Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. One concern that I raised, which we all agreed would have been included in the conference report language had we filed such a report was a clarification about the meaning of ``scientific or regulatory issues.'' It was our agreement during negotiations on FDARA about what is perhaps an obvious point: if the law requires a delay in approval of an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application, for example because of a patent or an exclusivity, this new provision will not change that required legal result. The law is the law, and its effect should not depend on whether or not it was brought up in a petition to FDA. I would appreciate the chairman clarifying if that was the agreement we had.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senator Clinton and Senator Reid, in introducing today the Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act. In modern society, we often take for granted the advances in public health measures made during the last century. Initiatives like drinking water protections and food safety programs have helped to counterattack infectious disease and add up to 25 years to the average human life expectancy. Yet America today is faced by new public health challenges along with recurrence of chronic and infectious diseases. Chronic diseases account for approximately 70 percent of all deaths every year, most of which are preventable. These diseases also cause major limitations in daily living for about 25 million Americans and contribute more than $750 million to annual health care costs. As an example of a new health threat, the West Nile virus had never before been detected in this hemisphere before the 2000 outbreak in New York. In 2007 alone, 1,982 human cases have been reported in almost every State and the District of Columbia. Food-borne illnesses are estimated to cause 5,000 deaths a year; and asthma, a chronic condition, is the number one reason children miss school and is also expected to affect 29 million Americans within the next decade--more than twice the current number of people with asthma. We know that the environment plays an important role in health and human development; but we do not know to what extent. Scientific researchers have linked specific diseases and health effects to certain environmental causes--for instance, infected mosquito bites and the West Nile virus, or asbestos and lung cancer--but many other links remain unproven, such as those between aluminum and Alzheimer's disease, or exposure to disinfectant byproducts and bladder cancer. The bottom line is that, if we are going to prevent disease, researchers need more complete information about environmental factors, their effect on people, and the resulting health outcomes. The environmental exposure, biomonitoring, and incidence of chronic and infectious diseases data that do exist are not readily accessible by all the appropriate systems. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, has begun efforts in this area through its National Environmental Public Health Tracking Program--in which my home State of Utah is a participant--currently, no network exists to track environmental health data full-scale at the national level. Furthermore, at the state and local levels, environmental quality programs and classic public health programs are almost always based in different agencies. This disconnection among environmental health projects at local, state, and Federal levels jeopardizes our protection against environmental health threats. The threat of terrorist attacks with biological or chemical weapons has most certainly become a major public health concern; but it is important to keep in mind that weaknesses in the environmental public health infrastructure have led to large-scale vector-, water-, and food-borne outbreaks of infectious disease. In the 1998 Institute of Medicine, IOM, Report ``The Future of Public Health'', and the Pew Environmental Health Commission report ``America's Environmental Health Gap: Why the Country Needs a Nationwide Health Tracking Network'', this fragmentation is clearly outlined as contributing to disjointed policy development, imbalanced service delivery and a generally weakened public health effort. The IOM report recommended that state and local health agencies strengthen their capacities for identification, understanding and control of environmental problems as health hazards. The Pew Commission report concluded that the environmental health gap results from the lack of basic information that could document possible links between environmental hazards and chronic disease, as well as information that our communities and health professionals need to reduce and prevent such health problems. In response to this problem, the Pew Commission proposed a nationwide health tracking network. Thirteen top public health groups, including the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, and American Public Health Association endorsed the Pew report. This endorsement makes clear the message that the complexity of today's environmental public health problems requires coordinated responses from multiple agencies and organizations. The scientific community has also been asking for the ability to bridge this environmental health gap. In a 2004 Environmental Health Perspectives article, a consortium of public health researchers wrote: The ``building blocks'' of knowledge provided by a nationwide environmental public health tracking network will enable scientists to answer many of the troubling questions we are asking today about what is making us sick. The result will be new prevention strategies aimed at reducing and ultimately preventing many of the chronic diseases and disabling conditions that afflict millions of Americans. The common theme from these reports, and the message received from top public health organizations and researchers, is that there is a pressing need to establish environmental public health leadership at the Federal level. This legislation will help provide that leadership by establishing a Coordinated Environmental Public Health Network. It will make available the infrastructure by which local, state, and Federal agencies can share environmental public health information. This bill is designed to build upon the recommendations from the scientific and public health communities, as well as the program that the CDC has already begun to carry out. The Coordinated Environmental Health Network will connect state systems that are tracking chronic diseases, environmental exposures, and other risk factors so that the causes of priority chronic diseases can be identified, addressed, and ultimately prevented. Public health officials, scientific researchers, and the general public will have the information they need to fight against chronic disease. The Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act will provide states with grants to help develop the infrastructure they need in order to participate in the Nationwide Network. In order to educate the public and provide the information needed to fight chronic disease, this bill calls for a National Environmental Health Report that will provide annual findings of the Nationwide Health Tracking Network. This bill also aims to expand our environmental health infrastructure through the establishment and operation of regional biomonitoring labs, Environmental Health Centers of Excellence, applied epidemiology fellowships, and the John. H. Chafee Environmental Health Scholarship Program. A survey of registered voters conducted for the Pew Environmental Health Commission indicated that most Americans say that taking a national approach to tracking environmental health should be a priority of government at all levels. Without comprehensive environmental health tracking, policymakers and public health practitioners lack information that is critical to establishing sound environmental health priorities. In addition, the public is indirectly denied its right to know about environmental hazards, exposure levels and health outcomes in their communities-- information they want and have every reason to expect. Our country has one of the best health care systems in the world. Doctors are now successfully treating illnesses that were once considered debilitating or even terminal because we have made great investments in researching cures and finding treatments. It is time to make the same investment in preventing people from becoming sick in the first place. This bill is an important step forward in making that investment in the health of America, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2007. This bill would restore some balance to the way education is funded in many of the western States, where a large proportion of public land is owned by the Government. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to grant a small portion of these Federal lands to the states so they can generate the much needed education revenue. I wonder how many of my colleagues know that 10 of the 12 States with the largest pupil-per-teacher ratios are in the West? These 10 western States also have the lowest growth in per-pupil expenditures. And these ratios will only grow worse as growth in the West continues to out-pace the rest of the country. In fact, three of the fastest growing counties are in Utah. I would like to take a moment to discuss how the west has gotten into this situation. Let us take a look at Utah's history, which began when in July of 1894, the State Enabling Act was approved. This act allowed ``the People of Utah to form a Constitution and State Government, and to be admitted into the Union.'' However, Section 9 of the enabling act sets forth that ``five percent of the proceeds of the sales of public lands lying within said State, which shall be sold by the United States subsequent to the admission of said State into the Union . . . shall be paid to the said State, to be used as a permanent fund, the interest of which only shall be expended for the support of the common schools within said State.'' The Federal Government never followed through on its promise. Our bill, the APPLE Act, S. 2072, would direct the Government to deliver on that promise. The Government's lack of follow-through on its promise is only exacerbated by the lack of a sales tax base in the west. Sales tax revenue, as we all know is generated on private lands. On average, the Federal Government owns 52 percent of the land located in the 13 western States, while the remaining States average just 4 percent Federal land ownership. Federal ownership in Utah is about 65 percent, second only to Nevada. The problem is that sales tax is not being collected on these Federal lands, and public education is funded largely through sales tax revenues. Some may say that the west's education funding deficit is due to a lack of commitment or effort by the States. This is not true. The fact is that allocations to public education, by percentage, in the West matches or exceeds the rest of the Nation. In fact, western States pay on average 11.1 percent of their personal income to State and local taxes, whereas residents of the remaining States pay 10.9 percent. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to addressing the west's education funding shortfall by helping me to pass the Action Plan for Public Land and Education Act of 2007.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have had a lot of people talking about, oh, let's not do this because it is unconstitutional. I want everybody to know there are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue with regard to the District of Columbia and, I might add, I think most people will know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. Naturally, Senator Bennett and I are for adding a seat in Utah. Let's go back to that point. There are good people on both sides of this issue, Democrats and Republicans on each side. There are decent arguments on each side of this issue, although I think our side has been given short shrift by some. And those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, that which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and I have been advocating, then why do they fear the expedited provision in this bill that will get us to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in what would be a very appropriate decision on who is right and who is wrong in this matter? We all know the argument that we should do this as a constitutional amendment is not a valid argument. It is a good argument, but the fact is it will never pass that way. There are 600,000 people in the District of Columbia, never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House of Representatives. This bill would remedy that situation. Those who argue it would be a presage to getting two Senators don't know the people in America or in this body. The fact is that Senators are elected by States with equal rights of suffrage. This representative, should this bill pass both Houses of Congress, would represent 600,000 people as the people's representative in the House of Representatives, which is what that is supposed to be. I might add, Supreme Court decision after Supreme Court decision has said the Congress has plenary power in this area, unique power in this area. It says Congress has authority over the District of Columbia. If Congress wants to give the District of Columbia a representative, Congress has the power to do so, and I believe the Supreme Court would uphold it. I do not believe the Supreme Court would uphold an attempt to try and get two Senators for something that is clearly not a State requiring equal rights of suffrage. I compliment my good friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for the hard battle he waged and for those in the House who worked so hard on this issue. I hope we can at least debate this matter. All we are doing today is deciding whether we are even going to allow a debate to occur. My gosh, when has the Senate been afraid to debate a constitutional issue as important as this one? This is an important issue. We are prepared to debate. We are prepared to see what happens. We know if it passes, it is going to have expedited review by the Supreme Court. We are prepared to accept whatever the Supreme Court decides to do, and those who say this is unconstitutional, per se, should not be afraid then. I am willing to go to the Supreme Court, and I will abide by whatever the Supreme Court says. I believe the Supreme Court would uphold this legislation because there are 600,000 people without a right to vote for their own representative. I used to be opposed to this issue. The more I studied it, the more I agreed with the conservative and liberal constitutional proponents and the more I have become an advocate for it, and I am going to continue to do so. I hope we can at least debate this matter and then, hopefully, get it out of this body and go to the Supreme Court and have them finally decide what should be done. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a revered Utahn who was taken from us a little more than a month ago during our summer recess: President James Esdras Faust, second counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. On August 10, President Faust peacefully passed away, called home by the God whom he had served for 87 years. He left behind a legacy of faith and service, an example to which we should all strive for in our own lives. President Faust was a wonderful leader for the LDS Church and a tremendous counselor to its President, Gordon B. Hinckley. He was a great friend and guide to Elaine and me, and our entire family, and to millions of others around the world. He was a person of great dimension, wide-ranging abilities, and deeply spiritual capacities. He was the consummate gentleman and treated both Elaine and me with kindness unfeigned. We pray that everyone in the Faust family will be comforted in the days and months ahead with peace through their memories of this great man. Beyond his day-to-day duties as a church leader, President Faust led opposition to gambling initiatives in Utah, oversaw construction of the BYU Jerusalem Center, managed an improved public relations strategy for the church, and enhanced relationships with foreign officials. During his ministry, he saw the Latter-day Saint faith move from primarily one of the western United States to a truly worldwide religion. His kindness was not limited to those of his own faith, nor was his service limited to that which he performed inside his church. Before President Hinckley extended him a call to serve 35 years ago as a senior, full-time church leader, Faust served his country in the military, served his community as an attorney, served his State as a legislator, and served his family as a devoted husband and father. A native of a small town in Utah's west desert, Delta, President Faust studied at the University of Utah, eventually receiving both a bachelor's degree and a law degree. But he interrupted his studies when he was called to his country's defense in World War II, honorably serving in the U.S. Army Air Force and earning the rank of first lieutenant while opposing the tyranny of the Axis. Beyond his service to America, President Faust also gave 2 years of his youth in service to his church as a missionary in Brazil. He was one of the first Mormon missionaries to that nation and by sharing his testimony of the Lord gently moved the first pebbles of what has become a mighty avalanche of faith--today Brazil is home to nearly 1 million Latter-day Saints. Later in life, anytime his church service took him to Brazil he was extremely happy to be reunited with his friends there. In 1998, Faust was named an honorary citizen of Sao Paulo in honor of his lifelong ties to the city and the nation. Only two other men have received this recognition--Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama--which puts President Faust in very good company. During a short period of leave from the Air Force in the spring of 1943, President Faust married his high school sweetheart, Ruth Wright, in the Salt Lake Temple. The sunrise and the sunset to all his happiness, Ruth walked hand in hand with him for almost 65 years. Together they raised five children: James H. Faust, Janna R. Coombs, Marcus G. Faust, Lisa A. Smith, and Robert P. Faust. They were the proud grandparents of 25 grandchildren and 28 great-grandchildren. While practicing law, President Faust made time to serve as a member of the Utah legislature, an adviser to the American Bar Journal, and as president of the Utah Bar Association. Fellow church leader Elder M. Russell Ballard said of Faust that he ``loved America, the state of Utah and Salt Lake City.'' He was always examining issues and events ``for what was right and what needed to be done to see that we were working for the benefit and blessing of the people.'' We have lost a friend, we have lost a leader. But we look forward to a time when we can see his smiling, optimistic face again and hear his soothing, uplifting voice. To President James Esdras Faust the people of Utah would like to say, ``Thank you for your time among us. It was not nearly long enough. God be with you, till we meet again.''

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I share some of the feelings of the distinguished Senator from Washington about our veterans. There is no question about it, we need to do more for them, and we will.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we live in a cynical age where the truth is often discarded because it does not meet the goals of an election campaign strategy or it is not what the core constituencies of certain political movements wish to hear. One does not need to look any further to prove this point than the media's portrayal of General Petraeus's testimony before Congress this week. Lost in the coverage were the hard facts and the veracity of the personal assessments of a remarkable leader. He has spent years in Iraq, first, as the commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the initial race to Baghdad and then as the officer in charge of training the Iraqi Army. This was followed by his authorship of the ``Army- Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual'' that was used as the basis for our current strategy, and now in his role as the commander of Multi- National Forces--Iraq. This man deserves the plaudits and credit from all of us. Think about it. How many of us would spend years away from our wives, our families. The sacrifices of our men and women over there is remarkable. This man is one of the most remarkable. So let us lay aside the rhetoric and learn the truth outlined by this seasoned commander. Here are General Petraeus's own words: As a bottom line up front, the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met. In recent months, in the face of tough enemies and the brutal summer heat of Iraq, Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces have achieved progress in the security arena. Though improvements have been uneven across Iraq, the overall number of security incidents in Iraq has declined in eight of the past 12 weeks, with the number of incidents in the last two weeks at the lowest levels seen since June 2006. One reason for the decline in incidents is that Coalition and Iraqi forces have dealt significant blows to al-Qaida-Iraq. The general goes on to point out: Coalition and Iraqi operations have helped reduce ethno- sectarian violence, as well, bringing down the number of ethno-sectarian deaths substantially in Baghdad and across Iraq since the height of the sectarian violence last December. The number of overall civilian deaths has also declined during this period, although the numbers in each of the areas are still at troubling levels. Iraqi Security Forces have also continued to grow and to shoulder more of the load, albeit slowly and amid continuing concerns about the sectarian tendencies of some elements in their ranks. In general, however, Iraqi elements have been standing and fighting and sustaining tough losses, and they have taken the lead in operations in many areas. These are the words of a trusted and very capable commander who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. They are insightful, and they show that at long last, we are beginning to make significant progress in Iraq. I believe Churchill could have been talking about our current prospects in Iraq when he said: This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. Yet even before General Petraeus gave us his professional military opinion on the status of the war, some attempted to undermine the veracity of his analysis and, worse, the character of the General himself. Of course, I am speaking of the disgraceful actions of MoveOn.org and their now infamous advertisement. Before even having the opportunity to hear General Petraeus's analysis, this group stated that General Petraeus is a ``military man constantly at war with the facts.'' It claimed he was ``cooking the books.'' It asserted that his action is a betrayal of the American people. This is shameful. There is no need to read between the lines. There is no subtext here. The text is clear. MoveOn.org has called General Petraeus a liar. That is disgusting. It is beneath the dignity of decent and honorable people. According to this group, General Petraeus is injuring his country and endangering those under his command by lying about the progress in Iraq. Now, anyone who has had the opportunity to meet the General and anybody who has bothered to follow his career or his academic pursuits knows these are disgraceful and unwarranted allegations. However, there might be a silver lining to this libel. Now, all of America understands why MoveOn.org and other groups like it are called the nutroots. These people are nuts. They don't care who they hurt. They don't care whom they smear. They don't care whom they libel. To them, politics is more important than anything else, and the accumulation of power is most important of all. Perhaps if they rejoined the reality-based policy community, they would have actually waited to hear the General's analysis before criticizing it. Here is the reality. General Petraeus is a consummate professional. He is a man who has dedicated his life to our country. And I would note that when you put on a uniform, dedicating your life to your country has the potential to mean a good deal more than running for Congress. But to Moveon.org, which has sadly become a core participant in the Democratic party's policymaking, General Petraeus is a disgrace to the uniform. Let me be clear. It is MoveOn.org that is the disgrace. And I think it is important that the entire Congress publicly repudiate these absurd charges. I hope those in this body who are fond of listening to and following MoveOn.org's misguided policies see this group for what it is--an American embarrassment. I have been very interested in watching the debates both on the Republican side and on the Democratic side. I have been impressed with the candidates for President. There is no question. They are decent and honorable people. But they ought to decry this. They should start by demanding that people within their party start acting responsibly. The same applies to Republicans. If we have people who are doing disgraceful, offensive things such as MoveOn.org, we ought to rise out of our seats and condemn them. I believe good people in both parties will do that. But thus far, there has been a silence on these issues, especially when it comes to General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. What was particularly galling about the inaccuracies of MoveOn.org's comments is that many Members of Congress have been to Iraq in the previous few months and have seen with their own eyes the progress that is being made. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues some of the experiences I had during a trip I made to Iraq a few months ago with Senator Smith and one of the great Congresswomen in the House, Congresswoman Harman. As part of my preparation for this trip, I read with great interest the articles written by Michael Fumento and published in the Weekly Standard about the time he was embedded with U.S. forces in Ramadi. Mr. Fumento wrote as recently as eight months ago that our forces in Ramadi, described the time between when they went out on patrol and when they were attacked as the 45-minute rule. Under this rule, our forces hypothesized that it took the enemy 15 minutes to determine where an American patrol was and then 30 minutes to organize an attack. Unfortunately, those attacks occurred with great frequency and severity. However, during my recent trip to Ramadi, I walked--admittedly in body armor and with a reasonably sized military escort--in one of its major markets in the heart of the city downtown. There, I saw what would be unimaginable a few months ago: shopkeepers selling their goods, children playing, and urban life beginning to reemerge. How did this happen? First, the local tribal leaders made a decision that they would no longer tolerate the yoke of tyranny that had been placed upon them by al-Qaida--and make no mistake, al-Qaida is whom we are fighting in Ramadi. These leaders saw firsthand their fellow Sunni Muslims murdered and tortured under al-Qaida's false exploitation of a noble and peaceable religion. Not surprisingly, these sheiks began assisting coalition forces and, most importantly, their own Iraqi security forces in rooting out the terrorists. For example, once the local leaders decided to support the Coalition, 1,000 citizens of Ramadi joined the Iraqi security forces almost over night. The success I witnessed was attained due to the implementation of the new tactics articulated in General Petraeus's innovative counterinsurgency strategy. Under this plan, large areas of Ramadi were encircled and then, led by Iraqi security forces, a thorough search was conducted in each area. Once these searches were completed and al-Qaida rooted out, the progress was made permanent by placing Joint Security Stations throughout the newly cleared territory. These Joint Security Stations are one of the major reasons we have seen such advancement in Ramadi and other locations in Iraq. Joint Security Stations are manned by Iraqi Army and police forces as well as American forces who live in these installations in order to provide a permanent security presence for cleared neighborhoods. Joint Security Stations accomplish three vital goals. First, much like the local police officer in any city, the U.S. forces become intimately involved in the security of the enjoining population. Second, our soldiers also learn about the environment in which they are living and, therefore, can more readily adapt their operations to better achieve the goal of providing security for the local population. Third, our forces help to train and support the Iraqi units assigned to the Joint Security Stations. Ensuring the Iraqi forces have sufficient capabilities to independently provide security to their own population is, of course, one of the primary goals of General Petraeus's strategy. The implementation of the Joint Security Stations is radically different from previous tactics. In the past, U.S. forces would clear an area and then return to bases on the periphery of town and then move on to their next assignment. The predictable result was that shortly after the U.S. operation concluded, the insurgents would return to the area. No longer. Joint Security Stations provide continuous security to the local population. That is why the additional troops that were sent to Iraq as part of the surge are so important. It is not more for more's sake but to have sufficient forces to implement effective counterinsurgency strategies such as the Joint Security Stations. Fortunately, the success we are seeing in Al Anbar is being replicated in other locations throughout Iraq. In Baghdad, I was briefed by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker as to the situation in that city. Here, too, I found that through the implementation of new strategies and tactics such as the Joint Security Stations, progress has been made. One of the early criticisms of the new strategy was the contention that, even if you secure Baghdad, the terrorists will move to the provinces such as Diyala in the north. In fact, the then-leader of al- Qaida, Abu Zarqawi, was killed in Diyala in 2006. However, just as in Ramadi, the Iraqi local leaders decided they did not want to live under the tyranny of al-Qaida, and they joined with us in the effort to throw the terrorists out of the major Diyala city of Baqubah. However, what also made a lasting impression was the way in which General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker worked together. There are no bureaucratic fiefdoms here. Far from it. In fact, as one watched the General and Ambassador finish one another's sentences, one was struck as to not only how integrated our new strategy is, but how each leader was searching to incorporate the other's department's strengths in order to achieve the well-defined goal of defeating the insurgency and creating an Iraq that could independently secure its own future. Now, does this mean victory in Iraq is imminent? Hardly. If one looks to history, counterinsurgency operations are successful only after a significant period of time. We have only recently developed and implemented our new strategy. So what are the other possible strategies? Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle recently supported the Levin-Reed amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would start the reduction of our forces in 120 days. Their legislation would only permit the forces to remain in Iraq that are necessary to protect U.S. and Coalition personnel and infrastructure; train, equip, and provide logistics support to the Iraqi security forces; and engage in targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, affiliated groups, and other terrorist organizations. Let's consider that strategy for a moment. Would that not mean that U.S. forces would be confined to large operating bases in order to protect Coalition infrastructure and support Iraqi forces--only venturing out to conduct raids against terrorists? Does this strategy sound familiar? It certainly does to me. The Levin-Reed plan reminds me of the failed Rumsfeld plan. Remember, under Rumsfeld's plan our forces were concentrated in large bases on the periphery of urban areas, only venturing into town to conduct raids and, as my colleague from Delaware often reminded us, conducting patrols where our forces would only speed through areas. That was a failed policy, not because it was not well implemented; it just did not work. Yet my colleagues on the other side are determined to repeat it. But this time we would proceed with even fewer troops, which we all know, and many of my Democratic friends continue to point out, was one of the reasons our initial strategy failed in the first place. Then there is the cost in human lives if the Democrats plan is implemented. As General Petraeus's testimony articulated, elements of the Iraqi security forces are making progress, but they continue to require strong support from Coalition forces. That training and support are, in part, being provided by the Joint Security Stations. But, if we are to leave precipitously, how many innocent people will be killed? Remember, it is al-Qaida that is a major instigator of the sectarian violence in Iraq. According to their adherents, their goal is simple: Join us, live by our strict rules, or be slaughtered. I understand the American people are discouraged by this war--but how will history judge us if we permit the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians? If these arguments do not sway you, then let me ask a question about our own self-interest. What happens if Iraq becomes a failed state? Does anyone really believe al-Qaida would not use Iraq as a base of operations to conduct terrorist attacks against our homeland? Does anyone really believe that al-Qaida would not exploit the petroleum wealth of Iraq to further their objectives? Remember, in Afghanistan--a country of few natural resources--there were reports after the fall of Kabul that al-Qaida was working on chemical and biological weapons. I wonder what al-Qaida would buy with the billions of dollars it would accumulate if it controlled even a fraction of Iraq's oil wealth. Mr. President, we as Americans are known for asking ``what is the bottom line?'' Here it is: We have made enormous mistakes in prosecuting the war in Iraq. So what do we do? Do we concede defeat, which is really what the Levin- Reed amendment offers? Do we hope for the best, that al-Qaida will leave us in peace. Or do we follow the only sensible strategy that is beginning to show some signs of success? I believe we all know the sensible answer to that question. We must not yield. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Strategic Deterrent Sustainment Act of 2007, which is cosponsored by Senator Bennett. Currently, our land-based strategic forces are in the process of completing a vital and important modernization program. However, I am unaware of any Department of Defense plan to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base once this modernization is completed in the next 2 to 3 years. Therefore, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report detailing how our Nation will maintain an industrial base to replace the Minuteman III missile with a follow-on land-based strategic deterrent after 2030. 2030, is of course, the date in which the Minuteman III system is scheduled to be replaced. The Secretary, under this legislation, will also be required to outline how our Nation will maintain, modernize and sustain the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system until at least 2030. To put this in context, in 2002, the administration wisely committed the U.S. to a policy of modernizing our land-based intercontinental ballistic missile force. Under this policy, the Peacemaker ICBM has been retired and that system's warheads are being retrofitted and placed into the Minuteman III fleet. In addition to the new warheads, 500 Minuteman III systems are being completely rebuilt and thoroughly modernized. Unfortunately, after this work is completed, no other work on land- based strategic missile systems is planned. As we all know, building an intercontinental ballistic missile is extremely complex and a great feat of engineering. It requires engineers with years of experience and highly trained and professional manufacturing specialists to successfully and safely build a missile system. Clearly, if there are not any additional systems to build, then these sought after engineers and specialists will merely find employment elsewhere. In addition, if a replacement system will not be built until 2030, it is very likely that much of our Nation's knowledge on how to design and build a land-based strategic missile system will be lost. As an example, one can point to the British who recently decided to modernize their nuclear deterrent. Since the British nuclear warhead industrial base all but ceased to exist years ago, that nation will now have to allocate billions of additional pounds to reconstitute their design and production capability. What would be the cost of our Nation to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base? Well I understand, the propulsion portion of the industrial base can be maintained for the relatively modest sum of under $50 million a year. In fact, such a program already exists for our submarine launched ballistic missile systems. Under this industrial base sustainment plan, 12 Trident missiles are manufactured each year. Should a plan to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base closely follow our submarine launched strategic missile industrial plans? Well under this legislation, the Secretary of Defense will have the opportunity to make that determination. In conclusion, during this period of uncertainty we must keep our Nation's defense industrial options open in order to meet the threats of the future. The Strategic Deterrent Sustainment Act of 2007 affords us that opportunity and I hope that it will receive from my colleagues the support it deserves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Strategic Deterrent Sustainment Act of 2007, which is cosponsored by Senator Bennett. Currently, our land-based strategic forces are in the process of completing a vital and important modernization program. However, I am unaware of any Department of Defense plan to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base once this modernization is completed in the next 2 to 3 years. Therefore, this legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to prepare a report detailing how our Nation will maintain an industrial base to replace the Minuteman III missile with a follow-on land-based strategic deterrent after 2030. 2030, is of course, the date in which the Minuteman III system is scheduled to be replaced. The Secretary, under this legislation, will also be required to outline how our Nation will maintain, modernize and sustain the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile system until at least 2030. To put this in context, in 2002, the administration wisely committed the U.S. to a policy of modernizing our land-based intercontinental ballistic missile force. Under this policy, the Peacemaker ICBM has been retired and that system's warheads are being retrofitted and placed into the Minuteman III fleet. In addition to the new warheads, 500 Minuteman III systems are being completely rebuilt and thoroughly modernized. Unfortunately, after this work is completed, no other work on land- based strategic missile systems is planned. As we all know, building an intercontinental ballistic missile is extremely complex and a great feat of engineering. It requires engineers with years of experience and highly trained and professional manufacturing specialists to successfully and safely build a missile system. Clearly, if there are not any additional systems to build, then these sought after engineers and specialists will merely find employment elsewhere. In addition, if a replacement system will not be built until 2030, it is very likely that much of our Nation's knowledge on how to design and build a land-based strategic missile system will be lost. As an example, one can point to the British who recently decided to modernize their nuclear deterrent. Since the British nuclear warhead industrial base all but ceased to exist years ago, that nation will now have to allocate billions of additional pounds to reconstitute their design and production capability. What would be the cost of our Nation to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base? Well I understand, the propulsion portion of the industrial base can be maintained for the relatively modest sum of under $50 million a year. In fact, such a program already exists for our submarine launched ballistic missile systems. Under this industrial base sustainment plan, 12 Trident missiles are manufactured each year. Should a plan to maintain our land-based strategic missile industrial base closely follow our submarine launched strategic missile industrial plans? Well under this legislation, the Secretary of Defense will have the opportunity to make that determination. In conclusion, during this period of uncertainty we must keep our Nation's defense industrial options open in order to meet the threats of the future. The Strategic Deterrent Sustainment Act of 2007 affords us that opportunity and I hope that it will receive from my colleagues the support it deserves. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 312, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the early morning hours of August 6, 2007, my home State of Utah, our home State of Utah--my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator Bennett, is with me today--suffered a seismic event at the Crandall Canyon mine in Emery County. These ``mountain bumps'' set up a chain of events that culminated in great tragedy and tremendous sorrow to all of our fellow Utahans and, I think, to many people across the country. As a team of miners was working on its shift at the Crandall Canyon mine, the earth shifted and debris and ruin rained down trapping six men, all of whom have remained missing since August 6. As news began to travel regarding the collapse and the lives in peril, crews began working to somehow, some way, free the six men. As one day turned into the next and hopes were lifted, just to sadly be dashed, one thing has remained constant: men and women from all walks of life have come together to fight for Manuel Sanchez, Kerry Allred, Luis Hernandez, Carlos Payan, Brandon Phillips, and Don Erickson. The list is long and varied of the many who have sacrificed and given their time, knowledge, and resources to help in this tragedy. The list includes officials from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration; Murray Energy Corporation; the United States Air Force; Utah's Departments of Public Safety, Natural Resources and Human Services; the Utah Air National Guard; local, State and national government; and last but perhaps most importantly of all the men, women and children living in the communities impacted by this tragedy. As our State and Nation watched closely day after day for news of hope and rescue, we suffered another devastating blow the evening of August 16, 2007, when another seismic bump inside the mine buried rescue crews in coal and debris. As another new tragedy unfolded, many flew into action to now rescue the rescuers. People rushed to the scene to offer aid and valiantly try to save additional lives. Stories are told of miners using their bare hands to dig out buried miners. As we heard the news of first one rescuer's death, then another, and another, it is difficult to describe the overwhelming sorrow and disbelief Utahns felt at the deaths of those who had risked everything for their co-workers, friends, and fellow miners. Many were saved that evening, but sadly three lost their lives for others. Dale Black was in the mine desperately trying to reach his cousin, Kerry Allred. In fact, he wasn't even supposed to have been in the mine that evening. He had been promoted the day before and would now be assigned as a rescue manager, working outside the mine. However, as Dale's brother Guy stated, ``That's Dale. He wouldn't have let his guys go in without him.'' Gary Lynn ``Gibb'' Jensen from Redmond, UT, was an employee working for MSHA who was no stranger to mining. He had been in the mining industry in various capacities for 35 years and was described by others as someone who steered his career toward mine safety. He never hesitated to better the lives of his fellow ``coal'' miners. And finally, Brandon Kimber, a father of a 5-year-old daughter and twin 4-year-old boys. He was relatively new to the mining industry, only working in the mines for 3\1/2\ years. He was described as an unselfish, wonderful man who never hesitated to help others. Dale Black, Brandon Kimber, and Gary Jensen will long be remembered for their selfless acts that day. These were three humble miners who are now three wonderful heroes. As our State and Nation grapples with this tragedy and looks for answers, I do not want us in our haste to solve this tragedy overlook the contributions miners and the mining industry has made to America for many, many years. We want to solve this tragedy, but we haven't been able to. The original six miners are still buried in the mine. We hope we can recover them. Mining is a community, it is a brotherhood, and it helps fuel our economy and growth. Generations of Utahns from many of our communities have toiled in and helped propel the mining industry. Many men and women return home each evening with faces marred by coal dust, and tired bodies. However, to many Utahns mining is a way of life and their contributions to this important industry must always be appreciated. As I have traveled throughout our State and Nation, some of the most wonderful people I have met and talked with are miners. They are humble, they work hard, and they display courage each day as they enter the mines to make a living and support their families. Throughout the communities bordering the Crandall Canyon Mine, you don't need to travel far to see a sign, a t-shirt, or some other display urging all to ``save our miners,'' ``pray for our miners,'' and ``love our miners.'' I have witnessed first-hand the courage, fortitude, and heroism of many wonderful people to do all three save, pray, and love our miners. I have been saddened greatly by the events that have transpired in my home state throughout the past several weeks. The Crandall Canyon Mine collapse and tragedy will forever be remembered for the grief we shared as a State, and the valiant, and courageous efforts displayed by many. In the depths of this tragedy heroes emerged, and our faith in the human spirit lives on through the sacrifices made by many to comfort, and save the lives of others. Senator Bennett and I have introduced this resolution which has been agreed to, honoring the sacrifice of the miners and rescue workers and expressing the condolences of the Senate and our Nation to their families. I have been almost blown away by the kindness of our fellow Utahns and the courage and strength of those who have tried to save these miners. I have appreciated the leadership of the mayors of both Huntington and Price who have stood so valiantly as rocks against the pain and suffering these good people have suffered. I am so grateful to know these people. My heart goes out to the families of these miners and, of course, their children. I hope and pray that somehow we can do a lasting memorial for these folks who have died and who have worked so hard to try and support their families. I was happy to urge our colleagues to support this resolution, and I appreciate their support.

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 add to that that it is very significant. We do know that. I thank the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his remarks because he is a leader in this area and certainly has no higher interest than protecting our country and our citizens.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as Congress prepares to adjourn for the traditional August recess, I want to draw continued emphasis to a significant issue: FISA modernization. I am greatly encouraged by the bipartisan negotiations concerning this topic. However, I remain troubled about the possibility of adjournment without resolution of this vital initiative. It is very-- simple passing a bill with limited FISA modernization will contribute to a safer America. If passing this bill means we must delay our recess, then we must do it. We should be able to get together today, though. Do you think al-Qaida takes a recess? It is essential that we not adjourn until we send an appropriate bill to the President. While some issues that we debate in Congress necessitate that we persuade Members of a pressing need, this is not one of them. Every Senator in the 110th Congress knows that the current FISA statute has loopholes which are putting our country at increased risk. How should we tackle this issue? I suggest we take a logical and sound approach: Identify the problem, discuss and debate solutions, implement the solution. In this case, we have identified the problem. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has not been changed to reflect the vast technological changes that have occurred since this law was passed in 1978. Since the law has not been appropriately modified, our Nation is missing potentially valuable intelligence that is essential to protect our country. Getting this intelligence is essential for our safety. It is about getting the enemy's secrets-- their plans and intentions--without them knowing we've got them. The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, has done a tremendous job in explaining the exceptional problems that our intelligence community continues to encounter based on antiquated sections of the law. When the United States Director of National Intelligence says our country is at risk, I hope we are listening. Let me read a quote that Director McConnell recently stated: Many Americans would be surprised at just what the current law requires. To state the facts plainly: In a significant number of cases, our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners suspected of terrorist activity who are physically located in foreign countries. We are in this situation because the law simply has not kept pace with technology. This is a powerful statement that Director McConnell gives. However, I must disagree with one thing he says. I don't think most Americans would be ``surprised'' by what our current law requires, I think most Americans would be outraged by what our current law requires. A terrorist in Afghanistan speaks with a terrorist in Iraq, and U.S. intelligence agencies need a court order to listen to this conversation? This is absurd. We need to bring FISA back to its original intent to protect the rights and privacy of American individuals while allowing us to monitor foreign individuals outside of the United States. The President of the United States has also recognized the perilous situation in which we find ourselves. In his radio address last weekend, he stated that ``Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country.'' Let's look closely at this. Our intelligence community is saying that we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence. Why are we missing this intelligence? Is it because we don't know how to get it? No. Is it because we don't have the ability or funds to get it? No. Is it because terrorist groups have technology that we can't exploit? No. It is because a law passed in 1978 has not been appropriately amended to conform with the technological advances that we have seen since that time. Why are we handcuffing ourselves? I believe most Americans would look at this situation and simply shake their heads. If we know we have a problem, and we know how to fix it, why don't we? Is the excuse that we might not have enough time before recess? Of course we have time. We'll make time. It is outrageous that we would even consider a recess while this problem and other loopholes of the FISA law remain intact. If we can't get this done, why are we here? It is no wonder that the approval ratings for Congress are approaching all time lows. Quite simply, we have a problem, but we know how to fix it. I note that Senator Bond has introduced a straight forward measure which we can pass today. This bill will put the tools back in the hands of the people who work tirelessly in providing a safe environment for American families throughout this great country. This amendment of FISA simply returns the law to its original intent, which is twofold: first, allowing surveillance of foreign targets, who were never underprotected under FISA; and second, guaranteeing the privacy and rights of U.S. persons, who remain protected. It is time to address this situation. I would ask my colleagues to join me in pledging to pass legislation in this area before we recess. This is not about partisan politics. This is about protecting Americans. We are all painfully aware of the continued dangers that our country continues to face at the hands of organized groups and dedicated individuals who desire nothing more than the collapse of our country as a superpower. This is not a case of the boy who cried wolf. We know the threats are out there. However, each day that passes creates emotional distance between the nightmares of September 11, and each new day provides opportunities to heal. We don't have to live our lives in fear, but we have to acknowledge that the world changed that day. Rather than obsessing over news reports, let's enjoy the tremendous opportunities that the greatest Nation on Earth provides. And let's ensure that all of the dedicated and noble professionals who play a part in ensuring our liberty and safety are not hampered by nonpartisan problems that we have the ability to fix. We always hear that the terrorists have an asymmetrical advantage over us: They do not operate as nation-states, and some of them are willing to die as suicide bombers. But we have a massive asymmetrical advantage over them: Our technological prowess. Are we to compromise one of our greatest strengths, when that strength is essential, effective and lawful? I remind my colleagues that even though we will return to our States for the recess, our enemies and their threats don't go away. They don't adjust their schedules to fit ours. Make no mistake, inaction on our part needlessly subjects every American to increased danger. We need to act. We have two options: Cut into August recess if necessary to provide safety to Americans, or go home and leave this vulnerability intact. The answer is an easy one: Let's ensure that our defenders have all of the tools they need for our continued safety, no matter how long it takes. I urge my colleagues to join me in pledging to pass FISA modernization legislation before our recess. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the Senator from North Dakota be recognized.

Mr. HATCH. We only have about 8 minutes to go, but that is fine.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Alexander Hamilton Boyhood Home Act of 2007, a bill to study the suitability and feasibility of bringing resources related to Alexander Hamilton's boyhood on the island of St. Croix under the National Park System. I would like to thank Senators Rockefeller, Bayh, Bill Nelson, Brownback, Harkin, and Crapo for lending early support to this legislation as original cosponsors. I especially note the strong support of Senator Rockefeller, who along with his family, has a special interest in this part of the U.S. Too little is known about Hamilton's childhood on the islands. We know he was born as a British subject on the island of Nevis in 1755. By the age of 10 he and his brother James found themselves under Danish rule on the island of St. Croix. Alexander's father had abandoned them, so his mother Rachel Faucett was the primary care giver and bread winner. It is believed they initially spent their days on a sugar plantation at Estate Grange, which was owned by Rachel's sister, Ann, and her husband, James Lytton. The Lyttons generously supported Rachel and her two boys for a short time. When the plantation was sold, the Lyttons helped Rachel to set up a store with an apartment on the upper floor in the nearby town of Christiansted. They had been there less than a year and Alexander, as an 11-year-old boy, had already taken a job as a clerk at the Beekman and Cruger trading post. This connection would serve him well after his mother died in 1769 and he was left to fend for himself. His early years with Beekman and Cruger not only supported him financially, but they introduced him to business, economics, and trade. Hamilton learned a great deal from his surroundings on St. Croix, and his political ideologies as an adult were clearly influenced by his boyhood in the West Indies. His mother was known to have the largest library on the island, consisting of 34 classical books of various topics. Everyday life and culture must have left an impression on him, as well. He was constantly exposed to the brutality of slavery, which drove the plantation economy on St. Croix. His distaste for it as a boy would grow into political opposition to it in America. Historians also note that maturing in the West Indies made him unique among other American politicians of the day because he never had any loyalty to a specific State or region. He perceived the U.S. as one unified Nation with a strong central Government. To advocate that belief, Hamilton would later found the Federalist Party in America. Through his work, Alexander made several connections with influential people in the town. As he grew older, they began to recognize his talent and intellect and they decided to send him to New York with the funds to obtain an education. He left St. Croix at age 17, never to return, and the rest is now a central aspect of our Nation's history. Hamilton went on to be one of the great statesmen of our history, a Founding Father who was influential in all of the stages of our blossoming Nation. He fought with the colonies during the American Revolution and served as General Washington's personal secretary. After the Revolution he was elected to the Continental Congress. He authored the Federalist Papers to advocate ratification of the Constitution, which he would pen his own name to as a delegate from New York. Of course, he may be remembered most for his appointment as the first Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. His visage is perpetuated in history on the $10 bill as one of only two non- presidential faces appearing on U.S. currency. Alexander Hamilton's immeasurable influence on the progress of our Nation deserves to be remembered and recognized. The remaining links to his boyhood on the island of St. Croix should be preserved and recognized for the benefit of the people. The Great House at Estate Grange is still there today along with a memorial marking the site where Alexander's mother was laid to rest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would establish and fund a study to determine the feasability and suitability of a heritage area on St. Croix in honor of one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in honor of an organization that has, over the last century, worked so amazingly hard to serve the people and communities of my home State of Utah. This year, the Utah League of Cities and Towns celebrates its 100th Anniversary. The Utah League of Cities and Towns, ULCT, has done a wonderful job of representing hundreds of cities and towns throughout a large and growing State for 100 years now. Senator Bennett and I are very proud of the way it has advocated for the success of each city and town throughout Utah and we would like to honor its wonderful accomplishment by introducing this resolution to celebrate its 100th anniversary. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this resolution and in wishing the members of the ULCT another 100 years of success in the century to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I would also like to speak in support of the reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians and the Special Funding Program for type I diabetes research. My record as an advocate for diabetes research and treatment programs is well documented. I have helped to lead the efforts in past years to reauthorize these programs and I look forward to working with my colleagues to make the reauthorization of these programs a priority for the Finance Committee this Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to honor and commemorate one of Utah's fallen sons. SFC Nathan L. Winder was a native of Blanding, Utah, and a member of the 1st Special Forces Group stationed at Fort Lewis, WA. I have been informed that this good soldier tragically lost his life as he and his U.S. Special Forces Quick Reaction team came to the aid of another unit that was ambushed and taking on small-arms fire in Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq. Shortly after graduating from high school, Sergeant Winder left his home in Blanding, UT, to pursue a career in the Armed Forces. In 2006, he graduated from the special forces qualification course in Fort Bragg, NC, and earned the coveted Green Beret. As a 2-year-old boy, he was abandoned on the steps of a courthouse in Seoul, South Korea. Shortly after, he was offered a better life and a new beginning in the loving home of Tom and Teri Winder, incredible parents of 20 children. In his parents' eyes, it was from his abandonment and subsequent adoption that he developed the fierce desire to offer others the same kind of hope that was offered him. Throughout his life, it was clear that Sergeant Winder had a special place in his heart for children. His family remembers how he often remarked in his e-mails that Iraqi children seemed so appreciative of the little things, like a wave from a U.S. soldier, a smile, or even a small piece of candy. Teri Winder said of her son, ``He loved the children. He gave them a sense that they were cared about.'' He did everything he could to offer them the hope he so gratefully received so many years ago. He was known for always carrying toys and candy to hand out to the Iraqi children. Sergeant Winder was a man who lived his life with a profound purpose, deeply rooted in his convictions of moral reciprocity. His greatest desire was to take the freedom afforded to him and offer it to those who had none. Tom Winder said his son wanted the people in Iraq, if only for a moment, to feel some sense of freedom, however seemingly minute its manifestation. In addition to two wonderful parents and 19 brothers and sisters, Sergeant Winder is survived by his wife Mechelle and an 11-year-old son. This great soldier and his family will always be in my memory and prayers. Sergeant Nathan S. Barnes Mr. President, today I also pay tribute to SGT Nathan S. Barnes of American Fork, UT, who recently gave his life during a combat mission in Iraq. Sergeant Barnes was a member of the 10th Mountain Division's 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment stationed out of Fort Drum, NY. I have been informed that 400 American flags lined the streets leading to the Sergeant Barnes's family home in American Fork. I also understand that on the day of his funeral, hundreds of Boy Scouts, each bearing a U.S. flag and standing at attention, gathered along either side of the street to honor the fallen soldier. That is the kind of tribute this brave and selfless soldier merits. Sergeant Barnes is remembered by his family members and fellow soldiers for his love of friends and family, and for his humor, his commitment to serving the country and his profound dedication to his faith. Sergeant Barnes was a man who truly lived an abundant life. When not engaged in the service of his country, the soldier enjoyed spending time outdoors jogging, hiking, camping, and hunting. Friends and family recall his insatiable appetite for good literature. All of these interests and hobbies were part of Sergeant Barnes' unique way of exploring what life had to offer him. I would submit to you this day, Mr. President, that in a time when patriotism is a virtue often overlooked and lost in the midst of the swirl of issues, Sergeant Barnes' sacrifice brings us back to the core of what it means to be a patriot. I hope and pray that his sacrifice will inspire us all to reach for new levels of excellence and citizenship, to recommit ourselves to a greater measure of devotion to family and country, and above all, to continue to pursue ways to provide for a more perfect America. I am honored and humbled by this opportunity to commemorate the life of SGT Nathan S. Barnes. He served his country with pride and answered its call when it needed him most. I will always remember him and his family in my prayers. Our nation owes SGT Nathan S. Barnes a giant debt of gratitude and for that reason I pay tribute today to his dedicated and selfless service to our Nation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 1957, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. As one who has been involved in national intellectual property, patent, copyright and trademark policy development for many years, I can tell you first-hand how difficult it can be to legislate in these areas. The Constitution expressly tasks Congress with the duty to protect the rights of property owners, including intellectual property owners. And we spend a good bit of time here legislating in the areas of music, art, movies, television, radio, books, and so many other things that exist solely because of intellectual property rights. However, one area of our economy that has been overlooked and not benefited from the legal framework associated with intellectual property law is the area of fashion design. And yet fashion design is one area where America enjoys a trade surplus and has clear leaders in the world market. In fact, much of the world apparel and accessory industry takes follows the lead of our world renowned fashion experts. However, the protections of their designs are not taken as seriously as we take other forms of property rights, thereby, hurting a thriving American industry around the world. In an effort to bring some balance to the property rights of designers, Senators Schumer, Hutchison, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Graham, Kohl, Clinton, Snowe, and I are introducing this legislation. The goal of S. 1957 is to ensure that those who spend their time and money developing new and innovative fashion designs are able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work. And I support that goal. As I stated earlier, this is a difficult area of law in which to legislate and the balancing of the rights of property owners and consumers is often difficult. In fact, the U.S. has been changing and refining intellectual property laws for over 200 years and in some areas we still have not gotten it right. It must be recognized that this bill is not perfect and there are several legitimate concerns with the way this bill attempts to protect designs. I will be working with my colleagues to make improvements to this bill as it goes through the Senate process. Some areas of the bill that need to be improved are: the standard for liability, the definition of designs in the public domain, and the secondary liability provisions. However, I am certain we will be able to work through these issues and move this bill forward. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Schumer, for introducing this bill. It takes a strong will, and a strong stomach, to take on the job of moving intellectual property-related legislation through Congress. I'm sure Senator Schumer is up to the task and I look forward to helping him.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Alexander Hamilton Boyhood Home Act of 2007, a bill to study the suitability and feasibility of bringing resources related to Alexander Hamilton's boyhood on the island of St. Croix under the National Park System. I would like to thank Senators Rockefeller, Bayh, Bill Nelson, Brownback, Harkin, and Crapo for lending early support to this legislation as original cosponsors. I especially note the strong support of Senator Rockefeller, who along with his family, has a special interest in this part of the U.S. Too little is known about Hamilton's childhood on the islands. We know he was born as a British subject on the island of Nevis in 1755. By the age of 10 he and his brother James found themselves under Danish rule on the island of St. Croix. Alexander's father had abandoned them, so his mother Rachel Faucett was the primary care giver and bread winner. It is believed they initially spent their days on a sugar plantation at Estate Grange, which was owned by Rachel's sister, Ann, and her husband, James Lytton. The Lyttons generously supported Rachel and her two boys for a short time. When the plantation was sold, the Lyttons helped Rachel to set up a store with an apartment on the upper floor in the nearby town of Christiansted. They had been there less than a year and Alexander, as an 11-year-old boy, had already taken a job as a clerk at the Beekman and Cruger trading post. This connection would serve him well after his mother died in 1769 and he was left to fend for himself. His early years with Beekman and Cruger not only supported him financially, but they introduced him to business, economics, and trade. Hamilton learned a great deal from his surroundings on St. Croix, and his political ideologies as an adult were clearly influenced by his boyhood in the West Indies. His mother was known to have the largest library on the island, consisting of 34 classical books of various topics. Everyday life and culture must have left an impression on him, as well. He was constantly exposed to the brutality of slavery, which drove the plantation economy on St. Croix. His distaste for it as a boy would grow into political opposition to it in America. Historians also note that maturing in the West Indies made him unique among other American politicians of the day because he never had any loyalty to a specific State or region. He perceived the U.S. as one unified Nation with a strong central Government. To advocate that belief, Hamilton would later found the Federalist Party in America. Through his work, Alexander made several connections with influential people in the town. As he grew older, they began to recognize his talent and intellect and they decided to send him to New York with the funds to obtain an education. He left St. Croix at age 17, never to return, and the rest is now a central aspect of our Nation's history. Hamilton went on to be one of the great statesmen of our history, a Founding Father who was influential in all of the stages of our blossoming Nation. He fought with the colonies during the American Revolution and served as General Washington's personal secretary. After the Revolution he was elected to the Continental Congress. He authored the Federalist Papers to advocate ratification of the Constitution, which he would pen his own name to as a delegate from New York. Of course, he may be remembered most for his appointment as the first Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. His visage is perpetuated in history on the $10 bill as one of only two non- presidential faces appearing on U.S. currency. Alexander Hamilton's immeasurable influence on the progress of our Nation deserves to be remembered and recognized. The remaining links to his boyhood on the island of St. Croix should be preserved and recognized for the benefit of the people. The Great House at Estate Grange is still there today along with a memorial marking the site where Alexander's mother was laid to rest. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which would establish and fund a study to determine the feasability and suitability of a heritage area on St. Croix in honor of one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 1957, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. As one who has been involved in national intellectual property, patent, copyright and trademark policy development for many years, I can tell you first-hand how difficult it can be to legislate in these areas. The Constitution expressly tasks Congress with the duty to protect the rights of property owners, including intellectual property owners. And we spend a good bit of time here legislating in the areas of music, art, movies, television, radio, books, and so many other things that exist solely because of intellectual property rights. However, one area of our economy that has been overlooked and not benefited from the legal framework associated with intellectual property law is the area of fashion design. And yet fashion design is one area where America enjoys a trade surplus and has clear leaders in the world market. In fact, much of the world apparel and accessory industry takes follows the lead of our world renowned fashion experts. However, the protections of their designs are not taken as seriously as we take other forms of property rights, thereby, hurting a thriving American industry around the world. In an effort to bring some balance to the property rights of designers, Senators Schumer, Hutchison, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Graham, Kohl, Clinton, Snowe, and I are introducing this legislation. The goal of S. 1957 is to ensure that those who spend their time and money developing new and innovative fashion designs are able to secure and enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work. And I support that goal. As I stated earlier, this is a difficult area of law in which to legislate and the balancing of the rights of property owners and consumers is often difficult. In fact, the U.S. has been changing and refining intellectual property laws for over 200 years and in some areas we still have not gotten it right. It must be recognized that this bill is not perfect and there are several legitimate concerns with the way this bill attempts to protect designs. I will be working with my colleagues to make improvements to this bill as it goes through the Senate process. Some areas of the bill that need to be improved are: the standard for liability, the definition of designs in the public domain, and the secondary liability provisions. However, I am certain we will be able to work through these issues and move this bill forward. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Schumer, for introducing this bill. It takes a strong will, and a strong stomach, to take on the job of moving intellectual property-related legislation through Congress. I'm sure Senator Schumer is up to the task and I look forward to helping him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Project Compassion. Project Compassion was founded by Ms. Kaziah Hancock in my home State of Utah. She and the other members of Project Compassion volunteer their time to create gallery-quality portraits of soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines who have fallen in combat and send them to the families of these troops. These wonderful patriots receive no compensation for their efforts to honor the service and sacrifice of the members of our military. This gift offers comfort and consolation to the family members of those troops who fall in battle. To date, Ms. Hancock and the other volunteers of Project Compassion have presented over 700 paintings to the families of America's fallen heroes. These portraits provide a real sense of closure and remembrance to the family members of our fallen heroes. Even though the portraits created by Project Compassion members are extremely well done by talented artists, they accept no compensation for their efforts, they merely do it out of love. It is my belief that Ms. Hancock and the other members of Project Compassion demonstrate extraordinary patriotism and support for our service men and women, and do so without expectation of financial gain or recognition. We owe these wonderful people our heartfelt thanks and deepest respect. I hope my colleagues will support this resolution, and offer their gratitude for the work performed by these remarkable individuals.