Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back the rest of my time. Of course, the amendment will be accepted.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the confirmation of Tim Corrigan to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. I have had the pleasure to review Judge Corrigan's distinguished career and I can say, without hesitation, that his confirmation will bring to the Federal bench, not just a legal scholar with impeccable credentials, but a caring individual who used his many skills and talents to serve his community and his less fortunate fellow citizens. Tim Corrigan graduated with distinction from Duke University in 1981, where he was a member of the editorial board of the Duke Law Journal. After graduation, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Gerald B. Tjoflat of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Following his clerkship, Judge Corrigan spent 14 years in private practice with a prominent Jacksonville law firm, where he focused on civil litigation. He also engaged in a substantial appellate practice, including preparing appellate briefs and delivering oral argument in several district courts of appeals in Florida, the Supreme Court of Florida, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Moreover, Judge Corrigan served as co-counsel in a case in the U.S. Supreme Court where he had a primary role in the preparation of the briefs. Judge Corrigan became a U.S. Magistrate Judge in 1996. Because of the heavy caseload of the Middle District of Florida, the magistrate judges are entrusted with substantial responsibilities. Thus, in addition to handling a broad array of civil and criminal non-dispositive motions, he has conducted numerous evidentiary hearings in criminal cases and issued many reports and recommendations regarding dispositive criminal motions. He has also exercised full jurisdiction over Federal civil cases, including a lengthy jury trial. Judge Corrigan has published a number of legal writings and recently participated in a revision of the Middle District of Florida's Civil Discovery Handbook. He has also taught law school classes as an adjunct instructor. Judge Corrigan has been recognized by the Jacksonville Bar Association for the many hours he has spent doing pro bono work. Throughout his career he has volunteered his time for the United Way, Big Brothers, the Special Olympics, the Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, and the Guardian of Dreams, an organization that provides scholarships to low-income students. Judge Corrigan will make a fine member of the Federal Bench. Mr. President, I wish to respond to some of the remarks of my colleague from Vermont about the Judiciary Committee's treatment of President Bush's judicial nominees. My colleague from Vermont says that the Judiciary Committee has moved 80 nominees and only voted against two. This, he says, is a record which hasn't been equaled in years and years, certainly not during President Clinton's administration. I am frankly amazed by this assertion. In fact, under my chairmanship the Judiciary Committee did not vote against a single nominee. Not a single nominee in the span of six years of Republican control of the Senate. Even when one of President Clinton's nominees was voted down, the Committee under my chairmanship permitted the nomination to go to the floor for a full Senate vote. My colleague from Vermont certainly cannot say the same. In the last fifteen months, the Democrat-controlled Judiciary Committee has already voted against two nominees in committee and voted against allowing their nominations to go to the floor for a vote. This is not a record to promote. The real story is the Senate's Democratic leadership is treating President Bush unfairly when it comes to judicial nominees. Some would justify this unfair treatment of President Bush as tit for tat, or business as usual, but the American people should not accept such a smokescreen. What the Senate leadership is doing is unprecedented. Historically, a President can count on seeing all of his first 11 circuit court nominees confirmed. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton all enjoyed a 100-percent confirmation rate on their first 11 circuit court nominees. In stark contrast, seven of President Bush's first 11 nominations are still pending now for almost a year and a half since they were nominated. History also shows Presidents can expect almost all of their first 100 nominees to be confirmed swiftly. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton got 97, 95, and 97, respectively, of their first 100 judicial nominations confirmed. I know that is true. I helped to get President Clinton's 97 of his first 100 judicial nominations confirmed. In this case, the Senate has confirmed only 73 of President Bush's first 100 nominees. Some try to blame Republicans for the current vacancy crisis, and that is pure bunk. In fact, the number of judicial vacancies decreased by three during the 6 years of Republican leadership of the committee. There were 70 vacancies left by the Democrats when I became chairman of the Judiciary Committee in January 1995, and there were 67 at the time the Republicans left. I might add again--I have said it many times, but it needs to be said--President Reagan was the all-time judicial confirmation champion with 382 judges confirmed. He had 6 years of a Republican--his own party--Senate helping him. President Clinton had virtually the same number confirmed, 377, and he had 6 years of the opposition party, meaning the Republican Party, to assist him, and he got basically just as many as President Reagan. He was treated very fairly, and I know because I was the Judiciary Committee chairman for those 6 years. Some have tried to blame the White House for the committee's sluggish pace on nominees, and that again is pure bunk. Specifically, I want to respond to the unbelievable allegations that the White House has failed to consult with home State Senators about judicial nominations. In contrast to the claims of the distinguished Senator from Vermont, there has been an abundance of consultation by the White House with home State Senators. In my 26 years, I have not seen anything like it. The White House has risen above and beyond the call of duty insofar as consultation is concerned. My colleagues who complain about the alleged lack of consultation from the White House really want something else altogether. What they want is for the President to defer to them 100 percent on judicial nominations. They want to be the one to nominate judges with only minimal, if any, input from the White House. This, of course, would turn the Constitution on its head. The Constitution plainly gives the President the power to nominate Federal judges. The Senate's role is only that of advice and consent. It is an important role, but it is certainly not as important as the right to nominate judges. Maybe they should offer an amendment to the Constitution if they would like it otherwise, but I know that amendment would not see the light of day. The bottom line is that President Bush will continue to consult in good faith with home State Senators about judicial nominations. He deserves the same courtesy of good faith in return, not the partisan rejection of qualified nominees that the committee Democrats have handed him. Mr. President, last week in the Judiciary Committee, one of my colleagues appeared to partially justify his vote against Justice Priscilla Owen by claiming that the White House failed to consult him on the nomination of Judge Reena Raggi from his home State of New York. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the White House counsel totaling the number of consultations that were made with the distinguished Senator. I think the record needs to be made clear.

Mr. HATCH. Finally, some might suggest that the Republicans left an undue number of nominees pending in committee without hearings at the end of the Clinton administration. We did leave 41, which is 13 less than the Democrats left without hearings in 1992 at the end of the Bush administration. In fact, a number of the nominees now who have been submitted to the committee were submitted by Bush 1 back in the early nineties. They were never given a hearing, never given a chance, and they are still being dragged through the mud--not so much the mud, but through the difficult times of the confirmation process without any hearings. President Bush deserves to be treated at least as well as the last three President. Instead of thinking up new ways to rewrite history, the Senate Democratic leadership of the committee should begin confirming President Bush's first 11 and first 100 judicial nominations at a pace that matches or exceeds the rate we reached for President Reagan, President George Herbert Walker Bush, and President Clinton. I think it would be fair, and I hope we can some day in the future work it out where both sides on the Judiciary Committee will work together to see that these nominations are brought to the floor where, in an expeditious fashion, the Senate as a whole can decide whether or not to confirm them. We have to work towards that end. I am going to be dedicated towards working toward that end. I know there are colleagues on the other side on the Judiciary Committee who would like that as well. I believe it will end a lot of this partisan confusion. Frankly, I hope we can see that the Constitution will be implemented and that the Senate as a whole will decide whether or not to confirm these people. If that were the case, I have no doubt that Judge Pickering would have been confirmed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I think there is no question that Justice Priscilla Owen would have been confirmed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have high hopes they will be confirmed in the future anyway.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Thompson's amendment to strike the portions of Senator Lieberman's substitute amendment that would create a National Office for Combating Terrorism in the White House. Senator Lieberman's substitute would create this Office in the White House in addition to creating the Department of Homeland Security. I initially question the wisdom of creating two separate offices with identical goals and overlapping jurisdiction, when the entire point of creating a single Department of Homeland Security is to oversee and coordinate the efforts of many different agencies in this immensely important area. But I have another, more pressing concern: encouraging good decision-making. Senator Lieberman's bill would make the heads of both the National Office for Combating Terrorism and the Secretary of Homeland Security subject to confirmation by the Senate and congressional oversight hearings. So far as the office in the White House is concerned, I disagree with such an invasive approach. We need to be mindful of the important role that confidential communications play in the deliberative process for all important decisions--including the decisions that we as lawmakers make after careful and candid discussions with our staff. Just as we would be wary of those who would seek to intrude into these communications, so too should we be reluctant to interfere with the President's deliberative process and the frank communications he has with his advisers in the White House on critically sensitive issues such as our nation's security. Of course, I have no objection that the head of the new Department of Homeland Security be Senate-confirmed, but it simply does not follow that such an approach should be extended to the President's own advisor on these issues. As responsible lawmakers, we must recognize that we simply do not have the same license to specify the duties of the President's senior advisers in the White House as we do to specify the duties of agency officers and staff members who exercise legislative duties. We should take our cue in this area from the National Security Act of 1947, which established the National Security Council. As we all know, the President may appoint very senior advisors to the NSC--like Dr. Condoleezza Rice--who are not subject to confirmation by the Senate. That fact certainly does not detract from Dr. Rice's stature, but in fact enhances it. Anyone who deals with Dr. Rice knows that she has the backing of the President--precisely because she has his confidence and is beholden to no one else. There certainly must be an advisor within the White House who advises the President on matters that pertain directly to our homeland security, as the President has recognized. But there is absolutely no reason why that office should be made--and micro-managed--by Congress. Why does both the head of the Department of Homeland Security and the President's Homeland Security Advisor need to be confirmed by the Senate? There is no doubt that Homeland Security is of paramount importance, but so is national security in general. And does this mean we are going to require that Dr. Rice be Senate confirmed? How about Karl Rove and Andy Card? A step in this direction is simply misguided and unwise. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Missouri. He has stated the case very dramatically, not just for Missouri but in many respects for the rest of the West and many States in this Union where we are losing our forests because we cannot clean out from the forests the existing fuel. We cannot keep the forests thin so they are not susceptible to the tremendous losses we have been suffering. Utah is no exception. We have lost thousands and thousands of acres of wonderful forests. We have not been able to take care of the forests because of basically what I consider to be environmental extremism. We are all environmentalists. We all want the forests to last. We all want to make sure it works. My gosh, what has been going on in this country is environmental groups using the courts to override our professional land managers. It has led to a total neglect of the forests, a total neglect of what we consider to be not only natural resources but the beautiful forests of this land and the ability to keep them beautiful.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one year ago today, September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked our country, killing almost 3,000 people. Each of us has, in the year since the attack, had our lives touched by the horrific events of September 11th. Each of us has, in the year since the attack, been shocked by the terrible images of destruction and suffering at the sites of these attacks--at the World Trade Center, in Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon. Paradoxically, each of us has also been uplifted by the stories of heroism and self-sacrifice that have emerged from around the country in the wake of these terrible events. From this act of war and hatred against all Americans, our country has demonstrated once again the resilient strength in the fabric of our people. Make no mistake about it: Our country is at war. But unlike past wars, we face a new challenge, a new type of enemy, one that is loosely organized throughout the world, with tentacles stretching into every corner of the globe, and one which is steadfast in its determination to defeat America. We cherish our freedoms, our opportunities, and our tolerance. But we remain vigilant in our determination to meet and defeat our enemy-- terrorists who threaten our security and our freedoms. Throughout our country's history, our people, its leaders, and Congress have demonstrated time and time again that when we work together--when we harness the full energy and commitment of our country--we can overcome any adversity or any enemy to our people. The tragic events of September 11th have united this country and challenged our country once again to face down the terrible threat of terrorism. Beginning with the PATRIOT Act, which was signed into law soon after the September 11th attack, and continuing today with the pending legislation to create a new Department of Homeland Security, I have been committed to aiding our country's fight against terrorism in order to defeat our enemy and make our homeland safe from future attacks. My commitment is strong and my determination is unwavering to ensure that our President has all the tools and resources needed to fight and win this war so that the scourge of terrorism is extinguished forever. In supporting the war against terrorism, I want to highlight some of the legislative measures that I have proposed or supported during the 107th Congress. The Military Force Authorization Bill, P.L. 107-40, enacted September 18, 2001: This bill provided President Bush with the full and necessary authority to use force against those who took part in the terrorist attacks. U.S.A. PATRIOT Act of 2001, P.L. 107-56, enacted October 26, 2001: This comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation provided new tools for law enforcement and for improved information sharing among Federal agencies to deter and protect against further terrorist attacks. The Act is tough on terrorists and those who harbor or assist them. The Act: one, increased criminal penalties for various terrorism crimes and money laundering schemes used to finance terrorists; two, reformed our immigration laws to ensure that suspected terrorists are denied admission into, or deported from, the United States; three, authorized the sharing of intelligence and criminal information among law enforcement and intelligence agencies to ensure that all information is available for preventing further terrorist attacks; four, updated law enforcement surveillance tools needed to investigate terrorists who use new communications and related technologies to conduct their terrorist schemes; and, five, required criminal background checks for commercial truck drivers transporting hazardous materials. Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, P.L. 107-38, enacted September 18, 2001: This bill provided $40 billion to support our country's war against terrorism, and provided substantial disaster assistance and recovery funds. Department of Homeland Security, H.R. 5005, pending before the Senate: This proposal is currently being considered by the Senate would create a new Department of Homeland Security, which would be responsible for preventing terrorist attacks, protecting our country's infrastructure from attacks, coordinating the review and analysis of intelligence information among intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and coordinating response efforts by federal and local response agencies. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act, P.L. 107-173, enacted May 14, 2002: This act tightened our border and visa policies by requiring the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the State Department, the FBI and Central Intelligence Agency to share information in order to identify individuals who may pose a terrorist threat to our country. In addition, the act: one, requires the State Department to issue visas and other travel documents which include biometric identifiers--i.e. fingerprints, retinal scan; two, mandates the INS to implement an entry-exit tracking system; three, requires the INS to install biometric scanners at all United States entry points; and four, provides greater access to law enforcement databases for INS and intelligence agencies. The act also increases funding for additional INS inspectors. Secure Transportation for America Act, P.L. 107-71, enacted November 11, 2001: This act improved airport security for all United States travelers by adopting new and more stringent requirements for hiring of airport screeners to eliminate potential security risks; required airlines to install stronger cockpit doors to protect against possible forced entry into the cockpit and implemented the air marshal program to increase the presence of air marshals on all flights. The Public Health Safety and Bioterrorism Response Act, P.L. 107-188, enacted June 12, 2002: This act provides $1 billion to State and local governments to improve planning and preparedness, $450 million to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to upgrade their capacities to deal with public health threats, and $1 billion to expand our current national stockpiles of medicines and vaccines. In addition, the act provides $200 million to protect our food supply and livestock and our drinking water from terrorist contamination. The Terrorist Bombings Convention Implementation Act, P.L. 107-197, enacted June 25, 2002: This act ratified and implemented the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, a United Nations treaty that seeks to suppress terrorist bombings and the financing of terrorism, and enhances our ability to extradite individuals responsible for terrorist bombings. While we have accomplished much, there is still much to do. Since September 11th, we all recognize that we live in a different and more dangerous world. We must unite in our continuing support for our country's war against terrorism; we live with an ongoing and serious threat to our society. We must remain vigilant in protecting our way of life and meeting the challenges ahead. I want to take a moment and offer my prayers and condolences for those families and friends who lost loved ones on September 11th. Today we all join together, hand-in-hand, heart-in-heart, tear-in-tear, to share as a country all of the pain of September 11th. We recognize your terrible loss, we offer you our support and we give you our love. We will never forgot the terrible tragedy of September 11th. We will do all we can in our prayers and in our deeds to make sure that such an attack never occurs again. It is a new era in America and I ask for your prayers and support as we face many difficult challenges ahead. We do so with a steely resolve to never, ever let this horrible event ever occur again.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the proposed drought relief package that I have cosponsored and to urge my colleagues to throw their full support behind this very important measure. Utah is in its fourth consecutive year of drought, and our farmers and ranchers have been hit particularly hard this season. If this body does not act now to alleviate some of the damage wreaked by this latest year of drought, many more farmers and ranchers will be forced to sell off their assets completely, as some have already done. At this time, adequate feed and forage is simply not available for livestock producers in Utah. About 70 percent of Utah agriculture is in the livestock industry, and ranchers rely heavily on public grazing. However, in drought years many ranchers are kicked off public lands by the BLM and Forest Service in an effort to preserve the existing forage. Let me provide an example of how our ranchers have been affected by the drought and resulting expulsion from public grazing. Alarik Myrin is a rancher who I know from Duchesne County, Utah. Alarik has 600 head of cattle and each year relies on public lands to provide 500 of them with forage. Like many others in my state, he was forced off public lands and was not able to graze those 500 head even one day this year. This was a devastating blow in a drought year, because the meager harvest in the West has created a dramatic shortage of feed. While Alarik did receive a small alfalfa harvest on his private land, he was still forced to sell off 300 of his breeding cows along with their calves just to cut his losses. It is important to understand that, like most ranchers, Alarik Myrin makes his living from selling calves. Being forced to liquidate his producing cows without a profit was, in Mr. Myrin's words, like ``selling the factory,'' and he is now left without the resources to purchase a new herd for the next season. In a normal rainfall year, adequate runoff from Utah's snowpack would help to offset drought conditions. However, this year, the lack of snowpack has combined with almost no precipitation and Utah's largest cricket infestation ever documented to make for an extremely difficult year for agriculture. Utah has some of the toughest ranchers I know but some have literally been brought to tears by the hardships they are facing this year. Some of these families have been farming and ranching since before Utah was a state, and they know how to succeed in difficult conditions. But a fourth year of drought of this severity is too much to overcome. One more example of the extreme nature of this year's drought is brought to light at the Salina Cattle Auction in Utah. Normally, this auction sees 500 head sold in the entire month of July. This year, however, the auction saw an average of 2,700 head sold per week in July. Ranchers are liquidating their cows often at less than half the average price. For too many, the result is complete bankruptcy. I have gone into some detail regarding the difficulties of Utah livestock producers, but crop losses for our farmers have been just as severe. For instance, much of Utah fruit crop this year has been completely ruined. The lack of precipitation and ground water has resulted in unseasonable frosts that have wiped out many of our orchards. Across the board, we are losing key elements of our agriculture sector in the West. Mr. President, if we want to be a nation that feeds itself, we must take action to allow our producers to survive this long drought and live to produce next season. I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of this drought relief package. I believe it will help to rebuild an agriculture industry that is in dire need of assistance. It will take several years to recover for many of our producers, but this package will help rebuild herds and allow many farmers and ranchers to continue to provide our nation with the invaluable resources we rely on. Again, I urge my colleagues to support farmers and ranchers across the country by voting in favor of this measure. I thank the Chair. Crop Disaster Relief

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this summer we were all devastated by the repeated news flashes reporting violent crimes against children across our Nation. In June, Elizabeth Smart, a 14 year old from my home town of Salt Lake City, UT, was kidnapped at gun point from her home. To date, neither Elizabeth nor her abductor has been found. In July, five-year-old Samantha Runnion was kidnapped while playing with a neighborhood friend down the street from her home in Stanton, CA. The following day, her body was found along a highway, nearly 50 miles from her home. California authorities have charged a man, who reportedly was acquitted just 2 years ago of molesting two girls under the age of 14, with Runnion's abduction, sexual assault and murder. Elizabeth Smart and Samantha Runnion are just two, among many, recent child victims. The list of tragic cases goes on and on. These horrific incidents illustrate the need for comprehensive legislation, at both the State and national level, to protect our children. We need to ensure that our law enforcement officers have all the tools and resources they need to find, prosecute, and punish those who commit crimes against our children. Earlier this year, with Senators Leahy, Sessions, Hutchinson, Brownback, Edwards and DeWine, I introduced S. 2520, the ``PROTECT Act of 2002''. This bill plugged a loophole that existed as a result of a recent Supreme Court decision which struck down key provisions in the ``Child Pornography Prevention Act,'' which I authored and Congress passed in 1996. Among other things, the PROTECT Act prevents child pornographers from escaping prosecution by claiming that their sexually explicit material did not involve real children. Where child pornography includes persons who appear virtually indistinguishable from actual minors, prosecutions can still occur unless a defendant shows that the pornography did not involve a minor. Today I rise to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Hutchinson, Hutchison, Sessions, DeWine, Thurmond and Grassley, the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2002,'' which enhances child crime prosecutions, investigatory tools, penalties and resources in a variety of ways. For the record, I will submit a section by section summary of the bill, but allow me to comment briefly on some of the bill's specific provisions. First, and most significantly, the bill creates a National Crimes Against Children Response Center. The recent series of tragic events involving child victims has convinced me that we need to take a more proactive approach to prevent, deter and prosecute child predators of all types, abusers, molesters, pornographers and traffickers. And at the same time, we need to provide our children, the vulnerable victims of such predators, with the support systems they need to recover fully from such horrendous crimes and to assist law enforcement in effectively investigating and prosecuting these crimes. To this end, our bill directs the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish a National Response Center whose primary mission will be to develop a comprehensive and rapid response plan to reported crimes involving the victimization of children. While the Center is to be established by the FBI in consultation with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the new Department of Justice Crimes Against Children Section created by the bill, it will integrate the resources and expertise of other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as other child services professionals. By forming and training rapid response teams comprised of Federal, State and local prosecutors, investigators, victim witness specialists, mental health and other child services professionals, the Center will greatly enhance our national response and prevention efforts. The combination of valuable expertise and resources provided by such multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary partnerships will increase the likelihood that law enforcement authorities will successfully identify, prosecute and punish child predators, and that child services professionals will provide child victims with much needed support. Second, this legislation tasks the new Crimes Against Children Section with creating an Internet site that will consolidate sex offender information which States currently release under the Federal reporting act. The bill also directs States that have not developed Internet sites to do so. The creation of a national Internet site will enable concerned citizens to find in one, easily accessible place, critical information about sexual predators. Currently, all 50 States have statutes that require sex offenders to register and share information with the United States Attorney General through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and over 30 States make offender information available to the public on the Internet. A national Internet site will enhance the public's ability to find and access information that is already available in the public record, and will protect citizens in states where sex offenders travel or move, often to avoid detection. In short, the national Internet site will provide parents and other concerned citizens with essential information about the whereabouts and backgrounds of child abusers, so they can take all necessary steps to protect our Nation's children. Third, the bill enhances the ability of federal prosecutors to bring and successfully prosecute cases involving children predators in several ways: The legislation extends the statute of limitations period that applies to offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse of children by permitting such cases to be brought up until the date the minor reaches age 35, as opposed to age 25 as the law currently provides. I believe that there should rarely, if ever, be a time when we say to a victim who has suffered as a child at the hands of an abuser: you have identified your abuser; you have proven the crime; yet the abuser will remain free because you, the victim, waited too long to come forward. Our criminal justice system should be ready to adjudicate all meritorious claims of child abuse. Abusers should not benefit from the lasting psychological harms they inflict on innocent children. This provision is meant to recognize that the arm of the law should be long in the prosecution of crimes of this heinous nature. The bill also amends an existing Federal evidentiary rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 414, to permit the admission into evidence of prior offenses involving child molestation or the possession of sexually explicit materials containing minors. The current evidentiary rule permits such evidence to be admitted only where the victim is under 14 years of age. This amendment extends the rule to apply to any victim who is under 18 years of age at the time of the offense. This amendment also makes clear that even where an individual possesses what may be virtual, as opposed to actual, child pornography, such evidence is admissible under Rule 414. This legislation limits the scope of the common law marital privileges by making them inapplicable in a criminal case in which a spouse stands accused of abusing a child in the home. Where a spouse is charged with abusing a child of either spouse, or a child under the custody or control of either spouse, neither the abuser nor his or her spouse should be permitted to invoke a marital privilege to avoid providing critical evidence in a criminal proceeding. Fourth, the bill enhances tools that are used to investigate child crimes. It expands the class of offenses that are included in the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS, by adding to the system all federal felony offenses and other designated federal and state sexual offenses that subject Federal offenders to sex registration requirements. This extension will increase law enforcement's ability to solve crimes where DNA evidence is found. The bill also extends the Federal wiretap statute by adding additional sex exploitation offenses, as well as sex trafficking and other interstate sex offenses, to the statute's list of predicate offenses. As we all know, the Internet is becoming an increasingly popular means by which sexual predators make contact with child victims. Predators frequently initiate relationships with children online, but later seek to make personal contact with the child, either over the telephone or through face to face meetings. But as the law exists today, law enforcement authorities are restricted in their ability to investigate such predators. This amendment will not only aid investigators in obtaining evidence of such crimes, it will also help stop these crimes before a sexual predator makes contact with a child. To obtain a wiretap, law enforcement authorities will still need to meet the strict statutory guidelines of the wiretap statute and obtain authorization from a court. Thus, the legislation will not undermine the legitimate expectations of privacy of law-abiding Americans. Fifth, this legislation will strengthen criminal penalties by extending the supervised release period that applies to child and sex offenders, increasing the maximum penalties that apply to offenses involving transportation for illegal sexual activity, and directing the United States Sentencing Commission to consider enhancing the sentencing guidelines that apply to criminal offenses with which child predators are frequently charged. In particular, the bill grants Federal judges the discretion to impose up to lifetime periods of supervised release for individuals who are convicted of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, transportation for illegal sexual activity, and sex trafficking offenses. Under current law, a judge can impose no more than 5 years of supervised release for a serious felony, and no more than 3 years for a lesser categorized offense. This amendment does not require the judge to impose a period of supervised release longer than 5 years; it simply authorizes a judge to do so where the nature and circumstances of the case justify a longer supervised release period. In my view, if there is any class of offenders on which our criminal justice system should keep a close eye, it is sexual predators. It is well documented that sex offenders are more likely than other violent criminals to commit future crimes. And if there is any class of victims we should seek to protect from repeat offenders, it is those who have been sexually assaulted. They suffer tremendous physical, emotional and psychological injuries. By ensuring that egregious sexual offenders are supervised for longer periods of time, we will increase the chance that they will be deterred from and punished for future criminal acts. In addition to increasing the maximum penalties that apply to certain offenses that involve the trafficking of children or other interstate elements, the bill directs the United States Sentencing commission to review the sentencing guidelines that apply to various federal offenses that are used to prosecute kidnappers, sexual abusers and exploiters to ensure that the sentences for these crimes are sufficiently severe where aggravating circumstances exist, such as where the victim was abducted, injured, killed, or abused by more than one person. The ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2002'' will enhance our ability to combat crimes against children, but it is by no means an end. Congress needs to continue to explore additional ways in which we can improve our ability on a national level to protect our children. Our children fall victim to many of the same crimes we face as adults, and they are also subject crimes that are specific to childhood, like child abuse and neglect. The effects of such heinous crimes are devastating and often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. I want to do all I can to ensure that we devote the same intensity of purpose to crimes committed against children, as we do to other serious criminal offenses, such as those involving terrorism. We have no greater resource than our children. I invite the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other entities and professionals who are charged with protecting our children to work with me to improve our federal laws and to assist States in doing the same. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section summary analysis of S. 2917 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this summer we were all devastated by the repeated news flashes reporting violent crimes against children across our Nation. In June, Elizabeth Smart, a 14 year old from my home town of Salt Lake City, UT, was kidnapped at gun point from her home. To date, neither Elizabeth nor her abductor has been found. In July, five-year-old Samantha Runnion was kidnapped while playing with a neighborhood friend down the street from her home in Stanton, CA. The following day, her body was found along a highway, nearly 50 miles from her home. California authorities have charged a man, who reportedly was acquitted just 2 years ago of molesting two girls under the age of 14, with Runnion's abduction, sexual assault and murder. Elizabeth Smart and Samantha Runnion are just two, among many, recent child victims. The list of tragic cases goes on and on. These horrific incidents illustrate the need for comprehensive legislation, at both the State and national level, to protect our children. We need to ensure that our law enforcement officers have all the tools and resources they need to find, prosecute, and punish those who commit crimes against our children. Earlier this year, with Senators Leahy, Sessions, Hutchinson, Brownback, Edwards and DeWine, I introduced S. 2520, the ``PROTECT Act of 2002''. This bill plugged a loophole that existed as a result of a recent Supreme Court decision which struck down key provisions in the ``Child Pornography Prevention Act,'' which I authored and Congress passed in 1996. Among other things, the PROTECT Act prevents child pornographers from escaping prosecution by claiming that their sexually explicit material did not involve real children. Where child pornography includes persons who appear virtually indistinguishable from actual minors, prosecutions can still occur unless a defendant shows that the pornography did not involve a minor. Today I rise to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Hutchinson, Hutchison, Sessions, DeWine, Thurmond and Grassley, the ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2002,'' which enhances child crime prosecutions, investigatory tools, penalties and resources in a variety of ways. For the record, I will submit a section by section summary of the bill, but allow me to comment briefly on some of the bill's specific provisions. First, and most significantly, the bill creates a National Crimes Against Children Response Center. The recent series of tragic events involving child victims has convinced me that we need to take a more proactive approach to prevent, deter and prosecute child predators of all types, abusers, molesters, pornographers and traffickers. And at the same time, we need to provide our children, the vulnerable victims of such predators, with the support systems they need to recover fully from such horrendous crimes and to assist law enforcement in effectively investigating and prosecuting these crimes. To this end, our bill directs the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish a National Response Center whose primary mission will be to develop a comprehensive and rapid response plan to reported crimes involving the victimization of children. While the Center is to be established by the FBI in consultation with the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the new Department of Justice Crimes Against Children Section created by the bill, it will integrate the resources and expertise of other Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as other child services professionals. By forming and training rapid response teams comprised of Federal, State and local prosecutors, investigators, victim witness specialists, mental health and other child services professionals, the Center will greatly enhance our national response and prevention efforts. The combination of valuable expertise and resources provided by such multi-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary partnerships will increase the likelihood that law enforcement authorities will successfully identify, prosecute and punish child predators, and that child services professionals will provide child victims with much needed support. Second, this legislation tasks the new Crimes Against Children Section with creating an Internet site that will consolidate sex offender information which States currently release under the Federal reporting act. The bill also directs States that have not developed Internet sites to do so. The creation of a national Internet site will enable concerned citizens to find in one, easily accessible place, critical information about sexual predators. Currently, all 50 States have statutes that require sex offenders to register and share information with the United States Attorney General through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and over 30 States make offender information available to the public on the Internet. A national Internet site will enhance the public's ability to find and access information that is already available in the public record, and will protect citizens in states where sex offenders travel or move, often to avoid detection. In short, the national Internet site will provide parents and other concerned citizens with essential information about the whereabouts and backgrounds of child abusers, so they can take all necessary steps to protect our Nation's children. Third, the bill enhances the ability of federal prosecutors to bring and successfully prosecute cases involving children predators in several ways: The legislation extends the statute of limitations period that applies to offenses involving the sexual or physical abuse of children by permitting such cases to be brought up until the date the minor reaches age 35, as opposed to age 25 as the law currently provides. I believe that there should rarely, if ever, be a time when we say to a victim who has suffered as a child at the hands of an abuser: you have identified your abuser; you have proven the crime; yet the abuser will remain free because you, the victim, waited too long to come forward. Our criminal justice system should be ready to adjudicate all meritorious claims of child abuse. Abusers should not benefit from the lasting psychological harms they inflict on innocent children. This provision is meant to recognize that the arm of the law should be long in the prosecution of crimes of this heinous nature. The bill also amends an existing Federal evidentiary rule, Federal Rule of Evidence 414, to permit the admission into evidence of prior offenses involving child molestation or the possession of sexually explicit materials containing minors. The current evidentiary rule permits such evidence to be admitted only where the victim is under 14 years of age. This amendment extends the rule to apply to any victim who is under 18 years of age at the time of the offense. This amendment also makes clear that even where an individual possesses what may be virtual, as opposed to actual, child pornography, such evidence is admissible under Rule 414. This legislation limits the scope of the common law marital privileges by making them inapplicable in a criminal case in which a spouse stands accused of abusing a child in the home. Where a spouse is charged with abusing a child of either spouse, or a child under the custody or control of either spouse, neither the abuser nor his or her spouse should be permitted to invoke a marital privilege to avoid providing critical evidence in a criminal proceeding. Fourth, the bill enhances tools that are used to investigate child crimes. It expands the class of offenses that are included in the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS, by adding to the system all federal felony offenses and other designated federal and state sexual offenses that subject Federal offenders to sex registration requirements. This extension will increase law enforcement's ability to solve crimes where DNA evidence is found. The bill also extends the Federal wiretap statute by adding additional sex exploitation offenses, as well as sex trafficking and other interstate sex offenses, to the statute's list of predicate offenses. As we all know, the Internet is becoming an increasingly popular means by which sexual predators make contact with child victims. Predators frequently initiate relationships with children online, but later seek to make personal contact with the child, either over the telephone or through face to face meetings. But as the law exists today, law enforcement authorities are restricted in their ability to investigate such predators. This amendment will not only aid investigators in obtaining evidence of such crimes, it will also help stop these crimes before a sexual predator makes contact with a child. To obtain a wiretap, law enforcement authorities will still need to meet the strict statutory guidelines of the wiretap statute and obtain authorization from a court. Thus, the legislation will not undermine the legitimate expectations of privacy of law-abiding Americans. Fifth, this legislation will strengthen criminal penalties by extending the supervised release period that applies to child and sex offenders, increasing the maximum penalties that apply to offenses involving transportation for illegal sexual activity, and directing the United States Sentencing Commission to consider enhancing the sentencing guidelines that apply to criminal offenses with which child predators are frequently charged. In particular, the bill grants Federal judges the discretion to impose up to lifetime periods of supervised release for individuals who are convicted of sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, transportation for illegal sexual activity, and sex trafficking offenses. Under current law, a judge can impose no more than 5 years of supervised release for a serious felony, and no more than 3 years for a lesser categorized offense. This amendment does not require the judge to impose a period of supervised release longer than 5 years; it simply authorizes a judge to do so where the nature and circumstances of the case justify a longer supervised release period. In my view, if there is any class of offenders on which our criminal justice system should keep a close eye, it is sexual predators. It is well documented that sex offenders are more likely than other violent criminals to commit future crimes. And if there is any class of victims we should seek to protect from repeat offenders, it is those who have been sexually assaulted. They suffer tremendous physical, emotional and psychological injuries. By ensuring that egregious sexual offenders are supervised for longer periods of time, we will increase the chance that they will be deterred from and punished for future criminal acts. In addition to increasing the maximum penalties that apply to certain offenses that involve the trafficking of children or other interstate elements, the bill directs the United States Sentencing commission to review the sentencing guidelines that apply to various federal offenses that are used to prosecute kidnappers, sexual abusers and exploiters to ensure that the sentences for these crimes are sufficiently severe where aggravating circumstances exist, such as where the victim was abducted, injured, killed, or abused by more than one person. The ``Comprehensive Child Protection Act of 2002'' will enhance our ability to combat crimes against children, but it is by no means an end. Congress needs to continue to explore additional ways in which we can improve our ability on a national level to protect our children. Our children fall victim to many of the same crimes we face as adults, and they are also subject crimes that are specific to childhood, like child abuse and neglect. The effects of such heinous crimes are devastating and often lead to an intergenerational cycle of violence and abuse. I want to do all I can to ensure that we devote the same intensity of purpose to crimes committed against children, as we do to other serious criminal offenses, such as those involving terrorism. We have no greater resource than our children. I invite the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other entities and professionals who are charged with protecting our children to work with me to improve our federal laws and to assist States in doing the same. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section summary analysis of S. 2917 be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to respond to some of the amazing assertions made by my distinguished colleague and friend from Vermont. Of course, I do so with some trepidation because each time we have a back and forth like this one, I help my colleague further the impression that he is out to create and that he has done a good job of creating, especially with the press. The impression my colleague is seeking to create is that both sides come to the table with unclean hands in the matter of confirmations. It is a false impression and it provides a smokescreen of the stark reality of the poor performance of the Judiciary Committee this past year and during this session. Naturally, my friend takes pride in his accomplishments this year, but not all of them. Let me list a few he misses. President Reagan took pride in nominating the first woman to the Supreme Court. My Democrat colleagues have now presided over the ``Borking'' of the first woman in history, and one of the leading women jurists in this country, Priscilla Owen. My colleague has also set a new record for a Judiciary Committee chairman. He has voted in 1 year against more judicial nominees than any chairman in the 212 years of the Republic. Moreover, most of my Democrat colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have voted against more judicial nominees in this last one year than I have in my 26 years on the Judiciary Committee. I voted against only one Clinton nominee, only one, but as painful as that was, I did it standing straight for all to see in the disinfectant light of the Senate floor, not in the shadows of a committee vote. Also, in rejecting Justice Owen, my Democrat colleagues rejected for the first time in history a nominee who has received the American Bar Association's unanimous rating, highest rating of well qualified, the rating that earlier this year they announced to be the gold standard for judicial nominees and which, of course, they now criticize because the independent body has rated President Bush's nominees as highly qualified as any we have ever seen. In other words, Priscilla Owen, who had the support of both home State Senators, which is a requisite for consideration by the Committee, who had the highest rating given by the American Bar Association for a judicial nominee, who is a supreme court justice in Texas, and who, by anybody's measurement who is fair, is in the mainstream of American jurisprudence, was dumped unceremoniously in the committee by a 10-to-9 party vote, a partisan party vote at that, and without giving her nomination the chance of being brought up on the floor of the Senate where I believe she would have passed, if not overwhelmingly, certainly comfortably. I have heard my colleague from Vermont defend against that by listing the 42 judicial nominees who did not get confirmed by the end of the Clinton administration. He doesn't point out that there were 54 nominees left hanging at the end of the first Bush administration when they were in charge. And he does not explain that most, if not all, of the nominees left hanging at the end of the Clinton administration, however qualified, did not progress because either they were nominated too late or did not have their home state Senators' support or had other problems that we cannot address. In an attempt to cloud up the rejection of Justice Owen's nomination, I have also heard my colleagues point to the Clinton judges from Texas in particular who never got a hearing. One said at the Owen hearing that I did not give them a hearing. It was a very unfair characterization, and I will respond to it now. As my friend knows well enough, neither of those nominees had the support of their home state Senators. This prevented me, and would have prevented the distinguished Senator from Vermont, if he were in my shoes, from scheduling a hearing for them. In part, this was because President Clinton ignored the Texas Senators and the Texas nominating commission in making those nominations. The practice of honoring the home State Senators is not one I put in place; it was put in place under Democrat leadership of the committee, and appears agreeable to both parties. Today, Democrat Senators from the States of North Carolina, California, and Michigan have prevented the Judiciary Committee from holding hearings on six of President Bush's original Circuit Court of Appeals nominees who were nominated a year and a half ago, some of the greatest nominees I have seen in the whole time I have been in the Senate and on the Judiciary Committee, now 26 years. I know there are those who seem to justify wrong in childlike fashion with the intellectual crutch of, ``They did it, too.'' Let me say that we Republicans have never done what was done to Justice Owen. I can't think of anything in history that compares to that. Some Democrats have attempted to leave the impression that Republicans have unclean hands so as to soften the scrutiny of what was done to Justice Owen. The American people will see through this. But let me assure you, none of those nominees who did not get hearings would trade places with Charles Pickering of Mississippi or Priscilla Owen of Texas. It is beyond peradventure that they would prefer to be ghosts of nominations past than called racists, unjustly called racists, and have their fine records of public service soiled by the Judiciary Committee. I am heartened to know that beyond the overwhelming support from her home State of Texas and scores of op-eds written across the country in support of the Owen nomination, Justice Owen's nomination to the Fifth Circuit has received editorial support from over 24 newspapers published across the Nation and across the political spectrum. I have previously submitted these for the Record. Prior to the vote in Committee, only three newspapers, in fact--in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco--had come out firmly against the nomination. I am heartened by this national support not just for the sake of Justice Owen, but because at her hearing I expressed alarm at the efforts of some to introduce ideology into the confirmation process. I am heartened that editorial and op-ed writers across the country reflect not only support for Justice Owen but also the near universal rejection of this misguided effort to make the independent Federal judiciary a mere extension of Congress and less than the independent, coequal branch it was intended to be. Let me respond further to my good friend from Vermont. He is right that in this session so far the Senate has confirmed 73 judges. There is much eagerness in my friend's voice asserting that this number compares favorably to the last three sessions of Congress during which I was chairman. Although I am flattered to hear my record used as the benchmark for fairness, I am afraid this does not make for a fair comparison because I was never chairman during any of President Clinton's first 2 years in office. Let me repeat that. I was never chairman of the Judiciary Committee during any President's first 2 years in office. I am glad to say, therefore, that the proper comparison is not, as they say, about me. My colleague speaks of the last 15 months when I was chairman, but this compares apples to oranges. During President Clinton's first Congress, when Senator Biden was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate confirmed 127 judicial nominees. And Senator Biden achieved this record despite not receiving any nominees for the first 6 months--in fact, Senator Biden's first hearing was held on July 20 of that year, more than a week later than the first hearing of this session, which occurred on July 11, 2001. Clearly, getting started in July of year one is no barrier to the confirmation of 127 judges by the end of year two. But we have confirmed only 73 nominees in this session. Senator Biden's track record during the first President Bush's first two years also demonstrates how a Democrat-led Senate treated a Republican President. Then-Chairman Biden presided over the confirmation of all but 5 of the first President Bush's 75 nominees in that first two-year session. Chairman Thurmond's record is similar. The contrast to the present could hardly be starker. Mr. President, we are about to close President Bush's first 2 years in office having failed the standards set by Chairmen Biden and Thurmond. That is nothing over which to be proud. We still have 80 vacancies on the courts, and 32 emergency vacancies. Mr. President, one final point about Justice Owen. Much of the opposition against her was driven by interest groups that advocate for the right to abortion. Yet in Justice Owen we had the first nominee we have considered this session who has, as a judge, read those cases, cited them, quoted them, applied them and followed them. She did, however, interpret the new Texas parental notice law and sought in one particular case to make it rarer to bypass than some of her colleagues on the court, although the Texas Supreme Court agreed in most all other respects. Of course, the charge that she is a judicial activist was a cynical trick of words from Washington special interest lobbyists who have made their careers taking positions without letting the words of the Constitution stand between them and their political objectives. Why did they oppose her? Ironically enough, they are doing so because they do not like the Texas statute requiring parental notice in cases of abortions for children. Justice Owen voted to give the statute some meaning. Justice Owen's opponents think a minor should always be able to avoid the Texas Legislature's standards. It is the groups allied against Justice Owen who are the judicial activists, the ones who are looking to achieve in the courts an outcome that is at odds with the law passed by the elected legislators. Let's be clear that the opposition to Justice Owen was all about abortion. But in Justice Owen's case, it was not that she opposed abortion rights--no decision of hers ever denied that right. I fear that the opposition to Justice Owen is not about abortion rights exactly, but something much more insidious--it was not about abortion rights exactly but about abortion profits. Simply put, the abortion industry is opposed to parental notice laws because they place a hurdle between them and their clients--not the girls who come to them, but the adult men who pay for the abortions. These adult men, whose average age rises the younger the girl is, are eager not to be disclosed to parents, sometimes living down the street. At $1,000 per abortion and nearly 1 million abortions per year, the abortion industry is as big as any corporate interest that lobbies in Washington. They not only ignore the rights of parents to hide their young daughters' abortions, they also protect sexual offenders and statutory rapists. And who are the lobbyists for the abortion industry? Exactly the same cast that has launched an attack on Justice Owen. One wonders, as columnist Jeff Jacoby did in the Boston Globe, who are the extremists on this issue, who is out of the mainstream? Not Justice Owen--82 percent of the American people favor consent and notice laws such as Justice Owen interpreted--86 percent in Illinois. I will say it again, while my colleagues continue in general to apply an abortion litmus test, the assault against Justice Owen was not about abortion rights, it was about abortion profits. It is not about a woman's right to an abortion, it is about assailing parental laws that threaten the men who pay for abortions. It is whether parents should at least know, not even consent to, but just know, when a minor child is having an abortion paid for by an adult. Let's speak truth to power. Justice Owen was picked to be opposed because she is a friend of President Bush from Texas. She was opposed by an axis of profits. This axis of profits combines the money of trial lawyers and the abortion industry to fund the Washington special interest groups, and spreads its influence to the halls of power in Washington and in State courts across this country. The Opposition against Justice Owen was intended not only to have a chilling effect for women jurists that will keep them from weighing in on exactly the sorts of cases that most invite their participation and their perspectives as women, but also on all judges in all State courts who rule on cases the trial lawyers want to win and cash in on. When my colleagues voted against her, they chose to besmirch a model young woman from Texas, who grew up, worked hard and did all the right things--including repeatedly answering the call of public service at sacrifice of personal wealth and family. My Democrat colleagues voted, in effect, against the American promise of fairness. This is a young woman who gave up a lucrative career to give public service on the Texas Supreme Court, and who deserves to be on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Such a vote should have taken place in the light of this Senate floor, but the American people will hear of the result notwithstanding the shadows. I only hope the American people will repair the damage done to the Constitution when they vote in November. I have reviewed Mr. Marra's distinguished career and I can say, without hesitation, that he will be an excellent addition to the prestigious Southern District of Florida. Mr. Marra comes to the federal bench with a unique and extremely useful qualification: Judge Marra is a former Social Studies teacher at Elmont Memorial High School in Elmont, New York. After teaching high school for several years, Judge Marra inexplicably decided to change career paths and went to law school, graduating from Stetson University College of Law in 1977. He then went to work for the United States Department of Justice as part of its honor law graduates program. While at the Department of Justice, he was involved in litigation which sought to protect the land, water and mineral rights of Native Americans from encroachment and to regain such resources that had been wrongfully lost over the years. After three years with the Department of Justice, Judge Marra joined the law firm of Wender, Murase & White of Washington, D.C., where he was involved in patent and trademark litigation, corporate law and litigation in the area of federal Indian law. In 1984 Judge Marra joined the law firm of Nason, Gildan, Yeager, Gerson & White. He worked at that firm for the next twelve years focusing on commercial litigation and representing clients at both the trial and appellate levels. Judge Marra gained experience in a variety of matters, including antitrust, contracts, construction defects, condominium and homeowner association disputes, and employment and housing discrimination. In 1996 Judge Marra was appointed to the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County, Florida. He has served in the civil, family and criminal divisions. Judge Marra will make a fine member of the Federal bench. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, again, the Senator from Vermont and I are friends, but I totally disagree with what he has been saying. It is a smoke screen. Allow me to address the fate of nominees first sent up by the first President Bush. In fact, some pending today without a hearing who were nominated by the first President Bush nearly 10 years ago. These are nominees still on the list after 10 years that the Democrats have not allowed to come up: Terrence Boyle for the Fourth Circuit and John Roberts for the DC Circuit, considered one of the two or three greatest appellate lawyers in the country before the Supreme Court; Henry Saad for the Sixth Circuit; Ronald Leighton for the Western District of Washington; and Richard Dorr for the Western District of Missouri. All five of these nominees were nominated by the first President Bush, better than 10 years ago, but never received committee action at that time. I hope they, too, will soon receive their long-awaited hearings and confirmation votes. By the way, there were 42 left over at the end of the Clinton administration. Nine of them were put up so late, there was no way anybody could have gotten them through. That brings us down to 33, and of the 33, there were others who did not have the support of both home- State Senators. There were those who, for one reason or another, could not make it. Contrast that when Bush 1 left office and the Democrats were in control. There were 54 left over. That is 11 more than were left when President Clinton left office. If you want to talk statistics, I can talk them all day long, and I can tell you we have been much more fair than what we have seen in the first 2 years of the Bush 2 administration. I suggest that instead of spending our time talking about the same small handful of Clinton nominees, we should focus on the ones pending before us today who never saw the light of day the last time the Democrats controlled the Senate. Justice Owen, for instance--and this is an important point--is literally the first one in history who had the support of both-home State Senators, the highest rating of the American Bar Association, and was voted down in committee and not even given a chance to have a vote on the Senate floor. Currently, there are 80 empty seats on the Federal judiciary. That is a 9.3-percent vacancy rate, one of the highest in modern times. This means that 9.3 percent of all Federal courtrooms are presided over by an empty chair. There are currently 21 nominees who are slated to fill positions which have been declared judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Of those, 11 are Circuit Court of Appeals nominees. Only 5 of President Bush's first 11 circuit court nominees nominated on May 9, 2001--a year and a half ago almost--have had hearings. In other words, the Judiciary Committee has taken no action whatsoever on nearly half of the circuit court nominations that have been pending for over 16 months. There is no reason for this other than stall tactics. All of these nominees received qualified or well-qualified ratings from the American Bar Association. There were 31 vacancies in the Federal courts of appeals on May 9, 2001, and there are 28 today. The Senate Democrats are trying to create an illusion of movement by creating great media attention and controversy concerning a small handful of nominees in order to make it look like progress. But we are not making any progress in filling circuit vacancies. President Bush has responded to the vacancy crisis in the appellate courts by nominating a total of 32 top-notch men and women to these posts--but the Senate is simply stalling them. Over the past year, the Senate has confirmed only 13. There are still 19 Circuit Court nominees pending in Committee. By comparison, at the end of President Clinton's second year in office, we had confirmed 19 circuit judges and had 15 circuit court vacancies. There were only two Circuit Court nominees left pending in committee at the end of President Clinton's first year in office. In contrast, there were 23 of President Bush's Circuit Court nominees pending in Committee at the end of last year. Some try to blame the Republicans for the vacancy crisis, but that is bunk. At the end of the 106th Congress when I was chairman, we had 67 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. During the past 9 months, the vacancy rate has been hovering right around 100. Today is at 80. Some think that the point of ``advise and consent'' is to match statistics from previous years. This rear-view-mirror driving is nonsense. The Senate has a duty to exercise its advice and consent, and it has done so on only 40 percent of President Bush's appellate court nominations so far this Congress. The question is not: How many judges should we let President Bush have? The question is: Is the Senate getting its work done? The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses the states of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, has only 8 of 16 seats filled, leaving that court half-empty. The President has nominated 8 individuals to fill these vacancies, but only two have received a hearing, despite the fact that two of these nominees have been pending since May 9, 2001. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is also functioning far below its normal capacity, with 4 out of 12 authorized judgeships currently vacant. Although the President nominated Miguel Estrada and John Roberts on May 9, 2001, to fill seats on this Court, they have not yet been given a hearing.

Mr. HATCH. How much on each side?

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I want to congratulate my colleague Senator Sessions and thank him for his kind remarks today. As usual, he is one of the most articulate and eloquent spokespeople in this country with regard to the Federal Judiciary and, of course, with regard to the law in general and the rule of law. I want him to know I have a tremendous amount of respect for him and how much I enjoy working with him on the Judiciary Committee. The Senator from Alabama adds much to the Judiciary Committee. He is a terrific addition to the Committee and will leave his mark decades from now for his service in the Senate. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama has made a lot of points on what happened in the Judiciary Committee today, but I wanted to take a little time, as well, to address the injustice dispensed by the Judiciary Committee against Priscilla Owen of Texas. President Bush's nominee to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Committee defeated her nomination today. Although I am afraid it was a deal cut long before Justice Owen's hearing occurred, in defeating Justice Owen's nomination I regret that my friends on the Committee and the Senate Democrat leadership chose the path of partisanship over friendship and fairness. The justice my colleagues dispensed is like no other the Judiciary Committee has ever inflicted. It is incomparable to any controversy raised against any nominee, Democrat or Republican. My Democrat colleagues rejected a nominee who is unblemished in every respect but for the smears of her opponents, smears which go beyond the pale of decency, distortions which are outside the bounds of cynicism and deceptions which fall below any standard of fairness, even for Washington politics and the left-wing professional lobbyists in this town. For the first time in history, my colleagues rejected a nominee that has received the American Bar Association's unanimous rating of well- qualified, a rating that earlier this year my friends on the other side announced to be the gold standard for judicial nominees and which, of course, they now criticize because the independent body of the American Bar Association has rated President Bush's nominees as highly qualified as any we have ever seen. I think this vote will be long remembered and regretted on both sides of the aisle. One sample smear against Priscilla Owen of Texas came this week in one of the most outrageously false editorials I have ever read in The New York Times, but that editorial said nothing new. The editorialists apparently used only the talking points supplied by the usual suspects in Washington. Among other falsehoods, the New York Times editorial said: In abortion cases, Justice Owen has been resourceful about finding reasons that, despite the United States Supreme Court holdings and Texas case law, women should be denied the right to choose. The New York Times should be ashamed of themselves--or whoever the editorial writer is who wrote this. Under the parental notice cases of which they speak, no one is denied a right to an abortion. They are absolutely wrong. Abortion rights are not implicated in the parents' right to know and to be involved in their children's most painful decision, an abortion. Even with parental notice, every minor has a right to abortion in Texas, and no decision of Justice Priscilla Owen denies that. In fact, in Texas, minors cannot get a tattoo without parental consent, but they have an unhindered right to obtain an abortion. Last year most members of the Judiciary Committee voted to require parental consent for 18- to 21-year-olds to get credit cards. Such is our world, Mr. President. This willful error by The New York Times is one example of the deceptions and distortions perpetrated on Justice Owen's exemplary record. Of course, The New York Times again repeats the falsehood that Judge Alberto Gonzalez, now our White House Counsel, called Justice Owen an activist while he was serving on the same court, when in fact the truth is that a careful review of the full record of the particular case shows he was referring to another judge who wrote another dissenting opinion. He was not referring to Justice Owen. Yet we have heard time after time the same arguments used against Justice Owen. The New York Times was not alone in addressing Justice Owen's nomination. I am heartened to know that beyond the overwhelming support from her own home State of Texas and the scores of op-ed pieces written across the country in support of this nomination, Justice Owen's nomination to the Fifth Circuit has received editorial support from over 24 newspapers published across the Nation and across the political spectrum, including the Washington Post, the Wisconsin State Journal, the Wall Street Journal, Amarillo Globe-News, Richmond Times Dispatch, Akron Beacon Journal, The Florida Times-Union, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Tampa Tribune, The Detroit News, The Dallas Morning News, The Denver Post, The Daily Oklahoman and the Chicago Tribune, to mention a few. Only three newspapers, in fact, in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, have come out firmly against this nomination. I ask unanimous consent that a selection of these 24 editorials in support of Justice Owen be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I am heartened not just for the sake of Justice Owen, but because at her hearing I expressed alarm at the efforts by some to introduce ideology into the confirmation process. I am heartened that editorial and op-ed writers across the country reflect not only support for Justice Owen but also the near universal rejection of this misguided effort to make the independent Federal Judiciary a mere extension of the Congress, and less than the independent, coequal branch it was intended to be. It is important to place this vote against Justice Owen's nomination in context for the American people because I know there are those who seem to justify this wrong in childlike fashion with the intellectual crutch of ``they did it, too.'' Let me say that we Republicans have never done what was done today. I voted against only one Clinton nominee, as I recall, but I did it standing on the Senate floor where the American people could see me, where I could be counted, not sitting in the shadows of the Judiciary Committee room. Allow me to place this vote further in context, Mr. President. In this session so far, the Senate has confirmed 73 judges. There is much eagerness in asserting that this number now compares to the last three sessions of Congress during which I was Chairman. Although I am flattered to hear my record used as the benchmark for fairness, I am afraid this does not make for a correct comparison because I was never Chairman of the Judiciary Committee during any of the President's first 2 years in office. I am glad to say that the proper comparison is not, as they say, about me. During the first 2 years of President Clinton's first term, when Senator Biden was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the Senate confirmed 127 judicial nominees. Senator Biden achieved this record despite not receiving any nominee for the first 6 months. In fact, Senator Biden's first hearing was held on July 20 of that year, more than a week later than the first hearing this session, which occurred on July 11, 2001. Clearly, getting started in July of year one is no barrier to the confirmation of 127 judges by the end of year two, but we have confirmed only 73 nominees in this session. Senator Biden's track record during the first President Bush's first 2 years also demonstrates how a Democrat-led Senate treated a Republican President. Then-Chairman Biden presided over the confirmation of all but five of President Bush's 75 nominees in that first 2-year session. Chairman Thurmond's record is quite similar. The contrast to the present could hardly be more stark. We are about to close President Bush's first 2 years in office having failed the standards set by Chairmen Biden and Thurmond, and that is nothing over which to be proud. Some discredit Justice Owen's nomination by pointing to the few Clinton judges who did not get hearings when I was chairman, especially Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno from Texas. But that is not fair to me, and not truthful, and it has nothing to do with Justice Owen. Neither of those nominees had support of their home State Senators, and there were good reasons. This prevented me from scheduling a hearing for them and would have prevented any chairman, including Chairman Leahy presently, from holding hearings. In fact, these nominees lacked home senator in part because President Clinton ignored the Texas Senators and the Texas nominating commission in making their nominations. It was a legitimate complaint and one that my Democrat colleagues repeat now. Our process is when both State senators are against a judgeship nominee from their State, that judgeship nominee will not go anywhere. This practice is not one I put in place. It was put in place under the Democrat leadership of this Judiciary Committee. Today, Democrat Senators from the State of North Carolina, California, and Michigan have prevented the Judiciary Committee presently from holding hearings on six of President Bush's nominees. One final point on Rangel and Moreno and, for that matter, any of the Clinton judges confirmed or not: I am not a betting person, but if I were, I would bet that neither would trade places with Charles Pickering. As important as anything we do is the way the Committee has treated the so-called controversial nominees. Their records have not only been damaged and distorted, they have been turned completely upside down, 180 degrees from the truth. Charles Pickering came to this committee with a four-decades-old record of working in favor of civil rights. He testified against the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1960s, at a time when doing so put him, his wife, and his children smack in the crosshairs of a violent and unforgiving terrorist organization. That was an act of real bravery motivated by his belief in doing right. But what happened? The hearing room and the subsequent fundraising letters echoed with the word ``racist.'' Charles Pickering's record was completely turned upside down. Judge Brooks Smith's true history fared no better. Judge Smith had a reputation for going out his way to assist women in the legal profession. Judge Smith received the Susan B. Anthony Award because of ``his commitment to eradicating gender bias in the court system.'' But Judge Smith's opponents did not talk about that. In fact, they worked hard to create an impression exactly opposite by focusing not on his work as a judge but on his previous membership in a small men's fishing club. Never mind that Susan B. Anthony Award. I might add, Mr. President, that we are pleased that Judge Smith won the approval of the vast majority of the Senators when he was given a chance to be heard on the floor after long delay. I think it would be fair to give that same chance to Priscilla Owen, and I think she would fare just as well as Judge Brooks Smith. Today, we decided the fate of another so-called controversial nominee, and once again there is a 180-degree disconnect from the truth of Priscilla Owen's record and the yarn being woven around it. We heard today about the same handful of cases--a very few of Owen cases out of thousands. And, by the way, not only have Owen opponents selected only a few cases, ignoring many, they have distorted the cases they do cite. Today, we heard again the stale rhetoric that Justice Owen fails plaintiffs, from those who are more interested in being more just to plaintiffs--to make it more to the point, the plaintiff's trial lawyers who are their strong supporters. In fact, there are several leading cases that Justice Owen's detractors ignore in which she ruled for plaintiffs and against manufacturers and physicians. Think about it. Sometimes a company or employer may be right, under the law. Now, I know there are those on the other side of the aisle who think that just cannot be, as they are adamantly work on behalf of the plaintiff's trial lawyers. Sometimes businesses are right. Of course, much of the opposition of Justice Owen has been driven by interest groups that advocate for the right to abortion. And this is becoming tremendously dominant on the Democratic side because of these outside special interest groups that have immense power. Millions and millions of dollars are put into People for the American Way and other pro-abortion groups to advocate just this cause. It is terrifying to have these groups against you, but it is the right thing to stand up against them when they are wrong. In this case, they have been wrong. These groups have said they want judges on the bench who will read and apply and follow the Supreme Court cases in the area of the right of privacy, especially in the landmark cases of Griswold, Roe, and Casey. Yet here we have Justice Owen, the first nominee we have considered in this session who as a judge read those cases, cited them, quoted them, applied them, has followed them. Yet her record was so distorted as to make it seem she was against abortion when, to this day, I don't know where she stands on that particular issue. Justice Owen researched the case law of abortion and has faithfully incorporated Supreme Court rulings into her decisions on a related topic in an inferior court. This shows the application of precedence that should satisfy anyone interested in upholding the Supreme Court's abortion decisions or any other decision. It was the right thing for her to do because she was bound by the law of the land. Frankly, as much as some pro-life people may not like that, she upheld the law, which is what she should have done. Yet here she was defeated this morning, primarily on that single issue, when it really was not an issue. But it was distorted, and it was manipulated, and it was used against her in, frankly, a very despicable way. Of course, Justice Owen's critics are not praising her for following the Supreme Court law. They are attempting to portray her as a judicial activist. The truth is, she is a judicious judge who never digresses from the rules of precedence and legal construction. She always grounds her decisions in binding authority or judicial rules of decision. Of course, the charge that she is a judicial activist is a cynical trick of words from Washington special interest lobbyists, liberal special interest lobbyists, as well as their well-funded allies in Texas who have made their careers taking positions without letting the words of the Constitution stand between them and their political objectives. The people of Texas, almost 84 percent of them, voted for Priscilla Owen to be reelected to the State supreme court. So she has the vast majority of the people of Texas who know what a high quality person she is. Yet these people today, the people on the committee, ignored all of that. Why are they doing so? Ironically enough, they are doing so because they do not like the Texas statute requiring parental notice in cases of abortions for children. Justice Owen voted to give the statute some meaning. It was a poorly drafted statute where they tried to please everybody, and that is always a bad statute. As she explains in brilliant fashion in her written responses to the questions of Senators, Justice Owen sought to find that meaning in Supreme Court cases that informed the Texas legislators in adopting the notice law. This is what any good lawyer would try to do or would know to do, let alone a good judge. She sought to give the lower courts in her State that were reaching diverse results, county to county, Supreme Court guidance. Even Planned Parenthood's lawyer understood this. She said in a 2000 interview: A lot of what the Supreme Court is doing is giving guidelines to the lower courts on how to interpret the parental notification law. Justice Owen's opponents think a minor should always be able to avoid the Texas legislators' standards. It is the groups allied against Justice Owen who are the judicial activists here, the ones who are looking to achieve in the courts an outcome that is at odds with the law passed by the duly elected legislators of the State of Texas. The Texas legislature did not pass a judicial bypass law with some exceptions. They passed a parental notice law, and they stated that they intended the court-granted exceptions to be rare. And, in fact, in practice they are rare. This is what Justice Owen's opponents cannot stomach. So here they are in our midst. But why? The truth is that while my colleagues' vote are entirely about an abortion litmus test, I fear the opposition to Justice Owen from the abortion lobby is not at all about abortion rights, because abortion rights are affected by a mere notice statute. The opposition to Justice Owen is not really about abortion rights, it is about abortion profits. Simply put, the abortion industry is opposed to parental notice laws because parental notice laws place a hurdle between them and the profits from the abortion clients--not the girls who come to them but the adult men who pay for these abortions. These adult men, whose average age rises the younger the girl is, are eager not to be disclosed to parents, sometimes living down the street. At $1,000 per abortion and nearly 1 million abortions per year, the abortion industry is as big as any corporate interest that lobbies in Washington. They not only ignore the rights of parents, they also protect sexual offenders and statutory rapists. And who are the lobbyists for the abortion industry? They are exactly the same cast that launched an attack on Justice Owen. One wonders, as columnist Jeff Jacoby did in the Boston Globe: Who are the extremists on this issue? Who is out of the mainstream? It is certainly not Justice Owen. Eighty-two percent of the American people favor consent and notice laws such as Justice Owen interpreted. In fact, 86 percent in the State of Illinois favor these laws. I will say it again. While my colleagues are applying an abortion litmus test, the assault against Justice Owen from the outside groups was not about abortion rights, it was about abortion profits. It is not about a woman's right to an abortion. It is about assailing parental laws that threaten the men who pay for abortions. It is whether parents should at least know--not even consent to, but just know when a minor child is having an abortion paid for by an adult. But there is another interest at play here. Justice Owen was also opposed by the trial lawyers--I should say the plaintiff's trial lawyers. It is they who keep score over judges and how they rule on consumer, environmental, and personal injury cases, all of the areas of the law from which they most profit. And it is the trial lawyers, who most fund the special interest groups, who oppose all of President Bush's nominees. I have to say, I know a number of these great plaintiff's lawyers, and a number of them are very upstanding people. But unfortunately, the vast majority are more interested in making sure they can continue to get big verdicts than they are in doing what is just. I do not want to malign those who are decent, honorable plaintiff's lawyers. I was one of those myself, as well as a defense lawyer. But I could not stomach this type of attitude towards the law that some of them are pushing. In almost infantile fashion, they would portray Justice Owen as pro- this or anti-that. Professor Victor Schwartz, a leading authority on torts in this country, addresses this in a letter he sent the Judiciary Committee. After reviewing Justice Owen's record, this tort law expert concludes that Justice Owen cannot be described as pro-defendant or pro-plaintiff. The truth is that Justice Owen functions as any judge should, as an unbiased umpire. As an umpire, Justice Owen calls the balls and the strikes as they are, not as she alone sees them and not as she wants them to be. It is silly to suggest she is pro-bat or pro-ball, pro-pitcher, or pro-batter. Of course, trial lawyers and those who shill for them have an interest in Justice Owen's score. As she said in her hearing, she is blind to rich or poor without turning a blind eye to equity. Any Senator who met her or who attended her hearing or who read the letters from those who know her would not question her compassion and fairness. I hoped that no Senator would cast a vote who did not meet her or who did not attend the hearing. But unfortunately I know some did. Let's speak truth to power. Justice Owen was picked to be opposed because she is a friend of President Bush from Texas. She was opposed by an axis of profits. This axis of profits combines the money of trial lawyers and the abortion industry to fund these Washington special interest groups and spreads its influence to the halls of power in Washington and in State courts across this country. As an aside, some estimate that one of these lobbying groups rakes in somewhere between $12 million and $15 million a year from the Hollywood crowd and others, especially the trial lawyers in this country. There is nothing on our side that even comes close to that to be able to correct the record. The opposition against Justice Owen is intended not only to have a chilling effect on women jurists that will keep them from weighing in on exactly the sorts of cases that most invite their participation in their perspectives as women, but also on all judges in all State courts who rule on cases that trial lawyers want to win and cash in on. Today's vote besmirched a model young woman from Texas who grew up, worked hard, and did all the right things, including repeatedly answering the call of public service at a sacrifice of personal wealth and family. I might add, she was one of the top lawyers in the country. She worked for one of the top law firms in the country. She was doing very well financially many times over what she makes as a Texas Supreme Court justice. She was a single mother who was raising her child. She goes to a church. She is in the choir in her church and helps to lead the choir. She is a decent, honorable person, and she is about as nonpolitical as anybody I have ever seen come before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Yet she has been treated very poorly indeed. Today my Democrat colleagues voted against the American promise--the promise that anyone who works hard can serve the public trust. Such a vote, in my opinion, should not have taken place anywhere but in the light of the Senate floor, where 100 Senators would have the right to determine whether this fine woman should or should not sit on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have to say it should have taken place in the light of the Senate floor and not in the shadows of the Judiciary Committee. I fear, as a result of the Owen vote, a sword of Damocles has fallen on the Senate in its role of advice and consent. I hope the American people will repair the damage done to the Constitution when they vote in November. Let me just say that when I ran for President, and I was one of those who was in the race with President Bush--whom I grew to love and respect as I was running with him or against at the time. I thought he was terrific throughout the process. I raised the issue of the importance of keeping the Federal judiciary independent, how important it is that we get the best people for these judgeship positions. I have been on this Senate Judiciary Committee for 26 years, and I have to tell you I have not seen a better nominee come before the Judiciary Committee than Priscilla Owen. Of all the sitting judges that President Bush has nominated she is the clearly the best. Not only is she an honorable person, but she handled herself very well at her hearing. She took a litany of bad comments from some Democrats with aplomb. She was very judicious in her approach. I have to tell you, she is one of the best people I have met in my whole time in the Senate. Yet she was treated in a shabby fashion--I think just to hurt the President, in some ways. But, even more important than that, it was to satisfy these despicable--in this case, outside special interest groups that are extreme and far to the left of the American people. They want only people who agree with them on the courts, and do not abide with anybody who doesn't agree with them, and they have immense wealth behind them to be able to distort the wonderful record of a person such as Priscilla Owen. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement of Senator Zell Miller, a Dear Colleague letter by myself concerning the New York Times editorial that I mentioned, and my published letter to the New York Times published today.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is really starting to get to me that because of special interest control of this body, abortion is becoming a single litmus test issue on the part of a number of Senators in this body--not all, thank goodness, on either side, but a number of Senators. It is an important issue. There are very sincere people on the pro-choice side. There are very sincere people on the pro-life side. Both sides deserve consideration and respect. When we get to where one single issue will determine whether a person can serve in a position in this country, such as a Federal judgeship, we know this country is in trouble; that is, whether it comes on this side or it comes on that side. I can remember when Reagan was the President and we had control of the committees. There was a constant berating of us because they thought we might have abortion as a single litmus test issue. The fact of the matter is, we didn't. I know the question was never even asked because I know who did the betting. He happened to be a former staff member of mine. He never asked that question. They might have thought they had somebody who was pro-life, but they never asked that question. That was not even a consideration in the questions. They found out that a number of their people whom they nominated and who were confirmed were pro-choice. During the Clinton years when I was chairman of the committee, I would not allow that single litmus test to be used on our side because I don't believe any single litmus test should be used in any way with regard to the Federal judiciary. The fact that I might disagree with a nominee on an issue that is important to me is somewhat irrelevant unless there are other really justifiable reasons for voting against the person. I am finding that basically justifiable reasons depend an awful lot on how much force is brought to bear by outside interest groups who are basically supportive of the pro-abortion side. I have had folks on other side say it is a litmus test. Thank goodness, not many. But that is why they wanted to keep Priscilla Owen from coming to the Senate floor--because Priscilla Owen would have passed on the Senate floor, would serve very well on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, I think would please both sides of this body because of the very decent person she really is, because of the great legal scholar she is, and because of the honest and upright person she is. We have lost that opportunity for this year. But I can tell the American people that if they will support President Bush, and if we can get control of the Senate, Priscilla Owen will make it through because she will at least have a vote. I believe she will make it through. In that regard, I am very appreciative of the endorsement of the Senator from Georgia, Senator Zell Miller, of her right to have a vote on the floor and his statement that he would vote for her--a Democrat Senator. I think he recognizes that this body is becoming very polarized. It is becoming a body that may not be a great body anymore, if we keep going this way, because we are polarizing ourselves to where single litmus test issues can determine whether or not we vote and do what is right. Frankly, we ought to be doing what is right regardless of any single litmus test issue. I know there are some on both sides who believed otherwise. But I think they are a distinct minority. But on the Judiciary Committee on this issue of abortion, I have to admit that it is coming down to the point where it is a prime issue. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say they voted for people who are pro-life. That is true, because you can only do this so many times to a President's nominee. You can't get away with it very often. I hope they don't get away with it with regard to Justice Priscilla Owen. She deserves a vote on the floor. I have to say I am reaching a point in my tenure here where I am so sick and tired of the politics of this body on judicial nominations. I am so sick and tired of the way people are treated here. That is on both sides from time to time. I really believe, barring just cause, that every President's nominee for the Federal judiciary--at least for the Circuit Courts--ought to be given a vote on the Senate floor regardless of what the Senate Judiciary Committee does. If the committee votes a person down, that should be given tremendous weight; no question about it--in this case as well. But the fact of matter is that at least the Constitution says we should have a right to consent. And it doesn't mean 10 Senators, it means 100 Senators. I believe that would be only the fair way to do it. I really believe it ought to be done whether a President is Republican or Democrat. I wish I had made that suggestion. I did allude to it on more than one occasion on the floor during the last 6 years of President Clinton's tenure. I have heard nothing but badmouthing about what Republicans did to President Clinton's nominees, even though half of the Federal judiciary today are Clinton judges and President Clinton himself told me that I treated him fairly. Let me tell you, there is no reason for that. President Reagan got 382 Federal judges through and confirmed. That is the most in history. He had 6 years of a Republican Senate--his own party--to help him to do that. President Clinton got 377 through-- virtually the same number--and he had 6 years of a Republican Senate, an opposition party Senate which helped him to do that. I know. I was chairman during those 6 years. He was treated very fairly. There are always those who do not make it, I have to admit. There is always a complaint about that. But that is true whether it is Republican control of the committee or Democrat control of the committee. I would stack up our record on getting Clinton judges through against any record of the Democrats with regard to Reagan or Bush nominees. Frankly, we are talking about circuit court nominees here who have been sitting on the nominations list now for over a year and half, some of the finest nominees in history--just to mention a few, John Roberts is being considered as a Supreme Court Justice--whether they are Democrats or Republicans. He is one of the two or three top appellate lawyers in the country who I don't think has an ideological bent. How about Miguel Estrada, the first Hispanic to ever be put on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia? I don't believe he would be anything but one of the finest judges in the country; Michael McConnell, who is considered one of the two or three greatest constitutional experts in the country--a law professor. You could go right on down the line. Deborah Cook; Jeffrey Sutton. They have all been sitting there for a year and a half because the Senate Judiciary Committee will not act on them. I have a commitment from Senator Leahy, and I am going to rely on that commitment, that he would get McConnell and Estrada through not only the committee but through the floor before the end of this session. We are running out of time. If he did that, certainly I would be very pleased. I take him at his word that he will try to do that. Those are two of the finest people we could possibly have as judges in this country. I am hopeful that we will have that done before the end of this year. It is the right thing to do. I hope we can get John Roberts, Sutton, Cook, and others who have been sitting there for a year and half who I think have been very badly treated. There is no reason not, other than they know how brave all these people are. I suspect they think they can ascertain how they are going to rule on the bench once they get there. Frankly, nobody knows how that is going to work once the person gets a lifetime appointment. Let me just say again that one-half the Federal judiciary are Clinton judges. There is little or no reason for any complaint on the other side, even though, yes, there were some who didn't make it at the end, just as there are always 50 or more who didn't make it who were Republican nominees at the end of the first Bush administration. By the way, John Roberts was nominated by the first President Bush. He is still sitting there. He is one of the two best appellate lawyers in the country just sitting there for a year and a half. I might add that others, as well, have been nominated twice now and are just still sitting there after more than 10 years. So it is time to get this out of the realm of politics and start doing what is right; and that is, the President has a right to nominate, which is the greater power. We have a right to confirm or not confirm, but that ought to be done on the Senate floor, not by 10 people who basically are, in my opinion, by and large, doing the bidding of these outside groups who have tremendous sway because of their money. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Bob Smith, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002. This amendment sends a strong message to would-be terrorists and acts as a significant deterrent against the hijacking of America's planes. As a last line of defense in potential terrorist attacks, I believe that pilots who want to should have the ability to carry firearms in order to defend the cockpit. This is a policy that makes sense. An overwhelming majority of the American public supports arming pilots. Counterterrorism experts believe that firearms are the best deterrent when it comes to cockpit security. I have heard from large numbers of pilots and constituents from my home state of Utah who advocate for the ability of pilots to carry guns to protect the cockpit. It is my hope that this amendment will help ensure that all who travel on airlines feel safe, including pilots, flight attendants, and most importantly, the public. While I support the right of pilots to carry weapons on-board aircraft, at the same time, it is important for them to receive the proper training to be able to discharge a firearm in the cockpit safely and effectively. I also support the language in this amendment that exempts the airlines and pilots from liability as they attempt to defend our airplanes. This is an industry that has been struggling, even before the tragic events of September 11th. We must not further burden these companies with what could eventually be frivolous lawsuits that would endanger the domestic airline industries very existence. I am encouraged to see that this important issue is addressed in Senator Smith's amendment. I must add that, while there are many worthy aspects to this amendment, portions of it give me pause. The foremost issue is who bears the burden of its cost. At a time when Congress has critically- important decisions to make as we face our responsibility to improve our national aviation and homeland security procedures, we must balance those responsibilities with our commitment that many of us made to our constituents to spend within our means and avoid increased deficit spending. This amendment could have serious unintended consequences. As part of our nation's aviation and homeland security policy, the Federal Government is already paying for Federal air marshals, the federalization of the baggage screening process, and reinforced cockpit doors. These are important safety measures that I strongly support. The Transportation Security Administration estimates this amendment will initially cost approximately $884 million, of which the majority, $865 million, will go to pay for training, requalification, equipment, background checks, program management, and direct course costs for 85,000 pilots over a period of two years. And at least $264 million of the $885 million will be recurring costs. Furthermore, an additional $16.5 million will need to be allocated for the purchase and installation of gun storage boxes on airplanes. That being said, I don't think that the airline industry can afford to pay these training costs either. Serious questions must be raised about having the Federal Government shouldering the costs of training. The amendment not only allows for pilots to be trained, but flight attendants as well. I strongly support the ability of these individuals to carry weapons onboard planes after they have received proper training, I am concerned about the Federal Government picking up the tab. While I have reservations over a few of the provisions of this bill, on the other hand, it can readily be argued that no legislation allowing pilots to be armed if they wish might compromise the safety of our skies. This is not a perfect piece of legislation, but on balance, I think it is a needed one. I will vote for this amendment in order to take an additional step to help ensure the safety of our airlines and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA) in introducing the ``National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2002'' which will extend the AMBER Alert (America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) system across our Nation. The recent wave of child abductions across our Nation, including the kidnaping of Elizabeth Smart in my own home state of Utah, has highlighted the need for legislation to enhance our ability to protect our Nation's children against predators of all types. When a child is abducted, time is of the essence. All too often it is only a matter of hours before a kidnaper commits an act of violence against the child. Alert systems, such as the AMBER Alert system, galvanize entire communities to assist law enforcement in the timely search for and safe return of child victims. The AMBER Alert system was developed in 1996 in Texas after 9-year- old Amber Hagerman was kidnaped. To date, the system has been credited with the recovery of 27 missing children. Nonetheless, only 16 States have adopted statewide AMBER Alert systems. Just this year, my home State of Utah adopted a statewide alert program aimed at preventing child abduction called ``Rachel Alert.'' The program was named after young Rachel Runyan who was abducted and later found murdered. We recently witnessed the success of the AMBER Alert system in California. There the AMBER system was used to broadcast the disappearance of Nichole Timmons who was safely recovered in the neighboring state of Nevada after she was recognized. In another recent California case, the AMBER Alert system was used when Tamera Brooks and Jaqueline Marris were kidnapped. Just hours after their abduction, and minutes before their possible murder, the two young women were found. The legislation we introduce today will enhance our ability to recover abducted children by establishing a Coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist States in developing and coordinating alert plans nationwide. The Act also provides for a matching grant program through the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation for highway signs, education and training programs, and the equipment necessary to facilitate AMBER Alert systems. I support the National AMBER Alert Network Act and other legislative proposals that will improve our ability on a national level to combat crimes against children. For that reason, I will introduce in the coming days comprehensive legislation that will enhance existing laws, investigative tools, criminal penalties and child crime resources in a variety of ways. I believe Congress must do all it can to ensure that we devote the same intensity of purpose to crimes committed against children, as we do to other serious criminal offenses, such as those involving terrorism. We have no greater resource than our children. I invite the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other entities and professionals who are charged with protecting our children to work with me to improve our Federal laws and to assist States in doing the same. I commend Senator Hutchison for her tireless efforts on behalf of children and families and urge my colleagues to work with us to enact this critical legislation which will increase the chances that future victims of child predators will be found swiftly and returned home safely.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to make some brief remarks about the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen of Texas who has been scheduled for a vote in the Judiciary Committee as early as this Thursday. I cannot say strongly enough how important this vote is for the future of the Judiciary and this Senate. With the attempt by some to introduce ideology and base politics into the confirmations process, today a sword of Damocles hangs over the future of nominations and our constitutional role and no vote will hint the future more than this upcoming vote on Justice Owen. Justice Owen has been attacked with orchestrated deceptions, distortions and demagoguery, yet she has the American Bar Association's unanimous rating of well qualified.'' In preparing for Justice Owen's vote, I again commend to my colleagues the words of Senator Biden when he said some years ago that: [Judicial confirmation] is not about pro-life or pro- choice, conservative or liberal, it is not about Democrat or Republican. It is about intellectual and professional competence to serve as a member of the third co-equal branch of the Government. Allow me to make just some brief remarks on the allegations made against Justice Owen which she clarified both in the hearing and in answers to written questions since then. First, and most outrageously, it was said that she delayed in issuing an opinion in a car accident case involving a boy who subsequently died and that he died while waiting for her decision. And that she raised an issue, court venue, not previously raised by the lawyers. The truth is that Justice Owen wrote an opinion for the majority in that case just 5 days after the majority reached a decision. The boy died 3 years later. And venue is automatically at issue when the petition is for a new trial and it was both briefed and argued by the lawyers, as was the case. That's the truth. There is no use in holding hearings and asking written questions if we ignore the answers. Second, she has been accused of being a `` judicial activist'' who pursues an outcome-based result. The truth is that she is a judicious judge who never digresses from the rules of precedent and legal construction. She always grounds her decision in binding authority or judicial rules of decision. The charge that she is a judicial activist is a cynical trick of words from Washington lobbyists who have made their careers defending court decisions of real judicial activists who never let the words of the Constitution stand between them and their social engineering. Another falsehood is that she is anti-abortion and is out to defeat abortion rights. The truth is that Owen has never stated her personal views and has ruled in one case for Planned Parenthood and against Operation Rescue pro-life protestors. In the parental involvement cases, Owen repeatedly applied Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court cases and used them to interpret the legislature's choice of words in the statute. It is said that in her parental notice cases, Owen sought to limit abortion rights. The truth is that no abortion right is affected by giving mere notice to parents. And over 600 bypasses of notice have been granted by the courts under the standards Owen and her court established. The Texas Supreme Court merely debated the guidelines for lower courts to apply on a brand new law. The Court sought to effect the legislature's intent: to protect parental involvement rights, the right of parents to guide their children and protect them from harm was at stake, not abortion. Justice Owen has been called an ideologue who is out of the mainstream. The truth is that Owen was twice elected in Texas, the last time with 83 percent of the vote. She is a quiet, modest person, who leads her Church choir, and had to be convinced to leave a lucrative law practice to become a judge. She was unanimously rated well-qualified, the highest rating of the ABA, despite the ABA's pro-abortion stance. It was noted that Justice Owen dissents too often and rules in favor of corporations and big money. The truth is that she has dissented fewer than 10 percent of the time, that's half the average for any current U.S. Supreme Court justice. She is an umpire who calls the balls and the strikes as they are. It is silly to suggest that she is pro-bat or pro-ball, pro-batter or pro-pitcher. Let's speak truth to power. The main reason Justice Owen is being opposed, is not that personal views are being falsely ascribed to her, they are, but rather because she is a woman in public life who is believed to have personal views that some maintain are unacceptable for a woman in public life to have. Such penalization is a matter of the greatest concern to me because it represents a new glass ceiling for women jurists just as they approach the tables of our high courts after long-struggling careers. Such treatment will have a chilling effect on women jurists that will keep them from weighing in on exactly the sorts of cases that most invite their participation and their perspectives as women. On abortion, the truth is that, rather than being an activist foe of Roe, Justice Owen repeatedly cites and follows Roe and its progeny as authority. Moreover, her opponents portray her as a pro-life activist, when all she has ever done is rule on a parental involvement law, popular with over 80 percent of the American people. The bottom line is that they are blinded to anyone who will not abide by abortion on demand even for little girls, without parents ever knowing. I hope my colleagues will treat Justice Owen fairly when the vote comes. As they say back home in Utah, I hope they will choose the right. But I warn them, the American people will hear of the result, and I warn them also, a sword of Damocles will hang over the Senate and the future of the Judiciary Committee when that vote comes.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA) in introducing the ``National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2002'' which will extend the AMBER Alert (America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) system across our Nation. The recent wave of child abductions across our Nation, including the kidnaping of Elizabeth Smart in my own home state of Utah, has highlighted the need for legislation to enhance our ability to protect our Nation's children against predators of all types. When a child is abducted, time is of the essence. All too often it is only a matter of hours before a kidnaper commits an act of violence against the child. Alert systems, such as the AMBER Alert system, galvanize entire communities to assist law enforcement in the timely search for and safe return of child victims. The AMBER Alert system was developed in 1996 in Texas after 9-year- old Amber Hagerman was kidnaped. To date, the system has been credited with the recovery of 27 missing children. Nonetheless, only 16 States have adopted statewide AMBER Alert systems. Just this year, my home State of Utah adopted a statewide alert program aimed at preventing child abduction called ``Rachel Alert.'' The program was named after young Rachel Runyan who was abducted and later found murdered. We recently witnessed the success of the AMBER Alert system in California. There the AMBER system was used to broadcast the disappearance of Nichole Timmons who was safely recovered in the neighboring state of Nevada after she was recognized. In another recent California case, the AMBER Alert system was used when Tamera Brooks and Jaqueline Marris were kidnapped. Just hours after their abduction, and minutes before their possible murder, the two young women were found. The legislation we introduce today will enhance our ability to recover abducted children by establishing a Coordinator within the Department of Justice to assist States in developing and coordinating alert plans nationwide. The Act also provides for a matching grant program through the Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation for highway signs, education and training programs, and the equipment necessary to facilitate AMBER Alert systems. I support the National AMBER Alert Network Act and other legislative proposals that will improve our ability on a national level to combat crimes against children. For that reason, I will introduce in the coming days comprehensive legislation that will enhance existing laws, investigative tools, criminal penalties and child crime resources in a variety of ways. I believe Congress must do all it can to ensure that we devote the same intensity of purpose to crimes committed against children, as we do to other serious criminal offenses, such as those involving terrorism. We have no greater resource than our children. I invite the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other entities and professionals who are charged with protecting our children to work with me to improve our Federal laws and to assist States in doing the same. I commend Senator Hutchison for her tireless efforts on behalf of children and families and urge my colleagues to work with us to enact this critical legislation which will increase the chances that future victims of child predators will be found swiftly and returned home safely.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Terrence McVerry, who has been nominated to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Terrence McVerry has the breadth of experience and accomplishment we look for in a Federal judge. After graduating from law school, Mr. McVerry served in the U.S. Army Reserves and the Pennsylvania Air National Guard. He then went to work as an assistant district attorney for Allegheny County, prosecuting hundreds of trials with an emphasis in major felonies and homicides. Mr. McVerry also has 17 years of civil litigation experience representing individuals in a variety of matters including personal injury, real estate, contracts, family matters, estate planning, and small businesses and corporations. Mr. McVerry has been an able legislator, winning election to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 1979 and serving there for 21 years. In 1998 Governor Tom Ridge appointed him to fill a judicial vacancy on the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the Family Division. Currently Mr. McVerry is the solicitor of Allegheny County, acting as the chief legal officer and director of a governmental law department comprised of 36 attorneys. I thank my colleagues for joining me in my unqualified support for Mr. McVerry.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Richard Everett Dorr to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. He is a man who has dedicated large portions of his career to public service, one of the qualities I most admire in a nominee to the bench. Mr. Dorr attended the University of Illinois at Champaign on a football scholarship. He graduated with a B.S. in Marketing in 1965. In 1968, he graduated with a J.D. from the University of Missouri at Columbia. During the next five years as a Judge Advocate, the nominee regularly appeared as either a prosecutor or defense counsel in criminal cases before Courts-Martial and Administrative Boards. During this period, Mr. Dorr also served as a legal advisor to Administrative Boards and as a Military Judge. He was also appointed to the Human Relations Council, an Air Force program designed to educate service members on appropriate behavior regarding racial diversity. Upon returning to private life, Mr. Dorr was an associate at the firm of Mann, Walter, Burkart, Weathers & Walter for 5 years. In this position he practiced general civil law, including real estate, business, domestic relations and general litigation cases. In 1978, he started his own firm, Harrison, Tucker and Dorr and continued his general civil practice. In 1996, Mr. Dorr became the Managing Partner of the Springfield office of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, a major law firm based out of Kansas City, Missouri. In this new position, he has concentrated on business and commercial litigation. Mr. Dorr was very active in the establishment of the Southwest Missouri Legal Aid Corporation. He served on its first Board of Directors from 1976 to 1982 and was the Corporation's President from 1978 to 1982. This organization provides legal aid to the poor who normally could not afford for their cases to be heard in a court of law. Unfortunately, this is Mr. Dorr's second nomination to the federal court. He was nominated by the first President Bush, but he did not receive a hearing. Throughout his life Mr. Dorr has given back to his community, first in the Air Force, where he championed the cause of human rights, and then by forming an organization that helped those who could not afford access to the courts. Clearly, Mr. Dorr has the character and temperament to be a fair and balanced federal court judge. I urge my colleagues to confirm this most deserving attorney. nomination of david godbey

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, Senators Rockefeller, Chafee, Kennedy, and I are introducing legislation to make certain that States have adequate funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, otherwise known as CHIP. I cosponsor this legislation to reflect my concern that, unless the Congress addresses this issue, thousands of children may risk losing their health insurance coverage. CHIP has proven to be an enormously popular program, which has provided much needed health insurance to literally millions of low-income children. It helps the poorest of the poor families who are not Medicaid-eligible. We cannot afford to stand back now and watch those efforts be undermined because of funding problems that Congress should correct. That is the intent, as I understand it, of the Rockefeller-Chafee bill. As most of my colleagues are aware, when CHIP was established in 1997, Congress committed $20 billion over five years and a total of $40 billion over 10 years for the program. For each fiscal year 1999 through 2001, Congress allocated $4.3 billion; yet for the fiscal years 2002 through 2004, Congress allocated $3 billion per year for CHIP programs. This so-called ``CHIP'' dip may reduce funding levels in States that are just beginning to ramp up their programs. I am concerned that while States will have some unspent CHIP moneys available to them, that those funds still might not be enough to address the ``CHIP dip'' and the expanding CHIP population. We need to deal with this issue and we need to deal with the nearly $3 billion in federal CHIP moneys scheduled to revert back to the Treasury in fiscal year 2002 and 2003. My cosponsorship of this legislation reflects my commitment to address these issues, although I recognize that there are a number of issues associated with this legislation that will need to be worked out. I accept the assurances of my fellow cosponsors that they will work with me to address those issues as the bill moves forward in the Finance Committee. Let me also add that I am aware that many of my colleagues have additional policy issues regarding the CHIP program that they feel should be addressed. Know I do. I am particularly concerned by recent legislation, approved by the Finance Committee, which would extend coverage under the CHIP program to pregnant women. Now, I wholeheartedly support providing expectant mothers health care assistance. But, I believe that before we extend coverage under CHIP to any adult, States need to demonstrate that they are covering, to the greatest extend possible, all eligible children. The CHIP program is one of my proudest accomplishments. I want to continue to maintain the integrity of this program. The only purpose of CHIP was to extend access to health insurance to poor kids. As one of the prime authors of the legislation, I can assure my colleagues that it was not our intent that the program be expanded to address the entire problem of health care for the uninsured a piece at a time. Covering the uninsured is a worthy goal and one which we need to address, but that was not the purpose of CHIP. We were dealing with a special problem: the up to 10 million children who did not have access to health insurance. We ought not lose sight of this. I am confident we can come to an agreement on measures to ensure that needy children receive the health care they deserve and thus I am pleased to join with my colleagues today.