Orrin Hatch

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.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my friend from Minnesota, Senator Amy Klobuchar, the Copper Theft Prevention Act of 2008. I am pleased to be working with Senator Klobuchar on this initiative to curb copper theft, which is on the rise in our country and around the world. We are living in tough economic times where the value of precious metals is at an all time high. Due to worldwide economic growth, particularly in fast-growing China, copper is worth between $3 to $4 a pound. Copper is used in the manufacturing of consumer goods, and the construction, electric utility, and telecommunications industries. Because of the metal's high ductility, malleability, and electrical conductivity, copper has become the benchmark for all types of wiring. Stolen copper can easily be turned into cash and a very small percentage of people who steal copper are actually caught. It's no wonder why thieves are stealing copper in every form--costing Americans hundreds of thousands of dollars in theft, damage, and threats to safety. To steal a large amount of copper quickly and safely, thieves target spools on the back of trucks and storage yards. This was evidenced several months ago in Ogden, Utah, when a thief stole a 1,700-pound load of copper from a metal yard apparently using the metal company's Caterpillar excavator to load it into his truck. I am aware of another occurrence in Utah County where a man was arrested for repeatedly stealing copper wiring nearly every week from a construction company. The thief would load his truck with the wire, then sell it anywhere between $800 and $1,200. The actual value of the wire is more than $18,000. Some of the most dangerous places to steal copper wire are from substations and from utility poles. According to an April 2007 report published by the U.S. Department of Energy entitled, ``An Assessment of Copper Wire Thefts from Electric Utilities,'' thefts at substations and utility poles are related to the large number of methamphetamine users who are stealing copper wire. Medical studies have shown that this drug reduces the ability of the brain to assess risk before taking action; hence users of this drug are not concerned about the risks involved in stealing wire from high voltage substations, utility wires, and transformers. The people who risk their life to steal copper wire from a substation typically only receive a few hundred dollars from the sale of the stolen wire, sufficient for the next drug fix. Thefts from storage sites and trucks are most likely done by professional criminal and not the drug abusers. Storage sites and trucks are also more difficult to break into than an unguarded substation or utility pole. We must cut off the incentives that fuel such blatant criminal activity, and I believe the proposed legislation goes a long way in accomplishing this goal. Under the proposed bill, scrap metal dealers would be: required to keep records of copper transactions, including the name and address of the seller, the date of the transaction, the quantity and description of the copper being purchased, an identifying number from a driver's license or other government-issued identification and, where possible, the make, model and tag number of the vehicle used to deliver the copper to the scrap dealer. Required to maintain these records for a minimum of 1 year from the date of the transaction and make them available to law enforcement agencies for use in tracking down and prosecuting copper theft crimes. Required to perform transactions of more than $250 by check, rather than cash. Subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000 for failing to document a transaction or engaging in cash transactions of more than $250. Let me be clear--the bill does not preempt States from enacting their own laws. Indeed, the proposed legislation provides a baseline from which all States must operate. On this point, Utah law currently requires anyone selling certain metals to provide identification before the sale is final. Some in Utah would like to tighten the law to include additional regulation and legislators would not be precluded from doing so. Indeed, States can enact more robust legislation as necessary. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that my colleagues will join our effort to refine and enact this important bill as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my friend from Minnesota, Senator Amy Klobuchar, the Copper Theft Prevention Act of 2008. I am pleased to be working with Senator Klobuchar on this initiative to curb copper theft, which is on the rise in our country and around the world. We are living in tough economic times where the value of precious metals is at an all time high. Due to worldwide economic growth, particularly in fast-growing China, copper is worth between $3 to $4 a pound. Copper is used in the manufacturing of consumer goods, and the construction, electric utility, and telecommunications industries. Because of the metal's high ductility, malleability, and electrical conductivity, copper has become the benchmark for all types of wiring. Stolen copper can easily be turned into cash and a very small percentage of people who steal copper are actually caught. It's no wonder why thieves are stealing copper in every form--costing Americans hundreds of thousands of dollars in theft, damage, and threats to safety. To steal a large amount of copper quickly and safely, thieves target spools on the back of trucks and storage yards. This was evidenced several months ago in Ogden, Utah, when a thief stole a 1,700-pound load of copper from a metal yard apparently using the metal company's Caterpillar excavator to load it into his truck. I am aware of another occurrence in Utah County where a man was arrested for repeatedly stealing copper wiring nearly every week from a construction company. The thief would load his truck with the wire, then sell it anywhere between $800 and $1,200. The actual value of the wire is more than $18,000. Some of the most dangerous places to steal copper wire are from substations and from utility poles. According to an April 2007 report published by the U.S. Department of Energy entitled, ``An Assessment of Copper Wire Thefts from Electric Utilities,'' thefts at substations and utility poles are related to the large number of methamphetamine users who are stealing copper wire. Medical studies have shown that this drug reduces the ability of the brain to assess risk before taking action; hence users of this drug are not concerned about the risks involved in stealing wire from high voltage substations, utility wires, and transformers. The people who risk their life to steal copper wire from a substation typically only receive a few hundred dollars from the sale of the stolen wire, sufficient for the next drug fix. Thefts from storage sites and trucks are most likely done by professional criminal and not the drug abusers. Storage sites and trucks are also more difficult to break into than an unguarded substation or utility pole. We must cut off the incentives that fuel such blatant criminal activity, and I believe the proposed legislation goes a long way in accomplishing this goal. Under the proposed bill, scrap metal dealers would be: required to keep records of copper transactions, including the name and address of the seller, the date of the transaction, the quantity and description of the copper being purchased, an identifying number from a driver's license or other government-issued identification and, where possible, the make, model and tag number of the vehicle used to deliver the copper to the scrap dealer. Required to maintain these records for a minimum of 1 year from the date of the transaction and make them available to law enforcement agencies for use in tracking down and prosecuting copper theft crimes. Required to perform transactions of more than $250 by check, rather than cash. Subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000 for failing to document a transaction or engaging in cash transactions of more than $250. Let me be clear--the bill does not preempt States from enacting their own laws. Indeed, the proposed legislation provides a baseline from which all States must operate. On this point, Utah law currently requires anyone selling certain metals to provide identification before the sale is final. Some in Utah would like to tighten the law to include additional regulation and legislators would not be precluded from doing so. Indeed, States can enact more robust legislation as necessary. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that my colleagues will join our effort to refine and enact this important bill as it moves through the legislative process.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my great concern about our economy. Time is of the essence. We must usurp the opportunity to be proactive, instead of reactive to our financial situation. On Monday, my colleagues on the other side of the Capitol voiced the opinion of their constituents and many Americans. If we are going to spend up to $700 billion in taxpayer dollars, we need to reach out beyond Wall Street and into Main Street. Many people fear that the economy is facing a perfect storm. While this fear may be justified, we need to make sure that the next step we take, is a step in the right direction. There have been several proposals discussed since the House rescue bill failed to pass. While there have been disagreements as to the type of plan, everyone agrees that something must be done immediately. Economists, professors, and government officials all are in concert that the consequences of inaction far outweigh the cost of a plan to stabilize the economy. The Economist magazine pointed out that the current situation ``cannot last long without causing immense damage. Companies will be unable to raise new money, and more importantly, refinance old loans. Corporate bankruptcies will soar. Consumers will also find it difficult, or expensive, to borrow. The result will be a sharp downturn in demand that will push the economy into a deep recession.'' Scott Schaefer, a professor of finance at the University of Utah's School of Business, agrees that the ``idea of `do nothing' isn't feasible--when banks fail they necessarily fall in the lap of the FDIC. So the losses from failed banks fall on taxpayers.'' Kristin Forbes, an MIT professor and former member of the President Bush Economic Counsel, has stated that while this may not be a perfect bill, ``the risks of not passing it are greater than passing it. If we wait too long, it might cost us much more.'' Hussan Ally, an economics professor at Ohio State University, sees the failure to act as resulting in ``the whole economy being in a depressed state for a long time. We're talking about the Great Depression all over again.'' I believe that one reason why the financial rescue legislation failed to pass in the House was because the American people are not convinced that this bill would help Main Street America or them personally. Along with this, I believe that many Americans fail to see the connection with the current crisis with our financial markets and their own future economic well being. To better illustrate how our failure to address this situation could affect everyday Utahns, and Americans everywhere, I want to discuss three hypothetical families. First is Anne Wilson, a single mother of two high schoolers whom she hopes will be college-bound in a few years. Anne earns $55,000 per year as an executive assistant. Through hard work and sacrifice, she purchased her own home a few years ago. However, she recently refinanced with an adjustable rate loan. With the savings on her monthly mortgage payment, Anne set up a 529 college savings plan to begin saving for her children's education. Even though Anne knows the cost of education is rising rapidly, she has a plan to see that her children can go to college. With decent returns on her investment in her 529 account, combined with student loans and possibly scholarship money, she believes it will be possible. However, our failure to provide a financial rescue plan could put Anne's dream of college for those kids in jeopardy. First, we can expect the securities in which she has invested through the 529 plan will be growing much slower or possibly not at all. In fact, there is a good chance that she will lose some of the money she now has invested. Second, education loans may not be available because of the credit crunch, which could grow far worse without the actions of the federal government. Until the housing crisis, Anne had some equity in her home that she might have tapped to help with the college costs. But that equity has evaporated, and even if it had not, it might be very difficult to get a loan. Anne will certainly have to readjust her plan, or even abandon the hope of providing college for her kids altogether. Moreover, if interest rates continue to increase, which is likely in the absence of action on a rescue plan, her mortgage payments will go up, adding to her anxiety. Next, let us consider, John Baker, a 64-year-old sheet metal shop supervisor, who hopes to retire in 2 years. For the past 25 years, John has put the maximum amount of money in his company's 401(k) plan. Over the years, this nest egg has grown into a tidy sum. In fact, combined with the Social Security he plans to receive and the earnings from a part-time job, John thought he was all set. Now, however, things have changed drastically. His investment portfolio in his 401(k) took a nosedive and is not likely to recover anytime soon. Moreover, with rising unemployment, he is not as sure as he used to be that he can get the good part-time job he was planning on. All in all, John is having serious second thoughts about retiring and is wondering if he needs to keep working to age 70 or maybe beyond. Now a new worry is crossing John's mind. He heard his company's CEO say the other day that if business does not pick up, there will have to be some layoffs in his shop. Given his age and relatively high pay, John is nervous that he might be one of the first to be let go. Finally, we have Amanda and Derek Peterson, who five years ago started a small flower shop. With Amanda's business background and Derek's artistic imagination, the business soon took off and they now have three locations and a total of 15 employees. The Peterson's had been talking of expanding the business to two more locations in a nearby city, but such a move would take an investment of at least $500,000. Based on their track record so far, getting a business expansion loan would not have been a problem before the financial crisis. Now, however, Amanda cannot find a single bank that will extend them a loan. Moreover, they recently have had to rely on credit card financing for running the day-to-day operations of the business. Their new worry is that their credit card limit will not be reduced or that the interest rate does not increase. Tragically, instead of making plans to expand their business, the Petersons are now talking about which employees they will have to let go if business does not soon improve. The families in these scenarios, as well as all Utah and American families, have a great deal to lose if we do not act to build confidence and ease the credit crisis. Jobs and livelihoods are at stake. This financial rescue is not a question of bailing out wealthy Wall Street bank managers who made bad investment decisions. It is about staving off a financial crisis on Main Street that threatens every one of us and our plans for our families, our hopes for the future, and the growth we all depend on to keep American what it is. While the failed bill would have saved the banking industry, we could be more proactive in jumpstarting the economy. The failed plan was only a remedy to a crisis and not a cure for the economy. In order to cure the economy, we must spur job growth and investment. The most obvious and substantial way to achieve this is by providing tax relief to Americans. Let's put money back into the pockets of taxpayers. That is why I have proposed including the tax extenders legislation for several reasons. First, it is long overdue. Businesses and individuals depend on these tax incentives in order to invest. Businesses invest in research and technology which in turn creates jobs. Individuals invest in retirement savings, college tuition, and health care costs. Adding the AMT patch would protect 23 million additional American families from the clutches of the alternative minimum tax for this year. The research credit, which is vital to U.S. economic growth and job creation, and the energy tax incentives, which will also add many new jobs and help us move to energy independence. It is estimated that the solar and wind tax credits alone are predicted to create more than 116,000 jobs. I have also proposed other tax incentives aimed at encouraging private investment of troubled mortgage-backed security instruments. In order to build more confidence in our banking system, I have suggested increasing the FDIC insurance limit. This insurance limit has not been adjusted since 1980 and increasing it will give individuals much-needed assurance that their deposited savings are secure. We can do more to improve the economic situation. I do not believe the answer is providing one bailout over another bailout. I do not believe we should be handing out rebate check after rebate check. I believe we need to assist in slowing the inevitable route our economy is heading and providing incentives for investment and job growth. That is why I have proposed including the tax extenders, providing incentives to invest in mortgage-backed securities, and raising the FDIC insurance limit. Instead of stabilizing the economy by only injecting cash into the system, we should reverse the direction the economy is headed by laying the groundwork for a strong economic future. Extending these tax credits will provide for more growth, innovation and job demand into the future. I would like to now spend some time and drill-down into some of the finer points in this legislation and address some of the broader concerns raised by our current economic situation. As I noted before, we should move ahead with the package to support the consumers of the financial sector's services--depositors, check- writers, credit card users and the merchants who rely on them, people who need to transfer cash or who need to borrow working capital for their businesses--not the shareholders or managers of the institutions in trouble. We must unfreeze the credit markets in a manner that lets depositors have the full use of their money, and that allows the check- writing and payments mechanisms to function. Otherwise, perfectly solvent individuals and businesses will not be able to pay bills or pay their employees, even though they have cash. Toward that end, the Federal Reserve should be willing to let banks use the impaired securities as collateral at the discount window, at some fraction of their face value that represents a reasonable first guess at the real value of the assets. The banks will be responsible for repaying the Federal Reserve the amount they borrowed, whether the bonds turn out to be worth more or less than this amount later on. This will tide the financial system over until the Treasury purchase of the distressed assets gets under way. The proposal before us would have the Treasury arrange for the evaluation and unbundling of the mortgage-backed bonds. The process will have to determine which of the loans are performing, and which are not. As the content and status of the mortgages' underlying assets becomes known, people will know what the securities are worth, and the market can then attract private capital to take them over. Ultimately, banks that do not have enough capital to be able to function will either have to raise additional funds in the market, or the FDIC must step in to close them or arrange a sale or merger to a stronger bank. I support the increase in the amount of deposits covered by the FDIC. While the uncertainty over the health of the banking system continues, I would like to go further and extend deposit insurance temporarily to all checkable deposits, including money market funds. All institutions so protected should be charged a fee, such as the banks pay now, to replace any losses the FDIC incurs. The FDIC is allowed to borrow from the Treasury. That borrowing facility should be reaffirmed and enlarged as needed. The limit on the national debt will be increased under this bill, to enable the Treasury to purchase assets. If further increases are needed to allow for additional borrowing by the FDIC, they should be forthcoming. However, expansion of FDIC coverage might well discourage withdrawals from bank and money market accounts, and render the additional assistance unnecessary. Other steps need to be taken in the short and long run. Urgent regulatory changes must be made to support this program. More broadly, Congress must insist that there be better coordination between regulatory, monetary, and tax policy in this country in the future. We still need to come to grips with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the rest of the Federal agencies that intervene in the housing sector. Relying on the institutions that contributed to the financial chaos to clean it up does not strike me as the best approach. Part of the current problem stems from the unfortunate interaction of two regulatory excesses: minimum capital requirements for financial institutions, coupled with a blind, rigid mark-to-market rule for valuing assets on a bank's books. The SEC and the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the latter a private entity, are discussing changes in these areas. In my view, they need to move at once to suspend mark-to- market rules and to ease capital requirements. When markets malfunction, and trading in a class of securities simply stops, it is wrong to force institutions to pretend that assets have no value, when, in the longer term, they are clearly worth something close to their face amount. This is especially damaging when the forced write-downs cause the institution to fall below minimum capital requirements. They must then be closed or merged, often at fire sale prices. This further shakes confidence in the financial system, discouraging lending among banks, lowering asset prices further, and making more institutions run afoul of the regulations. Down the road, Congress needs to hold hearings to review the damage that mark-to-market rules and capital requirements have done in the present situation, and what changes would be advisable. We also need to consider the process that generated these rules. We need to examine why these difficulties were not foreseen when the regulations were written, and whether some alternative arrangements for input by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, as well as the business community, might produce better results in the future. The rest of the economy is in urgent need of attention too. This package fails to address broader economic problems. The long economic expansion is aging, as the stimulus to investment and hiring enacted in 2003 has run its course. Investment spending is slowing, which would lower productivity gains and wage growth. We need to keep business fixed investment in new plant and equipment and commercial construction moving forward. That would help keep employment, productivity, and wages growing, and keep the rest of the economy healthy. The 2008 stimulus package contained one progrowth investment incentive. That was bonus expensing, immediate write-off of one half of investment in equipment undertaken by the end of 2008. We should extend that provision through 2010. Ideally, this reduction in the tax burden on creating and operating capital in the United States should be made permanent, as should the 15 percent tax rates on dividends and capital gains. These steps would raise real returns to people doing business fixed investment, leading to stronger growth. It would raise returns to savers and lending institutions as well, aiding in the financial recovery. Congress has paid too little attention to the impact of taxation and regulation on economy activity and expansion. We have been content in recent years to dump responsibility for economic growth on the Federal Reserve, while we have let fiscal policy run amok, letting taxes rise and spending the proceeds several times over. Those few recent tax changes that were aimed at promoting saving, investment, and hiring are scheduled to expire. We need to remember that it is Federal tax and regulatory policies that primarily affect real economic activity. Lowering the tax and regulatory barriers to growth helps to expand the private sector. Government spending largely displaces private activity, and forces higher taxes that retard growth. We have tasked the Federal Reserve with maintaining stable prices and low unemployment. In fact, an overly simulative monetary policy that generates inflation and weakens the dollar ultimately raises tax rates on investment, destroys growth and jobs, and injures people on fixed incomes. Any initial expansion of real output quickly decays into speculative bubbles in commodities, housing, or an inflation of the general price level. The Federal Reserve can hit both targets only by focusing on the goal of stable prices and a sound currency. Unfortunately, beginning in the late 1990s, the Federal Reserve abandoned a decade of reasonably steady monetary policy, and indulged in a policy of go-stop-go. It eased excessively after financial disturbances and the Y2K panic of the late 1990s, contributing to the dot.com bubble. It tightened too much in 2000, contributing to the recession. It eased too much, and held short term interest rates too low too long, following the recession, contributing to the commodity and housing bubble, and the weak dollar. Now, we have seen the resulting imbalances force the economy to a stop. We need to have a reconsideration of the Humphrey Hawkins Act, which gives the Federal Reserve a congressional mandate to pursue apparently conflicting goals. At least, they conflict if the conventional wisdom of the 1930-1980 period is applied, in which printing more money and encouraging a little inflation is considered beneficial, rather that counterproductive. We need to have a heart-to-heart discussion with the Federal Reserve about keeping to a stable policy, and keeping its eye on the long-term prize. The country would have been better served if the 2003 tax changes had been enacted in 2001 in place of the Federal Reserve's aggressive easing in the 2002-2005 period. The correct policy mix, then, now, and always, is sound money, low tax rates at the margin on work, saving, and investment, and a sensible regulatory scheme in which the pieces do not conflict and the costs are kept to a minimum. That policy mix rescued us from the stagflation of the 1970s. It can do the same today. Unfortunately, Congress deals with these issues on a piecemeal basis. The executive branch is divided into many departments and agencies that have their own narrow focus and push different agendas. Differing views on how the economy works add to the confusion. Somehow, we need to get some coordination and oversight of this whole process, and make certain that all the players understand the broad objective and the role that each must play to make it work. I intend to push for that in the year ahead.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to PVT Jordan P. Thibeault of South Jordan, UT, who recently lost his life in Iraq while serving with the 1st Armored Division. I believe it is my solemn duty to learn about the lives of those Utah servicemembers who have fallen in the defense of our Nation. Looking back on the 7 years of this conflict, I have always been stuck by theses remarkable men and women. Such is the case with PVT Jordan Thibeault. He is remembered by the Utah community as a young man who grew up loving to ride bikes, act in plays, and known as a helpful and hard- working young man. I was struck by the words of his family who released a statement on their son's passing. So I will take this opportunity to share with the Senate the moving words from the Thibeault family: Mankind today is faced with terrible calamities. Only a select few are willing to forgo comforts of home, indeed the very promise of a brighter future, to place themselves between the forces of hate and oppression and the human spirit yearning for peace and safety . . . [Jordan Thibeault's] passing should give hope to all that there are still those among us who are willing to give the ultimate sacrifice to keep mankind safe and free. Mr. President, no truer words have been spoken on the floor of the Senate. Those eloquent words are not only a wonderful tribute but firm evidence of the quality of the family that raised such a fine man.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would assist the Magna Water District of Utah to implement a water reuse and groundwater recharge project. The district faces perchlorate- contaminated wells due to decades of rocket motor production at a Department of Defense site operated by Hercules, ATK launch Systems. To address this, the water district has developed a bio-destruction process which combines wastewater and desalination brine stream to destroy perchlorate. This technology gives DOD what it needs to broadly address perchlorate issues at multiple sites in a way that is quicker and cheaper than existing technologies and processes. This bill, would authorize a 25 percent Federal match for the total cost of this project. In truth, the district has already invested a significant amount of its own funds and is now seeking funds from the federal government on a matching basis. It is critically important for Magna to maintain high quality drinking water for irrigation and preserve the community's valuable water resources while finding a beneficial use of treated domestic and industrial wastewater to destroy a harmful plume of the contaminate perchlorate, that threatens the water resources of this community. We have but a few days left in this session of the 110th Congress but I feel it important to introduce this bill and ask my colleagues to please review it. I plan on reintroducing this bill early in the 111th Congress and will work on ensuring its passage next year.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would assist the Magna Water District of Utah to implement a water reuse and groundwater recharge project. The district faces perchlorate- contaminated wells due to decades of rocket motor production at a Department of Defense site operated by Hercules, ATK launch Systems. To address this, the water district has developed a bio-destruction process which combines wastewater and desalination brine stream to destroy perchlorate. This technology gives DOD what it needs to broadly address perchlorate issues at multiple sites in a way that is quicker and cheaper than existing technologies and processes. This bill, would authorize a 25 percent Federal match for the total cost of this project. In truth, the district has already invested a significant amount of its own funds and is now seeking funds from the federal government on a matching basis. It is critically important for Magna to maintain high quality drinking water for irrigation and preserve the community's valuable water resources while finding a beneficial use of treated domestic and industrial wastewater to destroy a harmful plume of the contaminate perchlorate, that threatens the water resources of this community. We have but a few days left in this session of the 110th Congress but I feel it important to introduce this bill and ask my colleagues to please review it. I plan on reintroducing this bill early in the 111th Congress and will work on ensuring its passage next year.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my pleasure at the confirmation today of Clark Waddoups to the U.S. district court in Utah and my thanks to all those, in particular the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who facilitated this result. Clark Waddoups will be a truly outstanding judge. He graduated from the University of Utah law school where he was president of the Utah Law Review and has been practicing law in Utah for nearly 35 years, a majority of it in Federal court. More than that, he has participated in the life of the law in our State, serving on the board of visitors of the law school at Brigham Young University and for 17 years on the Advisory Committee to the Utah Supreme Court on the Rules of Evidence. Not surprisingly, the Utah chapter of the Federal Bar Association has recognized Clark as Utah's outstanding lawyer and the American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest well qualified rating to serve as a Federal judge. Not only is Clark Waddoups an outstanding lawyer, but he is a good man. He is active in his church and for many years served on and led the board of the Family Support Center of Utah. Federal courts across America are very busy today, and no more so than in Utah. Utah has just five U.S. district court seats and our population has increased by more than 50 percent since the last one was created in 1990. Because this vacancy occurred when Judge Paul Cassell resigned to go back to teaching, there was no senior judge available to help out. So the service of such an outstanding judge will be welcome indeed. My colleague and friend from Utah, Senator Bennett, and I worked together to recommend the very best candidate to replace Judge Cassell. Clark Waddoups stood out from the many qualified and experienced lawyers we considered. He is known and respected through the legal community and will be a fair and wise jurist who will live up to the highest standards of the American legal system. As everyone knows, the confirmation process, especially for judicial nominees, has its share, perhaps more than its share, of tension and controversy. As a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I know there are many competing demands and expectations. But Chairman Leahy nonetheless scheduled not one but two hearings this month to consider a total of 10 additional nominees to the U.S. district court. And he made sure that they got on the Judiciary Committee agenda, reported to the floor yesterday, and confirmed today. So I am deeply grateful to President Bush for nominating Clark Waddoups and to Chairman Leahy for facilitating his progress through the confirmation process. Utah and America will be better off with Judge Clark Waddoups on the bench.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding the retirement of my esteemed colleague from Colorado, Senator Wayne Allard. I have known Senator Allard since he joined Congress in 1991 and have worked closely with him in the Senate since 1996. Today, I am sure that I am joined by many of my colleagues in saying that his service, his work ethic, and his friendship in this institution will be missed. A native of Colorado, Senator Allard was born in Fort Collins in 1943. Using the skills he learned while growing up on a ranch, Senator Allard obtained a doctorate of veterinary medicine at Colorado State University. Soon after, he and his wife Joan opened the Allard Animal Hospital. Over the years that followed, Senator Allard successfully built his practice and raised his family. He even continued his practice while serving in the Colorado State senate for 17 years. Ever the citizen-legislator, Senator Allard brought this same attitude to the U.S. Congress in 1991 and more specifically to our Senate legislative body in 1996. It was in 1996 that Senator Allard was elected to the Senate with a promise to only serve two terms. Not being one to back away from that commitment, Senator Allard declared early in 2007 that he would not seek a third term because it would have gone against his word. It was then that he declared it was a matter of integrity and of keeping his commitments. And it is now, that I can say nothing could be truer about the character of my good friend, Senator Allard. Born and raised in the West, he understands what it means when he shakes your hand and gives you his word. His integrity is of the character of which we need more of and his commitments are of the nature of which we will surely miss. Indeed, for the last 17 years I have observed Senator Allard working tirelessly for the good people of Colorado. Throughout his tenure, the demands placed on Senator Allard have been great, yet he always manages to find the time to listen, to engage, and to talk to Coloradans about the things that are most important to them. Impressively, Senator Allard has held over 700 townhall meetings since he began his service in the Congress. From his work on the Contract with America to his instrumental role in working with me to craft the current law promoting and regulating the development of oil shale and tars sands in the United States, which was passed as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Senator Allard has always done the work of the people and he will be missed. I wish him and his lovely family the best and thank him for the years of service he has provided to this body. To my friend Senator Wayne Allard, I convey my highest admiration and respect for what he has been able to accomplish while here in the Senate. As with any new chapter in our lives, our feelings are always mixed as we continue turning the pages that finish the tale of one story while we hurriedly rush to the next. Yet the story of Senator Allard's journey in the Senate would not be complete without the support of his wife Joan and the love of his children and grandchildren. Without question, our loss is their gain. It is to them that I extend my deepest gratitude for the sacrifices they have made while their husband, their father, and their grandfather has served so well these many years. I am certain they are excited to have Senator Allard back, but somehow I have a feeling that he will not be resting for long. larry craig Mr. President, I rise to speak today regarding the retirement of my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Idaho. At the conclusion of this Congress, Senator Larry Craig will end a political career that has included over three decades of service to the people of his State. I am sure many of my colleagues will agree, Senator Craig's presence in the Senate will be missed. Senator Craig is a lifelong citizen of Idaho, having been born in Council, ID, and growing up on a ranch in Washington County. He attended college at the University of Idaho and later served in the Idaho National Guard. These close ties to his home state, I believe, I believe, informed almost every decision he made while serving in Congress. Larry's career in public service began in 1974 when he was elected to the Idaho State Senate. Six years later, he was elected to the House of Representatives, where he served five terms. In 1990, he was elected to his first of three terms in the Senate, where his devotion to the people of Idaho continued. During his time in the Senate, Senator Craig became involved in a number of efforts to serve the people of his State and the country as a whole. He has held prominent positions on the Appropriations, Veterans' Affairs, and Energy and Resource Committees. He also had a brief stint on the Senate Judiciary Committee when I was serving as chairman. Although his time on the Judiciary Committee was short-lived, Senator Craig was always an active member of that panel, pursuing immigration reform to help the farmers from his State and throughout the country and vigorously supporting legislation to protect civil liberties. In recognition of these efforts, he was inducted to the Idaho Hall of Fame in 2007. Of course, no discussion of Senator Craig would be complete without mentioning ``The Singing Senators,'' the now famous barbershop quartet that featured Senator Craig along with my good friends Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, and James Jeffords. I think we all enjoyed the exploits of The Singing Senators during their brief moment in the limelight. Sadly, with the departure of Senator Craig, there will be no Singing Senators left. I still have my copy of their album, ``Let Freedom Sing,'' and I can only hope that Larry will be taking home with him his copies of the albums I have recorded. If not, I am sure I can dig up some new ones for him. Mr. President, I want to close by saying that I have greatly admired Senator Craig for his devotion to the people of his state and his efforts to improve our country. I want to wish him and his family the best of luck in any future endeavors. Pete Domenici Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my very dear friend and colleague, Senator Pete Domenici. Other than the members of the Utah congressional delegation, Utah has had no better friend in the Senate than the senior Senator from New Mexico. My State of Utah is made up mostly of public lands, and we have often relied on this good Senator for the support and expertise of solving some of our most difficult natural resource problems. Senators who understand the complexities of living in a public-land dominated State are few and far between, especially here in Washington. Having Senator Domenici in a leadership on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resource Policy has been my State's salvation many times over. In my personal view, Senator Domenici's crowning achievement was the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This was one of the most comprehensive and bipartisan energy proposals ever passed by Congress. I have no doubt that this summer's energy crisis would have been dramatically worse had EPACT 2005 not been passed when it was. It was a matter of dread and grave disappointment for some of us in the Senate to watch as the leadership of this Congress pursued efforts to turn back some of the most important steps that legislation took toward securing a better energy future for our people. And it is fitting that before this Congress ends along with Senator Domenici's Senate career, we have voted to reinstate and to extend many of the provisions established in EPACT 2005. In particular, I praise Senator Domenici for his unfailing vision and leadership in working with me to establish the possibility in this country of developing our Nation's gigantic untapped oil shale resources. A lot has been said in the media about how oil shale development has not been proven yet and therefore not likely to be successful. However, what these critics fail to consider is that the Government has long had a policy to not develop its oil shale. We should keep in mind that the United States controls about 72 percent of the world's oil shale and that 73 percent of our resource is on Federal lands. Without Senator Domenici's leadership, we would not have been able to pass the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Act as part of EPACT 2005. We would not now have a large, tristate environmental impact statement on oil shale, a voluminous task force report on oil shale from the Department of Energy, a research and development lease program ongoing at the Bureau of Land Management, and the soon-to-be released final regulations on commercial oil shale leasing on Federal lands. He has maintained the vision of oil shale's potential benefit to our Nation's future and has never relented. I will ever be grateful to Senator Domenici for that. My friend from New Mexico is not flashy. And I mean that as a high compliment. Where some Senators fight with rhetoric, Senator Domenici relies on reason. Where others search around for wedge issues, Senator Domenici finds solutions. Where others in the Senate seek to widen the aisle that divides us, Senator Domenici reaches across to bring us closer. The Senate is a better place because the people of New Mexico have sent us their senior Senator, and we will miss his presence here. As this Congress comes to a close, I say to my friend, arrivederci, ti voglio bene. Wayne Allard

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Program Act, S. 3606, which would extend the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program until March 6, 2009. The program provides for up to 5,000 special Immigrant visas per year which religious denominations or organizations in the United States can use to sponsor foreign nationals to perform religious service in our country. Since its initial enactment in 1990, the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program has been extended four times. Yet some seem quick to discount the importance of the program. I point out that the continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives did not include language to extend the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program. Among the important tasks nonminister religious workers perform are: providing human services to the most needy, including shelter and nutrition; caring for and ministering to the sick, aged, and dying; working with adolescents and young adults; assisting religious leaders as they lead their congregations and communities in worship; counseling those who have suffered severe trauma and/or hardship; supporting families, particularly when they are in crisis; offering religious instruction, especially to new members of the religious denomination; and, helping refugees and immigrants in the United States adjust to a new way of life. To ensure that this program is not abused by fraud or other measures, the proposed legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue final regulations to eliminate or reduce fraud in the program before it goes into effect. Additionally, the legislation requires the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security to submit to Congress a report on the effectiveness of the aforementioned regulations. I note that there are several religious organizations that support passage of my legislation, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the American Jewish Committee, the Agudath Israel of America, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., the Church Communities International, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the Mennonite Central Committee, the United States National Association of Evangelicals, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai of the United States, The Church of Scientology International, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, MA, the United Methodist Church, the General Board of Church and Society, the World Relief, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. There is no doubt that our country's religious organizations face sometimes insurmountable obstacles in using traditional employment immigration categories to fit their unique situations. Fortunately, the Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program allows our country's religious denominations to continue uninterrupted in their call to serve and provide support to those who are in the greatest need. I commend their service and hope they know how much I respect their work. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family and Retirement Health Investment Act of 2008. In these difficult economic times, many Utahns are facing the rising costs of health insurance and medical expenses. This bill would make it easier for families to decrease the cost of health insurance and encourage savings for retirement health care costs. Briefly stated, this bill would enhance and improve Health Savings Accounts by addressing some of the questions and concerns that have been raised sine HSAs were first enacted in 2003 but were not addressed by the Health Opportunity Patient Empowerment Act of 2006. Health Savings Accounts were created as an alternative to traditional health insurance. HSAs allow participants to pay for current medical bills while saving for future health care expenses. One of the most attractive features of these accounts is the high degree of control the participants have over how to spend the money and how to manage investments within the account. Since their creation, HSAs have become increasingly popular. Part of the reason for this is that Health Savings Accounts offer several important tax incentives. Earnings accrued on savings in an HSA are not taxed. Funds can also be withdrawn from an HSA 100 percent tax free, so long as the withdrawal is related to medical care. HSAs are very easy is set up. Anyone can go to his or her local bank, credit union, insurance company, or sometimes even their employer and request to create an HSA. Broad agreement now exists that Congress must advance reform that will ``bend the growth curve'' in health care inflation. In recent years American families--often along with the businesses they own or work for--have been addressing this inflation on their own, by turning toward health savings account-eligible health plans. According to one survey, there are now 6.1 million people covered under health plans that are eligible for an HSA, including over 70,000 in my home state of Utah. This is a 35 percent increase over the previous year, and it is clear that businesses large and small see these plans as an innovative solution for their employees' health care needs. In addition, because HSAs offer lower premiums, existing businesses find that they are able to maintain coverage, while new businesses are able to extend health insurance to their employees. And increasingly, these businesses are funding their employee's HSAs just as they would a 401(k) plan. At the same time, the financial burden on families generally decreases under these plans due to lower premiums and a cap on out-of-pocket expenditures. Given these attractive features, HSA-eligible health plans will only expand over time. In fact, a recent report estimates that the number of Health Savings Accounts will double between January 2008 and January 2009. It is appropriate, therefore, to continue to make common sense reforms to improve these plans for the families and businesses that are choosing them. That is what this bill is all about. Among other things, the bill I am introducing would allow a husband and wife to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA; clarify the use of prescription drugs as preventive care that will not be subject to the deductible; promote wellness by expanding the definition of qualified medical expenses to encourage more exercise and better diet; and establish a more equitable tax treatment of health insurance by allowing individuals and families without employer-sponsored insurance the ability to pay for their health insurance premiums with tax-deductible dollars. This proposal is certainly not a substitute for broader health care reform. Instead, it seeks to improve an important and growing innovation that is a partial answer to the health care puzzle. As the Senate prepares for a comprehensive health care debate in the coming months, it is important that we do what we can now to promote wellness, decrease costs, and increase coverage. By taking the intermediate steps proposed in this bill, we can facilitate broader reforms by decreasing costs and assisting businesses and families as they seek to make affordable health care choices. I expect the popularity of HSAs will one day elevate the acronym to the level of IRAs, where no further clarification is required. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to accelerate that process by supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Program Act, S. 3606, which would extend the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program until March 6, 2009. The program provides for up to 5,000 special Immigrant visas per year which religious denominations or organizations in the United States can use to sponsor foreign nationals to perform religious service in our country. Since its initial enactment in 1990, the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program has been extended four times. Yet some seem quick to discount the importance of the program. I point out that the continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives did not include language to extend the Special Immigrant Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program. Among the important tasks nonminister religious workers perform are: providing human services to the most needy, including shelter and nutrition; caring for and ministering to the sick, aged, and dying; working with adolescents and young adults; assisting religious leaders as they lead their congregations and communities in worship; counseling those who have suffered severe trauma and/or hardship; supporting families, particularly when they are in crisis; offering religious instruction, especially to new members of the religious denomination; and, helping refugees and immigrants in the United States adjust to a new way of life. To ensure that this program is not abused by fraud or other measures, the proposed legislation requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue final regulations to eliminate or reduce fraud in the program before it goes into effect. Additionally, the legislation requires the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security to submit to Congress a report on the effectiveness of the aforementioned regulations. I note that there are several religious organizations that support passage of my legislation, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the American Jewish Committee, the Agudath Israel of America, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., the Church Communities International, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, the Mennonite Central Committee, the United States National Association of Evangelicals, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahai of the United States, The Church of Scientology International, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, MA, the United Methodist Church, the General Board of Church and Society, the World Relief, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. There is no doubt that our country's religious organizations face sometimes insurmountable obstacles in using traditional employment immigration categories to fit their unique situations. Fortunately, the Non-Minister Religious Worker Visa Program allows our country's religious denominations to continue uninterrupted in their call to serve and provide support to those who are in the greatest need. I commend their service and hope they know how much I respect their work. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family and Retirement Health Investment Act of 2008. In these difficult economic times, many Utahns are facing the rising costs of health insurance and medical expenses. This bill would make it easier for families to decrease the cost of health insurance and encourage savings for retirement health care costs. Briefly stated, this bill would enhance and improve Health Savings Accounts by addressing some of the questions and concerns that have been raised sine HSAs were first enacted in 2003 but were not addressed by the Health Opportunity Patient Empowerment Act of 2006. Health Savings Accounts were created as an alternative to traditional health insurance. HSAs allow participants to pay for current medical bills while saving for future health care expenses. One of the most attractive features of these accounts is the high degree of control the participants have over how to spend the money and how to manage investments within the account. Since their creation, HSAs have become increasingly popular. Part of the reason for this is that Health Savings Accounts offer several important tax incentives. Earnings accrued on savings in an HSA are not taxed. Funds can also be withdrawn from an HSA 100 percent tax free, so long as the withdrawal is related to medical care. HSAs are very easy is set up. Anyone can go to his or her local bank, credit union, insurance company, or sometimes even their employer and request to create an HSA. Broad agreement now exists that Congress must advance reform that will ``bend the growth curve'' in health care inflation. In recent years American families--often along with the businesses they own or work for--have been addressing this inflation on their own, by turning toward health savings account-eligible health plans. According to one survey, there are now 6.1 million people covered under health plans that are eligible for an HSA, including over 70,000 in my home state of Utah. This is a 35 percent increase over the previous year, and it is clear that businesses large and small see these plans as an innovative solution for their employees' health care needs. In addition, because HSAs offer lower premiums, existing businesses find that they are able to maintain coverage, while new businesses are able to extend health insurance to their employees. And increasingly, these businesses are funding their employee's HSAs just as they would a 401(k) plan. At the same time, the financial burden on families generally decreases under these plans due to lower premiums and a cap on out-of-pocket expenditures. Given these attractive features, HSA-eligible health plans will only expand over time. In fact, a recent report estimates that the number of Health Savings Accounts will double between January 2008 and January 2009. It is appropriate, therefore, to continue to make common sense reforms to improve these plans for the families and businesses that are choosing them. That is what this bill is all about. Among other things, the bill I am introducing would allow a husband and wife to make catch-up contributions to the same HSA; clarify the use of prescription drugs as preventive care that will not be subject to the deductible; promote wellness by expanding the definition of qualified medical expenses to encourage more exercise and better diet; and establish a more equitable tax treatment of health insurance by allowing individuals and families without employer-sponsored insurance the ability to pay for their health insurance premiums with tax-deductible dollars. This proposal is certainly not a substitute for broader health care reform. Instead, it seeks to improve an important and growing innovation that is a partial answer to the health care puzzle. As the Senate prepares for a comprehensive health care debate in the coming months, it is important that we do what we can now to promote wellness, decrease costs, and increase coverage. By taking the intermediate steps proposed in this bill, we can facilitate broader reforms by decreasing costs and assisting businesses and families as they seek to make affordable health care choices. I expect the popularity of HSAs will one day elevate the acronym to the level of IRAs, where no further clarification is required. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in a bipartisan effort to accelerate that process by supporting this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my continued support for the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, S. 2913, which I introduced with Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy. This bill represents years of hard work and collaboration by the Senate, industry stakeholders, and U.S. Copyright Office officials. Passing S. 2913 is long overdue. I want to thank Chairman Leahy for naming S. 2913 as the Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008. It honors my long-time staffer and former colleague, Shawn Bentley. As many of you may remember, Shawn worked for the Judiciary Committee for a decade and worked on several important pieces of landmark intellectual property legislation. In fact, he initiated what we have now introduced as an orphan works bill. Many in this body were greatly saddened by Shawn's untimely death at 41. He was a one-of-a-kind individual. I believe this bill is a fitting way to acknowledge his continuing contributions to intellectual property law. Countless artistic creations around the country are effectively locked away in a proverbial attic and unavailable for the general public to enjoy because the owner of the copyright for the work is unknown. These are generally referred to as orphan works. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to identify an owner of a copyrighted work, and in many cases, information about the copyright holder is not publicly known. To make matters worse, many are discouraged from using these works for fear of being sued should the owner eventually step forward. Many libraries, museums, State and local historical societies, and archives across the country that have significant amounts of orphan works, which are not currently available publicly. Think of the new educational opportunities that will be opened to students, scholars, and the public alike when these works become accessible. The potential for learning, scholarship, and enjoyment of the works of previous generations are unlimited. Without doubt, passage of S. 2913 addresses the orphan works problem. Yesterday, Marybeth Peters, Register of the Copyrights, wrote the following about the importance of orphan works legislation: The legislation is sensible: it would ease the orphan problem by reducing, but not eliminating, the exposure of good faith users. But there are clear conditions designed to protect copyright owners. A user must take all reasonable steps, employ all reasonable technology, and execute the applicable search practices to be submitted to the Copyright Office by authors, associations, and other experts. The user must meet other hurdles, including attaching an orphan symbol to the use, to increase transparency and the possibility that an owner may emerge. If an owner does emerge, the user must pay `reasonable compensation' or face full liability. Reasonable compensation will be mutually agreed by the owner and the user or, failing that, be decided by a court; but it must also reflect objective market values for the work and the use. This framework would facilitate projects that are global (think rare text in the hands of a book publisher) as well as local (think family portraits in the hands of a photo finisher), while preserving the purpose and potential of copyright law. It would not inject orphan works prematurely into the public domain, create an automatic exception for all uses, or create a permanent class of orphan works. Nor would it minimize the value of any one orphan work by mandating a government license and statutory rate. Ms. Peters continues by stating: Some critics believe that the legislation is unfair because it will deprive copyright owners of injunctive relief, statutory damages, and actual damages. I do not agree. Let me repeat, The Register of Copyrights does not believe the legislation is unfair, or that it will deprive copyright owners of injunctive relief, statutory damages, and actual damages. With 43 years of experience working in the Copyright Office, 14 of them as the Register, I trust that Ms. Peters knows a few things about copyright law. And I want to take this opportunity to thank her and her staff and the many other stakeholders for their tremendous assistance in crafting this important legislation. I also want to thank my counsel Matt Sandgren and Aaron Cooper, Senator Leahy's counsel, for their perseverance and hard work on this initiative. In my view, a solution to the orphan works problem is achievable and the pending legislation is both fair and responsible. I urge my colleagues to pass S. 2913 without further delay.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the lead Republican sponsor of the Health Care Safety Net Act with the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee, Senator Kennedy, I am so pleased that the Senate approved this legislation earlier today. Members of the Senate HELP Committee, on both sides of the aisle, worked hard to ensure its passage, and I want to thank, in particular, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Mike Enzi, Senator Judd Gregg, Senator Lamar Alexander, Senator Richard Burr, and Senator Coburn for their commitment in getting this legislation through the Senate. I also want to thank my House colleagues, especially, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman John Dingell and its ranking Republican member Joe Barton for the leadership on this bill. Additionally, the Health Subcommittee chairman Frank Pallone and its ranking member Nathan Deal, along with Congresswoman Diana DeGette and Congressmen Gene Green and Bart Stupak, were extremely helpful during our negotiations on this bill. And while, at times, it was not easy, I appreciate their willingness to work with the Senate on compromise legislation that will improve the lives of millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans. This bill is expected to be considered by the House of Representatives tomorrow, and once it has been approved by the House, it will be sent to the President to be signed into law. The health centers program was created over 40 years ago and has been providing health care to those without health coverage and those who are underinsured. These centers provide care to children, their parents, and their grandparents and are an important part of our country's health care safety net. Community centers have made a tremendous difference for Utahns with insufficient health coverage. In fact, Utah community health centers provide care to close to 85,000 patients. They have not only filled in health coverage gaps, but they have also done an excellent job providing care to those with little or no coverage. Utah health centers have made a tremendous difference in the lives of many Utahns--66 percent of patients come from Utah's urban areas and 27 percent are from the rural parts of the State. Ninety-six percent of Utah's health center patients, incomes are below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Utah health centers have literally changed their lives--in rural areas, health centers are often the only health care provider. Our bill will reauthorize the health center program for 5 more years and includes funding levels of $2,065,000,000 in fiscal year 2008; $2,213,000,000 in fiscal year 2009; $2,602,000,000 in fiscal year 2010; $2,940,000,000 in fiscal year 2011; and $3,337,000,000 in fiscal year 2012. H.R. 1343 also contains other important provisions relating to community health centers including a health care quality study conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, on efforts to expand and accelerate quality improvement activities in community health centers. In addition, our bill requires the Government Accountibility Office, GAO, to conduct three studies. The first study would review integrated health systems as a model to expand access to primary and preventive services for medically underserved populations and improve care coordination and health care outcomes. The second GAO study would evaluate the economic costs and benefits of school-based health centers and their impact on the health of students. The final study would make recommendations on policy options that would encourage health care practitioners to work as volunteers in health centers. The Health Care Safety Net Act allows the Secretary of HHS to recognize the unique needs of high poverty areas in awarding grants, something that was important to members representing these parts of the country. The legislation reauthorizes the National Health Service Corps, NHSC, at $55 million over 5 years and also makes permanent the automatic health professions shortage area designation that community health centers currently have, allowing them to cut down on the cumbersome paperwork that can delay NHSC placements. The bill requires the NHSC to assist the Corps members in professional development opportunites. H.R. 1343 also reauthorizes the State Loan Repayment Program through 2012 and makes the District of Columbia and the territories eligible for this program, which is part of the overall strategy to improve access to health care in underserved communities. Our bill reauthorizes the Primary Dental Workforce and Rural Healthcare Programs, which increases access to dental care in underserved areas by providing matching funds for States to use in training, recruiting, and placing dentists. In addition, the bill reauthorizes the rural health care programs at $45 million per year through 2012. I would like to thank Senator Susan Collins for working with us on this important provision. The legislation improves access to primary care during public health emergencies by improving coordination between health centers, State and local emergency planners, and existing Federal programs for medical volunteers. Finally, the bill prevents rural health clinics, RHC, from losing Medicare certification by including a technical fix that aligns Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, standards so that all RHC shortage area designations are reviewed every 4 years. This provision was extremely important to members of the Senate Rural Health Care Caucus, and I would like to thank Senators Pat Roberts, Tom Harkin, Gordon Smith, Ron Wyden, Kent Conrad, and John Barrasso for bringing this important matter to our attention. I also want to thank Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus and its ranking member Chuck Grassley for their willingness to include this provision in this bill. Community health centers have made a huge impact in people's lives. I am pleased and proud that our legislation has been approved by the Senate, and I urge my House colleagues to approve this important bill as quickly as possible. This legislation will not only allow health centers to continue providing people with essential health care services but also will ensure that the health centers will have the funding necessary to provide these important services.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from North Dakota. He is diligent. He means well. And I care for him a great deal. He has an impossible job, in my opinion. One reason he does is because one side thinks the only way to solve our problems is to increase taxes. Our side believes the only way to solve our problems is to reduce spending. We all know the only way you can do that and be significant is to take on some of the entitlement problems that exist, and that causes even more of an explosion. But I respect him very much for the fight he wages all the time. I rise today to express my support for the Baucus-Grassley substitute and perfecting amendments to the tax extenders bill before us today. These amendments may sound a bit confusing, so I will try to clarify briefly what they do. The Baucus-Grassley substitute amendment is a bipartisan compromise on the soon-to-be expired tax provisions dealing with energy production, alternatives, and conservation. This important group of tax incentives enjoys a great deal of support from Members on both sides. Unfortunately, the passage of these energy extender provisions has been held up over discussions about energy policy in general, and more particularly, over the question of whether and how to offset the lost revenue. The Baucus-Grassley perfecting amendment is also a bipartisan compromise, but this amendment features the retroactive extension of important tax provisions that expired at the end of last year, as well as extending the so-called alternative minimum tax patch for 2008, and a package of disaster relief tax provisions. This long-delayed group of provisions also enjoys broad support among Senators, but it too has been held up by the question of how or if to pay for the lost revenue. I want to first congratulate those of my colleagues whose hard work and flexibility have made these compromises possible. Getting to this point where we can hopefully pass this tax extenders bill today is a big achievement, and one that should not be overshadowed by the necessities of dealing with other urgent legislative business this week. The chairman and the ranking Republican of the Finance Committee, Senators Baucus and Grassley, along with the majority leader and the republican leader, deserve all of our thanks for guiding us to this compromise. As with all compromises, this one is completely satisfactory to no one. My position all year long on the offset question, along with that of most of my Republican colleagues, can be summed up in two sentences. First, it is wrong to raise taxes on one group of Americans in order to prevent another group of Americans from suffering a tax increase. Second, it is wrong to raise taxes on a permanent basis in order to pay for the temporary extension of expired or expiring tax provisions. The other side has put forward the position that, in the name of fiscal responsibility, we should not allow the budget deficit to grow higher as a result of extending current law tax provisions. I respect this position, and as someone who has long been concerned with this Nation's fiscal health, I also do not want to see the deficit climb. However, the rate of Federal spending for the past several years has grown alarmingly high. According to the CBO's latest baseline budget projection, the deficit is estimated to explode from last year's $161 billion to $431 billion by 2010. So, yes, it is obvious that we have a deficit problem. However, over this same 3-year period, annual Federal revenues are projected to increase by $313 billion from fiscal year 2007 levels. This is an increase of more than 12 percent. Over that same period, however, the amount of annual Federal spending is projected to climb by $583 billion. This is an increase of more than 21 percent. Therefore, it seems obvious that we do not have a problem with revenues. We have a problem with spending growing much faster than revenues are growing. It seems to me that the answer to the offset question is not to raise taxes but to cut spending growth. And yet after months of impasse, we made no progress in getting the other side to line up for spending restraint instead of tax increases. However, the leadership on both sides, along with the two leaders of the Finance Committee, have found a way to move us forward in a manner acceptable to both sides. The energy extenders amendment is fully offset, as has been insisted upon by the Democrats. However, it is true that much of this amendment is comprised of expansions of current policy and not strictly extensions of current law. Therefore, some offsets are acceptable. I wish they were offsets in the form of spending cuts, but my voice is in the minority on this desire. Moreover, the tax increases in the energy amendment have been moderated from earlier versions. Instead of a full repeal of the deduction for the domestic production of oil and gas, the amendment freezes the current deduction at 6 percent. And, instead of an obnoxious and unprecedented new Federal severance tax on oil drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, the amendment includes a small set of offsets that are relatively acceptable in light of the positive provisions included in the package. In the AMT and extenders amendment, the other side has conceded that it need not be fully offset. This amendment does include a large tax offset dealing with offshore deferred compensation. I am not fully convinced that current law is in need of reform in this area. However, again the benefit to our economy and to taxpayers of having the expired provisions extended on a retroactive basis justifies this compromise. We are obviously in a time of great economic peril. While the size of this combined tax extenders package might pale in comparison with the larger number of dollars involved with legislation we are considering this week to ensure the liquidity of our financial markets, we should not underestimate the importance of these tax provisions to our economy. We must not subject another 23 million American families to the cruelties of the alternative minimum tax. What a nasty and unfair surprise to these unsuspecting households we would be leaving at their doorsteps absent this bill. Because the AMT patch will save these taxpayers almost $62 billion, in just one year, not passing the AMT patch would go a long way toward reversing the benefits of this year's economic stimulus tax rebates. Let me mention two other vital provisions that are extended in this package, among many important ones. First is the provision to extend the exemption of active financing. I know this sounds confusing, but it is critically important to keeping America's financial services firms competitive with their overseas counterparts. The Internal Revenue Code imposes worldwide taxation on its citizens and domestic corporations. Many of our trading partner nations do not impose this kind of taxation on their home-based companies. Without the exemption for active financing income, which expires at the end of this year, our firms will have a significant disadvantage in competing with companies based in these other nations. The second, and I believe, the most important, is the research credit, which expired at the end of last year. Research and development is the lifeblood of American innovation. This is an area where our Nation has clearly held the lead for decades. However, we are at serious risk of losing this edge to other countries. No longer is the U.S. the only place to find talented scientists and other researchers. No longer does the U.S. have the only world class research facilities. And certainly, no longer do we have the only tax incentives for research in the world. Many other countries, each of which would love to take our lead away, are vying for this research. We simply cannot afford to allow this credit to lose its incentive value and thus allow research to escape our shores. I fear it is already happening, but passing this bill is the first step in fighting to keep this indispensable segment. This is obviously a historic week in a monumental year. Hugely important questions with tremendous ramifications lie before the Congress and before the American people and must be decided in the next few days and weeks. The issue at hand today might be overshadowed by other matters, but is nevertheless a vital one. We must pass this tax extenders and energy incentives bill, and I hope the House can get it done this week as well. Let us put this part of our financial house in order today. Then, I hope and pray we as a Congress can make the right decisions in solving our financial and liquidity crisis, and that the people of America choose wisely in the elections that are just a few weeks away. As a Nation and as a Congress, we have a lot of work ahead of us to bolster the confidence of the people. We need health care reform and we need a tax system that helps us compete in the world, instead of leaving us at a disadvantage. I personally compliment the distinguished Senator from Montana and the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Senators Baucus and Grassley, for the work they have done, and, of course, others who have participated in this. Let's build on this work as we move forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today concerned about the current crisis in our financial markets and the state of our economy. I am also concerned about the course that is being laid out by both the administration and the congressional leadership. Specifically, I fear that the magnitude of what we are undertaking is being swallowed by the concerns of an election campaign and, quite frankly, I don't believe that is any way to govern. Of course, the sense of urgency being expressed by my colleagues is warranted given the circumstances. In the last year, price increases, particularly in food and energy, have exceeded our income growth. The unemployment rates have edged up. Already we have lost some 700,000 jobs. Obviously, the fallout was particularly severe in the housing sector. But it should be noted that some of the slowdown is due to the aging of the economic expansion and the completion of the capital investment spurred by the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Clearly, these need to be renewed and expanded to encourage growth in the economy at large. However, we are dealing with more than a sputtering in our economy. Losses on mortgage-backed securities, coupled with the loss of confidence in the financial sector, threaten to turn a predictable economic slowdown into something far worse. Indeed, we are in the grips of a financial panic of monumental proportions. The sharp decline in confidence has led to runs on many institutions, most apparently among our investment banks that operated largely on borrowed money at high rates of leverage. Most of these institutions have either sought merger partners or are being sold to stronger firms. Others are reconstituting themselves as commercial banks in order to obtain additional Federal deposit protection and regulation. Many investment banks were too shaky to survive, unable to absorb losses on housing-related securities that exceeded their capital and having insufficient time to obtain an infusion of capital from new investors. Most financial institutions here and around the world have suffered manageable losses. Except for the uncertainty which has made our banks reluctant to deal with one another or to issue new loans, they are otherwise in good condition. Banks and other financial institutions around the world have considerable assets but cannot access them. Normally, an institution in need of cash would sell some of its assets to others. But at the current time, entire classes of assets cannot be valued properly and, as a result, there is no functioning market for them. These institutions cannot wait for the market values to be sorted out because they owe money now that is due for repayment. We have to buy the banks enough time to properly sort out their assets. When the sorting is complete, they will likely find that their assets still have considerable value, perhaps between 70 cents and 90 cents on the dollar. Delinquency rates on mortgages are significantly up from a year ago, from about 2.4 percent to a bit over 8 percent as of the end of June. However, the homes and the land are still in existence and have retained much of their intrinsic real value. Most of the borrowers are paying their mortgages, and most of the mortgage- backed bonds are still paying interest. Unfortunately, if the bonds have to be resold today in this unstable, panicky market, they will yield far less than their real value. If the bonds can be held until the crisis is sorted out, the losses will be greatly decreased. Certainly, the losses will be substantial and inconvenient for many institutions and for a number of individual investors, but they will be manageable. These are not insurmountable problems. We have dealt with financial crises before. We overcame the devastating stagflation of the 1970s, halting inflation and renewing economic growth through a mix of new monetary tax-and-spend policies enacted in 1981. We solved the savings and loan crisis of the mid-1980s, even as income and unemployment rose rapidly, without resorting to renewed inflation. In short, our greatest fear should not be the crisis itself but the possibility of an inappropriate response to the crisis. In order to determine the best course going forward, we need to examine what got us here. While it would be easy, especially during the campaign season, to lay the blame at the feet of certain individuals, the actual problems we face are simply too complex to be pinned on a single actor or party. Right now, we are seeing the consequences of a long series of policy errors, both in the private and public sectors, which combined to create a perfect storm of financial instability. Many of our problems stem from our monetary policy at the Federal Reserve. From 1988 to 1999, the Fed pursued a relatively stable monetary policy. However, in anticipation of serious problems with the financial sector's computer systems as the year 2000 approached, the Fed flooded the system with money in 1999. This contributed to the ``dot com'' bubble, and subsequent efforts to take out the excess cash contributed to the recession of 2001. In order to spur the economy, the Federal Reserve held short-term interest rates too low for too long, well below the expected rate of inflation. The money that subsequently poured into housing and commodities created excessive demand, contributing to the housing and commodity price bubbles, both of which burst due to the most recent efforts of the Fed to return to a less- inflationary stance. The easy credit made available from these policies was quickly steered into the housing sector, facilitated by increased availability of adjustable rate mortgages, rising demand for mortgage-backed securities, and the globalization of financial markets. The proverbial plot thickened as loan origination companies and many banks continually borrowed at the prevailing low rates and resold the mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or other firms generating mortgage-backed securities, all of which planned to sell the mortgages rather than keep them on their books. So they had little reason to be concerned with the quality of loans or the borrowers' ability to repay. As a result, lending standards fell. Subprime loans were given to many debtors who could not, under normal conditions, qualify for or afford the debt they were taking on. These people were offered adjustable rate mortgages with low teaser rates, borrowing on the assumption that they could always refinance at the same low rates later on. In effect, low-income buyers became speculators in the midst of a bubble. Borrowers and lenders assumed that real estate prices would rise indefinitely. Therefore, many assumed that, even if they could not refinance, they would be able to sell their houses later on at a profit. The infusion of money into the housing market increased demand and drove up housing prices, leading to overconstruction. Eventually, the prices had to come down to Earth, leading to the losses and defaults that we are facing today. Make no mistake, we are facing difficult times. But I must urge my colleagues to maintain some perspective about the overall state of our economy. True enough, these were unprecedented challenges, but given what is at stake, the American people need an accurate portrayal of the obstacles we face. Once again, our current problems are difficult but not fatal, and contrary to the claims of some of my colleagues, this is not 1929 and America has not become a country of Tom Joads. While, once again, the financial failures have placed us in an extremely tenuous position, the overall economy has not collapsed. As a result of the reduction in tax rates beginning in 2001 and 2003, we saw more than 4 years of strong economic growth. After a single quarter of negative growth at the end of 2007, our economy has continued to grow this year, though at a slower rate. Productivity has been on the rise and inflation has been on the decline. Of course, these facts are not likely to comfort those in our country who are struggling through the uncertainties, but they should give us cause to believe we can weather this storm. Yet what we hear from some Democrats regarding these matters are more partisan attacks and fingerpointing. The country is in shambles, and President Bush and John McCain, they say, are entirely to blame. Of course, these attacks are simply ridiculous, just as it would be ridiculous for me to stand here and lay the blame entirely on Democratic congressional leaders. The stakes are simply too high on this issue for our response to be muddled by campaign rhetoric or election-related agendas. I sincerely hope we can move past any partisan wrangling and address these matters in a sensible, bipartisan fashion. This week we are working on, and are likely to pass, an economic relief package that, if it resembles what has been advertised, will put the American taxpayers on the hook for about $700 billion--$700 billion--and the American taxpayers will become the proud owners of a mountain of questionable mortgages. The fact that this gargantuan number can be discussed in these Chambers without causing all of us to shudder says a lot about how detached from reality many of us have become. The Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, whom I greatly respect and admire, announced a proposed bailout last Friday. According to the current agenda discussed among congressional leaders, they hope to be able to finalize the package and have it on the President's desk by the end of the week. To sum up, we are preparing to authorize $700 billion in new spending and to fundamentally alter the balance between the Government and the private sector, and we will not take longer than a week to debate and discuss the legislation. I know many of my colleagues are anxious to get back on the campaign trail so they can blame President Bush, Senator McCain, or anyone with an ``R'' next to their name for the financial crisis. But I think the American people expect more out of us. Indeed, if we are going to spend $700 billion of their money, we had better be certain it is the right thing to do. The proposal clearly has the potential to work. Under the plan, the Secretary will be given authority to spend up to $700 billion to acquire large quantities of questionable mortgage-related debt that have caused the financial markets to freeze. Fortunately, from what we have been told, that $700 billion figure is only the gross cost of the program. The assets acquired by the Treasury will eventually be sold. If--and this is a big if--all goes according to plan and the assets are purchased at appropriate discounts, there is a chance the Treasury will recoup the taxpayers' investment or even turn a profit. As we heard from Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke on Tuesday, this outcome cannot be guaranteed and, at this point, much uncertainty remains. However, as we all know, the cost of doing nothing could be much greater. By failing to act, we may inflict even greater hardship on the working people, small business owners, and retirees throughout the country. In addition to the inherent risks in the program, a number of other factors must be considered. First of all, we need to remember that Secretary Paulson will not be running the Treasury for much longer. That is a possibility. In fact, it is a probability. Given the sheer size of this proposal, passage of this bill, coupled with the start of a new administration in January, the choice regarding the next Treasury Secretary will suddenly become one of the most important political appointments in a generation. We would be passing on to an unknown administration unprecedented powers over the financial markets and the private sector. While I have great confidence in the leadership and abilities of Secretary Paulson, such uncertainty gives me pauses. Second, there is a conspicuous lack of transparency, oversight or accountability in the Secretary's proposal. Instead, it contains explicit provisions exempting his decisions from any kind of review. No consultation is required for any purchase, nor is there a requirement that either his decisionmaking process or his decisions themselves be made public. The shudder I feel over the $700 billion price tag grows exponentially if there is going to be no accountability. If Congress is to approve a bailout of this magnitude, we must take proper precautions to ensure we do not compound the inherent uncertainty of the plan with more uncertainty in the legislation. We need to include some sort of guidelines or oversight in order to ensure that this administration and the next one do not abuse or misuse such a huge grant of trust. Finally, we need to consider any response to the current crisis in the context of our long-term economic needs. While the proposed bailout may hold off an impending economic meltdown, any action we take now will be meaningless if it is not followed up with decisive action on our part. Foremost, we need to change the way the financial sector works. The Federal Reserve needs to rethink its definition of good monetary policy and determine whether its existing policy tools--such as reserve requirements, oversight capabilities, and reporting rules--are adequate. In addition, Congress must reconsider what it has charged the Federal Reserve to do. The Fed has been charged with two goals: No. 1, providing a sound currency with stable purchasing power; and, No. 2, maintaining steady economic growth with low unemployment. At this point, it is obvious that an aggressive, excessively easy monetary policy in pursuit of short-term growth is self-destructive in the long run. It leads only to inflation and speculative excesses in the credit markets that might harm the economy, and probably will. Only by focusing on a stable currency can the Federal Reserve achieve both its objectives. We also need to completely rethink Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As we have heard countless times over the last few weeks, in creating these two government-sponsored enterprises, we have made sure the benefits of their investments are private while all the risks are public. Put simply: This is bad policy with considerable moral hazard. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together represent an immense government- created and government-coddled duopoly. In the years since their creation, they have focused mainly on their own expansion, recklessly urged on by many in Congress who believed this was the way to make home ownership more affordable for low-income families. However, as a recent Fed study has demonstrated, most of the benefit of the previously implicit--now explicit--Federal guarantee of their debt has gone to their shareholders as higher earnings, not to reducing costs for new homeowners. In their efforts to expand, Fannie and Freddie took too many unwarranted risks. They needed an ever-expanding supply of new mortgages to package and resell and to hold for income. Others fed this expansion effort with unsound lending. The recent Federal bailout of these institutions requires an immediate step: an end to their lobbying to Congress. It is a little late in coming, but as of right now, it is essential. We need to stop insisting that Fannie and Freddie have an ever-expanding role in the housing market. We should also consider breaking each of them into separate pieces to promote more competition and to ensure that no one part of them will ever again be too big to be allowed to fail. The regulatory and rating agencies also need to be reviewed. We need to ask whether they have enough resources for adequate supervision and whether they have failed to recognize the evolutionary changes in the credit markets and the new business arrangements that reduced transparency in financing. These and other questions will have to be explored as we move forward. Congress must also recognize its responsibility to help the economy grow. I, for one, would like to see some willingness among the Democratic leaders to enact policies that are actually intended to spur long-term economic growth in our country. It is simply appalling that the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Yet it is almost sacrilegious among Democrats to consider reducing those rates in order to spur growth among our Nation's businesses and employers. Capital gains in this country are taxed at a higher rate than they are in many countries throughout the world, and all we hear from Democrats are proposals to increase taxes on capital gains and dividends, which, as history has shown, creates disincentives for investment. During these months of slow economic growth, it has been our exports that have kept our economy afloat. One would think this should incentivize Congress to promote free trade with our allies throughout the world. Yet we have consistently seen efforts to open our exports to foreign markets stalled by the Democrats in Congress. Finally, we spend $700 billion a year to purchase oil from outside the United States. But if you looked at any of the so-called energy bills we have considered in Congress, they do not contain any provisions that will actually increase oil production at home, except the bill we Republicans offered here a month or so ago. We clearly need to reform our financial markets and refine the powers of the Federal Reserve in order to ensure crises such as this don't happen again. And though I hesitate to support the idea, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the proposed bailout can provide immediate relief and prevent any more catastrophic losses in the near future and give the financial market time to sort out the mess. But if we don't adopt policies that are pro-growth, pro-business, and pro-job creation, we won't be able to ensure long-term economic security for our country, no matter how many bad mortgages we purchase with the taxpayers' money. These are indeed difficult times for our financial markets and the housing sector of our economy. I agree with my colleagues that we need to act fast. I only hope that, as we work toward a solution, we do so according to a timetable that is appropriate to the problems we face and not one based on election year expediency. I also hope that we can consider the long-term implications of our actions and consider the future as well as the present.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Serve America Act of 2008. I, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, have introduced this legislation in hopes that it will expand service opportunities for people throughout our country. I am pleased to report that it also has the support of Senators McCain, Obama, Cochran, and Dodd. For some time I have supported the idea of encouraging our people to give 2-years of volunteer service over the course of their lives. In addition, I have long believed that community and faith-based organizations are doing most of the best work at addressing the needs of our people. And, I might add, they do it at a fraction of what it would cost the Federal Government to do similar work. These are the reasons Senator Kennedy and I have drafted and introduced the Save America Act. This bill 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 nonprofit 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. There are a number of provisions in this bill that I believe will be of interest particularly to those of us we ascribe to conservative principles. For example, it will benefit thousands of faith-based and religious organizations throughout the country--they are eligible to participate in virtually every new program in the bill. It also preserves a very significant role for State governments at every step. Like many of my colleagues, I would like to see individuals, churches and communities do more and have the Government do less. While this bill does create new Government programs, the programs are specifically designed to foster this type of volunteer spirit and alleviate the need for bloated Government programs throughout Washington to accomplish the same goals. Senator Kennedy and I are committed to ensuring that this bill receives broad, bipartisan support, not only among those in Congress, but among the American people as well. Toward that end, Senator Kennedy and I have agreed that, when this bill is considered in the HELP Committee, which is chaired by the gentleman from Massachusetts, we will work with Members of both parties to offset the spending in this bill and ensure that it is budget neutral. I think we have all heard the cries from our constituents for more fiscal responsibility and discipline in Congress. While this bill does authorize some spending, our commitment to offset these costs will ensure that it will not add to the Federal deficit. Senator Kennedy and I have also introduced 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 ``donate'' their employees' time to charitable service through employer-directed projects. 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. For example, one company presently has a program to provide managerial and educational workers to an underdeveloped school system. This tax incentive would encourage this company to provide even more such service and encourage other companies 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. By doing so, everyone benefits. These two bills, I believe, represent efforts that all Members can get behind. As we saw at the Service Nation Summit last night, the Presidential candidates from both parties have expressed their support for this bill and for expanding service opportunities nationwide. Indeed, I think that they both recognize that an investment in the generosity and ingenuity of the American people is a pretty safe bet. I encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Serve America Act of 2008. I, along with my good friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, have introduced this legislation in hopes that it will expand service opportunities for people throughout our country. I am pleased to report that it also has the support of Senators McCain, Obama, Cochran, and Dodd. For some time I have supported the idea of encouraging our people to give 2-years of volunteer service over the course of their lives. In addition, I have long believed that community and faith-based organizations are doing most of the best work at addressing the needs of our people. And, I might add, they do it at a fraction of what it would cost the Federal Government to do similar work. These are the reasons Senator Kennedy and I have drafted and introduced the Save America Act. This bill 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 nonprofit 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. There are a number of provisions in this bill that I believe will be of interest particularly to those of us we ascribe to conservative principles. For example, it will benefit thousands of faith-based and religious organizations throughout the country--they are eligible to participate in virtually every new program in the bill. It also preserves a very significant role for State governments at every step. Like many of my colleagues, I would like to see individuals, churches and communities do more and have the Government do less. While this bill does create new Government programs, the programs are specifically designed to foster this type of volunteer spirit and alleviate the need for bloated Government programs throughout Washington to accomplish the same goals. Senator Kennedy and I are committed to ensuring that this bill receives broad, bipartisan support, not only among those in Congress, but among the American people as well. Toward that end, Senator Kennedy and I have agreed that, when this bill is considered in the HELP Committee, which is chaired by the gentleman from Massachusetts, we will work with Members of both parties to offset the spending in this bill and ensure that it is budget neutral. I think we have all heard the cries from our constituents for more fiscal responsibility and discipline in Congress. While this bill does authorize some spending, our commitment to offset these costs will ensure that it will not add to the Federal deficit. Senator Kennedy and I have also introduced 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 ``donate'' their employees' time to charitable service through employer-directed projects. 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. For example, one company presently has a program to provide managerial and educational workers to an underdeveloped school system. This tax incentive would encourage this company to provide even more such service and encourage other companies 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. By doing so, everyone benefits. These two bills, I believe, represent efforts that all Members can get behind. As we saw at the Service Nation Summit last night, the Presidential candidates from both parties have expressed their support for this bill and for expanding service opportunities nationwide. Indeed, I think that they both recognize that an investment in the generosity and ingenuity of the American people is a pretty safe bet. I encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this is an important day in our ongoing effort to expand opportunities for individuals with disabilities to participate in the American dream. Passage of the ADA Amendments Act establishes that the Americans with Disabilities Act will continue to help change lives. Nearly two decades ago, Senator Harkin and I stood on this same Senate floor as partners in this cause. Of course, my good friend from Iowa, Tom Harkin, has been a great leader in this area, and others as well. In 1990, we worked together to produce a compromise that passed the Congress overwhelmingly. We stand here again today to do the same thing. Why did we need to do this? The Americans with Disabilities Act defines a disability as an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. It prohibits discrimination on the basis of a present, past, or perceived disability. As the ADA was put into practice and used in actual cases, the courts had to construe and apply its meaning. In Sutton v. United Airlines, the Supreme Court said that impairments must be examined in their mitigated state to determine whether they constitute a disability. In Toyota v. Williams, the Court said the definition of ``disability'' must be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled. These decisions had the effect of narrowing the ADA's coverage and the protection it affords. Some explain these decisions by saying that the Court ignored what Congress intended in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Others explained them by saying the Court had to reconcile everything Congress said in the ADA. Either way, when it comes to legislation, when Congress does not like something, Congress can change it, and that is what we are doing today. The authority over Federal disability policy remains right here with the Congress, and it is our responsibility to establish, change, expand, redirect, or amend it whenever and however we see fit. That is what we are doing today with this bill. The bill we pass today is the third and final round of a long process that started more than a year ago. First came the introduction of the ADA Restoration Act, then passage of the House ADA Amendments Act--wonderful work done by our colleagues in the House--and now passage of the Senate ADA Amendments Act. Stakeholders, including disability, business, and education groups contributed to this process. House and Senate committees held hearings, and staff participated in what no doubt seemed at times as endless rounds of negotiation. The result is a true compromise that establishes more generous coverage and protection under the ADA in a way that maximizes consensus and minimizes unintended consequences. First, the bill removes what the Supreme Court said led it to narrowly construe the ADA in the first place. Congress stated in the ADA that there are 43 million Americans with disabilities. The Supreme Court treated this as a cap and answered the questions regarding mitigating measures and the standard for applying the disability definition to fit under that cap. Removing that finding removes the cap and allows the Court to construe and apply the definition more generously. Secondly, the bill lowers the threshold for determining when an impairment constitutes a disability without using new undefined terms. Removing the finding that served to raise that threshold and using more appropriate findings and purpose language to explain its meaning made departing from the ADA's existing definitional language unnecessary. Third, the bill directs that the definition of disability be construed in favor of broad coverage. This reflects what courts have held about civil rights statutes in general and what courts held about the ADA in particular before the Toyota decision; namely, that they should be broadly construed to effect their remedial purpose. I was not comfortable with the open-ended rule of broad construction in the House bill. The rule in our bill parallels a similar provision in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a bill I introduced and the Senate unanimously passed in 2002. Fourth, the bill does what the ADA did not by prohibiting consideration of mitigating measures. The committee reports on the ADA say mitigating measures should be ignored, but the ADA itself does not. Courts consult committee reports to clarify ambiguous statutory language but cannot use those reports as a substitute for nonexistent statutory language. So we make it clear that with the exception of eyeglasses and contacts impairments are to be considered in their unmitigated state when determining whether they are disabilities. Fifth, the bill makes the current prohibition of discrimination on the basis of being regarded as having a disability apply to the broader category of impairments. I have to say this is a significant step because individuals will no longer have to prove they have a disability or that their impairment limits them in any way. The bill balances this by limiting the remedies available under this provision. This is a good example of how we work to balance the impact of the bill and to accommodate the interests of the parties affected by it. Finally, we tried to minimize the impact this bill would have in the educational arena. While the issues that made this legislation necessary arose in the employment context, any change we make could impact educators. So we affirmed in this bill what the courts have already ruled, that institutions of higher education are not required to fundamentally alter educational standards when providing reasonable accommodations to students with disabilities. This bill is supported by hundreds of groups on both the disability and business side and by dozens of veterans organizations. We introduced this bill on July 31 with 55 original cosponsors, and as of today that number tops 70, more than the original ADA. More than two-thirds of the Democratic and Republican caucuses have cosponsored this legislation, and I believe everyone else is for it as well. This is a great achievement that continues the tradition of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA in 1990 in removing barriers and increasing opportunities for our fellow citizens with disabilities. The work was long and hard. Many pieces had to be put in the right place for this puzzle to become clear. But the picture that resulted is beautiful indeed. Our commitment, our obligation, our promise did not end with the ADA, and it will not end with today's passage of the ADA Amendments Act. I want to particularly thank my friend and colleague, Senator Harkin, for his continuing leadership, as well as Chairman Kennedy. He cannot be here today mainly because he is mending up there in Massachusetts. I just chatted with him again yesterday. But he deserves a lot of credit on this bill. Of course, also deserving great credit is the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senator Enzi, for his support of this bill and for the facilitation of this development, and others as well. All the cosponsors deserve a great deal of credit on this bill. I want to particularly thank staff members who labored long and hard, including Tom Jipping on my staff, Chris Campbell on my staff, and Michael Madsen on my staff, and Lee Perselay, Pam Smith, and Beth Stein on Senator Harkin's staff. This bill would not have come along as well as it has without these wonderful staff people who worked so long and prodigiously to help make this work. There were times when people thought that divergent interests and diverse viewpoints simply could not be reconciled, especially in this area. They thought the same thing back in 1990. Since we came together then to produce the ADA, I knew we would ultimately come together now to produce the ADA Amendments Act, and we did. I know this will make a real difference in the lives of real people, and for that I am humbled and grateful. When we argued the original Americans With Disabilities Act on this floor, I mentioned how I carried my brother-in-law, Raymon Hansen, in my arms through the Los Angeles temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. He weighed very little. He had to go home to an iron lung every night. This young man, who was an athlete in both high school and college, and a great athlete at that, got both types of polio, yet he finished his undergraduate degree in education and went on and got a master's degree in engineering. He worked at Edgerton, Germeshausen & Greer, one of the great engineering firms, and he worked every day, right up until the day he died. I have to admit I have been in the presence of so many people who have disabilities, major disabilities, who suffer long and hard, but who have more courage, more ability, and more verve than a lot of us who are not suffering from disabilities. I know Senator Harkin mentioned his brother and others, and I am sure he will do that again today. I have a great deal of affection for Senator Harkin, and I had it before this bill back in 1990, but I have certainly had it even more greatly since. He is a good man, and he has a great desire to do what is right in this area, and so do I. There are millions and millions of people with disabilities who can be very good, functioning members of our society and who will benefit from this bill, and I personally express my gratitude to all of the cosponsors, but especially to Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Enzi. These are great people who are trying to do great things here, and for a very bad election year, this is one of the greatest things we will have done in this whole year. For that, I am truly grateful. I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for International Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Act of 2008 S. 3464, introduced by my friend from Montana, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and myself. This piece of legislation represents months of hard work and collaboration, and I am pleased that we have finally arrived at a consensus on this very important global issue. The protection of intellectual property has always been one of my top legislative priorities in the Senate. Now more than ever, America's ingenuity continues to fuel our economy, and it is imperative that we protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. Make no mistake about it: piracy and counterfeiting are the new face of economic crime around the world, far exceeding traditional property crimes. It is estimated that U.S. intellectual property alone is worth $5 to $5.5 trillion, that is equivalent to about 45 percent of our GDP. In other words, this is greater than the entire GDP of any other nation in the world. Additionally, millions and millions of jobs are created every year by U.S. IP industries. And, I might add, these jobs earn an average of 40 percent more than the average pay of other U.S. jobs. Without doubt, America's Intellectual property drives our economy and is the envy of the world and we must do everything to protect our prime status as a world leader on this front. Counterfeiting and piracy aren't just about downloaded music, pirated software, or fake designer hand bags. It's about the health and safety of the American people. Indeed, counterfeiting and piracy affect all sectors of our economy, including pharmaceuticals, auto parts, and the quality and safety of our food. S. 3464 will serve as an important bridge in the battle to protect U.S. intellectual property rights overseas. With the rising tide of piracy and counterfeiting abroad, it is vital that we provide those working on the front lines with the tools they need to ensure that our nation's IP rights are lawfully respected by foreign countries. To that end, S. 3464 will require the U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, to press countries that violate U.S. intellectual property rights to take specific steps to stop violations by developing an action plan for each foreign country that has remained on USTR's ``Priority Watch List'' of intellectual property deficient countries for at least one year. The action plan must list the legislative, enforcement, or other actions that the foreign country must take in order to achieve adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights. The legislation also provides funds to increase USTR's ability to partner with developing countries to improve IP protection and enforcement, including capacity building, activities designed to increase awareness of intellectual property rights, and training for officials responsible for enforcing the laws. Additionally, the bill give the President enforcement tools to deal with countries that refuse to fight widespread theft of our Nation's IP. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that we will do so in an expeditious manner.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for International Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Act of 2008 S. 3464, introduced by my friend from Montana, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and myself. This piece of legislation represents months of hard work and collaboration, and I am pleased that we have finally arrived at a consensus on this very important global issue. The protection of intellectual property has always been one of my top legislative priorities in the Senate. Now more than ever, America's ingenuity continues to fuel our economy, and it is imperative that we protect new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity. Make no mistake about it: piracy and counterfeiting are the new face of economic crime around the world, far exceeding traditional property crimes. It is estimated that U.S. intellectual property alone is worth $5 to $5.5 trillion, that is equivalent to about 45 percent of our GDP. In other words, this is greater than the entire GDP of any other nation in the world. Additionally, millions and millions of jobs are created every year by U.S. IP industries. And, I might add, these jobs earn an average of 40 percent more than the average pay of other U.S. jobs. Without doubt, America's Intellectual property drives our economy and is the envy of the world and we must do everything to protect our prime status as a world leader on this front. Counterfeiting and piracy aren't just about downloaded music, pirated software, or fake designer hand bags. It's about the health and safety of the American people. Indeed, counterfeiting and piracy affect all sectors of our economy, including pharmaceuticals, auto parts, and the quality and safety of our food. S. 3464 will serve as an important bridge in the battle to protect U.S. intellectual property rights overseas. With the rising tide of piracy and counterfeiting abroad, it is vital that we provide those working on the front lines with the tools they need to ensure that our nation's IP rights are lawfully respected by foreign countries. To that end, S. 3464 will require the U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, to press countries that violate U.S. intellectual property rights to take specific steps to stop violations by developing an action plan for each foreign country that has remained on USTR's ``Priority Watch List'' of intellectual property deficient countries for at least one year. The action plan must list the legislative, enforcement, or other actions that the foreign country must take in order to achieve adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights. The legislation also provides funds to increase USTR's ability to partner with developing countries to improve IP protection and enforcement, including capacity building, activities designed to increase awareness of intellectual property rights, and training for officials responsible for enforcing the laws. Additionally, the bill give the President enforcement tools to deal with countries that refuse to fight widespread theft of our Nation's IP. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that we will do so in an expeditious manner.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary state?

Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President. Will the Chair please let me know when 9 minutes has expired.