Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to SFC James E. Thode, who gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country. On December 2, 2010, he died of wounds suffered after an improvised explosive device detonated on a roadside in Sabari District, Khowst Province, Afghanistan. He was 45 years old.

Sergeant First Class Thode served with the Utah National Guard, 118th Engineer (Sapper) Company, 1457th Engineer Battalion, 204th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, in Salt Lake City. His unit's mission was vitally important, as it provided route-clearance support to coalition forces. Identifying and clearing IEDs was part of their dangerous job.

Sergeant First Class Thode called Farmington, NM, his home and grew up in Tucson, AZ. However, boundaries are blurred in the Four Corners area and soldiers are drawn from the neighboring states. I am proud, and, indeed, Utah is proud to call Sergeant Thode one of our own. He was one of our finest.

This was to be Sergeant First Class Thode's third deployment overseas. In 1991, he served during the first gulf war, although he did not see combat. He never shied away from duty.

Like so many of the fine men and women serving in the Armed Forces today, Thode felt it was his duty to serve. He exemplified this attitude by not only serving his country abroad, but by serving on the Farmington Police Department for the last 14 years. In that time he worked as a training officer, a member of the SWAT team. He was well- respected. He was a great friend. He was a great leader. He had the qualities we would want in a police officer and protector of a community.

His decision to serve our country came at an early age. He was inspired by his uncle who served in the military. As a young boy, he learned how to shoot a BB gun and later his father took him to the shooting range and taught him how to handle a rifle. He joined the military in 1984 and had served long enough to retire from military service by the time he went on his third deployment, this time to Afghanistan. His father told him he could have retired, but he insisted that the young men and women he served with needed someone to take them to war and help keep things together.

He was a father figure to many of his fellow soldiers. He was the glue that held people together. A warrior that led by example.

My thoughts and prayers go to his loving family. He leaves behind his devoted wife Carlotta; their 18-year-old daughter Ashley; their 8-year- old son Tommy; his mother Evelyn; father Ernest; and other family and friends. With his ultimate sacrifice, they are sacrificing, too. God bless them.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, be given time on the floor for his remarks.

Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to pay tribute to someone who is very special and very dear to me, my former Chief of Staff, Jace Johnson. Over this past recess, I learned that my Chief of Staff, Jace Johnson, would be leaving the Senate to pursue opportunities in the private sector.

Change often catches us by surprise. As the Presiding Officer can imagine, I had come to rely on the talents and insight that Jace offered over many these past years. He was my strong right arm, someone in whom I had complete confidence, and still do. For 8 years, Jace worked on my staff and dedicated his efforts to serving Utah and improving our country. Undoubtedly, his work ethic and his straightforward approach to public service have greatly benefited us all. Jace is sorely missed by all of us on our staff and all of us in our office. He provided strong leadership at a time when it was absolutely crucial to us.

To fully understand the void created by Jace's absence, one has to know a bit more about him. When you walked into Jace's office, you were greeted by proudly displayed Utah college and university pennants. Aside from making an interesting and welcoming environment, the banners proclaimed Jace's passion for sports. Like me, he spent his boyhood as an avid basketball player. I regret we never had the opportunity for a one-on-one game, but I am still convinced I would have kicked his tail and I would have won. Although when I think about it, he is in a lot better shape than I am.

His love of hoops led Jace to play basketball at Snow College in central Utah. Soon thereafter, Jace served a 2-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints in the Philadelphia, PA area. Being from smalltown Idaho, I can only imagine the new experiences Philadelphia had to offer. It undoubtedly left quite an impression. His wife Cori credits her husband's time in Philadelphia for his willingness to venture back to the east coast after college.

Jace and Cori met while they were attending college at Brigham Young University in Provo, UT. They have three wonderful children--Ashley, Benjamin, and Christian. Upon finishing school at BYU, Jace and Cori made the move to Washington, DC, so he could attend graduate school at George Washington University and earn his MBA.

While Jace was still in school, he actually worked in my office as an intern. He didn't stay long, however, because as the saying goes, he had bigger fish to fry. By the time he returned to Capitol Hill to work on a more permanent basis, he had already achieved remarkable success in the business world. After working for a few years at Visa International, he became the director of finance at the Corvis Corporation, a cutting-edge network and media solutions company. Jace was the third employee to be hired at Corvis when it was still a startup, and while he was there he helped secure financing for the company as it prepared to go public in the year 2000. Jace's contribution to Corvis allowed the company to grow from a small startup employing a handful of people into an international company with more than 3,000 employees and a value of $40 billion.

Jace joined my staff in 2002, coming on as a legislative assistant, working mostly on telecommunications issues. In that position, he demonstrated the keen understanding and strategic thinking that had made him such a success in the business world. After 3 years, I appointed him to be my legislative director, and in that position he continued to excel and became a vital and integral part of my efforts here in the Senate. I grew to depend on him more and more, and in January of 2008, Jace took over as my Chief of Staff.

I used to joke with him that working for me was only a hobby, because he didn't need the money. Of course, anyone who knew and worked with Jace can attest that is simply not true. He put his heart and soul into his work in the Senate. For Jace, failure wasn't permissible, so he spent early mornings and late nights ensuring the work was done and done right. His commitment to me personally and to my work here in the Senate was rooted in his belief--a belief he reiterated at every opportunity--that what we were doing was in the best interests of our country and for the people of Utah.

I think what I appreciated most about Jace is his unwavering honesty. In a town filled with people who only want to tell you what they want you to hear, Jace was refreshingly direct and straightforward. I have always attributed this to the fact that he is, to put it bluntly, just a little bit smarter--maybe not just a bit smarter, a whole lot smarter--than most people. People who don't see the big picture and who can't predict what might happen down the line have the need to hedge bets, cover bases, and speak without committing. Jace Johnson has never had that problem. When a goal is identified and a plan set in motion, he is usually a few steps ahead of everyone else and he can see where problems might arise. Chances are he has already come up with solutions to those problems. An individual with that kind of rare insight and understanding has the license to speak directly where others would hem and haw. I was lucky enough to be the beneficiary of Jace's ability to speak frankly and honestly, and on more than one occasion that meant I was on the receiving end. I think I can speak for every Member of the Senate when I say that that kind of support from staff is a treasured commodity.

It is very clear I will miss Jace Johnson on my staff. However, I think it would be even more telling to hear from some of the people of Utah who have high praise for Jace and the service he has rendered.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert had this to say:

Jace is a man of great insight and understanding. He is

able to think strategically and anticipate potential

roadblocks, which has, and will continue, to serve him well.

I wish him the best of luck and success in his new position.

Jason Perry, Governor Herbert's Chief of Staff, said:

I have had the opportunity to work with Jace for many

years. His uncanny ability to

diffuse potentially difficult situations, coupled with his

pleasant and approachable nature, has proven invaluable on

several occasions.

Utah Senator-elect Mike Lee said:

I have looked to Jace Johnson on many occasions for his

keen insight, depth of wisdom, and wise counsel. He has

proven to be a tremendous resource and has truly made a

difference for me, Senator Hatch, the people of the great

State of Utah, and for our country. His legacy of service

will stand as a benchmark of excellence for years to come.

Former Utah Republican Party Chairman Stan Lockhart said this:

Jace Johnson is a class act. In positions of responsibility

and authority, he is approachable and down to earth. In an

environment of hardball politics, he maintains integrity.

With many issues to deal with on a daily basis, he

understands the big picture and small nuances of good policy.

I always liked the fact that he understands the private

sector, with a successful background in the technology

industry before he came to Washington, D.C. I'll miss Jace.

A prominent Salt Lake City lawyer and a political leader, Doug Foxley, in the State said about Jace:

Behind that I-am-just-a-boy-from-Blackfoot-Idaho, was a

keen, astute political mind who always had Orrin's interest

at heart and had a quality of making everyone feel that he

was their best friend. Not diminishing any other person who

has worked for Orrin, but Jace was a delight and any trip to

D.C. without seeing Jace was not a trip. A true committed

conservative who was not an obnoxious ideologue, but one who

truly believed what he espoused: hard work, honor,

commitment, dedication to family, Church, and country and

imbued with a belief in limited government and in the private

sector were guiding principles. This, coupled with compassion

for those less fortunate, is the Jace Johnson legacy.

Mr. President, that is high praise, and we have lots of others who feel the same way. I will leave it at that.

During my time here in the Senate, I have been extremely fortunate when it comes to my staff. I have had the privilege of serving with some of the most gifted and devoted individuals our Nation has to offer. Each of them has brought something unique and important to the table. But I have to say that, even among the select fraternity of talented Senate staffers, Jace Johnson belongs in the hall of honor, an elite class that very few have been or will be able to attain.

I have no doubt that Jace will succeed in the new position. Success has been the defining characteristic of every endeavor he has undertaken. While the selfish part of me wishes he would have stayed in the Senate just a little bit longer, I want to wish Jace, his wife Cori, and his whole family the very best going forward.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to personally thank the distinguished chairwoman of this committee. I have been in the Senate a pretty long time, and she has done one of the best jobs I have ever seen done. There aren't very many impeachments--or should I say trials of impeachment, but of the ones I have seen, she ranks right up there in the top. All I can say is she ran a very good committee. She made very good decisions, she wasn't afraid to rule, she treated everybody with dignity and respect. She expected a lot of the members of the committee, which has to be the way, and she is a very intelligent and articulate and knowledgeable person. It has been my privilege to be able to serve with her and under her as vice chairman of this committee.

This is when you realize how important the Senate is, when all the Senators come together and they make decisions such as this, pro and con. Nobody should misjudge not guilty votes or guilty votes. I think every Senator voted the way he or she felt they should vote, and that was important.

I think much of the credit for the way this was all handled should go to the distinguished chairwoman, Senator McCaskill. She is an excellent human being, a wonderful leader on this committee, and, frankly, I am very proud of her for what she was able to do because this is not easy, and it does take a lot of time. It is similar to herding cats, trying to make sure you can get all these busy people on the committee or at least a quorum every time to be able to do business on the committee. She was able to do that.

I wish to compliment every member of the committee. Every member showed up and did a lot of work on this committee--some more than others, of course. But every one of the members of this committee worked to try to be fair and do what is right and to do justice in this matter.

Having said all that, I wish to pay tribute to Derron Parks myself. This young man deserves a lot of credit. To be thrown into an impeachment committee, when his main job was to work on health care, tested the legal acumen of this young man. I have to say he was one of the kindest, most decent, most honorable, most knowledgeable, and most intelligent people I have worked with in the Senate. He is a terrific person and I am very proud of him.

Thomas Jipping, on my staff. There are very few people around who have the experience Tom has. He is a very good lawyer. He was a constant guide and provided me with leadership. I don't think either Senator McCaskill or I could have done this without these two leaders on the committee.

The others were equally important to us and did very good work: Justin Kim, a wonderful human being; Rebecca Seidel. She worked with me long ago on the Judiciary Committee, is a very experienced lawyer and did a terrific job. Erin Johnson and Susan Smelcer were both critical to the work on the committee; Lake Dishman, who is on our staff and a very fine young man, who was willing to go every extra mile he could-- as were all these other folks on the staff--to do what was right; Morgan Frankel and Pat Bryan from the Senate legal counsel's office. We couldn't have asked for better people, with more knowledge or more ability to lead and assist us.

Impeachment committees--or should I say the trial committee and the hearing of this is a very difficult undertaking. You are dealing with people's lives, you are dealing with people's reputations, and you have to do this in a completely fair and honest way, which I believe we did. This is one of the most important tasks the Senate does--extremely important--and I think the Senate acquitted itself very well today.

Every Senator voted his or her conscience today and, in some instances, that wasn't easy. Nobody should misjudge anybody's vote. Judge Porteous was convicted on all four articles and the vast majority of our Members felt that was proper.

At that point, I have to compliment the attorneys from the House. They were terrific. I have complimented them personally, and they know how I feel toward them, but the counsel for the House were very respectful, very knowledgeable, tremendously articulate in what they did and, frankly, acquitted themselves with great dignity and deserve all our respect. We should respect counsel representatives. It is not easy to impeach somebody in this day and age, but they did, and these folks did a terrific job and their counsel as well.

They are Alan Baron, Harold Damelin, Mark Dubester, and Kirsten Konar.

Having said that, the defense counsel did the very best job they could. Jonathan Turley is an imminent professor at George Washington University. I have known him for a long time. He is very innovative and creative. Some thought, in this particular matter, he was quite innovative and creative as well. But let me say he is a very intelligent and very knowledgeable man. His other cocounsel deserve great recognition for what they did here.

I feel sorry for Judge Porteous. To rise to the dignified position of a Federal district court judge and then have this happen, after 30 years in public service or more, I am sure is absolutely painful and a problem and damaging to his reputation. I wish him well. I hope he will analyze these things and make some changes in his life that will be better for him and for his family and others. He has a lot of friends down there in Louisiana, and I think probably earned a lot of friendship, but the Senate has ruled properly in this matter and the impeachment should be upheld.

He should have been convicted of at least one of these articles, if not all four. I don't believe he should have been convicted on two of them--and there were good legal reasons for not going that far in the case of the chairman and myself--but, nevertheless, I respect the votes of all my colleagues on the floor. I know they paid strict attention, sat through almost all the proceedings and the closed session as well, and I commend them.

Finally, I wish to commend our two leaders. The two leaders conducted these proceedings with dignity and with respect, upholding the highest standards of the Senate. You can't ask for more than that, and I am very proud of both our leaders and others as well.

It has been a privilege for me to serve on this committee. I have tried to do the best I possibly could, and I believe the result today is an honest and just result. I just hope this sends a message to all our judges on the Federal bench, and others as well, that it is important to live up to our responsibilities and to do the things we know we should be doing.

Having said all this, I wish to again thank the staff on this committee. What a tremendous bunch of young people, who did a terrific job and who deserve the bulk of the credit of any credit that is due. I am just grateful to have been able to know them and work

with them and to love them for the work they have done.

This is one of the most important things the Senate can engage in, and I wish to thank our Parliamentarians. Many times people don't realize how important the Parliamentarians are in the Senate. We couldn't function without them. We are very blessed to have the Parliamentarians whom we have helping us in the Senate. They go unrecognized many times but not by me. I have a great deal of admiration for them. They keep us out of a lot of difficulties. Sometimes they get us into some difficulties--because of the rules, not because of them. But I want to pay tribute to them as well.

This was a just result. It is what I think had to be done. The country will be better for it. It does send an appropriate message, or messages, I should say, and I feel blessed to have been able to participate on this committee and on this Senate floor. It is a great honor to serve in the Senate. Days such as this help bring that home to me, and I wanted everybody to know it.

I wish to again thank the distinguished chairwoman and tell her how much I appreciate her work.

With that, I yield the floor.

I appreciate my colleague, Mr. President. This is a first for him to yield to me and appreciate me.

That is not quite accurate because we are real good friends.

My friend, the senior Senator from New York, has come forward with an amendment. The essence of the amendment is a marginal tax rate hike on taxpayers earning more than $1 million. It has been dubbed the ``millionaires' tax.''

Folks on the other side must know two things. One, this may be well designed from the other side's political viewpoint. Supporting the tax probably registers well with some of the Democratic polling mavens. By the same token, these polling mavens might be indicating to their patrons that this lameduck session vote might supply some good campaign material. As the debate ensued this past week, it almost seemed as though my friends on the other side were giddily rubbing their hands together. Maybe they view this vote as the equivalent of a Hanukkah gift or Christmas present. But their holiday political joy stands in sharp contrast to the dreary situation facing America's unemployed. Two years of wall-to-wall Democratic rule has only made the situation worse.

There is a second thing my friends on the other side must know. They know Senator Schumer's amendment will surely fail. Does anybody doubt it?

Thirty-three days ago, the American people sent a message: Work together. Take care of the people's business. Nothing is more fundamental to the people's business than how much they are taxed. In this weak economy they said: Keep taxes low. Keep taxes low.

We should not meddle with the great sovereign power of taxation. It is especially true in this harsh economic climate. On April 19, 1774, Sir Edmund Burke tried to persuade the British Parliament to repeal the last of several controversial colonial taxes. His wisdom is instructive for today's vote. Remember, this is Sir Edmund Burke arguing for the colonists in America:

Could anything be a subject of more just alarm to America,

than to see you go out of the plain high road of finance, and

give up your most certain revenues and your clearest

interests, merely for the sake of insulting your Colonies?

Burke's point was that the Parliament was acting unwisely by maintaining a tea tax primarily to spite the colonists.

Four Saturdays from today, we will mark New Year's Day 2011. The tax law, as it now reads, will impose a punitive hike on virtually every American taxpayer. That date of reckoning has been clear since my friends took power almost 4 years ago in both Houses of Congress.

My friends on the other side, with all due respect, your actions this morning

amount to meddling. You possess part of the sovereign power to change the tax law to prevent this tax increase. Instead, you have forced this body into a political showdown.

The proponents of the so-called millionaires' tax say the reason to do so is ``fiscal discipline.'' This proposal preserves less than half of the revenue of the related positions in the Reid-Baucus substitute. If that is the case, and revenue is the goal of the proponents of the millionaires' tax, they ought to stick with the Reid-Baucus substitute.

But let's set aside for a moment the fact that the revenue raised is a fraction of the broader tax hike on the Reid-Baucus substitute. Does anybody take seriously the amendment proponents' claims that the revenue raised will go to deficit reduction? Does anybody really believe that? You know they are going to spend every dime of it, if there were any revenues. Where is the mechanism to assure taxpayers of that? More important, what is the record of my friends on the other side on this point? You need to only look at the fine print in the revenue and spending tables of the President's budget.

As an aside, the President's budget is the most transparent presentation of the fiscal features of the agenda of my friends on the other side. Hiking marginal tax rates on singles making more than $200,000 and families making over $250,000 translates to about six- tenths of 1 percent of gross domestic product, or GDP, per year over 10 years. The new above-baseline spending initiatives in the President's budget translate to seventy-five one-hundredths of 1 percent of GDP per year over 10 years. What does that mean fiscally? The revenue raised by the broader tax hike in the Reid-Baucus substitute is less than the new spending in the President's budget. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.

As I stated earlier, the revenue raised by the amendment of my friend from New York is less than half of that of the Reid-Baucus substitute. Does anybody really believe that lesser amount of revenue is less likely to be spent? So much for the fiscal discipline argument.

There are some disturbing points to ponder on this so-called millionaires' tax. I am going to alert my friends on the other side to them.

The first point is that capital is the lifeblood of business. Pump more capital into business and it will respond: the business will gain economic energy. Curtail the flow of capital to a business and it will respond: the business will lose economic energy. That is what is happening in America.

According to the latest Internal Revenue Service statistics of income--or SOI--data, a lot of capital gain income is earned by taxpayers targeted by Senator Schumer's amendment. Statistics of income data states that 56.6 percent of the net long-term capital gain from traditional capital assets is reported by taxpayers with $1 million or more in income. More important, if capital gains from transactions involving partnerships and other flowthrough entities are concerned, that percentage rises to 64.7 percent. There can be little doubt that we are talking about a large pool of capital.

If my friends on the other side were to prevail, it would be a game- changer for the tax treatment of a large pool of income from capital. The change in the capital gains would surely be a negative one.

I have a chart that illustrates the change in the playing field for capital transactions. It shows where we are today; that is, 15 percent capital gains rate. If my friends on the other side are successful, in a little over 27 days from now, the marginal rate will rise to 20 percent. The health care reform bill has baked in another 3.9 percent rate hike. That kicks in a little over 2 years from now. So that is 23.9 percent.

This chart shows that the marginal rate on nearly two-thirds of taxable long-term capital gains transactions could be affected. It means investors who supply that capital, the lifeblood of business, will see the marginal tax rate on capital gains rise by nearly 60 percent in a little over 2 years.

Everything else being equal, a rise in the marginal tax rate means a decline in the after-tax rate of return. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation always cautions us about this effect in their revenue estimates.

Here is what Joint Tax said:

We anticipate that taxpayers would respond to the increased

marginal rate by utilizing tax planning and tax avoidance

strategies that will decrease the amount of income subject to

taxation.

My gosh, what more do you need to understand economics? Capital is the lifeblood of business. Raise the marginal rate on capital gains transactions, and the result will be a decrease in the after-tax rate of return on capital investments. What will happen? Capital will go out of taxable activities, in many cases. Capital, the lifeblood of business, will be constricted. With capital constricted, does anybody see business activity affected in any way that is positive? It would be hard to imagine that outcome.

When most folks hear about a so-called millionaires' tax, they probably think it would have minimal impact on the business environment. The data I have discussed shows exactly the opposite. It also shows that any revenue raised will likely be spent. Anybody who believes that by raising revenues we are going to pay off the national debt has not lived in this country for the last 34 years I have been in the Senate. Our friends on the other side will always spend that money. That is how they keep themselves in power.

Does it make sense to send a tax policy signal to investors to move their capital out of taxable business activity? In the worst economic environment in many years,--now with 9.8 percent unemployment--should we not be going in the opposite direction? Instead of finding ways to kill jobs when the unemployment rate continues to stagnate near 10 percent, let's focus our time on finding a bipartisan solution to protect all Americans, especially our job creators, from crushing tax hikes. It is time to put a stop to this nonsensical political theater and get down to the people's business.

One last thought. Over the last summer, President Obama said this:

The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the

middle of a recession, because that would just suck up, take

more demand out of the economy, and put businesses in a

further hole.

I think the President was right. I think the economists think that statement was right. The last thing we should do is raise taxes in the middle of this downturn, which now is even more down because of the 9.8-percent unemployment rate. But that tells only part of the story. If you talk about the underemployment rate--those people who don't have jobs, those who can't find jobs, those who are dependent on the Federal Government, and those who stopped looking for jobs, and there are a lot of people like that--you are talking about 18 percent or better. We have to wise up. The last thing on Earth we need to do is increase taxes at this late date.

This is an important debate. The Democrats have had 4 years to change this, where they controlled both Houses of Congress. In the last 2 years, they controlled not only the Houses of Congress but the Presidency. At this last minute, to say that we have to do something, it shows a lack of--well, you name it; I won't name it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to my colleague from New York. He is one of the brightest people in this body, he is one of the toughest, and he has been a very dear friend all these years.

I might mention that the Schumer-Hatch bill is now law, a bipartisan bill we did put through. That was a good step in the right direction as far as gaining jobs.

I would also like to point out that 56 percent of all capital gains that create jobs are paid for by people who earn over $500,000 a year.

I also would care to point out that I absolutely guarantee to everybody watching us today what would happen if there were these tax increases. I think the distinguished Senator knows his suggestion polls very well. Is that the reason we should do it? No. But I guarantee, and I do not think anybody could doubt this guarantee, that if his approach wins, the Democrats will take every dime of that and spend it. In fact, the President's budget spends more toward the end than it does now--I mean a lot more. That is one of the problems.

We know a good 50 percent of small businesses would be affected. They are the ones who create jobs--25 percent of the employees and about 50 percent of small businesses would be affected if we do what the Democrats would like to do.

Be that as it may, those are some of the differences. But I am going to explain why at the last minute this Congress--after the upheaval that happened during the election--this Congress cannot seem to get together during a time of economic distress and put over these tax reliefs that were started in 2001-2003--that we cannot do that and at the last minute to come in and want to change the game again and do that at a time when we have the economic difficulty and problems we have. It is more of the same.

Over the last few days Americans watching C-SPAN would have seen a lot of speeches about widespread tax hikes that will arrive with the new year. Many of my friends on the other side deployed several attacks. C-SPAN viewers probably were not surprised the attacks were exclusively aimed at those on this side.

I will not get into correcting the record any more than I have on all of that misinformation right now. I would like to focus on two themes we heard. We heard them over and over. The first theme was repeated many times. It was this: Republicans are accused of holding hostage tax relief for middle-income taxpayers. The second theme took some creativity. If you listen to our friends on the other side you would think they had hired a psychic or mind reader, that somehow this mind reader had successfully read the minds of 42 Republican Senators.

Our friends spoke as if they had determined the motives of 42 Republican Senators. Perhaps not surprisingly, the motive ascribed was not very favorable. Republicans' alleged hostage taking was described as solely motivated by a desire to cut taxes for high-income people.

If our friends in the Democratic leadership hired a mind reader, I advise them to seek a refund because it did not work. You have been had, my friends. You didn't need a mind reader. You need not come to the floor and spend all day ascribing motives to your colleagues on this side.

The record is clear today. It has been clear for a decade that the tax relief program has been in effect. Actions speak louder than words. Votes speak louder than talking points or press releases.

When first passed over 9\1/2\ years ago, nearly all of the Republican conference supported the bipartisan tax relief plan. Roughly one-fourth of the Democratic caucus supported the plan.

Because of the opposition of the Democratic leadership, efforts to make these policies permanent law were rebuffed. Check the record. During the years of the Republican majority, the Democratic leadership opposed efforts to make the widely applicable tax relief measures permanent. Those efforts were also opposed by the other side.

What is even more revealing is the record since the Democratic leadership assumed control of the Congress almost 4 years ago. A few moments ago, I said actions speak louder than words. Votes speak louder than speeches. After obstructing permanent tax relief in the minority, what did our friends in the Democratic leadership do when they gained power? Let's take a look.

I have a series of charts. The Democrats have taken power. These charts chronicle the record of the Democratic leadership on this time- sensitive matter. The first chart chronicles the first year of the new Democratic Party majority. The year is 2007. The Democrats took power on January 4, 2007. You will see it circled on the chart right here. That is January 4. Look at the rest of the year in 2007. Think about it. No action was taken on the tax hikes that come down in less than 1 month. No action, none, nothing, zilch.

Let's take a look at 2008. This chart is pretty simple. Take a look. It is completely blank other than the calendar on there. No action, nothing, none, zilch.

Here is a chart for 2009. It is an important chart as well. There were big changes in Washington. Democrats gained a large majority, 60 votes in the Senate. It was basically a filibuster-proof body. That is circled here on January 6.

President Obama takes office on January 20, right here. It is circled right there. You can see it. A little over 3 months later an event occurred that many on our side of the aisle will not forget. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania crossed the aisle to give Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. Let me just point to that third circle right here.

Nothing happens for the rest of the year, not a doggone thing happened for the rest of the year. We had a larger Democratic majority sworn in; President Obama was sworn in.

Then my dear colleague Senator Specter decided he wanted to be a Democrat, and he switched parties. That got 60 votes in the Senate. Nothing happens for the rest of the year, nothing else happens.

On December 3, 2009, 1 year ago, the House Democratic leadership passes a long-term death tax reform. That is right here on December 3. This represents a milestone. Almost 3 years into their majority, one portion of the congressional Democratic leadership took comprehensive action on one piece of the 2001 tax relief expiring provisions.

Let's take a look at 2010. It is the fourth year congressional Democrats have controlled both bodies, abjectly controlled them, in this decade. The House-passed death tax reform was placed on the Senate calendar on January 20, 2010. When Senator Scott Brown was sworn in on February 4, the Democratic majority fell, if that word is appropriate, to 59 majority votes. What has happened for the balance of this year? What action has the Democratic leadership taken as the big tax hikes approached? With the economy slumbering and a big tax hike coming, what actions has the Democratic leadership in both Houses taken? With the Nation's job creators, America's small businesses, expressing pessimism about the business environment and a looming tax hike on the horizon, what actions has the Democratic Party leadership taken? With unemployment announced today at 9.8 percent and a big tax hike coming, what action has the Democratic Party leadership taken over these last 4 years?

By the way, this latest data indicates that the unemployment rate is going the wrong way; that is, upward. It is going up again. More Americans are out of work. I remind my friends in the Democratic leadership to pay close attention to this data. It should concentrate the mind on policies to counter the problems at hand rather than politics.

With a big tax hike less than 1 month away and this horrible economic data arriving this morning, what action has the Democratic Party leadership taken and the Democratic leadership in the Senate? Let's take a look. Over the past several months, Republican Senators have come to the floor to urge our friends in the Democratic leadership to address a time-sensitive topic. I am referring to a package of unfinished tax legislative business.

I am on the Finance Committee. I sit right next to our ranking member, Senator Grassley. I expect to take over as ranking member in January. Ranking Member Grassley and I used this chart in a colloquy a couple of weeks ago. Here is our checklist chart. The only piece of legislation the Senate has considered is one small but important piece of unfinished tax legislative business. It is what we call tax extenders--something we almost automatically have passed in the past.

Unfortunately, the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate and House scuttled a bipartisan agreement between Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley about 10 months ago. After we put it right out of the Democratic-controlled Finance Committee, they basically canceled it. That includes the research and development tax credit that helps our high-tech world to remain competitive, to mention one.

The reason I mention that is because it is something almost everybody wants. It is one of the glues that bind everything together. Over this whole year after we put that tax extender bill out, look where we are.

Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership scuttled the bipartisan agreement between Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley about 10 months ago. After that, a partisan strategy was pursued by our friends on the other side. Not surprisingly, it failed several times. I will give them a checkmark on the chart for doing the minimum. My friends in the Democratic leadership did at least bring up a bill.

As the chart shows, the tax extenders--right here--which are overdue by almost 1 year, are not alone. There are three other major areas of unfinished business, and there are others as well. But I decided to talk about these.

One area Senator Grassley and I discussed at length a couple weeks ago applies to millions of middle-income families this year. It is the 2010 alternative minimum tax. Another area is the death tax. In less than 1 month from now, the number of States to be hit by the death tax will shoot dramatically upward. Small businesses and family farms are going to be lost unless we do something about it. But here we are in the last few weeks of this session. They haven't done a doggone thing on the AMT patch. The House did something on death tax reform, but we have done nothing. Both bodies have done nothing. And they have done absolutely nothing on these tax hikes. When compared with the Lincoln- Kyl compromise on death tax reform, the number of taxable estates will be 10 times higher. In the case of family farms, it will be 13 times as high.

The third area is the 2001 and 2003 tax rate cuts. As important as extenders, the AMT patch, and the death tax are, the impact of this tax package down here is monolithic in comparison. I am referring to the marginal income tax rate reductions that are current law until the end of this month. I am also referring to family tax relief. Both pieces were the core of the bipartisan tax relief enacted in 2001 and 2003.

For an example of the importance of this package, we need look no further than a typical family of four. For a family of four earning $50,000 of income, the tax hike they face will be $2,136. In this slow- growth environment, who among us thinks it makes sense to hike this family's taxes by almost $200 a month? That is where we are. Unless we can get this all done by the other side cooperating, it seems to me, a family earning $50,000 is going to be socked an extra $2,136.

Contrast the record I have laid out with the two attacks directed at Republicans over the last 2 days. Just tell me, how could we possibly have held hostage any bill with the votes the Democrats have had over the last 4 years? The folks taking these partisan shots have had almost 4 years with an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate to deal with a massive tax hike set to kick in in less than a month now. Republicans have not controlled the House for 4 solid years. For almost 2 years, the other side has ruled with one of the most robust majorities in modern times. The motives of the minority in the House hardly ever solely determine the fate of any bill there. It is likewise in the Senate. A filibuster-proof majority has a lot of power. A majority that is slightly less than filibuster proof needs to work with the other side. That is the way the Senate has always worked.

Even if we Republicans were to decide to filibuster, how could we have filibustered something that doesn't exist? Look at all those prior charts. Not one doggone thing done. It is something that has not existed for almost 4 years of Democratic Party control of both Houses of Congress. Go back through the record. In the 4 years of majority rule, show me the Senate Democratic leadership bill that Republicans could obstruct. There hasn't been any.

Yesterday, finally the dam of inaction broke, but it broke on the House side. House Democratic leadership sent a bill late in the second week of this lameduck session. The bill does not prevent a tax hike on virtually every American taxpayer. But what kind of action is the House bill? It is political action, pure and simple. It is political. Look no further than the statements of the bill's authors, the House Democratic leadership. We can view that bill as an expression of partisan sentiment in the House Democratic caucus. It will not become law, and we all know it.

It is up to the Obama administration and Senate Democratic leadership to work with Republicans. The aim should be a bipartisan transaction or deal, if you want to call it that. Real legislating on these time- sensitive tax hike prevention issues is long past due.

What kind of actions are the American people receiving from the Senate Democratic leadership? The majority leader has used his procedural power to jam Republicans. He has a right to do that. But it has been consistent. Call a bill up, fill up the parliamentary tree, prevent any and all amendments in the greatest deliberative body in the world, and then try to ram it through. I have to say that these tactics also jam any Democrats who might differ with the Democratic leadership's scheme. And there are some who do. The sum and substance of the Democratic leadership procedural jam is to guarantee that we will waste yet more procedural and more precious time. If Members don't believe me, ask the congressional press corps outside the Chamber.

Taking a bet on a successful legislative outcome of the two jammed votes would not be a good wager. It could be akin to accepting an offer to sell the Brooklyn Bridge from a fast-talking New Yorker. No one is fooled by this move by the Senate Democratic leadership. I challenge any of my friends on the other side to show me the votes.

How will the actions of the Democratic leadership advance the ball if

the two votes are designed to fail? Sure, maybe from their perspective there is some cheap political benefit to the Democratic leadership and Democratic Party staging these jammed votes. As one member of the Democratic leadership implied yesterday, maybe there will be some campaign material produced. Is that what this is all about? Is that what the greatest deliberative body in the world is all about in the last few weeks of this session when this country is in the fiscal problem it is in?

I ask my friends to step back and take another look at the political calculation they may be making. The American people are angry. I have held seven townhall meetings in the last few months, plus two tele- townhall meetings. The American people are very angry. The American people know it has taken almost 4 years for our friends in the Democratic leadership in both the House and Senate to address this looming tax hike. They have had monumental majorities that would have enabled them to put just about anything through that they wanted, such as the looming tax hike they all knew about when they took power long ago. Is it really worth running through this political charade with a couple of partisan votes and campaign commercials that may be used 2 years from now? Is it really that important?

I ask my friends in the Democratic leadership and the Democratic side to consider the political calculation further. Especially consider it when these two partisan jam votes fail. If they want to keep playing politics with a big tax hike on virtually every American, what will they say when we hit the last day of this calendar right here? Will they say: Too bad, American families. Will they say: Too bad, small business folks. Will they say: Jamming the other side with partisan votes was our foremost goal. What will they say after wasting the hard- working taxpayers' time and money on these jam votes?

Let's go to the partisan allegation that it is not helpful to the goal of a bipartisan deal. It is the second theme to which I referred. Many on the other side ascribed to Republicans a motive to take whatever action necessary solely to provide tax relief for high- income taxpayers. Now, let's be clear. Senate Republicans and Democrats both want to prevent tax hikes on middle-income families. The only difference is Senate Republicans want to do more.

On this side, in this slow-growth environment, we do not want to raise taxes on anyone right now. Yesterday, I discussed some of the reasons for preventing any tax hikes, even preventing the so-called millionaires' tax hike. It is a hit on small businesses, and we all know it. It is a hit on the after-tax rate of return on investment. This so-called millionaires' tax hike will slow the flow of the lifeblood of business--capital.

Let's be clear. On our side, we want, just as much as the Democrats want, to protect middle-income taxpayers from a tax hike. Nearly every Republican in 2001 supported it then, tried to make it permanent, and we support it now.

You need look no further than our leader's bill. It is right there in the bill. On our side, we want more of these middle-income taxpayers to keep their jobs. We want a business and investment environment that reduces the punishingly high unemployment rate of close to 10 percent now. That does not even talk about the underemployment rate which is a little more than 18 percent when you include people who do not even want to look for a job anymore and those who have given up.

Almost 4 years ago, in the 2006 election, the American people provided the Democratic Party leadership with control of the Congress. In the 2008 election, almost 2 years ago, the American people provided the Democratic leadership with the largest majorities in more than a generation. They also provided the Democratic leadership with a President of their party.

The Democratic leadership spent the period of 2001 to 2006 thwarting efforts to make the bipartisan tax relief of 2001 and 2003 permanent. Upon assuming control, they spent almost 4 years with no legislation, as you can see on this chart, to make permanent or even extend the marginal rate cuts and family tax relief packages. No Senate legislative action, no Senate committee and floor action, no Senate action until this late lameduck session partisan jam vote.

The Senate Democratic leadership needs to engage. Engagement is defined as a constructive activity with the goal of changing the law. Engagement is not defined as repeating a dead-end partisan process like we have seen with the extenders bill--something we should have passed long ago and we were willing to. Time-sensitive tax legislative business should go through the regular order process. It is too late for that now, as you all know, as we all know.

It is too late for partisan stunts. The American people need action. Actions speak louder than words. It is too risky for all of our constituents to aim for partisan stunts. The clock is ticking, and soon this calendar, in this year right here--this whole calendar--will be history.

Well, the Americans deserve real legislative action. As I have said, it is one thing to come on the Senate floor now and try to raise the thresholds and so forth at this late date. But the fact is, small businesses are mainly partnerships, sub S corporations, entities where the income comes to the small businessperson who, in most cases, if they want their business to grow, puts a lot of that income back into creating jobs and opportunities.

I have even heard the phony argument over the years that, well, it is only 3 percent of small businesses. Well, that 3 percent is 750,000 businesses that create 70 percent of the jobs in this society.

I would like to see jobs recreated. I would like to see us do the things we are here to do. I would like to have the White House--they have brilliant people in the White House, brilliant people, not one of whom, to my knowledge, has been constructive in his or her lifetime in creating private sector jobs. They are great at creating public sector jobs, as we have all seen over the last couple years, as Federal jobs have jumped dramatically. But hardly anybody down there even knows how to create a private sector job.

I do not want to be mean to the President or anybody else. These are brilliant people. Maybe there is something there that they can come up with. But they sure as heck are not helping us get through this end of session in a way that will create jobs.

I hope our negotiators on both sides will wake up and realize we have to do what is right for this country, and we have to do some things that will help small businesses in this country create jobs. At a time when unemployment has now jumped to 9.8 percent, with the underemployment rate over 18 percent the last time I checked, it seems to me the worst thing we could possibly do is mess it all up with tax increases against anybody.

I personally have suggested that since Republicans want this tax relief of 2001 and 2003 to be permanent, since we have wanted that, and the Democrats have wanted only those at $200,000 and $250,000--below those figures--to have the tax relief, and they want their so-called middle-class tax rates to be permanent--which we would keep going because we believe as much in middle-class tax relief as they do--in fact, I think actually more--it seems to me we ought to get together and we ought to at least give this economy a chance over the next 2 or 3 years, as much as I would like to make this statute permanent, and give us a chance to be able to regenerate jobs in this society in ways that make sense.

Keep in mind, when we start talking about the so-called millionaires' tax, we are talking about 56 percent of all capital gains rates paid by people, many of whom are small businesspeople who will create jobs if we can get rid of the uncertainty that, I have to say, has been continuous over the last 4 years, and certainly over the last 2 years.

I just hope we can get together. I hope nobody will construe my remarks as trying to pick on anybody. I do not want to do that. I just want to make these points because I think they are relevant, they are truthful, and, frankly, it is time we get together and get these problems solved.

I yield the floor.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, we are a few hours into the month of December, 2010. Normally, the month of December means holiday times for most American families. For Jewish Americans, Hanukkah starts at sundown. As anyone who visits a department store knows, Santa Claus is already as much a fixture as the shelves and lights. The congressional Christmas tree will be lit in a few days.

This should be a happy time for families. But the festive mood is dampened by the high unemployment and the slow economic growth rate in this country.

Too many businesses are struggling. Too many investors are holding back their capital. Too many workers are idled. And here in Washington, we hear too much talk and take too little action to effectively address these problems.

For almost 4 years, our friends on the other side have failed to take action on the tax increase that will soon hit virtually every income taxpaying American.

There is bipartisan resolution staring us all in the face. It is the only bipartisan compromise. I am talking about a seamless extension of current bipartisan tax policy that was enacted in 2001 and 2003. How is it the only bipartisan compromise on the table?

Look no further than the statements of members themselves. I am aware of no Republican in the House or Senate favoring less than a full prevention of the widespread tax hikes set to kick in in 31 short days.

Democrats are split. That is why we have seen no action for almost 4 years. It seems they may be split three ways.

I have heard rumors that many Democrats in both bodies would privately prefer current law; that is, they would prefer to leave the law as it is and let the tax hikes kick in. But that is a privately held sentiment. The politics of advocating a tax increase on virtually every American income taxpayer are not, shall we say, compelling. This is the first group.

The second group is aligned with President Obama's budget. That position would guarantee a marginal tax rate hike on all small business owners with incomes above $200,000 if single or $250,000 if married. That's the second group.

A significant number of Democratic House and Senate Members have signaled that a short-term seamless extension of all current law tax relief is their preferred course. That is the third group.

There might be a fourth group who think that we ought to raise that $200,000 to $500,000, and that $250,000 to $1 million. But that still hits small business right in the face at a time when we need to create jobs. We Republicans understand that. I cannot understand why my Democratic friends do not seem to understand that. The Presiding Officer understands that.

Republicans generally support a permanent tax freeze. That position is embodied in Leader McConnell's bill. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of that bill. But we Republicans know that, as good as that policy is, we will not likely find at least 18 Democrats to join us. We likely will not get 60 votes for it now. We would make it permanent if we could.

The wisdom of the bipartisan compromise is that it keeps intact the political glue that made the bipartisan tax relief possible in the first place.

Republicans supported the original plan because of the mix of two key tax relief policies. The first policy was tax relief for America's families. The second policy was tax relief designed to spur economic growth.

The fact that we are divided now is due to the Democratic leadership's insistence that the growth incentives part of the compromise be broken off. They want to break it off, using language like ``decoupling,'' and discard the pro-growth policy.

That is the essence of the difference.

Democrats are split, but the Democratic leadership is united on the point of breaking off the pro-growth piece of the policy.

In an effort to avoid the obvious compromise, two members of the Senate Democratic leadership have put forward a new proposal. The proposal would apply the pending rate hikes to single taxpayers at $500,000 of income and married couples at $1 million of income. This latest partisan proposal is said to be necessary for fiscal reasons. Finance Committee Republican staff, using data from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation, conducted a preliminary analysis of this proposal. They concluded that less than half the revenue sought by the Democratic leadership would be raised by this proposal. That tells me the reason behind this new proposal may be ideological.

Now, some may ask why Republicans do not give in and agree to hike taxes on those earning over $500,000 or $1 million. Certainly, it puts a fine point on the usual political game of class warfare.

To those of us on this side of the aisle, the sting of the proposal's political shot is far outweighed by its economic harm. Why is it so important?

Let me turn to two broad principles where Democrats and Republicans generally agree. The first principle is that a healthy growing economy is a very good antidote to our fiscal ailments. The second principle is that small business will be the source of new jobs. Do not think you'll find much daylight between Republicans and Democrats on these principles.

Now, let's consider the merits of this so-called ``millionaire'' tax in light of these bipartisan principles.

Fiscal history shows, without question that revenues will grow and temporary social safety net entitlement spending will drop if the economy grows. I have a chart that shows this history. If you follow this chart, you will see revenue is very sensitive to the changes in growth. Revenue is red, GDP is green. Growth goes up. Revenue goes up. Growth goes down. Revenue goes down.

It is well established that capital is the lifeblood of business. According to Answers.Com and I quote:

CAPITAL is the life by which the body [of business]

operates. A business without finance is like a body in coma.

No matter how great the environment is, the entity is

considered dead. It is the blood that keeps men alive. Drain

the blood and watch life end for even the strongest and most

privileged human that exists.

No one disputes the notion that taxpayers with incomes above $500,000 for singles and $1 million for married couples are a small fraction of the taxpaying population. But they account for a lot of capital gain income.

A proposal to raise the marginal rate on capital gain income by 33 percent on this group may seem like it would have minimal impact on the pool of capital income. Internal Revenue Service data indicate the contrary is true. The latest data from IRS Statistics of Income division are revealing.

According to SOI, taxpayers at $1 million and over accounted for 56\1/2\--percent of the net long-term capital gain income for 2008. This figure reached close to 70 percent the year before. Keep in mind that statistic understates the impact. The reason is that the capital gain income for single taxpayers with income between $500,000 and $1 million is not counted.

The proposed so-called millionaire's tax would pile up rates on this large pool of capital income. I have a chart that illustrates the impact. The chart shows the current tax rate for this group of taxpayers rising to almost 24 percent in a little over two years. That means an almost 60 percent higher tax take on earnings from capital from current law.

If capital is the lifeblood of business, does it make sense to make the investment of it dramatically less attractive? Considering the current slow growth, jobless recovery, should we put in place policy that drives down the after-tax rate of return on capital?

I have talked only about the hike on capital income since flow- through small business income would be adversely affected by the tax hikes on ordinary income. You can see I am concerned. Look what that means. It is true that these small business owners would be earning over $500,000 if single and over $1 million if married. They represent a significant portion of the ownership of small businesses that will create new jobs. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the President's tax hikes would hit half of flow-through small business income. I do not have the same calculation for this revised proposal. But do we have the margin for error? In this rough patch of our economic history, shouldn't the policy bias be towards business expansion? Why should we send the opposite signal? In this economic climate, what justifies a higher marginal rate of 17 percent on the most successful of our small businesses? Why hit the small businesses most likely to expand and hire people and give them jobs?

The way is clear. To my friends in the Democratic leadership, and they are my friends, I dare say, everybody in this body is a friend of mine. There are good people here. Why are we not working in a bipartisan way to solve these proposals? I say throw down the partisan weapons. Don't sharpen them with a more partisan, edgy proposal, like the so-called ``millionaire's tax.'' On our side, we would like to keep the current low tax rates in effect. We want them to be permanent. We, however, recognize that the legislative calendar of this session is about to end. We are ready to take a short-term time out with a seamless short-term extension of current tax relief. I ask our friends on the other side to do the same.

Now, it is no secret that 42 all 42 Republicans have said we should go to work on these problems right now and quit playing games around here. And we are unwilling to let anything else go forward until we solve these problems. These problems are the problems of extending the current tax relief for everybody.

We would like it to be permanent. Most of the Democrats would not like it to be permanent. There has to be a way of bringing us together. We are not going to agree, it seems to me. We are not going to be free to go to what our friends on the other side want to do and increase taxes at this time in the economic history of this country.

All 42 Republicans have signed a letter making it clear we will not get cloture on anything until we resolve these problems. Then let's go to work after that. If the leadership does want to keep playing around in December, in the holiday season, let's at least go to work on other problems. I can think of a lot of other problems. For instance, the so- called SGR doc fix. The Democrats have taken $500 billion out of Medicare. If they took $282 billion of that, that solves the doc fix. We don't have to worry about it every year as we do right now. That money is there. What about the death tax? If we don't solve the death tax, it dramatically goes up. Who does it hurt? Small businesspeople, farmers, and others who don't have all the lawyers in the world to help them evade those taxes.

What about the alternative minimum tax? That was a tax that was supposed to affect 155 multimillionaires who didn't pay taxes that year. Today it will affect 23 to 26 million people, many in the middle class. Democrats always talk like they want to get rid of it, but they love it because it means more revenue for them to spend. Why don't we get rid of it? Even if we don't have an offset, I prefer to get rid of it because it goes up every year. We have to patch it every year, it costs billions of dollars, where if we do it once, it is a one-hit thing that at least we know where we are and we can work the deficit down from there.

What about the research and development tax credit? Virtually everybody in this body knows how important that is to our high-tech industry, which in some ways is not competitive because we always foul it up. It has now been absent for a year because even though the Democrats have had abject control

of this body and could have done anything they wanted to do to preserve it and protect it, they haven't done a doggone thing. As somebody who works on intellectual property issues day in and day out and has done so for 34 years in the Senate and has done so in a bipartisan way--and I don't think anybody on the other side can say I haven't worked with them in these areas; Senator Leahy and I worked together very closely on these issues--why aren't we making it possible for our high-tech world to create jobs by being more competitive, by giving them what we all basically agree they should have and do it permanently; that is, the research and development tax credit.

These are just a few things I think we ought to be able to get together on in a bipartisan way and accomplish at the end of this year.

If I was the President--and I am not, but if I was, and it is nice to speculate every once in a while, especially on the floor of the Senate, when we see all these problems--I would be banging on Democrats and Republicans to resolve these problems I have been discussing today. The President would have all December. He would have all January, virtually, since we don't get geared up and going very much until February. He would have most of February, and he might even have most of March almost all to himself and to his organization in the White House. I can't understand, for the life of me, why the President isn't weighing in to get this problem solved now as well as the problems I have been talking about. It is to his advantage. Instead, we will play these phony political games right up to Christmas Day. We have done that before. I can live with that. I can work on Christmas Day, as far as I am concerned. But it is ridiculous what is going on around here. It is ridiculous. Here we have 3 or 4 days gone, where hardly anything is going to be done, where we could resolve these problems.

We have this group together. It is a good group with good representatives from the House and Senate and, of course, the Treasury Secretary and the Director of OMB. I have high hopes they will wise up and come to a conclusion that this is what we have to do and do it as quickly as we can, in the best interests of the country, so there is some certainty for our business community to create jobs and our banks to start loaning again and for others to get involved in the economy. This is to the advantage of the President. I don't understand why he is not beating on the guys on the other side and over there in the House to wake up and do what is right. Then let's get this over with and get this country back on track again.

Republicans are dedicated to try to resolve the problem. We will not get pushed around on this. Frankly, we want to solve it with our friends on the other side. I just hope we can.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the retirement and the departure of my great friend, Bob Bennett. Senator Bennett and I have jointly represented the State of Utah for many years. We are close. During that time, we have worked together as partners, collaborators, but most of all as good friends. Bob's presence in the Senate is going to be sorely missed.

Senator Bennett is a lot of things. He is honest, he is thoughtful, he is knowledgeable. But more than anything else, Senator Bennett is a fighter for the people of Utah. Bob has served with unwavering devotion to our State, its people, and its interests. Throughout his 18 years in the Senate, the State of Utah has been foremost in Bob's thoughts, and I don't believe he has made a single decision he didn't believe was in the best interests of our State and of our Nation.

Senator Bennett is the son of Frances and Wallace F. Bennett. Wallace F. Bennett, we should all remember, was also a great U.S. Senator from Utah who served four terms between 1951 and 1974. I think that is accurate. Bob is also the grandson of Heber J. Grant, the seventh President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

After attending East High School in Salt Like City, Bob graduated from the University of Utah, where he was elected the student body president and obtained a degree in political science in 1959. His first political job was managing his father's 1962 successful reelection campaign. Bob then spent several years working as a Mormon chaplain in the Utah Army National Guard before becoming a chief congressional liaison at the U.S. Department of Transportation.

After his time at the Transportation Department, Senator Bennett moved on to a successful career in public relations. For over a decade, he presided over some of the most successful and high-profile public relations organizations in the country. He became well known for his hard work, his leadership ability, and his entrepreneurial prowess. This was solidified in 1984 when Bob was named the CEO of the Franklin International Institute, which is now known as Franklin Covey. Franklin Covey is now one of the premier personal and organizational effectiveness firms in the world. The products and services provided by the company impact literally millions of people every year.

But when Bob joined the company they had only four employees. During his tenure that number grew to over 1,000. By the time he left to run for the Senate, the company was listed on the New York Stock Exchange. It was at that time an already thriving corporation, a world leader in its industry, thanks in no small part to Bob's leadership. For his efforts, Bob was named Inc. Magazine's Entrepreneur of the Year for the Rocky Mountain region.

Bob was elected to the Senate in 1992 after a hotly contested Republican primary and a hard-fought general election. His father--once again, the great Senator Wallace F. Bennett--lived just long enough to see his son win an election and serve in the Senate for almost a full year. I know that must have been a great source of pride for the senior Senator Bennett and his family.

Over his 18 years in the Senate, Bob has continued to demonstrate sound judgment and strong leadership. Republican Senators have considered him a trusted resource when it comes to strategy and policy. He has been a consistent resource for those who seek thoughtful answers to difficult political questions. For these reasons, among others, Bob has served on the leadership teams of our current minority leader, Senator McConnell, as well as his predecessor, Senator Bill Frist.

While he is more well known for his quiet, contemplative demeanor, Senator Bennett has always been an outstanding orator. He comes often to the floor to discuss various issues at length, rarely reading from notes and almost never skipping a beat. His contributions to our debates in the Senate have always been very valuable, and I think people on both sides of the aisle will acknowledge that and have appreciated the type of advocacy he has brought to the floor of the Senate--always courteous, always well thought out, always reasonable, and always, in my opinion, right.

As I mentioned before, I know few Senators who can match Senator Bennett's commitment to the people he represents. Every single person in the State of Utah has benefited from the work of Senator Bennett. One cannot ride on a train or drive on a freeway in Utah or avail oneself of so many other assets and attributes in Utah without seeing the results of Senator Bennett's service in the Senate.

Our State has seen a lot of growth in recent years due to the expansion of our population and the fact that more and more companies have recognized that Utah is a great place to do business. Utah's infrastructure has for the most part been able to keep pace with the rapid growth, thanks in large measure to the work of Senator Bennett.

I will miss working with Senator Bennett to help the people of our State, but I will miss him more as a friend. Bob and his wonderful wife Joyce--and she has been a tremendous companion to him, tremendous helpmate to him over these years--have been married for 48 years. They have 6 children and 20 grandchildren. I know every one of them is proud of the great service Bob has rendered to his country and the Senate, and they should be. I too am so pleased and proud of my friend, Senator Bennett, and I am certain that Bob will be successful in any endeavor he chooses in the future upon leaving the Senate.

Bob Bennett is a wise counselor. He is a truly honest man. He cares not only for the people he represented but everybody in this country and many people throughout the world.

He lives his religious beliefs. Other than family, I can't compliment anybody more than that. He lives his religion. He is exemplary. He is one of the most thoughtful people I have ever known. I value his friendship and I

value his advice and I have valued it over these years that we have served together. He has always been a serious and productive leader who also has a tremendously great sense of humor. After all is said and done, he is a great father, grandfather, husband, and friend--just to mention a few.

Bob will be successful in whatever he chooses to do. He is a good man. I personally will miss him. I think everybody in the Senate will miss him, and I believe it is safe to say everybody in Utah will miss him as well--some more than others. Nevertheless, if they look at his record and they look at the things he has done for our State, for our people, they are going to thank God that Bob Bennett was a Senator for 18 solid years. I personally thank the Father in Heaven for having him here as a partner to me, as a friend, and as somebody on whom I could rely and with whom I could counsel on some of these very earthshakingly important matters that come before our Senate.

I have such a great opinion of Bob Bennett, I don't think even he has known--maybe not until today--how great that opinion has been. I think the world of him. I love him as a human being, and I wish him the very best, he and his family.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following my and Senator Grassley's colloquy, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota be recognized for 30 minutes.

Madam President, my colleague, Senator Grassley, and I come to the floor to discuss very urgent business for the American people that has been put off for far too long. I am talking about the outstanding tax issues this Congress has so far failed to address. As I count them, there are five major tax issues that collectively represent a looming crisis for the economy. These are, first, the set of tax provisions that expired almost a year ago on December 31, 2009, and have yet to be extended. Second is another set of important tax provisions due to expire at the end of this year, which is only 44 days from now. The third item is the need to once again address the threshold of the alternative minimum tax so that about 25 million more American families are not caught in its clutches for the tax year about to end. Fourth is the estate tax issue which has been haunting us and the American people all year long. I submit it is way past the crisis stage and is about to enter into even a worse stage. Finally, and certainly not least, is the looming expiration of the tax relief provisions we passed in 2001 and 2003 which are swinging over the future of our economy like a hangman's noose. It is this situation that I particularly would like to address the bulk of my remarks to, but before doing so, let me turn to my colleague for his initial comments, the ranking member on the Finance Committee and a great friend, Senator Grassley.

Senator Grassley has been the ranking Republican or chairman of the Finance Committee for a long time now. We have seen times when the expiring tax provisions have been dealt with in as timely a manner as they should have been, but have we ever seen a state of affairs like we have now with the extenders? What has this meant for job creation and economic growth?

We ought to listen to Senator Grassley. He is one of the leaders in this body and somebody we all look up to as totally honest and sensitive on these issues. He has done a wonderful job on the Finance Committee.

According to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, perhaps the most time-sensitive problem waiting for congressional action is the so- called patch for the alternative minimum tax. I understand that if we do not take care of this very soon, we could see major delays in the tax filing season that will start on January 1. Is that the understanding of Senator Grassley?

That is the third item on the to-do list. If we do not act, 6 weeks from now the reach of the death tax will greatly expand. According to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, 10 times the number of estates will be taxable versus the number that would be taxable in the bipartisan Lincoln-Kyl compromise. In the case of farm- heavy estates, 13 times the number of those farm families would be hit by the death tax. That would be unfair because the families would have to either borrow the money or sell the farm in order to pay the death taxes. That is just crazy.

The issue of extending the expiring tax relief provisions enacted in 2001 and 2003 has been a central question all this year, but we are just now beginning to discuss this in earnest. This lack of action on this vital topic has been a major factor in the low performance of our economy.

The outcome of this debate is exceptionally important to the future of this Nation. Its implications go well beyond what many on the other side of this issue might want Americans to believe. This is not merely a question of how well the rich in our society will live if we raise their taxes.

Rather, this debate goes to the heart of the burning questions facing American families of all income levels today: Will I keep my job? How and when can I get a new or better job? Will the economy grow enough to allow my family to pay its bills and make progress toward our dreams? Can we afford to educate our children? Will America continue to prosper in the years ahead, or are we in a permanent decline?

The President and most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that the answer to the question of fully extending the tax relief provisions that are set to expire in just about 44 days is no. While they are willing to extend them for those Americans earning less than $200,000 per year if a single individual or $250,000 per year if a family, their position is that anyone above these thresholds should get a tax increase.

However, the right answer for our country's future is that all the tax relief provisions should be extended.

The reasons the President and his allies give for their position largely boil down to the general supposition that the well-off among us can afford to see their taxes go up, and that the Nation cannot afford to forego the revenue lost to the Treasury from these taxpayers continuing to have their taxes as low as they are.

Ironically, this second point implies that we can afford the revenue loss from extending the tax relief to those making under the $200,000 and $250,000 thresholds, even though this loss is upwards of 80 percent of the total amount of lost revenue from extending the tax relief for everyone.

In other words, the President and his congressional supporters would have us believe that this debate is solely about whether the so-called wealthy among us deserve continued tax relief. They either fail to see an economic connection between the finances of those at the top of the income scale and the rest of us, or they refuse to admit that such a link exists.

This may sound somewhat counterintuitive, but it is, nonetheless, true. The essential element to this conundrum is that good permanent jobs, which are the heart and soul of the American dream, are inextricably linked to those in our economy who have wealth. When the income of the wealthy is taxed, particularly in a way that reduces the incentives for saving, investment, and entrepreneurship, that tax is not just paid by those who write the check to the government. Indeed, even those Americans who pay no income tax at all, which is now upwards of half of all adults, can be badly hurt by tax increases on the so- called rich. This is through the loss of opportunities, the lack of jobs or better jobs, and slow or nonexistent economic growth.

One vital fact that many citizens do not realize is that a high percentage of this Nation's business enterprises pay their taxes through the tax returns of their individual owners. Taxes on sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, and limited liability companies are all passed through these entities and assessed on their individual owners. Higher taxes on these entities results in less money for investment and expansion, which translates into fewer jobs created and fewer opportunities for those who want to move up the economic ladder.

Tragically, especially in this time of economic stress and high unemployment, the real cost of taxation is paid by a group of unintended victims. These are the men and women and their families who do not get a chance to have a job or a higher paying job because the tax destroys the economic growth that might have provided for such an opportunity.

A study recently released by the nonpartisan Heritage Center for Data Analysis highlights these facts. This study, which utilizes an economic model owned by the leading economic forecasting firm in the country, concludes that the President's tax plan to allow the tax relief provisions to expire for the so-called well-off would have very serious consequences for millions earning far less than those targeted.

Here are just a few of the highlights of these conclusions. First, the President's tax plan would reduce economic growth for at least the next 10 years. Over the 10-year period, our gross domestic product would fall by a total of $1.1 trillion compared to where it would be otherwise if all the tax provisions were extended.

This slower economic growth would directly translate into fewer jobs created. In fact, the study projects that 238,000 fewer jobs would be created next year and as many as 876,000 lost jobs in 2016. For the 10- year period, the average would be 693,000 jobs each year that would not be created had we extended the tax relief for everyone. This projection alone should be enough to give anyone pause. In this critical time of job shortage, do we want to purposefully choose a course that would lead to even fewer jobs for Americans?

Other economic indicators would also turn negative compared to extending the tax rates as they currently stand. Business investment, personal savings, disposable income, and consumer spending would all be lower. This is exactly the wrong direction we need as the U.S. struggles to recover from this nasty recession.

My home State of Utah will not be spared, despite the fact that the downturn has been less pronounced there than in many other States. The Beehive State would lose an average of 6,200 jobs each year, and household disposable income would drop by $2,200. For a relatively small population State, this is nothing but bad news.

Another recent study highlights the effect on the economy of increases to the capital gains tax rate as is called for under the President's tax plan. This one was prepared by the respected economist Allen Sinai. In this study, Dr. Sinai concludes that increasing the capital gains tax rates to 20 percent from the current 15 percent, as is called for in the President's plan, would cut the number of jobs available by 231,000 per year. Again, this is exactly the wrong direction for a Congress that is supposed to be focused on job creation.

If we were really serious about creating jobs, we should be doing just the opposite; that is, lowering the capital gains tax rate. The Sinai study concludes that a reduction from the current 15-percent tax rate on capital gains to a 5-percent rate would increase the number of jobs by 711,000 per year. That is the kind of job growth we need right now. By lowering the rate down to zero percent, Dr. Sinai says we could turbocharge this rate of job growth to 1.3 million new jobs per year.

Of course, this capital gains tax reduction would not be free since the Treasury would lose some revenue. The Sinai study indicates that this loss would be about $23 billion per year after the effects of stronger economic growth are taken into account. While this is not an insignificant number, it works out to a cost of about $18,000 per job. I call this a bargain, particularly when it is compared with the cost per job from the so-called stimulus bill we passed last year. The Congressional Budget Office projected last year that the cost of each job saved or created from the stimulus bill would be between $414,000 and $1.3 million. And most or all of these jobs are temporary, not permanent. Last year, the CBO also projected that the net increase in the number of jobs from the stimulus bill by 2015 would be zero. In other words, we would get no permanent job increase from this gargantuan stimulus bill. I do not believe the contrast between the two approaches to job creation and economic growth could be any more striking.

Let me refer back to Senator Grassley.

Madam President, I thank my leader on the Finance Committee on the Republican side. I appreciate all the work he has done to try to keep this economy going, and we ought to listen to him.

Let me just say that the President and congressional Democrats and Republicans agree that small business is the key to a job-based recovery. As the President himself says, small business creates about 70 percent of all of our new jobs.

If we fail to prevent the marginal rate hikes, small businesses will be especially hard hit. The Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that half of the flowthrough small business income would be hit by the reimposition of the top two brackets. Ironically, this is what all the resistance from the other side is about. They insist on raising the top marginal rates on small businesses by up to 17 to 24 percent--all of this during a time when we ought to be going the other way and assuring small businesses that they should take steps to grow without paying a tax penalty.

There is a bipartisan group that recognizes the merits of preventing these tax hikes on small businesses. But I think the President and the Democratic leadership need to see the light. We are talking about somewhere between 750,000 and 800,000 small businesses, where 70 percent of the jobs are created. If we do not handle this right, we are going to have a pretty long time of an economic system that really does not work in this country. So it is important that we get going here in this lameduck session and resolve this issue.

There are people all over the map on this issue, but I think the smartest thing to do would be to keep the tax relief the way it is. I would move it at least 2 years and hopefully 3 years. I would like to make it permanent for everybody in our society because we are a high- taxed society under the current circumstances, but apparently we do not have the votes to make it permanent. But we should have the votes to be able to put it over at least until we can get out of the rough politics of a lameduck session, and hopefully we will be able to resolve these problems in the future in a way that both sides can feel good.

Having said all this, let me just say that I have really appreciated serving under the distinguished Senator from Iowa. He is a hard-nosed, practical leader in this body. Everybody knows he is totally honest and totally effective in so many ways. He is a dear friend of mine. I want him to know how much I appreciated serving next to him on the Finance Committee. And we will be serving next to each other on the Judicially Committee in this upcoming year. I look forward to seeing him, as a nonlawyer, take over the controls from the Republican standpoint on the Judiciary Committee because even though the distinguished Senator from Iowa is a nonlawyer, he brings a practical balance to the Judiciary Committee--and to the Finance Committee up until now--that is sorely needed. He is one of the most respected people, by me, in this whole body of very, very strong minds and people. So I am grateful to him. I am grateful he is my friend, and I am grateful we can work together side by side in both of these committees.

I thank the Senator for all the hard work he has done in the Finance Committee all these years. I have watched him, I have sat beside him, and I have seen the products he has done, and the Senator has worked in good faith with both sides, and certainly with total honesty, and that is a high accolade right there.

Madam President, these are important issues. I know that not just the distinguished Senator from Iowa and myself feel deeply about them, but I hope we can get our colleagues together on both sides, and the President, who has indicated he is willing to compromise on this issue, and get this put over. If we could do that, I think the President will be better off, jobs will be better off, and in the end, our country-- which is the ultimate goal--there is no doubt in my mind would be much better off.

With that, I thank my distinguished friend from North Dakota and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my mixed emotions on S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.

With past recalls on spinach, peppers, cookie dough, peanuts and peanut products, there appears to be an increase in the frequency of foodborne outbreaks. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimates that foodborne disease cause approximately 76 million illnesses in the U.S. each year, including an estimated 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. These statistics are strong evidence that our current food safety laws and regulations are antiquated and should be updated.

We live in a global food economy, but our Nation's current food safety laws and regulations are geared predominately to a local and domestic market. As a result, there are new safety challenges that have risen from this global market that must be addressed.

As the former chairman and ranking member of the Senate HELP Committee--it was then known as the Senate Labor Committee--I have a little history on this issue. As chairman of the committee, I introduced the Food Safety Amendments with the intent of ensuring a safer food supply, similar to the goal of the legislation before the Senate today.

I would like to point out that S. 510 is one of the few bipartisan pieces of legislation currently in the Senate. We had Republicans and Democrats working across the aisle to come up with solid policies to address some of the major gaps in our current food safety system. And as we deliberated these policies, it was important to me to protect existing laws that already have solid consumer protections. One of those laws is the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

Briefly, DSHEA clarified the regulatory structure of supplements to ensure that individuals would continue to have access to safe supplements and information about their use. Under DSHEA, Congress set out a legal definition of what could be marketed as a dietary supplement.

We created a safety standard that products have to meet. We allowed the FDA to develop good manufacturing process standards for supplements. We clarified which claims could be made about these products and we said those statements must be truthful and not misleading.

Furthermore, the Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection Act of 2006 created a mandatory adverse event reporting, AER, system for dietary supplements and over-the-counter drugs. My friend and chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, Tom Harkin, and I worked on this law very closely with Senator Mike Enzi, who was chairman of the HELP Committee at the time, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who was the ranking member of the HELP Committee at the time, and Senator Dick Durbin on this important legislation. Our legislation created a system to provide the government with information about serious adverse events associated with dietary supplements and over- the-counter drugs. It provides Federal authorities with a better and more effective tool to become aware and to respond to any problems that might occur.

I am grateful and appreciative to the sponsors of the bill for including provisions to preserve the DSHEA and AER laws' consumer protections as part of S. 510.

In addition, I have heard from many of my constituents that they are concerned with the international harmonization provisions in this bill and its impact on the availability and affordability of dietary supplements--in particular, the Codex Commission which is an international organization that provides guidelines for food safety. Rest assured that the Commission's guidelines on vitamin and mineral food supplements will not affect the regulation of dietary supplements in the United States unless Congress decides to adopt the provisions.

Another issue I want to mention is the importance of promoting small businesses. Without a doubt, small businesses are the engine for economic growth in America and represent a powerful vehicle for opportunity. Small businesses contribute greatly to Utah's economy, and I am committed to doing all I can to promote job creation, grow our economy, and ensure America's businesses are competitive in the global marketplace.

So I am pleased that S. 510 considers the needs of small businesses. It accomplishes this by requiring the FDA to publish user-friendly guidance to assist firms with the implementation and compliance of new practices. It also

gives small food facilities additional time to comply with the new food safety practices and guidelines. In addition, the legislation also requires the FDA to coordinate its outreach activities with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, in order to educate and train growers and small food facilities about the new requirements from this bill.

Finally, I wanted to address concerns raised by the Utah farming community, particularly small farmers. First, this bill preserves the current jurisdictional separation between the USDA and the FDA. In other words, this bill does not change those who are currently subject to USDA regulation versus those who are subject to FDA regulation under the existing laws. Second, this bill does not change the existing definition of a facility currently required to register with the FDA. This means that farms that are currently exempt from registering with the FDA under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 continue to remain exempt. Finally, small entities that produce food for their own consumption or market directly to consumers or restaurants are not subject to registration or the new recordkeeping requirements under this bill. This includes food sold through farmers' markets, personal or backyard gardens, bake sales, public events and organizational fundraisers.

Unfortunately with all those great provisions that I just mentioned, there is still one major concern that I cannot overlook, the cost of the bill. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, has estimated that the legislation will cost $1.4 billion over 5 years. We need to rein in the out-of-control government spending, especially in today's fiscal environment. We simply cannot continue to drive up the national debt. We cannot sustain trillion-dollar deficits. More government spending will push the Nation over a precipice from which we may not be able to recover.

Even though this spending is discretionary, it troubles me that if future appropriations are not sufficient to cover the cost of the bill, Congress would be unintentionally giving the FDA an unfunded mandate. If this happens, the FDA would either simply not be able to live up to its new responsibilities or would be forced to shift funds from other important and already strapped agency programs like the regulation of prescription drugs, medical devices, and/or biologics. The latter could cause significant harm to the American public. So it is with deep regret that I cannot support S. 510 without it being paid for. However, I am committed to working with my Senate colleagues to find ways to offset the cost of the bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. We can make progress by starting with the laws that already exist. My bill would enhance our core immigration and enforcement laws for both legal and illegal immigrants.

Much has been discussed this Congress on how to proceed on the very complex and, unfortunately at times, partisan issue of immigration reform. Some have introduced non-binding resolutions others have tried to attach

immigration-related measures to non-germane legislative vehicles. But, we're never going to get anywhere with these political stunts which do little to get to the root the problem.

Throughout my service, I have spent considerable time with my constituents and, quite frankly, have anguished with them on how to best address the considerable strain the illegal alien population is having on Utahns. Among other things, I have taken the initiative to increase immigration enforcement in Utah include bringing ICE Quick Response teams to our state, creating an immigration court, and establishing an ICE Field Office Director position to address Utah's immigration concerns. I also brought the 287(g) cross-deputizing program and just recently the Secure Communities program to Utah.

There is no question that more needs to be done. That is something everyone will agree on. Just recently legislation was enacted to enhance border security. I was pleased that this was a bipartisan effort. Some argue that the bill is sufficient to secure our border, but I disagree. There is much work to be done before the border is properly sealed. I continue to work with and support my colleagues whose states are located along the Southwest border. They know what resources we need to deploy to secure the border.

While Utah is not a border state, we still share the same concerns of our neighbors along the border. However, our problems result from a residual effect of a porous border and a breakdown of our immigration enforcement system.

For years, I have been saying most immigration problems could be solved if we would enforce the laws on the books. Unfortunately, the current Administration continues to explore ways to exploit current law and score political points.

During the past several months, the Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status, on a mass basis, to illegal immigrants via deferred action and parole. If the Administration is successful, it would be the equivalent of back-door amnesty for millions. For this reason, my bill specifies that an alien may only be paroled or granted deferred action on a case-by-case basis--not en mass--the way these laws were intended to be used.

The 287(g) and Secure Communities programs continue to be valuable tools to our law enforcement officials in detaining and deporting criminal aliens. For example, in Fiscal Year 2010, the 287(g) program was responsible for detaining 29,295 criminal aliens. What I don't understand is why some cities would choose to not participate in these effective programs. That is why my proposed legislation would require eligible states, counties, or cities to actively participate in the Secure Communities or 287(g) programs or forego compensation for incarceration expenses. Turning a blind eye to these law enforcement programs poses a serious risk to the public and creates sanctuary cities.

When I meet with my constituents, one of their top concerns is how we fix our visa programs. Many are concerned, and with good cause, about how some of these folks are getting into the country. Disturbingly, some visa holders are active participants in organized crime. They come to this country and infiltrate our communities, wreaking havoc in our neighborhoods.

In an effort to address this problem, my bill would provide our State Department consular officers the necessary legal authority to deny members of known gangs from coming into our country. It's not acceptable to allow these thugs to slip through the cracks.

After 9/11, many areas of our immigration system came under scrutiny. One of the top recommendations for reform to our system is to create an exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. Departure information is vital for determining whether foreign visitors are departing the U.S., maintaining their visa status, and evaluating future visa eligibility for these visitors. Not to mention, the ability to track departures goes to the heart of keeping America safe.

Without such exit procedures, however, the task of determining whether an alien has overstayed their visa in the United States is nearly impossible. Since 2004, the Department of Homeland Security has been testing exit programs and departure controls at U.S. airports for visa holders leaving the United States. As recently as July 2009, another pilot program was concluded by the Department of Homeland Security. To date, we still haven't seen any implementation of exit procedures for our country's visitors, nor have we seen any final conclusions made by the Department. It has been over 6 years since the first pilot program concluded. It is time to act.

Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a mandatory exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. This should have been done years ago.

Additionally, the proposed legislation would eliminate the fraud- laden visa lottery, known as the Diversity Visa program. At present, applicants of the visa lottery program are open to being defrauded by so-called service providers who offer to assist them in obtaining Diversity Visa status. Unlike other immigrant visa categories, this is one of the few visas that allows people to immigrate to the United States without having any connection to the country. In other words, the applicants may not have any family, employment, or even provide an economic tie to the United States. And because of limited availability of verification, the program presents serious national security concerns.

Let me be clear: if anyone is a proponent of a diverse nation, one that enjoys the influence of many cultures, it is me. But what we have right now in the visa lottery program does not accomplish the intended goal.

After careful consultation with State Department officials, I have been advised that the Diversity Visa program needs serious reform, and some have even called for complete elimination of the program. In light of this guidance, I propose to sunset the Diversity Visa program, unless the State Department recommends to Congress how best to combat fraud and eliminate abuse currently in the program.

One of the most heated issues that is continually raised by my constituents, and many across the country, is the impact that illegal aliens are having upon our welfare programs. It came to my attention that Los Angeles County, California, actually tracks this information. Much to my amazement, L.A. County confirms that in 2009 alone, they distributed over $2.4 billion in Federal-State welfare and food stamp programs. Of that amount, $569 million was issued to households that include illegal aliens. Let me reiterate: the illegal alien population in L.A. County received over a half-billion dollars of welfare benefits in one year alone.

In order to have an honest discussion about the drain illegal aliens are having upon our welfare systems, we must be armed with state- specific information to understand the extent of this problem.

Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and any other appropriate Federal agency, to submit an annual report to Congress outlining the total dollar amount of Federal welfare benefits received by households of illegal aliens for each state and the District of Columbia. The annual report would also include the overall dollar amount each state spends on Federal welfare benefits.

Without having this information, we will continue to dismiss the serious economic ramifications to our country's prosperity. We cannot afford to perpetuate this problem any longer.

My legislation also includes a provision which revisits the legal immigrant policy included in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, P.L. 111-3. The CHIP Reauthorization law overturned language requiring a 5-year waiting period before legal immigrants may be eligible for federal health coverage. The 5-year waiting period was included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193. As my colleagues will recall, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act required sponsors of legal immigrants to be responsible for individuals' expenses during the first 5 years of residency in our country. States had the option of offering legal immigrants CHIP and Medicaid coverage with State only dollars. In other words, States could not

receive Federal matching dollars for covering these legal immigrants.

The 2009 CHIP law overturned that policy. Today, States may still cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women who have been in the U.S. less than 5 years. However, the big difference is states now receive Federal matching dollars for covering those individuals.

The provision in the bill I am introducing today would permit states to continue receiving federal matching dollars for covering legal immigrant children and legal immigrant pregnant women but two conditions must be met. First, the state must demonstrate that it has covered 90 percent of its U.S. citizen children and pregnant women eligible for CHIP or Medicaid. These individuals' family income may not exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Second, the State must demonstrate that it is not supplanting state dollars which were being used to cover legal immigrants prior to passage of the 2009 CHIP reauthorization law with Federal dollars.

Another top concern I regularly hear about is identity theft--that of both adults and children who have to spend a great amount of their time and money to clear their good names and restore their credit history.

In 2006, parents of Utah 2-year old Tyler Lybbert realized their daughter's identity had been stolen by 38-year old Jose Tinoco. By the time the Lybberts became aware of the fraud, Mr. Tinoco had already taken out two loans and opened credit cards--saddling Tyler with over $15,000 in debt. Little Tyler was left holding the bag.

Fortunately, when Mr. Tinoco tried to obtain a loan from a local Utah bank, an employee spotted the discrepancy and alerted Tyler's parents. Mr. Tinoco was caught, but the Lybberts were left with countless hours of work to correct the fraud perpetrated against their child.

This past weekend, the Utah press reported on another identity theft case. A newly married radiology student at Weber State University has been battling to reclaim his identity for the last 15 years. When Cameron Noble was 7 years old his Social Security number was stolen by Mr. Jose Zavala of California--an over 60-year-old man.

Noble's parents thought they had corrected the error but when Cameron began working at the age of 16 he started receiving notices that his wages were being garnished to pay child support. The problem has continued to haunt him ever since--in the form of tax withholdings and credit report confusion. He is now nearing the end of the process to obtain a new Social Security number.

It is not a secret that many in the illegal immigrant community perpetuate identity theft with stolen or fabricated Social Security numbers, SSN. The identity theft they commit often affects the very young--who may not notice problems for years or decades until they are old enough to apply for their first job, car or school loan, or credit card.

As in little Tyler Lybbert's case, why did it take a bank employee to pick up on the theft? Because there is no formal system established to alert SSN holders when potential fraud or improper usage have occurred.

The federal agency that is best suited to track the use of mismatched SSN numbers is the Internal Revenue Service, IRS. That is why my bill requires the IRS to send a notice to an employer that an inaccurate SSN has been discovered for an employee. If the employer does not respond to the notice within 60-days to correct the inaccuracy, my legislation will require the IRS to notify the SSN holder or to parents and guardians of a minor, that a discrepancy has been detected and to do the following: if it is an actual mismatch to contact the IRS; if they suspect fraudulent use, the SSN holder is provided with contact information for the FTC and various credit bureaus to report the problem; and finally if no response is received by the SSN holder, the IRS would be required to refer the account number to appropriate Federal agencies for possible investigation.

Let me pause here to underscore a point. Currently, the original SSN holder never receives notice when a mismatch has occurred. Quite frankly, I do not have the assurances that the IRS is requiring much of the employer to correct or verify the submission. That is not acceptable. In this day and age, when at a click of a mouse, someone can apply for credit cards, mortgages, or even car loans, there is no excuse why SSN holders are left in the dark.

One can only imagine that if this simple notification step was taken in the case of little Tyler Lybbert or the Noble family that years of laborious efforts and countless hours of notifying credit bureaus, banks, and other authorities, could have been greatly reduced if not avoided all together.

To make matters more confusing in this area of the law, the Supreme Court has more or less tied the hands of prosecutors in going after these thieves and those who are involved in so-called document mills. The case of Flores-Figueroa v. United States undermined prosecutors' longstanding practice of using the aggravated identity theft statute by requiring them to also prove that a defendant knew that he or she was using a real person's identity information, as opposed to counterfeit information not connected to an actual person.

To clarify the Criminal Code and provide our prosecutors with the latitude they need to pursue these cases, my bill makes clear that defendants who possess or otherwise use identity information not their own, without lawful authority, and in the commission of another felony is still punishable for aggravated identity fraud, regardless of the defendants' ``knowledge'' of the victim.

Finally, my bill's identity theft would require the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the FTC, and the Commissioner of Social Security to conduct a study to determine the most feasible and cost- effective ways to protect the credit worthiness of individuals, especially that of children.

Mexican Cartel drug violence has been placed front and center by the media and members of this body. Some of my fellow colleagues have called for more resources directed to this problem. As additional federal law enforcement personnel and military units continue to be deployed to the southwest border the focus has been on weapons, drug interdiction and bulk cash smuggling. While I recognize the importance of these border enforcement activities, too little attention is being paid to outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations is causing increasing environmental damage, especially on publicly owned lands. From 2004-2009 more than 11 million marijuana plants have been eradicated from federal public lands. Outdoor marijuana cultivation is the chief source of revenue for Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Growing marijuana in the U.S. saves traffickers the risk and expense of smuggling their product across the border and allows gangs to produce their crops closer to local markets. Illegal alien workers are smuggled in from Mexico to serve as laborers and provide security to the grow plots. Mexican gang plots can often be distinguished from those of domestic-based growers based on their plant volume and security measures. Many of the plots are encircled with crude explosives and are patrolled by armed illegal aliens providing security for the crop.

In my home State of Utah, the Drug Enforcement Administration and local law enforcement have seized more than 110,000 marijuana plants this year. Each plant can yield one pound of marijuana with a street value of $1,000. These remote plots were on federal land and nestled under the cover in a national forest or hidden high in the rugged-yet- fertile tracts of federal land. All of the sites were far from the eyes of law enforcement, where growers can take the time needed to grow far more potent marijuana. Growers of these fields have even created irrigation systems to disrupt or divert water sources. They even use illegal fertilizers that damage the environment and the local eco- system.

In one recent incident in Garfield County, Utah an illegal alien grow worker was armed with a shotgun and confronted six teenage girls who inadvertently hiked into the marijuana field. The worker brandished a shotgun and demanded to use their cell phone. Fortunately, the group of girls were able to run away from this armed man

and prevented what could have been a very tragic outcome. The girls were quite traumatized and reported the incident to local police. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the local authorities apprehended the man a short time later.

So far this year in Utah, as a result of joint investigative efforts between Federal, State and local law enforcement, 20 arrests have been made in connection with the outdoor cultivation of marijuana on Federal lands. Out of the 20 arrests made, 19 were illegal aliens. This is not a problem that is unique to Utah. Other States with substantial federal lands are also seeing a spike in marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations, including Colorado, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Michigan.

It is for this reason why my legislation would provide tougher penalties for cultivating marijuana on federal lands and destroying the environment. Provisions of this legislation would also require the Office of National Drug Control Policy to formulate a comprehensive and coordinated action plan to address marijuana cultivation on Federal lands. This plan will be a broad strategic approach to disrupt Mexican drug trafficking organizations' central source of revenue and a key reason for organized alien smuggling.

The fight to control the border is no longer isolated to just the physical boundary between the United States and Mexico. Securing the border now means addressing Mexican cartels; prohibiting mass deferral or parole; streamlining the visa process; requiring participation in key law enforcement programs; clamping down on identity theft; tracking the amount of welfare benefits being diverted by illegal immigrant households; ensuring that dollars are being used to cover newly eligible American children in CHIP and Medicaid; and keeping our great national parks and Federal lands safe and free from drug traffickers, drug cultivation, and environmental damage.

Let me conclude by saying this bill represents key issues that are important to my Utah constituents and Americans across the country. They are common sense solutions to strengthen our commitment to legal immigration and American's security. I urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and support this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3919, an act to remove Endangered Species Act, ESA,

protections for gray wolves. Delisting of this species is long overdue.

Gray wolves are listed as endangered under the ESA in the United States, except in Minnesota where they are listed as threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed ESA protection from these wolves in 2009, but subsequently reinstated protection under a court decision following a lawsuit.

Legislative action is the only solution to stop the endless cycle of litigation and return the sovereign ability of states to manage their wildlife. Gray wolves are the iconic species of the ESA. But we cannot let the preconceived and inaccurate perceptions surrounding this animal prevent us from doing our due diligence in providing protections and safeguards for other species including elk, deer, moose, and big horn sheep. With a population growth rate of 24 percent, gray wolf overpopulation is now doing significant damage to wildlife populations throughout the West and Midwest.

Gray wolf predation is erasing decades of effort and hundreds of millions invested in rebuilding healthy big game populations. Wolves do not know or care where recovery plan lines are drawn. They will roam wherever necessary to find adequate food and habitat. Research indicates that wolf and ungulate populations are generally inversely proportional and cyclical over relatively long periods of time.

Ill-advised experimentation and anti-management philosophy continues to be pushed by extreme animal rights and anti-sportsmen special interest groups. This war on the west threatens big game herds, proactive State wildlife management, use of renewable wildlife resources, and the western way of life. This bill, while viewed with suspicion and opposed with philosophical arguments by some environmental organizations, ensures that delicate wildlife populations are restored to healthy levels.

When Congress passed the ESA, it envisioned legislation to make certain that species would not become extinct. The key to success of the new law was finding a way to conserve and protect species truly in danger of becoming extinct. The gray wolf is not endangered as a species. There are thousands alive and well in North America. The ESA has become a vehicle by which some organizations and individuals seek to halt all activities on our public lands which they happen to oppose. I would submit to you that such use of the ESA was not envisioned nor would it have been condoned by a majority of those who originally crafted the law.

Some groups want to use the gray wolf as a surrogate for other agendas. Others have used it to raise a lot of money from citizens of this country truly concerned about the place of the wolf in our environment. Still others have used it for political purposes. What a shame that the laws of this great Nation can be subverted for purposes other than the reason the law was originally written.

The gray wolf has been protected by the ESA since 1973, the year the ESA was passed. The single exception to that classification is in the State of Minnesota where they are classified as threatened. The original recovery plan for the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies was written in 1974. The main States involved are owned largely by the Federal Government. Thirty percent of Montana, 50 percent of Wyoming, and 64 percent of Idaho is federally owned. Access to and use of the public lands and resources on them has a great deal to do with the economy of these sparsely populated States. When the economy suffers, so do these communities and these people.

The working men and women of our States have no alternative but to rely on continued access to and the use of grass, water, timber, and minerals from public lands to support their families. Those working people have mortgages to pay just like you and I; they have bills that are due each month; and they want to be able to feed and clothe their children just as you and I do.

We must recognize the legitimate concerns of the hundreds of honest, hardworking citizens who are being directly affected by the continued listing of the gray wolf on the ESA. In my opinion, we have a responsibility to protect their right to make an honest living and to live the lifestyle they have chosen.

I hope my colleagues will join me in this attempt to resolve this important issue.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America's Security Act. Our immigration system is broken and needs reform. We can make progress by starting with the laws that already exist. My bill would enhance our core immigration and enforcement laws for both legal and illegal immigrants.

Much has been discussed this Congress on how to proceed on the very complex and, unfortunately at times, partisan issue of immigration reform. Some have introduced non-binding resolutions others have tried to attach

immigration-related measures to non-germane legislative vehicles. But, we're never going to get anywhere with these political stunts which do little to get to the root the problem.

Throughout my service, I have spent considerable time with my constituents and, quite frankly, have anguished with them on how to best address the considerable strain the illegal alien population is having on Utahns. Among other things, I have taken the initiative to increase immigration enforcement in Utah include bringing ICE Quick Response teams to our state, creating an immigration court, and establishing an ICE Field Office Director position to address Utah's immigration concerns. I also brought the 287(g) cross-deputizing program and just recently the Secure Communities program to Utah.

There is no question that more needs to be done. That is something everyone will agree on. Just recently legislation was enacted to enhance border security. I was pleased that this was a bipartisan effort. Some argue that the bill is sufficient to secure our border, but I disagree. There is much work to be done before the border is properly sealed. I continue to work with and support my colleagues whose states are located along the Southwest border. They know what resources we need to deploy to secure the border.

While Utah is not a border state, we still share the same concerns of our neighbors along the border. However, our problems result from a residual effect of a porous border and a breakdown of our immigration enforcement system.

For years, I have been saying most immigration problems could be solved if we would enforce the laws on the books. Unfortunately, the current Administration continues to explore ways to exploit current law and score political points.

During the past several months, the Obama administration has been holding behind-the-scenes talks to determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally grant legal status, on a mass basis, to illegal immigrants via deferred action and parole. If the Administration is successful, it would be the equivalent of back-door amnesty for millions. For this reason, my bill specifies that an alien may only be paroled or granted deferred action on a case-by-case basis--not en mass--the way these laws were intended to be used.

The 287(g) and Secure Communities programs continue to be valuable tools to our law enforcement officials in detaining and deporting criminal aliens. For example, in Fiscal Year 2010, the 287(g) program was responsible for detaining 29,295 criminal aliens. What I don't understand is why some cities would choose to not participate in these effective programs. That is why my proposed legislation would require eligible states, counties, or cities to actively participate in the Secure Communities or 287(g) programs or forego compensation for incarceration expenses. Turning a blind eye to these law enforcement programs poses a serious risk to the public and creates sanctuary cities.

When I meet with my constituents, one of their top concerns is how we fix our visa programs. Many are concerned, and with good cause, about how some of these folks are getting into the country. Disturbingly, some visa holders are active participants in organized crime. They come to this country and infiltrate our communities, wreaking havoc in our neighborhoods.

In an effort to address this problem, my bill would provide our State Department consular officers the necessary legal authority to deny members of known gangs from coming into our country. It's not acceptable to allow these thugs to slip through the cracks.

After 9/11, many areas of our immigration system came under scrutiny. One of the top recommendations for reform to our system is to create an exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. Departure information is vital for determining whether foreign visitors are departing the U.S., maintaining their visa status, and evaluating future visa eligibility for these visitors. Not to mention, the ability to track departures goes to the heart of keeping America safe.

Without such exit procedures, however, the task of determining whether an alien has overstayed their visa in the United States is nearly impossible. Since 2004, the Department of Homeland Security has been testing exit programs and departure controls at U.S. airports for visa holders leaving the United States. As recently as July 2009, another pilot program was concluded by the Department of Homeland Security. To date, we still haven't seen any implementation of exit procedures for our country's visitors, nor have we seen any final conclusions made by the Department. It has been over 6 years since the first pilot program concluded. It is time to act.

Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a mandatory exit procedure for foreign visitors to the United States. This should have been done years ago.

Additionally, the proposed legislation would eliminate the fraud- laden visa lottery, known as the Diversity Visa program. At present, applicants of the visa lottery program are open to being defrauded by so-called service providers who offer to assist them in obtaining Diversity Visa status. Unlike other immigrant visa categories, this is one of the few visas that allows people to immigrate to the United States without having any connection to the country. In other words, the applicants may not have any family, employment, or even provide an economic tie to the United States. And because of limited availability of verification, the program presents serious national security concerns.

Let me be clear: if anyone is a proponent of a diverse nation, one that enjoys the influence of many cultures, it is me. But what we have right now in the visa lottery program does not accomplish the intended goal.

After careful consultation with State Department officials, I have been advised that the Diversity Visa program needs serious reform, and some have even called for complete elimination of the program. In light of this guidance, I propose to sunset the Diversity Visa program, unless the State Department recommends to Congress how best to combat fraud and eliminate abuse currently in the program.

One of the most heated issues that is continually raised by my constituents, and many across the country, is the impact that illegal aliens are having upon our welfare programs. It came to my attention that Los Angeles County, California, actually tracks this information. Much to my amazement, L.A. County confirms that in 2009 alone, they distributed over $2.4 billion in Federal-State welfare and food stamp programs. Of that amount, $569 million was issued to households that include illegal aliens. Let me reiterate: the illegal alien population in L.A. County received over a half-billion dollars of welfare benefits in one year alone.

In order to have an honest discussion about the drain illegal aliens are having upon our welfare systems, we must be armed with state- specific information to understand the extent of this problem.

Thus, my bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Department of Homeland Security and any other appropriate Federal agency, to submit an annual report to Congress outlining the total dollar amount of Federal welfare benefits received by households of illegal aliens for each state and the District of Columbia. The annual report would also include the overall dollar amount each state spends on Federal welfare benefits.

Without having this information, we will continue to dismiss the serious economic ramifications to our country's prosperity. We cannot afford to perpetuate this problem any longer.

My legislation also includes a provision which revisits the legal immigrant policy included in the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, P.L. 111-3. The CHIP Reauthorization law overturned language requiring a 5-year waiting period before legal immigrants may be eligible for federal health coverage. The 5-year waiting period was included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193. As my colleagues will recall, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act required sponsors of legal immigrants to be responsible for individuals' expenses during the first 5 years of residency in our country. States had the option of offering legal immigrants CHIP and Medicaid coverage with State only dollars. In other words, States could not

receive Federal matching dollars for covering these legal immigrants.

The 2009 CHIP law overturned that policy. Today, States may still cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women who have been in the U.S. less than 5 years. However, the big difference is states now receive Federal matching dollars for covering those individuals.

The provision in the bill I am introducing today would permit states to continue receiving federal matching dollars for covering legal immigrant children and legal immigrant pregnant women but two conditions must be met. First, the state must demonstrate that it has covered 90 percent of its U.S. citizen children and pregnant women eligible for CHIP or Medicaid. These individuals' family income may not exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Second, the State must demonstrate that it is not supplanting state dollars which were being used to cover legal immigrants prior to passage of the 2009 CHIP reauthorization law with Federal dollars.

Another top concern I regularly hear about is identity theft--that of both adults and children who have to spend a great amount of their time and money to clear their good names and restore their credit history.

In 2006, parents of Utah 2-year old Tyler Lybbert realized their daughter's identity had been stolen by 38-year old Jose Tinoco. By the time the Lybberts became aware of the fraud, Mr. Tinoco had already taken out two loans and opened credit cards--saddling Tyler with over $15,000 in debt. Little Tyler was left holding the bag.

Fortunately, when Mr. Tinoco tried to obtain a loan from a local Utah bank, an employee spotted the discrepancy and alerted Tyler's parents. Mr. Tinoco was caught, but the Lybberts were left with countless hours of work to correct the fraud perpetrated against their child.

This past weekend, the Utah press reported on another identity theft case. A newly married radiology student at Weber State University has been battling to reclaim his identity for the last 15 years. When Cameron Noble was 7 years old his Social Security number was stolen by Mr. Jose Zavala of California--an over 60-year-old man.

Noble's parents thought they had corrected the error but when Cameron began working at the age of 16 he started receiving notices that his wages were being garnished to pay child support. The problem has continued to haunt him ever since--in the form of tax withholdings and credit report confusion. He is now nearing the end of the process to obtain a new Social Security number.

It is not a secret that many in the illegal immigrant community perpetuate identity theft with stolen or fabricated Social Security numbers, SSN. The identity theft they commit often affects the very young--who may not notice problems for years or decades until they are old enough to apply for their first job, car or school loan, or credit card.

As in little Tyler Lybbert's case, why did it take a bank employee to pick up on the theft? Because there is no formal system established to alert SSN holders when potential fraud or improper usage have occurred.

The federal agency that is best suited to track the use of mismatched SSN numbers is the Internal Revenue Service, IRS. That is why my bill requires the IRS to send a notice to an employer that an inaccurate SSN has been discovered for an employee. If the employer does not respond to the notice within 60-days to correct the inaccuracy, my legislation will require the IRS to notify the SSN holder or to parents and guardians of a minor, that a discrepancy has been detected and to do the following: if it is an actual mismatch to contact the IRS; if they suspect fraudulent use, the SSN holder is provided with contact information for the FTC and various credit bureaus to report the problem; and finally if no response is received by the SSN holder, the IRS would be required to refer the account number to appropriate Federal agencies for possible investigation.

Let me pause here to underscore a point. Currently, the original SSN holder never receives notice when a mismatch has occurred. Quite frankly, I do not have the assurances that the IRS is requiring much of the employer to correct or verify the submission. That is not acceptable. In this day and age, when at a click of a mouse, someone can apply for credit cards, mortgages, or even car loans, there is no excuse why SSN holders are left in the dark.

One can only imagine that if this simple notification step was taken in the case of little Tyler Lybbert or the Noble family that years of laborious efforts and countless hours of notifying credit bureaus, banks, and other authorities, could have been greatly reduced if not avoided all together.

To make matters more confusing in this area of the law, the Supreme Court has more or less tied the hands of prosecutors in going after these thieves and those who are involved in so-called document mills. The case of Flores-Figueroa v. United States undermined prosecutors' longstanding practice of using the aggravated identity theft statute by requiring them to also prove that a defendant knew that he or she was using a real person's identity information, as opposed to counterfeit information not connected to an actual person.

To clarify the Criminal Code and provide our prosecutors with the latitude they need to pursue these cases, my bill makes clear that defendants who possess or otherwise use identity information not their own, without lawful authority, and in the commission of another felony is still punishable for aggravated identity fraud, regardless of the defendants' ``knowledge'' of the victim.

Finally, my bill's identity theft would require the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chairman of the FTC, and the Commissioner of Social Security to conduct a study to determine the most feasible and cost- effective ways to protect the credit worthiness of individuals, especially that of children.

Mexican Cartel drug violence has been placed front and center by the media and members of this body. Some of my fellow colleagues have called for more resources directed to this problem. As additional federal law enforcement personnel and military units continue to be deployed to the southwest border the focus has been on weapons, drug interdiction and bulk cash smuggling. While I recognize the importance of these border enforcement activities, too little attention is being paid to outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Outdoor marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations is causing increasing environmental damage, especially on publicly owned lands. From 2004-2009 more than 11 million marijuana plants have been eradicated from federal public lands. Outdoor marijuana cultivation is the chief source of revenue for Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Growing marijuana in the U.S. saves traffickers the risk and expense of smuggling their product across the border and allows gangs to produce their crops closer to local markets. Illegal alien workers are smuggled in from Mexico to serve as laborers and provide security to the grow plots. Mexican gang plots can often be distinguished from those of domestic-based growers based on their plant volume and security measures. Many of the plots are encircled with crude explosives and are patrolled by armed illegal aliens providing security for the crop.

In my home State of Utah, the Drug Enforcement Administration and local law enforcement have seized more than 110,000 marijuana plants this year. Each plant can yield one pound of marijuana with a street value of $1,000. These remote plots were on federal land and nestled under the cover in a national forest or hidden high in the rugged-yet- fertile tracts of federal land. All of the sites were far from the eyes of law enforcement, where growers can take the time needed to grow far more potent marijuana. Growers of these fields have even created irrigation systems to disrupt or divert water sources. They even use illegal fertilizers that damage the environment and the local eco- system.

In one recent incident in Garfield County, Utah an illegal alien grow worker was armed with a shotgun and confronted six teenage girls who inadvertently hiked into the marijuana field. The worker brandished a shotgun and demanded to use their cell phone. Fortunately, the group of girls were able to run away from this armed man

and prevented what could have been a very tragic outcome. The girls were quite traumatized and reported the incident to local police. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the local authorities apprehended the man a short time later.

So far this year in Utah, as a result of joint investigative efforts between Federal, State and local law enforcement, 20 arrests have been made in connection with the outdoor cultivation of marijuana on Federal lands. Out of the 20 arrests made, 19 were illegal aliens. This is not a problem that is unique to Utah. Other States with substantial federal lands are also seeing a spike in marijuana cultivation by Mexican drug trafficking organizations, including Colorado, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Michigan.

It is for this reason why my legislation would provide tougher penalties for cultivating marijuana on federal lands and destroying the environment. Provisions of this legislation would also require the Office of National Drug Control Policy to formulate a comprehensive and coordinated action plan to address marijuana cultivation on Federal lands. This plan will be a broad strategic approach to disrupt Mexican drug trafficking organizations' central source of revenue and a key reason for organized alien smuggling.

The fight to control the border is no longer isolated to just the physical boundary between the United States and Mexico. Securing the border now means addressing Mexican cartels; prohibiting mass deferral or parole; streamlining the visa process; requiring participation in key law enforcement programs; clamping down on identity theft; tracking the amount of welfare benefits being diverted by illegal immigrant households; ensuring that dollars are being used to cover newly eligible American children in CHIP and Medicaid; and keeping our great national parks and Federal lands safe and free from drug traffickers, drug cultivation, and environmental damage.

Let me conclude by saying this bill represents key issues that are important to my Utah constituents and Americans across the country. They are common sense solutions to strengthen our commitment to legal immigration and American's security. I urge my colleagues to put partisanship aside and support this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 3919, an act to remove Endangered Species Act, ESA,

protections for gray wolves. Delisting of this species is long overdue.

Gray wolves are listed as endangered under the ESA in the United States, except in Minnesota where they are listed as threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed ESA protection from these wolves in 2009, but subsequently reinstated protection under a court decision following a lawsuit.

Legislative action is the only solution to stop the endless cycle of litigation and return the sovereign ability of states to manage their wildlife. Gray wolves are the iconic species of the ESA. But we cannot let the preconceived and inaccurate perceptions surrounding this animal prevent us from doing our due diligence in providing protections and safeguards for other species including elk, deer, moose, and big horn sheep. With a population growth rate of 24 percent, gray wolf overpopulation is now doing significant damage to wildlife populations throughout the West and Midwest.

Gray wolf predation is erasing decades of effort and hundreds of millions invested in rebuilding healthy big game populations. Wolves do not know or care where recovery plan lines are drawn. They will roam wherever necessary to find adequate food and habitat. Research indicates that wolf and ungulate populations are generally inversely proportional and cyclical over relatively long periods of time.

Ill-advised experimentation and anti-management philosophy continues to be pushed by extreme animal rights and anti-sportsmen special interest groups. This war on the west threatens big game herds, proactive State wildlife management, use of renewable wildlife resources, and the western way of life. This bill, while viewed with suspicion and opposed with philosophical arguments by some environmental organizations, ensures that delicate wildlife populations are restored to healthy levels.

When Congress passed the ESA, it envisioned legislation to make certain that species would not become extinct. The key to success of the new law was finding a way to conserve and protect species truly in danger of becoming extinct. The gray wolf is not endangered as a species. There are thousands alive and well in North America. The ESA has become a vehicle by which some organizations and individuals seek to halt all activities on our public lands which they happen to oppose. I would submit to you that such use of the ESA was not envisioned nor would it have been condoned by a majority of those who originally crafted the law.

Some groups want to use the gray wolf as a surrogate for other agendas. Others have used it to raise a lot of money from citizens of this country truly concerned about the place of the wolf in our environment. Still others have used it for political purposes. What a shame that the laws of this great Nation can be subverted for purposes other than the reason the law was originally written.

The gray wolf has been protected by the ESA since 1973, the year the ESA was passed. The single exception to that classification is in the State of Minnesota where they are classified as threatened. The original recovery plan for the gray wolf in the Northern Rockies was written in 1974. The main States involved are owned largely by the Federal Government. Thirty percent of Montana, 50 percent of Wyoming, and 64 percent of Idaho is federally owned. Access to and use of the public lands and resources on them has a great deal to do with the economy of these sparsely populated States. When the economy suffers, so do these communities and these people.

The working men and women of our States have no alternative but to rely on continued access to and the use of grass, water, timber, and minerals from public lands to support their families. Those working people have mortgages to pay just like you and I; they have bills that are due each month; and they want to be able to feed and clothe their children just as you and I do.

We must recognize the legitimate concerns of the hundreds of honest, hardworking citizens who are being directly affected by the continued listing of the gray wolf on the ESA. In my opinion, we have a responsibility to protect their right to make an honest living and to live the lifestyle they have chosen.

I hope my colleagues will join me in this attempt to resolve this important issue.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 3751, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act of 2010 which reauthorizes the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005--P.L. 109-129--through the end of 2015. I am also grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed, Ensign, Franken and Coburn have joined me as sponsors of this bipartisan bill, which was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week.

S. 3751, the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Reauthorization Act, reauthorizes the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program--the Program--and the National Cord Blood Inventory program--NCBI. These programs maintain donor registries for individuals in need of bone marrow and umbilical cord blood transplants. Today, more than eight million Americans are registered bone marrow donors, and in the 5 years since NCBI was established, more than 28,600 cord blood units have been collected. Cord blood transplantation accounts for over 40 percent of all transplants in the country.

I believe it is important for Senators to understand the specifics of S. 3751. Our bill reauthorizes the program through the end of Fiscal Year 2015. The authorization levels for the Program are $30 million from FY11 through FY14 and $33 million in FY15. The NCBI authorization levels are $23 million from FY11 through FY14 and $20 million in FY15. The total authorization level for both programs combined is $53 million annually, which is the same authorization level included in the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005.

Our bill calls for the collection and maintenance of at least 150,000 high-quality cord blood units. In order to collect high-quality and diverse units, the Health Resources and Services Administration--HRSA-- contracts with cord blood banks to collect and maintain umbilical cord blood units for the national inventory. To achieve the goal of collecting at least 150,000 units, S. 3751 requires cord blood banks to provide a strategic plan to increase collection, assist with the creation of new collection sites, or contract with new collection sites when first applying for a contract or extending an existing contract. S. 3751 also requires cord blood banks to submit an annual plan for achieving self-sufficiency and demonstrates on-going measurable progress toward achieving self-sufficiency of cord blood collection and banking operations. The bill also extends the duration of a contract from 3 to 5 years and allows cord blood units to remain part of the national inventory for at least 10 years.

Additionally, S. 3751 redefines the term ``first-degree relative'' as a sibling of an individual requiring a transplant. Children are not a match for parents in need of a cord blood transplant, as the original law suggested. The bill also aligns the privacy protections provided to bone marrow donors and patients with umbilical cord blood donors and transplant patients.

The legislation encourages the Program to support studies and demonstration projects to increase cord blood donation and collection. More specifically, S. 3751 directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services--HHS, acting though the HRSA Administrator, to submit to Congress an annual report on the National Program's activities including novel approaches for increasing cord blood unit donation and collection. The HHS Secretary also is directed to set an annual goal of increasing collections of high-quality and diverse cord blood units through remote collection or other approaches. In addition, S. 3751 directs the HHS Secretary to identify at least one of these approaches to replicate and expand across the country. If a project is not identified, the HHS Secretary shall submit a plan for expanding remote collection of high-quality and diverse cord blood units.

S. 3751 requires the HHS Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Council, to submit to Congress an interim report within 6 months after enactment, describing existing methods used to distribute Federal funds to cord blood banks. The report also would explain how cord blood banks contract with cord blood unit collection sites and recommend how these methods may be improved in order to encourage efficient collection of high-quality and diverse cord blood units.

Our legislation also requires the Advisory Council to submit recommendations to the HHS Secretary 1 year after enactment on whether remote models for cord blood unit collection should be allowed with only limited, scientifically justified safety protections. The Advisory Council would also make recommendations on whether HHS should allow for cord blood unit collection from routine deliveries without temperature or humidity monitoring of delivery rooms in hospitals approved by the Joint Commission.

Finally, S. 3751 requires the Government Accountability Office--GAO-- to study existing cord blood donation and collection methods and the barriers responsible for limiting donation and collection. GAO also would analyze the methods used to distribute funds to cord blood banks and novel approaches to grow the NCBI.

S. 3751 proves that contrary to popular belief, bipartisanship still exists in the United States Congress. The original Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act passed Congress unanimously and became law--P.L 109-129--on December 20, 2005. This law offered a unique opportunity to assist those suffering from a serious illness requiring cord blood or bone marrow transplants. In 2005, our goal was to increase the number of bone marrow and cord blood donors to meet our goal of 150,000 high-quality and diverse cord blood units. Today, our goal remains the same except we are encouraging the collection of at least 150,000 units. The sponsors of this legislation want to do everything in our power to provide patients with the best transplant options and signing this legislation into law is how we achieve this second goal. Transplant patients and their families deserve nothing less.

S. 3751 is supported by the following organizations: American Society of Bone Marrow Transplant, Aplastic Anemia and MDS Society, Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Colorado Cord Blood Bank, Duke University Cord Blood Bank, Intermountain Primary Children's Hospital, Jeff Gordon Foundation, Leukemia and Lymphoma Foundation, LifeCord Cord Blood Bank, National Marrow Donor Program, Nevada Cancer Institute, New Jersey Cord Blood Bank, New York Blood Center Cord Blood Bank, Rhode Island Blood Center, St. Louis Cord Blood Bank, StemCyte International Cord Blood Bank, University of Utah's Cell Therapy Facility, Villanova football head coach Andy Talley, and Yale University Hospital.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the section by section analysis of S. 3751.