Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I certainly enjoyed the remarks of my friend from Louisiana

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I proudly rise to mark the 20th anniversary of a great event. Twenty years ago today, Antonin Scalia took the oath of office to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Through his dogged commitment to the fundamental principles of liberty, and the brilliance and passion with which he expresses that commitment, Justice Scalia is having a profoundly positive impact on our nation. In the time I have this morning, I would like to offer a few general remarks about Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy, his judicial personality, and his judicial impact. Antonin Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey, the only child of immigrant parents. After graduating first in his high school class, summa cum laude and valedictorian from Georgetown, and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, he embarked on a legal career that would include stints in private practice, government service, the legal academy, and the judiciary. President Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia in 1982 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then in 1986 to his current post on the Supreme Court. President Reagan did not choose Justice Scalia simply because he is smart and talented. With all due respect to the good Justice, there are many smart and talented people around. No, President Reagan chose Justice Scalia because his smarts and talents are connected to a deeply considered and deliberately framed judicial philosophy rooted in the principles of America's founding. Indeed, as Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec has said, Justice Scalia ``is the justice who works the hardest to construct a coherent theory of constitutional interpretation that does not change from case to case.'' When the Judiciary Committee hearing on Justice Scalia's nomination opened on August 5, 1986, I quoted from the Chicago Tribune's evaluation that the nominee before us was ``determined to read the law as it has been enacted by the people's representatives rather than to impose his own preference upon it.'' Consider for a moment the vital importance of this simple principle. Since the people and their elected representatives alone have the authority to enact law, the way they have enacted it is the only sense in which the law is the law. The way they have enacted it, then, is the only legitimate way for judges to read it. This fundamental principle is at the heart of Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy. This principle springs directly from the separation of powers, which America's founders said was perhaps the most important principle for limiting government and preserving liberty. Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 78 that there is no liberty if the judiciary's power to interpret the law is not separated from the legislature's power to make the law. In his dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson, Justice Scalia highlighted the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 which, to this day, contains what Justice Scalia called the proud boast of democracy, that this is a government of laws and not of men. The Massachusetts charter, however, also states what is required for this boast to be realized. It requires the separation of powers, including that the judiciary shall never exercise the power to make law. Today, only 42 percent of Americans know the number of branches in the federal government and fewer than 60 percent can name even a single one. But America's founders insisted that identifying them, defining them, and separating them is essential for liberty itself. In Marbury v. Madison, the great Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that it is the duty of the judicial branch to say what the law is. Not what the law says, but what the law is. The law is more than simply ink blots formed into words on a page. Saying what the law is requires saying what the law means, for that meaning is the essence of the law itself. But here is the crux of the matter, Mr. President. The meaning of the words in our laws comes from those who made them, not from those who interpret them. Those who chose the words in our laws gave them life by giving them meaning, and the judicial task of saying what the law is requires discovering the meaning they provided. The separation of powers, therefore, excludes from the judiciary the power to change the words or meaning of the law and secures to it the power to interpret and apply that law to decide cases. As President Reagan put it when swearing in Justice Scalia 20 years ago today, America's founders intended that the judiciary be independent and strong, but also confined within the boundaries of a written Constitution and laws. No one believes that principle more deeply, and insists on implementing it more consistently, than Justice Scalia. President Reagan often used the general label judicial restraint for this notion of judges restrained by law they did not make and cannot change. A speech last year at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here in Washington was one of many instances in which Justice Scalia used the more specific label originalism for his judicial philosophy. When judges interpret the law, he said, they must ``give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people.'' Whether that simple statement elicits growls or cheers today, Justice Scalia was merely echoing America's founders. James Madison said that the only sense in which the Constitution is legitimate is if it retains the meaning given it by those who alone have the authority to make it law. This body unanimously confirmed Justice Scalia on September 17, 1986, the 199th anniversary of the Constitution's ratification. I see that as having more than coincidental significance, for it is Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy that gives the most substance and power to the Constitution. The Constitution cannot govern government if government defines the Constitution. That includes the judiciary, which is as much part of the Government as the legislative or executive branch. To once again cite Chief Justice Marshall from Marbury v. Madison, America's Founders intended the Constitution to govern courts as well as legislatures. It cannot do so if, as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes famously claimed, the Constitution is whatever the judges say it is. If the Constitution is little more than an empty linguistic glass that judges may fill or a checkbook full of blank checks that judges may write, it is not much of anything at all. We all know better. I am not sure what such a collection of words without meaning might be called, but it is not a Constitution. Thankfully, Justice Scalia rejects such an anemic and shape-shifting view of the Constitution, insisting that even judges must be the servants rather than the masters of the law. Justice Scalia insists that judges stick to judging so the Constitution can indeed be the Constitution. Analyzing Justice Scalia's jurisprudential approach in the Arkansas Law Review, one scholar described what he called the justice's meticulous, almost obsessive, attention to language. Let us remember that the epicenter of the remarkable system of government America's founders crafted is indeed a written Constitution. They, too, were obsessed with language. President George Washington warned in his 1796 farewell address against changing the Constitution through what he called usurpation rather than the formal amendment process. George Mason actually opposed ratification of the Constitution, in part because giving the Supreme Court too much power to construe the laws would let them substitute their own pleasure for the law of the land. President Thomas Jefferson said that ``our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.'' Justice Scalia appears to be in some good obsessive company. No one should assume that while originalism is relatively straight- forward to describe, it is either perfect or easy. Writing in the University of Cincinnati Law Review just a few years into his Supreme Court service, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that originalism is, in his words, not without its warts. But it is consistent with, I would say compelled by, the principles underlying our form of Government. And it is certainly better than the alternative, which puts judges rather than the people in charge of the law's meaning and the nation's values. Let me emphasize that Justice Scalia's judicial philosophy is about the process of interpreting and applying the law, to whatever ends the law requires. That process can produce results in individual cases that political conservatives or liberals will support or oppose. But when the law, and not the judge, decides the outcome of cases, those who do not like the outcome can work to change the law. When, however, the judge and not the law decides the outcome of cases, the people are nearly always left with no voice at all. Justice Scalia's critics attack his judicial philosophy for the same reason he embraces it. Originalism limits a judge's ability to make law. The famed Senator and Supreme Court orator Daniel Webster once said that ``there are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.'' Justice Scalia has often said that judges are no better suited to govern than anyone else, and certainly have no authority to do so. Unelected judges, no matter how well-intentioned, do not have the power to be our masters. The temptation and danger of judges making law reminds me of a scene in The Fellowship of the Ring, the first installment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Gandalf the wizard has discovered that Bilbo's ring is indeed the One Ring of power and Frodo insists that he take it. Gandalf wisely says: Understand Frodo, I would use this ring from the desire to do good. But through me, it would wield a power too great and terrible to imagine. In that same spirit, Justice Scalia declines the power to make law. As Hamilton put it, the great and terrible cost of judges rather than the people making law would be liberty itself. Thomas Jefferson warned that by playing with the meaning of the Constitution's words, the judiciary would turn the charter into a mere thing of wax that they would twist and shape into any form they chose. In the last 70 years or so, the judiciary has been doing a lot of twisting and shaping. One of Justice Scalia's predecessors on the Supreme Court, Justice George Sutherland, was also one of my predecessors as a Senator from Utah. Justice Sutherland wrote this in 1937: The judicial function is that of interpretation; it does not include the power of amendment under the guise of interpretation. To miss the point of difference between the two is to . . . convert what was intended as inescapable and enduring mandates into mere moral reflections. In 1953, Justice Robert Jackson lamented what had become a widely held belief that the Supreme Court decides cases by personal impressions rather than impersonal rules of law. Many people, conservatives as well as liberals, do not seem to mind this trend so long as it is their moral reflections and their personal impressions that are twisting and shaping the Constitution. Many people, conservatives as well as liberals, applaud or criticize the Supreme Court when it amends the Constitution, depending on whether they like the Court's amendments. Yet I ask my fellow citizens, both conservatives and liberals: would you rather have your liberty secured by moral reflections and personal impressions or enduring mandates and impersonal rules of law? If you cede to judges the power to make law when you support the law they make, what will you say when judges--and they will--make law you oppose? Liberty requires separating judges from lawmaking. Liberty requires that judges take the law as they find it, with the meaning it already has, apply it to decide concrete cases and controversies, and leave the rest to the people. Professor John Jeffries of the University of Virginia Law School writes that Justice Scalia ``is the most nearly consistent of our judges. He cares more about methodology than is usual among judges, worries more about fidelity to the law laid down, feels himself more closely bound by external sources, and is more dedicated to a vision of constitutional law as something distinct and apart from constitutional politics.'' That is precisely the kind of judge America needs on the bench. The second thing I want briefly to describe, is what has been called Justice Scalia's judicial personality. It animates, communicates, and gives practical force to his judicial philosophy. It turns up the volume, making people sit up and take notice of what, from someone else, might be little more than some quiet ramblings at a seminar somewhere. One way to describe Justice Scalia's judicial personality would be simply to read from his opinions. Even while enjoying his powerful prose, however, this might miss the real point. Justice Scalia's piercing logic, witty and provocative writing, verbal jousting in speeches and debates, and aggressive questions in oral argument are but means to an end. He uses wit, humor, logic, sarcasm, and the rest to expose the premises and implications of arguments, to assert and defend important principles, and to make the necessary application of those principles absolutely inescapable. Justice Scalia does not suffer fools gladly, nor will he ignore the man behind the jurisprudential curtain. His judicial personality makes his judicial philosophy more potent and, quite frankly, impossible to ignore. As a result, the adjectives attached to his name by media, political activists, and commentators seem to be multiplying, as if a single descriptive--or even two or three--just will not do. Some call him outspoken, provocative, or fiery; others say he is aggressive, engaging, and articulate. One profile said he is colorful, controversial, and combative; another said he is testy, witty, and sarcastic. If adjectives are a measure of one's presence, Justice Scalia is very present indeed. Justice Scalia is also a funny man. What is not to like about a judge who uses words such as pizzazzy when talking about constitutional interpretation? I had no idea how to spell pizzazzy until I read it in one of Justice Scalia's speeches. Following our modern penchant for everything statistical, we also have empirical evidence that Justice Scalia is indeed the funniest member of the highest court in the land. Professor Jay Wexler at Boston University Law School examined transcripts of Supreme Court oral arguments, noting when they identified laughter. During the October 2004 term, Justice Scalia was way ahead of the laugh pack, good for slightly more than one laugh per session. Finally, I want to address Justice Scalia's judicial impact in two respects. The first is the impact that comes directly from him, from his judicial personality propelling his judicial philosophy. One biography cites an unnamed Supreme Court observer noting that if the mind were muscle, Justice Scalia would be the Arnold Schwarzenegger of American jurisprudence. The inherent power of the principles on which Justice Scalia stands, propelled by the way in which he asserts and defends them, force us confront, whether we like it or not, the issues most basic to a system of self-government based on the rule of law. As a result, Harvard law professor John Manning writes, Justice Scalia has had a palpable effect on the way we talk and think about the issues of judicial power and practice. In addition to the immediate work of judges, which is to decide cases, Justice Scalia has prompted, poked, and prodded us to grapple more seriously with these fundamental issues. But he is not simply a judicial provocateur. When he enrages, he also engages. If Justice Scalia had no impact, he would get no attention. Even the commentators that call him a bully, or worse, feel they have to call him something. His harshest critics know they cannot ignore him. Scholars or political activists can no longer simply describe the political goods they want judges to deliver, they must defend why judges have the authority to deliver those goods. Justice Scalia has helped lead this transformation by so powerfully and consistently arguing that the political ends do not justify the judicial means. As a result, the left-wing groups that today fight President Bush's judicial nominees often use Justice Scalia as the bogey-man, the model they say America must avoid. To borrow an image from one of Justice Scalia's many famous dissenting opinions, he is used by some as the proverbial ghoul in the night, used to scare citizens and small children. Somehow, I think, that is fine with Justice Scalia because, even as a foil, his judicial philosophy must be reckoned with. He is indeed a happy warrior. His speech at Harvard in September 2004 was typical. According to news reports, nearly three times as many sought tickets as obtained them and he held the rapt attention of a standing-room-only crowd. Legal scholars from across the political spectrum concede Justice Scalia's impact. Professor Michael Dorf of Columbia Law School, for example, says that because of Justice Scalia's influence, we start more often with text rather than its history when looking at written law. America's founders, it seems to me, assumed that judges would always start with the text and be kept in check because the meaning of that text already exists. This is why America's founders could call the judiciary the weakest and least dangerous branch. Putting statutory text ahead of statutory history would be a judicial no-brainer to them. If Professor Dorf is correct, we should first lament that the courts had gotten so far off course and then cheer Justice Scalia for helping point the way back. The second, more general, way of looking at Justice Scalia's impact has a human face. Like every Federal judge, Justice Scalia each year has the assistance of law clerks, those super-brainy, hyper-kinetic workhorses who seem able to leap a courthouse in a single bound after virtually no sleep. As his Judiciary Committee hearing opened 20 years ago, Justice Scalia introduced his law clerk Patrick Schiltz who had helped him prepare and who would go on to clerk for him on the Supreme Court. Several months ago, this body confirmed Patrick Schiltz to be a U.S. District Judge in Minnesota. In 2004, we confirmed Mark Filip, who clerked for Justice Scalia during the October 1993 term, to be a U.S. District Judge in Illinois. In 2003, we confirmed Jeffrey Sutton, who clerked for Justice Scalia during the October 1991 term, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Justice Scalia must be proud of these former clerks who now sit on the Federal bench, and the many who have argued cases before him, even when he might vote against their position or reverse one of their decisions. Justice Scalia's former clerks are now serving in many significant positions throughout the country. They are partners at the Nation's leading law firms, on the faculty of the Nation's leading law schools, and heading legal teams at the Nation's major corporations. Some, such as Solicitor General Paul Clement, serve in the top tier of the executive branch. Ed Whelan, who clerked for Justice Scalia during the October 1991 term, served as my counsel when I chaired the Judiciary Committee and is now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center here in Washington. Through these talented and dedicated men and women who have served in his chambers, Justice Scalia's impact extends far beyond the halls of the Supreme Court. Mr. President, I have received letters from some of Justice Scalia's former law clerks offering their own thoughts, reflections, and congratulations on this important anniversary. I ask unanimous consent that they be made part of the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. While I have just scratched surface, my time is almost gone. Justice Antonin Scalia is the kind of judge America needs and the kind of man Americans would want living next door. He considers aggressively and defends passionately the principles responsible for the ordered liberty that makes America the envy of the world. He refuses to let politics supplant principle and with a confident humility, or perhaps a humble confidence, submits himself to the rule of law and the collective judgment of his fellow citizens. In the process, by the force of the principles in which he believes and the personality with which God has blessed him, Justice Antonin Scalia has made our liberty more secure, our citizenry and leaders more responsible, and given us all plenty to ponder, and chuckle about, along the way. Mr. President, I have such respect for the Federal judiciary. I have such respect for those who interpret the laws rather than make them. Justice Scalia is at the head of the pack. Justice Scalia, congratulations on your first 20 years on the Supreme Court. Thank you for all you continue to do for our Nation Exhibit 1 September 21, 2006. Senator Orrin Hatch, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Hatch: I am writing you on the occasion of Justice Antonin Scalia's twentieth anniversary as a member of the United States Supreme Court to reflect on some of the enormous contributions the justice has made to our public life during his service on the Supreme Court. I first met the justice almost twenty-five years ago at the very first Federalist Society conference ever held which was at Yale Law School. I was struck then and am struck now by his vivacious intellectual manner, his tremendous enthusiasm and energy, and by his sharp wit. Justice Scalia is a brilliant man of many talents, and he is in my view the intellectual leader of the Court. I thought I would write you this letter to describe some of the many ways in which Justice Scalia has distinguished himself on the Supreme Court. First, the justice is one of the most gifted writers ever to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. Not since Justice Robert Jackson has anyone served on the Court with such a gift and flair for writing. Since his appointment to the Court on September 26, 1986, Justice Scalia has emerged as a brilliant, outgoing, and very outspoken Justice. His sharp and pointed opinions, which all too often are dissents, include many memorable lines. From the beginning, Justice Scalia has also been a very active participant in the Court's oral arguments where he asks probing and effective questions. While serving on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia became the most active proponent of originalism among the justices, and it is fair to say he is the leading proponent of originalism in American law today. Originalism is, of course, the theory that constitutional language should be interpreted according to the original meaning the relevant words had when they were enacted into law. Justice Scalia defended this theory in an important public lecture which was published under the title Originalism: The Lesser Evil and then in a book called A Matter of Intepretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Justice Scalia's originalism is evident in many of the most important decisions he has written or joined including his opinions rejecting the use of substantive due process in abortion, homosexual rights, or assisted suicide cases. On criminal law and procedure cases, Justice Scalia's originalism has sometimes led him to favor criminal defendants claims with respect to issues such as the right to jury trial in sentencing, in determining the scope of the Confrontation Clause, and in evaluating whether the President has power to detain citizens who are enemy combatants without a court hearing. Justice Scalia has qualified his support for originalism in two important ways which illustrate his intellectual depth and contribution to legal theory. First, he has made it clear in constitutional cases that it is the original meaning of the text which controls and not the original intentions of those who wrote the text. Justice Scalia applies this approach as well in statutory interpretation cases where he has led a campaign for formalism and against any reliance on legislative history. Justice Scalia's formalism has had a big effect on the Court, and the justices make much less use now of legislative history than they did when Justice Scalia was first appointed. The revival of formalism is thus another major accomplishment of the Justice's during his twenty year tenure on the Supreme Court. Second, Justice Scalia has also argued that when the original meaning of the constitutional text would enmesh judges in balancing judges ought in those cases to announce a minimalist rule to further judicial restraint. As a result, Justice Scalia rejects on judicial restraint grounds allowing judges to assess the proportionality of punishments under the Eighth Amendment or the necessariness of federal laws under the Necessary and Proper Clause or the unconstitutionality of broad delegations of power to the executive under the non- delegation doctrine. Justice Scalia has defended his approach in an important law review article called The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules. In this article, Justice Scalia makes it clear that when the original meaning of the text would enmesh judges in balancing he thinks they should abstain from acting instead. This too is a major contribution to the theory of judicial restraint in judging. Justice Scalia's most important opinions on the Court include: his dissent in Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey, where the Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and his dissent in Morrison v. Olsen, where the court upheld the constitutionality of court appointed special prosecutors. The Morrison dissent amusingly came to be hailed by liberals as prophetic during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, and it helped lead to a situation where the political branches jointly decided to junk the special prosecutor law in 1999. Other very important Scalia opinions include: his majority opinion in Printz v. United States; his concurrence in Bush v. Gore; and his dissents in Romer v. Evans and in Lawrence v. Texas. Justice Scalia was also a critical fifth member of the majority which found that flag burning was protected speech under the first Amendment. In recent years, Justice Scalia has led a campaign to preclude the Court from relying on foreign law in many constitutional cases. But most important of all, no other justice who has served on the Court since Justice Scalia's appointment in 1986 has ever been able to match him in his intellectual leadership of the Court or in writing ability. A brilliant mind and a sharp pen have guaranteed Justice Scalia a place in American history as one of our most influential justices. Best wishes, Steven G. Calabresi, Professor of Law.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent on Senate business yesterday when the Senate voted on the nomination of Francisco Augusto Besosa to be a U.S. district judge for the District of Puerto Rico. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of Mr. Besosa's nomination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit today a resolution to celebrate 4.0 years of achievements of medical coders, and to encourage the medical coding community to continue providing accurate medical claims and statistical reporting to the people of the United States and to the world. There are about 80,000 professional medical coders employed in the United States, and that number is expected to continue to grow due to the increasing number of medical tests, treatments and procedures, and the consequent scrutiny to provide the best quality health care in a market driven economy. Medical coders are a diverse group of women and men dedicated to ``running the numbers'' of health care. They translate the information that a physician documents during a patient visit into numerical codes that are used for both payment and statistical purposes. Medical coders are sentries of our Nation's health. They communicate regularly with physicians and other health care professionals to clarify diagnoses or to obtain additional information in the assignment of alphanumeric codes. They are knowledgeable of medical terminology, anatomy, physiology, and the code sets necessary to serve effectively in their professional role within the health care community. They are team players committed to ethical and sound medical documentation and reimbursement practices. Medical coders work in a variety of health care environments. Nearly 40 percent of all coding jobs are in hospitals. Others work in the offices of physicians, nursing care facilities, outpatient care centers, and home health care services. Insurance firms that offer health plans employ coders to tabulate and analyze health information. Medical coders in public health departments supervise data collection from health care institutions and assist in research. The Department of Defense policy requires accurate and prompt documentation of and coding of medical encounters within the Military Health System to assist, Military Treatment Facility operations. The compliance plan for third- party payers of the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General acknowledges the specialized training of medical coders required due to the greater legal exposure related to coding medical services. Coders also stand as the frontline against the potential fraud and abuse of the Medicare and Medicaid programs while assuring that the physicians, hospitals, and clinics receive accurate compensation for the services provided. The abilities coders possess to collect data about diagnoses and procedures figure prominently within my own interests for quality health care. Medical coders also provide us with the data we need for making tough choices in health care policy. It is my hope that this resolution will help advance the recognition of professional medical coders and the attention given to their commendable work. It recognizes contributions to the national health care system and it reminds us of medical coders' dedication to the value of hard work in the interest of a national priority--quality health care for everyone. I applaud that contribution and am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me by passing this resolution.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 26, 2006, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``An Update on the New Basel Capital Accord.''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 26, 2006, at 4:30 p.m., in closed session for a briefing on the situation in Afghanistan.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a full committee joint hearing with Foreign Relations Committee on the International Polar Year on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 at 3:15 p.m.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President: I ask unanimous cousent that on Tuesday, September 26th at 2:15 p.m. the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold a Business Meeting to consider the following-agenda: Legislation H.R. 1463, To designate a portion of the Federal building located at 2100 Jamieson Avenue, in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ``Justin W. Williams United States Attorney's Building'', Nominations Roger Romulus Martella, Jr. to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Alex A. Beehler to be Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency William H. Graves to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority Brigadier General Bruce Arlan Berwick to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission Colonel Gregg F. Martin to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission Brigadier General Robert Crear to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission Rear Admiral Samuel P. DeBow, Jr. to be a Member of the Mississippi River Commission Resolutions Six Committee resolutions authorizing prospectuses from GSA's FY 2007 Capital Investment and Leasing Program Committee resolution to direct GSA to prepare a Report of Building Project Survey

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Health Savings Accounts: The Experience So Far.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on foreign relations

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 9 a.m. to hold a hearing on Child Hunger.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 3:15 p.m. to hold a hearing on the International Polar Year.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Illegal Insider Trading: How Widespread is the Problem and is there Adequate Criminal Enforcement?'' on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List Panel I: Mr. Ron Tenpas, Associate Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, and Ms. Linda Thompson, Director of Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC. Panel II: Mr. Robert Marchman, Executive Vice President, NYSE, New York, NY; Mr. Christopher K. Thomas, Principal, Measuredmarkets, Inc., Toronto, Canada; Professor John Coffee, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School, New York, NY; Professor Jonathan R. Macey, Professor of Law, Yale University, New Haven, CT; and Professor James Cox, Professor of Law, Duke University, Durham, NC.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a special markup on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in Senate Dirksen Building Room 226. Agenda I. Nominations Terrence W. Boyle, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; William James Haynes II, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit; Kent A. Jordan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit; Peter D. Keisler, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit; William Gerry Myers III, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Nora Barry Fischer, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Gregory Kent Frizzell, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma; Marcia Morales Howard, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Florida; John Alfred Jarvey, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa; Sara Elizabeth Lioi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio; and Lisa Godbey Wood, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Thad Cochran, United States Senator, R-MS; The Honorable Trent Lott, United States Senator, R-MS; The Honorable Christopher Dodd, United States Senator, D-CT; The Honorable Joseph Lieberman, United States Senator, D-CT. Panel II: Michael Brunson Wallace, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit. Panel III: Vanessa Lynne Bryant, to be United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut. Panel IV: Roberta B. Liebenberg, Chair, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Philadelphia, PA; Kim J. Askew, Fifth Circuit Representative, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, American Bar Association, Dallas, TX; Thomas Z. Hayward, Former Chair, 2003-2005, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Chicago, IL; Pamela A. Bresnahan, Former DC Circuit Representative, 2002-2005, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Washington, DC; Timothy Hopkins, Former Ninth Circuit Representative, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, Idaho Falls. ID; and Doreen D. Dodson, Former Eighth Circuit Representative, 2001-2004, American Bar Association, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, St. Louis, MO. Panel V: The Honorable Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT; The Honorable Reuben Anderson, Partner, Phelps Dunbar LLP, Jackson, MS; W. Scott Welch, Shareholder, Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Jackson, MS; Carroll Rhodes, Attorney at Law, Hazlehurst, MS; and Robert McDuff, Attorney at Law, Jackson, MS.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, to hold a hearing to consider the nomination of Robert T. Howard to be Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology, Department of Veterans' Affairs. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 26, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing regarding ``Deconstructing the Tax Code: Uncollected Taxes and Issues of Transparency''.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 at 10:45 a.m. for a hearing entitled, Senior Executives: Leading the Way in Federal Workforce Reforms.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act with my colleague Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota. This bill makes several modest changes to the competitive acquisition process for this equipment. In 2007, a competitive acquisition program will replace the current reimbursement policy for durable medical equipment in Medicare. This shift toward a market-based approach to payments for durable medical equipment was mandated through the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003. Our bill was written with two key goals in mind. The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would preserve access to home medical equipment in rural areas for older or disabled Americans who need this equipment. In addition, the bill will allow small businesses that provide homecare equipment to continue to participate in the Medicare Program if they qualify and meet the competitively bid price. Our legislation is identical to H.R. 3559 which was introduced earlier this Congress by Congressmen David Hobson and John Tanner. That bill has broad, bipartisan support and 132 House cosponsors. As background, section 302(b)(I) of the MMA requires Medicare to replace the current durable medical equipment payment methodology for certain items with a competitive acquisition process beginning in 2007 in 10 of the largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would require several modest changes to the competitive acquisition program. First, the MMA requires the Secretary to include quality standards in the competitive acquisition process and also allows the Secretary to waive the application of quality standards if applying the standards would delay implementation of the process. However, quality standards are essential to ensuring that beneficiaries are not forced to use the lowest-cost provider without consideration of the quality of the medical equipment items provided. This bill would require the Secretary to include quality standards before implementing competitive acquisition. Second, the MMA allows the Secretary to exempt rural areas and urban areas with low population density to ensure that competitive acquisition is not implemented in areas that lack the health care infrastructure to support it. This bill would require the Secretary to exempt MSAs with fewer than 500,000 people. Third, the MMA created a Program Advisory and Oversight Committee composed of stakeholders to advise the Secretary on the implementation of competitive acquisition. However, the MMA does not apply the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to it. The purpose of FACA is to ensure that advice rendered to the executive branch by advisory committees be both objective and accessible to the public. This bill would apply FACA to this oversight committee. Fourth, the MMA allows the Secretary to contract with only as many providers as the Secretary deems necessary to meet the demand of an area. Any provider not awarded a contract would be prohibited from participating in Medicare for up to 3 years. This bill would allow applicable small businesses that did not receive a contract to continue to provide durable medical equipment in Medicare at the competitive acquisition bid rate. Fifth, the MMA explicitly prohibited administrative or judicial review for competitive acquisition of DME. This means that providers do not have legal recourse to appeal the bid amount or contracts. My bill would restore appeal rights for competitive acquisition of DME. These rights exist elsewhere in the Medicare program. Sixth, under the MMA, the Secretary can only competitively acquire an item if the Secretary believes that doing so would result in significant savings to Medicare. It is important for the Secretary to show that the savings from competitive acquisition justify constructing a bureaucracy to implement the program. To that end, this bill would require the Secretary to show that competitive acquisition would result in savings of at least 10 percent. Finally, under the MMA, the Secretary can use competitive acquisition bid rates in one MSA to set the reimbursement for another MSA. Our bill would require that, before doing so, the Secretary conduct a comparability analysis of the two MSAs. This will help prevent any applications of bid rates outside of an MSA that are inappropriate. The new, market-based competitive acquisition program in Medicare is designed to save money and make Medicare more efficient. In order to achieve this goal, we need to preserve access to care and preserve the cost-effective health care infrastructure that homecare represents. This bill will help ensure that the market reforms enacted by the MMA accomplish both cost savings and continued access to cost-effective care. Before I close, I would like to give a real life example from my home state of Utah on why this legislation is needed and necessary. A small provider of durable medical equipment in Utah approached me about how current law will impact him. This company was established in 1997 with just one employee. It has grown over the years by providing its customers the products that they need to stay at home and out of the hospitals. When competitive bidding hits the State of Utah in 2007, this small company will be forced to bid against large national companies. Much larger companies compete with the smaller ones to provide medical equipment such as wheelchairs, in home hospital beds, and home oxygen. If my Utah company loses the bid, it will go out of business, as will many of its smaller competitors in Utah. This company prides itself on being able to provide customers with a high quality of service. The owner of the company has asked me how he can continue to provide great service when his company has been forced to bid to the lowest price possible just to keep from going out of business. Therefore, this legislation means a lot to small companies not just in Utah, but all over the country, by allowing them to continue to provide medical equipment to those who need it. I heard from several small medical equipment companies in my home State of Utah for several years on this issue and they made very convincing arguments. That is why I am introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act. I strongly urge my colleagues to talk to their constituents back home who own small durable medical equipment companies. I am certain that these companies are experiencing concerns similar to those shared with me. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation so that Medicare beneficiaries will continue to receive quality care at affordable prices for their medical supplies.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce with Senator Feinstein legislation to establish a pilot program that is intended to enhance the level of expertise in patent cases among United States district court judges. In conversations with a number of constituents and both small and large companies in my home State of Utah, I have found that one of the frequent complaints by those who had been involved in patent litigation was that many district court judges had relatively little expertise in patent law, and--partially as a result-- the decisions of trial courts are often overturned on appeal due to technical errors in construing patent claims. Obviously, this is frustrating for litigants, because it prolongs the uncertainty they experience and makes an expensive appeal of the trial court's decision much more likely. This bill seeks to address that problem by providing a way to increase the level of expertise among district court judges in patent cases. The core provisions of this bill authorize a pilot project in at least five judicial districts that have a significant patent litigation caseload. Under the pilot program, judges in these districts will be allowed to form a smaller pool of judges who are willing to accept a larger portion of the patent litigation docket in the district. The bill also authorizes additional resources to allow participating courts to hire law clerks with expertise in patent law and to provide for educational programs relating to patent law for the participating judges. It is our intention that this program will allow these judges to acquire greater experience in handling patent trials, decrease the amount of time that patent cases take to resolve, and reduce reversals on appeal by enhancing the level of experience and expertise of judges and law clerks handling these cases. The project is authorized for at least five judicial districts, to be designated by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and will last for a 10 year period. The bill also requires Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Federal Judicial Center to provide a report to Congress on the results of the pilot program, along with additional information that will allow Congress to determine whether this approach has had the beneficial effects that we anticipate. Those who are following the patent debates in Congress closely will notice that this bill is very similar to a bill introduced in the House by Representatives Issa and Schiff, and I would like to acknowledge their work on this issue, as well as the work of other members of the House Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. I would also like to thank my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, for her interest in this issue and for her willingness to cosponsor this bill. I should also note that further refinements to this language will likely be necessary as it moves through the legislative process. In particular, we need to include a provision which would preserve a sufficient element of random assignment among judges. I understand some of my Senate colleagues have reservations about including this provision, but we will deal with that issue as the bill progresses. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join Senator Feinstein and me by supporting this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act with my colleague Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota. This bill makes several modest changes to the competitive acquisition process for this equipment. In 2007, a competitive acquisition program will replace the current reimbursement policy for durable medical equipment in Medicare. This shift toward a market-based approach to payments for durable medical equipment was mandated through the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003. Our bill was written with two key goals in mind. The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would preserve access to home medical equipment in rural areas for older or disabled Americans who need this equipment. In addition, the bill will allow small businesses that provide homecare equipment to continue to participate in the Medicare Program if they qualify and meet the competitively bid price. Our legislation is identical to H.R. 3559 which was introduced earlier this Congress by Congressmen David Hobson and John Tanner. That bill has broad, bipartisan support and 132 House cosponsors. As background, section 302(b)(I) of the MMA requires Medicare to replace the current durable medical equipment payment methodology for certain items with a competitive acquisition process beginning in 2007 in 10 of the largest metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would require several modest changes to the competitive acquisition program. First, the MMA requires the Secretary to include quality standards in the competitive acquisition process and also allows the Secretary to waive the application of quality standards if applying the standards would delay implementation of the process. However, quality standards are essential to ensuring that beneficiaries are not forced to use the lowest-cost provider without consideration of the quality of the medical equipment items provided. This bill would require the Secretary to include quality standards before implementing competitive acquisition. Second, the MMA allows the Secretary to exempt rural areas and urban areas with low population density to ensure that competitive acquisition is not implemented in areas that lack the health care infrastructure to support it. This bill would require the Secretary to exempt MSAs with fewer than 500,000 people. Third, the MMA created a Program Advisory and Oversight Committee composed of stakeholders to advise the Secretary on the implementation of competitive acquisition. However, the MMA does not apply the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to it. The purpose of FACA is to ensure that advice rendered to the executive branch by advisory committees be both objective and accessible to the public. This bill would apply FACA to this oversight committee. Fourth, the MMA allows the Secretary to contract with only as many providers as the Secretary deems necessary to meet the demand of an area. Any provider not awarded a contract would be prohibited from participating in Medicare for up to 3 years. This bill would allow applicable small businesses that did not receive a contract to continue to provide durable medical equipment in Medicare at the competitive acquisition bid rate. Fifth, the MMA explicitly prohibited administrative or judicial review for competitive acquisition of DME. This means that providers do not have legal recourse to appeal the bid amount or contracts. My bill would restore appeal rights for competitive acquisition of DME. These rights exist elsewhere in the Medicare program. Sixth, under the MMA, the Secretary can only competitively acquire an item if the Secretary believes that doing so would result in significant savings to Medicare. It is important for the Secretary to show that the savings from competitive acquisition justify constructing a bureaucracy to implement the program. To that end, this bill would require the Secretary to show that competitive acquisition would result in savings of at least 10 percent. Finally, under the MMA, the Secretary can use competitive acquisition bid rates in one MSA to set the reimbursement for another MSA. Our bill would require that, before doing so, the Secretary conduct a comparability analysis of the two MSAs. This will help prevent any applications of bid rates outside of an MSA that are inappropriate. The new, market-based competitive acquisition program in Medicare is designed to save money and make Medicare more efficient. In order to achieve this goal, we need to preserve access to care and preserve the cost-effective health care infrastructure that homecare represents. This bill will help ensure that the market reforms enacted by the MMA accomplish both cost savings and continued access to cost-effective care. Before I close, I would like to give a real life example from my home state of Utah on why this legislation is needed and necessary. A small provider of durable medical equipment in Utah approached me about how current law will impact him. This company was established in 1997 with just one employee. It has grown over the years by providing its customers the products that they need to stay at home and out of the hospitals. When competitive bidding hits the State of Utah in 2007, this small company will be forced to bid against large national companies. Much larger companies compete with the smaller ones to provide medical equipment such as wheelchairs, in home hospital beds, and home oxygen. If my Utah company loses the bid, it will go out of business, as will many of its smaller competitors in Utah. This company prides itself on being able to provide customers with a high quality of service. The owner of the company has asked me how he can continue to provide great service when his company has been forced to bid to the lowest price possible just to keep from going out of business. Therefore, this legislation means a lot to small companies not just in Utah, but all over the country, by allowing them to continue to provide medical equipment to those who need it. I heard from several small medical equipment companies in my home State of Utah for several years on this issue and they made very convincing arguments. That is why I am introducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act. I strongly urge my colleagues to talk to their constituents back home who own small durable medical equipment companies. I am certain that these companies are experiencing concerns similar to those shared with me. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation so that Medicare beneficiaries will continue to receive quality care at affordable prices for their medical supplies.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been very interested in the remarks of the distinguished Democratic leader, my friend, and I approach this issue from not just a slightly different perspective but from a very different perspective. I think it is important that we get our facts straight. The robust health of the U.S. economy becomes more apparent with each passing day. Yet it is something about which we hear precious little except criticism, especially on the Senate floor. I would like to take just a few minutes to remind my colleagues about some of the positive aspects we are seeing about the state of the economy. As we complete the fifth year of economic expansion, all signs indicate that the economy is as strong as it has ever been, and that we can expect continued economic growth for the foreseeable future. When President Bush became President, we were in the throes of an economic recession at the end of the Clinton years. He inherited that, and the first year of his Presidency was filled with a recession. But in the last 5 years, we have had an economic expansion. The U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 4.6 percent in the first half of this year, and that is an impressive clip at any time, but particularly so for a mature economy approaching full employment. Economic forecasters estimate the gross domestic product in the current quarter will come close to 3 percent. While initially we may not welcome a reduction in the rate of growth, a 3-percent rate is actually very positive news. This is because a growth rate of around 3 percent would put us at a level of growth that many economists believe can be sustained indefinitely without risking inflationary pressures. It is mystifying to me that an economy this strong that has grown steadily for 5 full years now is not being recognized by everyone for what it is; namely, a remarkable jobs-producing machine. We have created 3.5 million jobs in the last 3 years and have more people employed today than ever before in the history of this country. The unemployment rate is only 4.7 percent, a level that is below any rate seen in the United States between 1970 and 1997. Think about that: a rate below any rate seen in the U.S. between 1970 and 1997. No matter how one cuts the numbers, the news on the job front of late has been good. The number of long-term unemployed is down, as is the unemployment rate for teenagers, women, African Americans, Hispanics, people without a high school degree, and people with only a high school degree. While energy prices might have pushed the Consumer Price Index up a bit earlier in the year, I believe there was never a risk of higher inflation, and the financial markets now discount this possibility almost entirely. As Nobel Laureate Friedman put it: Inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. As long as the Federal Reserve commits to contain inflation, we should not worry. I think Ben Bernanke has demonstrated his determination to keep the scourge of inflation under control, and for that he deserves commendation. I believe his decision today to leave the short-term discount rate where it is makes perfect sense, given the recent data. The benefits of sustained economic growth, the likes of which we have seen over the last 5 years, cannot be overstated. We are just now beginning to reap its benefits in the form of higher incomes for American workers. Median household incomes, stagnant since the 2001 recession, went up by 1.1 percent after adjusting for inflation in 2005. Now, that is median household income. Contrary to the gloom and doom we are hearing from the other side on this floor, it went up by 1.1 percent, after adjusting for inflation in 2005. That is after the adjustment for inflation. The preliminary data for 2006 suggests that income growth has accelerated strongly, with even the New York Times reporting an estimate that inflation-adjusted wages and salaries have gone up an annual rate of 7 percent thus far this year. This is a pattern that would be entirely consistent with what we witnessed during the expansion of the 1990s, one that ultimately lifted millions of households out of poverty. Yet all we hear is doom and gloom. That is what happens when people want to gain power. The Federal Government has also benefitted from the sustained economic growth. Tax revenues--and this is with the tax cuts that we put in, and because of the tax cuts we put in over the past 5 years-- have grown at the fastest rate since the inflationary 1970s. You can't discount that, no matter how much doom and gloom you spread all over this body. Revenue went up by nearly 15 percent last year, and as we approach the end of the current fiscal year, it is likely it will go up 12 percent this year. That is phenomenal. In 2006, we will collect over a half of a trillion dollars more than we did in 2004--a truly awesome amount. The budget deficit has shrunk rapidly over these same 2 years, from $412 billion in 2004 to roughly $260 billion in 2006. Now, it is still too high, but as a percentage of GDP, it is one of the lowest over the last 40 years. That can't be discounted, in spite of the doom and gloom that we hear consistently on this floor. The Congressional Budget Office was forecasting a budget deficit of $100 billion larger than that as recently as March. Let me repeat, $100 billion larger than the $260 billion it was projected to be as recently as last March. Again, the strong budget growth we have benefitted from of late is reminiscent of what occurred in the late 1990s once the economy reached full employment and productivity growth picked up. It is also instructive to look at exactly where the additional tax revenues are coming from. Now, let's get this straight because I get so tired of hearing the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That is a slogan that really is pure folly. The top 1 percent of all earners--the top 1 percent of all earners--receive about 16 percent of all income but pay over 34 percent of all taxes. Let me repeat that. The top 1 percent of all earners receive about 16 percent of all income but pay over 34 percent of all taxes. The top 10 percent of all earners are paying two-thirds of all the taxes paid in this country--the top 10 percent. Mr. President, 97 percent, all but 3 percent, 97 percent of all income tax revenue comes from the top 50 percent of all wage earners. That doesn't sound to me like the rich are getting richer. What the other side always seems to forget is that, in this great country, the middle class consistently rises to a higher position because of the opportunities in this country if we continue to provide opportunities for economic growth through tax rate reductions and other methodologies. When you say that the top 50 percent of all earners pay 97 percent of all income tax revenues, this means that the bottom half of income earners in this country are paying only 3 percent of all income taxes collected. Many of them do not pay anything. Many of them get money from the Federal Government for living. No one can correctly say that the rich are not paying their share of taxes. Let me go over that again. The top 1 percent pay 34 percent of all income taxes. The top 10 percent are paying two-thirds of all income taxes. The top 50 percent pay 97 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent pay only 3 percent, and many of those do not pay income taxes at all. No one can correctly say that the rich are not paying their share of taxes or that this economy is not a good economy. We all wish it could be even better, but when you have an economy as diverse as ours, as complex as ours, it is hard to say that this is not a good economy. Those who have complained that income growth lagged behind the rest of the economy in the early years of the current economic expansion were absolutely correct. I share their frustration that it takes so long for income growth to permeate throughout all income levels. It is not enough to tell someone who is out of work or has been forced to take a pay cut that once the unemployment rate falls a bit more wages should pick up. The Government should do what it can to help lift people out of poverty. Republicans and Democrats agree on this. It is not just the Democrats. We all agree on that. So to present this like only Democrats care, that is pure bunk. However, the answer to this problem is not to take actions that would jeopardize economic growth. The solution is to keep the economy as strong as possible while making sure that those who get hurt by a faltering economy have the means to get up again, to help those who are underemployed or who are unemployed. We improved and expanded the earned-income tax credit, provided new funds for training and education, and during the recession we increased the duration of unemployment insurance. Let's be honest about it. Both Republicans and Democrats care for those who are suffering or those who have not been doing as well. But the Democratic solution seems to be, let's increase taxes so we can spend more from the Federal Government. We know what that is going to do. That is going to stifle this economy and economic growth and hurt all those who are paying into the system. Above all, it will hurt those who aren't paying into the system, who are the poor. That seems to be the only solution they have. They don't dare say that is their solution, but it is. Should the Democrats take control of the Congress, you can absolutely bet that the tax cuts that we enacted will not be continued and that the economy is going to go into the tank. You can absolutely guarantee it. Ultimately, it is productivity growth that improves the standard of living, plain and simple. Productivity growth has been exceptionally high for the last decade, and I aim to work to keep it that way by encouraging companies to invest in new plant and equipment, by encouraging workers to invest in training and education, and to do my part to say that Government keeps spending and taxes low and allows our businesses to compete as best they can. The rewards may not be immediate. But the incredible engine that is the U.S. economy owes its success to these simple precepts. Mr. President, I also know, and I notice the distinguished Senator from Nevada made the point, that energy is a very important matter to us. He said gas prices are going to go up again. That is going to be true if we do not have a consistently good energy policy. In the Republican energy bill, I put five bills in there myself. One to give incentives to recover the almost 1 trillion barrels of oil from oil tar sands and oil shale deposits in western Colorado, southern Wyoming, and eastern Utah. There are 3 trillion barrels of oil there, but we, according to the experts, can recover 1 trillion barrels of oil. To put that in perspective, the whole Middle East's proven reserves are 760 billion barrels. So we have more oil in tar sands and oil shale than all of the Middle East. The problem is it is going to cost us about $34 a barrel under current methodology and current technology to produce that oil, where it costs only 50 cents a barrel for Saudi crude. If we move in that direction, we are going to be able to be less dependent upon other countries' oil, especially countries that hate the United States of America, like Venezuela--at least the leadership does. I don't think the people of Venezuela do. We also put in better permitting language. The radical environmentalists have made it almost impossible to get permits to be able to develop these resources. Third, we put in that bill incentives to develop our geothermal resources. It is estimated that Utah geothermal wells alone could produce electricity for upwards of 22 million homes. That is about 66 million people. That is almost the whole West, right from one small State. Big in geography, small in population: only 2.5 million people. The fact is we can do that. Now the incentives are in that bill. They are not as good as I would have had them, but they are better than what we had before that bill. Most people do not realize that we have lost 250 oil refineries over the last 40 years and only built one. It is almost impossible to build an oil refinery because of radical environmentalists. The fact is, we have to build more oil refineries as long as we are dependent on oil refineries for our major source of fuel, for automobiles, trucks, trains, planes, et cetera. We have to wake up and start doing some of these things. Last but not least, my little CLEAR Act is in that bill to give economic incentives to develop alternative fuels, alternative-fuel vehicles and alternative-fuel infrastructure. It is a little bill that helped drive the hybrid auto industry into existence. Now we are talking about plug-in hybrids. We are talking about hydrogen cars. To get the hydrogen--we only have 9 million tons of hydrogen in this country. We need 150 million tons before we can actually make that a viable fuel and put it in real cars. We are capable of doing it now, but it would be the equivalent of about $3.60 a gallon of gas. We are going to have to develop cookie-cutter nuclear powerplants so we can develop this hydrogen and have totally clean fuel in our country, from hydrogen cars that will work just as well as gasoline- driven cars. We are a few years away from that, but it is possible to do that if he we wake up and start really thinking about the environment the way we should. If there is such a phenomenon as global warming--I believe there is-- this will be one of the ways of making our contribution to reducing the greenhouse gases, among other things. We hear a lot of complaints on the other side about the economy. My gosh, these figures have not been met hardly at all in the last 50 years--until now. I think the President, the Republican Congress, and a number of Democrats who have supported us deserve a lot of credit for at least having us where we are. Can we improve? We hope so, and we are going to do everything in our power to do it, but I know one way we can't improve is increasing taxes, increasing Government or having more Government controls, having more regulations, which always seems to be the case when the Democrats take over the Congress. It is certainly going to be the case if they do it this time, and I don't believe the American people are going to put up with that. I think what I am saying here today is that we cannot listen to cliches and slogans and doom-and-gloom prophecies. We have to work hard to get things done. We have the elements here to do it. There were comments made about the minimum wage, that we haven't had an increase in 10 years. The so-called trifecta bill would have increased it to $7 an hour, and maybe, if it was a true debate, the Democrats could have won on even a higher minimum wage. All we asked for is that we have some modest estate tax reform, which almost everybody admits would be beneficial to the economy at large and to our families, and especially small businesses that could lose their businesses--small farmers, family farmers, who could lose their farms. But, no, that was stopped by a filibuster, which has become the principal means of obstruction ever since the George Mitchell days when he filibustered. I thought he was a great majority leader. Don't anybody misconstrue what I am saying. He was, but he was tough. But he started to filibuster everything he disagreed with, or the Democrats disagreed with. Of course, here we are today doing the same thing. I would like to see us get rid of partisanship, where we can work together in the best interests of our country, without the mouthing off about how bad one side or the other side is, and really do what we were really sent here to do. I admit that we are in an election year and people want to win. So things are said that probably wouldn't be said in a non-election year. I would like to even tone that down a little bit and let's recognize the economy is a good economy. Could it be better? I doubt under the circumstances, but we can all work to try to make it better. Are some people suffering in our society? I said in my remarks today that there are, and we ought to work to try alleviate that. We have done a lot to alleviate that. As I have said, the bottom 50 percent only pay 3 percent of all Federal income taxes, and many of them don't pay taxes at all. A goodly number of them get help from the Federal Government. And that is from both parties, not just the Democratic Party. That is because in the past we have worked in bipartisan ways to do these things. I hope we can continue that. I wish we could get rid of the obstructionary tactics that we have had on judges and some other issues over the last number of years. I wish we could get behind whoever the President the United States is, and especially right now. President Bush is trying to do the best he can to stem the tide of terrorism in the world, but he also is doing a good job with regard to the economy with hopefully our help. Whoever the President is the next time, I hope, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, that we can work together in the best interests of our country. It would be a wonderful, pleasant change from the last 10 years that I have seen. Both parties are at fault. I am not saying equally, but both parties have reason to improve. All I can say is, how do you knock an economy that is clearly as good as this one is and continue to bad-mouth it when in fact the facts all show otherwise? I don't know how they can continue to drumbeat this day in and day out by some on the other side who know that is wrong. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I pay special tribute to a wonderful man, exceptionally gifted physician, and loving husband, father, and friend--Robert H. Lamb, M.D. I am sad to note that Dr. Lamb recently passed away at his home in Utah, leaving a tremendous void in the lives of all who knew him. Dr. Lamb dedicated his life to the practice of medicine and healing. His example of service and dedication to the health and well-being of people across Utah was truly extraordinary. Dr. Lamb received his medical degree from Jefferson University in Philadelphia and began his medical service as an intern at the Pennsylvania Hospital. His long and storied medical career included service as a general surgical resident at the original St. Mark's Hospital in Salt Lake City, followed by service in the U.S. Army as the chief of the surgical service in the Station Hospital in Fort Hood, TX. After his release from the Army, he went on to work as a resident orthopedic surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, OH. In 1951, he moved his young family back to Salt Lake City to begin his medical practice which encompassed work first at Shriner's Hospital, then the University of Utah Medical Center and St. Mark's Hospital. During his professional life, he served in many leadership positions, including the president of the medical staff of St. Mark's Hospital and Shriner's Hospital; as a board of trustees member of St. Mark's Hospital, and later as the chairman of the board of St. Mark's. Until his death, he continued to serve as a lifetime honorary ex-officio member of the St. Mark's board of trustees. Dr. Lamb was not only dedicated to his patients, he was dedicated to the field of medicine. He spent years tutoring and mentoring future medical professionals and helped train some of Utah's finest doctors. The knowledge and enthusiasm he shared with all those who had the privilege of working by his side provided the impetus for many future physicians and other dedicated medical personnel. Many of Dr. Lamb's patients have described him as ``gentle'', ``caring'', and ``dedicated''--all sentiments I share. I had the honor of visiting Dr. Lamb as a patient, and I can truly attest to his knowledge, compassion, and high-quality care. I appreciated his concern for me and my health and will forever be grateful to him for his dedication to medicine. The respected English philosopher and poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge beautifully described what many feel regarding Dr. Lamb's dedication and service when he made the statement, ``He is the best physician who is the most ingenious inspirer of hope.'' Dr. Lamb always treated his patients with utmost care and respect, and above all else he always strived to inspire hope. Dr. Lamb was not only a great physician, but he was also a dedicated husband, father, and grandfather. I know that his wife Mary, and his 5 children, 10 grandchildren, and 5 great-grandchildren will miss him deeply. My greatest hope is that they will be able to find peace and comfort from the memories they have of his exceptional life. I am grateful that I had the privilege of knowing Dr. Robert Lamb. His life's work has touched literally hundreds of Utahns, and his memory will live on through the better health and well-being he imparted to many. The lessons he taught and the service he performed leave an indelible imprint which will inspire and teach generations to come.