Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with my good friend and colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln, I rise to introduce the Elder Justice Act of 2005. We are joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith, the chairman of the Aging Committee, and Senator Herb Kohl, the ranking minority member of that committee. As my colleagues may recall, Senator John Breaux and I introduced similar legislation in both the 107th and 108th Congresses, with the strong support of Senators Lincoln, Smith and Kohl. The bill was reported by the Finance Committee last year, but unfortunately it was not approved before we adjourned. Although the number of older Americans is growing at a rapid pace, thousands of cases of elder abuse go unaddressed every day. The problem of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation has long been invisible and is probably one of the most serious issues facing seniors and their families. Research in the field is scarce, but, by some estimates, up to five million cases of elder abuse, neglect and exploitation occur each year. Without more attention and more resources, far too many of these cases of abuse, neglect and exploitation will go unaddressed and far too many older Americans will suffer. Few pressing social issues have been as systematically ignored as elder abuse. In fact, 25 years of congressional hearings on the devastating effects of elder abuse have found this problem to be a ``disgrace'' and a ``burgeoning national scandal.'' Yet, to date, no federal legislation has been enacted to address elder abuse in a comprehensive manner. During that same time period, Congress passed comprehensive bills to address child abuse and crimes against women, yet there is not one full-time Federal employee working on elder abuse in the entire Federal Government. The cost of elder abuse is high. This is true in terms of needless human suffering, inflated health care costs, limited Federal resources and the loss of one of our greatest national assets--the wisdom and experience of older citizens. S. 2010 is designed to create a national focus on elder abuse to increase detection, prevention, prosecution and victim assistance. It ensures that states, communities, consumers and families will have access to the information and resources they need to confront this difficult issue. By addressing law enforcement, social service and public health concerns, our bill uses the proven approach Congress has adopted to combat child abuse and violence against women. I would like to take this opportunity to describe our legislation in more detail. The Elder Justice Act establishes dual Offices of Elder Justice at the Departments of Justice, DOJ, and Health and Human Services, HHS, to coordinate Federal, State and local efforts to combat elder abuse in residential and institutional settings. In addition, an Elder Justice Coordinating Council will be established to make recommendations to the HHS Secretary and the Attorney General on coordinating activities of Federal agencies related to elder abuse. This Council is specifically mandated to advise us on legislation, model laws and other appropriate action on addressing elder abuse. The bill creates an Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation to establish a short-term and long-term multi-disciplinary strategic plan for expanding the field of elder justice. The board would make recommendations to HHS, DOJ, and the Elder Justice Coordinating Council and submit to HHS, DOJ, and Congress information and recommendations on elder justice programs, activities and legislation. The Elder Justice Act also directs the HHS Secretary to establish an Elder Resource Center to develop ways to collect, maintain and disseminate information relevant to consumers, families and providers in order to protect individuals from elder abuse and neglect. It is our hope that this Center will improve the quality, quantity and accessibility of information available on elder abuse. In addition, the bill establishes a National Elder Justice Library within the Center to serve as a centralized repository for materials on training, technical assistance and promising practices related to elder justice. S. 2010 also improves, streamlines and promotes uniform collection and dissemination of national data related to elder abuse, neglect and exploitation. Today, data on elder abuse are very limited. The Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, is directed to develop a method for collecting national data regarding elder abuse and then create uniform national data reporting forms to help determine what a reportable event on elder abuse is. The legislation includes several grants to combat elder abuse including grants to improve data collection activities on elder abuse prevention and prosecution of elder abuse cases. These grants would establish five Centers of Excellence nationwide to specialize in research, clinical practice and training related to elder abuse. In addition, the HHS Secretary will award safe haven grants to six diverse communities to examine elder shelters to test various models for establishing safe havens. Elder victims' needs, which are rarely addressed, will be better met by supporting the creation of safe havens for seniors who are not safe where they live. Development of safe haven programs which focus on the special needs of at-risk elders and older victims are needed and necessary. The legislation directs the HHS Secretary to award training grants to groups with responsibility for elder justice, eligible entities to provide care for those with dementia and certain entities to make recommendations on caring for underserved populations of seniors living in rural areas, minority populations, and Indian tribes. Training to combat elder abuse, neglect and exploitation will be supported both within individual disciplines and in multi-disciplines such as public health, social service and law enforcement settings. In addition, our bill directs the Secretary to award fellowships to individuals so they may obtain training in both forensic pathology and geriatrics. An individual receiving such a fellowship shall provide training in forensic geriatrics to interdisciplinary teams of health care professionals. Grants also would be awarded to create programs to increase the number of health care professionals with geriatric training. Finally, the Elder Justice Act directs the HHS Secretary to award grants to conduct a national multimedia campaign to raise awareness on elder abuse. Our legislation also requires a number of studies on elder abuse including one on the responsibilities of federal, state and local governments in response to reports of elder abuse. This study would be to improve response time to elder abuse and reduce elder victimization. In addition, the CDC Director is directed to conduct a study on the best method to address elder abuse from a public health perspective, including reducing elder abuse, neglect and exploitation committed by family members. Current statistics indicate that only 20 percent of elder abuse occurs in long-term care facilities and institutions--80 percent of elder abuse is committed in the home. The bill also establishes new programs to assist victims and provides grants for education and training of law enforcement and prosecutors. It requires reporting of crimes in long-term care settings, creates a national criminal background check program for those employed by long- term care providers--something strongly advocated by Senator Kohl--and establishes a national nurse aide registry program based on recommendations by HHS. Senior citizens cannot wait any longer for this legislation to pass. More and more of us will enjoy longer life in relative health, but with this gift comes the responsibility to prevent the needless suffering too often borne by our frailest seniors. In closing, I must note that our legislation has been endorsed by the Elder Justice Coalition, a national membership organization dedicated to eliminating elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation in America. This coalition, which has been a strong advocate and supporter of the Elder Justice Act, has 397 members. This Congress, one of my top priorities is to get this bill signed into law, once and for all, so that elder justice will become a reality for those Americans who need it most. Our seniors deserve no less.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the vote on amendment No. 2423, Senator Allard's amendment, during consideration of the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Authorization bill. As my constituents know, with my wife Elaine, I was hosting the 21st Annual Utah Women's Conference. Mr. President, this is an important event, in which the women of the State of Utah can directly inform our State's leaders about the issues that affect them and their families. Had I been present to vote on Senator Allard's amendment, I would have voted against the proposal. amendment no. 1514

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this past March, I stood here to express my reluctant support for the fiscal year 2006 concurrent budget resolution. My support was reluctant for one reason only. I believed the budget did not go far enough in slowing the growth of Federal spending. My colleagues will remember that passing that budget resolution was not an easy thing. Both the original Senate version and the conference report passed by very narrow margins. Not one Democrat voted in favor of the budget resolution, so it was left up to those of us on this side of the aisle to pass that resolution. The major reason why the budget was so difficult to pass was the inherent problem in getting a majority to agree on legislation that cuts the growth in spending for entitlement programs. Entitlement programs are those that grow automatically without any action from Congress. While they are many of the most important programs in the Government, they are also the most expensive. Some Senators wanted more cuts in spending growth than did others, and it was hard to get a consensus, especially when there was absolutely no support from the other side. Nevertheless, we did manage to pass the budget resolution, which was the first step in the process we are trying to complete here tonight with the budget reconciliation bill. This bill ``reconciles'' the spending in the budget with the programmatic changes necessary to achieve the budget numbers. And while the projected spending growth in this budget over the next few years is still alarming, the cuts in that growth included in this bill are very much a good first step in the right direction. What Senator Gregg, the chairman of the Budget Committee, emphasized in his opening remarks is very significant. This is the first time since 1997 that Congress has attempted to restrain the growth of entitlement spending programs. I think we can conclude that although the magnitude of the change is not as large as many of us would like to see, the directional change is very important. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this reconciliation bill would reduce federal outlays by more than $39 billion over the next 5 years and by almost $109 billion over the next 10 years. I realize that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are scoffing at the idea these numbers are not large enough in terms of reducing the deficit. Why, then, are we not seeing any spending reduction proposals from them? It is because it is much easier to throw rocks at our attempts to rein in spending growth than it is to make the hard choices themselves. Rather than having an honest debate about how best to deal with out- of-control budgets, most of what we are hearing from our friends on the other side is the same old tiresome accusation that we are reducing spending for lower-income Americans so that we can cut taxes, once again, for those Americans who are wealthy and do not need a tax reduction. This, of course, is a gross distortion of the truth. As Chairman Gregg has pointed out, the spending growth reductions in this bill are not directed at low-income individuals. We worked very hard to make sure that was the case, especially in the Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over such important safety-net programs as Medicaid. Indeed, the bill includes a significant amount of new spending. The amount of this new spending, some of which I recognize is necessary, is one of the problems I have with the bill. In addition, a great deal of the deficit reduction in this bill is achieved by raising fees or selling a portion of the broadcast spectrum. That being said, I will detail some of my specific objections about this in a little while. As to criticisms about so-called tax cuts, there are not any in this bill. The tax reconciliation bill comes later, after this bill has passed. And the tax provisions that will be in that bill are generally in the nature of preventing tax increases on the middle class, not tax cuts for the wealthy. Moreover, most of those provisions enjoy broad support on both sides of the aisle. Do I believe this reconciliation bill is perfect? Far from it. Do I think we could have and should have done more in trimming the spending growth of entitlement programs? Absolutely. As I mentioned before, the significance of this bill is not in the amount of deficit reduction it delivers, but in the change in direction that it represents. I hope we can pass it and then use it as a building block for more deficit reduction next year. We have only a few short years to make much larger changes in our entitlement spending programs. All of us know that they are on an upward trajectory that is simply not sustainable. Passing this reconciliation bill now begins to turn the tide. It sets the stage for more responsible spending. With a smart mix of pro-growth policies that will help ensure continued economic growth and future spending restraint, we can begin to lower the deficit and put our budget in a condition to withstand the storms ahead. Now, I would like to take the time to get into some of the details of the changes included in the bill by the three committees on which I serve. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, I worked hard with Chairman Grassley to ensure that our Committee met the goal of finding $10 billion in savings. Unfortunately, the Finance package also spends a significant amount of money when I believe that our national focus needs to be on saving money. Some of it is necessary. Some not. And, I am very troubled by how we are paying for this spending. Close to $5 billion comes from eliminating the MedicareAdvantage Regional Plan Stabilization Fund, something I strongly oppose. The stabilization fund is a critical component to facilitating regional Preferred Provider Organizations, PPOs, in the Medicare Advantage program, thus providing these plans to beneficiaries throughout the country, particularly in rural areas. The MMA has made Medicare Advantage plans more widely available with greater beneficiary savings than ever before, including in rural areas and many other areas that previously were not served by Medicare Advantage plans. Since the MMA was enacted in 2003, there has been a large increase in the availability of Medicare Advantage health plans that provide additional benefits and corresponding reductions in total health care costs. For example, in rural areas where there has historically been minimal managed care available, there are now three regional PPOs offering an integrated package of medical and prescription drug benefits with extra coverage at lower prices, one of these regional PPOs even offers a zero drug deductible. The stabilization fund will help make it possible to provide secure access to these new, lower-cost coverage options in underserved areas. While more Medicare beneficiaries than ever will have regional Medicare Advantage options in 2006, further progress is needed for people with Medicare in 13 States, specifically: my home state of Utah; Alaska; Colorado; Connecticut; Idaho; Maine; Massachusetts; New Hampshire; New Mexico; Oregon; Rhode Island; Vermont; and Washington. When developing the MMA, the Congress recognized that some states might not be served by regional Medicare Advantage plans in the initial years of the program and strategically created the benefit stabilization fund, which sunsets in 2013, to encourage plans to operate in all areas of the Nation. Utah is one of those States and that is why I strongly supported the creation of the stabilization fund during the MMA negotiations. The stabilization fund helps to make sure that, in future years, plans will choose to serve the people with Medicare who do not have Medicare Advantage options in 2006. And, conversely, repealing the fund, or cutting its revenues, means reduced benefits and higher costs for these seniors in future years. Many Medicare Advantage plans are already serving Medicare beneficiaries with some very generous benefit offerings for 2006, with the expectation that there would be stability in the program. For the health plans that are interested in potentially providing this regional PPO coverage, it is essential for them to know that they will get some help with starting up if they need it in areas that had been underserved before, and that the Medicare program will keep their payments predictable. If Congress and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, start cutting promised funding and/or changing program rules even before the first benefit is administered, we send a very negative signal to plans, and that may mean worse coverage options and higher costs for Medicare beneficiaries in the future. Cuts to or reductions in the stabilization fund, and therefore, payments to regional plans amount to adding costs for beneficiaries in the form of higher premiums, reduced benefits, or both. Without this fund, it will be difficult to convince plans to offer coverage to beneficiaries who currently do not have access to regional PPOs. Maintaining the current stabilization fund will encourage more regional PPOs to enter the Medicare Advantage program and make sure that significantly more people, including my fellow Utahns, have access to Medicare Advantage plans next year. I do not understand why we would be eliminating this fund, especially before the Medicare drug plan program is even operational. It just does not make good policy sense and that is why I oppose the elimination. This is especially vexing given that there are a number of other sources for revenue. I will be fighting for more extensive restrictions on asset transfers and the inclusion of provisions which would prohibit intergovernmental transfers. Including these provisions would have severely curtailed activities where individuals and some State governments have intentionally defrauded the Medicaid program. I have heard the arguments about why we should not have included them in the proposal, but I do not buy those arguments. More aggressive legislating in these areas would preclude some of the other reductions necessitated in this bill, such as those for the stabilization fund. The provisions on payment for prescription drugs under the Medicaid program are another deep concern of mine. These have only been made worse by adoption of amendments in the Chamber. Let me say that while I agree that changes are warranted, I am very worried about the approach included in the bill. I am not sure that the new definitions created for Average Manufacturer's Price, AMP, Weighted Average Manufacturer's Price, WAMP, and the new formula which were created for the Federal Upper Payment Limit, FUPL, will address the criticisms of the current policy. In fact, these new definitions could make the situation worse. I am also troubled that the genesis of these changes was not a desire for good policy, but rather an interest in seeking funding from a ``deep pocket.'' That trend was only exacerbated during Senate consideration of the Finance title, as we added two rebate-related amendments with spending implications that totaled several billions of dollars more. It is clear to me that, as consideration of the conference report begins, we must continue discussions with the various stakeholders who have a vested interest in making this policy work, in particular, the pharmacists and the pharmaceutical companies. The budget resolution contained a reconciliation instruction directing the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP Committee, on which I serve, to reduce spending by $13.7 billion in 5 years. We on the HELP Committee worked very hard to achieve this goal, which required difficult spending vs. savings decisions. Within the past months, as we wrote reauthorizing language for the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, Head Start, the Perkins Act, career and technical education, and the Higher Education Act, HEA, we kept in mind the need to meet the reduction in spending goals. Each of these reauthorization bills was unanimously approved in committee. While I recognize the tough choices we needed to make, I am pleased overall with the reconciliation bill as it relates to education provisions, accounting for a total savings of $9.8 billion. Spending increases in the bill include increases in Pell grants, along with ProGAP, a new grant assistance to Pell eligible students. Another new program, SMART grants, would provide assistance to students studying math, science, technology, engineering, or a foreign language. Subsidized borrowing levels were increased, along with a permanent extension of the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act. Additional loan deferments were made for members of the Armed Services or the reserves. These programs would give Utah students, particularly those of low or moderate income, greater access to college educations and will boast our local and national economy as we seek to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. Significant savings were found in student loans, mostly from lending institutions, including a requirement for guaranty agencies to deposit one percent of their collections in the Federal Reserve fund, a reduction in lender insurance and repeal of the provision that guarantees 100 percent of loans for certain lenders. An additional fee is charged for lenders originating consolidation loans, and permanent restrictions are made on transfer or refunding of certain tax-exempt bonds that receive a 9.5 percent rate of return. I have concerns about last-minute changes to include major spending increases, even though they appear to have been reconciled by savings. However, my colleagues should know that I am paying particular attention to fixing the interest rate for undergraduate and graduate non-consolidation borrowing at 6.8 percent, preferring a choice of a variable rate similar to the House provision. I am also concerned about the way certain bills are structured that are currently before the Senate that deal with the inclusion of Katrina public and private school payments. The HELP Committee also included provisions increasing significantly the amounts of premiums employers that sponsor defined benefit pension plans must pay to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, PBGC. These increases were larger than they needed to be, and represent placeholders until we can pass the pension reform bill that was produced by the Finance and HELP Committees. I hope we will soon be able to consider and pass that legislation, partly for the reason of reducing these premium increases to more reasonable amounts. The Judiciary Committee greatly exceeded its reconciliation targets, and I applaud that accomplishment even though I do not support the means by which it was achieved. Federal spending is out of control and, as my colleagues know, this has been a concern of mine for a long time. I am gratified to see that so many others now share my concerns and, more importantly, that we are finally doing something about irresponsible spending despite the efforts of a few members on the other side of the aisle to scuttle this reconciliation bill. I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee did not report a proposed tax on the explosives industry. It was just plain wrong, and it would have hurt a lot of people in Utah. Naturally, I fought tooth and nail to make sure it was off the table and I, along with others, succeeded in stopping it. This brings us to the current Judiciary title. I do not think we should have used a reconciliation measure to alter immigration policy, particularly in light of the current debate on comprehensive immigration reform. For this, and other reasons, I offered an amendment that would have imposed a 5 percent increase in all immigration related fees instead of simply allowing more people into the country as a way of reducing our Nation's deficit. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated in committee. That being said, I recognize that it is not easy to come up with savings. It means tough choices. But it is our job to make the tough calls and the Judiciary Committee did just that. I strongly support moving this package through the Senate. However, I want my colleagues to understand my concerns and that I intend to continue working with them on improving the package. I know this was an extremely difficult task, and I appreciate all the hard work of many of my colleagues, and particularly the chairmen of the committees on which I serve.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer S. Res. 298, designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as Feed America Thursday. I appreciate my friend, Senator Robert Bennett, joining with me in this resolution. On Thanksgiving Day, we remember with deep gratitude the many bounties of life, including an appreciation for families and friends and the great country in which we live. Part of what makes this country great is the spirit of selfless giving and generosity of its citizens. The great outpouring of support and assistance for the victims of Hurricane Katrina is a most recent example. In this season of Thanksgiving, it is important to also remember that over 33 million Americans, including 13 million children, continue to live in households that do not have an adequate supply of food. These fellow citizens in need of food must not be forgotten. On behalf of the Utah congressional delegation, Congressman Chris Cannon has submitted a companion resolution in the House of Representatives. We urge our distinguished colleagues to join us in designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as Feed America Thursday, to encourage our fellow citizens to sacrifice two meals on that day and donate the money they would have spent on food to a religious or charitable organization of their choice for the purpose of feeding the hungry.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, 98 percent of all drugs are covered by the Medicare Modernization Act. And HIV/AIDS drugs are covered. So I am having trouble understanding the need for this amendment. It makes no sense for dual eligibles to have coverage for prescription drugs in both the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. I have listened to the arguments the proponents of the amendment have used, primarily that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will be very confusing to those beneficiaries who are used to having their coverage through the Medicaid Program. I personally believe providing coverage through both programs will make it much more confusing for beneficiaries. Instead of helping these vulnerable seniors, I believe the Murray amendment would confuse them and not provide the help they need with their drug coverage. CMS is there. They will help. They know what to do. They are there for these people. We have provided they would be there. In addition, I don't understand why these beneficiaries would need a Federal match for Medicaid coverage because they cannot navigate the exceptions process or the transition process. If an individual has problems with his or her drug coverage, there will be help available to them through CMS, congressional offices, State government agencies, and community organizations such as the AARP that is so strongly behind this bill. There is no need for duplicative drug coverage. I might add, if I am not mistaken, I think the distinguished Senator from Washington supported the Rockefeller amendment to the Medicare prescription drug bill that we fought so strongly over, that is now law. This particular amendment would have had the duals' drugs covered by Medicare, not Medicaid--this was included in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. I don't know what brought about the change of mind. CMS recognizes the transition from Medicaid drug coverage to Medicare is enormous and has been diligently working to ensure the process for beneficiaries is as quick and efficient as possible. Protections are in place to ensure that no full-benefit dual-eligible beneficiary will go without coverage when the new Medicare prescription drug benefit starts on January 1, 2006. All Part D plans that CMS approves must meet strict Medicare regulations and standards guaranteeing that Medicare beneficiaries receive drug coverage that best fits their needs. Part D plans are required to have a coverage determination process which includes an exceptions process and appeals processes that provide enrollees with opportunities to challenge the exclusion of a particular drug from a plan's formulary. Each plan must have a procedure for making timely coverage determinations on standard and expedited requests made by enrollees. Plans must also make their determinations as expeditiously as an enrollee's health care condition requires, but no later than 24 hours for expedited decisions involving enrollees who will suffer from serious health conditions, and 72 hours for standard decisions. These formulary and appeal procedures are in place to ensure that there are no instances where a beneficiary is in need of a drug and cannot get it. To address the needs of individuals who are stabilized on certain drug regimens, Part D plans are required to establish an appropriate transition process for new enrollees who are transitioning to Part D from other prescription drug coverage and whose current drug therapies may not be included in their Part D plan's formulary. Additionally, this amendment presents an unfair situation for States who have already agreed to pay ``clawback'' payments to the Federal Government. By mandating that State Medicaid Programs also pay for drugs, we would essentially increase the financial burden on the States. I hope our colleagues will not vote for this amendment. In all honesty, when we talk about the issue of choosing between food and drugs, the Medicare Modernization Act provides a substantial subsidy for low-income seniors for their drug coverage. These seniors will not have to choose between food and drugs, basically because their drugs will be covered. They will not have to choose, as has been stated here, between having enough food to eat and drugs. That is one of the things we tried to take care of when we did the Medicare Modernization Act. Saying that you have to choose between food and drugs is not only wrong, it unfairly scares our senior citizens, and it confuses them. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, 98 percent of all drugs are covered, and that includes HIV/AIDS drugs. In fact, beneficiaries can use the plan finder tool to find plans that cover specific drugs. I want to clarify one thing. Seniors who are dual eligibles will receive their Medicare drug coverage on January 1, 2006. It is not true they will not be covered. They will be covered, and they will receive their drug coverage. That is what this bill is supposed to do, and that is what it will do. I hope our colleagues will vote this amendment down because I think it not only confusing to seniors, but frankly, the way the benefit is devised by CMS, beneficiaries should be able to get all the drug coverage they need. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today along with my cosponsors Senators Bennett, Reid, and Ensign to introduce a very simple piece of legislation. The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey, at fair market value, 112 acres of property in the Dixie National Forest to Mr. Kirk Harrison. Let me explain why this legislation is necessary. Mr. Harrison's family settled in southern Utah's Pinto Valley in 1860. The family was among the first to locate to the area. The Harrison family established their property boundaries by constructing fences that are still standing today. The family cleared, irrigated, and settled the property in question and continued to plant and harvest crops, raise livestock, maintain fences, and otherwise work the land for more than 150 years. During that time, the family exercised unrestricted use, relying on those boundaries established in 1860. In 1885, the Harrison family applied for and was granted a patent to those lands. Subsequent surveys in 1881 and 1905 found no discrepancies between the boundaries asserted by the Harrison family and the actual boundaries of the adjacent Forest Service lands. It was not until 1984, when the Forest Service employed an independent firm to perform a survey, did any inconsistency arise. The 1984 survey found that the land occupied by the Harrison family was in violation of the boundary established in the 1885 patent. The 1984 survey was flawed for two principal reasons: First, a rock survey monument used in the 1881 survey is 37 feet away from a different rock monument used in the 1905 survey, creating significant confusion. Neither of these monuments could be located or used during the 1984 survey. Next, the 1984 surveyors did not accept an historic ``rock mound'' monument, despite the fact that other surveyors had. The Harrison family has used this land for nearly 150 years. Mr. Harrison wants nothing more than to be able to continue to use the land that his family settled and has used for so long. While Mr. Harrison has worked to resolve this issue with the Forest Service for nearly 15 years, the parties have not been able to agree upon a viable solution. This legislation offers a fair, commonsense answer to the problem. The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell Mr. Harrison 112 acres at fair market value. This represents slightly more land than the Harrison family's original property to satisfy the Forest Service's requirement that boundaries be uniform. The Forest Service stipulates that its national forest boundaries must be straight and manageable, and the purchase of additional acreage will fulfill that requirement. The bill also would ensure that the Secretary uses the proceeds from the sale of the land to purchase other acreage for the Dixie National Forest. In my view, this legislation is the easiest and most effective way to resolve this longstanding dispute. I am aware that some concerns have been raised about this bill in the past. For example, some have expressed concerns that this legislation would restrict sportsmen's access to the Dixie National Forest, prevent landowners from obtaining water, and allow for the subdivision of the land. However, since those concerns were raised, the plan has been cleared by the Washington County Commission, the State hunter interests, and the majority of landowners in the Pinto Valley. Only after receiving assurances that these groups did not oppose this legislation did I decided to move forward. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today along with my cosponsors Senators Bennett, Reid, and Ensign to introduce a very simple piece of legislation. The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey, at fair market value, 112 acres of property in the Dixie National Forest to Mr. Kirk Harrison. Let me explain why this legislation is necessary. Mr. Harrison's family settled in southern Utah's Pinto Valley in 1860. The family was among the first to locate to the area. The Harrison family established their property boundaries by constructing fences that are still standing today. The family cleared, irrigated, and settled the property in question and continued to plant and harvest crops, raise livestock, maintain fences, and otherwise work the land for more than 150 years. During that time, the family exercised unrestricted use, relying on those boundaries established in 1860. In 1885, the Harrison family applied for and was granted a patent to those lands. Subsequent surveys in 1881 and 1905 found no discrepancies between the boundaries asserted by the Harrison family and the actual boundaries of the adjacent Forest Service lands. It was not until 1984, when the Forest Service employed an independent firm to perform a survey, did any inconsistency arise. The 1984 survey found that the land occupied by the Harrison family was in violation of the boundary established in the 1885 patent. The 1984 survey was flawed for two principal reasons: First, a rock survey monument used in the 1881 survey is 37 feet away from a different rock monument used in the 1905 survey, creating significant confusion. Neither of these monuments could be located or used during the 1984 survey. Next, the 1984 surveyors did not accept an historic ``rock mound'' monument, despite the fact that other surveyors had. The Harrison family has used this land for nearly 150 years. Mr. Harrison wants nothing more than to be able to continue to use the land that his family settled and has used for so long. While Mr. Harrison has worked to resolve this issue with the Forest Service for nearly 15 years, the parties have not been able to agree upon a viable solution. This legislation offers a fair, commonsense answer to the problem. The bill would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell Mr. Harrison 112 acres at fair market value. This represents slightly more land than the Harrison family's original property to satisfy the Forest Service's requirement that boundaries be uniform. The Forest Service stipulates that its national forest boundaries must be straight and manageable, and the purchase of additional acreage will fulfill that requirement. The bill also would ensure that the Secretary uses the proceeds from the sale of the land to purchase other acreage for the Dixie National Forest. In my view, this legislation is the easiest and most effective way to resolve this longstanding dispute. I am aware that some concerns have been raised about this bill in the past. For example, some have expressed concerns that this legislation would restrict sportsmen's access to the Dixie National Forest, prevent landowners from obtaining water, and allow for the subdivision of the land. However, since those concerns were raised, the plan has been cleared by the Washington County Commission, the State hunter interests, and the majority of landowners in the Pinto Valley. Only after receiving assurances that these groups did not oppose this legislation did I decided to move forward. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 757, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2005. This month marks the 21st year of National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, a campaign that provides a special opportunity to offer education about the important association between early detection and survival. National Breast Cancer Awareness month also salutes the more than 2,000,000 breast cancer survivors in the United States and the efforts of victims, volunteers, and professionals who combat breast cancer each day. According to the American Cancer Society, breast cancer is the leading cause of death among women between the ages of 40 and 55; and one out of every eight women who live to the age of 85 will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. But the disease is not limited by gender. In 2005, approximately 1,700 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among men in the United States. In my home State of Utah, as indicated by the Utah Cancer Registry, breast cancer has the highest incidence rate of the ten leading cancer types. This disease has an impact on nearly every American's life. Breast cancer death rates have been dropping steadily since 1991; however, challenges still remain. The bottom line is that we still do not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it. Less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors. There is general belief within the scientific community that the environment plays a role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role has been less-examined. Research has investigated the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields; but, in most cases, there has been no conclusive evidence. In-depth study of these potential risks could provide invaluable information in understanding the causes of breast cancer, and could lead to new prevention strategies. Clearly, more research needs to be done to determine the impact of environmental factors on breast cancer. Along with Senators Chafee, Reid, Clinton, and Talent, I have introduced S. 757, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2005, to address this palpable need for research. Specifically, the bill would authorize the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, to award grants for the development and operation of up to eight centers for the purpose of conducting research on environmental factors that may be related to breast cancer. This legislation is modeled after the highly successful and promising Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, DOD BCRP, which operates under a competitive, peer-reviewed grant-making process that involves consumers. Isolated studies have been conducted to look at suspected environmental links to breast cancer; but these studies are only a small step toward the broad strategic research that is required. What is needed is a collaborative, comprehensive, nationally focused strategy to address this oversight, a strategy like the one outlined in S. 757. As this year's National Breast Cancer Awareness Month comes to a close, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. This Federal commitment is critical for the overall, national strategy and the long-term investments required to discover the environmental causes of breast cancer so that we can prevent it, treat it more effectively, and, ultimately, cure it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to all the men and women in Washington County, UT whose hard work and diligence have made and are making the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm such a success. These dedicated volunteers are helping to protect and display an asset of great value not only to Utah but to the Nation. The history of this discovery is fascinating. A few years ago, retired optometrist Dr. Sheldon Johnson was preparing his farm site for development and as he turned over the earth, he discovered tracks of early residents of Washington County--very early residents, in fact. Dinosaur tracks dating back to the Jurassic period of history were uncovered. They are being preserved and are bringing economic and historic benefit to St. George, Washington County, UT, and the Nation. To date, visitors from 68 nations and all 50 States have visited the site. I want to recognize and thank Dr. Sheldon and LaVerna Johnson who discovered the tracks and then donated the land to preserve this heritage. The Johnsons have made it all possible. Linda Sappington, Washington County volunteer coordinator, aided by volunteer supervisors Kae Crabtree and Carole Chadwick began in February 2000 to bring together individuals who cared about the tracks and who were willing to give of themselves to help preserve the find. I also want to recognize and thank Mayor Dan McArthur, the city of St. George, Washington County, and the Utah State legislature for their efforts to enhance, preserve, and share this heritage area with the community now and for generations to come. In addition to the Johnsons, I recognize, Suzanne Allen; Dr. Andrew Barnum; Herb Basso; Dr. David Borris; Alan Crooks; Lyle Drake; Kenneth Hinton; Sharon Isom; unfortunately, now deceased; LaRee Jones; Dr. James Kirkland; Dr. Martin Lockley; Dan Matheson; Layton Ott, also deceased, Kathy Smith; Darcy Stewart; Marshall Topham; Gary Watts; John Willie. They are all members of the Dinosaur AH'torium, a 501 (c) 3 foundation responsible for funding the project. Advisory members include James Hansen, Dr. Jerry Harris, Gary Sanders, with Cliff Green and Robert Milder, resident artist. Finally, today, I specifically want to recognize and thank the many volunteers who have made and are making the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm possible. Many of these wonderful individuals have been contributing their time and energy for more than 5 years. A tremendous thank you to the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm volunteers. I commend each of them. 2000 volunteers include: Chad Anderson; T.R. Thompson; Andrew Milner; Donnette Hatch; June Barton; Kae Crabtree; Nina Schwarze; Karen Rammell; Lee Rammell; Doug Bergen; Richard Gardner; Ryan Babcock; Dick Groves; Robert Pritchitt; Klein Adams; Rafael Acosta; Ryan Oburn; Hal Arrowood; Jason Skeen; Clyde Terry; Vilma Terry; Bev Middleton; Chris Walker; Steve Smith; Helen Salvatore; Cindy Greco; Scott Broen; Jereen Hyde; Stevan Duke; Barbara Duke; Stacie Wilson; Constance Sherwood; Jacob Hendriks; and Brett Bronson. Mr. President, 2001 volunteers: Jim Burns; Lillian Zielke; Barbara Hatch; Peggy Wardle; Carol Duley; Gary Watts; Josephine Kellijan; Ember Rodgers; Kirk Rehfield; Bill Reynolds; Theresa Walker; Cassandra Lee; Lynnie Rolfe; Joel Campbell; Ryan Losee; Chris Gibson; Kyle Fraley; John Shaw; Steve Anderson; Drew Gubler; Shelton Heath; Paula Ryan; Bernie Yeager; Jill Conner; Candace Crane; Nichole Burton; Austin Carter; Dusty Ott; Kirk Richfield; Nate Leifson; Ron Kittelsrud; Maren Christensen; Ben Joe Markland; Emily Weidauer; Holly Hult; Carol Killian; Scott Woodworth; Brian Barrett; Warren Hoskings; Kevin Wiederhold; Autumn Cluff. Mr. President, 2002 volunteers: Rudy Johnson; Clay Hopkins; Elizabeth Nipperus; Jeff Lingwall; Debbie Woodard; Joyce Proctor; Britton Puki; Joe Borden; Melvin Done; Melanie Hackmann; Kathryn VanRoosendaal; Doug Griffiths; Charlotte Rice; Angie Hendrickson; Chad Tipton; Laurie Barnholt; Aaron Heaton; Kathy Hancock; Carson Blickenstaff; Glen Steenbuck; Bev Rhodes; Brigham Mellor; Kami Cox; Kathy Cox; Russ Childs; Delbert Vern Chadwick; Beverly Kirk; Matthew Wilkinson; Monte Johnson; Darrell Wade; Terri Wade; Sheena Gawer; Barbara Smith; Ken Parkes; Darienne McNamara; Kat Duttadway; Kylea Christensen; Jacob Cox; Jason Rabbitt; Don Triptow; Bill Yensen; Arlene Yensen; Les Townsend; Barbara Townsend; Al Abrams; John Donnell; JoAnn Abrams; Arlea Howell; David Kitselmer; Steve Chilow; Cathy Freeman; Duane Freeman; Steven Bart. Mr. President, 2003 volunteers: Janece Tolber; George D'Apuzzo; Carl Berg, Laurie Berg; Myron Hatch; David Slauf; Taylor Birthisel; Linda Baldazzi; Bob Baldazzi; Sally Stephenson; Steve Stephenson; Roger Head; Bonnie Head; Pat Elliott; Jacqueline Dubois; Jerry Schwantz; Shirley Surfas; Pat Vanderwark; Keith Vanderwark; Joan Triptow; Jay Guymon; Kilby Andersen; Kelly Bringhurst; Marc Raines; Lisa Raines; Molly Swift; Chester Pierce; Dennis Broad; George Mulle; Rena Jensen; Roger Taylor; Maynie Begeman; Tobert Begeman; Bal Humble; Paul Wiener; Frances Wiener; Anne Bredon; Gail Taylor; Mike Llewellyn; Curtis Halliday; Dale Peck; Arlea Howell; Shannon Ducrest; Anne Basham; Brooke Ranter; Melissa Thomson; Michelle Bower; Jana Hightower; Brian Schlegel; Danny Diamond; Dallas Jones; Andrew Neff; Lindsay Connelley- Brown. Mr. President, 2004 volunteers: Carla Ritter; Sheila Hughes; Don Hughes; Tracey O'Kelly; Jerry Harris; Jessica Williams. Mr. President, 2005 volunteers: Paula Welker; Connie Welker; Kameron Evans; Dick Vos; Rogerta Champlin; Wally Champlin; Richard Berger; Justin Moosman; Christine Blum; Lamont Reynolds; Judy D'Apuzzo; Louise Snyder; Arleen Stillman; Lorene Reynolds; Freddie Arrighi. To these dedicated volunteers and to all of those who will continue to volunteer, I say thank you.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce S. 1883, the Empowering More Property Owners with Enhanced Rights Act of 2005, or the EMPOWER Act, a bill that amends the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (the Uniform Act). The EMPOWER Act will assist property owners and Federal agencies in resolving disputes relating to private property outside of the courts. I am joined by my colleague Senator Baucus as lead cosponsor of this bill. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London, citizens around the country are calling members of Congress asking if their homes, small businesses, and family farms are safe from the power of the government. While this legislation doesn't address Kelo directly, the EMPOWER Act will enhance the rights of private property owners, when their property becomes a target of the federal government. The Uniform Act applies to all Federal agencies, and was passed by Congress to ``provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses or farms by Federal and federally assisted programs. . . .'' The Act was amended in 1987 to designate the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as the Lead Agency, requiring it to coordinate with other Federal agencies to issue government-wide standards for eminent domain actions. The EMPOWER Act would super-size the Uniform Act by assigning the DOT stronger responsibilities in protecting the rights of property owners. It accomplishes this goal in two significant ways. First, it establishes a Property Owners' Bill of Rights, adding new powers to property owners. Second, it establishes a Private Property Ombudsperson to act as a neutral party to assist property owners, small businesses, and family farms when they are subject to Federal or federally assisted actions that affect their property. The property owners' ``Bill of Rights'' includes those rights already enumerated in the Uniform Act, such as the right to just compensation, replacement housing, and relocation assistance. However, the bill would add several new rights that would significantly enhance the power of the Uniform Act. These are: the right to full disclosure of the government's appraised value of the property in question; the right to an independent second appraisal; the right to participate in mediation or, if necessary, arbitration as an alternative to costly and time-consuming litigation; the right to be informed about their rights and access to assistance; and the right to assistance from a Property Rights Ombudsperson. The Property Rights Ombudsperson established by the EMPOWER Act would assist property owners in negotiating the Federal bureaucracy and to act as a third-party neutral in resolving disputes. The Ombudsperson would inform the public of their rights and actively work to help property owners take full advantage of those rights. The Ombudsperson would call for mediated disputes; force arbitration if necessary; work with Federal agencies to advise them about their actions which affect private property; ensure that agencies inform affected property owners of their rights; and provide information to private citizens, citizen groups, and other interested parties regarding rights and responsibilities relating to property rights. The EMPOWER Act is modeled after a highly successful program in Utah, which has led the Nation in the area of property rights. After 8 years in effect in Utah, this program has taken a great deal of the acrimony and pain out of the process of eminent domain. It has saved the state millions of dollars in litigation fees and reduced the condemnation rate by half. Most important, it has considerably improved government to citizen relations. The vast majority of those using this program in Utah are homeowners and the program has provided them with considerable relief. The EMPOWER Act adapts the Utah model to the Federal Government. The Act does not change the rules of Federal acquisition of private property, but it does provide significant assistance to private property owners, small businesses, and family farmers when they are faced with a daunting Federal bureaucracy and the possibility of private property loss. The EMPOWER Act goes a long way toward protecting our citizens from overbearing federal action with regard to private property rights. It takes nothing away from government but does empower citizens, and requires agencies to ensure that property owners are treated fairly. I urge my colleagues to support this Act.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce S. 1883, the Empowering More Property Owners with Enhanced Rights Act of 2005, or the EMPOWER Act, a bill that amends the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (the Uniform Act). The EMPOWER Act will assist property owners and Federal agencies in resolving disputes relating to private property outside of the courts. I am joined by my colleague Senator Baucus as lead cosponsor of this bill. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision Kelo v. New London, citizens around the country are calling members of Congress asking if their homes, small businesses, and family farms are safe from the power of the government. While this legislation doesn't address Kelo directly, the EMPOWER Act will enhance the rights of private property owners, when their property becomes a target of the federal government. The Uniform Act applies to all Federal agencies, and was passed by Congress to ``provide for uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses or farms by Federal and federally assisted programs. . . .'' The Act was amended in 1987 to designate the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as the Lead Agency, requiring it to coordinate with other Federal agencies to issue government-wide standards for eminent domain actions. The EMPOWER Act would super-size the Uniform Act by assigning the DOT stronger responsibilities in protecting the rights of property owners. It accomplishes this goal in two significant ways. First, it establishes a Property Owners' Bill of Rights, adding new powers to property owners. Second, it establishes a Private Property Ombudsperson to act as a neutral party to assist property owners, small businesses, and family farms when they are subject to Federal or federally assisted actions that affect their property. The property owners' ``Bill of Rights'' includes those rights already enumerated in the Uniform Act, such as the right to just compensation, replacement housing, and relocation assistance. However, the bill would add several new rights that would significantly enhance the power of the Uniform Act. These are: the right to full disclosure of the government's appraised value of the property in question; the right to an independent second appraisal; the right to participate in mediation or, if necessary, arbitration as an alternative to costly and time-consuming litigation; the right to be informed about their rights and access to assistance; and the right to assistance from a Property Rights Ombudsperson. The Property Rights Ombudsperson established by the EMPOWER Act would assist property owners in negotiating the Federal bureaucracy and to act as a third-party neutral in resolving disputes. The Ombudsperson would inform the public of their rights and actively work to help property owners take full advantage of those rights. The Ombudsperson would call for mediated disputes; force arbitration if necessary; work with Federal agencies to advise them about their actions which affect private property; ensure that agencies inform affected property owners of their rights; and provide information to private citizens, citizen groups, and other interested parties regarding rights and responsibilities relating to property rights. The EMPOWER Act is modeled after a highly successful program in Utah, which has led the Nation in the area of property rights. After 8 years in effect in Utah, this program has taken a great deal of the acrimony and pain out of the process of eminent domain. It has saved the state millions of dollars in litigation fees and reduced the condemnation rate by half. Most important, it has considerably improved government to citizen relations. The vast majority of those using this program in Utah are homeowners and the program has provided them with considerable relief. The EMPOWER Act adapts the Utah model to the Federal Government. The Act does not change the rules of Federal acquisition of private property, but it does provide significant assistance to private property owners, small businesses, and family farmers when they are faced with a daunting Federal bureaucracy and the possibility of private property loss. The EMPOWER Act goes a long way toward protecting our citizens from overbearing federal action with regard to private property rights. It takes nothing away from government but does empower citizens, and requires agencies to ensure that property owners are treated fairly. I urge my colleagues to support this Act.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to inform my colleagues as to why I missed voting on the motion to table Senator Coburn's amendment No. 2005 to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006. At the time the vote occurred, I was attending the funeral of a longtime employee and friend, Shawn Bentley. Should I have been present, I would have voted in favor of tabling the amendment, which would not have changed the outcome of the vote.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. If I could.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise with a heavy heart to announce the untimely passing of one of the Senate's own, our long-time staffer and former colleague, Shawn Bentley. What can you say about a 41-year-old man who died: That he was brilliant and talented; that he was a loving family man, a wonderful father to Katie and Samantha, and a devoted husband to his wife, Becky; That he loved James Joyce and William Shakespeare and Elton John; and the law; and the Senate; and life. Shawn worked for the Judiciary Committee for a decade, from 1993 to 2003. Starting as my counsel, in the minority, Shawn worked on a variety of legal issues, from healthcare antitrust, to radiation compensation, to the balanced budget amendment. He rose through the ranks, ending his Senate tenure as the majority's chief intellectual property counsel and deputy chief counsel to the committee, one of the top jobs in the Senate. Although we were sad to see him leave the Senate, I was so proud of him when he joined Time Warner as vice president of intellectual property and global public policy. In the Senate, the major bills Shawn helped write are among the most important laws in the intellectual property world: the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act; the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the American Inventors Protection Act, the Patent Fee Integrity and Innovation Protection Act, the Anti-Counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act, and the Trademark Dilution Act, just to name a few. Shawn was so bright and so accomplished a lawyer, that we did not hesitate to assign him any subject. And it was such a joy to work with him, because all knew he was a model of decency, humility, and spirituality. As the Elders' Quorum President of his church congregation, and man of remarkably strong faith, Shawn lived a life of service to his fellow man and woman. In whatever he did, Shawn handled the matter with both talent and a remarkable good humor. In all the years that Shawn worked for me, I cannot recall one time when he was not warm and engaging. Even when he was a little frustrated, as all of us are sometimes, Shawn still had a smile on his face. In fact, Shawn had a calmness about him that was almost serene. Yet, he had a very sharp sense of humor that made him a delight to be around. Shawn was among the brightest and most informed. Yet, he was never arrogant, a rare quality in one so talented, especially on Capitol Hill! Shawn was more than the chief intellectual property counsel to the Judiciary Committee, he was our in-house professor of arts and humanities. Visiting Shawn's office was not like visiting a typical counsel's office on the Hill. Visiting Shawn was more like visiting your favorite classics professor at his desk with his exquisite fountain pen in hand. To be fair, Shawn's lair in the Hart Building had the requisite congressional directories, codes and public laws. But he also had a vast book collection of classics, poetry, Shakespeare anthologies, first edition novels, and British history books. And did I mention the miniature busts of philosophers and great thinkers? Then, there was the collection of CDs ranging from Creed and Metallica to Beethoven to Brahms to Mozart and Bach. While his book collection in the office was impressive, we knew there had to be a much more extensive collection at home. Pressed about his office supply of nonlegal books, Shawn admitted that it was growing because his wife Becky had imposed a moratorium on bringing any more books to their home, so the overflow ended up in the office. When Shawn found out that a colleague lived near the used book store in Bethesda where he often located some treasures, he enlisted her to pick us some volumes from time to time, thus saving him the trip and the explanation of a voyage to Bethesda. That was probably Shawn's closest thing to a vice: sneaking a volume of poetry into his collection. Shawn was the only heavy metal enthusiast I know who also loved to read Shakespeare and could discuss both topics with equal enthusiasm and knowledge. Indeed, it was this respect for the importance of creativity in helping shape culture that may have attracted Shawn to IP--intellectual property--law and policy. He helped me with so many important IP issues, many of which I listed before, it is hard to single out Shawn's most important work. One event does stand out in my mind. In 2000, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I scheduled a hearing on peer-to-peer copyright infringement. Shawn arranged to have witnesses from Metallica, Lars Ulrich, the Recording Industry Association of America, and several Internet company executives testify on the same panel. To demonstrate how P-2-P services worked, Shawn suggested I download from the Internet the rock band Creed's then-hit ``With Arms Wide Open.'' Just then, the bells rang for a vote and committee members started to leave. I'll never forget looking back as I left Hart 216 and seeing the almost surreal scene of Senators mixing with media and staff, talking to Internet pirates and heavy metal band rock stars with rock music playing in the background. It was a scene that only Shawn could have pulled off. Shawn did all this--he succeeded at all he undertook--without boasting or calling attention to himself. He knew there were more important things in life than a battle of wills and, as a result, he won the respect and trust of people on both sides of the aisle. There is not one person on the Hill or in business who would call Shawn an adversary or enemy. Those who worked with Shawn learned a lot more from him than the other way around. Two other fond memories of Shawn from early in his career come to mind. When the Senate was debating the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, the BBA, I asked Shawn to develop some materials supporting the need for the amendment. With customary good staffing, Shawn put together a very impressive set of volumes which he drove out to my home the weekend before the debate. I was astounded by the depth, and to be truthful, the volume of the materials. ``Shawn,'' I said, ``I'm just overwhelmed by the amount of material you developed. You didn't need to do all that.'' Shawn thought a moment, paused, and said, ``With all due respect, Senator, could you have told me that yesterday?'' That was the wit of Shawn Bentley. Quickly recovering, I replied, ``Shawn, I don't need all those materials if I have you sitting by my side. That's good enough.'' And I meant it. I could always count on Shawn to be well-prepared, succinct, and oh-so-witty. But Shawn was Shawn. So, then we got to the floor with the BBA. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was managing this constitutional amendment's debate on the floor with Shawn right there beside me. One of the most contentious issues was over how the amendment would affect the Social Security fund. Senator Fritz Hollings, then the junior Senator from South Carolina, for some 40 years I might add, was recognized by the Chair to speak in opposition. Knowing his remarks were long, I took that opportunity to go to the cloakroom and make a phone call. I asked Shawn and another capable staffer, Larry Block, to please take notes and write down five points to respond to Senator Hollings. The trouble was that with his deep South Carolinian accent, neither Shawn nor Larry had absolutely any idea what Senator Hollings said. After about five minutes, my two staffers were getting pretty nervous on the floor anticipating my return. Suddenly, Shawn gave a big smile. ``I've got it,'' he said. ``All we need to do is write down five points supporting the BBA and why its enactment would not have a negative impact on Social Security.'' I soon returned and read the talking points, adding several points of my own. All went well. Only later did I realize what Shawn had intuitively grasped. If we could not understand Senator Hollings, no one else could either! The moral of this story: As President Andrew Jackson opined many years ago, ``Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in.'' Shawn was probably one of the most deliberate lawyers ever to have worked on the Judiciary Committee. On Capitol Hill, where the emphasis too often seems to be on getting there first, Shawn's primary concern was always getting it right first. I could count on him to have the right answer to my questions, and if he did not know the answer, he wouldn't guess--he would do the work and get it right and then make his recommendation to me. I cannot say enough good things about Shawn Bentley. Indeed, his loss is a loss to the Senate family, to his family, and indeed the Nation. As we head into this season of Autumn, as the leaves change colors and the temperature turns, some verses from Ecclesiastes 3 seem so appropriate: There is a time for everything, And a season for every activity under heaven: A time to be born and a time to die, A time to plant and a time to uproot, A time to tear down and a time to build, A time to weep and a time to laugh, A time to mourn and a time to dance, A time to embrace and a time to refrain, A time to search and a time to give up, A time to tear and a time to mend, A time to be silent and a time to speak, and A time to love and a time to hate. Let us take comfort in those words, knowing that it was God's will that this be Shawn Bentley's time. But we can still rejoice in his life, and embrace all that was good about Shawn Bentley, the son, husband, father and friend we all loved so dearly. And may his family find comfort in the lasting memory of this great man, Shawn Marion Bentley, who indeed lived his life by the words of ``With Arms Wide Open'': ``If I had just one wish Only one demand I hope he understands That he can take his life And hold it by the hand And he can greet the world With arms wide open . . .'' Shawn Bentley's untimely passing is this Nation's loss. On behalf of the Senate, let me say that our hearts go out to the Bentley family--to his loving wife Becky, their beautiful daughters Katie and Samantha, his parents DeAnna and Marion, and his five brothers Jared, Derek, Justin, Christopher and Gavin.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am grateful to my distinguished colleague from Vermont for the kindness that he has shown here today and the friendship that he has shown to me and to the family of Shawn Bentley. I am very grateful to him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in recent years, Utahns have suffered through a devastating drought. While it appears that we are beginning to return to normal precipitation levels, the drought has instilled in all Utahns the need to plan for the future and ensure sound management of our water resources. For that reason, I rise to introduce two important bills that will help make better use of Utah's scarce water supply. The first bill is the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2005. The bill would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on raising the height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam in Weber County. The dam is roughly 14 miles long and encloses a reservoir containing more than 200,000 acre-feet of water. Thousands of Utahns currently rely on the water provided by the reservoir. And the Weber Basin is one of Utah's fastest growing areas, making the need to find additional water resources even more pressing. Enlarging the dam would help ensure that the area can meet its ever- increasing demand for water. In my view, expanding the dam is an easy way to increase water storage capacity in an area that desperately needs it. The next bill I am introducing today, is the Juab County Ground Water Study and Development Act of 2005. This legislation would amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 2005 to include Juab County. It would allow Juab County to use Central Utah Project funds to complete water resource development projects, enabling the County to better utilize their existing water resources. It will ensure that farmers, ranchers, and other citizens of Juab County have a reliable water supply. Under the original plan for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project, several counties in central Utah, including Juab, were to be delivered supplemental water through an irrigation and drainage delivery system. Over the years, however, many central Utah Counties have elected not to participate in the plan and no longer pay the requisite taxes to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the political division of the State of Utah established to manage CUP activities in Utah. Unlike other central Utah Counties, Juab County remained active in the Central Utah Water Conservancy District's efforts and has paid property taxes to the District hoping to benefit from its membership. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Presently, most of the water allocated to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project is planned for use in Wasatch, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. This legislation would simply ensure that the citizens of Juab County can benefit from the system they help support. I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in recent years, Utahns have suffered through a devastating drought. While it appears that we are beginning to return to normal precipitation levels, the drought has instilled in all Utahns the need to plan for the future and ensure sound management of our water resources. For that reason, I rise to introduce two important bills that will help make better use of Utah's scarce water supply. The first bill is the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2005. The bill would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on raising the height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam in Weber County. The dam is roughly 14 miles long and encloses a reservoir containing more than 200,000 acre-feet of water. Thousands of Utahns currently rely on the water provided by the reservoir. And the Weber Basin is one of Utah's fastest growing areas, making the need to find additional water resources even more pressing. Enlarging the dam would help ensure that the area can meet its ever- increasing demand for water. In my view, expanding the dam is an easy way to increase water storage capacity in an area that desperately needs it. The next bill I am introducing today, is the Juab County Ground Water Study and Development Act of 2005. This legislation would amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 2005 to include Juab County. It would allow Juab County to use Central Utah Project funds to complete water resource development projects, enabling the County to better utilize their existing water resources. It will ensure that farmers, ranchers, and other citizens of Juab County have a reliable water supply. Under the original plan for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project, several counties in central Utah, including Juab, were to be delivered supplemental water through an irrigation and drainage delivery system. Over the years, however, many central Utah Counties have elected not to participate in the plan and no longer pay the requisite taxes to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the political division of the State of Utah established to manage CUP activities in Utah. Unlike other central Utah Counties, Juab County remained active in the Central Utah Water Conservancy District's efforts and has paid property taxes to the District hoping to benefit from its membership. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Presently, most of the water allocated to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project is planned for use in Wasatch, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. This legislation would simply ensure that the citizens of Juab County can benefit from the system they help support. I urge my colleagues to support these bills.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, just this past May, I stood at a gas station in Salt Lake City and announced the introduction of S. 1039, the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act of 2005. By standing near a gas pump charging $2.25 per gallon, I thought I was making a strong statement about the high price of gas and the need for greater refining capacity in our country. That was only a few months ago, but hurricanes Katrina and Rita have since exposed the vulnerability of our Nation's refining infrastructure, and the gas prices in May now seem like the good old days. I am pleased that the energy bill signed by President Bush this summer included the principal concept of S. 1039--that of providing a strong tax incentive to expand refinery capacity by allowing the cost to be written off immediately. Unfortunately, because of budget restrictions, my legislation had to be cut. I have long been concerned that our shrinking number of refineries and their proximity to our Nation's coasts pose an unacceptable risk to our economic and strategic security. I thought cutting S. 1039 was a mistake at the time, and now I am hoping Congress will remedy that mistake. Today, I rise to reintroduce those portions of my refining capacity legislation that were left out of the energy bill and call upon my colleagues to help me finish what was begun with my original bill. My new legislation, the Refinery Investment Tax Assistance Act, would enhance the incentives made in the energy bill by increasing the short- term incentive to add new and expanded refining facilities and by removing the obstacle of long tax depreciation schedules that refineries face. For those refiners able to commit to installing new refining equipment before 2008 and to have that added capacity built by 2012, my original bill would have allowed a complete write-off for investments in new refining equipment in the first year. As passed by Congress, though, this provision was cut for budgetary reasons to allow for expensing of only 50 percent of the costs in the first year. The legislation I am introducing today would enhance that to allow for the full 100 percent expensing in the first year. Now, more than ever, we need to use every possible means to increase the security of our fuel supply. This bill would also restore another very important provision of S. 1039 that was dropped out of the energy bill as a cost savings. This provision would help to remove some of the disparity the refining industry faces in our current tax system. Most manufacturers in our country are able to depreciate the cost of their new equipment over five years. Refineries, on the other hand, are strapped with a full 10- year depreciation period. This unfair treatment of our refining industry acts as a long-term obstacle to new investment in increased capacity. The current 10-year depreciation schedule for refiners is unwarranted, and it is past time that we level the playing field on depreciation for this critically important sector of our energy industry. On September 6, in the aftermath of Katrina, Mr. Bob Slaughter of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He said that an important solution to our energy crisis would be to ``[e]xpand the refining tax incentive provision in the Energy Act. Reduce the depreciation period for refining investments from 10 to seven or five years in order to remove a current disincentive for refining investment. Allow expensing under the current language to take place as the investment is made rather than when the equipment is actually placed in service. Or the percentage expensed could be increased as per the original legislation introduced by Senator Hatch.'' I think it is important to recognize that, over time, this legislation will not cost the U.S. Treasury one dime. It would allow refineries to change the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount. And, we should keep in mind that when this bill leads to more refineries and increased capacity, we will have also increased the tax base. I want to throw my full support behind the proposals recently announced by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Barton and House Resource Committee Chairman Pombo, which would take other approaches to increase the number of refineries in our Nation. From both a national security and an energy security perspective, I especially endorse a proposal by Chairman Pombo to locate more refineries on public lands near oil resource deposits. Such a move will make our Nation more secure from attacks from terrorists and from Mother Nature. I understand that Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee Chairman Pete Domenici is promoting similar proposals on the Senate side. And I applaud these men for their leadership. We have learned that when it comes to our Nation's energy security, refining is where we are the most vulnerable. It is not the time for half measures, but bold immediate action to establish a secure and independent refining program in this country. I hope my colleagues will join me in my efforts to achieve this goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, just this past May, I stood at a gas station in Salt Lake City and announced the introduction of S. 1039, the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act of 2005. By standing near a gas pump charging $2.25 per gallon, I thought I was making a strong statement about the high price of gas and the need for greater refining capacity in our country. That was only a few months ago, but hurricanes Katrina and Rita have since exposed the vulnerability of our Nation's refining infrastructure, and the gas prices in May now seem like the good old days. I am pleased that the energy bill signed by President Bush this summer included the principal concept of S. 1039--that of providing a strong tax incentive to expand refinery capacity by allowing the cost to be written off immediately. Unfortunately, because of budget restrictions, my legislation had to be cut. I have long been concerned that our shrinking number of refineries and their proximity to our Nation's coasts pose an unacceptable risk to our economic and strategic security. I thought cutting S. 1039 was a mistake at the time, and now I am hoping Congress will remedy that mistake. Today, I rise to reintroduce those portions of my refining capacity legislation that were left out of the energy bill and call upon my colleagues to help me finish what was begun with my original bill. My new legislation, the Refinery Investment Tax Assistance Act, would enhance the incentives made in the energy bill by increasing the short- term incentive to add new and expanded refining facilities and by removing the obstacle of long tax depreciation schedules that refineries face. For those refiners able to commit to installing new refining equipment before 2008 and to have that added capacity built by 2012, my original bill would have allowed a complete write-off for investments in new refining equipment in the first year. As passed by Congress, though, this provision was cut for budgetary reasons to allow for expensing of only 50 percent of the costs in the first year. The legislation I am introducing today would enhance that to allow for the full 100 percent expensing in the first year. Now, more than ever, we need to use every possible means to increase the security of our fuel supply. This bill would also restore another very important provision of S. 1039 that was dropped out of the energy bill as a cost savings. This provision would help to remove some of the disparity the refining industry faces in our current tax system. Most manufacturers in our country are able to depreciate the cost of their new equipment over five years. Refineries, on the other hand, are strapped with a full 10- year depreciation period. This unfair treatment of our refining industry acts as a long-term obstacle to new investment in increased capacity. The current 10-year depreciation schedule for refiners is unwarranted, and it is past time that we level the playing field on depreciation for this critically important sector of our energy industry. On September 6, in the aftermath of Katrina, Mr. Bob Slaughter of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He said that an important solution to our energy crisis would be to ``[e]xpand the refining tax incentive provision in the Energy Act. Reduce the depreciation period for refining investments from 10 to seven or five years in order to remove a current disincentive for refining investment. Allow expensing under the current language to take place as the investment is made rather than when the equipment is actually placed in service. Or the percentage expensed could be increased as per the original legislation introduced by Senator Hatch.'' I think it is important to recognize that, over time, this legislation will not cost the U.S. Treasury one dime. It would allow refineries to change the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount. And, we should keep in mind that when this bill leads to more refineries and increased capacity, we will have also increased the tax base. I want to throw my full support behind the proposals recently announced by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Barton and House Resource Committee Chairman Pombo, which would take other approaches to increase the number of refineries in our Nation. From both a national security and an energy security perspective, I especially endorse a proposal by Chairman Pombo to locate more refineries on public lands near oil resource deposits. Such a move will make our Nation more secure from attacks from terrorists and from Mother Nature. I understand that Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee Chairman Pete Domenici is promoting similar proposals on the Senate side. And I applaud these men for their leadership. We have learned that when it comes to our Nation's energy security, refining is where we are the most vulnerable. It is not the time for half measures, but bold immediate action to establish a secure and independent refining program in this country. I hope my colleagues will join me in my efforts to achieve this goal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Thank you. Mr. President, I rise once again to speak in favor of the nomination of John Roberts. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to vote to make John Roberts the next Chief Justice of the United States. The central focus this week is properly on the nomination of Judge Roberts. In addition, the manner in which the Senate acts on this nomination also will be subject to public scrutiny. In this regard, I join those who have commended Senator Specter and Senator Leahy and other members of the Judiciary Committee for working together to plan and carry out a fair series of hearings on the Roberts nomination. This week, the full Senate faces the challenge of debating the merits of John Roberts to serve as our Nation's 17th Chief Justice. A widely respected journalist, David Broder, observed about the Roberts nomination: He is so obviously ridiculously well equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrat can justify a vote against his confirmation. To put a fine point on it, if Democrats do not vote for John Roberts, is it fair to ask whether some Democrats will ever give a fair shake to any Republican Supreme Court nominee? I recognize that many leftwing special interest groups are putting a lot of pressure on Democratic Senators to vote against this extraordinarily qualified nominee. For example, last Wednesday, September 21, 2005, the newspaper Rollcall contained an article with the headline ``Liberal Groups Lecture Democrats on Roberts.'' Let me read a portion of this article: . . . Sens. Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer received a sharp rebuke at a weekend meeting in Los Angeles from wealthy activists such as television producer Norman Lear over Roberts' glide path to confirmation. At an event on behalf of People for the American Way, the first of the major liberal groups to announce opposition to Roberts, Lear lashed out at the Democrats for not mounting more determined resistance to the nomination, according to several sources familiar with the event. Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, confirmed that the event included a `frank discussion' between activists and the Senators. That says it all, the pressure on our colleagues on the other side: lectures, sharp rebukes, frank discussions. It sounds as if there may be some dissension in ``All in the Family.'' One can only wonder if ``the Meathead'' took part in this harangue against the Senators. I have no doubt that pressure from some liberal groups was substantial. There are compelling reasons why the health of both the Senate and Judiciary require that this vote should be about, and only about, John Roberts' qualification to serve as Chief Justice. Some leftwing special interest groups seem to be urging a ``no'' vote on this highly qualified nominee in large part to somehow send a message to President Bush, as he deliberates on how to fill the remaining vacancy on the Supreme Court. If that is the case, it is a garbled, misguided message. I understand the political fact of life that some outside interest groups normally affiliated with the Republican side of the aisle might have preferred that Republican Senators would have voted against the Supreme Court nominees of President Clinton. But I also respect the political reality that he who wins the White House has the right under the Constitution to nominate judicial nominees, including filling Supreme Court vacancies. In undertaking our advice and consent role, the Senate, due to the Constitution, prudence, and tradition, owes a degree of deference to Presidential nominees. This helps explain why the two Supreme Court nominations made by President Clinton were given broad bipartisan support by the Senate once they were found to possess the intellect, integrity, character, and mainstream judicial philosophy necessary to serve on the Court. When the votes were counted for these two Clinton nominees, both of whom were known as socially liberal, Justice Breyer was confirmed by 87 to 9, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was approved by a 96-to-3 vote. Given the already stated opposition of both the minority leader and the assistant minority leader and many other Democratic Senators, it does not appear likely that Judge Roberts will receive the same level of support from Democrat Senators as Republican Senators provided for the last two Democrat nominees. This is unfortunate, unjustified, and unfair. Comity must be a two-way street. At least during the debate of this extremely well-qualified nominee the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has not renewed his over- the-top pledge ``to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this President of the United States.'' Frankly, I do not think that much of the opposition against the nominee can be wholly explained by anything that Judge Roberts said or did or did not say over the course of his exemplary 25-year career as a lawyer. I commend the growing number of Democrats, including the ranking Democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for their decisions to support Judge Roberts. I hope many others across the aisle will join them. I also commend President Bush for consulting closely with the Senate and for sending a truly outstanding nominee in John Roberts. By all accounts, the President is continuing his practice of consulting widely with the Senate in filling the remaining vacancy on the Court. Turning to the merits of this nomination, I take a few moments to briefly discuss John Roberts' education and experience to help explain why so many think so highly of this nominee. Too often in this debate, Judge Roberts' opponents quickly acknowledged his brilliance and qualifications before launching into a series of speculative if's, and's, or but's that somehow justify a vote against the confirmation in their eyes. The American public realizes John Roberts has the right stuff. John Roberts graduated from Harvard College summa cum laude in 3 years. He went on to Harvard Law School where he graduated magna cum laude and was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review. Judge Roberts began his career by clerking for two leading Federal appellate judges, Judge Henry Friendly and Justice William Rehnquist. Judge Roberts began his career in the executive branch by serving as a Special Assistant to Attorney General William French Smith. Next, he was Associate Counsel in the White House Counsel's Office. In the administration of President George H.W. Bush, John Roberts served as Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the Department of Justice. Upon departing Government and moving back into private practice, he was justifiably recognized as one of the leading appellate lawyers in the country. He has argued an almost astounding number of 39 cases before the Supreme Court. John Roberts has represented a diverse group of clients, including environmental, consumer, and civil rights interests and has taken seriously his obligation to provide voluntary legal services to the poor, including criminal defendants. Just 2 years ago, John Roberts was confirmed in the Senate without objection; not one Senator raised an objection to his nomination for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The American Bar Association evaluated Judge Roberts four times in the last 4 years, and each time he earned the highest ABA rating of ``well- qualified.'' And four times in a row this ``well-qualified'' rating was unanimous. This must be some kind of a record for ABA ratings. John Roberts has the temperament, integrity, intelligence, judgment, and judicial philosophy to lead the Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary well into the 21st century. The Senate and the American public heard directly from John Roberts as he testified for over 20 hours before the Judiciary Committee. Most of us liked what we saw and heard. Judge Roberts told us he would bring back to the Supreme Court no agenda--political, personal, or otherwise. He told us he would consider each case based solely on the merits of the relevant facts and the applicable laws. With Judge Roberts, all litigants will continue to receive the bedrock American right of equal justice under the law. Here is what Judge Roberts said about the rule of law during his hearing: Somebody asked me, ``Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?'' And you want to give an immediate answer. But if you reflect on it, if the Constitution says the little guy should win, the little guy should win in court before me. But if the Constitution says the big guy should win, well, the big guy should win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. . . .The oath that a judge takes is not that ``I'll look out for special interests'' . . . the oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States and that's what I would do. It seems to me that Judge Roberts got it exactly right. I cannot say the same thing about those, including the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, who embraced results-oriented litmus tests when they repeatedly asked just whose side will Judge Roberts be on in deciding cases. As Judge Roberts explained, a judge has to hear the case and consider the law before he or she decides who should prevail under the law. I also greatly appreciated Judge Roberts' comments on judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judge Roberts believes that in our system of government, judges ``do not have a commission to solve society's problems, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law.'' I found enlightening Judge Roberts' description about how he decides cases through a careful process of reviewing briefs, participating in oral arguments, conferring with other judges at conference, and, finally, writing the decision. He noted that he often adjusts his view of the case throughout the course of the deliberative process. Both in his opening testimony and in answering questions, Judge Roberts stressed the response of judges exercising institutional and personal modesty and humility. I have no doubt that this view is genuinely held by this nominee. I can say that an overwhelming majority of my fellow Utahans say they are fairly impressed with Judge Roberts' attitude toward the law and the role of judges. Some, particularly many leftwing special interest groups, do not share my enthusiasm for Judge Roberts. Despite the fact that Judge Roberts answered dozens of questions on many topics, some complain that Judge Roberts did not answer all the questions. Let us be clear. Under the Cannons of Judicial Ethics, it would have been inappropriate for Judge Roberts to comment on matters that could come before the Court. These liberal groups apparently have forgotten that back in 1993 when Democrat nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appeared before the Judiciary Committee in connection with her 96-to-3 confirmation to the Supreme Court, she took a position of ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews,'' on many questions. This was consistent with what the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, said back in 1967 with respect to the Supreme Court nomination of Thurgood Marshall. He said: We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters which are either before the court or very likely to appear before the court. Some critics argue that the administration should have turned over memos that Judge Roberts wrote in his former capacity as Deputy Solicitor General, when the fact is that several years ago a bipartisan group of seven former Solicitors General, four of whom were Democrats, wrote to the Judiciary Committee to tell us that, generally, providing these documents to the Senate and making them public was a bad idea given the unique role of the Solicitor General's Office. Some critics assert that Judge Roberts is insufficiently sensitive to their views in some areas of the law, including civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, and abortion, Presidential power and the commerce clause. A careful analysis of Judge Roberts' professional record over the last 25 years, coupled with the rigorous review of the hearing transcript, leads to the conclusion that Judge Roberts is well within the mainstream on his general perspectives on these issues and has pledged to be fair and openmined on any future litigation involving these and other areas. I take him at his word. For example, the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has attempted to suggest that Judge Roberts is somehow against voting rights and other civil rights. Yet in response to questions from Senator Kennedy, Judge Roberts clearly stated that he believed that voting is the preservative of all other rights. It is this principle that undergirds the leading case of Baker v. Carr that brought us into the one man-one vote era that changed the political landscape of America. Moreover, Judge Roberts acknowledges the importance of the Voting Rights Act, and he has supported its reauthorization and said he is unaware of any fundamental legal deficiency in the statute. While in the Solicitor General's Office, John Roberts joined several briefs urging the Supreme Court to adopt broad interpretations of the Voting Rights Act. For example, in the 1993 case of Voinovich v. Quilter, Roberts successfully argued in a brief on behalf of the United States for a reading of the Ohio redistricting plan that made it easier to create minority legislative districts. The Supreme Court concurred. To claim John Roberts is hostile to voting rights is simply not true. Nor is he hostile to, or predisposed against, any other rights, interests, or legal claims. John Roberts is committed to hearing every case in a fair, unbiased manner. Let me conclude by saying that some, including some members of the Judiciary Committee, having failed to make a substantial case against this stellar nominee, have resorted to suggesting we are somehow ``rolling the dice'' or ``betting the house'' with this nominee. To me, supporting John Roberts is a sound investment and, I will say, a sound investment in our Nation's future, not some long-shot bet. John Roberts' long and distinguished record as an advocate and judge over the past 25 years, buttressed by his recent confirmation hearing testimony, demonstrates he is a bright, careful, and thoughtful legal professional of the highest integrity and character. He is not an ideologue inclined to, or bent on, high court mischief. I think it likely one day historians will conclude that in making John Roberts our 17th Chief Justice, the President and Senate made a wise choice that helped maintain and advance the rule of law for all present and future citizens of the United States. Mr. President, I will vote aye to confirm Judge Roberts, and I hope the vast majority of Senators will do likewise. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the time allocation?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week the Judiciary Committee gave its solid, bipartisan recommendation that the Senate confirm John G. Roberts, Jr., to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate should follow that recommendation with a substantial bipartisan vote supporting this exceptional nominee. As the Los Angeles Times put it when endorsing Judge Roberts, anything short of an overwhelming vote would be an indictment of petty partisanship. I think Judge Roberts is the most analyzed and evaluated Supreme Court nominee in history. The American Bar Association, whose rating my Democratic colleagues once hailed as the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees, completed two exhaustive reviews. Each time the ABA unanimously gave Judge Roberts its highest well-qualified rating. The ABA, by the way, includes in its criterion of judicial temperament such important qualities as compassion, openmindedness, freedom from bias, and commitment to equal justice under law. Judge Roberts spent almost 20 hours before the Judiciary Committee while Senators asked him 673 questions. Senators then asked him 243 more questions in writing. Judge Roberts provided nearly 3,000 pages to the Judiciary Committee, including his published articles, congressional testimony, transcripts from interviews, speeches, and panel discussions and material related to the dozens of cases that he argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Judiciary Committee obtained more than 14,000 pages of material in the public domain, including the opinions Judge Roberts authored and joined while on the U.S. Court of Appeals and legal briefs from his years at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson and as Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration. As if all of that were not enough, the Judiciary Committee obtained a staggering 82,943 pages of additional material from the National Archives and both the Reagan and Bush Libraries regarding Judge Roberts' service in those administrations. Total that up, and we have more than 100,000 pages of material on a 50-year-old nominee. That amounts to about 2,000 pages for every year of his life. By orders of magnitude, this is more information than any Senators have had about any previous Supreme Court nominee. The real debate over this nomination is about the standard we should apply to this mountain of information. The standard a Senator applies reflects a particular job description, what a Senator believes judges should do in our system of government. For some Senators, it is a political job description. They see judges as playing a political role, delivering results favoring certain political interests, setting or changing policy, creating new rights, defending social progress, and blazing a trail toward justice and equality. Not surprisingly, Senators who believe in this kind of political job description ask political questions and apply political standards during the hiring process. During the hearing, for example, the distinguished assistant minority leader, a member of the Judiciary Committee, told Judge Roberts he needed to know the nominee's personal values. Personal values are a condition for judicial service only if judges make their decisions based on their personal values. This is a political standard. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, a former Judiciary Committee chairman, has repeatedly said that the central question is, in his words, Whose side will Judge Roberts be on when different kinds of cases come before him? Demanding that judges take sides before cases even begin is, again, a political standard. Last week on the Senate floor, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, said he could not support Judge Roberts because, as he put it: I can't say with confidence that I know on a sufficient number of critical constitutional issues how he would rule. Basing support for a judicial nominee on a checklist of results, without regard for the facts or the law in each case, is a political standard. The Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, last week announced her opposition to Judge Roberts and described her standard by asking: Who will be the winners if we confirm Judge Roberts? This question, of course, completely contradicts the age-old teaching of parents in California, my home State of Utah, and everywhere else that it does not matter if one wins or loses but how they play the game. Focusing on the political correctness of a judge's results rather than the judicial correctness of his reasoning is a political standard. Other Senators, and I place myself squarely in this camp, use a judicial standard. We see judges as playing a judicial rather than a political role. During his hearing, Judge Roberts properly compared judges to umpires who apply rules they did not make and cannot change to a contest before them. Can anyone imagine conditioning an umpire's employment on knowing before he officiates his first game which teams on the roster will win or lose? Similarly, judges must not take sides before a case begins. Senators who believe in a judicial job description ask judicial questions and apply judicial standards during the hiring process, and during the hearing process as well, I might add. I want to know, for example, whether Judge Roberts believes he can make law at all, not the particular law he would make. I want to know whether parties will win before him because the law favors their side, not because he does. Like America's Founders, I believe it makes all the difference for our liberty whether judges occupy a judicial or a political role in our system of government. In the Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, quoting the political philosopher, Montesquieu, that there is no liberty at all if judicial power is not separated from legislative and executive power. The separation of powers is literally the lynchpin of liberty. That principle had a 200-year-old pedigree when America's Founders listed as a reason for seeking independence that King George had made judges dependent upon his political will. We must insist on appointing judges who meet a judicial rather than a political standard. I will list some of the evidence that Judge Roberts meets this judicial standard. Judge Roberts told the Judiciary Committee that a judge is obligated to respect precedent, and he described in some detail the principles guiding how judges utilize those prior decisions. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe that judges should not respect precedent? Do they reject the traditional principles of stare decisis that Judge Roberts outlined? If so, my friends should try to make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that judges should respect precedent, then they should vote to confirm this nomination. Judge Roberts repeatedly insisted that judges must be impartial. Here is how he put it: I think people on both sides need to know that if they go to the Supreme Court that they're going to be on a level playing field, the judge is going to interpret the law, that the judge is going to apply the Constitution and not take sides in their dispute. That was said by Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., on September 13, 2005. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, are they saying that judges should instead be partial, that judges should actually take sides, that people coming before the Court do not deserve the confidence that judges will be fair? If that is what they believe, I invite them to try to make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that judges should be impartial, then they should confirm his nomination. Judge Roberts said that judges must be open to the views of their judicial colleagues. This is a mark of modesty and humility he consistently said should characterize judges. If my friends on the other side of this nomination oppose this nomination, are they arguing that judges should not consider anyone else's views but narrowly insist that they are always right? If so, then once again they should make their case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that modest judges remain open to consider what others have to say, then they should vote for his nomination. Judge Roberts told us that judges are not politicians. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they really believe that judges, and not elected legislators, should make the law and determine public policy? Do my friends really believe that there is no difference between what the Justices do across the street in the Supreme Court and what we do in this Chamber? If so, I wish them luck trying to make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with America's Founders and with Judge Roberts that judges are not politicians, they should vote to confirm this nomination. Judge Roberts says judges are the servants of the law. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe judges are instead the masters of the law? Do they believe the Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is? If so, then I invite them to make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with America's Founders that the Constitution governs the judicial as well as the legislative branch, if they agree with Judge Roberts that judges are as subject to the rule of law as the parties before them, then my friends should vote to confirm this nomination. Judge Roberts pledged that, as he has done on the appeals court bench, he will approach every case with an open mind and consider each case on its own merits. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe instead judges should have a closed mind on issues that come before them, that judges should prejudge issues in cases even before they know the facts? If so, then I urge my friends to try and convince the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that judges should safeguard their impartiality and keep an open mind, then they should vote to confirm this nomination. Judge Roberts said: The role of the judge is limited, that judges are to decide the cases before them, they're not to legislate. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe instead judges have an unlimited role, that judges should decide cases not properly before them, and that judges should do the legislating? If so, I urge them to try to make that case before the American people. If not, if they share Judge Roberts' view about the proper limited judicial role, then they should vote to confirm this nomination. Judge Roberts said judges must decide cases--and I am quoting him again--judges must decide cases: according to the rule of law, not their own social preferences, not their policy views, not their personal preferences, but according to the rule of law. Again, that was on September 13, 2005. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they believe judges should decide cases based on their personal preferences or policy views rather than the rule of law? If so, again, they should make this case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that the rule of law trumps a judge's personal views, then they should vote to confirm this nomination. Judge Roberts said when Congress enacts a statute, we do not expect judges to substitute their judgment for ours but to implement our view of what we are accomplishing. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, are they instead saying judges should substitute their judgment for ours? If so, again, they should make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that Congress's intent should prevail regarding Congress's own statutes, then they should vote to confirm this nomination. Judge Roberts said: I don't think the Court should be the task master of Congress. I think the Constitution is the Court's task master and it's Congress' task master as well. That was said on September 14 of this year. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, do they mean the Supreme Court should in fact be the taskmaster of Congress, and even of the Constitution itself? If so, then I wish them well, trying to convince the American people by making that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that the Constitution is the taskmaster of both Congress and the Supreme Court, then they should vote to confirm this nomination. Judge Roberts told us the Bill of Rights does not change during times of war or crisis. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, are they arguing for setting aside the Bill of Rights in times of war or crisis? If so, then they should make their case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that neither the Bill of Rights nor a judge's obligation to uphold the rule of law is suspended in a time of war or crisis, then they should vote to uphold this nomination. I want to quote Judge Roberts again because his particular words are very important. He said: If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. He said that on September 15 of this year. If my friends on the other side oppose this nomination, are they arguing that whoever the little guy might be must win, regardless of what the facts and regardless of what the law requires? Are they saying judges should disregard their oaths to do justice without respect to persons? If so, I will be watching with great expectation as they try to make that case to the American people. If not, if they agree with Judge Roberts that the law, not the judge, determines who wins, if they agree with Judge Roberts that the judge's obligation is to the Constitution and not to a particular side, then they should confirm this nomination. These examples show the type of judge John Roberts is on the appeals court, the kind of Justice John Roberts will be on the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts knows the difference between politics and law. He knows as a judge he must settle legal disputes by interpreting and applying law and leave the politics to the politicians. We have all the information we need about this exceptional nominee. If we apply a judicial rather than a political standard, the Senate will confirm him as the Nation's 17th Justice overwhelmingly and without delay. Judge Roberts is one of the finest nominees ever to come before the Congress of the United States, and in particular the Senate confirming body. Not only was he an excellent student, graduating from Harvard in only 3 years as an undergraduate, but he became the top graduate in law school and the editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review, a position everybody in this Chamber has to respect and admire. He also served as a clerk for Judge Friendly, one of the greatest circuit court judges this country has ever seen. He served as a clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist. I was impressed at the Rehnquist funeral to see some 95 former clerks paying respect to their Justice Rehnquist, some of whom were my fellow Utahns. He then worked in the White House counsel's office as a young man and served with distinction there. He then went on to become Deputy Solicitor General of the United States and did a terrific job while there. He rose to become one of the top partners in one of the top law firms in this country and argued 39 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Hardly anybody can make that claim today. I have asked various Justices on the Supreme Court who they consider to be the best appellate lawyer to appear before them, and invariably the name John Roberts comes up from the Justices themselves. I was intrigued that Justice Stevens is overjoyed that John Roberts is going to join them on the Court because he has such respect for John Roberts. I have to say in 20 hours of testimony, how could anybody vote against him? I have to say also it concerns me that there will be some who will. I suggest if they would vote against Judge Roberts for the Supreme Court, then I doubt sincerely there is any nominee this President could put forth they would vote for, and that is a sorry case and I think a sad indictment. I urge everybody in this body to vote for this outstanding nominee for Chief Justice of the United States. In doing so, I don't think anybody who does is going to be sorry afterward. Yes, I believe him to be conservative. Yes, I believe he is not going to be an activist on the bench. Yes, I believe he will honor and sustain the law--and I know one thing: he is going to approach the law as intelligently as any person who has ever been nominated to the Supreme Court. I think people who watched those hearings have to come to the same conclusion. If they do, then I hope our colleagues who have announced they are going to vote against him will change their mind, do what is right, and vote for him. Remember, when now Justices Ginsburg and Breyer came before this body, I was the leader on the Judiciary Committee. I have to say, we Republicans all knew both of those now Justices were social liberals, that they disagreed with many of the things we believed and we disagreed with many of the things they believed. But they were both qualified and they were put forth by the then President of the United States, President William Jefferson Clinton. And Presidents deserve respect on these nominations. Justice Ginsburg was confirmed on a vote of 96 to 3, and I believe Justice Breyer was confirmed on a vote of 87 to 9, which means virtually every Republican voted for both of them. We did not take the political way. I have to say I don't think others should take it here in this case with this person who everybody acknowledges is exceptionally well qualified, including the American Bar Association. I recommend everybody vote for Judge Roberts, and in the end you are going to be able to go to sleep at night knowing you did the right thing. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while I recognize that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, is overwhelmed in addressing the needs associated with the Hurricane Katrina recovery, the Higher Education Act, HEA, is set to expire on September 30, 2005. I am concerned that with the extension of the HEA until December 31, 2005, we may be sending a signal that we are not planning on acting on the HEA reauthorization bill in the near future. I would like to know if my friend, the chairman of the HELP Committee, could give me his assurance he still intends to make passage of the permanent reauthorization a priority in the next few weeks?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman for that confirmation.