and faith-based organizations than any other venue. The Serve America Act continues the tradition of enabling volunteers to serve through faith-based institutions in a variety of different ways, including its new Serve America Fellowships and the State competitive and formula grants that may be given to faith-based institutions providing social services. This legislation also introduces new indicators of accountability to ensure that investments generate significant returns. For the Education Corps, for example, we want to know how programs are improving student engagement, attendance, behavior, academic achievement, graduation rates, and college-going rates at high schools with high concentrations of low-income students. Eligible entities for funding through the Education Corps must have a proven record of improving or a promising strategy to improve performance based on these indicators. The days of simply funding programs that might make us feel better but not generate results are over. Effective programs over time should and will continue to get support, and ineffective programs will ultimately be closed down. These indicators will help us make those decisions. America utilizes a number of indicators to regularly track the country's economic progress, including unemployment, GDP, housing starts, and more. But our country does very little to measure indicators of our civic health. Even though an active, well-connected, trusting, and engaged citizenry is fundamental to our vibrant communities, a strong democracy is important, and our personal welfare is important as well. So the Serve America Act provides for the collection of data that can give us a snapshot every year of how communities throughout the country are stacking up with respect to rates of volunteering, charitable giving, connections to civic and religious groups, knowledge of American history and government, and more. Policymakers can use this data to strengthen efforts to increase these activities. Indeed, this civic health index will pay dividends through the policy spectrum. Although some of my colleagues may argue otherwise, the Serve America Act reflects what I believe are conservative values, and because of this I believe many of my Republican colleagues will be on board with this legislation. The bill is founded on a fundamental belief in the power of people working at the local level to improve their communities and country, a belief in looking first to community and faith-based institutions to help solve our toughest challenges, a belief in public- private partnerships where the cost is low to the Federal Government and the return on investment very high, and a belief in tough accountability for results and making sure we support only programs that work and end the programs that don't. But the Serve America Act is also about something deeper that we all value whether we are liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. It is about fostering a spirit of patriotism, a love of country, at a time when that patriotism has been fractured somewhat by a tough economy, institutions that fail, individuals whose schemes hurt people, and distrust in government itself to have the answers. Benjamin Rush, one of our Founding Fathers, wrote a brief text called ``On Patriotism'' in 1773 that captures my view of the subject and the role that service plays. Here is what Benjamin Rush, one of the Founders of this country, said: Patriotism is as much a virtue as justice, and is as necessary for the support of societies as natural affection is for the support of families. The love of country is both a moral and a religious duty. It comprehends not only love of our neighbors, but of millions of our fellow citizens, not only of the present, but of future generations. I often think of our Nation's veterans when I read those words. I think of the men and women serving during wars and campaigns from the American Revolution through Operation Iraqi Freedom who literally had us in mind when they sacrificed their own lives so those in future generations might be free. Those who serve today--whether it is in the military, in government, in national community service, or as traditional volunteers--truly connect themselves to millions of their fellow citizens, not only of today but of the future. Such service is not only the means to our own happiness, it strengthens and makes this country better. It makes better this country that we love so much. These principles and ideals are the driving force behind this legislation. Every Member of this body, whether they support this bill or not, loves this country and has devoted his or her life to serving it. I believe it is this devotion that we all share--the common belief in something bigger than ourselves--that has led so many to support this legislation. While I am convinced the final result will be pretty lopsided in favor of passing this bill, I am going to keep trying to get it as close to unanimous as I can. Toward that end, I urge all 99 of our Senate colleagues to support the Serve America Act. I notice the distinguished majority whip is here and would like to speak, so I will reserve my time and speak a little later on some of the other aspects of this bill. So with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I also wholeheartedly endorse his nomination. He is an extremely talented, experienced intellectual in the law. I expect him to be one of the best we have ever had. I am very proud he is willing to serve in this administration and go through the processes many people are trying to avoid at this particular point. Let me just say, as the longest serving person on the Senate Intelligence Committee, we need people such as Mr. Kris in Government. I commend the administration in cooperating and appointing him. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased to rise once again to speak today on the Senate substitute amendment to H.R. 1388, the Serve America Act. As we heard in the statements last night, this legislation has been in the works for a long time, and I was glad last night to see it clear the first hurdle by a wide margin. This is truly a bipartisan piece of legislation. In my opinion, it is probably the most bipartisan bill we will see on the Senate floor this year. At every stage, Republicans and Democrats have been working together to craft this legislation in order to bring it where we have it today. It is my hope that when all is said and done we will see a broad coalition of Senators voting in favor of the bill. However, I do know, as of right now, not everyone in this Chamber is convinced this legislation is the right thing to do. So I want to take a few moments this morning to address some of the major arguments I have heard by those who appear to oppose the bill. Although many of these concerns appear to be coming from the Republican side of the aisle, I believe my arguments will be relevant to both sides. One argument I have heard is that the bill will impose mandatory service requirements on our citizens. I mention this claim first because, quite frankly, it is the easiest to refute. Despite the rumblings of the black helicopters some imagine to be circling overhead, every program in this bill is 100 percent voluntary. In our country, no one is compelled to give service, and this bill will not change that. Instead, it will give new and expanded opportunities for people who voluntarily decide to participate. Another more substantive argument I have heard is that given our current economic climate and budget deficit, it is simply the wrong time to invest in national service. The Government, these folks argue, does not have a role in these areas. I respectfully disagree with that. I share the desire of many of my colleagues and, of course, of my constituents to see more fiscal discipline in Washington. But, in my view, an important aspect of fiscal discipline is investing in ideas that work. I support this legislation because I believe volunteer service is such an idea. As has been stated, 75,000 national service participants leverage an additional 2.2 million volunteers every year--volunteers who are not subsidized by the Government in any way. That is a significant human capital return on what is, relatively speaking, a modest Government investment. In addition, there have been a number of studies that have shown that for every $1 invested in national service, there is anywhere from a $1.60 to $2.60 return on investment. That is in social benefits paid back to our society, whether it is kids being tutored, vacant lots turned into playgrounds and parks, homes being built, or in the form of disaster relief. It is an investment that pays for itself. I have also heard people refer to national service as ``paid voluntarism.'' I think this is mostly a question of semantics. We do need to be careful to differentiate between Americans who volunteer for full-time national service and community volunteers who give a few hours episodically throughout the year. Most current national service participants are spending a year of their lives serving their country full time, and their benefits include a subsistence allowance and an education award. The subsistence allowance is barely a survival stipend, a below-poverty payment that is enough to cover only the basic needs. The education award is a very modest benefit to encourage people to seek higher education opportunities once they have completed their terms of service. But in exchange for this small amount of support, these members dedicate themselves full time to solving problems that span the range of human life: from dropouts to elder care, from homelessness to prison recidivism. National service is not a job or a career move for these individuals. Indeed, no one is getting rich by participating in these programs. Those who join these programs are motivated to give back to their great country, to engage in their local communities, and improve the lives of those who are in need. Once again, we cannot discount the fact that the work of those in national service programs has a multiplying effect. If the measure of this legislation was solely to provide national service slots for 250,000 individuals, I do not think we would have much to be proud of. But these national service participants will leverage millions of traditional volunteers and hundreds of millions of dollars of private investment in the nonprofit sector. The success of the program shall not be measured by the number of people who participate but by the work they accomplish. Other potential opponents of the bill have tried to label this bill as another ACORN bill. Of course, they do so without ever even inquiring whether ACORN currently receives money under national service programs. Although I am not usually one to spoil a good mystery, it has to be stated they do not. In fact, in the first year of the AmeriCorps program, ACORN was forced to return the grant it received under the program because it could not keep its political activities separate from its other work--this was in 1997--and they have not received any funding since. Make no mistake, I share the concerns of a number of my colleagues who do not want taxpayer funds to directly or indirectly benefit partisan political organizations, abortion providers, or illegal enterprises. While I believe current law prohibits national service funds from being used for such activities, we wanted to make it crystal clear that this would continue to be the case. I believe this was necessary in order to ensure the bill continues to enjoy bipartisan support. So as part of the managers' amendment, we have included a provision listing in detail the prohibited activities for national service participants. Specifically, under the bill no one will be able to use a national service position to influence legislation, or for union organizing efforts, or to participate in protests or boycotts, conduct a voter registration drive, engage in partisan political activity of any kind, or provide abortion services or referrals. In addition, any organization that has violated a Federal criminal statute is categorically ineligible to benefit under this legislation. Like I said, I understand the trepidation that some might have regarding these issues. Indeed, a number of so-called nonprofit or service organizations engage in what many believe to be objectionable activities. But I believe this language makes it clear that such activities will not be performed by national service participants. That being the case, I believe every Senator can support this bill without such reservations. I hope this puts the issue to rest. I am sure we will hear some other arguments raised by skeptics of the bill, and I will do my best to address them as they come up. I am sure the distinguished Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, will as well. I just wanted to take a few moments to make sure people know these concerns have not gone unaddressed by the authors of this bill. As every Member of the Senate knows, the process of drafting, debating, and passing legislation is not a scientific one. There is no way of calculating all of the variables and finding all the angles in order to produce a perfect result. When any group of Senators works together on a bill--regardless of whether they are from the same or opposing parties--the best anyone can hope for is a final product all the parties will proudly stand behind, even if they do not agree on every single section or provision of the bill. The Senate substitute amendment represents the efforts of not only Senator Kennedy and myself but of Senator Enzi and Senator Mikulski as well, and others. As I said yesterday, I doubt any bill we consider this Congress will be spearheaded by such a diversity of beliefs and ideologies. As one coauthor of the bill, I do not claim the bill is perfect just the way it is, but I am proud to join my colleagues as we stand behind and work to preserve this product. I certainly respect and will work to preserve the rights of any Senator to oppose this legislation or propose changes in good faith. The ability of every Member to offer amendments is one of the richest and most important traditions of the Senate. That said, it is my hope we can keep the changes and additions to this bill at a minimum. If we add too much or take too much away from the bill, I think we may jeopardize the coalition we have worked to preserve thus far. Like I said, I do not claim the bill is perfect. But I do believe, as it is currently written, it has just the right balance to ensure that Members from both sides of the aisle should be able to get on board. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, when I came to the Senate in 1977, Paul Sarbanes was a colleague who came with me. There is no doubt that this was one of the true sages of the Senate. He was a great man, a brave man, with a tremendous ability, who served with distinction in this body. One of the reasons Paul was so successful in life, not that he couldn't have done it alone, but I think he couldn't have done it as well had it not been for the beautiful and wonderful wife he had. She was a tremendous human being. I am very moved by her death. All of us feel grief and concern for Senator Sarbanes. Theirs was a close relationship, one that was exemplary to all of us. She was a great supporter of his as he served in the Senate. I used to kid Paul all the time: Paul, when are you going to smile? When are you going to laugh? He was always so serious. I used to dig him all the time about that. He would get a wry grin on his face. He knew what I was talking about. But he was serious, and so was his wife. She was a great human being. I personally express my condolences to Paul and his family because I know how close they were. I know how much she meant to him and vice versa.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia. He has been a prime sponsor of this legislation. There are very few people around here I admire any more than I admire him. He is a terrific addition to the Senate. I am honored that he would be on this bill and be willing to speak for it. That means a lot to me, and it is going to mean a lot to the folks in his home State and all over this country. It is the right thing to do. I thank him personally for being such a great Senator. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to discuss the role of the State service commissions under this bill and the existing national service system. One of the things that was very important to me when we drafted this legislation was to make sure the States were given a primary role in the program so we would have 50 State laboratories using this program. We didn't just want to add a level of Federal bureaucracy. Time and time again, it has been shown that State governments are more responsive and in tune with the needs of their communities and, with this bill, we will put that resource to good use. For those who do not know, State service commissions are Governor- appointed public agencies or nonprofit organizations made up of more than 1,110 commissioners--private citizens helping lead the Nation's philanthropic movement. The Nation's 52 State service commissions currently grant more than $220 million in AmeriCorps funds and $28 million in State-based initiatives with State or private funds to support citizen service and voluntarism in America. In Utah, this role is filled by the Utah Commission on Volunteers, which is overseen by our Lieutenant Governor, a great Lieutenant Governor named Gary Herbert. They oversee the work of more than 8,000 Utahans who participate in national service programs, including the AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve, and, of course, Senior Corps programs, to mention a few. The Serve America Act will triple the oversight and programming for commissions over the course of the next 5 years, increasing participants from 75,000 to 250,000. Effective grants oversight and planning by commissions is essential to the integrity of these new programs. The State commissions will administer five new corps, five grant competitions, and the Serve America fellows program, which is an individual placement program that will be administratively intensive but vital to get members to rural communities and small organizations. Increasingly, State commissions take the lead role of managing volunteers and donations in response to natural disasters, which has been particularly important in the gulf coast hurricane recovery and Midwest flood relief. For example, the Iowa Commission on Volunteer Service last year set up eight volunteer reception centers, staffed with AmeriCorps members, that helped increase and better utilize traditional volunteers in Iowa's historic flooding and tornadoes of last summer. Those centers connected over 800,000 volunteer hours to families who called in for help. These centers became the central points for deployment for faith- based groups, schools, and businesses that sent volunteers to help. AmeriCorps members often led teams of unaffiliated volunteers after training them to gut and muck out houses, as well as clear the miles of debris that littered the Iowa landscape. This effort was valued at over $13 million by FEMA in savings to the taxpayers, and it is still going on today. In fact, two of the centers are being run for the rebuilding phase and over 1,000 AmeriCorps members will help support the massive rebuilding efforts of this past summer. I think it is clear the State service commissions are up to the task of overseeing much of the work that will be done under the Serve America Act. I certainly will be glad to see them take on this much larger role that this bill gives them the opportunity to do. I am a firm believer of one reason why our economy has run so well in the past and one reason why we have a Federal Republic that has lasted all these years is because we recognize that with these 50 States, we have 50 State laboratories to test out these programs. Then we can pick and choose which ones are the most successful and why. It is great to have them competing against each other, having them setting examples for each other, having them open doors for each other. There is a lot to that. This bill basically turns over the effective running of all these funds to State representatives and to State volunteer movements and commissions, State service commissions, if you will. We will learn a lot from this. We have already learned a lot, but we will learn even more, and as we move toward 250,000 volunteers under this program, that will be extended to probably at least 7 million or 8 million more volunteers, none of whom will be paid for giving this type of service--at least these 7 million or 8 million. We do pay people a small stipend that is less than the minimum wage, less than the poverty level, but that extrapolates into as many as 7 million people, maybe even more--we hope more--who will actually volunteer at no cost to the Government and save trillions of dollars over the years. This is a conservative program in many respects and it is a liberal program in the sense that it helps so many people. Conservatives want to help all these people too. I guess the best thing to say is it is neither conservative nor liberal, although it has the best instincts of both sides who come together in the best interest of helping their fellow men, women, and children in this great country. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, almost every group that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina has mentioned is helped by this bill, and every one of them wants this bill. This bill is basically run by the States. I agree with the Senator, they do it better than anybody else. As we close today's debate, I want to take this opportunity to focus on the economic case for national and community service, to articulate why the Serve America Act makes sense from an economic standpoint, and to highlight why the bill will generate a good return on investment right when the country and so many individuals need it most. In today's environment, every bill we consider must be viewed through an economic lens. What role does the legislation play in fueling our economic recovery? How can we cost-efficiently make Government a partner with the private and nonprofit sectors? How can we ensure we support efforts that are effective and shut down those that are not? What are the short- and long-term effects of what we do? Unfortunately, the economic recession has had a dramatic effect on our nonprofit sector and civil society. In the wake of the downturn, senior centers, soup kitchens, nursing homes, nursery schools, and other nonprofit organizations serving the vulnerable have seen a threefold crisis. As the markets have fallen, wealth has evaporated and decimated charitable donations. By the way, I do not agree with the President's recommendation to cut back on tax benefits to those who give to charity. The State and local budget crunch has hit the nonprofit sector especially hard. And the human need for help from community-serving institutions is skyrocketing right at a time when their resources are shrinking. One report called it America's ``Quiet Crisis.'' I believe that we here in the Senate should give this crisis more public attention and ensure that our civil society and our Nation's volunteers, which are the bedrock of efforts to meet needs in our country, remain strong. We need to help give more Americans opportunities to do good works in hard times. Research has uncovered disturbing evidence of civil society's growing troubles. Churches, which are typically our Nation's great engines of compassion, deliver social services to the poor and needy. Our country depends on faith-based institutions to meet needs that they are uniquely equipped to meet, far better than distant Government bureaucracies. Unfortunately, churches raised $3 to $5 billion less than anticipated in the last quarter of 2008, crippling efforts to keep pace with growing humanitarian needs. Other nonprofit budgets are shrinking. Chicago's Meals on Wheels, which delivers hot meals to homebound seniors, trimmed its budget by 35 percent; and half of all Michigan nonprofits say their financial support has dropped. Meals on Wheels is a Federal program. It would not exist without support from the Federal Government. It is handled very well at the local level. These trends are occurring just as need for help is rising. United Way call centers saw a 68-percent increase over the past year in the number of calls for basic needs, such as securing food, shelter, and warm clothing, and is receiving 10,000-15,000 more calls every month than in 2007. Lorna L. Koci, services director for the Utah Food Bank, recently visited my office to talk about increasing needs in my home State. The top three reasons people dial 2-1-1 in Utah to reach the United Way call center is for emergency food assistance followed by health care and housing needs. In the past 6 months, calls requesting food assistance have doubled and food pantry visits by Utah families are up at least 30 percent. Now you can imagine what that is in other States. Utah takes care of our people. My own church has a church welfare plan. No one in my faith should go without food, shelter or clothing. Most of the people served are the working poor, but many families are seeking assistance for the first time. These people were contributors and are now recipients. At alarming rates, needs are growing in Utah and across the Nation. Addressing this quiet crisis in our civil society is a matter of jobs, not just charity. The nonprofit sector accounts for 5 percent of GDP and 11 percent of the American workforce, with 9.4 million employees and 4.7 million volunteers nationwide. For perspective, the nonprofit sector is greater than the auto and financial industries combined. It contributes more than $322 billion in wages and its workforce outnumbers the combined workforces of the utility, wholesale trade, and construction industries. What happens to our nonprofit sector will have a big effect on our country, both from the standpoint of employment and meeting needs of the most vulnerable in our society. We have spent a lot of time on the floor of this Senate discussing ways to ``bailout'' industries and to get our economy moving again. I certainly have not agreed with the levels of spending, and I worry about the long-term effects of our actions on the Federal deficit and the national debt. I don't think many of our actions have been wise, in the short term and certainly not for the long term. Thomas Jefferson warned of the moral problem of leaving a crippling debt to future generations. With the changing demographics in this country and the growth of entitlements, we are setting ourselves up for a fiscal crisis of tremendous significance. Yet the economic debate has almost completely ignored the platoons of civil society, those individuals, volunteers and nonprofit institutions in local neighborhoods and communities that do most of the social service work in our country to meet vital needs and do it at low cost to governments and society. There also has been so much talk of ``bailouts'' in our debates, let's just bail out this industry or that industry. We need to move from talk of bailouts to a spirit of challenge in our country. Where is the personal responsibility? Where is the support for efforts that truly enlist Americans in local communities to step forward to lend a hand? Our answers are not going to be found in the Federal Government. Our Government can offer resources, but it cannot love a needy child, offer the hand of compassion to help the elderly live independently in their homes with dignity, or help provide the deft human touch that gives hope in times of despair. So our debates on this floor should no longer exclude our nonprofit sector and civil society and the citizens who stand ready to help in times of trouble. No sector, quite frankly, offers more bang for the buck and generates a better return on investment than investments in our Nation's most precious asset--the talents and skills and enterprise of our people. Let's first talk about the important task of getting Americans into productive work. Community and national service efforts target two populations that have been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn--our Nation's young people, including college graduates, and older Americans. While unemployment rose for all age groups during 2008, the increase was dramatic for America's young people. And we know from research that youth unemployment rates are a good barometer of the overall health of the economy, since young people typically face the greatest difficulties in finding steady employment, due to their lack of experience. By February 2008, the overall unemployment rate had reached 8.1 percent. The youth unemployment rate for individuals 16 to 19 years old was nearly triple that at 21.6 percent. In particular, African-American youth were the most likely to be unemployed at a rate of more than 36 percent. Remember, during the Great Depression, we saw rates of unemployment for the adult population hovering around 25 percent. High rates of youth unemployment are detrimental not only to jobless youth but to our economy as a whole. An individual who experiences early unemployment is more likely to have lower future earnings as well as repeated spells of joblessness. This is not the future we want for our young people. The demoralizing effects of long-term unemployment may lead to risky behaviors, such as crime and drug use. Unemployment rates for college graduates are increasing. In fact, the college graduate unemployment rate has broken the record for college graduates, and some researchers predict the rate, which is at 4.1 percent, will exceed 5 percent in 2009. Our economic troubles are not just affecting the young. Many older Americans are quickly finding themselves out of work. In January 2009, 5.2 percent of workers 55 and older were unemployed, an increase of 63 percent from last year, with 1.5 million older workers now facing joblessness. In October 2008, one out of every three jobless Americans age 55 and older had been out of work for at least 27 weeks. A decline in the value of retirement funds--nearly $3 trillion from America's retirement accounts over the past 14 months, with the average American losing 34 percent on retirement holdings--has forced many older Americans to return to the job market. Investing in community and national service to put America-- particularly younger and older Americans--into productive work is a low-cost solution to fight unemployment and a vital bridge to permanent, higher paying employment in the private sector. Since the beginning of full-time and part-time national and community service in 1993, an initiative that began with the Commission on National and Community Service under President George H.W. Bush, more than 540,000 Americans have tackled the Nation's most challenging problems, not through Government, but through an extensive network of nonprofit organizations working at the local level. Well known nonprofits such as Habitat for Humanity that builds homes for low-income Americans, Teach for America, which sends bright teachers to the highest need communities, and City Year, which puts young Americans into productive work meeting needs in our Nation's cities. Every year since 2004, thanks to President George W. Bush's commitment to ramp up national and community service through his USA Freedom Corps after 9/11, our Government has offered 75,000 opportunities to adults of all ages to serve not through some government bureaucracy, but through nonprofit organizations created by the innovation of our people. These public-spirited Americans who give a year of their lives in service to community and country are given a below-poverty monthly living stipend and receive a small award to help defray the costs of college at the end of their year of service. In addition to creating jobs at lower cost to Government or the private sector, national and community service programs and members leverage impressive resources within their communities. These 75,000 national service participants leveraged 2.2 million traditional volunteers who receive nothing from government to work on behalf of meeting the needs of a nation. As I stated earlier, that is nearly a 1 to 30 ratio of national servicemembers to traditional volunteers. In fact, this is the power of so many nonprofit partnerships today. It bothers me when I hear comments such as those recently made on the floor: We are forcing Government into everybody's lives. My gosh, we are providing a means of support for people--without making it the minimum wage or without giving them welfare--by helping them become servants and servers to the community at a lower cost. Millions are served without any pay at all because of these programs. How can anybody find fault with these programs? Imagine placing one national servicemember in a Habitat for Humanity build. That individual, who organizes the building project, recruits, trains and puts to work volunteers, dozens of them at no cost to Government, to ensure home after home rises to meet the needs of low- income Americans. It is a great model. And it is not only about increasing the number of volunteers. In 2007, our national service programs leveraged an impressive $231 million in financial resources to meet local needs. It is a successful model of a public-private partnership, where the private participation in the form of resources and volunteers together outpaces the public. National service programs also have been shown to meet critical needs in communities. Independent evaluations have shown that teachers in Teach for America have made greater gains in math among their students compared to other teachers; participants in Citizen Schools show higher school attendance, a significant predictor of whether a student will stay on track to graduate from high school, and higher math and English grades; and third graders working with Experience Corps members scored higher in reading tests and exhibited better behavior in schools than children in control schools. African-American men in Youth Corps programs were more likely to have experienced more employment and higher earnings, to have voted in the last election, and scored higher on measures of personal and social responsibility than members in a control group. And 75 percent of former participants in the YouthBuild program, most of whom are high school dropouts, had found gainful employment, were going to school, or were training for jobs. Research has also shown that participants in Youth Corps programs were more likely to secure better employment after completing their service and that former members, particularly African-American and Hispanic males, had higher wages than their peers not in the program. These are the programs we are helping; programs that are doing all this work for free and making a difference in the lives of children and families. These are the programs that enlist seniors who would like to give back to the community. How can the argument be made that these programs should not be in effect? The economic benefits of traditional volunteering are also significant. In 2007, more than 60 million Americans--or more than 26 percent of the adult population over 16--gave 8.1 billion hours of volunteer service. The cost of that service, had it been done by paid workers, would have amounted to approximately $158 billion. Volunteering in America rose significantly after 9/11, I believe thanks in no small measure to the leadership of President George W. Bush, who asked every American to give 2 years of service to the country over their lifetimes. Volunteering rose from 59.8 million Americans the year after 9/11, which was a very high baseline, given that we knew volunteering would rise in this year, to 65.4 million Americans from 2004 to 2005. The story here is that America did respond to 9/11 and sustained the wave of service and patriotism for which the President and we in the Congress had hoped. The Mormon mission--which is often for a period of 2 years in service abroad or domestically--was one of the inspirations for the President's 2-year call to service. Almost every young Mormon male serves, as do many adults and females. They learn to care for people and give to communities. The spirit of service remains strong today at around 61 million volunteers within the last year. We clearly have room to grow the pool of volunteers and the ServiceNation coalition, consisting of more than 125 organizations from the AARP to Colin Powell's America's Promise Alliance for Youth, has endorsed this effort to increase our volunteer base from 61 million to 100 million every year. According to a recent report by AARP, entitled ``More to Give: Tapping the Talents of the Baby Boomer, Silent and Greatest Generations,'' a majority of older Americans are healthy and free of caregiving obligations, and tens of millions of them are prepared to increase their volunteer service in a world they believe they are leaving in worse condition than they inherited. This may be the first generation to believe this and they want to make it right. They have the capacity to do so. The 77 million baby boomers are the longest-living, best educated, healthiest, and most highly skilled generation in our history and represent enormous potential to meet significant needs throughout our country. We should be more creative in enabling more of them to serve. As the Nation's economy continues to sputter and organizations continue to operate on shrinking budgets, volunteers will become even more essential to the Nation's work. We need to do all we can to harness this productive capacity in these difficult times, and Americans seem very willing to shoulder more responsibilities to get the country moving again. The Serve America Act gives our country a hat trick--it puts Americans into productive work at low cost to Government, meeting the needs of the Nation, and with no new bureaucracy, since volunteers work through an established network of well-known and trusted nonprofit organizations created by the social enterprise of innovative people. The legislation also targets the two populations most in trouble from the economic downturn--our young people and older Americans. A new volunteer generation fund will tap, train and help deploy more traditional volunteers to meet needs identified by local communities. We saw the wellspring of American compassion in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We need more of those efforts every day, not just in times of disaster. The bill also creates 175,000 more opportunities for full-time and part-time national and community service, mobilizing our people to tackle problems like the high school dropout epidemic and growing poverty. These 175,000 members, if current leverage ratios continue, would mobilize approximately 5.25 million traditional volunteers to help in these and other vital efforts. Together with the 75,000 who already leverage 2.2 million Americans, we could have around 8 million Americans participating every year in efforts to address specific challenges in education, healthcare, poverty, energy, and the environment. In hard times, we could use their good works. The Serve America Act also fosters a culture of service among younger and older Americans. Service-learning opportunities in our Nation's schools have been shown to boost student attendance and engagement, which in turn have a positive effect on keeping students on track to graduate from high school. On the other end of the spectrum, the bill also provides Encore Fellowships to older Americans who want to use their lifetime of skills and talents to help meet the country's needs. And national and community service programs will engage not just the young, but older Americans in their full-time and part-time efforts. Times of trial have always summoned the greatness of the American people. These are such times. Putting millions of Americans into productive work, not through the instrument of the government, but through the innovation of nonprofit and other community serving organizations, is a smart way to foster a spirit of challenge in the country and tap the innovation and expertise of our people. Government cannot stand on the sideline; it has an important role to play in partnering with the private and nonprofit sectors to further enable this innovation and release the energy of more Americans to give back in times of trouble. By putting hundreds of thousands of Americans to work in full-time and part-time national and community service; leveraging millions of additional volunteers to help meet urgent community needs; fostering innovation among the next generation of social entrepreneurs; and engaging nonprofit institutions in helping to meet challenges in key areas, we can help strengthen our economy and do something this country has always done well since its founding--release the energy of millions of Americans to do more good works in hard times. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Colorado is in the Chamber. I know he wishes to speak, so I will turn the time over to the distinguished Senator from Colorado.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today the Senate begins consideration of the Serve America Act, which is the title of what will be the Senate substitute for H.R. 1388. It is my hope this legislation will help strengthen a culture of service, citizenship, and responsibility in America, and I am proud to join a bipartisan group of Senators in support of this bill as it comes to the Senate floor. I am sure it goes without saying that Senator Ted Kennedy's absence is deeply felt by all of us as we work on this particular piece of legislation. I, personally, continue to pray for his full and speedy recovery. To begin, I would like to discuss the context in which this legislation has moved forward to give us some perspective as to what is about to happen. After months of discussion, negotiation, debate, and flatout argument, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the original version of the Serve America Act last September in the middle of what was often a hotly contested campaign season. Despite the overly partisan atmosphere at the time, a bipartisan group of Senators offered their support for this bill. Even though the differences between the two Presidential candidates were played out on news shows every night, both of them were willing to put their debates aside and become original cosponsors. That pleased me. I would like, once again, to thank Senator McCain for his continued support, not only for this particular piece of legislation but for volunteer service in general. He has truly been a leader on this issue throughout his life and has rightly won the admiration of those on both sides of the aisle. In addition to the Kennedy-Hatch legislation, the Serve America Act, the Senate bill also includes legislation that will reauthorize the Corporation of National and Community Service. The reauthorization effort has been led on the Republican side by the distinguished ranking member of the HELP Committee, Senator Enzi, who has worked tirelessly with both Senator Kennedy and Senator Mikulski to reach a bipartisan accord on these much-needed provisions. In addition to Senators Kennedy and McCain, I have to extend my thanks, my deep-felt thanks to Senators Enzi and Mikulski for their outstanding work on the legislation before us today. Both of them are outstanding legislators. They are both beloved people in this body. I, personally, feel that way toward each of them. At the same time all this work has been going on in the Senate, we have been working with both Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives to ensure that both Chambers reach similar conclusions with their national service legislation. This has all been accomplished during a time when, for the most part, partisan hostilities have done anything but subside. Since the beginning of the new Congress, we have seen debates on legislation such as the SCHIP bill, the stimulus package and the Omnibus appropriations bill that, in many ways, have deepened the divisions between the two parties. Here in a few weeks, as we begin debate on the budget, we are sure to see even greater clashes between the principled beliefs and ideologies between those on both sides of the aisle. However, the bill we have before us today is the result of a bipartisan and bicameral effort. In our opinion, this is nothing short of remarkable, given the current political climate. Once again, the Senate effort has been spearheaded by myself, Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Mikulski. I doubt any other piece of legislation we consider this year will be the product of such a diversity of views. Senator Mikulski has carried this matter on behalf of Senator Kennedy. I have nothing but tremendous respect for her. I will not be foolish enough to claim the credit for all this good will, but I am certainly grateful to be a beneficiary. Service has been one of the golden threads of our Democracy, and the roots of our tradition run deep. Ronald Reagan put this powerful tradition of volunteer service in its appropriate context when he said, speaking of the Mayflower Compact: The single act--the voluntary binding together of free people to live under the law--set the pattern for what was to come. A century and a half later, the descendants of those people pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to found this nation. Some forfeited their fortunes and their lives; none sacrificed honor. Four score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln called upon the people of all America to renew their dedication and their commitment to a government of, for and by the people. Isn't it once again time to renew our compact of freedom; to pledge to each other all that is best in our lives; all that gives meaning to them--for the sake of this, our beloved and blessed land? Together, let us make this a new beginning. Let us make a commitment to care for the needy; to teach our children the values and the virtues handed down to us by our families; to have the courage to defend those values and the willingness to sacrifice for them. Let us pledge to restore, in our time, the American spirit of voluntary service, of cooperation, of private and community initiative; a spirit that flows like a deep and mighty river through the history of our nation. President Reagan had a very good way of putting things. President Reagan was not alone in his call for service. Presidents down the generations, Republicans and Democrats alike--Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt; Eisenhower and Kennedy; Johnson and Nixon; Carter and George Herbert Walker Bush; and Clinton and George W. Bush--have all worked to awaken the national consciousness to their duties and responsibilities as citizens, to light in every individual that spark of voluntary service, the seed of compassion that makes us serve causes larger than ourselves. They have done so particularly in times of crisis: during the Great Depression, during our world wars, and after 9/11. Times of trial have always summoned the greatness of our people, and we are right now in a time of challenge today. Service can take many forms in a free country, and we all have choices, not only as to whether we will serve but how we will serve. There is no greater example of service than those who put on the military uniform and go into battle for our country. Many men and women who choose military service make the ultimate sacrifice. They put their lives on the line for our country. Millions have lost their lives so we might be free. There are more than 26 million Americans alive today who have served in our armed services. They epitomize American values, the values of duty, honor, and country. They also inspire new generations to ask what they can do for their country. Other Americans may decide to go into public or Government service. This is a choice that is made by State and municipal workers, by teachers and police officers, and, yes, even by Senators and their staffs--to serve the public interest through their public institutions. I have to admit, I left my own law practice, where we had just started it a few years before. I had left Pittsburgh, moved to Utah, formed a law firm. We were going like gangbusters. My partner is worth a lot of money today. I am not. But I made this choice to come and work for our country. It is made by all these good people, to serve the public interests through our public institutions. Service to country can take other forms. Many Americans want to serve for a full year or part of a year of national service. Others may want to volunteer to serve in countries abroad for short-term or long-term assignments. We had two people come back last night from a mission over in Africa. He served his whole working life as a chaplain in the military. She is a beautiful woman who has been married to him for all these years. They, at their own expense, volunteered and went to Africa to work in Kenya and Nairobi with unfortunate people and to build esteem in the hearts of people over there. They came back last night and spoke in our church. I was so proud of both of them--terrific people. Others may want to volunteer to serve in countries abroad for short- term or long-term assignments. Still others, in fact the vast majority of Americans, will perform services as traditional episodic volunteers working in schools, houses of worship, workplaces, nonprofit institutions, and neighborhoods. America is a generous nation and Americans are compassionate people, and our volunteer spirit knows no bounds. In all these cases, everything is a choice. Service in our military is voluntary as is service in our soup kitchens. Public service is not only a voluntary activity, but for many of us subject to regular elections where the citizens get to exercise their own choice of whether a particular candidate for office will exercise the privilege of serving them. Consistent with our All-Volunteer Army and volunteer opportunities and individuals' choice in communities, nothing in this legislation is mandatory. This bill simply provides more Americans more choices and opportunities to give back to their neighborhoods and their country all through the means which they freely choose. With a backdrop of this rich history of citizen service in America, Senator Kennedy and I began discussions more than a year ago about what we might do together to build on the tradition of service in America. I know part of this is because both of us love his sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver. We have watched this woman year after year after year give service to this country and to children all over the world; not just through the Special Olympics--but especially through the Special Olympics--but in so many other ways. I admire her about as much as any woman in our society today for what she has been able to do with her life. She is a 90-pound dynamo who just keeps going. I think--well, I will not say it because I know it can be embarrassing to her. But the fact is, she is a terrific human being. I have chatted with all kinds of other people who are giving tremendous service to their fellow human beings, men and women, children, throughout our society. You know, Senator Kennedy and I and others drew on ideas from Republicans such as my friend Senator John McCain, who introduced his own bill almost a decade ago and, as I mentioned, endorsed the Serve America Act in the midst of his Presidential campaign. We drew on ideas from Democrats, such as the godmother of national and community service, that is Senator Barbara Mikulski. We hear of godfathers; she is the godmother, a great woman who has a great heart, and who worked as a social worker for many years, and for whom I have deep affection, no question about it. From the outset, Senator Kennedy and I talked about marrying two formerly competing visions of service: first, by supporting traditional volunteering, in the tradition of President Reagan's Private Sector Initiative; George H. W. Bush's Points of Light; and George W. Bush's USA Freedom Corps; and, second, by supporting full-time national and international service in the tradition of Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, for senior service, Clinton and again George W. Bush for both domestic and international service. We have the attention of our new President. He has talked to me about this. I know he has talked to Senator Kennedy about this. He completely supports this. He knows how important it is. I have respect for him for jumping right in and helping us with this. We decided we wanted to create more opportunities for Americans to serve over their lifetimes, so schoolchildren can learn the importance of giving back at a young age, for tapping into the talents of the longest living, healthiest, best educated, and most highly skilled generations of older Americans in our history. We wanted to tap the ingenuity of our people working through schools, faith-based institutions, workplaces, and communities in America and across the world to tackle challenges large and small. So today I am very pleased to be here as this legislation makes it over what I hope will be the final few obstacles before becoming law. With this bill, our efforts to expand service will begin early in our schools all across America, and where we can marry learning in classrooms with service in our communities, for those who choose such service learning. We have a high school dropout epidemic in America, with almost one- third of all students, and nearly 50 percent of African Americans, Hispanic, and Native Americans, failing to graduate with their class. For each of these kids a decision to drop out is a million dollar mistake, since they will earn that much less over a lifetime than their college graduate friends. For our country, this is a multibillion dollar mistake in increased welfare, prison, and health care costs, and lost revenues from the lack of productive workers. Service learning has been shown to keep students engaged in school, and to boost student academic achievement. So we will offer competitive grants to local and State partnerships to carry out these efforts in our schools. Again, all of this will be voluntary activity, and it holds the promise of keeping so many of our young people engaged in school. In addition to elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities can play a critical role in the culture of service, so we will authorize the Corporation for National Community Service to recognize and provide additional funding to ``campuses of service'' that do an outstanding job in engaging their students in important community work. The U.S. Census Bureau tells us that nearly 61 million Americans volunteered through or for an organization last year. Most Americans did so through religious organizations, followed by nonprofits, related to education and youth. While many charities believe volunteers are essential to meeting their missions, only a small percentage of them actually invest in recruiting, training, and utilizing volunteers to meet those missions. There are always waiting lists of volunteers who want to use their time and talents, but too often they are turned away or they do not come back after a bad experience. So we will invest in a new volunteer generation fund, which will include matching funds by the private sector to increase the capacity of organizations to use volunteers to meet local needs, especially among the poor and disadvantaged. America is known for its innovation in business and the power of its markets. This bill will fuel the spirit of entrepreneurship in America's nonprofit sector by creating a social innovations fund to foster and support the next generation of great ideas in the social marketplace, such as Teach for America, City Year, Habitat for Humanity, and the U.S. Dream Academy, which are some of the many innovative ideas of our day. Having mentioned the U.S. Dream Academy, that was started by a wonderful African-American man named Wintley Phipps. Wintley is a Seventh Day Adventist minister. But he decided there were too many of our young African-American kids and others who were children of prisoners, children of people who had been sent to prison, and that a high percentage of them would wind up in prison themselves unless we did something about it. So he has brought computers into the inner cities. He has brought wonderful teachers and others who could be making themselves wealthy outside of this program, who are teaching these kids how to live in a modern world. He has had an amazing transformational change in so many children. These are the types of things we have to encourage. The idea behind service clearly has always been about transforming the person who serves. I saw how it changed my own life when I served a 2-year mission for my church in the Great Lakes mission. That was Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. A lot of our young missionaries serve all over the world, such as the young couple I mentioned last night. They came back from Kenya and Nairobi, where they served I think about a year and a half. Their main job was humanitarian, to help people to be able to know there is a better way; to find water for people, to help them with food, to help them with so many of their problems, to help them to know there is a future. They did that voluntarily, at their own expense. Think about it, at their own expense. I did my voluntary 2-year service at my own expense. I actually presided over congregations, and I helped out thousands and thousands of people who had problems, and in the process, the one who was helped the most was myself. It was a great blessing in my life. I would not change it for being a Senator, as a matter of fact. It was 2 years out of my life, but the most important 2 years, outside of marriage to Elaine and raising a family with 6 kids, now 23 grandchildren, and 3 great-grandchildren. That was an important time in my life. My folks were poor. They were not wealthy. They helped me and assisted me on my mission. We paid for it all ourselves, and I gave 2 solid years every day, 18 hours a day. I was very dedicated. But service is also about solving problems in our Nation, and bringing real hope and impact on the ground in our communities with real accountability for results. Some people have written off this bill as promoting ``paid volunteerism.'' This mistaken view is as a result of a fundamental misunderstanding about these programs. National service programs give Americans opportunities for us to serve for a full year or more to tackle tough problems, and that they, in turn, can leverage Federal investment in them to mobilize more traditional volunteers to help. When you look at the numbers, you can see it is a very smart return on investment. Let me illustrate how this works. Today about 75,000 people participate in national Federal service programs every year. I am not counting the State programs at this point, although I know some of these work in the States as well. But on AmericaCorps and programs such as this, Peace Corps, et cetera, the currently existing programs, there are about 75,000 volunteers who participate in national service programs every year. Now, as a result of their efforts, 2.2 million traditional persons every year come out to work on the same projects without pay. That is nearly 30 volunteers who get nothing from Government, for every 1 participant in a national service program, who receive a below-poverty stipend and a small education award to defray the cost of higher education. Let's do the math. If we assume that as we expand national service, as this bill does, the same ratio of participants to leveraged volunteers holds, we will eventually be seeing roughly 7.5 million new unpaid volunteers every year serving throughout our great Nation. My gosh, that is something worthwhile doing. Personally, I think it would be more than that. Because with the bill we are also improving the efficiency and the accountability of these programs. Far from promoting paid volunteerism, this bill is all about encouraging traditional volunteerism. We find that people, once they get into this, will love it and want to continue. We will be targeting national service opportunities to build upon this multiplying effect in order to tap the power of our Nation's greatest asset, our people, to take on some of these large challenges. Now, some have argued that the priorities outlined in this bill are specifically designed to advance the President's domestic agenda or his priorities with the recent stimulus bill. Well, quite honestly, these people must ascribe to Senator Kennedy and me abilities that neither of us would claim to have, including psychic powers and precognition. It was more than 2 years ago that I began a dialogue with former officials from the George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush administrations and other leaders of the national and community service field regarding this proposal. At that time, we agreed we wanted to harness the power of our citizens to solve urgent national problems. It was then, 2 years ago, that we identified five specific areas in which citizens could make a significant difference in addressing needs. We looked at education, and particularly the high school dropout crisis, in the aftermath of the 2006 report, ``The Silent Epidemic.'' We identified clean energy, opportunity, health and disaster response as key areas in which citizens could make a significant difference and we discussed specific indicators of progress that would bring new accountability for results. These five areas were identified long before there was even discussion of an economic stimulus and well before the Presidential campaign got in full swing. Since that time, we have added veterans assistance as a key area of national need for the bill. But that is hardly an issue on which President Obama has cornered the market. I hope this clarifies the record on this point. Having said all that, I am pleased that President Obama sees the value of this bill and wants to support it and will support it and has supported it. It has been a matter of great uplift to me. So it is with these particular challenges in mind that we drafted the Serve America Act. Gone are the days when national service participants will be able to go about their work without direction or accountability. Under our bill, their efforts will be directed at these specific areas of national need. In all of these efforts, State and local organizations will lead the way. Volunteers will be leveraged and urgent needs will be met not by distant Government bureaucracies or Government programs but by people working on the front lines of our communities and neighborhoods. Americans can also spread American compassion around the world. There have been good efforts over the last 7 years and good bills in the Congress to fulfill the promise of President Kennedy's Peace Corps and expand its numbers. It has been a bipartisan effort. Two former Republican Presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, grew the Peace Corps during their 8 years in office. As a complement to the growth in the Peace Corps, the Serve America Act will authorize and fund Volunteers for Prosperity, which last year alone mobilized 43,000 doctors, nurses, engineers, and other skilled Americans to meet urgent needs abroad, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, such as medical procedures to help children who have cleft palates or helping kids to see again. I could go on and on about what is being done by volunteers all over the world. This cost-effective program puts skilled Americans in the field for flexible term assignments often ranging from a few months to more than 1 year and at extremely low cost to the Federal Government. President Kennedy said that his Peace Corps would be truly serious when 100,000 Americans were working abroad every year. Well, Volunteers for Prosperity, working together with the Peace Corps, could help fulfill that dream and would show the world the compassion of our people and lead to a more informed foreign policy. Having mentioned the Peace Corps, why don't I mention Eunice Shriver's great husband. Sargent Shriver, when he fought for the Peace Corps, it wasn't an easy job. By gosh, he had to take on his own administration and everybody else. But he did. What a wonderful, decent, honorable leader and human being that man really is. If you want to read a great biography, read his, how ebullient he always was and how he kept being positive about life and what he was trying to do. I feel fortunate that I have become very good friends of the Shrivers and their children who now are giving volunteer service, and so many others. I don't mean to center on this one family because there are so many. In our church alone, we have some 55,000 serving all over the world. That is just missionaries. If we go beyond that to humanitarian service, there are a lot of people serving in those areas. Almost every major national disaster in the world, the first two churches in there with food, clothing, pharmaceuticals, et cetera, happen to be the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church. They work together. We have worked together all these years to do this type of work. Volunteers for Prosperity, working together with the Peace Corps, could help fulfill the dreams of so many and would show the world the compassion of our people, leading to a more informed foreign policy. In all cases, we must promote accountability for results and be mindful-- very mindful--of cost. As investments are made in service efforts, programs that are achieving real results should continue, and those that are not working should be defunded. We also need to do a better job collecting data on the results of these programs and our civic health as a nation. The Nation collects good data about its economy, but it can do a better job collecting information about our country's civic health. This bill will address those needs by establishing a civic health index, building on the good work of the NationalConference on Citizenship and the Corporation for National and Community Service, to collect regular data on volunteering, charitable giving, and other indicators of our civic life, so Americans can work to strengthen these platoons of civil society that have always been the backbone of our democracy. I truly think that this data collected for this index will inform our decisionmaking throughout the policy spectrum. Those of us supporting this bill--Republicans and Democrats alike-- believe an investment in the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of our people is one of the best investments our country can make. At a time wroth with economic uncertainty, we should be all too willing to tap the greatest resource at our nation's disposal--the American people. Our citizens are the most generous, energetic, and innovative people in the world. I believe this bill will inspire them to do much of the heavy lifting in their own communities. At a time when many people would argue that what we need is more Federal Government bureaucrats going into neighborhoods to fix things up, this bill will help private groups and individuals to continue their good work and to inspire other people to join in their efforts. The Serve America Act has strong bipartisan support because it advances a good American idea that has echoed down the ages. You see, when Americans want to solve problems, they don't first look to government or the State--they look to themselves and their communities. The innovation and enterprise of the American people will always have a comparative advantage over big government solutions. I know this from my own personal experience, serving as a Mormon missionary when I was only 20 years old, 20 to 22. I am proud to be associated with this effort to remind Americans of their duties to their country, to provide them more opportunities to serve it, and to fulfill the promise of the American experiment, which is truly based on their participation in making it all work. I have faith in the American people that they will make this work, and we will all be very happy when they do. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland. She has played such a pivotal role on this bill, she and Senator Enzi in particular. And, of course, Senator Kennedy and I both feel very deeply toward her and Senator Enzi. I also want to thank Pastor Rick Warren. A little over a year ago, he came to see me in my office. He heard I was interested in doing a service in America bill, and he came and went over it with me and was very interested and has done a great deal to inspire a number of us on both sides of the floor to be able to do some things in this area. I also want to thank John McCain. I have mentioned President Obama and Senator McCain, both of whom are supporters of this bill. And you talk about bipartisanship--I think it shows the great character of Senator McCain that he would come and support this type of legislation and, as he is want to do, in so many ways. I have such respect for him and for the President himself. He has been nothing but a great help to us in this matter. Like I say, this is an opportunity for all of us to vote for a program that will get people involved from teenage years through senior citizen years, the vast majority of whom will not be paid a dime, the vast majority of whom will be leveraged into working because they want to serve the communities. They want to serve these organizations. They want to be part of doing good. Like I say, with 75,000 for AmeriCorps, and some of the others we have mentioned, we estimate there are 2.2 million people, extrapolated out, who basically are leveraged out, to where they want to get involved, and not one of them is paid for doing it. If we figure it out mathematically, in just real terms, with this bill, calling for 175,000 new workers, at low pay, stipends for school, we believe we will have upwards of 7 million-plus people who will be giving voluntary service to their fellow human beings, fellow women and men, in their communities and children in their communities. It will do so much good for our society. Madam President, I have worked on a lot of legislation in my 33 years here, a number of which happen to be landmark pieces of legislation. We should pass this, and I hope we can with a large majority. Should we pass this? I don't know anything that will do more good in a general way for our society than this particular bill. I hope everybody will vote for cloture tonight. I also hope we can pass this bill in a relatively short period of time, and I hope we can make it truly bipartisan in every way. We have endeavored to do that. I think we have done a good job on it. I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I will vote to confirm the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the next Solicitor General of the United States. Because the Constitution gives the appointment power to the President, not to the Senate, I believe the President is owed some deference so long as his nominees are qualified. This standard applies particularly to his executive branch appointments. I will vote for the nomination before us because I believe this standard is satisfied. Dean Kagan would not be the first Solicitor General to have come from legal academia. Walter Dellinger came to the Clinton administration from Duke, Rex Lee served in the Reagan administration after founding Brigham Young University School of Law. Nor would Dean Kagan be the first Solicitor general to have come to the post from Harvard. Archibald Cox came from the Harvard law faculty to serve as Solicitor General in the Kennedy administration. Erin Griswold became Solicitor General in 1967 after a dozen years as a Harvard law professor and another 19 as dean. Charles Fried, who taught at Harvard for nearly a quarter century before becoming Solicitor General in 1985, went back to teaching and is now a colleague of Dean Kagan. I was pleased to see him at her confirmation hearing. I would note two other things about Dean Kagan's qualifications. First, she has no experience arguing before any court. I have long believed that prior judicial experience is not a prerequisite for successful judicial service. Justice Felix Frankfurter taught at Harvard Law School from 1921 until President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed him to the Supreme Court in 1939. During that time, by the way, he turned down the opportunity to become Solicitor General. But Justice Frankfurter famously wrote in 1957 that the correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the Supreme Court is, as he put it, ``precisely zero.'' But courtroom argument, especially appellate advocacy, is a more specific skill that is related more directly to the Solicitor General's job. As such, Dean Kagan's complete lack of such experience is more significant. Which leads me to the second point that, despite her lack of courtroom experience, every living former Solicitor General has endorsed her nomination. They know better than anyone what it takes to succeed in the post and believe she has what it takes. Speaking of endorsements, Dean Kagan is also supported by a number of lawyers and former government officials who are well known in conservative legal circles. These include Peter Keisler, who served as Assistant Attorney General and Acting Attorney General under President George W. Bush; Miguel Estrada, prominent Supreme Court practitioner and a former nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals; Jack Goldsmith, who headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under the previous President; and Paul Cappuccio, who served in the Justice Department during the first Bush administration and is now general counsel at TimeWarner. A few other issues have given me pause during the confirmation process. When Dean Kagan served as a law clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, she wrote a memo in a case challenging the constitutionality of the Adolescent Family Life Act. That statute provided funds for demonstration projects aimed at reducing teen pregnancy. Dean Kagan objected to including religious groups in such projects, insisting that ``[i]t would be difficult for any religious organization to participate in such projects without injecting some kind of religious teaching.'' She actually argued for excluding all religious organizations from programs or projects that are, in her view, ``so close to the central concerns of religion.'' This is a narrow-minded, I think even ignorant, view of religious groups and her recommendation of discrimination against them comes close, it seems to me, to raising a different kind of constitutional problem. Thankfully, the Supreme Court did not follow her suggestion and instead upheld the statute. When asked about it at her hearing in February, Dean Kagan said that, looking back, she now considers that to be, as she put it, ``the dumbest thing I ever heard.'' With all due respect, I agree. Dean Kagan took a very strong, very public stand against the so- called Solomon Amendment, which withholds federal funds from schools that deny access to military recruiters. Harvard denied such access in protest of the military's exclusion of openly gay servicemembers. Dena Kagan chose to allow access only under the threat of the entire university losing federal money. But she condemned in the exclusion policy in the strongest terms, calling it repugnant and ``a profound wrong--a moral injustice of the first order.'' In her personal capacity, she joined other law professors on a friend of the court brief in the lawsuit challenging the policy. In 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the Solomon Amendment, specifically rejecting the position Dean Kagan had taken, saying: ``We refuse to interpret the Solomon Amendment in a way that . . . would render it a largely meaningless exercise.'' Dean Kagan is entitled to take that or any other position on that or any other issue she chooses. But it raises the question whether she would be able, as the Solicitor General must, to put aside even such strongly held personal views and vigorously defend only the legal interests of the United States. She assured the Judiciary Committee that she could do that, even saying that she would have defended this very statute, the Solomon amendment, in the way that Solicitor General Paul Clement did. I note that Paul Clement is one of the former Solicitors General endorsing Dean Kagan's nomination. When Dean Kagan's nomination came up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee, I joined the ranking member, Senator Specter, in passing because of concerns that she had been insufficiently forthcoming in answering questions during her hearing and written questions afterward. I applaud Senator Specter for pursuing this, for meeting with Dean Kagan again, and for pushing her for more information and more thorough answers. She has provided some additional insight into her views, though I respect the fact that her additional effort will not satisfy everyone. All in all, I have concluded that I can support Dean Kagan's nomination. She is qualified to serve as Solicitor General and I have not seen enough to overcome the basic deference that I believe I must give the President. As such, I will vote to confirm her.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009. I am pleased to have worked with my good friend, Senator Chris Dodd, on this legislation that will create a comprehensive framework for addressing coordinated research, public education and training in pain and pain management. I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues in the House, Representatives Lois Capps and Mike Rogers, for their efforts in that body to highlight this important health issue. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, more than 25 percent of Americans over age 20 report having suffered pain. Of the older people reporting pain, more than half say their pain lasted for an entire year or longer. But many older people do not report their pain because they believe nothing can be done or they are unaware that effective treatments may exist. Health care professionals are often not adequately trained to manage their patients' pain. They may be unfamiliar with the latest research and guidelines, or they might hesitate to prescribe medication for pain management due to concerns about dosing or dependency. A widely acknowledged barrier to patient care includes misconceptions and concerns by health care providers regarding laws and policies on the use of controlled substances. Some patients do not tell their doctors they are experiencing pain because they do not want to bother them or appear to be a complainer. The National Pain Care Act of 2009 will help researchers, patients and health care providers better understand and manage pain care. It will coordinate federal research activities by establishing an Interagency Pain Coordinating Committee. The legislation also authorizes funds for pain research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and requires a report to Congress on the progress made in this area. The Coordinating Committee will summarize in their report the advances in pain care research supported or conducted by federal agencies and identify the research gaps that, if filled, could shed light on the symptoms and causes of pain. The bill will establish a public awareness campaign highlighting pain as a serious public health issue. The campaign will provide messages to the public on the need to appropriately assess, diagnose, treat and manage pain, and will alert the public to available treatments options for pain care management. It will also help patients weigh the risks and benefits of these options so that they may make better informed decisions with their health care providers. The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009 also creates greater training capacity in health-professions schools, hospices and other health care professional training facilities. This training will ensure that more health professionals have the capacity to manage their patients' pain using the most recent findings and improvements in the provision of pain care. Health professionals in a variety of settings will learn better means for assessing, diagnosing, treating and managing pain signs and symptoms and, as a result, will become more knowledgeable about applicable policies on the use of controlled substances. This bill contains provisions that will help the many Americans who suffer from joint pain, one of the most common types of pain reported. One-third of adults reported joint pain, aching or stiffness, according to a CDC report on the nation's health. It will also reduce hospitalization costs that are associated with hip and knee replacements that may be unnecessary if the underlying pain can be adequately controlled. Finally, the National Pain Care Act of 2009 will also help migraine sufferers, cancer patients and those experiencing lower back pain. Cancer patients should not have to spend their final days in pain. Lower back pain is the most common cause of job-related disability and relieving that complaint could increase worker productivity and alleviate many lost days of work. This is an important piece of legislation; it is one that, if passed, will improve the lives of many. Quite frankly, I believe it is long overdue. Similar legislation was introduced last year in both chambers of Congress--the House passed its legislation late in the year, but, unfortunately, the Senate did not consider the bill before the 110th Congress adjourned. The legislation we introduce today is identical to that which the House passed last year. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership on this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support the prompt passage of our bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009. I am pleased to have worked with my good friend, Senator Chris Dodd, on this legislation that will create a comprehensive framework for addressing coordinated research, public education and training in pain and pain management. I also want to acknowledge the work of my colleagues in the House, Representatives Lois Capps and Mike Rogers, for their efforts in that body to highlight this important health issue. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, more than 25 percent of Americans over age 20 report having suffered pain. Of the older people reporting pain, more than half say their pain lasted for an entire year or longer. But many older people do not report their pain because they believe nothing can be done or they are unaware that effective treatments may exist. Health care professionals are often not adequately trained to manage their patients' pain. They may be unfamiliar with the latest research and guidelines, or they might hesitate to prescribe medication for pain management due to concerns about dosing or dependency. A widely acknowledged barrier to patient care includes misconceptions and concerns by health care providers regarding laws and policies on the use of controlled substances. Some patients do not tell their doctors they are experiencing pain because they do not want to bother them or appear to be a complainer. The National Pain Care Act of 2009 will help researchers, patients and health care providers better understand and manage pain care. It will coordinate federal research activities by establishing an Interagency Pain Coordinating Committee. The legislation also authorizes funds for pain research at the National Institutes of Health, NIH, and requires a report to Congress on the progress made in this area. The Coordinating Committee will summarize in their report the advances in pain care research supported or conducted by federal agencies and identify the research gaps that, if filled, could shed light on the symptoms and causes of pain. The bill will establish a public awareness campaign highlighting pain as a serious public health issue. The campaign will provide messages to the public on the need to appropriately assess, diagnose, treat and manage pain, and will alert the public to available treatments options for pain care management. It will also help patients weigh the risks and benefits of these options so that they may make better informed decisions with their health care providers. The National Pain Care Policy Act of 2009 also creates greater training capacity in health-professions schools, hospices and other health care professional training facilities. This training will ensure that more health professionals have the capacity to manage their patients' pain using the most recent findings and improvements in the provision of pain care. Health professionals in a variety of settings will learn better means for assessing, diagnosing, treating and managing pain signs and symptoms and, as a result, will become more knowledgeable about applicable policies on the use of controlled substances. This bill contains provisions that will help the many Americans who suffer from joint pain, one of the most common types of pain reported. One-third of adults reported joint pain, aching or stiffness, according to a CDC report on the nation's health. It will also reduce hospitalization costs that are associated with hip and knee replacements that may be unnecessary if the underlying pain can be adequately controlled. Finally, the National Pain Care Act of 2009 will also help migraine sufferers, cancer patients and those experiencing lower back pain. Cancer patients should not have to spend their final days in pain. Lower back pain is the most common cause of job-related disability and relieving that complaint could increase worker productivity and alleviate many lost days of work. This is an important piece of legislation; it is one that, if passed, will improve the lives of many. Quite frankly, I believe it is long overdue. Similar legislation was introduced last year in both chambers of Congress--the House passed its legislation late in the year, but, unfortunately, the Senate did not consider the bill before the 110th Congress adjourned. The legislation we introduce today is identical to that which the House passed last year. I thank Senator Dodd for his leadership on this important issue and I urge my colleagues to support the prompt passage of our bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish today to speak in support of S. 408, legislation that I introduced along with my colleague, Senator Inouye, to reauthorize the Emergency Medical Services for Children, EMSC, Program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services', HHS, Health Resources and Services Administration's, HRSA, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, MCHB. It is fitting that we do this in the year of the program's 25th anniversary. The purpose of the EMSC Program is straightforward: to ensure state- of-the-art emergency medical care for ill or injured children and adolescents. Children have different medical needs than adults, and that presents special challenges for emergency and trauma care providers. These differences do not solely relate to medical supplies. They are also physiological and emotional. Not only will an adult-sized facemask not adequately administer oxygen to a child; but, for example, children's respiratory systems function differently, so they are more at risk for inflammation and infection; and they maintain fluid balances differently and thus are more prone to dehydration and death due to blood and fluid loss. Kids even may not be old enough or sufficiently cognizant to communicate what exactly is wrong with them or how they got hurt. The EMSC Program has helped educate and train medical professionals to provide emergency care for children appropriately, because children are not just small adults. The program has made extraordinary contributions in its 25 years--but disparities in children's emergency care still exist. According to the Institute of Medicine, IOM's 2006 report: ``Emergency Care for Children: Growing Pains,'' children account for nearly one-third of all emergency department visits, yet many hospitals are simply not prepared to handle pediatric patients. The IOM reported that only 6 percent of EDs in the United States have all of the necessary supplies to appropriately handle children's emergency care. I am proud that my home State of Utah has played a special role in advancing the level of emergency medical care for children and teenagers. Working with the EMSC Program, Utah has participated in the Intermountain Regional Emergency Medical Services for Children Coordinating Council. The University of Utah is home to both the National Emergency Medical Services for Children Data Analysis Resource Center, NEDARC, and the Central Data Management Coordinating Center, CDMCC, for the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network, PECARN. Utah-based projects also helped pioneer the development of training materials on caring for special needs pediatric patients. Each year, representatives of Utah's medical workforce come to visit and talk about the wonderful accomplishments and importance of the EMSC Program. The IOM report also recommended doubling the EMSC Program budget over the next 5 years. Over the past several years, there has been a heightened interest in emergency preparedness and emergency services coordination. Despite this, there has been little concern with pediatric emergency readiness. The interest and financial support has gone to predominately support communications and coordination of local, State, and Federal emergency resources. The focus has been on the general population, on adult care; there is not a national strategy to address the complex emergency care needs of children. In light of the recent and current events related to national readiness, such as a potential influenza outbreak, bioterrorist attack, or natural disaster, children's readiness must also be acknowledged and funded. The EMSC Program last expired in 2005. EMSC remains the only Federal program dedicated to examining the best ways to deliver various forms of care to children in emergency settings. Its reauthorization is long overdue. The House passed its version of the EMSC reauthorization bill in April of last year by an overwhelming vote of 390 to 1; but, unfortunately, the Senate was not able to take up the bill before the 110th Congress adjourned. While I surely understand the uncertainties of the Senate's legislative agenda, I am disappointed we were unable to pass this very important reauthorization legislation to which there was no opposition. S. 408 contains the same language that received such tremendous bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to support its timely passage.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, Senator Brown be afforded the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my apprehension regarding the closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center in Cuba. I have several concerns regarding the transfer and disposition of the enemy combatants detained there in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Here we are, almost 8 years removed from that fateful Tuesday morning when terrorists murdered 3,000 of our citizens at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center complex, and on hijacked flights. On that day, we were caught flatfooted and hit with a right cross. Many of us who were here in Congress in the days that followed 9/11 swore we would provide the President and the Nation with whatever tools were necessary to ensure that we would never be caught by surprise again. So on September 18, 2001, Congress sent to President Bush the Authorization to Use Military Force. This was signed into law. Twenty- six days after the attacks on New York and Washington, we commenced military operations in Afghanistan. We had identified our enemy and determined the location of his base of operation and where this treacherous plot had been devised. We took the fight to the Taliban and al-Qaida and engaged them in Afghanistan. In the course of those engagements, U.S. and coalition forces captured enemy combatants. Early in 2002, enemy combatants who were seized on the battlefield began arriving at Guantanamo for detention. In 2004, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that, as a necessary incident to the AUMF, the President is authorized to detain persons captured while fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan until the cessation of hostilities. At one time, nearly 800 detainees were housed at Guantanamo. Approximately 525 detainees have been transferred to other countries for detention or released outright and returned to their country of residence. Approximately 60 detainees who were released were later recaptured on the field of battle in Afghanistan or have again taken up arms against the United States on other fronts. Recently, as reported this year in the January 23 edition of the New York Times, a former Guantanamo detainee from Saudi Arabia has resurfaced as No. 2 in charge of al-Qaida in Yemen. There he is, as shown in this picture: Said Ali al-Shihiri, deputy leader for al-Qaida in Yemen; also known as Abu Sayyaf al-Shihiri and also as Abu-Sufyan al-Azidi; and also known as Guantanamo detainee No. 372. He was released from Guantanamo in November 2007. He planned the U.S. Embassy attack in Yemen in September 2008. Furthermore, it is believed this man was involved in the planning of an attack on the American Embassy in Yemen last September. This terrorist assisted in the murder of 10 Yemeni citizens and 1 American-- former Guantanamo detainee No. 372. The Washington Post recently ran a 2-day installment profiling a Guantanamo detainee from Kuwait: Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi, also known as Guantanamo detainee No. 220, released from Guantanamo in November 2006, and detonated a truck bomb in Mosul, Iraq, in March 2008. He was released and subsequently traveled to Syria and snuck into Iraq. Ultimately, this terrorist drove a truck packed with explosives into a joint American and Iraqi military training camp and blew himself up, taking 13 Iraqi soldiers with him--former Guantanamo detainee No. 220. In March of 2004, a released detainee returned to Pakistan to again take up the fight against coalition forces as an insurgent. His name is Abdullah Mehsud. This former detainee, in July 2007, killed himself in engagement. He was responsible for the kidnapping of Chinese nationals in Pakistan. After Pakistani forces began to close in on him, he blew himself up with a grenade. These are just a few of the examples that illustrate how precarious it can be to release these detainees to other nations. We are outsourcing the security of our Nation to other countries. Shouldn't we be cautious and examine who we are letting free? Who is taking custody of these detainees? What security precautions and monitoring measures are in place to ensure they stay incarcerated or remain accountable? If we shelve the only DOD strategic interrogation facility we have and cannot place these detainees with confidence in other countries, will we be forced to transfer these enemy combatants to the United States? Removing these detainees from a secure military facility with an airport, a highly trained security force, a secure infrastructure, and located on an island outside the continental United States is, in my opinion, reckless. Bringing these detainees to the continental United States is tantamount to injecting a virus into a healthy body. On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed three Executive orders pertaining to Guantanamo and the enemy combatants detained there. He has ordered the closure of the detention facility within 12 months. He has also required that any detainees presently in custody be treated humanely and in accordance with the Army Field Manual. In fact, this order references the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, an act passed by Congress that required that the treatment of the detainees comply with the Army Field Manual. The objective of this order was already fulfilled by the passing of that law. The third order commissioned a task force to conduct a comprehensive review of options available that will provide a solution and final disposition for the detainees at Guantanamo. The Executive order closing Guantanamo states: Prompt and appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained at Guantanamo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Now, presently, approximately 245 detainees designated as ``enemy combatants'' are housed at Guantanamo. The possibility of returning a majority of these detainees to their home country or a third country so that we can rid ourselves of this issue troubles me, nor does it strike me as particularly sophisticated in the analysis of how other countries see us. There is no doubt that among some European elites, their opinions on the previous administration became more negative as the years went by. There is no doubt that this was also reflected amongst the broader populations who have tended toward liberalism for decades. Opinions from other parts of the world are harder to measure, of course, as it is difficult to measure the views of populations living under various types of autocratic government. Negative international opinion should not be exaggerated for a number of reasons. First and most obvious, leadership, particularly in difficult times, should not be directed by polls. This is true domestically, and it certainly is true of foreign polls. It is neither our job nor the administration's job to represent foreign populations. Decisions in Government should not be made by leaders sticking their fingers in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Second, appealing to foreign popularity completely disregards the unique role this Nation has played in advancing global security. It also disregards the historic debates in which leftwing parties have advanced their ideology. But we should not ignore that there has been unprecedented--unprecedented--cooperation from the same Democratic governments whose liberal disdain so succors some in the opposition here on all matters of national security. Cooperation from these governments on diplomatic, military, intelligence, law enforcement, and humanitarian assistance has been the norm, not the exception, regardless of disputes on Iraq policy and on those governments' views on Guantanamo. In terms of foreign policy, I would much rather have the cooperation of a government than its approval, although I recognize that in some cases the approval facilitates the cooperation. But realistically speaking--and this is a subject that ought to be steeped in realism-- popularity is not a prerequisite for hard-headed cooperation against a common threat. I wish to quote what columnist Tom Friedman--who is certainly not a cheerleader for the Republican Party--said about foreign policy thinker Michael Mandelbaum, who is usually associated with Democratic policies: When it comes to the way other countries view America's preeminent role in the world-- Writes Friedman, who then quotes Mandelbaum-- whatever its lifespan, three things can be safely predicted: The other countries will not pay for it; they will continue to criticize it; and they will miss it when it is gone. I would urge the policymakers in this administration, as well as my colleagues in the majority party, to consider this wisdom expressed by Democratic thinkers the next time they engage in the canard that we need to change our policy to improve our standing with other nations. Let's hope this is not the main reason to shutter Guantanamo because, if it is, it is a slim and irresponsible reason. Prior to the issuance of the Executive order, I received a briefing on the President's intention to close Guantanamo. I would endorse an approach that would have commissioned a 1-year review process rather than coming out and declaring closure within a year. It strikes me that the study should come before the decision, not accompany it. On his second full day in office, the President, without his Attorney General in place, issued this order, and I fear he painted himself into a corner. Two weeks ago, Attorney General Holder visited Guantanamo Bay. His public comment on his visit was the following: I think it is going to take us a good portion of that time to really get our hands around what Guantanamo is and what Guantanamo was. I am sure Attorney General Holder saw what I saw at Guantanamo when I visited there. I am sure he saw the impressive infrastructure, with medical, recreational, and legal facilities. Attorney General Holder is a good man, and I am glad the President has made him the point man on this issue, but his comments are indicative of the fact that the complexities surrounding Guantanamo cannot be solved by the stroke of a pen on an Executive order. On February 23, 2009, the Department of Defense submitted a report to the White House titled ``Compliance With the President's Executive Order on Detainee Conditions of Confinement at Guantanamo Bay.'' The Secretary of Defense tasked a special team to review the treatment of detainees and the conditions at Guantanamo in response to the President's order of January 22, 2009. The review team focused on myriad issues, especially housing, medical treatment, food services, religious freedom, access to attorneys, mail, security, use of force, interrogation, discipline, and intellectual stimulation. During its 13-day investigation, the review team reviewed hours upon hours of videotapes, reports, and important records. Team members also conducted more than 100 interviews of base leadership, support staff, interrogators, and guards. Moreover, they conducted unannounced spot checks both day and night. In the end, the review team concluded that the detention facility and the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo are in compliance with common article III of the Geneva Convention. What I found especially pleasing is that the review team concluded that Guantanamo interrogation protocols exceed the Army Field Manual and that cells at Guantanamo from maximum and high security cell blocks--I am quoting from the report--``exceed those typical of medium and maximum security detention facilities throughout the United States.'' I wish to quote other excerpts: Interrogations of Guantanamo detainees are all voluntary. Approximately one-third of all interrogations take place at the request of the detainee. Detainees are permitted to decline participation in interrogations at any time with no negative disciplinary consequences. Unfortunately, our own Washington Post chose only to run a small article on this report. It was buried on page 3. This is in sharp contrast to the multiday, multipage, above-the-fold story about the released detainee who blew himself up in Mosul in March of 2008. I suppose the media was hoping this review of operations at Guantanamo would reveal that the present conditions of the detainees would be in violation of the Geneva Convention. Therein lays the problem. Somewhere along the way politicians, nominees, and the media all started to label the present conditions at Guantanamo as intolerable and substandard. This report shows that conditions mirror or exceed any current prison in the Federal system. I encourage every Member to read the report and learn for themselves the facts about Guantanamo. Some of the administration's proposals--ones endorsed by my Senate colleagues in the majority--involve bringing the detainees to the United States. I have given this issue serious consideration and am unable to find one good reason why our Government would want to do this. We have legally detained enemy combatants on the field of battle. We have categorized them into three classifications: First, detainees who no longer pose a threat and need to be returned to their country or a third country; secondly, enemy detainees who are too dangerous to release and must be incarcerated until the cessation of hostilities; and, third, detainees against whom we will present admissible evidence and adjudicate within the parameters of a fair and constitutionally guaranteed process. There is no reason this court proceeding cannot be carried out at Guantanamo or satellite facilities outside the United States. The transfer of the detainees to the United States will undoubtedly present a wide array of complex legal issues that, in my estimation, will take longer than 1 year to solve. Mechanisms at Guantanamo that ensure a fair adversarial judicial proceeding, with all the applicable rights, is feasible and can be carried out and has been carried out previously at Guantanamo. If we close this facility and are unable to place some of these detainees into the custody of third countries, what then? The Bureau of Prisons has previously stated that they consider these prisoners a ``high security risk.'' As such, these prisoners would need to be housed in a maximum security prison. According to the Bureau of Prisons, it does not have enough space in maximum security facilities to house these detainees. However, one idea offered by my colleagues in the majority party for holding the detainees would be to transfer them to the Federal Supermax Prison in Florence, CO. Now, this facility holds the worst criminal elements our country has. The maximum security institution, Supermax, ADX, Florence, CO. The rated capacity is 490 prisoners. The current level is 471. The Bureau tries to ensure that this facility is never at full capacity in case of emergency transfers. In reality, the Federal Bureau of Prisons doesn't have the room required to hold these very dangerous prisoners in high security facilities. As an alternative to the Supermax at Florence, CO, another idea offered by the majority would be to sprinkle the detainees throughout the Federal Prison System. Just look at this chart of the Federal Bureau of Prisons: We have 15 high-security prisons. The maximum beds in those 15 high-security prisons happen to be 13,448. The current population of those prisons is 20,291. It doesn't take too many brains to realize we can't solve it that way.

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to.

Mr. HATCH. That is a good question. I think I am making an overwhelming case that it is ridiculous to not use that facility, which is perfectly capable, offshore, on an island, where we have all the security we need and we don't have the capacity to take care of them in this country and we should not want to anyway. I have also made the point that sending them to other countries is not the answer either. They don't want them either.

Mr. HATCH. You can't. To have to bring these prisoners here, we don't have room, and the cost would be astronomical. Thirdly, we are going to have real big problems that we will have a difficult time handling, assuming we can find places to put them. I have been down there, too, and I have been involved in this for a long time. The Federal Bureau of Prisons cannot receive these detainees. We are already overcrowded in high-security facilities by almost 7,000 prisoners. What is our next option? Military custody? These detainees are already held in military custody. Why are we bringing them from one military installation to another? Some ideas regarding military custody and presented by the majority include the transfer of the detainees to Fort Leavenworth, KS. My esteemed colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, already pointed out this idea would have dire consequences for the Army's Command and General Staff College. This is a course run by the Army and open to foreign students from our military partners. Some of these foreign officers are from Islamic nations that have supported us in our ongoing efforts against terrorism. The governments of these nations have publicly declared that they will withdraw their personnel from the course if enemy combatants are transferred to the Military Discipline Barracks at Fort Leavenworth. What a loss that would be. I know mistakes were made in the early days of Guantanamo. There may have been some isolated cases where the treatment of some of these detainees there could be construed as not being in accordance with the Geneva Convention. In response to these deficiencies, the Supreme Court, Congress, the Department of Defense, and Justice have implemented protections and mechanisms to ensure that this will not happen again. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions ensuring that constitutionally guaranteed rights apply to these men. Military prosecutors and FBI agents are conducting reviews of evidence held against detainees to ensure their admissibility. Military leaders in charge of Guantanamo have taken measures to ensure that humane standards and treatment of detainees and their religion exceeds not only the Geneva Convention but most prison standards found in the United States. Whatever problems there were at Guantanamo have been addressed and corrected. I also remind my distinguished colleagues that our war against terrorism will not end with the signing of a treaty. The cessation of hostilities in Afghanistan is far from over. We are now shifting our focus and additional troops back to that theater of operation. This will increase the likelihood of contact with the enemy, which may require additional detentions. In the days ahead, I hope Congress will play a part in the disposition of detainees and the future of Guantanamo Bay. A well-thought-out and properly executed plan offered by the President would easily garner bipartisan support. I ask the President to rethink his deadline of closing Guantanamo less than 12 months from now. This is a useable facility that has merit and operational worthiness. In closing, I will quote the 34th President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said the following: ``Peace and justice are two sides of the same coin.'' I commend the President for wanting to conduct a thorough review of the operations at Guantanamo. My assessment is, this was completed 2 weeks ago with the Defense Department's report and the Attorney General's visit. What else is there to do? Let's get back to the task at hand of resuming military commissions and the humane detention of enemy combatants. I am very concerned about this. So far, I have not seen a conscientious, let alone remarkably worthwhile or worthy, plan that would exceed what we are already doing in Guantanamo or that would be as good as what we are already doing there. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, dated September 10, 2007, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I point out also that in a recent report, U.S. officials said the Taliban's new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan is a former prisoner at the Guantanamo detention center. Pentagon and CIA officials said Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was among 13 prisoners released to the Afghan Government in December 2007. He is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a name officials say is used by the Taliban leader in charge of operations against United States and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan. One intelligence official told the Associated Press that Rasoul's stated mission is to counter the growing U.S. troop surge. I wished to put that in the Record. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ronald Rowe, a Secret Service detailee in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the first session of the 111th Congress.