Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. My amendment simply says that before a State may exercise an option to provide CHIP and Medicare to legal immigrant children and pregnant women, that State must demonstrate to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that 95 percent of its children under 200 percent of the Federal poverty level have been enrolled in either the State's Medicaid program or the CHIP program. The Secretary may make this determination based on the best data available, and may use any technique necessary for sampling and estimating the number of low-income, uninsured children in that State. When legal immigrants enter this country, their sponsors agree, the people who bring them in agree, to be responsible for their expenses for the first 5 years they live in the United States. The CHIP bill contains a provision which was added during the Finance Committee consideration of the bill that negates that agreement by allowing immediate health coverage of legal children and pregnant women. This is the first reason I am offering this amendment. The second reason is that there are U.S. children who are citizens of this country who are low income and uninsured. They do not have health insurance coverage. They qualify for Medicaid and CHIP too. I believe these children should be our first priority as far as CHIP and Medicaid coverage is concerned. They should be the priority. Once these children have health coverage, then we can talk about expansions to other populations. I worked very closely with my Democratic colleagues on creating not one but two bipartisan CHIP bills in 2007, CHIPRA I and CHIPRA II. As I have explained, I voted against my President because I wanted the CHIP program to be reauthorized in the bill we wrote. One of the first agreements that Senator Grassley and I made with Senators Baucus and Rockefeller was that legal immigrant children would not be covered under the CHIP program because their sponsors made a commitment to be financially responsible for them for 5 years. That was even before we started drafting CHIPRA I. I simply cannot support a CHIP bill that allows States to cover legal immigrant children while there are at least 6 million low-income uninsured children, 200 percent of poverty and below, who do not have health coverage and are eligible for CHIP and Medicare. These children ought to be our first priority. My amendment ensures the majority of these children have health coverage before we expand CHIP and Medicaid eligibility to legal immigrants. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a reasonable approach. It might have the capacity of helping to bring some of us together in a more bipartisan manner. I hope our colleagues will pay strict attention to some of the things I have said because I believe I have earned the right to be listened to on all aspects of the CHIP bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, to remind my colleagues, the Hatch amendment, No. 45, says that before a State is permitted to cover legal immigrants through CHIP and Medicaid, it must demonstrate to the HHS Secretary that 95 percent of its State children who are citizens under 200 percent of the Federal poverty level are enrolled in either the State's Medicaid Program or CHIP. My amendment does not prohibit legal immigrant children from being covered, but it does set some of the parameters. Again, I believe our U.S. children who are citizens should be covered first. If you cover 95 percent, then you can go on and do more. Once those kids are covered, I am happy to work with my colleagues to cover legal immigrant children, but our U.S. citizen kids should be covered first. That is all I am saying, and I think it is reasonable. Mr. President, I think this is a reasonable amendment. I am prepared to ask unanimous consent to have a voice vote on it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we withdraw the call for a rollcall vote and voice-vote this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand before the Senate today to voice my great respect and hope in the Senator from Colorado, the Honorable Ken Salazar, who has recently left this Chamber in order to serve as Secretary of the Interior under the Obama administration. It is with sorrow that I say goodbye to my good friend who has served with honor and dedication since 2005. Although Ken only served for a few years in the Senate, he has left his mark on us all and will be remembered for his dedication and service not only to his country but to Utah's neighbor the great State of Colorado. Ken Salazar's personal history is a testament to his character and accomplishments. His family first settled in America just over 400 years ago, 12 generations back. Ken's parents knew the value of teaching their eight children about hard work and dedication, and from them he learned the worth of industry on his family's ranch growing up. Those early years on the ranch taught Ken about the importance of hard work, integrity, and dedication. It is also from these early experiences that Ken grew to love the beauty of the natural resources our Nation has to offer. I am confident that the years of experience Mr. Salazar has worked on environmental policy in the West will serve him well in his new position as Secretary of the Interior. He has a deep-rooted passion for clean, renewable, and affordable energy as well as protecting our country's precious natural resources. I believe he will take quite naturally to his new role as our Nation's top public lands manager, and we will be well served by his sensitivity to those natural treasures we value the most. In short, Ken Salazar has the experience and the passion required for the role he has taken on as Secretary. I thank him for his excellent service in the Senate and look forward to seeing good things from him in the coming years.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Janet Phoenix, my health policy fellow, be granted the privilege of the floor during Senate consideration of H.R. 2, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to express my support for the confirmation of Timothy Geithner as President Obama's choice as Secretary of the Treasury. I am aware this nominee is not free of controversy. My office has received many calls from Utahns who are concerned about Mr. Geithner's admitted errors in initially failing to report and pay his own self-employment tax. Many of them brought up the valid point that the Secretary of the Treasury, the person who is ultimately in charge of collecting taxes from all Americans and who oversees the Internal Revenue Service, should be beyond reproach in his own tax filings. Many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle are also uneasy about this problem. I understand and I share this concern. The Senate has a solemn responsibility in confirming key officials in the executive branch, and the Treasury Secretary is among the very most important roles in the administration, both historically and particularly at this critical time. My guiding principle for approving the President's nominees has always been that the President, as chief executive of the Nation, should be entitled to the person he or she chooses, and that the Senate has an obligation to confirm those choices except in cases where it is obvious the nominee is either incompetent, corrupt, or unethical. While not all my colleagues share this view, I believe it is the correct one, and that it helps us stay above the petty partisanship that sometimes enters into these nomination processes and harms the effectiveness of our Government. Upon careful examination of this nominee, it is obvious that Timothy Geithner is neither incompetent nor corrupt, and certainly not unethical, and that he should be confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury. I have reached this decision after weighing the facts of his tax situation with his impressive education, experience, and intelligence, and keeping in mind the desperate financial crisis currently facing this country. In announcing this conclusion, I believe I owe it to the people of Utah to explain that I view Timothy Geithner's tax issue as a very serious matter. He is the top tax officer in the United States of America and, I might add, next to the President himself, is the person who bears the ultimate responsibility for collecting the revenue this Nation needs in order to operate. As such, the Treasury Secretary must be an example to all Americans in tax and financial issues, and any shortcomings in this area can be an impediment to effective tax compliance. The fact Mr. Geithner has had this issue arise, and that he admitted committing serious oversights on several of his tax returns, is indeed regrettable. It has marred an otherwise singularly outstanding nominee's record and has given pause to some in the Senate about his fitness to serve. At the same time, it is important to note that people make mistakes and commit oversights. Even the most intelligent and gifted--two adjectives that certainly apply to Mr. Geithner--make errors in their financial dealings. For his part, Mr. Geithner has corrected the problems by filing amended returns and paying the taxes due, with interest. I recognize he did not come forward and pay the taxes for the earlier 2 years which were not covered by the audit until shortly before his nomination was announced. This is true even though he was credited for those taxes by the International Monetary Fund, and I wish this were otherwise. But the nominee has stated that he wishes he had acted differently as well. Mr. Geithner has admitted his errors and expressed regret for them. I believe he is sincere. I have had a number of meetings with him and I am convinced he is sincere, and that he was when he testified that these omissions were mistakes and were not intentional. I think anyone who would talk to him personally and go through this with him would come to the same conclusion. While these mistakes have, to some degree, cast a shadow on Mr. Geithner's selection, it is important that they not be allowed to overshadow his impressive credentials and the very real expertise he will bring to this job--an expertise that is sorely needed at the present time. And that is acknowledging that Mr. Paulson, our current Secretary of the Treasury, has tried to do a very good job, and has done a very good job under the very pressing conditions he has faced. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Geithner is not merely acceptable for the job, he is highly qualified. Indeed, his portfolio, knowledge, and skills make him uniquely qualified to serve and are sorely needed by this Nation as we face the current economic crisis. He is intimately familiar with all arms of U.S. policymaking. For instance, he is no stranger to the Treasury Department, where he served in significant positions for 8 years. That means he knows the agency, the personnel, and the tasks that will face him when he is confirmed. It means he can hit the ground running on day one and has the know-how to get the economy moving again, although that is going to be a monumental job even for Mr. Geithner. Moreover, Mr. Geithner has already been a major player in addressing the Nation's response to the economic situation. As head of the New York Federal Reserve--actually president of the New York Federal Reserve--he has worked closely with Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in crafting the Government's response to the financial crisis. He knows firsthand what has worked and what has not, and is therefore best equipped to apply the remedies that will be most successful. He knows the issues and he knows the landscape and the tools available to address these problems. Have our actions to date in responding to this economic calamity been perfect? Almost certainly not. Have mistakes been made? Yes, they undoubtedly have. Unfortunately, it is too early to assess with complete accuracy the effectiveness of our response to this complex and unprecedented situation. However, the fact that Mr. Geithner recognizes mistakes have occurred makes him more valuable, in my view, in the continuing effort to right our economic ship. I would rather have at the helm a battle-hardened veteran who knows the shoals and whirlpools than a neophyte who has to wade into these churning waters for the first time. It is imperative to the Nation to have a Treasury Secretary who won't sink or merely tread water but will swim. In my estimation, Mr. Geithner is that man. Because of his experience at the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and the fact that he has been working arm in arm with Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, Timothy Geithner is more aware of the complexities of the issues facing us than probably anyone else the President might have chosen. Moreover, he knows the financial markets and the counterpart officials to the Treasury Secretary around the world. That is evident from his experience in the Clinton administration as Under Secretary for International Affairs and the critical role he played in devising the successful United States response to the Asian financial crisis--not an easy thing to handle, and he did it amazingly well. I am comfortable that despite the blemishes of his tax problem, Mr. Geithner should be confirmed to this vital position. The fact that this is an unprecedented and dangerous time makes it all the more imperative that we vote quickly on this nomination. I do not believe we have the luxury of leaving this position unfilled even another day. Rejecting this nominee would lead to a delay of weeks in getting our new executive branch economic team focused on the problems at hand. Such a delay could be hazardous to a timely turnaround to the financial and economic crisis. Moreover, rejection of Mr. Geithner brings about the very real risk that the next person the President might nominate could be less effective for the job, even if he or she had a spotless tax compliance record. I might add for my fellow conservatives out there, who are very upset about this--some up in arms about it--you are not going to get a better person for this job than Mr. Geithner, and you better be darned happy that the President has been willing to go to somebody who is a lot less ideological than any of us ever expected in this very important position. It is one thing to raise the issues. It is one thing to decide to vote against him. It is another thing to not acknowledge that this is a man who could really help this country at this time. Moreover, Mr. Geithner will not approach the job of Treasury Secretary from an ideological or partisan perspective. At least that is what he has told me, and I believe he is a man of honor. A less experienced and perhaps more partisan and ideological nominee could prove divisive here in the Senate, thus leading to even more delay, and, if confirmed, that person could find himself or herself engulfed in a maelstrom without the experience from which to navigate. Timothy Geithner, I am convinced, will steer clear of partisanship. I believe he will chart a course for bipartisan cooperation rather than embark on leftwing solutions that would divide the Congress and endanger our beautiful and wonderful country. As I conclude my remarks, I feel constrained to point out what I see is a double standard, illustrated in this nomination. Having lived through the last 8 years with President Bush, I do not think there is any question that if this had been a Republican nominee with these same problems, many in the media and some on the left of this body would have reacted with such an outcry to the tax compliance issue that the President would have had no choice other than to withdraw the nomination. A Republican nominee in Mr. Geithner's position would not have even gotten a committee vote. We all have seen that. Time after time, some of the most qualified people were rejected, were not even given a chance. I do not believe that was the right thing done then, and I do not think it is the right thing now. I do think people in a principled fashion can vote one way or the other on Mr. Geithner, but I hope for the sake of our country they will vote to support him. I believe that if Timothy Geithner is confirmed, it will largely be due to the fact that many on my side were willing to put partisanship to the side for the sake of what is best for the country at this time. Looking forward, I see a real need for continued cooperation on a bipartisan basis. The current financial downturn affects all of us-- everybody in America. I hope all Americans and their elected representatives can continue to put politics aside in our pursuit to find the best policies to help us out of this quagmire. I expect we will be working closely with Timothy Geithner if he is confirmed today, as I expect he will be. Our expectations of him are very high. A less qualified or talented person might not have expected to survive this confirmation process. Even an equally gifted veteran might not have made it through a less turbulent and risky time. Mr. Geithner, I just have to tell you, as you resume work on solving our thorniest financial problems, we send with you our best wishes even as we recall your pledge to give it your all because we are going to need everything you have. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I ask unanimous consent that a quorum call be entered and that all quorum calls during this debate on Mr. Geithner be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding the departure of my esteemed colleague from New York, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have known Senator Clinton for many years now, and I have worked closely with her since the time she served as First Lady of the United States and then as she so aptly served the people of New York in the Senate. Today, I am sure that I am joined by many of my colleagues in saying that her compassion, her skill, and her example in this institution will be missed. As a former First Lady of the United States, I was very impressed with the work Senator Clinton did to increase the level of care for women and children from around the world. You may recall that her service in this capacity knew no boundaries or borders as millions of lives were touched both here in the United States and abroad by her care, by her understanding, and by her tenacity in helping people receive the level of care and attention they so justly deserved. Indeed, Senator Clinton reminded us all that women's rights are not to be separated from human rights and that through this empowerment we have the potential to improve relations, eradicate violence, and increase prosperity. This is the vision and compassion that served her so well as a former First Lady of the United States, and this is the same compassion that continued to highlight her time here in the Senate. Although her time in this legislative body has been relatively brief, the accomplishments of Senator Clinton have been many. If I may, let me highlight just two contrasting examples. The first example comes from 2007 when I worked closely with Senator Clinton on the Biologics Price and Protection Innovation Act. It was through these tough negotiations, numerous committee meetings, and candid discussions that I again was privileged to witness Senator Clinton's skill in bringing large groups of affected parties together in the spirit of compromise. With so many competing interests and so much attention being drawn to this legislation, I was appreciative of Senator Clinton's skills in negotiation, in understanding competing interests, and in listening to all of the parties involved in passing this important legislation out of the Senate. The second example I would like to mention comes from 2008 with little fanfare. It is a simple resolution and one that probably did not receive much attention, but it was a resolution that meant something to me and it meant something to Senator Clinton. I speak of a Senate resolution designating a week in May as National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week. For helping me to pass this simple resolution, I am grateful to Senator Clinton. More importantly, however, I am grateful that Senator Clinton was more interested in doing what was right for substitute teachers across our Nation. Even though this resolution probably never made a headline, Senator Clinton was one of the first in line to sign on as a cosponsor because she knew it was the least we could do for men and women across our country who give so much to our children through their education. In closing, I share these two examples simply to illustrate the skill and compassion that defined Senator Clinton's service while she was here in the Senate. From the large legislative issues to the small acts of kindness and recognition, I know that Senator Clinton strived to do what she thought was right and what was best for our country. It is this example that we will all miss in the Senate as she begins the next chapter of her service at the State Department. Truly, their gain is our loss, yet it is without hesitation that I extend my deepest gratitude to Senator Clinton for her countless hours of service, her incredible example of compassion, and the years of friendship that she has extended to me, my colleagues, and the people of the United States. I am excited for what the future holds for Senator Clinton. I am certain that many great things still lie ahead in this next chapter of her life, and it is to Senator Clinton that I extend my congratulations as she begins her journey at the State Department. ken salazar

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the reintroduction of the Serve America Act. I, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts first introduced this legislation in the waning days of the 110th Congress, and I am proud to lend my support to the bill during this session. We are currently joined by 20 cosponsors, both Republican and Democrat. I have long been a supporter and advocate for volunteer service. I believe that, when private citizens offer their time and talents to serve in their communities, they benefit along with those they have helped. Furthermore, I believe that, if we can encourage people to volunteer their services in their towns and neighborhoods, we can better address our Nation's most pressing problems. The Serve America Act does many things. Most apparently, it creates new national service corps that will enlist the help of our people to address specific areas of national need, including education, energy efficiency, access to health care, economic opportunity for the disadvantaged, and disaster relief. It also encourages individuals and non-profit groups to come up with new and innovative ways to encourage volunteerism and to use the help of volunteers effectively. In addition, it enlists the help of the private sector in addressing important needs in our nation and community. As in the 110th Congress, Senator Kennedy and I have agreed that, when this bill goes through the HELP Committee, we will work together to ensure that the spending authorized in the bill will be offset. In this way, the bill will be budget-neutral, providing much needed assistance to the non-profit sector without adding to the Federal deficit. Indeed, the American people have made it clear time and again that they desire fiscal responsibility in Congress. Due to this agreement, the Serve America Act meets those demands. Senator Kennedy and I are also reintroducing the Incentive to Serve Tax Act as a companion piece to the Serve America Act. This bill would provide tax incentives to encourage companies to allow their employees to volunteer their services on company time. Specifically, the bill would provide companies a tax credit equal to 25 percent of the compensation paid to an employee who performs at least 160 hours of a specified charitable service. As you might know, a handful of large corporations presently have programs to provide managerial and educational workers to schools and community organizations. This tax incentive would encourage these companies to do even more as well as encourage other companies that, up to now, may not have been able to afford to provide such service. This will allow businesses to utilize their employees with various skills and knowledge to target specific areas that need to be addressed in the communities where those workers live and work. In the end, everyone will benefit. Mr. President, these two bills represent a bipartisan effort to harness the talents, generosity, and ingenuity of the American people. I believe that this is an effort that Members from both parties can and should support. I urge all my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to support this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the reintroduction of the Serve America Act. I, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts first introduced this legislation in the waning days of the 110th Congress, and I am proud to lend my support to the bill during this session. We are currently joined by 20 cosponsors, both Republican and Democrat. I have long been a supporter and advocate for volunteer service. I believe that, when private citizens offer their time and talents to serve in their communities, they benefit along with those they have helped. Furthermore, I believe that, if we can encourage people to volunteer their services in their towns and neighborhoods, we can better address our Nation's most pressing problems. The Serve America Act does many things. Most apparently, it creates new national service corps that will enlist the help of our people to address specific areas of national need, including education, energy efficiency, access to health care, economic opportunity for the disadvantaged, and disaster relief. It also encourages individuals and non-profit groups to come up with new and innovative ways to encourage volunteerism and to use the help of volunteers effectively. In addition, it enlists the help of the private sector in addressing important needs in our nation and community. As in the 110th Congress, Senator Kennedy and I have agreed that, when this bill goes through the HELP Committee, we will work together to ensure that the spending authorized in the bill will be offset. In this way, the bill will be budget-neutral, providing much needed assistance to the non-profit sector without adding to the Federal deficit. Indeed, the American people have made it clear time and again that they desire fiscal responsibility in Congress. Due to this agreement, the Serve America Act meets those demands. Senator Kennedy and I are also reintroducing the Incentive to Serve Tax Act as a companion piece to the Serve America Act. This bill would provide tax incentives to encourage companies to allow their employees to volunteer their services on company time. Specifically, the bill would provide companies a tax credit equal to 25 percent of the compensation paid to an employee who performs at least 160 hours of a specified charitable service. As you might know, a handful of large corporations presently have programs to provide managerial and educational workers to schools and community organizations. This tax incentive would encourage these companies to do even more as well as encourage other companies that, up to now, may not have been able to afford to provide such service. This will allow businesses to utilize their employees with various skills and knowledge to target specific areas that need to be addressed in the communities where those workers live and work. In the end, everyone will benefit. Mr. President, these two bills represent a bipartisan effort to harness the talents, generosity, and ingenuity of the American people. I believe that this is an effort that Members from both parties can and should support. I urge all my colleagues--Republicans and Democrats alike--to support this important legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. I am only going to take a few minutes, but I want to say a few things about my friend Joe Biden, certainly from this side of the aisle. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Senator Joe Biden as his service in the Senate representing the great state of Delaware ends and his service as our Nation's next Vice President is about to begin. Like everybody else, when I think of Joe Biden, I first think of his family. As important as the Senate has been in defining his illustrious career, the man we know has been defined by his wife Jill and his children. Senator Biden, were he never elected to the Senate or the Vice-Presidency, has succeeded and accomplished much in this life when you see the tremendous job he and Jill did in raising Beau, Hunter, and Ashley. Today, however, our remarks will focus on Senator Biden's legislative and other professional accomplishments. I can tell you firsthand that anyone would be hard pressed to find a more distinguished and effective legislator. In an age of endless cynicism toward our elected officials, let there be no doubt that the word ``distinguished'' is a truly fitting description of this extraordinary public servant. He is a friend of mine. I have been privileged to serve 32 years side by side with Joe Biden on the Judiciary Committee and I have nothing but respect for him. Most of our work together was on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Senator Biden served as chairman from 1985 until 1995. I served as ranking member for many of those years, and when I first served as chairman from 1995 to 1997, I had the good fortune of having Joe Biden as my partner on the committee, serving as ranking member. It was on the committee that I saw Senator Biden at work and learned a great deal. I can think of no chairman of the Judiciary Committee who had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish--a vision for the committee--than Senator Joe Biden. No one was more interested in the details of legislating than he was. The Violence Against Women Act, The Violent Crime Control Act of 1994, the drug czar's office and the COPS program all would not exist today were it not for his talents and leadership. In one of my proudest moments as a U.S. Senator, I was joined by Senator Biden here on the Senate floor to hail the passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President Bush signed into law a week later, June of 2006. Senator Biden and I had introduced the bill only a year earlier, and we worked hard to see its passage in a relatively short amount of time. The bill was very significant and the law has changed the landscape with regard to sentencing, monitoring, adjudicating, registering and tracking sexual predators. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden mastered the Senate's dying art of legislating because he valued legislating. Joe Biden is not just a speech giver--though he is good at giving a long speech--he is an exceptional legislator. Majority Leader George Mitchell said he was the best Senate floor strategist he had ever worked with, and coming from George Mitchell, that's saying something, because George Mitchell was one of the best Majority Leaders we have had in the Senate. There are few like Senator Biden left in the Senate who have the skill and patience to carefully and thoughtfully develop an idea for policy reform; craft what he believes to be the ideal bill; patiently--and with the long view--establish a record through hearings, reports, and media engagement; build institutional support by corralling colleagues and crafting compromise; and skillfully managing the bill's passage on the floor. Political pundits and the media have for decades tried to get a handle on what makes Joe Biden tick. Too often, they settled for the easy answer--Joe's ``a wild stallion that never felt the bridle'' or he is an ``unguided missile.'' That's nonsense. Senator Biden has proven himself to be an accomplished statesman with enormous personal vision. I am proud he is going to be our next Vice President of the United States serving with, as he said, the first African-American President. We are all proud of that and we should be, and we should do everything in our power to help. No one better captured the Joe Biden we know than the author Richard Ben Cramer, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his political reporting of the 1988 Presidential race in the classic book ``What It Takes.'' As a kid growing up in Scranton, ``there was (to be perfectly blunt, as Joe would say) a breathtaking element of balls.'' That was Richard Ben Cramer, not me. ``Joe Biden had balls. Lot of times more balls than sense. . . . What he was, was tough from the neck up. He knew what he wanted to do and he did it.'' Later in life as a lawyer, he applied that mental toughness and, another quote, ``cocky self-possession'' to his chosen career--politics. There, Joe Biden would envision what he wanted to achieve and how he wanted to achieve it. While the experts, staffers, and consultants we Senators come to rely on would buzz around him with advice and direction, Joe Biden would listen but know in his gut what to do. ``Joe could see the thing whole thing in his head, and what's more, he could talk it.'' In the end, what Joe Biden chose to take on and how he succeeded all rested on Joe's certainty. As Cramer wrote, ``Once he'd seen it . . . he knew what was supposed to happen . . . Hell, it was a done deal . . . and then it wasn't imagination, or even balls. Not to Joe Biden. It was destiny.'' That is from ``What It Takes,'' Richard Ben Cramer's book from 1993. The record of Joe Biden's life is clear. Mr. Vice President-elect, you have had ``what it takes'' to be an accomplished Senator, and you have ``what it takes'' to be our Nation's Vice President. Your tenure here has been marked with hard work, and much success, much pain, and much grief, much difficulty. Yet you remain humble and hardworking. The skills and abilities our Lord bestowed on you have been used mightily by you. Your integrity, truthfulness, and passion will continue to serve you and this great country of ours. I thank you for your service, and thank you for your friendship, thank you for your continued sacrifice on behalf of this great Nation, and I tell you personally that I love you. I appreciate you very much. I care for you. I care for your family. We are going to be helpful to you as Vice President of the United States. And we hope you will not screw it up too badly there. We are going to be right there with you, if we can. Joe, we are proud of you and we ask God to bless you.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. (After his name was called) Mr. President, on this vote, Senator Kennedy is absent. If he were present, he would have voted nay. If I were to vote, I would vote yea. Therefore, I withhold my vote.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to offer some thoughts and observations about the Presidency of George W. Bush as his time in office comes to a close. This is truly a time to thank God for our country, for our system of government, and for our liberty-- unparalleled in the history of the world. President Bush served at a time of great challenge and even crisis for our country and I wish to focus on him both as a President and a person. When America's Founders gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, it is said someone asked Benjamin Franklin, the Constitutional Convention's oldest delegate, what form of government was under construction. He famously answered: A republic, if you can keep it. James Madison defined a republic as a government which derives its powers from the people, a principle enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. One way we work to keep our Republic is by the people choosing those who will govern them. In his farewell address in 1837, President Andrew Jackson said: But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. Elections and transitions of power are part of that vigilance; part of keeping our Republic in order that we might, in the words of the Constitution's preamble, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Every transition goes from something to something and is an occasion to look at what is concluded as well as what is beginning. With the inauguration of President-elect Obama around the corner and the flurry of confirmation activity in the Senate regarding his nominees and the intense focus on economic and other challenges, much of our attention is rightfully focused on the future. But we look to the future from a present shaped by the past. Only by understanding where we have been can we have the ability, perspective, and confidence to act today and plan for tomorrow. Although a Presidency has a beginning and an end, it is simply part of the flow of events. Presidents inherit situations they did not create and create situations that they then leave to their successors. They may get credit for successes they did not produce and escape blame for failures that do not materialize until after they leave office. That is the nature of political life in America. While we focus on the individual--the President--I think it is more appropriate to speak of an administration--the Presidency. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who serve at the pleasure of the President to develop and implement his agenda. All this makes very difficult even describing, let alone evaluating, something as multifaceted as the Bush Presidency. Some of President Bush's critics almost reflexively look at opinion polls, noting his approval rating has sunk. I do not have to tell anyone serving in public office about the allure as well as the danger of this particular reflex. Polls are snapshots, they are not motion pictures. The pollster is the photographer. He chooses the subject, the lighting, and the angle. He frames the shot and determines how the final picture turns out. The Bush Presidency was book-ended by national crises--the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the financial crisis before us today. Not surprisingly, as the Washington Post pointed out a few days ago, President Bush enjoyed the highest approval rating in late 2001 and nearly the lowest in late 2008 in the history of the Post's reporting. Once again, that is the nature of political life in America and comes with the Presidential territory. While President Bush's approval rating has many ups and downs, one thing has remained absolutely constant: His approval rating has been consistently higher than ours in the Congress. The Web site pollingreport.com shows that dozens of national polls in the last couple years have given Congress an approval rating in the tens, down to a measly 12 percent, while President Bush has never had one that low. We in the Congress have the advantage of getting lost in the crowd when we want to, blaming such dismal public sentiment on the institution, while insisting that as individual Members we are certainly much more popular. The President never has that luxury. The polls do not ask whether Americans approve of his administration but whether they approve of him. President Bush knows it is tough to lead if you follow the polls. As he said in an interview last month, he did not compromise his soul to be a popular guy. George W. Bush is not leaving the Presidency with chapped fingers from holding them up to the political wind. His critics spin that as stubbornness, saying he wants to go it alone. I fully expect many of those same Bush critics will praise the next President for the very same thing. One man's principle, I suppose, is another man's inflexibility. But as President Bush said at Texas A&M University, popularity is fleeting but character and conscience are sturdy. The only test that matters, he said, is going home at night, looking in the mirror and being satisfied that you have done what is right. Politics, of course, is about disagreement and competing ideas, priorities, and policies. Conservative leader and thinker Paul Weyrich, who passed away last month, has written about what he called constructive polarization. That is the idea that clearly defined, and clearly different, choices and alternatives can be constructive for the electoral and political process. Disagreement and competition help us to focus and refine ideas, to work harder at finding the best solution. But I regret to say that there is often today more effort at enraging than engaging, and that along with disagreement has come disrespect. Too often an opponent is treated not simply as wrong but as rotten, and that is when the distinction between an office and the individual who holds it breaks down and political objectives take precedence over institutional principles. I have seen that destructive trend over the last 8 years and I hope, for the sake of the next president and for our country, it does not continue. I join President Bush who has said that the tone in Washington got worse rather than better during his presidency and I urge my colleagues, and all others who participate in so many ways in our political process, to do some real soul-searching about this. In addition to looking at the polls, it is easy when looking back at a presidency to look no further than the most recent events. The financial and economic situation has deteriorated so fast in the last several months, and the difficulties have spread so quickly and loom so large, that it is difficult to see anything that came before. The truth is, however, that we experienced a record economic expansion before that downturn occurred, 52 months of uninterrupted job creation. Another mistake in evaluating a Presidency is a simple one. We act as if we know everything that can be known, that the jury could possibly have already come back with the verdict. The jury is still out, and will remain there for a long time, which is why we more properly talk about history judging a President. As President Bush put it in one interview, folks are still writing books analyzing President George Washington. President George Bush is not going to worry about it. President Harry Truman's own party discouraged him from running for re- election and he left office with an approval rating even lower than President Bush will, yet today is mentioned among the twentieth century's best presidents, and one of my personal favorite Presidents of all time. The facts of what President Bush has done, not to mention their effects, will not be fully understood or even known by most Americans for many years to come. In evaluating a Presidency, we should also look not only at individual programs or neatly numerical accomplishments but also at the challenges than cannot be reduced to charts, graphs, or bullet points. President Bush certainly came into office with goals to achieve, problems to solve, and situations to handle. He had offered concrete proposals and made campaign promises. There is a long list of bills he signed, programs he initiated, appointments he made, and other concrete achievements that can be measured and listed. I will mention some of those in a minute. But the President-elect has already shown us how quickly those promises get tossed on the cutting-room floor. The Washington Post just reported that, before Mr. Obama has even taken the oath of office, his proposal for a tax credit for job creation, which he had touted on the campaign trail, has been dumped from the economic stimulus package now under construction. But in addition to specific programs or proposals, President Bush has worked hard to get us to think differently, to shift paradigms, to re- order our understanding of America, the world, and our relationship to it. That is more qualitative than quantitative, and perhaps it is harder to measure with numbers or notches on a board somewhere, but it is as much a part of leadership and vigilance that is necessary to keep this Republic as anything else. We are in the eighth year since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. What a way for a President to begin his first term. The world changed, and American changed with it. Previous generations saw the struggle against global communism define much of what America did and how we did it. Today, it is the struggle against global terrorism. It may have begun in earnest with President Bush in office, but it will continue long afterward. And so national security has defined the Bush Presidency. Not simply the subject of national security, but the reality of national security. From retooling the Department of Justice and FBI, creating the Department of Homeland Security, revamping the intelligence community, to engaging dozens of other nations, and liberating millions in the Middle East, President Bush took bold steps to confront this new international menace. In short, he led. President Bush has sought to lead us to think differently about war and terrorism, and to understand both that terrorism is a global threat and that freedom is terrorism's worst enemy. He has said throughout his Presidency that freedom comes from God and is a universal human right. Freedom is better than tyranny, liberty is better than oppression. I am so grateful that President Bush refused to accept this moral- equivalency nonsense that one way of life is just as good or bad as the next. Not only does that view make no sense on its face, but with it no one would ever see liberation from disease, hunger, slavery, or deprivation. That is a philosophical perspective, to be sure, and perhaps it is difficult to communicate in the 21st century, perhaps it does not lend itself to a text message or a posting on Facebook. But where you start determines the road on which you travel and where you eventually arrive, both for individuals and nations. President Bush told the American Enterprise Institute last month that a President's job is not only to tackle problems but to look over the horizon. That is real leadership. Let me move to some of those concrete accomplishments. Though some may wish to forget it, I remember when so many dismissed President Bush's strategy in Iraq that we have come to call ``the surge.'' Once again, he was thinking outside the box, changing the way we think about dealing with challenges and problems. The surge was more than simply sending more troops to Iraq, but implemented a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. It provided for one of the most dramatic comebacks in the history of modern warfare. In less than 2 years, what some had said was a hopeless situation saw an 80 percent reduction in violence. Cities and provinces whose names were literal synonyms for violence-- Ramadi, Fallujah, Baghdad, and others--are now largely free of al- Qaida's operatives. And let me say at this point that President Bush has reaffirmed our sacred commitment to our veterans. His administration has more than doubled funding for veterans' medical care, cutting the time to process disability claims almost in half and reducing homelessness among veterans by 40 percent. It is, of course, much easier, much more natural, to think about what has happened rather than what has not happened. This is true for many reasons, not the least of which is that we often simply do not know what has not happened. But think about this. We do know that America has not been attacked since September 11, 2001. That is 88 months. I know that no one listening to me speak is foolish enough to think this is because the terrorists, the terrorist networks, the terrorist movement at work today have simply lost interest. No one is foolish enough to think the terrorists have just moved on to other things. No, they want more than ever to attack and destroy this country, if only because their first attack failed to bring us down. It has not happened in more than 7 years. President Bush's leadership has helped prevent another attack. His leadership in creating an international coalition, in working with other individual nations, in transforming and redirecting intelligence and law enforcement agencies, has helped prevent another attack. We have fought over these issues here in Congress, and I for one agree with President Bush that we must, for example, monitor international communication involving suspected terrorists if we are to protect ourselves. Doing so is both necessary and constitutional, and I am glad President Bush stood firm on those principles. President Bush has also helped protect us here at home by reducing the threat of rogue nations or groups launching a missile attack against the United States. President Bush fielded an operational missile defense system, which will require additional investment and development. But because of his leadership, we have already developed significant anti-ballistic missile capability both on the ground and at sea. Also looking abroad, President Bush has led us to rethink how we approach foreign aid with a new model of assistance to other countries. He signed millennium challenge account agreements with nearly a dozen African nations and put more emphasis on holding governments that receive our aid accountable for how they treat their people and whether they promote economic growth. This approach actually invites competition, utilizes criteria, and requires progress, and it requires a strong link between our security objectives, accountability, and foreign-assistance funding. Linking these together serves both American and foreign interests better and it took bold leadership to shift into this new way of approaching foreign assistance. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush introduced the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. I happened to have been very interested in that and worked hard to get that done, too, because--along with Senator Kennedy--we are the authors of these three anti-AIDS bills, so I take a great interest in what he has done and he is the first to have really done it. This program focuses on both prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and care. Billions of dollars have already gone to prevent the spread of HIV/ AIDS and opportunistic diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis that often kill people with AIDS. This program has prevented HIV transmission from mother to child during more than 12 million pregnancies and provided antiretroviral drugs for nearly 2 million people, up from only 50,000 receiving such drugs when the program began. PEPFAR has helped support care for nearly 7 million children and more than 33 million counseling and testing sessions for men, women, and children. This program launched by President Bush, which was reauthorized last year with increased funding, is the largest international health initiative in history dedicated to a single disease. Shifting the focus to right here at home, even though the downturn of the last year has been severe, it was preceded by a record 52 months of job creation. Productivity in his first term grew at the fastest rate in more than half a century. Before the recent spike, the average seasonally adjusted unemployment rate during President Bush's tenure was the lowest in 60 years. President Bush cut taxes for every American who pays taxes, doubled the child tax credit to help American families, provided marriage penalty relief, and began phasing out the estate tax. The roots of the current financial crisis extend before President Bush took office and his warnings went unheeded. In April 2001, just 3 months in office, he warned that financial trouble at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have strong repercussions in financial markets. In May 2002, he called for disclosure and corporate governance principles to be applied to those agencies. In February 2003, the Bush administration warned that unexpected problems at Fannie and Freddie could immediately spread beyond the housing market. Seven months later, the Treasury Secretary called for prudent minimum capital adequacy requirements for Fannie and Freddie. In February 2004, President Bush called for stronger regulation of Fannie and Freddie because of their low levels of required capital, that is, subprime mortgages. Warnings continued month after month, year after year. The notion that the Bush administration sat by while the problem developed or, worse yet, fought increased regulation is simply a lie. President Bush campaigned on education reform, having the courage to speak of what he called the bigotry of low expectations. He delivered education reform with the No Child Left Behind Act, and I can tell you what a difference it has made. One example is Dee Elementary School in Ogden, UT. Nearly every student in that school is economically disadvantaged, more than 80 percent are minorities, more than 44 percent are learning the English language, and 10 percent are homeless. Those are challenging demographics no matter where they are found. At the beginning of the 2003-04 school year, only 13 percent of Dee Elementary third-graders were reading at grade level. In just 5 years, after Dee Elementary was chosen to participate in the Reading First program, that figure quadrupled to 52 percent. The school jumped from only the 9th percentile in fifth grade reading to the 43rd percentile. And I am so proud to say that Dee Elementary has now met Adequate Yearly Progress standards for 3 consecutive years. Lives are changed, hopes are kindled, and futures are brighter as a result. Empowering teachers to help students meet higher expectations works, and that has become Federal educational policy under President Bush. The educational achievement gap between White and minority students narrowed and both fourth and eighth graders achieved their highest reading and math scores on record. I am hopeful that the new President's Secretary of Education will recognize and build on the reform-oriented approach of the Bush administration through supporting policies such as charter schools and school choice. President Bush campaigned on Medicare reform, and he delivered with the Medicare Modernization Act, the most significant reform of the Medicare Program since it was created in 1965. As a result of this law, 40 million Americans have better access to prescriptions and have choices in their health coverage. It also provided for health savings accounts, which President Bush insisted not be limited solely to Medicare beneficiaries. These accounts are portable and give people more choices and more ways to improve their lives. I served on the House-Senate conference committee on this legislation and attribute its success to President Bush's leadership. President Bush has challenged all Americans, and his own party, to change the way we address real human needs in this country. This includes increasing the impact of nonprofit organizations, ending discrimination against faith-based groups that can provide services, and promoting volunteerism. As a result, chronic homelessness has dropped by nearly 30 percent in just the last few years. President Bush also advanced a culture of life. Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that we are endowed by our Creator with an inalienable right to life. That is a foundational principle. In an interview a year ago, President Bush said that his belief that every human life has dignity has informed his policies and programs. I do not understand where the compassion and commitment comes from for hundreds of programs and billions of dollars to help millions of people without believing that those people's very lives are worth protecting. The conviction that life itself is sacred is the best foundation for liberty and prosperity, for human and civil rights. President Bush shares that conviction and signed into law the ban on the horrific practice of partial birth abortion, which the Supreme Court has upheld. He also signed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. President Bush also appointed judges who know their proper place in our system of government. Our liberty depends on limited government, and that means government limited by a written Constitution that actually means something. The Constitution cannot limit government if government defines the Constitution. President Bush appointed judges who know that this principle applies to them. This is one of the most important, and most long-lasting, results of President Bush's leadership. Others believe that judges not only apply the law, but make the law they apply. Others believe that judges should decide cases based on where their personal empathy lies, based on the political interests that can be served. Others believe that judges should take sides in a case before those sides even appear in court. That activist, politicized view of judging will destroy our liberty and I am glad that President Bush sided with America's Founders and appointed judges who will interpret and apply the law and leave politics to the people. President Bush charted a new course for energy security. This is another area which the recent financial crisis can easily obscure, but President Bush's first order of business was producing a major energy plan and task force. That plan became the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It included a proposal I authored called the CLEAR Act, which provided incentives for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles. President Bush's advocacy of plug-in hybrid vehicle technology resulted in passage of the FREEDOM Act, which I drafted along with Senators Barack Obama and Maria Cantwell. And President Bush called for developing our Nation's unconventional fuel resources, including oil shale and tar sand. Only the most willful denial or ideological distortion will buy the spin from environmental extremists that President Bush has done nothing to protect the environment or to move us away from our dependence on oil. At the same time, knowing that our current transportation needs depend on oil, President Bush has led the way to doubling domestic oil and gas production on public lands. I could go on about issue after issue, listing one accomplishment after another, but my remarks today are intended to be more than just a factual recitation. Many others are writing and analyzing the Bush presidency and record from many different perspectives. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an editorial titled ``Bush's Achievements'' from the January 19 issue of the Weekly Standard printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Before I close, I have to say a word about our wonderful and gracious First Lady, Laura Bush. Her strength, dignity, and grace will leave a lasting mark on the role of First Lady. She was a kind, steady presence, advocating for causes in her own right as the President led the Nation in his. And in times of great tragedy, she was the voice and personification of comfort and kindness. She confidently balanced the public and private aspects of life and family. Like her husband, Laura Bush was just what our country needed. President Bush has been our leader, our chosen leader, for the past 8 years. He has been a man of principle, conviction, and action. He has had to tackle challenges, both here and abroad, that are difficult even to describe, let alone comprehend. There have been many successes, and this has been a time of transition, adjustment, and change. President Bush, as is his way, takes a very practical view of his contribution to America. He says he will be remembered as someone who dealt with tough issues head on, helping our country protect itself, and who was unashamed about spreading certain fundamental values such as liberty. At home, he says, he trusts individual Americans to make the best decisions for themselves and their families. In his last State of the Union Address, President Bush said that our Nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and our union will remain strong if we trust in the ability of free people to make decisions. Protecting America from outside enemies and strengthening America from within. That is a legacy to be proud of, and I am so thankful for President Bush's leadership and courage and I pray for God's richest blessings for him, for First Lady Laura Bush, and their family in whatever lies ahead for them. Let me close with a quote from President Theodore Roosevelt, whom I know President Bush admires. President Roosevelt said this in Paris in 1910 and it expresses my sentiments about President Bush as his time in office ends. It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat. Exhibit 1 [From the weekly Standard, Jan. 19, 2009] Bush's Achievements--Ten Things the President Got Right. (By Fred Barnes) The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America's position in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of them--have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else. He deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there's an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That-- defiantly doing the right thing--is what distinguished his presidency. Bush had ten great achievements (and maybe more) in his eight years in the White House, starting with his decision in 2001 to jettison the Kyoto global warming treaty so loved by Al Gore, the environmental lobby, elite opinion, and Europeans. The treaty was a disaster, with India and China exempted and economic decline the certain result. Everyone knew it. But only Bush said so and acted accordingly. He stood athwart mounting global warming hysteria and yelled, ``Stop!'' He slowed the movement toward a policy blunder of worldwide impact, providing time for facts to catch up with the dubious claims of alarmists. Thanks in part to Bush, the supposed consensus of scientists on global warming has now collapsed. The skeptics, who point to global cooling over the past decade, are now heard loud and clear. And a rational approach to the theory of manmade global warming is possible. Second, enhanced interrogation of terrorists. Along with use of secret prisons and wireless eavesdropping, this saved American lives. How many thousands of lives? We'll never know. But, as Charles Krauthammer said recently, ``Those are precisely the elements which kept us safe and which have prevented a second attack.'' Crucial intelligence was obtained from captured al Qaeda leaders, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with the help of waterboarding. Whether this tactic--it creates a drowning sensation--is torture is a matter of debate. John McCain and many Democrats say it is. Bush and Vice President Cheney insist it isn't. In any case, it was necessary. Lincoln once made a similar point in defending his suspension of habeas corpus in direct defiance of Chief Justice Roger Taney. ``Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?'' Lincoln asked. Bush understood the answer in wartime had to be no. Bush's third achievement was the rebuilding of presidential authority, badly degraded in the era of Vietnam, Watergate, and Bill Clinton. He didn't hesitate to conduct wireless surveillance of terrorists without getting a federal judge's okay. He decided on his own how to treat terrorists and where they should be imprisoned. Those were legitimate decisions for which the president, as commander in chief, should feel no need to apologize. Defending, all the way to the Supreme Court, Cheney's refusal to disclose to Congress the names of people he'd consulted on energy policy was also enormously important. Democratic congressman Henry Waxman demanded the names, but the Court upheld Cheney, 7-2. Last week, Cheney defended his refusal, waspishly noting that Waxman ``doesn't call me up and tell me who he's meeting with.'' Achievement number four was Bush's unswerving support for Israel. Reagan was once deemed Israel's best friend in the White House. Now Bush can claim the title. He ostracized Yasser Arafat as an impediment to peace in the Middle East. This infuriated the anti-Israel forces in Europe, the Third World, and the United Nations, and was criticized by champions of the ``peace process'' here at home. Bush was right. He was clever in his support. Bush announced that Ariel Sharon should withdraw the tanks he'd sent into the West Bank in 2002, then exerted zero pressure on Sharon to do so. And he backed the wall along Israel's eastern border without endorsing it as an official boundary, while knowing full well that it might eventually become exactly that. He was a loyal friend. His fifth success was No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the education reform bill cosponsored by America's most prominent liberal Democratic senator Edward Kennedy. The teachers' unions, school boards, the education establishment, conservatives adamant about local control of schools--they all loathed the measure and still do. It requires two things they ardently oppose, mandatory testing and accountability. Kennedy later turned against NCLB, saying Bush is shortchanging the program. In truth, federal education spending is at record levels. Another complaint is that it forces teachers to ``teach to the test.'' The tests are on math and reading. They are tests worth teaching to. Sixth, Bush declared in his second inaugural address in 2005 that American foreign policy (at least his) would henceforth focus on promoting democracy around the world. This put him squarely in the Reagan camp, but he was lambasted as unrealistic, impractical, and a tool of wily neoconservatives. The new policy gave Bush credibility in pressing for democracy in the former Soviet republics and Middle East and in zinging various dictators and kleptocrats. It will do the same for President Obama, if he's wise enough to hang onto it. The seventh achievement is the Medicare prescription drug benefit, enacted in 2003. It's not only wildly popular; it has cost less than expected by triggering competition among drug companies. Conservatives have deep reservations about the program. But they shouldn't have been surprised. Bush advocated the drug benefit in the 2000 campaign. And if he hadn't acted, Democrats would have, with a much less attractive result. Then there were John Roberts and Sam Alito. In putting them on the Supreme Court and naming Roberts chief justice, Bush achieved what had eluded Richard Nixon, Reagan, and his own father. Roberts and Alito made the Court indisputably more conservative. And the good news is Roberts, 53, and Alito, 58, should be justices for decades to come. Bush's ninth achievement has been widely ignored. He strengthened relations with east Asian democracies (Japan, South Korea, Australia) without causing a rift with China. On top of that, he forged strong ties with India. An important factor was their common enemy, Islamic jihadists. After 9/11, Bush made the most of this, and Indian leaders were receptive. His state dinner for Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh in 2006 was a lovefest. Finally, a no-brainer: the surge. Bush prompted nearly unanimous disapproval in January 2007 when he announced he was sending more troops to Iraq and adopting a new counterinsurgency strategy. His opponents initially included the State Department, the Pentagon, most of Congress, the media, the foreign policy establishment, indeed the whole world. This makes his decision a profile in courage. Best of all, the surge worked. Iraq is now a fragile but functioning democracy. How does Bush rank as a president? We won't know until he's judged from the perspective of two or three decades. Hindsight forced a sharp upgrading of the presidencies of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Given his achievements, it may have the same effect for Bush.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise today to honor my good friend Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader whose strong leadership, sterling example and wise counsel have earned him an honored position within the ranks of the extraordinary public servants who now serve or have served in the U.S. Senate. Senator McConnell is the second Kentuckian to lead his party in the U.S. Senate, the first being Senator Alben Barkley, who led Senate Democrats from 1937 to 1949. Mitch is now the longest-serving Republican Senator in Kentucky history, eclipsing the previous record held by the legendary Senator John Sherman Cooper. Today, Senator McConnell has been serving as a U.S. Senator for almost a quarter century. During that time, four U.S. Presidents, scores of colleagues, and several crises have come and gone, but Mitch has carried on with courage, boldness and steadfastness. He has weathered the most turbulent political seas and has always been a calming influence on his Senate colleagues while at the helm. Few would have predicted that Senator McConnell would have such staying power when he was first elected to the Senate in 1984 by a razor-thin margin--less than half a percentage point. But political pundits and prognosticators often only skim the surface or state the obvious and give short shrift to the characteristics that matter most in the making of an outstanding leader. In other words, they didn't really know Mitch McConnell. They didn't know about how he overcame polio at age 2, undergoing an intensive therapy regimen at the Roosevelt Warm Springs Institute for Rehabilitation and obeying doctors' orders not to walk or run for 2 years. That took determination, and Mitch showed that early on. Senator McConnell's service to his State and Nation is as varied as it is impressive. After serving as a student body president and graduating with honors at the University of Louisville College of Arts and Sciences in 1964, he went on to law school at the University of Kentucky, where he was elected president of the Student Bar Association and earned a law degree. He followed that by working as an intern for Senator John Sherman Cooper and as a chief legislative assistant to Senator Marlow Cook, which provided him with invaluable experience in Washington, DC. Other stints followed: He was deputy attorney general under President Gerald R. Ford and a county judge-executive in Kentucky until he was sworn in as a U.S. Senator on Jan. 3, 1985. In whatever position Senator McConnell has served, he has unfailingly served with distinction. I have had the good fortune of working with Mitch for years, dating back to his election as a freshman Senator, when he became the first Republican to win a statewide race in Kentucky since 1968. In fact, Mitch was the only Republican in the Nation in 1984 to defeat a Democrat incumbent. To his considerable credit, Mitch has been defying the odds ever since. For example, during his tenure as chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the late 1990s and early 2000s, the Republicans controlled the Senate--in large part due to his leadership. Mitch McConnell is a conservative's conservative who gets high marks from the American Conservative Union and all who know him. Moreover, he is a scholar and able defender of the Constitution and this great country. Knowing just how deadly terrorists can be, he is deadly serious about protecting America. He also is an outspoken advocate of the first amendment and a tremendous parliamentary tactician. When Mitch McConnell talks, people listen and pay heed--almost always with excellent results. As good a Senator as Mitch is, he is an even better man--one who places principals above partisanship. His love for his State and our Nation is second to none. He also is loyal, honest and unflappable, which explains why he is held in such high esteem by his Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Mitch is a devoted family man. He is the proud father of three beautiful daughters and the loving husband of outgoing U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. And he is utterly devoted to the people of Kentucky he so ably represents and honors with his stellar service. At this time, I wish my colleague and dear friend success, health and happiness as he continues his leadership and service in the 111th Congress. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to work with him over the years and look forward to continuing to serve together in tackling the tremendous challenges confronting our great Nation. I honor him and his wife Elaine for their service and sacrifices and ask for God's blessings on them both. both.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I did in the last Congress, I am cosponsoring the legislation introduced today by the Senator from Connecticut to provide a House seat for the District of Columbia and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that no right is more precious in a free country than having a voice in the election of those who govern us. I continue to believe what I stated more than 30 years ago here on the Senate floor, that Americans living in the District should enjoy all the privileges of citizenship, including voting rights. The bill introduced today would treat the District of Columbia as a congressional district to provide for full representation in the House. The bill states, however, that the District shall not be treated as a State for representation in this body. No matter how worthwhile or even compelling an objective might be, however, we cannot legislatively pursue it without authority grounded in the Constitution. I would note that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress legislative authority over the District ``in all cases whatsoever.'' This authority is unparalleled in scope and has been called sweeping, plenary, and extraordinary by the courts. It surpasses both the authority a State legislature has over its own State and the authority Congress has over legislation affecting the States. Some have argued that despite the centrality of representation and suffrage, and notwithstanding our unparalleled and plenary authority over the District, that Congress cannot provide a House seat for the District by legislation. They base their argument on a single word. Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen by the people of the several States. Because the District is not a State, the argument goes, it cannot have a House seat without a constitutional amendment, I studied this issue extensively and published my analysis and conclusions in the Harvard Journal on Legislation for everyone to consider. I ask unanimous consent that this article be made part of the Record following my remarks. Let me here just mention a few considerations that I found persuasive. First, as I have already mentioned, the default position of our system of government is representation and suffrage. That principle is so fundamental that, in this case, I believe there must be actual evidence that America's founders intended to deny it to District residents, No such evidence exists. Second, establishing and maintaining the District as a separate political jurisdiction does not require disenfranchising its residents. The founders wanted the capital to be free from State control and I support keeping it that way. Giving the District a House seat changes neither that status nor Congress' legislative authority over the District. Third, America's founders not only did not intend to disenfranchise District residents, they demonstrated the opposite intention by their own legislative actions. In 1790, Congress provided by legislation for Americans living in the land ceded for the District to vote in congressional elections. No one even suggested that this legislation was unconstitutional because that land was not part of a State. If Congress could do it then, Congress can do it today. Fourth, courts have held for more than two centuries that constitutional provisions framed in terms of States can be applied to the District or that Congress can legislatively accomplish for the District what the Constitution accomplishes for States. Congress, for example, has authority to regulate commerce among the several States. The Supreme Court held in 1889 that this applies to the District. Do opponents of giving the District a House seat believe Congress cannot regulate commerce involving the District? The original Constitution provided that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over the District allows taxation of the District. Do opponents of giving the District a House seat believe that the District is suitable for taxation but not for representation? The Constitution provides that federal courts may review lawsuits between citizens of different States. The Supreme Court held in 1805 that Congress can legislatively extend this to the District even though the Constitution does not. The list goes on involving provisions of the Constitution, statues, and even treaties. Over and over, courts have ruled either that provisions framed in terms of States can be directly applied to the District or that Congress can legislatively do so. Perhaps opponents of giving the District a House seat believe that all of these decisions over more than two centuries were wrong, that the word States begins and ends the discussion in every case. They cannot say so in the present case without confronting those precedents. These and other considerations which I discussed in the article I mentioned have led me to conclude that the Constitution allows Congress legislatively to provide a House seat for the District. I do want to repeat my continuing opposition to District representation in the Senate. The District's status as a non-State jurisdiction is not relevant to representation in the House, which was designed to represent people, but it is relevant to representation in the Senate, which was designed to represent states. I would once again emphasize that the bill introduced today explicitly disclaims Senate representation for the District. In December 2006, I signed a letter to the majority and minority leaders expressing the same position I had taken three decades earlier. It stated that while there are many differences between Utah and the District, to be sure, they share the right to be represented in our country's legislature. I take the same position today, believing that Congress may and should pass the bill introduced today to provide for that representation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I did in the last Congress, I am cosponsoring the legislation introduced today by the Senator from Connecticut to provide a House seat for the District of Columbia and an additional House seat for Utah. Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that no right is more precious in a free country than having a voice in the election of those who govern us. I continue to believe what I stated more than 30 years ago here on the Senate floor, that Americans living in the District should enjoy all the privileges of citizenship, including voting rights. The bill introduced today would treat the District of Columbia as a congressional district to provide for full representation in the House. The bill states, however, that the District shall not be treated as a State for representation in this body. No matter how worthwhile or even compelling an objective might be, however, we cannot legislatively pursue it without authority grounded in the Constitution. I would note that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress legislative authority over the District ``in all cases whatsoever.'' This authority is unparalleled in scope and has been called sweeping, plenary, and extraordinary by the courts. It surpasses both the authority a State legislature has over its own State and the authority Congress has over legislation affecting the States. Some have argued that despite the centrality of representation and suffrage, and notwithstanding our unparalleled and plenary authority over the District, that Congress cannot provide a House seat for the District by legislation. They base their argument on a single word. Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen by the people of the several States. Because the District is not a State, the argument goes, it cannot have a House seat without a constitutional amendment, I studied this issue extensively and published my analysis and conclusions in the Harvard Journal on Legislation for everyone to consider. I ask unanimous consent that this article be made part of the Record following my remarks. Let me here just mention a few considerations that I found persuasive. First, as I have already mentioned, the default position of our system of government is representation and suffrage. That principle is so fundamental that, in this case, I believe there must be actual evidence that America's founders intended to deny it to District residents, No such evidence exists. Second, establishing and maintaining the District as a separate political jurisdiction does not require disenfranchising its residents. The founders wanted the capital to be free from State control and I support keeping it that way. Giving the District a House seat changes neither that status nor Congress' legislative authority over the District. Third, America's founders not only did not intend to disenfranchise District residents, they demonstrated the opposite intention by their own legislative actions. In 1790, Congress provided by legislation for Americans living in the land ceded for the District to vote in congressional elections. No one even suggested that this legislation was unconstitutional because that land was not part of a State. If Congress could do it then, Congress can do it today. Fourth, courts have held for more than two centuries that constitutional provisions framed in terms of States can be applied to the District or that Congress can legislatively accomplish for the District what the Constitution accomplishes for States. Congress, for example, has authority to regulate commerce among the several States. The Supreme Court held in 1889 that this applies to the District. Do opponents of giving the District a House seat believe Congress cannot regulate commerce involving the District? The original Constitution provided that direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress' legislative authority over the District allows taxation of the District. Do opponents of giving the District a House seat believe that the District is suitable for taxation but not for representation? The Constitution provides that federal courts may review lawsuits between citizens of different States. The Supreme Court held in 1805 that Congress can legislatively extend this to the District even though the Constitution does not. The list goes on involving provisions of the Constitution, statues, and even treaties. Over and over, courts have ruled either that provisions framed in terms of States can be directly applied to the District or that Congress can legislatively do so. Perhaps opponents of giving the District a House seat believe that all of these decisions over more than two centuries were wrong, that the word States begins and ends the discussion in every case. They cannot say so in the present case without confronting those precedents. These and other considerations which I discussed in the article I mentioned have led me to conclude that the Constitution allows Congress legislatively to provide a House seat for the District. I do want to repeat my continuing opposition to District representation in the Senate. The District's status as a non-State jurisdiction is not relevant to representation in the House, which was designed to represent people, but it is relevant to representation in the Senate, which was designed to represent states. I would once again emphasize that the bill introduced today explicitly disclaims Senate representation for the District. In December 2006, I signed a letter to the majority and minority leaders expressing the same position I had taken three decades earlier. It stated that while there are many differences between Utah and the District, to be sure, they share the right to be represented in our country's legislature. I take the same position today, believing that Congress may and should pass the bill introduced today to provide for that representation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one of the most renowned former Members of this legislative body once said ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' With bailout after bailout, asking what our country can do for failing companies seems to be the norm. Today, it appears that our Government has become the backstop to financing private companies to hope for long-term viability. The biggest three U.S. automobile manufacturers, Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford, are asking Congress to provide a loan in order for them to weather a recession and give them time to restructure. What we need to decide is not whether we will assist, but how we will assist the troubled auto industry. While I believe there are already some measures in place to assist the automakers, it would be beneficial to examine whether these measures are sufficient. If these measures are insufficient, we should look to what can be done to change our system so that it benefits both the auto industry and the taxpayer. Most Americans are asking how the big three found themselves in this mess. The big three are victims of a financial perfect storm. Our failing economy toppled an industry that was already facing stiff foreign competition, mounting legacy costs, government mandates, and poor management decisions. The dramatic decline in automobile sales worldwide shows that the decline of the big three is not solely the result of poor management. All auto sales, both foreign and domestic, have declined significantly for 13 straight months. The sales rate last month was the worst in nearly 30 years, since October 1982. In November, sales declined at rate of 36.7 percent from the same month a year ago. It was also the worst month on record for Asian automakers. Legacy costs primarily refer to a company's obligations from pervious years, such as costs the big three pay for health care and pensions under defined-benefit plans for current employees and retirees. Furthermore, the auto industry has been forced to pay union workers for shifts even when those workers are not working. It is estimated that the big three pay each hourly autoworker $70 an hour in wages and current and future benefits. In October 2005, a Detroit News article illustrated this burden. ``Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant, signs in, and then starts working--on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits.'' The article further explains that ``Ken Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers and Delphi Corp. as part of an extraordinary job security agreement with the United Auto Workers union.'' While the United Auto Workers have conceded to temporarily suspending the job bank and delaying payments to their retirement and health care funds for current and future employees, these costs have already burdened the auto industry. It might be too little too late. We need to enact measures that will ensure that the unions can no longer create unreasonable mandates on our auto industry. We need to ensure that these burdens do not persist. To overcome these burdens, the big three say they were already in the process of restructuring. Chrysler has eliminated 1.2 million units of capacity and reduced fixed costs by $2.4 billion. It has increased its manufacturing productivity by 32 percent over the past 7 years. General Motors has made substantial progress in narrowing the gap with foreign competition in quality, productivity, and fuel efficiency. In other markets, such as China, Latin America and Russia, GM has grown rapidly and outperformed the competition. Unfortunately, our failing economy has prevented these companies from reaping the benefits of their restructuring. The normal rules of a free market economy dictate that if a company runs out of money, then the company must close its doors. We have already changed these rules by providing bankruptcy protection. In ancient Greece, a banker conducted business transactions on a bench. When the banker could no longer lend or meet his obligations, the banker would symbolically break his bench. A broken bench in Latin is referred to as ``bankus ruptus'', which is the origin for the word ``bankruptcy.'' It used to be that a person who became bankrupt and could no longer pay his debts was considered a criminal. In the United States, however, bankruptcy laws were established during harsh economic times when a mass amount of people could no longer pay their debts. Those who were willing to work toward repayment of debts would be allowed to cancel existing debts and be protected from creditors. In the 1980s, an escalating number of bankruptcies inundated our courts. A ``pre- packaged bankruptcy'' was developed to allow companies and creditors to submit prenegotiated bankruptcy petitions to ensure a timely and cost- effective bankruptcy proceeding. It appears that the big three auto manufacturers have severely cracked their bench if not already broken it. And now they are asking us to change the rules of a free market economy and go beyond the benefits of existing bankruptcy protections. They believe that a chapter 11 bankruptcy would worsen consumer confidence, thereby dooming them from the beginning. I am fully aware of the impact our economy could face if the big three go bust. It will likely trigger catastrophic damage to the U.S. economy, precipitating failures among component and logistic suppliers, other domestic car manufacturers, raw material suppliers, technology and service providers, retailers and their suppliers. According to a study by the Center for Automotive Research, an estimated 3 million Americans could find themselves jobless within a year of an auto manufacturer's collapse. We would also lose enormous improvements through research and development of advanced propulsion investments in support of greatly improved fuel efficiency, emissions reductions, and energy independence. It is essential that something must be done to halt this impact, but we need to do something carefully and something that will ensure the long-term viability of these companies. I truly believe that providing unrestricted funding to the big three would only delay the inevitable. I believe that the only solution is to provide the resources to empower these companies to consolidate and restructure. The majority's proposal provides temporary funding to allow employees, retirees, trade unions, creditors, suppliers, automobile dealers, and shareholders to come up with a plan that would be reviewed by a President-appointed designee. Upon review, the designee, or ``car czar,'' would determine whether the plan guarantees a viable long-term restructure, then the designee would recommend further funding. This process provides funding now and worries about viability later. While I am not a proponent of excessive government intervention, I believe that if we are going to provide any funding to the big three that it be conditioned upon reorganizing. This is not an unprecedented event. The very same issue was being discussed by the Senate in 1979 about whether we should provide financial assistance to Chrysler. Nearly 30 years ago in December, I stood before this body and opposed providing loans to Chrysler. Back then, Chrysler faced tough foreign competition and harsh economic times. The Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 provided $1.5 billion in guaranteed loans to Chrysler. However, that legislation required matching private funds. If that amount were adjusted for inflation, it would equal more than $4 billion today, which ironically is what Chrysler and General Motors says they need to survive until next year. It is also, ironically, the same amount that GM spent in 2007 on health care benefits for retirees and active workers. The bill passed in 1979 and Chrysler became profitable and paid back these loans 7 years early with $300 million in equity returns to the American taxpayers. So there is the possibility that a loan to the big three could become profitable for American taxpayers. But we should not throw caution to the wind. In the past 30 years, the Government has never provided a financial bailout to any company other than a financial institution besides the airline industry after 9/11 and Chrysler in 1979, both heavily unionized. We need to move away from becoming a government of nationalizing failing companies toward a government that provides opportunities for success. We all agree that we want to see these companies prosper, but we disagree about how we believe this should be done. Under the majority proposal, we are essentially asking each and every American taxpayer to invest in the future of the big three without guaranteeing that they will survive past March of next year. This is a risky bet. I believe that we can reduce the risk of that bet enormously by requiring the big three to reorganize. Simply put, the majority does not provide enough assurances that the auto industry is committed to reducing costs. Furthermore, their proposal requires the auto manufactures to enter into a chapter 11 bankruptcy if their plan of long term viability is determined not to be sufficient. We all know this is a farce, because we all know that the next administration will prevent the necessity of filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy by giving them more money. My proposal calls for allowing the auto manufacturers and the trade unions the opportunity to show the American people that they are committed to reducing costs before the Government gives them any loan. Specifically, it would require that any bridge loan amount would be conditioned upon the amount of cost reduction concessions agreed to by management and labor. In order to receive a temporary bridge loan, I believe that these groups need to hash out a sufficient plan to show that they can pay back any loan amount that we provide. The auto manufacturers have stated that time is of the essence and they need the money at the end of the year. If the auto manufacturers and unions are really committed toward reducing costs, I believe that they can agree to a temporary plan by the end of the year. Time should not be an obstacle for Congress and the American people. In addition, I propose that if the auto industry's plan is deemed insufficient that they should be forced into a binding arbitration to avoid the obstacles of chapter 11 bankruptcy. It is hard for me to believe that the majority is really serious about providing a solid plan. Their leadership refuses to allow us to offer amendments and they have now added provisions aimed at providing relief to municipalities, something irrelevant to the issue before us. Mr. President, we are entering the holiday season with our desire to assist the failing auto industry. While we all wanted to provide positive solutions, the most powerful deliberative body in the world is prohibited from deliberating one of the most pressing issues of our time. It is unfortunate that we cannot proceed in a collaborative manner.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I remember the first time I met Ted Stevens. It was back in 1976 when I was a young candidate for office, citizen candidate, hardly knew where the Senate floor was. I have loved and admired him ever since. We have been in the presence of three great senior lions in the Senate. Bob Byrd, as we all know, has served this Senate many years. And I love these three people. Dan Inouye. I admire him so much for the courage, honor, and friendship he has displayed to so many of us. But above all, to Ted Stevens. Ted Stevens is truly one of the greatest Senators who ever sat here. All three of them are. They have been exemplary to all of us, but especially me. I have watched them. I have learned from them. Hopefully I have not heard the last of my dear friend Ted. Ted Stevens personifies a person with real guts, with real ability, that dedication to his State, dedication to every person in his State regardless of politics, religion, or anything else. He has worked his behind off for 40 years, and actually longer than that, in public service--one of the greatest men I have ever met. I always loved him when he wore the Incredible Hulk tie. I always got a big kick out of it. I even liked his crankiness, because there was always a little smile behind it. He never held a grudge against anybody, and he was always willing to lend a helping hand and give good advice. Frankly, I admire him so much. Ted, I believe this cloud will be lifted from you. It should be. The fact is that you are a great man in a great body here where so few rise to the top level. You really have. You have shown such kindness and graciousness to virtually everybody here, and enough toughness too, when we have needed it. You are a great leader. I for one am going to miss you as a Member of this body. I hope we will not miss you as a friend and colleague in the future, because you will always be my colleague. You will always be somebody I look up to. You will always be somebody who I learn from. You will always be somebody who has stood for things that count: family, home, State, country. I do not know if I can say anything much better than that. But all I can say is this is a good man. He deserves to be remembered as a great man as well. We all love you. We wish you the best. We hope we continue to see a lot of you. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I thank you for the opportunity today to pay tribute to a very special man, caring husband and father, and great Senator Gordon Smith. Sadly, he will be leaving this august body soon and returning to private life. The United States Senate will be losing a great leader, a man of high integrity, and a true statesman. Gordon joined the United States Senate in January 1997, after winning an election as a rural conservative in a State defined by a more liberal landscape. After his election, Senator Smith quickly made his mark as someone both sides of the aisle could work with for the good of his State and our Nation. He displayed the characteristics of what I believe makes a truly great Senator--someone who is willing to roll up his sleeves and battle for what he believes is right. His commitment to Oregon was exemplary. He focused on issues that were critical to the citizens of his State including education, health care, natural resources, and bridging the rural-urban divide. Along the way he displayed a true independent streak, bucking his party when he believed he needed to go a different direction for the good of those he represented. Senator Smith's leadership and abilities were greatly appreciated by the committee members he served with, and the positions he was asked to assume. As chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging he presided over critical issues facing our Nation's aging population. In addition, he made tremendous contributions to four additional committees: Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Energy and Natural Resources; Indian Affairs; and the Finance Committee. He was also selected four times by the leadership of our party to become the Deputy Whip, an important position we could all look to for guidance and support. I had the distinct pleasure of traveling with Senator Smith on two occasions to Iraq to assess the situation first-hand, visit with the troops, and become more intimately familiar with the challenges facing our country overseas. We shared a genuine interest and concern in the events taking place in that country, and I will forever be grateful to Senator Smith for taking that journey with me. Before joining the Senate, Gordon made his mark in the business world--assuming the helm of his family's frozen vegetable processing company. His strength and commitment steered this company to new success, and established himself as a business leader with qualities to emulate. You can't talk about Gordon Smith without talking about the love he has for people, especially his wonderful family. Gordon and his wife Sharon have raised three wonderful children: Brittany, Garrett, and Morgan. Even while meeting the demands of his job, you always knew his thoughts and actions centered on home. During his second term in office, Gordon and Sharon had to face a tragedy almost impossible to bear. Their son, Garrett, lost his battle with depression and grief. As I watched this deeply grieving father, I was so powerfully reminded that life isn't always about what happens in the walls of the United States Capitol but it is about our families, our friends, and the love we share with those closest to our souls. Senator Smith didn't just let his grief consume him--he took action. Perhaps his proudest accomplishment in Senate service would be the passing of a suicide prevention law, named after his son. This law passed unanimously and has made a real difference in programs across the country that are designed to help those in critical emotional need. I am truly grateful that I have had the opportunity to serve with this great man for 12 years. In a town where true friendships can be rare, I have been blessed to find a true friend in Gordon Smith. Although we didn't always agree, our deepest fundamental beliefs were shaped in the same bedrock of less government, opportunities for all, and integrity in public service. I always knew that whether in times of trouble or success, I had found a true comrade in service, someone I could trust to do what is right and hold fast to the notion of public service for the people. Robert Louis Stevenson stated, ``We are all travelers in the wilderness of this world, and the best we can find in our travels is an honest friend.'' Gordon has been just that friend to me. I will miss working alongside this great Senator, and true American. However, I know that throughout his life he will continue to work for the good of others in whatever endeavors he chooses to follow. I want to wish Gordon and his wife Sharon and their children many years of continued success, happiness and peace as they travel life's path together. Thank you for the opportunity to honor this extraordinary man. John Warner Mr. President, I wish to speak today in honor of my good friend, the senior Senator from Virginia. As you know, Senator Warner is retiring at the conclusion of this the 110th Congress, and I wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for his friendship and his years of public service. Senator Warner's retirement marks the end of a career in the service of the United States that has spanned more than 6 decades. John, having been born in 1927 and raised right here in Washington, DC, enlisted in the Navy during World War II in January 1945. After the conclusion of the war, he left the military to pursue a legal education at the University of Virginia, only to rejoin the Navy, this time with the Marines, to serve in the Korean War. In 1953, he finished his legal studies while still serving in the Marine Corps Reserves and spent the next 7 years as a government attorney, first as a clerk for a U.S. appeals court judge, then as an assistant U.S. attorney. Senator Warner left the public sector in 1960 to pursue a career in private legal practice, though it would not be long until he was called into service again. In 1969, he was appointed by President Richard Nixon to serve as the Under Secretary of the Navy. Just over 3 years later, he succeeded John H. Chafee as the Secretary of the Navy. This, of course, was a unique era in the history of U.S. diplomacy and, as Naval Secretary, John was involved in a number of diplomatic efforts involving the Soviet Union, most notably the Sea Executive Agreement. John's political career began in 1978 when he was elected to represent the State of Virginia in the Senate. He is the second longest serving Senator in Virginia's history and, by a margin of many years, the longest serving Republican from the State. Of course, John and I have crossed paths many times during our years in the Senate. We served together on the HELP Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. But, for me, one of the most memorable times I shared with John took place outside the Halls of the Senate. During the August recess of 1985, my son Jess and I were joined by John and his son on a fishing and boating trip in Utah. During one day of the trip, after returning from a hike, I was surprised to see a ghostly-looking creature sitting in our campsite. As it turned out, John and some of the others had formed a mud hole down near the river, and he had been diving in and out of it. By the time I had returned to the campsite, John was covered head to toe in pumice mud. Apparently, the mud was good for the skin, but at the time I was unaware of this fact. On the last day of the trip, John and I were fishing on Lake Powell and I was lucky enough to catch an 8 pound 60 striped bass. He was impressed with my catch and he asked if he could keep it, apparently he wanted it as a trophy. That evening, we flew up north to an event in Deer Valley, UT, but because we didn't have time to change after the flight, we showed up in our fishing clothes. John strode into the fancy ski lodge to meet the shirt-and-tied crowd sporting his jeans and carrying my fish around with him! Though I can't be certain, it sure seemed like he was proud of it. But, seriously, Mr. President, Senator Warner will always be remembered for his even-tempered nature and for his work on behalf of our men and women in the military. He has never been one to follow the crowd for partisanship's sake, always choosing to follow his own conscience. I must admit that, over the years, John and I have found ourselves in disagreement over issues that I believed to be of vital importance. But he was always one to respect the views of his colleagues in either party, even if he went a different way in the end. I wish John and his wife Jeanne the best of luck in all their future endeavors. I think I speak for all my Senate colleagues when I say that the Senate will be a lesser place without John in it. Elizabeth Dole Mr. President, I wish to speak today regarding Senator Elizabeth Dole, who will be departing from the United States Senate. I have known Senator Dole well and I am sure I am joined by many of my colleagues in saying that she will be missed. Senator Dole has shown her enthusiasm and commitment firsthand through her vast contributions over the last 6 years. Her true courage is the powerful force behind her remarkable public service career. Most important, Senator Dole can conceive and articulate goals that lift people and unite them in the pursuit of objectives worthy of their best efforts. As we look back on the challenges of our economy, Senator Dole has become a robust leader in helping our country focus on creating jobs, strengthening national security, improving education, and making quality health care more affordable and accessible. Her initial determination was demonstrated as she graduated from Duke University and Harvard Law School, then entering her public career by serving under multiple U.S. Presidents, including Ronald Regan and George H.W. Bush. Throughout her career, she served as Secretary of Transportation, Secretary of Labor, and head of the American Red Cross. She continued her public service by bringing her zeal to the Senate as the first female U.S. Senator from North Carolina. As a fellow Senator, Elizabeth displays qualities of a true southern belle. She is a powerful role model. Her efforts to make North Carolina and America safer, stronger, and healthier have not gone unnoticed. Most importantly, she has played a key role in serving on the Senate Armed Services, Banking, Small Business and Aging Committees. Mr. President, I extend my deepest gratitude to Senator Dole. I can say, without reservation, that she is a dedicated public servant and friend. John Sununu Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding the departure of my esteemed colleague from New Hampshire, Senator John Sununu. I have known Senator Sununu and his family for many years now, and I have worked closely with Senator Sununu since he first joined Congress in 1996 in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate since 2002. Today, I am sure that I am joined by many of my colleagues in saying that his service, his thoughtfulness, and his friendship in this institution will be missed. Often referred to as one of the smartest people in Congress, Senator Sununu earned bachelor of science and master of science degrees in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Setting the bar even higher, he also went on to earn a Master of Business Administration from Harvard University. Armed with that kind of education, it would have been easy for Senator Sununu to spend the rest of his days on a career track that would have compensated him and his family in ways that most of us only dream about. Instead, after only a few short years in the private sector, Senator Sununu chose to put his mind to work in Congress at solving some of the most pressing problems and issues of our day. It is for that dedication of service to his country to which I pay tribute today. In addition to being one of the smartest people in Congress, Senator Sununu also holds the well-known title of being the youngest Senator currently serving in our legislative body. While that feat alone is impressive in its own right, I also like to think of Senator Sununu as one of the most thoughtful Senators currently serving in the Senate. Specifically, Mr. President, I mention Senator Sununu's act of friendship and solidarity in 2005 when he shaved his own hair and stood alongside our mutual friend, Senator Arlen Specter, as he underwent chemotherapy treatment. A simple act, indeed, but it is one that has not gone unnoticed and it is one that illustrates the thoughtfulness of a man and a Senator who stood by his colleague in a time of great need. It is that compassionate thoughtfulness of which we will all miss. From his thoughtful work on energy and climate change legislation to his valued friendship while working together on the Finance Committee, Senator Sununu has done a tremendous job for the people of New Hampshire and our nation. As a colleague, I appreciate his instrumental support of the Flag Desecration Amendment in 2006. As a friend, I convey my highest admiration and respect for what he has been able to accomplish while here in the Senate. It is that spirit of friendship of which all of us could always gain a little something from. I wish Senator Sununu and his lovely family the best and thank them for the years of service Senator Sununu has been able to provide to this body as a result of their sacrifice. Senator Sununu's journey in the U.S. Senate would not be complete without their support, and I am sure that they will all be happy to have their loving husband and father around the house a little more often. Without hesitation, Mr. President, I can say that our loss is their gain. To Senator Sununu and his family, I extend my deepest gratitude for the countless hours of service, the simple acts of thoughtfulness, and the years of friendship they have extended to me, my colleagues, and the people of the United States. Given Senator Sununu's track record, I am certain that we will be hearing more about him for many years to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008, together with my dear friend and colleague Senator Harry Reid. This is a simple bill that would establish offices at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy to regulate domestic thorium nuclear power generation and oversee possible demonstrations of thorium nuclear fuel assemblies. I am very much in favor of our Nation's nuclear power industry. It is an industry that has successfully relied on mixed oxide uranium fuel for decades, and I foresee a long future for nuclear power. I am particularly excited about the potential of thorium nuclear power as a new source of nuclear power in the future. Thorium nuclear power has a number of potential benefits over conventional uranium. For one, it is much more abundant in the world and in the United States than uranium. Also, a thorium fuel rod would remain the reactor about three times as long as conventional nuclear fuel, thereby cutting the volume of spent nuclear fuel coming out of reactors by as much as two-thirds. Thorium nuclear fuel could also significantly reduce the possibility that weapons grade material would result from the process. Finally, a thorium fuel cycle can be used as a very effective and efficient means for disposing of existing plutonium stockpiles. Our Nation has focused mostly on mixed oxide nuclear fuel cycles, and our regulatory structure reflects that. With the growing interest in thorium nuclear power in the world and in the United States, it is time we made sure our government has a regulatory infrastructure in place to accommodate this new generation of nuclear power. Clearly, we are introducing this legislation late in the 110th Congress. We hope to raise awareness of the bill and generate feedback from interested parties. A number of governments throughout the world are aggressively seeking to establish thorium nuclear power as an element of their power supply. These governments want the benefits of nuclear power, without the difficulties associated with large volumes of waste, much of which can be turned to weapons grade material. Our aim with this legislation is to ensure that the United States does not fall behind the movement. I hope my colleagues will take a look at the potential for thorium power.