mr. hatch: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i have been an active participants in the judiciary committee's sonia sotomayor confirmation hearings, i have followed with great interest the floor debate on the continuing production of the f-22 raptor. i have heard a number of incorrect acertificates about the aircraft and have stood up to correct them but after listening to this week's debate and reading misleading articles, especially in the "washington post," about the f-22's performance and capabilities i believe the rapper's open poabts have hit bottom and begun to dig so i set the record straight about the f-22 and its extraordinarily war-winning capabilities. fact one, the f-22 is and will continue to be the preeminent fighter bomber for the next 40 years. it is the stealthest aircraft flying today. unlike the f-117 nighthawk and b-two bomber, f-22's can be deployed on stealth flight operations not just at night but twowsh hours a -- 24 hours aday giving unprecedented nextibility to engage tbrownd and air targets

mr. hatch: probably seven minutes. mr.chambliss: happy to yield seven minutes to the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i'll try to conserve if i can. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: madam president, i think a good deal of senator gates myself. during the july 16 address the secretary of defense, rob gates, said the military needed maximum versatility to bring to bear in a wide range of armed conflicts. in january he argued that "our military must be prepared for a full spectrum of operations including type of combat we face in iraq and afghanistan and large-scale threats we face from places like north korea and iran." i cannot agree more with secretary gates. however, just as our nation disregarded the hard-earned lessons of fighting counterinsurgency prayings aftes after vietnam we are limiting our capability to defeat the air threat of today and tomorrow, the integritied air defense system. this advanced system is compared of extended range russian surface-to-air missiles as the s-300 and advance fig

mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i rise today to express my alarm that this congress will raise taxes on all higher income americans in order to finance the cost of health care reform. even though some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle may not see the serious damage to our society and economy that this proposal would create, i want to spend a few minutes on why such a course of action would be a grave mistake. we began of hearing of the talk of raising taxes on the so-called wealthy last year during the presidential campaign of then can bait obama made -- candidate obama made a number of promises regarding taxes. among them were the following three pledges -- he would cut taxes for small businesses and companies that create jobs in america. he would cut taxes for middle-class families. and no family making less tha than $250,000 per year will see their tax increase. and, three, families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990's. now, i've b

mr. hatch: i know the distinguished senator from utahe distinguished senator from oregon has to read some things. but i would like to compliment him. mr. president, i distinguished senator from oregon is one of the leading thinkers on health care in this congress, and has been in the past. he's thoughtful, he works very, very hard, he's one of the most scribing members of the senate finance committee, and i personally respect him very much, and we have a very dear friendship, and i appreciate the remarks that he has expressed about me here today. i just wanted to say that. mr. wyden: mr. president, i have a unanimous consent request to make, and before i do that, i just want to say again how much i appreciate the senator from utah and his involvement, particularly his leadership, on health care issues. when you look at the array of important legislation that has clearly improved american health care, senator hatch's name is all over that legislation. you think about the landmark legislation for

. >> senator hatch? >> mr. chairman, i have to be gone tomorrow because of the ju department of fisheries. >> i know that. >> i would like to call up others as well. >> i have to leave in just a moment. could i -- we've got some answers back from cbo on some of our previous work, and i think it's important that we have it. cbo just e-mailed on the bingaman amendment that would reduce the penalty payments at the end insured individuals would have to make. it increases it $20 billion over ten years, and because of the lower penalty the number of people who would be uninsured under the proposal would be larger than haven't had an answer yet. i spoke to doug elmandorf and there was a possible number for us this evening knowing you would want to engage in this conversation this evening and i'm fully prepared to go ahead with the understanding that i've tried to get the numbers and he may have them by tomorrow. i think we can have the debate and go forward >> i think we should go forward. >> i normally wouldn't go fo

. >> mr. hatch? >> no. >> no, by proxy. >> no, by proxy. >> the nominee has been approved by the committee, the name will be sent to the full senate for its action. >> democrats and republicans very divided on the senate judiciary committee even though republicans on the committee admitted when you look at sonia sotomayor's record being on the federal bench that it was well within the mainstream. they said some of the things she said, for instance, that wise latina comment didn't sit well with them and they aren't convinced her belief when she makes decisions on the supreme court. but susan, lindsey graham what he said defending his vote for her, elections have consequences, even though he wouldn't have picked sonia sotomayor, he said president obama won the election, and so he thinks he gets -- lindsey graham thinks he's entitled to his pick. >> he is. was that division expected, brianna? >> reporter: it certainly was and we've seen these supreme court nominations, this process over the last few yea

>> orrin hatch said, mr. president, if you want to get it done, then get in the mix. >> i don't know anybody who thinks he's been engaged enough because you won't get a health care bill that will handle 1/6 of the economy without the president rolling up his sleeves and saying i am going to get involved in this. >> senator hatch says do even more, sir. shepard: shaker heights near cleveland and the president went to the cleveland clinic and mentioned what's right with our health care system. >> you're absolutely right. he pointed out the fact that they give high-quality care but made it more efficient than a lot of other medical facilities. this is a small example of what he'd like to do around the country, both here and the mayo clinic in minneapolis. shepard: no school at the field at shaker heights. good to see you, mike. thanks. this started as a dispute of a well-known professor and a police officer, a black man, first suspected of trying to break into a home that was his own, then charged with disorderl

hatch. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. welcome again, and to your lovely family.ion about settled law. if a holding in supreme court means it's settled, do you believe that -- that gonzalez versus carhart upholding the partial abortion ban is settled law? >> all precedents of the supreme court, i considered settled law subject to the deference that dr. nast stare decisis would counsel. >> i want to point out to the second amendment which is important to all of us, the right to keep and bear ams arms. your conclusion that the right is not fundamental. now, in the 2004 case entitled united states versus sanchez, you handled second amendment issue in a short footnote. you decided the second circuit's decision in the united states for the proposition that the right to possess a gun is not a fundamental right. toner relied on the supreme court's decision in the united states v miller. last year, in the district of columbia versus heller the supreme court examined miller and concluded that, quote, the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the second

hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, again, and to your lovely family. we're grateful to have you all here. now, let me ask you a question. if the holding in the supreme court means that it is settled, do you believe that gonzalez versus carhart upholding the partial birth abortion ban is law? >> all precedents of the supreme court i consider settled law subject to the difference that stare decisis would council. >> look at an area that is very important to many of us and that is the second amendment. the right to keep and bear arms and your conclusion that the right is not fundamental. now, in the 2004 case entitled united states versus sanchez, you handled the second amendment issue in a short footnote. you cited the second circuit's decision for the proposition of the right to possess a gun is not a fundamental right. toner, in turn, relied on the supreme court decision in the united states d. miller. last year, in the district of columbia versus heller, the supreme court examined miller and concluded "the case did not purport to be a examination of t

hatch. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome again, and to your lovely family.we are grateful to have you here. now let me ask you about law. if the supreme court means it's a subtle, do you believe that gonzalez versus carhart, the partial birth abortion is all? >> i believe doctrine what counsel. >> i want to begin by looking at your case in a scenario very important to many of us and that's the second amendment. the right to keep and bear arms and your conclusion that their right is of fundamental. now in the 2004 case entitled united states versus you handle the second amendment issue in a short foot note. you cited the second circuit decision in united states versus toner that the right to possess a gun is a fundamental right. toner relied on the supreme court decision in the united states forces miller. last year in the district of columbia versus heller the supreme court examined miller and concluded, quote, the case didn't even purport to be a thorough examination of the second amendment, and of quote and that miller provided no explanation of the conten

hatch? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you and the distinguished ranking member, senator sessions, for conducting a fair and thorough hearing on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to replace justice david souter. i was especially pleased when judge sotomayor said the hearing was as gracious and fair as she could have asked for. i came to the confirmation process wanting to vote for a president's nominee and the prospect of a woman of puerto rican heritage serving on the supreme court says a lot about our country, america. i like judge sotomayor and respect her service to her community, the judiciary and the nation. as i expect her to be confirmed, i know that her service will continue for years to come. i spent a great deal of time reading judge sotomayor's speeches, articles and cases, and i participated in all three rounds of questions at the hearing. i genuinely wrestled with this decision. i did not use the political standard taken by senator barack obama in 2005 when he voted against chief justi

mr. chairman. >> all right. so that was orrin hatch a. key republican on the senate judiciary committee a.g-time senator making it clear that he's going to have tough questions for judge sotomayor. even though he seems to be sympathetic to her nomination, let's bring in candy crowley. a lot of people were looking to orrin hatch to find out whether he would be voting for or against judge sotomayor. did you get a sense one way or the other? >> i think this was more of a tonal speech that he gave saying that, here's what we need to look at. we need to be serious and respectful and also i'd like to complain about how some republican president nominees have been treated. it's possible to overestimate to determine how many of the -- nominees were treated oregon rin hatch was one of those republicans that said that. so i suspect he will vote for her. >> and i expect, jeff toobin, that we'll be hearing from a lot of the other republicans voted about how they dealt with. >> yes, but hatch really did seem undecided. i'm looking for lindsey graham, also generally undecided. those are the two republic

hatch? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you and the distinguished ranking member, senator sessions, for conducting a fair and thorough hearing on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to replace justice david souter. i was especially pleased when judge sotomayor said the hearing was as gracious and fair as she could have asked for. i came to the confirmation process wanting to vote for a president's nominee and the prospect of a woman of puerto rican heritage serving on the supreme court says a lot about our country, america. i like judge sotomayor and respect her service to her community, the judiciary and the nation. as i expect her to be confirmed, i know that her service will continue for years to come. i spent a great deal of time reading judge sotomayor's speeches, articles and cases, and i participated in all three rounds of questions at the hearing. i genuinely wrestled with this decision. i did not use the political standard taken by senator barack obama in 2005 when he voted against chief justi

mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have a number of our colleagues who have taken time out of their morning to be here today. senators mccain, hatchd bennett will be introducing governor huntsman and, senator mccain, welcome and the floor is yours. >> well, i thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for having to leave after my remarks. as you know, the defense bill is on the floor of the senate and we continue to proceed in the most efficient and timely fashion. i want to thank you for welcoming governor huntsman. he's already made his mark as a leader and as a statesman. and i think americans are fortunate that he's agreed to re-enter the service of our nation. chairman kerry described his many accomplishments and achievements already. i would also note that not only was he elected governor but reelected with a record percentage of vote as governor of the state of utah and was -- utah was named by the pew center as the best managed state in america. again, i will not review his record since it's already been reviewed, but i would point out that governor huntsman's great talents in industry is his commitment to america in my view. in

mr. chairman. >> thank you senator cole. senator hatch, also former chairman of this committee. >> judge, welcome to you and your good family. grateful to have all of you here. this is the 12 hearing for a supreme court domination in which i a participated and i am instructed day as it was the first time by the seriousness of our responsibility and its impact on america. i am confident under this committees leadership from both you and mr. chairman and the distinguished ranking member this hearing will be both respectful and said stana. judge sotomayor comes to this committee for the third time having served in the first two levels of the federal judiciary and now been nominated to the third. she has a compelling life story and a strong record of educational and professional achievement. her nomination speech to the opportunities that america today provides for men and women have different backgrounds and heritage. the liberty we enjoyed in america makes these opportunities possible and requires our best efforts to protect that liberty. o

hatch? >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. mayor, it's always good to see you.ppreciate the joy and the verve in which you run new york city. i know it's a tough city to run but you do a great job. mr. morgenthau, we all respect you. you know that. i know that. and you've given a long public service that is of great distinction. it's always great to have attorneys here from the state here and we're grateful to have you here, mr. mcdaniel. mr. henderson, you and i have been friends for a long time. we sometimes oppose each other but it's always been with friendship and kindness. we're grateful to have you two good people from the city of new hav haven. mr. kirsanow and linda chavez, we recognize your genius, too. and the things you bring to the table. let me talk about the ricci case. i have two related questions about the ricci case. do you agree with the judge and the other five judges who agreed with him that this was a case of first impression in the second circuit, which means that there was no precedent? >> that's correct, senator. we took a very strong loo

hatch. >> that you, mr. chairman. i want to commend you and the distinguished ranking member, senator sessions, for conducting a fair and thorough hearings on the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to replace justice david souter. i was especially pleased when judge sotomayor at the hearing was as gracious and fair as she could have asked for. i came to the confirmation process wanting to vote for a president's nominee and the prospect of a woman of the puerto rican heritage serving on the supreme court says a lot about our country, america. i like judge sotomayor and respect her to the committee and the nation. and as i expect her to be confirmed i know that her service will continue for years to come. i spent a great deal of time reading judge sotomayor's speeches, articles and cases, and i participated in all three rounds of questions at the hearing. i genuinely wrestled with this decision. i did not use a political standard taken by senator barack obama in 2005 when he voted against chief justice john roberts. he

mrs. clinton called it a reckless attempt to provoke a confrontation. >>> we are learning more tonight about which republican senators will vote for and against the confirmation of supreme court nominee sonia sotomayor. orrin hatchd he will vote against her. his first no vote on any supreme court nominee since he came to the senate in 1977. senator john cornyn of texas will vote no but acknowledged sotomayor will almost certainly be confirmed. so far ten republicans have said they will vote no. five will vote yes. >>> california's legislature put a new state budget in place tonight after almost a month without one. the new budget rejected some of the deep cuts needed to close a $26 billion gap. now it will be up to governor arnold schwarzenegger to finish the job. here is nbc's george lewis. >> please call the roll. >> reporter: final votes in the california legislature, as lawmakers tried to wrap up a budget. >> no. >> it is 130 in the -- 1:30 in the afternoon. we have been in session for almost 24 hours. >> reporter: pulling an all-nighter as they wrangled over cuts of a gamut of programs that helped californians most in need. >> he had a small accident yesterday. >> reporter: alicia alvarez said her son neede

senator hatch, we'll turn to you, then we will take a break. after you're finished. >> well, thank you, mr chairman. i certainly appreciate your graciousness and patience that you've had throughout these proceedings. i almost feel guilty asking any questions but there are some things i would like to clarify and also, and also ask about. i think maybe somewhat helpful to you as well. i guess depending on how you answer them. let me just say this. to clear up that matter of the seventh circuit like yours said with regard to the whole issue on the validity of the incorporation doctrine, the footnote of justice scalia has been brought up here time and time again but let me just say that here's what that footnote says. it says with respect to crookshank. crookshank was a 19th century case, i think it was 1868. that used the privilege -- immunities clause of the 14th amendment to justify incorporation. here's what his footnote says. with respect to crookshank's continuing validity on incorporation, the question notz that but basically applied that. he was only using the privilege and immunities

and i use at to yield to nator hatch who has had als the problem of having to schedule how things go, but, thank you, jeff, i appreciate tht. >> well, thanyou mr. chairman. i echo jeff's statement here. udge, you have been great throughout th process, and i apeciate it. but i have some questions i'd like to ask that i ink you can ansr yes or no. of urse,you can qualify them if you'd like. i'd like to get through tem because th're important to me a millions of oer peoe that i reprent. judge fm 1980 to 1992 you were actively part of thivil rights oganization in our countrand it files briefs in supreme court caes. you served in nearly a dozen different leadership potions there incding serving on and chairing the litigatio committee. "the neyork times" has described you as a "top policymaker" with the group. ansaid that you would meet frequently wh the legal staff and played an active ole in the litigation. lawys describe you as an involved and ardt supporter of their various legal forts during yo time with the group. unquote. the assocted press looked at cuments from your service wth the fund that owed that you we "involved in making sure that th

several hatch and senator coburn offered amendments allowing independent insurance agents and brokers be eligible to enough gate within the american health benefit gateways. my point, mr. president, is that in addition to these technical amendments there were many substantive amendments that were adopted at part of the committee effort and i invite our colleagues' attention. we have offered to brief any single member or others interested in this. this bill has now been on the web site where the public can read it, make comments and get ideas and respond to questions regarding provisions of the bill. while we are waiting, obviously, to see the outcome in the finance committee, the second half of the equation, it is worthwhile to note in the united states senate of the two committees with jurisdiction over health care the health, education, labor and pensions committee has completed its committee work and we invite our colleagues' attention, ideas and thoughts on how we might improve or add to provisions dealing with quality, prevention, dealing with workforce issues and with the fraud and abuse issues critically important as well as coverage questions which are essenti

hatch amendment. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the amendment is rejected it. >> mr. chairman i have an amendment but i have to leave and i will offer one now and try to come back later for one. this is coburn number 246. >> amendment to under 46, the clerk will submit the amendment. .. on the basis that the entity that does not provide, paid four, report coverage or make otherwise arrangements for abortion or abortion training. the amendment also designates the office for civil rights and the department of health and human services as a depository for receiving complaints of discrimination based on a provider's decision not to be involved with abortions. congress has passed three laws, the church amendment, cut the men minton hida amendment over the past 35 years to protecting the conscience writes for healthcare workers. however this new healthcare legislation before us does not contain protections for healthcare workers to do not want to be involved in abortions. consciences about choice. healthcare professionals should not be forced to engage in an action they see

lindsey gram, orrin hatch and chuck grassley are three republicans that might vote for her confirmation. do you think this will stop that? the performance by the two witnesses today, mr. vargas and mr. ricci? so compelling. it will kill her chances with those three republicans? >> i think it will have no effect. >> i don't know the answer to that. i would think that a majority of the republicans on the floor on a swing majority would guess would get against sotomayor. >> i'm wondering whether they'll get at least three. i'm of the pin -- i'm not sure what is so compelling. i'm going to watch and see how this plays in the press the next 24 hours. i have a hunch that mr. ricci and mr. vargas were very compelling on the stand and what had been very boring hearings and the only people with personality we heard from including the nominee who has been coached so much that she doesn't display any personality. and i think it's hurt her. but we'll see. pat buchanan, thank you. john payton, too much coaching. too much coaching. too much cover-up of the real identity. there may be more a hell of an interesting candidate. >>> dick cheney tried to keep secrets and can president o

hatch, chuck grassley are three republicans that might vote for her confirmation. do you think this is going to stop that, the performance by these two witnesses today, mr. vargas and mr. ricci? is it so compelling it will kill her xans chances -- >> i think it will have no effect. >> i don't know the answer to that. the majority republicans on the floor, a slim majority right now, would vote against -- >> i'm wondering whether she's going to get at least three. i'm of the opinion -- well, i'm not sure. i'm going to watch and see how it plays in the press the next 24 hours. i have a hunch that mr. ricci and mr. vargas were very compelling on the stand and would have been very boring hearings and they may be the only people with personality we've heard from including the nominee, who has been coached so much that she doesn't display any personality, and i think it's hurt her, but we'll see. pat buchanan, thank you. john payton, too much coaching, too much coaching, too much cover-up of the real identity of a person who may be a hell of a lot more interesting candidate than we've seen. >>> is the flap over dick cheney's secret cia plan to assassinate al qa

the hatch act, evans allen, the new competitive agriculture and food research initiative, smith lever, the 1890 programs and the veterinary medical service act. with the continuing volatility -- mr. mcgovern: yield the gentlelady one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: the bill provides the administration's request for the commodity futures trading commission. $160.6 million, a 14.6 million dollars over 2009. finally, the bill includes language that's been carried since fiscal year 2008 that prohibits the use of funds in the bill to establish or implement a rule allowing the importation of processed putry products from china. when usda determined that the chinese food system was, quote, equivalent to ours, it used a flawed process in making that determination and placed trade considerations above public health. recognizing that, as well as the many problems that have been identified with the chinese food safety system, it was important that the language remain in the bill. in closing, i thank the rules committee for considering this important bill. i am proud of the work that we have done. i urge my colleagues to support thi

senator hatch and cornyn have a slightly different idea that would give the known the governors and let them find way to cover individuals. the presiding officer: there is one minute remaining. mr. alexander: i thank the chair. we have an imaginitive democratic governor in tennessee who has brought the medicaid program there under some control and has come up with several innovative ideas. the difficulty he and other governors have is that it takes a year to get permission from washington to try their innovative ideas to offer the kind of health care to low-income individuals that they might need, which could be different in tennessee and different in california so, mr. president, this is the biggest issue before our country today. it is certainly the biggest issue before congress. republicans have our proposals on the table. we're ready to go to work. we want to make sure that there are no preexisting conditions that are left out to qualified people. we want to make sure that everyone is covered. and that we have access to health care at a price, a cost that the family budget can afford. and we're resolute in our determination not to add trillions nor the national debt and not

several hatch and senator coburn offered amendments allowing independent insurance agents and brokers be eligible to enough gate within the american health benefit gateways. my point, mr. president, is that in addition to these technical amendments there were many substantive amendments that were adopted at part of the committee effort and i invite our colleagues' attention. we have offered to brief any single member or others interested in this. this bill has now been on the web site where the public can read it, make comments and get ideas and respond to questions regarding provisions of the bill. while we are waiting, obviously, to see the outcome in the finance committee, the second half of the equation, it is worthwhile to note in the united states senate of the two committees with jurisdiction over health care the health, education, labor and pensions committee has completed its committee work and we invite our colleagues' attention, ideas and thoughts on how we might improve or add to provisions dealing with quality, prevention, dealing with workforce issues and with the fraud and abuse issues critically important as well as coverage questions which are essenti

mr. elemendorf taking over this position did look at this issue and actually included in their december, 2008, budget option volumes an estimate that language almost identical to what senator hatchhas proposed would save $5.6 billion over a 10-year period, which is a lot of money even though we're talking trillions here. 5.6 billion is not small. and we know that defensive medicine in medicare alone is costing somewhere 17 to $31 billion a year. so the potential here is huge. the experience of states is pretty determinative that there are significant savings. and that it does have an impact on rates for lawyers -- for -- the rates for doctors and as a result, you get more doctors participating in underserved areas which is what this amendment is directed at. >> madam chair? >> first, i want to thank senator gregg for his comments and his brevity. senator casey? >> i want the senator know we're in the lightning round. i know that california using the example -- one feature of that -- of that story doesn't often get mentioned and that's a california-head insurance reform that went along with other changes to their system of justice, so that has to be factored into what happened in

we use that to yield to senator hatch, who said also the problem of having to schedule how things go and, but thank you, jeff, i appreciate that. >> well, thank you, mrchairman. i echo jeff's statement here. judge, you've been great throughout this process and i appreciate are it. i have some questions i'd like to ask that i think you can answer yes or no. of course you can qualify if you feel like it. but i would like to get through these because they're important questions to me and millions of other people that i represent. judge, from 1980 to 1990, you were actively involved with the puerto rican defense legislation, a well known civil rights organization in our country. among other activities, this group files briefs in supreme court cases. you served in nearly a dozen different leader pigs there including serving on and chairing the litigation committee. "the new york times" has described you as a, quote, tough policymaker, unquote, with the group and said that you would meet frequently with the legal staff, review the status of cases and played an active role in the fund's litigation. lawyers at the fund describeds you as, quote, an ardent sup

mr. chairman giving thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have a number of our colleagues who have taken time out of their wine to be here today. it senators mccain, hatch and bennett will be introducing governor huntsman and senator mccain and, well, and the floor is yours.

hatch? >> i think my colleagues have summed this up pretty good but let me just take, with senator gregg's permission, a copy of a letter from senator gregg to mr. el men defensive, the head of our congressional budget office. i won't reeled the whole thing but i thought i'd read just a couple of -- part of one paragraph that i think kind of sums this up and backs up senator mccain 100%. it says c.b.o. has not yet had time to produce a full estimate of the cost of incorporating any specific medicaid expansion in the health committee's legislation. however, our preliminary analysis indicates that such an expansion could increase federal spending for medicaid by an amount that could amount to over $500 billion over 10 years. that's what they haven't told you. they haven't told you that intend to go with this medicaid expansion that will cost $500 billion more or even more. along with that, would come a substantial increase in medicaid enrollment, amounting to perhaps 15 million to 20 million people. this would have some impact on the number of people obtaining coverage from other sources, including employers. all told, the number of nonelderly pe

several hatch and senator coburn offered amendments allowing independent insurance agents and brokers be eligible to enough gate within the american health benefit gateways. my point, mrpresident, is that in addition to these technical amendments there were many substantive amendments that were adopted at part of the committee effort and i iite our colleagues' attention. we have offered to brief any single member or others interested in this. this bill has now been on the web site where the public can read it, make comments and get ideas and respond to questions regarding provisions of the bill. while we are waiting, obviously, to see the outcome in the finance committee, the second half of the equation, it is worthwhile to note in the united states senate of the two committees with jurisdiction over health care the health, education, labor and pensions committee has completed its committee work and we invite our colleagues' attention, ideas and thoughts on how we might improve or add to provisions dealing with quality, prevention, dealing with workforce issues and with the fraud and abuse issues critically important as well as coverage questions which are essential,

mr. hatch: mr. president? mr. leahy: the attorney general testified at the request of the republicans, testified before the senate judiciary committee, and endorses the legislation before us. the hatch amendment perhaps well meaning, i assume it is, would, in effect, eviscerate the hate crimes legislation. it would kill the hate crimes legislation. the question is very simple. vote for hatch, you kill the hate crimes legislation. vote against it, we have a chance to vote for a hate crimes legislation. something that the senate's voted for several times before and something the attorney general supports based on a hearing we had at the request of the republicans within the past week. mr. hatch: mr. president, do i have any time remaining? the presiding officer: the senator from utah, 40 seconds remaining. mr. hatch: my amendment doesn't kill the hate crimes opportunity here. it says let's do a study. let's know what we're talking about. let's see if there's a real need for this bill with all of the constitutional ra

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: mr. president, i am going to speak in opposition to my friend's amendment. for the past several years there has been a provision in this appropriations bill that says that customs and border protection cannot stop an individual from bringing in on their person 90 days' worth of a prescription drug from canada. well, i'm not crazy about this language. it's been law for sometime and codifies what had been an existing practice at the border. however, my colleague from louisiana is proposing to radically alter what happens at the border. this amendment is bad policy, and i hope that our colleagues will vote against t it is not adequate to protect the public health and it will not keep americans safe. his amendment would strike three important elements of existing law: instead of just individuals -- anyone could bring in drugs. there would be no license required for businesses to get into this line of work. there would be no inspections of their facilities. no minimum qualifications, no backgr

mr. hatch: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask for the regular order. the presiding officer: the senator is asking for regular order with respect to your pending amendment? mr. hatch: with respect to a modification to amendment number 1428. and i would like to send that modification to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the senator has the right to modify his amendment. the amendment is so modified. mr. hatch: i thank the chair. a senator: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. johanns: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. johanns: and, madam president, i ask for -- the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska is recognized. mr. johanns: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to seven minutes. the presiding officer:

mr. hatch: mr. president, i yield back my time too. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: a study of the program to see how well it's working but in july of 2006, the homeland security department conducted a evaluation of the program and it was not a good report. essentially, the situation is that a -- a religious group would be entitled to ask for and petition for someone to be brought into the country to work in their religious entity. it's called a religious worker program. it's usually not a minister but some sort of lay worker. the assessment was done by the -- the homeland security group. it was an assessment of -- of 200-plus cases without any indication that any of those were fraudulent. they just took them at random and checked the 220 cases. field inquiries were conducted where necessary and fraud was determined to be the willful misrepresentation or falsification of a material fa fact. that means something that would probably have meant they were not entitled to the benefit of the program. under t