Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am so grateful to the Senator. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and tell him I don't know anybody in the Senate who feels more deeply about Senator Kennedy than I do. We have been adversaries for 32 years. We have also been partners. I have watched what their family has given to America. I love his sisters. I love the in-laws. I know he raised the children, and they are good kids. I have great faith in Ted Kennedy as a person who will fight back with the faith and prayers of all of us in the Senate and millions of others across the country. I believe Ted will be able to come back, and he will come back, and I believe he will be able to whip this problem. I am going to exert all the faith and prayers I possibly can to help him do it. I agree with the distinguished Senator, whenever any of us encountered great difficulty, he was always the first to call. We have worked together on so many pieces of legislation, landmark legislation, that I wish to personally compliment him for being willing to cross the aisle in so many ways and to work out difficulties. One of the last things we worked on was the bio bill. That is a very complex, difficult bill, and we worked along with Senator Enzi, who is a wonderful companion of Senator Kennedy on the HELP Committee. We worked with Senator Clinton, who added a great deal to the work on that bill. Senator Schumer was a great asset on that bill. These are people for whom I have great respect. Let me say to Ted and Vicki that our prayers and our faith are with both of them and their children and the rest of the extended family, and we will do everything in our power to support Senator Kennedy in this time of difficulty. I personally believe that if we have enough faith and pray hard enough and with the great clinical help he will have, Senator Kennedy will return and continue to do the job he believes in. I know he appreciates everybody who has spoken out for him, who has expressed concern, who has expressed anguish, as I do here, about his present situation. I know he is facing this with a great sense of humor, which is one of the most endearing qualities Ted Kennedy has, among many endearing qualities. He carries so much weight on the Democrat side and, of course, for those of us who work with him on the Republican side, a lot of weight with us as well. So I want him to know we all love him, appreciate him, and appreciate the leadership he has provided through the years and the quality of the person he is. If the distinguished Senator would allow me to address another topic, I would be very grateful. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these new sets of remarks be placed in the Record at an appropriate place.

Mr. HATCH. I will have more to say about Senator Kennedy later, but I wanted to make those few remarks here today.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the exploitation of children is a plague. It is a war with many fronts, and we must be engaged in them all. I wish to review some of the ways we are fighting this good fight and encourage my colleagues to be as relentless in protecting children as are those in the world who exploit them. Just 2 days ago, the Supreme Court upheld our most recent attempt to combat the spread of child pornography. In a 7-to-2 decision--an overwhelming vote by the Supreme Court, by the way--the Court held that the PROTECT Act is consistent with the first amendment. I introduced the PROTECT Act in January 2003. It passed this body unanimously in February, passed the House without objection in March, and was signed into law in April. The PROTECT Act prohibits the pandering or solicitation of child pornography. Child pornography is perhaps the most egregious form of exploitation. It not only victimizes and brutalizes children directly but makes a permanent record of that abuse that may never be erased. Child pornography is not protected by the first amendment, which means its possession and sale can be banned. In 2002, the Supreme Court struck down the Child Pornography Prevention Act, a bill I introduced in the 104th Congress. So we went back to the drawing board. If the objective is important--and I do not believe any objective is more important than protecting children from exploitation--then we must not take no for an answer. We must not let speed bumps, roadblocks, or potholes, or Supreme Court decisions stop us. The PROTECT Act was the result. We studied the Supreme Court's decision and used its guidance to craft a bill that would prohibit the offer to distribute or the request to receive child pornography. When it upheld the PROTECT Act this week, the Court said that the speech this law targets is what literally introduces this destructive material into the distribution network. Now the PROTECT Act can be deployed in our ongoing, never-ending fight to protect children from exploitation, and I am glad it can be deployed. I thank my colleagues for not giving up, for not throwing up your hands when the Supreme Court initially said no. I thank you for rolling up your sleeves, for joining with me to find some way to protect children. Let me quote from the closing paragraph of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion this week in United States v. Williams: Child pornography harms and debases the most defenseless of our citizens. This court held unconstitutional Congress' previous attempt to meet this new threat, and Congress responded with a carefully crafted attempt to eliminate the First Amendment problems we identified. As far as the provision at issue in this case is concerned, that effort was successful. While the 108th Congress passed the PROTECT Act, the 109th Congress passed the Adam Walsh Act. The Adam Walsh Act was a comprehensive child protection bill hailed by agencies and organizations throughout this country for its importance. This legislation enhanced the Web technology available for tracking convicted sex offenders and replaced outdated and inaccurate Web sites with meaningful tools to protect children. Today, there are more than half a million registered sex offenders in the United States. Unfortunately, many of them receive limited sentences and roam invisibly through our communities. With too many, we don't know where they are until it is too late. Under this law, offenders are now required to report regularly to the authorities in person and let them know when they move or change jobs. If they do not want to follow the rules, they will go back to jail because failure to provide meaningful information is now a felony. In addition, the law created a searchable national Web site that interacts with State sites. Citizens in every State are able to inform themselves about predators in their communities with accurate information. Unfortunately, many of the enforcement provisions in the Adam Walsh Act have not been funded, and I am fully aware of the competing demands for funding but have no doubt that Americans throughout this country would approve of Federal tax dollars being utilized to ensure that criminals who blatantly trade in child pornography are made to pay a high price for these crimes. I urge my colleagues to show their dedication and resolve to fully fund the Adam Walsh Act. In another important development, last night the Senate passed the Protect Our Children First Act. I joined Senator Leahy in introducing this legislation last July, and it is now on its way to the President to be signed into law. This legislation authorizes continued funding for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a center we helped to create. The collective expertise of the center has been invaluable in efforts to address child exploitation, and this bill will ensure their vital work will continue. With all of the tremendous advantages brought about by the Internet, it has also provided a means of communication which criminals use to advance their crimes. We are all aware that pedophiles are utilizing the Internet to facilitate distribution of illegal child pornography. Everyone agrees this type of crime is the most heinous imaginable, but many think the people who trade these horrendous videos and pictures must set up elaborate technology to facilitate their illegal activities. Unfortunately, this is not true. Many individuals throughout this country utilize peer-to-peer software to share illegal child porn with as much ease as sharing MP3s. Many criminals don't even bother trying to hide what they are doing. They utilize graphic words and acronyms to describe the horrible pictures and videos which they willingly share with one another. They seem to have no fear of being caught by law enforcement. To illustrate this point, I want to highlight a graphical representation of the locations where law enforcement determined child pornography videos were hosted on computers and shared via peer-to-peer software. It is as disturbing as it is eye-opening. This map shows the continental United States and locations where child pornography was electronically traded on May 15, 2008. This is just 1 day in the life of this country--6 days ago, as a matter of fact. And it is not meant to be all-inclusive; these are the ones we know of. You can imagine how many there must be. Just in the DC area, look at the child pornography electronic trades. And those are the ones we know about. Now, this type of activity has created a market for new child pornography. In order to move into the higher echelons of this criminal activity, individuals need to offer new material, new graphic pictures and videos. Many of these criminals find that the easiest way to get new materials is to make it themselves; thus, a vicious cycle is created. These monsters, in some sick, sadistic goal of obtaining stature, videotape their crimes against children in order to facilitate their twisted version of moving up the ladder. Congress has done a great deal to address this issue. We have passed numerous statutes in order to ensure those who harm children face the most serious penalties possible. While many local law enforcement agencies are doing a fantastic job addressing these crimes, they are often limited by a lack of manpower and equipment. One program that has had great success is the Internet Crimes Against Children--the ICAC--Task Force Program, which has utilized State and local law enforcement agencies to develop an effective response to child pornography cases. These ICACs provide forensic and investigative activities, training and technical assistance, victim services, and community education. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed legislation, which I cosponsored with Senator Biden of Delaware, which would take significant steps in highlighting the Federal Government's strategy to address child exploitation and ensuring that each State has an ICAC. The bill also calls for an annual report from the Attorney General, which will represent the national strategy for child exploitation, prevention, and interdiction. I believe this report will be invaluable for the effective coordination of Government efforts to address this problem. I have no doubts this legislation will be instrumental in combating child exploitation, and I urge my colleagues to pass this bill quickly. I also wish to mention another extremely valuable organization that is playing a vital role in locating missing children. A Child is Missing is a nonprofit organization assisting the police in the first hours after a child's disappearance. For over 10 years, this organization has provided local law enforcement with technology otherwise unavailable to them. Here is how the program works. When a child is missing, local law enforcement contacts the organization with details of the disappearance, including the child's description, clothes, and last known location. A Child is Missing records a message on behalf of the police agency, and this message is phoned out to the geographical area where the child was last seen. The organization has the ability to send over 1,000 calls in 60 seconds. This message asks for residents to contact the police if they have any information. The effect is instantaneous in that this service opens the eyes of the entire neighborhood in search for the missing child. We all know these first few hours are critical in finding missing children, making this service critical. This is the only program of its kind in the country, and law enforcement has credited it with over 300 safe assisted recoveries. This service is available to law enforcement throughout the country and at no charge to the agencies. It operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I have joined Senator Menendez in introducing legislation, S. 2667, to ensure that this organization will have the funds to continue to offer law enforcement throughout this country this invaluable service. I am hopeful this bill receives prompt consideration. In conclusion, Congress has many opportunities to advance the worthy cause of reducing child exploitation. I call on my colleagues to continue this noble cause and pledge my continued support to advance appropriate legislative endeavors.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Finally, I wish to briefly turn to FISA. This Congress has been working on FISA modernization for over 400 days with apparently no end in sight. Should it take this long? The Constitution of the United States was written in about 115 days. That included travel time on horseback for the Founding Fathers. Congress has had plenty of time to debate this issue. We have to make sure we do not create unnecessary obstacles for intelligence analysts to track terrorists. As has been said, they can't connect the dots if they can't collect the dots. While negotiations continue, it is important to look at the two bills that have passed the Chambers. Let me paint a picture, a Tale of Two Bills, if you will. One bill was available for the public to review for over 4 months, went through 2 committees, had 2 weeks of floor debate including votes on 13 amendments, and passed the Chamber with a huge bipartisan veto-proof majority. The other bill was available for review for 2 days before receiving a vote. It went through no committees, had 1 hour of floor debate, allowed no amendments, and failed to receive bipartisan support, while barely passing the Chamber. Any negotiator would say the first bill in this instance would be the basis for negotiation, not the other way around. I am sure it is no surprise to anyone that the first one I described is the Senate-passed bill. Make no mistake, I will not support any compromise that disregards the extensive work of the Senate in order to facilitate a quick political fix. I appreciate those who are standing tall on the FISA bill in both Houses. I hope we continue to do so because our very country is in jeopardy if we do not. Also, I wish to personally pay tribute and give my gratitude and thanks to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his kindness in allowing me to make these remarks out of turn because they are important remarks. I would feel badly if I didn't get on the floor and make these remarks. It was a very gracious thing for him to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for his kindness. He has always been very gracious and particularly gracious to me.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday on the Senate floor the distinguished majority leader mentioned my name and repeated a claim about my service as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which I once again am compelled to correct. He said: ``Sixty of President Clinton's nominees were denied hearings.'' In a letter to the distinguished minority leader and the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee dated April 30, 2008, he similarly stated that: Senator Hatch exercised the chairman's prerogatives freely during the years in which more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees were denied hearings or floor consideration. The claim--and it has been repeated in various forms by others--is that all these nominees could have been confirmed but were not because I simply blocked them. What is not mentioned is President Clinton came within seven of setting an all-time judicial appointment record while I was chairman. He was treated fairly. I had hearings and moved people to the floor that many on our side had real qualms about. It is true that approximately 60 of his judicial nominees were not confirmed, not in 1 year, as the distinguished majority leader said yesterday, but in all 8 years. They were not confirmed for a host of different reasons, most having nothing to do with the chairman's prerogatives. President Clinton, for example, withdrew a dozen of those nominees himself--actually withdrew them. That was not my prerogative as chairman; it was his prerogative as President. These withdrawn nominees included a nominee to the U.S. District Court whose record as a State court judge in criminal cases was so troubling that prosecutors in her own State, led by a Democrat, opposed her. Instead of certain defeat on the Senate floor, the Republican leader at the time allowed President Clinton to withdraw her nomination. She was not denied a hearing; she had a hearing and was reported to the floor. She was not denied floor consideration; she was spared floor defeat. The unconfirmed Clinton nominees included an appeals court nominee who, though he had raised millions for the Democratic Party, admitted in his hearing that he knew virtually nothing about such basic areas as criminal or constitutional law. President Clinton wisely withdrew him. These unconfirmed nominees included an appeals court nominee who had lied about his background, making claims that were politically potent but patently false. President Clinton withdrew him. Was he unconfirmed? Yes. Was he blocked by Republicans? No. These and others like them were not what some on the other side of the aisle have called pocket filibusters. They were not, as the distinguished majority leader has said, simply denied consideration at the chairman's prerogative. The unconfirmed Clinton nominees include many who did not have the support of their home State Senators. Nominees in this situation did not receive hearings under the chairmen before me as well as those who succeeded me, including the current Democrat chairman who will not call them up if a home State Senator opposes them. That is the policy and tradition of the Judiciary Committee, not simply the chairman's prerogative. Nor is it a pocket filibuster. That is a phony term. Yet, these nominees were unconfirmed and are, therefore, lumped into this category. So are nominees who were not confirmed in the Congress during which they were nominated and President Clinton chose not to renominate. That was his choice, not mine. For these and other reasons, the vast majority of President Clinton's unconfirmed nominees did not make it all the way through the confirmation process for reasons having nothing to do with my chairmanship of the committee. Now, there are always, at the end of every Presidency, those nominees who are put up too late, where you could not get the FBI work done or you could not get the investigatory work done or you couldn't get the ABA report done or there were nominees who had problems in their FBI reports. There were further reasons nominees could not make it at the end of President Clinton's term. I might add that is true of every Presidential term that I recall in my 32 years in the Senate. It is also true that I put through nominees that my side had a lot of angst over because I believed, as I always did in my chairmanship, the President had the power of nomination. We had the power to vote, up or down, against those nominees. So I brought up people who caused a lot of angst on our side because I believed the President deserved that-- unlike some on our side who have been very badly mistreated. I will cite Peter Keisler as a perfect illustration. So I had to come here and set the record straight once again. Some judicial nominees of every President are not eventually confirmed. My friends on the other side of the aisle returned more than 50 unconfirmed judicial nominees to President Bush at the close of the 102nd Congress. But when the reasons nominees are not confirmed are accurately considered, the claim that some 60 Clinton nominees were simply pocket filibustered or were blocked at the chairman's prerogative is simply not true. I believe it to be a gross misrepresentation. I don't blame the majority leader. He is a personal friend of mine. He read from a staff- prepared speech. Nevertheless, that speech was wrong. Let me give you an illustration. These are people sitting right now on the calendar. Peter Keisler has been waiting 691 days for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. By any measure, he is highly competent, decent, and honorable. He has the highest rating from the American Bar Association. Judge Robert Conrad has been waiting 308 days for a Judiciary Committee hearing. He also has the highest ABA rating. This body confirmed him just three years, without a dissenting vote, to the district court, where he is now chief judge. Steve Matthews has been waiting 257 days for a hearing. He too has first-rate qualifications and a positive ABA rating. Many others are still awaiting a vote, as we have been sitting in the Senate not doing very much regarding judicial nominees.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since May is a month to honor and recognize older Americans, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about my strong commitment to having the Elder Justice Act, S. 1070, approved by Congress and signed into law before the conclusion of the 110th Congress. Emily Dickinson once said, old age comes on suddenly, and not gradually as is thought. As someone who just celebrated a birthday a few months ago, this statement has never seemed more accurate! Approximately 44 million people in this country are age 60 and above which tells me that caring for older Americans must be a high priority of future Congresses. In fact, U.S. citizens 60 years of age and above will increase dramatically over the next 30 years more than 76 million baby boomers will be approaching retirement and old age over the next three decades. Let me say that one more time--more than 76 million baby boomers will be approaching retirement and old age over the next three decades. Earlier this Congress, Senators Lincoln, Smith, Kohl and I introduced the Elder Justice Act. Congressmen Rahm Emanuel and Peter King introduced a nearly identical bill in the House. Currently, the Senate bill has 28 cosponsors and the House bill has 113 cosponsors. One person who really deserves a lot of the credit for this bill is our former colleague from Louisiana, Senator John Breaux. He got the ball rolling over here in the Senate. I will never forget him coming to me way back in the 107th Congress and telling me that I needed to work with him on the Elder Justice Act because it would make a tremendous difference for older Americans throughout the country. He and I introduced the Elder Justice Act back in the 107th Congress and ever since then, the bill has been reintroduced each subsequent Congress. I also want to acknowledge the fine work of the Elder Justice Coalition, led by Bob Blancato, its national coordinator. To date, the Elder Justice Coalition has close to 550 members and has done an incredible job advocating for the passage of this legislation. This Congress, for the first time, the Elder Justice Act has been seriously considered by the House. Last week, the House Judiciary Committee considered the Elder Justice Act and it appears that it will be voted out of that committee this week. In the Senate, the legislation has been reported unanimously by the Finance Committee in both the 109th and 108th Congress; however, it has never been approved by the full Senate. As far as I am concerned, this year is going to be different. I will do everything in my power to ensure that this legislation will pass the Senate and be signed into law before the 110th Congress adjourns. Senator Lincoln and I are going to work with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley to schedule a markup on this bill sometime this summer. Over the past couple of years, I worked very closely with Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt and his staff to address the concerns that the administration has raised regarding our bill. Last Congress, I felt like we had some fruitful discussions and progress was made. Secretary Leavitt is a good friend of mine and he knows how important it is to me, Senator Lincoln and senior citizens across the country to have this legislation signed into law. The Secretary assured me that he and his staff would continue to work with us on this bill. So I intend to initiate discussions with the administration once again in the hope that we will be able to come to agreement. And I think we are very close. I have had many ask why does there appear to be such a dramatic increase in elder abuse in the United States. Because there is so little data on elder abuse, it is difficult to know the answer to that question. Quite honestly, I believe that more and more people are taking notice. In the past, there has been no data collection of elder abuse--I find that quite disturbing. The purpose of our legislation is to make changes in the law so we have more precise numbers on how many seniors are being exploited financially, being neglected or being physically or mentally abused. Findings from the often cited National Elder Abuse Incidence Study suggest that more than 500,000 Americans aged 60 and above were victims of domestic abuse in 1996. Studies show the amount of Federal dollars spent on abuse and neglect of elders is substantially smaller than that spent on child and domestic abuse. Elder abuse is a profoundly personal tragedy for its victims--let me cite a case from my home state of Utah. In Utah and across the country, elderly Americans are being exploited and essentially being swindled out of thousands of dollars. A local news station in Salt Lake recently had a story that discussed check scams and how seniors are typically the target of these questionable operations. In Utah alone, the money that people have lost due to these types of scams has quadrupled over the last 3 years. And while many of these operations have addresses in the U.S., they typically originate overseas. For example, a check has been made out to a Salt Lake City senior for close to $4,000. The senior is told that he has been chosen to be a secret shopper and has the chance to win thousands of dollars. He is told that he may keep $500, no strings attached, but he must wire more than $3,000 back to them in order to get the $500. Because this senior sees the chance to win $500, he sends the check for $3,000 and loses all of his money. According to the postal inspector, once a person responds to these scams, he or she is put on what is called a sucker's list and continues to be promised that hundreds and even thousands of dollars could be gained if a check is sent. In Utah, 6 to 700 checks are reported to be sent to these organizations each month. The Elder Justice Act would help the Federal Government collect data on how many senior citizens are being financially exploited, mentally and physically abused and neglected. This chart illustrates the dramatic difference in dollars spent on elder abuse compared to child abuse and domestic abuse. Ninety-one percent, or $6.7 billion, is spent on child abuse, 7 percent, or $520 million on domestic abuse and only 2 percent, or $153.5 million, is spent on elder abuse. Considering the high numbers of the population above age 60, it astounds me the small percentage the Government is willing to dedicate to ending elder abuse. The Elder Justice Act aims to address this serious problem. Our bill would provide Federal resources to support State and community efforts on the front lines dedicated to fighting elder abuse with scarce resources and fragmented systems. It directs the Federal Government to provide leadership to the States and takes an important first step by calling on the Federal Government to create an appropriate way to collect relevant data on elder abuse so we have a better handle on how prevalent elder abuse is among our neighbors, our friends, and our relatives. It assures adequate public-private infrastructure and resources to prevent, detect, treat, understand, intervene in and, where appropriate, prosecute elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. With more than 76 million baby boomers retiring over the next three decades, we cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. Older Americans deserve nothing less. I know that it is extremely important to folks back home in Utah. In closing, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can provide older Americans the same protections that we provide to our children and victims of domestic violence. Because we are not aging gradually, our response must be immediate--we cannot afford to wait for another Congress to end without approving this legislation. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, men are respectable only as they respect. May we strive to be more respectable people by showing respect to those who deserve it the most: our older Americans. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today the Senate voted on the farm bill. Leading up to that vote, we had two procedural votes which are required when budget points of order are raised against a legislative provision. My vote on this farm bill was a difficult one. Certainly, opposition to this bill is justified. There are simply too many subsidies in this bill, there are Davis-Bacon provisions that I strongly oppose, and I believe that some provisions may violate our trade agreements. To express my frustration with the negative aspects of the bill, I chose to support the procedural obstacles leading up to the vote on the bill itself. However, in response to very strong support for the farm bill from the preponderance of agricultural interests in my State, and to the fact that the farm bill has some provisions that are very important to me, I chose to vote in favor of the legislation. I would like to say a few words about a provision in the bill which I sponsored and promoted for over a decade. The provision lifts the ban on the interstate distribution of State-inspected meat. I began the effort with Senator Daschle, and more recently worked with Senators Kohl and Baucus, to include it in the farm bill. Let me give a little background on this issue. With the passage of the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was required to inspect all cattle, sheep, swine, goats, and horses slaughtered for human consumption. The USDA was also made responsible for setting national standards for meat and poultry inspection. In 1957, the Poultry Products Inspection Act made poultry subject to USDA inspection. Later, these two laws were amended to set up a system of State inspection programs separate from the Federal program. At that time, due to some uncertainty about new State inspection programs, a prohibition on interstate distribution was placed on State-inspected beef, poultry, pork, and lamb. It is important to note that the prohibition does not apply to other meats such as venison, pheasant, quail, rabbit, alligator, and others that are typically inspected under the state programs. Neither does the prohibition apply to other perishable products, including milk, other dairy items, fruits, vegetables and fish. All of these products which are inspected under State programs are shipped freely across State lines and to our trading partners. If a State can inspect these products sufficiently for international distribution, they can certainly continue to do so for our more standard meat and poultry products. In the nearly 30 years that the USDA has reviewed State programs, the Department has never unilaterally found that a State inspection program should be discontinued due to an inability to meet Federal food safety regulations. In Utah, we have 32 meat plants under our State inspection program. These establishments, like the nearly 2,000 similar plants nationwide, are mostly small businesses. Generally speaking, they cater to the needs of small, family-run farms and ranches. The outdated ban on interstate shipment of State-inspected meats clearly disrupts the free flow of trade, restricts access to the market, and creates an unfair advantage for big businesses. Let's not forget that meat inspected in 34 foreign countries can be shipped anywhere in the U.S. because the USDA has certified that the foreign inspection programs are equivalent to the Federal program, yet our domestic products inspected by States cannot. This is a ridiculous situation, and it is well past time to remedy it. So I am very pleased that the farm bill will remove the outdated and unjust ban that puts our small businesses at such a disadvantage. Removing this prohibition will increase competition and innovation. It will provide farmers and ranchers an increased opportunity to innovate and compete to serve their consumers. I am also very pleased that the farm bill includes a provision by Senator Max Baucus, which I cosponsored, that will set up a disaster program for the livestock industry. In Utah, we have agricultural disasters almost every year. Farmers in my State never know what Mother Nature may send their way, and my goal is to provide them greater stability. I am grateful that this farm bill will provide our livestock producers the security and certainty they have sought for so long.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. I can probably do it in less than 10 minutes or around that.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I believe my amendment No. 4755 is at the desk. I call it up and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have spoken about the tremendous service America's public safety employees give to the public. I could not agree more. Any given day one of these officers may be asked to put his or her life on the line, and they will do so willingly and courageously. I agree with my colleagues that individuals who choose these careers deserve respect, gratitude, and special treatment. But the bill we are considering today would actually result in diminishing the rights of public safety employees who are not currently unionized. Once a workforce is unionized, even employees who don't wish to be part of a union will have pay deducted from their paychecks, spent in a manner outside of their control, and they will have very little ability to question or alter the legal representation that has been established with or without their support. My amendment seeks merely to balance that diminution of self- determination by establishing a Public Employee Bill of Rights. This amendment would do three things: Guarantee the right to vote by secret ballot, limit the right of public unions' dues collection authority to nonpolitical uses, and allow financial transparency. By ensuring that public safety employees in all States have the right to vote on whether to unionize by secret ballot, my amendment guarantees for public safety employees that same right private employees now have. In a democratic society, nothing is more sacred than the right to vote, and it is undeniable that nothing ensures truly free choice more than the use of a private ballot. The possibility of coercive or threatening behavior toward employees who may not wish to form a union is even more concerning in the context of public safety employees who rely on coworkers to reduce the deadly risks they face routinely in the course of their important work. The amendment would also limit the right of public unions' dues collection authority to nonpolitical uses. Those who choose public service often accept lower pay than they might make in the private sector because they are dedicated to public service. Let's not insult that choice by allowing labor bosses to take money from that paycheck and spend it on purely political causes the employee does not support. I believe public employees should have the same protections from fraud and abuse as private employees. My amendment would empower public employees by allowing them to observe how their dues are being spent and the other financial dealings of their unions. It does this by bringing public unions under the requirements of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, a 1959 law enacted with bipartisan support, including then-Senator John F. Kennedy. Public employees who pay union dues, especially those who are compelled to do so against their wishes, are no less entitled to financial transparency and fraud protections than the private sector employees covered under the law today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is a simple amendment. It provides for protections that ought to be there. If this bill should pass, these protections, at a minimum, ought to be part of this bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks, the distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Brown, be granted the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 2313, the Strategies to Address Antimicrobial Resistance, or STAAR Act. I am proud to have introduced this legislation with my colleague from Ohio, Senator Sherrod Brown. Similar legislation is being championed in the House of Representatives by Representatives Mike Ferguson and my dear colleague and fellow Utahn, Representative Jim Matheson. For more than 60 years since their discovery, antibiotics have saved millions of lives and helped patients of all populations cope with suffering related to infection. But as we have seen, our country increasingly faces a number of troubling questions about whether we are prepared to address the growing problem of drug-resistant, bacterial infections. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate resistant strains of infections have spread rapidly. While antibiotic resistance is an elevated problem for those with compromised immune systems--individuals with HIV and patients in intensive or critical care units, for instance--these infections can strike anyone. Further, this alarming trend continues to worsen and treatment options are sorely lacking. Antibiotic resistance is not a new development. The news is this: Infections that were once easily cured with antibiotics are now becoming difficult--in some cases, impossible--to treat. National surveillance data and studies show antibiotic-resistant bacteria have multiplied and spread at disquieting rates in recent years. For example, consider a common bacterial cause of hospital infections--Staphylococcus aureus, also called staph--which can spread to the bloodstream, heart, lungs and bones with potentially fatal results. In the early 1940s, penicillin effectively combated staph infections. However, penicillin-resistant staph bacteria were identified as early as 1942. Subsequently, methicillin was introduced in the 1960s to fight staph-resistant infections, and shortly thereafter methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus--or MRSA--was discovered. In 1974, 2 percent of staph bacteria found in our country's hospitals were methicillin-resistant. By 2002 the number had jumped to 57.1 percent, according to CDC data. And it is not just happening in hospitals. Public health experts are increasingly finding infections developed in the home or community as well. Thus, infections in both settings are increasing and the resultant drug resistance shows no sign of lessening. The recent problems with MRSA are but one striking example; we are also seeing increases, in extensively-drug resistant--XDR-- tuberculosis. There are also numerous reports of soldiers returning home from Iraq with Acinetobacter--a resistant infection that is especially difficult to treat, and the only option is a very toxic antibiotic. While recent media reports have raised the visibility of this issue, infectious disease doctors have been sounding the alarm for years. In its 2004 report, ``Bad Bugs, No Drugs,'' the Infectious Diseases Society of America, or IDSA, said: Drug-resistant bacterial infections kill tens of thousands of Americans every year and a growing number of individuals are succumbing to community-acquired infections. An epidemic may harm millions. Unless Congress and the administration move with urgency to address these infections now, there is a very good chance that U.S. patients will suffer greatly in the future. Resistant infections lead to higher health care costs because they require more expensive treatment and care. According to estimates from the Institutes of Medicine--IOM--and the former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, the economic burden placed on our national health care system as a result of resistant bacteria totals billions of dollars annually. IDSA, which represents more than 7,500 physicians, scientists, and other health professionals who specialize in infectious diseases, has issued a stern warning and recommendations. The I0M, CDC, NIH and the FDA have also warned that drug-resistant bacteria are a serious public health threat. It is time to act. That is why my good friend Senator Brown and I introduced S. 2313, the STAAR Act. Our bill is not the sole answer to the complex problem of antibiotic resistance. There are several avenues to address the problem. But our bill focuses on just one: providing adequate infrastructure within the government to collect the data, coordinate the research and conduct the surveillance necessary to stop drugresistant infections in their tracks. We believe that jump-starting a greater, stronger organizational focus at the Department of Health and Human Services will help our government and scientists develop an infrastructure that can grow as science develops. The STAAR Act lays out the framework by which we can begin to take action against this serious public health threat. At a minimum, we need better testing, hospital controls, medications and funding to support these efforts, particularly the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In an effort to create this organizational focus, the STAAR Act establishes a new Office of Antimicrobial Resistance at HHS in the Secretary's office. This will give the issue the prominence and the focus it deserves. Our bill also renews the interagency Antimicrobial Resistance Task Force which expired in 2006. It creates an advisory board of experts to advise the new office and the task force, which was created in 1999, to coordinate Federal efforts to combat antimicrobial resistance and was comprised of representatives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and also includes the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Health Care Financing Administration, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency. That task force developed a public health action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance; however, implementation of the plan fell by the wayside. There were no personnel specifically dedicated for executing the plan because all task force members already had full-time responsibilities at their respective Federal agencies. In short, this very important job was assigned to people who already had very important jobs. So our bill recharges that effort. These new bodies will work together to develop a plan to combat antimicrobial resistance, to keep that plan updated and to advise the Secretary on research that should be conducted. The distinguished Senator from Ohio, Senator Brown, and I have found that it is difficult to understand the magnitude of the problem because data are sorely lacking. Spotty data exists from many States--for example, from a hospital or a hospital chain--but not data statewide or nationwide. We need to change that. Our bill addresses that problem. The STAAR Act directs drug sponsors and appropriate government agencies to collect data and share them with the Office of Antimicrobial Resistance as the main depot for such data to facilitate interagency planning on antimicrobial resistance. That will provide us with the information we need to begin addressing the real problem of drug- resistant infections. Finally, we authorize grants for at least 10 Antimicrobial Resistance Clinical Research and Public Health Network sites to strengthen our national capacity to develop the information necessary to assess the extent of the problem and look at effective ways to address it. Currently, there is very little capacity to quickly monitor, assess and address the spread of new or particularly resistant microbes. These network sites will work with the CDC to establish a surveillance system to allow tracking and confirmation of resistant microbes in almost real time. Also, with support from the CDC and the NIH, these sites will conduct research to study the development of antimicrobial resistance. With data from this research, we can better prevent and control and, ultimately, treat the threat of antimicrobial resistance. I wish to take a moment to stress the real importance of this issue. I mentioned earlier that drug-resistant infections can affect anyone at any age--the young, the old, the healthy or ill, I have read stories about newborns, high school and college athletes and NFL football players who have battled with these resistant infections, and many of them lost the fight. I would like to read a short excerpt from one of these stories, which I think really stresses the need for attention to this issue. This was written by a woman from New Jersey named Linda Lohsen, who lost her daughter Rebecca to MRSA in August 2006. Ms. Lohsen writes: Why do I want to share all of this with you? Because for 15 years I was a public health nurse--I heard all about the diseases that might happen. And, perhaps like some of you, I became jaded. I felt that public health was all about sounding the alarm for things that never come to pass. I'm here to tell you this is real, this does happen and it destroys lives. Rebecca's death has changed me, and has changed all of us. Once I believed that the dangers that were out there would stay out there. That modern medicine can avert these dangers. I no longer have the confidence in medicine that I did. I believe we have made great advances, that there are cures to be had, but I've watched the dismay in the faces of doctors who are supposed to be the best in their field as they told me they didn't have any more `cures in their bag.' And I know that it truly is a practice of medicine, not a finished product. Mr. President, Federal agencies, physicians and scientists who specialize in infectious diseases, and public health nurses like Linda Lohsen, are telling us there is a pressing need to address the problem of antimicrobial resistance. We do not have time to wait, and we cannot quickly fix something that we do not yet understand. As Mrs. Lohsen wrote, the dangers that are out there will not simply stay out there. We need to be aggressive in creating a strategy to prevent loss of life or a serious public health epidemic, and lift the economic burden on our health care system caused by antimicrobial resistance. The STAAR Act is not the whole answer, but it is a good bill and an important step in the right direction. In addition to IDSA, the STAAR Act has been endorsed by more than a dozen highly regarded professional healthcare associations. I am very pleased to sponsor this bill with Senator Brown, and I commend him for his work on this bill, for his interest in national health care, and for the hard work he performs in the Senate. It is a privilege to work with him on this matter. Of course, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is long overdue, and we should do everything in our power to make sure we solve these particular problems. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of the 7th Annual ``National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week,'' which is celebrated in conjunction with Teacher Appreciation Week. This is a national effort to recognize the approximately 270,000 men and women that fill in for absent permanent teachers every day in the United States. According to research performed by the Substitute Teaching Institute--STI--at Utah State University, as much as 1 full year of a child's elementary and secondary education is taught by substitute teachers. More often than not, these are talented individuals who are willing to take on the challenge of providing quality education when permanent teachers are out of the classroom. I believe it is only appropriate that we do something to recognize the efforts of these members of our communities who fill a void in the education of our children and play a vital role in maintaining continuity of instruction and a positive learning environment for students throughout our country. I would also like to recognize and commend the work and dedication of the Substitute Teaching Institute. Established in 1995, STI provides substitute teachers with training materials to improve the quality of their contribution to classroom activities. Over the last 12 years, STI has evolved and grown to become one of our Nation's leaders in the effort to improve substitute teaching, providing training materials and services along with recruitment and retention assistance to school districts and substitute teachers around the world. Having expanded its work over the years, the STI continually works to revolutionize the role of substitute teachers into opportunities for educational excellence. I am joined by Senators Clinton and Cochran in submitting a resolution designating May 5-9, 2008 as National Substitute Teacher Recognition Week, and I urge all my colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, S. 2913, introduced at the close of last week by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and myself. This piece of legislation is a product of years of hard work and collaboration. I want to start off by thanking Chairman Leahy for his willingness to name this bill in honor of my long-time staffer and former colleague, Shawn Bentley, whose untimely death, at 41, greatly saddened many in this body. Shawn worked for the Judiciary Committee for a decade, from 1993- 2003. Starting as my counsel, he rose through the ranks, ending his Senate tenure as the majority's Chief Intellectual Property Counsel and Deputy Chief Counsel to the committee. He worked on many important pieces of landmark intellectual property legislation, and he initiated what we have now introduced as an orphan works bill. Thousands of 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.'' 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 so-called ``orphan works'' for fear of being sued should the owner eventually step forward. In an effort make orphan works more accessible, Chairman Leahy and I have been working together for years to craft meaningful legislation to address concerns that have been identified through public discussions on this issue. The Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held a hearing entitled ``Orphan Works: Proposals for a Legislative Solution,'' at which representatives from the photography, museum, documentary film, and technology communities testified. And a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee held two hearings in the 109th Congress and one in the 110th. Under S. 2913, potential users may use an orphan work if they conduct and document a diligent search but were unable to locate the copyright owner of the work for permission. While the bill outlines the criteria for a search, and the copyright office will disclose best practices for finding a copyright owner, the court makes the final determination as to whether a search is diligent and in good faith. The proposed legislation also has a ``safe harbor'' for uses of orphan works that are educational, charitable, or religious in nature, and which are used without commercial advantage. We anticipate that many institutions such as museums, libraries, archives, nonprofit educational organizations, as well as public broadcasting entities will greatly benefit from this legislation since they would be qualified users. S. 2913 represents a commitment from Congress to move forward in creating a way to identify copyright owners of orphan works and unlock access to thousands of artistic works so the general public may once again enjoy them. I am hopeful that further refinements will be made to this bill during the legislative process. I am confident that Chairman Leahy and I will continue to, with outside input, perfect this bill, and am confident in our House counterparts to do the same. I am committed to moving this legislation forward and hope that we can join efforts to refine and enact this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I support this resolution designating the 30th day of April 2008 as ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.'' Over the years, the Senate has passed seven similar resolutions in recognition of the young people throughout our country. Nations throughout the world, and especially within Latin America, celebrate Dia de los Ninos every April 30th, in recognition and celebration of their country's future, their children. Many American Hispanic families continue the tradition of honoring their children on this day by celebrating Dia de los Ninos in their homes. The designation of April 30 as a day to honor the children of our Nation will continue to affirm for the people of the United States the significance of family, education, and community. This special recognition of children will provide them with an opportunity to reflect on their future aspirations and find comfort and security in the support of their family members and communities. This resolution calls on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and States across the Nation to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I am joined in introducing this resolution by a bipartisan group of Senators that includes Senators Menendez, Craig, Lugar, Cochran, Brown, Durbin, and Crapo. I urge the remainder of my colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted up to 15 minutes for my remarks today.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have a great deal of appreciation for the distinguished Senator from Michigan. I know how sincere she is, and I know she feels very deeply about what she has just spoken. But this business of 68 clotures is hitting below the belt. Time after time, the majority leader has filed bills--many of which have not even gone through committee, have not had 1 day of hearing, some of which have been filed for political purposes just to create tough votes--and then filed cloture immediately. In the old days--I have been here almost 32 years--nobody did that. Then they call it a filibuster when they are the ones who filed cloture just for the purpose of being able to say there is a filibuster. Almost invariably the bills that are good go through. Republicans will object sometimes because we want to be able to offer at least germane amendments. In this body, we have, in the past, even been able to offer nongermane amendments. But that is a no-no right now because the majority is concerned some will bring up amendments that might be embarrassing to the majority. Well, having talked about ``embarrassing to the majority,'' why do you think the Ledbetter case was brought up through this statute? First of all, it did not have 1 day of hearings, as far as I know. It certainly was not put through a committee. It was brought up under rule XIV--which is a right to do--and then the bill itself was classically poorly written. The fact is, this bill would have done away with the statute of limitations and made it almost impossible for any business to defend itself even in class action lawsuits. But it was brought primarily because the friends in some areas of the plaintiffs' bar wanted it brought so they could bring more suits in our society. But to basically do away with the statute of limitations so that you could bring suits 10, 15, 25 years later, when all of the documentation is gone, the witnesses are gone, there is no way the company can defend itself, and it is an automatic slam dunk for plaintiffs' lawyers--some plaintiffs' lawyers, because most great plaintiffs' lawyers are not going to play this game--and then call that a good bill, there is something wrong with it. With regard to the veterans bill--my goodness gracious. Let's think about this. With regard to the veterans bill, we are all for veterans-- every last one of us. But, again, cloture was immediately filed. We were not able to bring up amendments. Finally, in the end, what did we do? We spent all day yesterday doing nothing in order to accommodate two Presidential candidates on the Democratic side. Now, I have no problem with that, with that accommodation, but we could have worked all day yesterday on the veterans bill and scheduled that vote the same time at the end of the day, as we did. But it was basically a wasted day in the Senate, other than hearings that might have gone on. To waste a whole day and then blame us for it, that is not right. We all know why the Ledbetter bill was brought up. In many respects, it is just to score political points or it would have gone through the committee. Had it gone through the committee, had we done a good statute of limitations change, had we made some other changes that make sense in the law, I think we would have passed a bill that would have made Lilly Ledbetter at least realize that her actions were not in vain. But the way it was done looks to me as if it was done for political purposes and to score political points. We could have worked it out. At least I think we could have worked it out. But there was not even a chance to do that. Let me just say this: I believe we have too much of this business that every time the majority files a bill and then files a cloture motion, they then call us filibusterers. That is not right, and it is not true. Frankly, we all know it is not true. (Ms. STABENOW assumed the chair.)

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, we live in cynical times, and today I want to address that cynicism; namely, a small number of media reports that, some have suggested, call into question the command abilities of the senior leadership of the U.S. Air Force. In addition, I was dismayed to learn that a Member of the Senate has compounded these misrepresentations by recently authoring a letter that makes inaccurate assertions about matters that have already been dealt with by the proper military authorities and investigated by the inspector general of the Department of Defense. Let me address the underlying matter directly. It has been my privilege and honor to represent the people of Utah in this august body for now more than 31 years. During that time, I have had the pleasure to meet many of our Nation's military leaders, their families, and, of course, military period. However, I can say without reservation the current generation of Air Force leaders is among the finest I have ever known in all my years in the Senate. Under the steadfast and capable leadership of Secretary Michael Wynne and GEN Michael Moseley, the leaders of our Air Force are resolute in the defense of this country, tenacious in their support and care for the young men and women who serve under them, and dedicated to modernizing the ancient--or should I say aging--equipment of their force. These are leaders to be proud of, not criticized the way they have been. They are leaders to have confidence in. They exemplify the Air Force's unofficial motto: ``Nothing Comes Close.'' They are the rightful heirs to the title: ``The Right Stuff.'' This does not mean errors do not occur. In any organization, especially one with more than 350,000 servicemembers, some will make mistakes, a few will veer from the straight and narrow; and, sadly, a tiny minority might even betray the public trust. That said, I believe the true measure of military leadership is not to wipe away every possible temptation and sin of mankind; it is to create a culture where malfeasance, once identified, is dealt with firmly, swiftly, and justly. For example, the current Air Force leadership met this standard when it was recently tested by the wrongdoing of a civilian official during an initial attempt to replace our Nation's aerial tankers that are, on average, 47 years old. Once Senator McCain brought this malfeasance to the attention of the Air Force, the service responded by holding accountable those responsible. These individuals were prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Yet from that troubled time, the current Air Force leadership rallied and conducted one of the most transparent, open, and fair procurement competitions in recent memory. That is stuff of which real leaders are made. I was also disappointed to read the characterizations of some press reports regarding the speech given by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during his trip on Monday to the Air War College. When one reads some of these reports, one could only conclude that Secretary Gates was issuing a rebuke to the Air Force's leadership. This is most perplexing. Although I have not spoken to Secretary Gates about his speech, I have read the official transcript. My impression of his address was that Secretary Gates was not issuing an admonishment--not at all. In fact, I believe the Secretary was seeking to do what all good Secretaries of Defense strive to obtain: a more effective and efficient force through new and creative thinking. Now, this conclusion is ironically bolstered by later reports from the same news service that published the initial reports I find so puzzling. These later reports quote the Pentagon press secretary as saying one of the major alleged reproaches was not directed at the Air Force as a service, but to ``the military as a whole.'' As I said earlier, we live in cynical times. Unfortunately, it has become customary for many in political circles to hurl unfair and even untrue criticisms at one another. One could argue this is the price of a vibrant democracy. However, this sort of behavior is unbecoming when it wrongly distracts our military leaders, especially during a time of war. The Air Force leadership, under Secretary Wynne and General Moseley, has done an extraordinary job of protecting our Nation and supporting our other armed services in this war on terror. I, for one, am thankful we have such leaders in positions with such heavy responsibility. So today I rise to thank them. I thank Secretary Wynne. I thank General Moseley. They are thanks I believe they deserve from the entire Senate. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. I withdraw that.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the bill that would overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire. At the outset, let me be perfectly clear about the basis for my opposition to the so-called Fair Pay Restoration Act. I know of no one on either side of the aisle in this Senate who condones any form of unlawful employment discrimination, including pay discrimination. Indeed, all forms of unlawful employment discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including pay discrimination, should be confronted promptly, efficiently, fairly and forthrightly, consistent with the enforcement scheme provided for by the Congress which enacted that law. Yet, once again we open debate on another of the magnificently misnamed and misleading bills--the so-called Fair Pay Act which its proponents claim will ``restore'' the intent of Congress in enacting the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, this bill does not restore anything, certainly not the rights of individuals under the Civil Rights Act and clearly not the statute of limitations set by Congress for the timely filing of unlawful employment discrimination charges, including pay discrimination charges, with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, or similar State agencies. In fact, Congress fully intended the charge-filing period to be 180 days, or 300 days where there are similar State agencies, so as to encourage prompt, effective investigation, conciliation, and resolution of pay discrimination charges and charges of other forms of unlawful employment discrimination. It was for that reason that Congress carefully chose and designed the current enforcement scheme, which has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court for over 40 years. Over that time, Congress and the courts have wisely and consistently encouraged cooperation and voluntary compliance, in the first instance, by the parties themselves and with the timely assistance of the EEOC or similar State agencies, as the preferred method for addressing alleged unlawful employment discrimination. Where voluntary compliance and conciliation are unsuccessful, title VII provides for vigorous enforcement by the private parties and the EEOC through litigation. In other words, voluntary compliance and conciliation first, litigation thereafter whenever necessary. So, in fact, the so-called Fair Pay Act does not restore the intent of Congress or the original statute of limitations for the filing of pay discrimination charges, and neither does it restore lost rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact, this bill dramatically expands the charge filing beyond all recognition and expectations of the Congress which passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If this bill were to become law there would be no statute of limitations, no time limit for the filing of alleged pay discrimination charges. Not 180 days, not 300 days, not years or even decades, as in the Ledbetter case, or even after the employee has long since retired and is receiving pension checks. This bill not only expands the statute of limitations for filing charges of alleged unlawful pay discrimination, it also expands the class of individuals who can file such charges. And, beyond reversing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision, which was an intentional discrimination case, this bill expands the time for filing the type of unintentional, disparate impact, or adverse impact, charges involving pay practices which are facially neutral but could have some type of unintended consequences adverse to women or other protected groups. As to the expansion of charge filing under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to individuals outside the protected groups, the so-called Fair Pay Act would eliminate the existing requirement that to have standing there must be an employer-employee or employer-applicant relationship. This bill expands the standing to sue requirements to include individuals affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice. This language would appear to include spouse and other relatives, as well as anyone else affected indirectly. I am not imagining this. In fact, when questioned about whether such a radical expansion of the law's standing requirements was intended by the bill's proponents, they responded that it was their intention to do so. Thus, under this bill, not only could employees and retirees file charges of pay discrimination at any time, years or decades after the current statute of limitations, but so too could anyone affected by alleged pay discrimination file charges, presumably even after the employee is dead since the relatives or others were affected. Let's also be candid about the type of pay discrimination alleged. The Ledbetter case involved only claims of intentional discrimination or disparate treatment of individuals in a protected group. This bill would apply also to unintentional discrimination--so-called disparate impact, or adverse impact, discrimination. Those are cases where the pay practices are neural and non-discriminatory on their face, but through statistical analysis such pay practices may have an unintended, attenuated disparate impact on a protected group, such as women. Indeed, the challenged pay practices may not have been intentionally discriminatory treatment, or even have had a disparate impact at the time of their enactment, but sometime later a social scientist or statistician may assert that the pay practices subsequently may have had an adverse impact on one group or another. Thus, in fact this bill goes well beyond simply reversing the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter as its proponents claim. I am also convinced that the so-called Fair Pay Act which we are debating today would turn the system of enforcement established by Congress in 1964 on its head in a way that is most unfair. At the heart of title VII and every other employment nondiscrimination statute--indeed, at the heart of every civil law enacted in this country--there is a statute of limitations within which claims and charges must be brought. Actions brought outside those statutory time periods are time barred. The Supreme Court has consistently held in a long line of well- settled and well-recognized case law that under title VII the statutory period for filing a charge begins to run when the alleged discriminatory decision is made and communicated, not when the complaining party feels the consequences of that decision. Proponents of this act are, in essence, permitting an open-ended period for filing charges of pay discrimination with every paycheck and every decision that contributed to current pay, or even with receipt of pension or other retirement checks. The so-called Fair Pay Act would result in a litigation ``gotcha'' strategy, or a ``litigation first and ask questions later'' enforcement scheme which is directly contrary to congressional intent in enacting title VII. The current statutory charge-filing period for allegations of employment discrimination, including pay discrimination, did not suddenly pop up under the current Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision. In fact, the Supreme Court has long upheld that the current statute of limitations for filing charges under title VII. In an often quoted passage from the 1974 Supreme Court decision American Pipe v. Utah, the title VII statutory limitation on the filing of charges beyond the 180- or 300-day period ``promote(s) justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witnesses have disappeared.'' In its 1979 decision in United States v. Kubrick, the Supreme Court said that the charge-filing period under title VII is ``balanced'' and ``fair'' to both employers and employees. The current 180- or 300-day charge filing period allows the employer and the EEOC (1) to investigate the pay discrimination charge: (2) to seek compromise, conciliation, settlement and fair resolution of the charge; and (3) to allow both parties to prepare for litigation, if necessary, by gathering and preserving evidence for trial where resolution is not possible outside of litigation. Now let's look at how the current system would change under the so- called Fair Pay Act. The plaintiff's charges of pay discrimination could be brought years, decades, or even after the plaintiff's retirement from the company, or as I have stated earlier, by charges filed by relatives or other affected parties even after the employee's death. The employer's ability to defend its actions or decisions will have dissipated. Managers and decision-makers may no longer be available. Business units may have been reorganized, dissolved, or sold, and operations may have changed or been eliminated. Relevant documents and records which are not required to be preserved by law might have been disposed of, or are otherwise unavailable. In effect, as the Supreme Court stated in defending the current charge-filing period under title VII, unless an employer receives prompt notice of allegations of employment discrimination it will have no ``opportunity to gather and preserve the evidence with which to sustain (itself). . . .'' I am convinced that the only beneficiaries of the so-called Fair Pay Act--the only ones who will see an increase in pay--are the trial lawyers. So, if the so-called Fair Pay Act: (1) does not restore lost rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other employment non-discrimination statutes it amends, but greatly expands them; (2) does not restore the statute of limitations under title VII but eliminates any statute of limitations creating open-ended, unlimited liability; (3) does not further the intent of Congress in title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to encourage prompt investigation, conciliation and resolution of unlawful discriminatory pay practices; and (4) does not result in increased pay except for the plaintiff's trial lawyers who will gain an unfair advantage when the employer's witnesses are unavailable, memories have faded, records are long gone, and the jury trial becomes a ``he said, she said'' based solely on the word of a corporation against that of an individual plaintiff; Then what does the bill do? I believe this bill undermines one of the bedrock principles of all Judeo-Christian jurisprudence--the statute of limitations. Frankly, I may be mistaken, but I know of no other civil statute that allows an unlimited, open-ended time for filing an action. Criminal statutes, of course, may be open-ended in bringing indictments for such felony crimes as murder, but even criminal misdemeanors generally have a statutory period within which prosecutions must be brought. For all these reasons, I suggest that this largely political vote on this misnamed and misunderstood bill is one that is designed to place opponents of the bill in a false light of being unsympathetic to victims of pay discrimination. That is simply untrue. I urge a ``no'' vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HATCH. I happened to be here for the vote. You know, this is a game that has been played by both sides, last year and this year too. The majority calls up a bill, they generally file cloture. And, frankly, that does not mean there is a filibuster. As you can easily see, the vote was basically unanimous to going ahead with the bill. What bothers me is that time after time we have had situations where we were not able to even offer amendments, even a limited number of amendments. But generally we get to that point around here because we have to. And it is the only right the minority has. So that is one reason that occasionally the minority will require cloture. But there is also too much of this filing cloture by the majority the minute the bill comes up. That, of course, is a game, frankly, with no intention on our side to filibuster the bill or stop the bill. So these high numbers that are said are mythical, to be honest with you. And, frankly, I hope someday we can realize that this is a legislative body where both sides have certain rights and that one side cannot roll over the other side without at least giving them an opportunity to file amendments. Frankly, the other side, the majority side, has been able to win on amendments anyway in many cases. I think to stand and say that the Republicans are causing all of this mixup is not quite as accurate, as I think the record will show.