Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier today I was necessarily detained from voting on S.J. Res. 20, ``A Joint Resolution disapproving a rule promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to delist coal and oil-direct utility units from the source category list under the Clean Air Act.'' Mercury emissions and rulings by Federal agencies concerning the environment are extremely important. Although my vote would not have changed the outcome, I respectfully request that the Record show that had I been able to cast my vote, I would have joined with the majority of Senators who voted to uphold the administration's rulings and against the resolution of disapproval.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on S. Res. 234 be delayed until 12:10.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I was also at that meeting last night in the secure room in S. 407. I have to say, I was absolutely blown away by how much the Federal Government has mobilized to try and help in the Gulf region. There is no question that we knew this city was 10 to 12 feet under sea level and that there was bound to be some sort of a problem happen. I think there is plenty of blame to be cast around to everybody. The important thing that we ought to be considering is solving the problem and getting that city back on its feet. From what I heard last night, the Federal Government is doing everything it possibly can. Frankly, I believe every agency, including FEMA, has done a good job under the circumstances. This has been a catastrophe of great proportions. There is no question about it. All of the criticism in the world is not going to change that. The fact is, we had a number of Cabinet-level officials there, from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Secretary of Labor, and I thought they made a pretty good case. I think we ought to get the job done and quit worrying so much about criticizing.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to pay tribute to a good man whom I knew well, who was a great judge, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. His service and leadership on the Supreme Court, the principles he consistently followed, and the steady hand with which he guided the judiciary make him one of the judiciary's very best. William Hubbs Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court of the United States for 33 years and almost 8 months. He was the eighth longest serving of the Court's 108 members, having recently surpassed the tenure of the legendary Justice Joseph Story. He was the fourth longest serving of the Court's 16 Chief Justices, and one of just five individuals to have served as both Associate and Chief Justice. William Rehnquist's service was a powerful mixture of the personal and the professional. He brought a kind of dignified practicality, or perhaps it was practical dignity, to what is one of the most formal and respected posts in the Federal Government. William Rehnquist was the historian who could play a practical joke, the defender of the judicial institution who played poker with his colleagues. We will miss this scholar and author, who also led an annual Christmas carol sing-along for the Court's employees. Yesterday, his former clerks surrounded his casket and carried it past his former colleagues into the Court where he lay in repose in a plain white pine casket. It was so touching. We were all touched by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor weeping at the loss of a man who had been a fellow law student more than 50 years ago and was a fellow Justice for the past 24. He was No. 1 in his class; she was No. 3. They were close friends. The respected legal analyst Stuart Taylor writes that one attribute of greatness is being esteemed by one's colleagues. Whether his fellow Justices voted with him or against him on the cases before the Court, they all cherished and esteemed him. Liberal icons such as Justice William Brennan called Chief Justice Rehnquist a breath of fresh air. Justice Thurgood Marshall called him a great Chief Justice. Justice Lewis Powell said he had a good sense of humor and was both generous and principled. When President Nixon nominated William Rehnquist to be an Associate Justice in 1971, Attorney General John Mitchell said he expected Justice Rehnquist to be independent. Before the Judiciary Committee, the nominee pledged as his fundamental commitment to totally disregard his own personal beliefs when interpreting and applying the law. Democratic Senator John McClellan of Arkansas, a member of the Judiciary Committee, explained in the pages of the New York Times why he supported what he called a distinguished nominee. He said that William Rehnquist would not contribute to the trend of pursuing abstract goals driven by ideology rather than law. As both Associate and Chief Justice, William Rehnquist confirmed Senator McClellan's judgment. Chief Justice Rehnquist strongly defended the prerogatives of the judicial branch. This alone might give pause to those who believe the judiciary was already too strong. But he coupled that commitment to institutional vigor with a fidelity to constitutional rigor. While insisting that the Court was the primary interpreter of the Constitution, he did not join those who said the Constitution's meaning ebbed and flowed with the latest cultural and political fad. Chief Justice Rehnquist understood that we entrust interpretation of our laws to unelected judges only because, as he had, they promise to keep their own moral and political viewpoints on the sideline. Over time, by example and leadership, this principle helped him move the Court toward its traditionally modest role within our system of government. Commentators and reporters discussing the Chief Justice's legacy almost reflexively use the moniker ``Lone Ranger'' to describe the new Associate Justice Rehnquist. He was sometimes a lonely dissenter on a Court that saw itself as the vanguard of social change. In that role, however, he reminded us of the fundamental principles that should guide the judiciary. Judges may not exercise judicial review based on their personal opinions, preferences, or agendas. They must take the Constitution as they find it and apply it as it is. As new Justices joined the Court, and Chief Justice Rehnquist continued articulating and applying such traditional principles, he found himself with more company. While some talk of Chief Justices as able to bring colleagues together in a particular case, Chief Justice Rehnquist did so, patiently and steadily, over the long haul of his entire tenure. In a 1996 address at American University's Washington College of Law, Chief Justice Rehnquist called judicial independence the ``crown jewel'' of the American judicial system. He took this seriously on a personal as well as a judicial level. In this last year or so, William Hubbs Rehnquist lived and finished life on this earth in his own independent way. He shared what he wanted to share, when and how he chose to share it. He carried himself with dignity, in a way protecting his privacy publicly, if such a thing is possible. He was a good man and a good judge. Our lives, individually as citizens and collectively as a nation, are much better for him having been among us. I knew him personally. I know what a great man he was, as far as I am concerned. I know what a supreme intellect he was on that Court. I know what a decent, honorable, honest person he was on that Court. I can remember one lunch I had with Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy. It was terrific luncheon, filled with intellectual repartee. It was a luncheon that I will never forget. I can remember his smiling from time to time as his colleagues made some of their points. He had this wry sense of humor that I suppose came from the people that he was born and raised with in his own State. This is a man of tremendous, inestimable talent, intellect, and ability. But he was warm. He was kind. He was decent. The only time I saw any flare for the unusual was the stripes on his black robe. That was done tongue in cheek, to just kind of lampoon some of the overseriousness some of us sometimes have with regard to the Supreme Court. William Rehnquist was a good father. His daughter Janet worked with us on my staff for a short time. I think the world of her. She is a good person. The other offspring of Justice Rehnquist are also good people. I knew Justice Rehnquist's wife who preceded him in death. She was a beautiful, lovely human being, to whom he gave great deference. This was a man who counted. This was a Chief Justice who made a difference. This is a person whom I respect and whom I care for. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today with sadness in my heart, yet firm in my resolve to due whatever is necessary in order to be of assistance to the citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. No amount of Federal compensation can ever make up for the losses that have been suffered or for the tragic circumstances surrounding this event. Lives have been changed forever. However, now, as we have always done in the past, we will band together as a nation and begin the process of healing the wounds caused by this unprecedented tragedy. I know I speak for all the citizens of Utah when I extend my State's heartfelt sympathies to all who have suffered. The Governor of Utah has graciously volunteered to open our State's doors to the refugees from the New Orleans area, by providing them with shelter, food, and other appropriate assistance. We are all anxious to help and provide as much relief and comfort as possible to these good people. As a member of our Nation's Federal Government, I pledge my full support to provide assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. I am also grateful for the President's leadership. He has done an extraordinary job of organizing land deploying our Nation's resources in a timely and expeditious manner. Currently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is spending $500 million a day to help these citizens. This is a staggering amount of money, but these are staggering times and when we pledge our assistance, we pledge all the assistance we can possibly muster. The suffering and pain felt by our citizens in the South is abhorrent and I am, once again, in awe of the commitment, selflessness, and skill of our Nation's first responders, disaster agency personnel, military personnel, local volunteers, local leaders, and everyday heroes who are--right now--doing all they can to help. I am also indebted to our congressional leadership for bringing the Congress together in an unprecedented fashion to provide Federal aid in a timely manner so rescue and relief efforts can continue unobstructed. I am resolved to do everything I can. I know millions of citizens throughout the country are similarly resolved. To those heroes who wish to alleviate the suffering in the South, please heed the President's request and donate cash to the groups that are providing direct assistance in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Information can be found at the FEMA Web site or by calling the American Red Cross at 1-800-HELP-NOW. The compassion and humanitarian efforts going on in this country are astounding. Thank you to all those citizens who have offered assistance and prayers. I know we can count on every American to do their part in this hour of need. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this Frist-Craig amendment ensures that nothing in the gun liability bill would limit the right of a person under 17 to recover damages authorized by law in a civil action. A person suing on behalf of an injured person can sue under traditional tort law as always. But the underlying Lautenberg amendment would allow lawsuits even if no law is broken, no product is defective, and no person negligently sold a gun. These are the types of suits we are trying to stop. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Frist-Craig amendment.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1615

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to the argument of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. To hear it, you would say the sky is truly falling, that this world is just falling apart and that everything being done in law enforcement just doesn't work, and that if we don't do what his amendment says, we are going to be for terrorism and everything else in this world. I rise to speak against the Kennedy amendment and for the Frist-Craig first-degree amendment. The first-degree amendment Senator Craig just filed would strengthen the penalties for violating the existing ban on armor-piercing ammunition for handguns. It would also create a study on the effects of adopting a performance-based standard for ammunition. This exact same first-degree amendment passed overwhelmingly last year on the floor of the Senate, and I suspect it will again this year. Let me make clear why the Kennedy amendment, without this first-degree amendment, would be harmful. The Kennedy amendment would ban nearly all hunting rifle ammunition. It is also opposed by law enforcement organizations such as the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement agency or organization in the country. The fact is that we have laws in this area that are working. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the BATFE, reached the same conclusion in a recent study. The existing laws were adopted in 1986 and prohibit the manufacture and importation, for private use, of handgun bullets made of certain hard metals and specially jacketed bullets. The BATFE found that ``no additional legislation regarding such laws is necessary.'' My friend from Massachusetts believes all we have to do is just keep passing laws and that will solve every problem. The Departments of Justice and Treasury opposed legislation similar to this amendment back when it was first introduced in the 1980s. Congress rejected it then. We ought to reject it now. Let me give a couple other facts that are important. The Frist-Craig amendment we are offering here today recognizes, as the Fraternal Order of Police points out, that the current law regarding armor-piercing ammunition is working; that is, it states that it is unlawful to manufacture and import, for private use, handgun bullets made of special hard metals and specially jacketed lead bullets. It also requires the Attorney General to study and report on whether it is feasible to develop standards for the uniform testing of projectiles against body armor. The difference that the alternative amendment--the Frist-Craig amendment--makes is in the law's message. It says that if armor- piercing ammunition is used to kill a law enforcement officer, then the maximum penalty available is the death penalty. It doesn't get any tougher than that. If armor-piercing ammunition is used in the commission of a crime that wounds but doesn't kill a law enforcement officer, there will be a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years. Let's talk about how this is different. It sends a message to criminals in this country that not only is this ammunition illegal, if they use it to kill law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day for our citizens, families, and communities, they will pay the ultimate price. Mr. President, we should reject the Kennedy amendment. We should follow what law enforcement in this country says. It does not get any better than the FOP. Last year, the Senate rejected the Kennedy amendment 34 to 63 and instead adopted the Frist-Craig amendment by a vote of 85 to 12. We should do that again. I compliment my colleague for the hard work he has done on this particular bill. I hope we will all vote for the alternative amendment of Senator Craig. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. President, I rise to speak against this substitute amendment that we are now considering. This is yet another attempt to undermine the very purpose of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This amendment creates two loopholes so large that you could drive a truck through them. It would allow lawsuits for lawfully making or selling nondefective guns as long as either the State legislature approves, or a State attorney general brings a lawsuit on behalf of a government. Unfortunately, some governmental entities are part of the problem here. Cash-strapped cities and counties across the country bring these junk lawsuits in an attempt to snare money from gun makers and sellers for their lawful activities. To suggest that State legislative approval will serve as a sufficient check on this problem makes no sense. These lawsuits already have the tacit approval of their state legislatures. And we already know well that some State attorneys general are not above pursuing political agendas. This would only encourage them to bring more of these types of suits. So this amendment would not eliminate in any meaningful way the very lawsuits that the gun liability bill is designed to address. And furthermore, it would not even apply to any pending cases. So lawsuits brought against the gun industry by New York City and Washington, DC, to cite two examples, would go forward under this substitute amendment. This bill is about the integrity of our legal system. It is about protecting law-abiding small businesses from being overwhelmed by junk--yes, junk--lawsuits. And these are not just any small businesses--they also happen to be critical suppliers to our military. In my book, this alone makes them worthy of our protection. We have acted before when we needed to protect others who were besieged or potentially besieged by unscrupulous trial lawyers. We did it for light aircraft manufacturers. We did it for food donors. We did it for medical implant manufacturers. We did it for charitable volunteers. We did it for makers of anti-terrorism technology. And we need to do it here. We cannot continue to allow these lawsuits that turn traditional tort law on its head. We cannot continue to blame law-abiding citizens for the acts of criminals. We cannot continue to witness the corruption of our legal system and do nothing. This substitute would do nothing, or at least it would do nothing good. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Reed amendment.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. These are difficult things to do, and I am glad to see that type of cooperation in what really is a very important set of hearings with regard to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Above all, I want to see Judge Roberts treated fairly. I believe we are off to a good start, and hopefully that will continue.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I have the distinct privilege and honor of rising to pay tribute, on the announcement of his retirement, to one of our Nation's greatest generals, and my good friend, Gen. Gregory S. Martin of the U.S. Air Force. When I first met the general over 2 years ago, I knew immediately that his reputation of being an extraordinary leader was true. From the beginning of his career at the Air Force Academy, where he was named the National Collegiate Parachuting Champion, to his current command of Air Force Materiel Command, excellence has been the defining characteristic of General Martin's career. As a young fighter pilot, he flew combat missions over Vietnam and served as a mission commander during Operations Linebacker I and Linebacker II. I do not have to remind my colleagues that these two air campaigns were instrumental in securing the release of our prisoners of war from Vietnam. General Martin has served in a number of capacities including Commander of the 479th Tactical Training Wing at Holloman Air Force Base, NM; the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, FL; and 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, VA. The Senate began to learn more about General Martin's reputation when he was confirmed as Commander of United States Air Forces in Europe and Commander of Allied Forces Northern Europe. In this capacity, during Operation Enduring Freedom he directed airdrop support for United States and allied forces as well as Afghani refugees. The following year, General Martin provided deployment support, combat airdrop operations, and all air delivered sustainment support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As a testament to his effectiveness as a leader, not only did General Martin accomplish these tasks for his Nation, but he also earned the respect and dedication of the Air Force enlisted personnel who served with him. This was reflected in the decision of the Air Force's enlisted personnel to honor General Martin with the Order of the Sword, the highest tribute the Air Force enlisted corps can pay to a commander. After this successful tour of duty, General Martin was confirmed to his present post as Commander of the Air Force Materiel Command at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. As Commander, Air Force Materiel Command, General Martin leads more than 78,000 men and women of the world's most respected air and space force, and he is all too eager to state that this has been the most satisfying assignment in his career. During his tenure, General Martin transformed Air Force Materiel Command, which is charged with delivering on-time, on-budget war- winning capabilities to our Nation's warfighters as well as providing ``cradle to grave'' management of every Air Force weapons system. General Martin led the development of a new Air Force Science and Technology vision that will guide critical research and development work for decades to come. He strengthened, unified, and streamlined the Air Force Program Executive Office to ensure more effective acquisition support for current and future Air force weapon systems. He led the implementation of Continuous Process Improvement initiatives within the Air Force logistics and sustainment activities, achieving the best on- time, on-cost performance in the history of our Air Force logistics centers. Under General Martin's leadership, the Air Force Materiel Command returned $570 million last year to the Department of Defense to support the global war on terrorism. That is how good this man is, and the people who serve with time. All that being said, none of these accomplishments would have been possible without the support of his wife, General Martin's high school sweetheart. They have been married for 35 years. I know I join a grateful Nation in saying thank you to Wendy for the sacrifices she had made for her husband and for her country throughout the years. As I conclude my remarks on the announcement of the General's retirement, I am reminded of the Air Force's motto: No one comes close. That is how I would describe General Martin: no one comes close. Mr. President, on a personal note, General Martin's call sign is ``Speedy''. There is good reason for that. He is one of the most efficient, revered and honored generals in the history of the Air Force. He is a person who has given a great deal to our country. He deserves a great deal of respect. He is a man of honor. My remarks do not even begin to do justice for this great man, his wife, and those who have served with him in the Air Force and in the defense of our country over all of these years. This is a man who makes a difference. This is a man who I hate to see retire because there is nobody better. However, I wish him well in retirement. Speedy Martin deserves a great retirement, and if he wishes a greater opportunity to continue to serve in whatever capacity he wants for the rest of his life. Until then, we salute him and let him know that we have appreciated the great service he has given to our country. We appreciate him as a person and as an example to all of us. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate is poised to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and send it to the President, Utahns should sit up and take notice, because our State is at the heart of this legislation. So many of the problems in our energy structure have solutions that can be found in Utah, whether it is the need for more clean coal, more clean geothermal energy, more natural gas, better hydroelectric, more refining capacity, or more major sources of domestic oil, Utah will play a major part in the solution. I want to talk more about some of these solutions, but first, let me take a moment to thank Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for leading us to this point. The Senate Finance Committee, on which I sit, has made a major contribution to the bill with its tax incentives title. Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus deserve just as much praise for their outstanding coordination and hard work on that important part of this bill. As the ranking member of the Finance Committee and as a Conferee on this legislation, I was able to watch all 4 of these men work together under pressure, and I could not be more impressed with their leadership and the work their excellent staffs have provided to our nation at this critical time. Working together, they have given us what I consider to be one of the most important bills to be enacted in a long time. I have, at times, been criticized for reaching across the aisle to accomplish important policy goals. Some believe that compromise signals weakness. Well I just plain disagree, and after 4 years of failing to pass a major Energy bill with a simple majority, I think the Senate has proven that we stand the strongest when we stand together. And our energy situation calls for this type of leadership and strength. Over the last decade, American consumers have increased their demand for oil by 12 percent, but domestic oil production has grown by less than \1/2\ of 1 percent. Is it any wonder that we rely on foreign countries for more than half our oil needs? We import 56 percent of our oil today, and it is projected to be 68 percent within 20 years. On the larger scale, global demand for oil is growing at an unprecedented pace--about 2\1/2\ million barrels per day in 2004 alone. While global oil production is increasing, the discovery of new oil reserves is dropping off at an alarming rate. Moreover, trends indicate that the global thirst for petroleum will continue to grow, especially in Asia. If our Nation must rely on oil imports to meet our future energy needs, we are headed for trouble, because, unless something changes, a sufficient oil supply will not be there. We should keep in mind that the transportation sector in the U.S. accounts for nearly \2/3\ of all of our oil consumption, and that sector is 97 percent dependent on oil. It could not be more clear: if we want to improve our energy security, we must focus on our transportation sector, and we must focus on diversifying our transportation fuels. Recently, we heard President Bush call on our Nation to ``develop new ways to power our automobiles,'' and he spoke of his proposal to provide $2.5 billion over 10 years in tax incentives for the purchase of hybrid technologies. The President also called for a better alternative fuel infrastructure and the need to develop hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. As for these policies the President addressed, my legislation, S. 971, the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act, or CLEAR ACT, is exactly where the rubber meets the road. The CLEAR ACT, now a part of this Energy bill, is the most comprehensive and effective plan put forward by Congress to accelerate the transformation of the automotive marketplace toward the widespread use of fuel cell vehicles. And it does so without any new Federal mandates. Rather, it offers powerful market incentives to promote the advances in technology, in our infrastructure, and in the alternative fuels that are necessary if fuel cells are to ever reach the mass market. With the CLEAR ACT we accomplish this goal, but in the meantime, we also get cleaner air, we reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and we help lead our Nation into the future. Historically, consumers have faced three basic obstacles to accepting the use of alternative fuels and advanced technologies. These are the higher cost of the vehicles, the lack of an infrastructure of alternative fueling stations, and the higher cost of alternative fuels. The CLEAR ACT will lower all three of these market barriers through the use of tax incentives. First, we provide a tax credit for the purchase of alternative fuels. Next we promote a new infrastructure of alternative fuel filling stations by extending an existing tax deduction for the purchase of the necessary equipment and providing a new tax credit for the cost of installing it. Finally we provide a Clear Act Credit to consumers who purchase alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles. This includes fuel cell, hybrid electric, alternative fuel, and battery electric vehicles. All of the technologies promoted in the CLEAR ACT--whether they be battery or electric motor technologies or advances in fuel storage and alternative fuel infrastructure--lead us closer to the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I believe fuel cells are in our future. However, even if the widespread use of fuel cell vehicles never becomes a reality, advances in these other technologies provide a dramatic social benefit on their own. I have heard from some who question the need for incentives for hybrid vehicles when they are popular in some areas. It may be true that demand for these vehicles is high in a few regions. However, these high-demand areas tend to have local or state incentives in place for the purchase of these vehicles. Where incentives are not in place, hybrid sales are minimal. This demonstrates that incentives can indeed provide a market breakthrough to consumer acceptance of alternative vehicles. With the CLEAR ACT, we are trying to provide that breakthrough on a national scale. And the numbers show that a breakthrough is desperately needed. It may be true that hybrid sales have doubled in the last couple of years, but they still represent a minuscule 0.48 percent of cars that were sold in 2004. So I am very pleased, Mr. President, that the energy bill will lead us into the future in this regard. We should also be using more clean alternatives when we generate another form of energy--electricity. I am very pleased that the Energy bill includes S. 1156, my legislation that extends and expands the production tax credit for electricity from renewable sources, including geothermal. This is particularly important to my home State of Utah, which has vast potential for the creation of electricity from geothermal sources, along with other renewable energy sources, such as wind and biomass. While this production tax credit has been in the tax code for some time, it had an unfair feature that provided the tax credit for 10 years for electricity produced from wind, but only for 5 years for electricity produced from most of the other renewable resources. This inequity has skewed investment in these resources unfairly and in a way that has not led to the best use of these national assets. I am happy to see that this provision has survived in conference. This should result in a better-balanced and higher output of electricity from all our renewable resources. And, I have highlighted just two among many important provisions in this bill that will promote the greater use of alternative and renewable sources of energy. We cannot escape the fact that our nation remains reliant on oil and gas, and we absolutely must increase our supply of these resources in a big way. It is a little known fact that the largest hydrocarbon resource in the world rests within the borders of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. I know it may be hard to believe, but energy experts agree that there is more recoverable oil in these 3 states than there is in all the Middle East. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that recoverable oil shale in the western United States exceeds 1 trillion barrels, but it is not counted among world reserves, because it is not yet commercially developed. If anyone is wondering what the significance is of that number, he or she should know that the world's oil reserves stand at just about 1.6 trillion barrels. That means we have almost as much unconventional oil in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming as the rest of the world's conventional oil combined. Companies have been waiting for the Federal government to recognize the potential of this resource and allow access to it. My legislation, S. 1111, the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Act, will do just that, and more. Some have been understandably hesitant to develop this resource. During the 1970s, there was a very large and expensive effort in western Colorado to develop oil shale there. When the price of oil dropped dramatically, though, the market for oil shale went bust and the region suffered an economic disaster. We need to remember that our past failure in this area was not necessarily a failure of technology, but was due to a dramatic slump in gas prices. We now have a different scenario. Today, the world is reaching peak oil production of conventional oil, and cheap oil prices are nowhere in sight. We have already seen that a shift in focus to unconventional fuels such as tar sands produce mind-boggling results. Only a few years ago, Alberta, Canada recognized the potential of its own tar sands deposits and set forth a policy to promote their development. As a result, Canada has increased its oil reserves by more than a factor of 10, going from a reserve of about 14 billion barrels to its current reserve of more than 176 billion barrels in a very short period. And just think--we are sitting on a similar resource of oil shale and tar sands in the United States. It is frustrating to learn that Utah imports about one-fourth of its oil from Canadian tar sands, even though we have our own very large resource of tar sands in our own state sitting undeveloped. I look forward to the day in the not-too-distant future, when Utah's oil shale and tar sands are developed to their potential. If it happens, and I believe that it will, Utah will become a world leader in oil production. But even if we do solve the oil importation issue, we still have another problem. Our Nation is so lacking in refining capacity for crude, that we are forced to import 10 percent of our refined fuel. We could produce all the domestic oil in the world, but until we can refine it, we cannot use it. It is clear that one of the reasons we currently have sharply higher gasoline prices is that we simply do not have enough refining capacity in this country. This is both a short-term and a longer-term concern for our economy and national security. Regrettably, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and home heating oil supplies are simply too tight in America today. There is not a lot that can be done in the very near term to address the higher cost of fuel that is attributable to refining bottlenecks. However, ensuring the long-term viability of the U.S. refining industry should be at the very heart of a smart national energy policy. One of the major problems with our refining capacity is that industry profitability has been poor over the past several decades. This has contributed to the steady decline in the number of operating refineries in America from more than 300 in 1980 to less than 150 today. I am told the last major refinery to be built in America came on line in the 1970s. Earlier this year, the National Petroleum Council reported that U.S. refining capacity growth was not keeping pace with demand growth, that poor historic returns in the refining sector was impeding further investment, and that major expenditures in new regulations were limiting the funds available for capacity expansions. This was bad news crying out for a solution. Another problem mentioned in the report is that the 10-year depreciation schedule prescribed by the current tax law for refining assets is much longer than the write-off periods for similar process equipment in other manufacturing industries. Also, the tax code does not contain any incentives to encourage new investment in refining capacity, which is an endeavor that carries high costs and risks. With these facts in mind, I introduced S. 1039, the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refinery Capacity Act of 2005. S. 1039 would adjust the depreciation period for assets used in refining from 10 years to 5 and would allow an immediate write-off of these assets if companies made an early and firm commitment to invest in new capacity within a relatively short time. I thank Senator Grassley for including the temporary refinery expensing provisions of S. 1039 in the Chairman's mark of the tax title to the Energy bill. This provision passed the Senate as part of the energy tax package. I am pleased the Conference Committee accepted this provision even though cost constraints forced us to limit the incentive to 50 percent expensing. This is the first provision passed by Congress in the past half century that gives the U.S. refining industry a specific tax incentive designed to spur investment in increased refining capacity. The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, which represents virtually all U.S. refineries, has indicated this measure will help stimulate facility expansions and output. It is the only provision in the entire Energy bill that encourages refining capacity growth and increased gasoline, diesel and jet fuel supply for consumers. This provision alone should make a significant difference in fuel supplies. Utah is a major gas producer. But most of Utah's natural gas lies under our vast public lands. Utah has a large supply, but as you might guess, Federal red tape is the number one obstacle to supplying the country with the natural gas it demands. One example is the natural gas found within Utah's tar sands. Historically, extracting natural gas from tar sands has required a dual application requiring both a permit for gas extraction and mineral extraction. I introduced a bill that amends the Mineral Leasing Act to allow a company only going after the gas to forgo the permitting for mineral extraction, while fully leaving in place every relevant environmental law and regulation. This legislation, S. 53, was included in the energy bill. In another effort to create a lose-lose situation, the Department of the Interior recently published a rule that would tack on a new and expensive fee on new Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) for natural gas development. As members of the Conference Committee, Senator Craig Thomas and I joined forces to put an end to this fee for at least 10 years. We do not need another hurdle to obtaining gas from our public lands. The Federal government receives about $1.6 billion every year in royalties from gas production on public lands. With every new well in Utah, gas companies pay a generous royalty to Federal and State governments. It is simple math--in the long run, Utah and the Nation loses money when wells are stopped because of fees. We also suffer from the resulting slow down in the supply of natural gas. Finally, I was a proponent of an item in the Energy bill that reduces the depreciable lives of natural gas gathering and distribution lines. By being able to depreciate their equipment more quickly, companies are better able to invest in future production activity. This provision should help spur investment in more exploration and production of this clean and important fuel. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the Energy Policy Act will have a very large impact on Utah, not only in positive economic growth and jobs, but also in the benefits of cheaper and cleaner energy costs for families and businesses. Again, I thank the leaders in the Senate who have brought us to this point, along with their counterparts in the House of Representatives. I think we have proven today, that Congress can respond to the needs of the nation and our citizens when we work together with that goal in mind.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate-House team that negotiated the final transportation funding package, I want to commend Majority Leader Bill Frist for avoiding yet another stalemate and steering this legislation toward final passage. The comprehensive highway measure allocates $286.5 billion over 5 years to support investment in our Nation's highways and transit systems. Miles traveled on Utah's roads has grown twice as fast as its population, but Federal funding has remained flat. Now, Utah can plan for long-term projects, which in the past have been interrupted by numerous temporary extensions. With the passage of the Transportation bill, Utah will receive approximately $1.8 billion to fund its multi-year highway and transit projects. This highway bill will allocate close to $282 million each year to invest in Utah's highways over the next 5 years. This is the most Federal funding ever committed to Utah in a transportation bill and it is long overdue. Utah is the crossroads of the West; every year millions of people visit the Beehive State to enjoy its natural beauty and to invest in its growing economy. The highway bill provides a tremendous amount of Federal assistance for road improvements and transit projects across the State, including: new I-15 interchanges in Ogden, Layton and Provo; light-rail lines to the airport and South Jordan; highway projects on US-6 in Carbon County and State Road 92 in Utah County; a railroad overpass in Kaysville; a pedestrian and bicycle access in Moab; a connector from I-15 to the Provo Municipal Airport; improvements for the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge Access Road; the 3200 South Project in Nibley/Cache County; and building the Northern and Southern Corridors in St. George. There are, of course, many, many more projects throughout the State that will receive funding that I do not have time to name here but that are equally as important. The Utah Transit Authority, UTA, plans to bring commuter rail to Utah to ease congestion and help Utah commuters. I am pleased with the $200 million set-aside to begin construction on this important project, which plans to provide service from Ogden to Provo. This project will do so much to relieve congestion and give Utahns a fast, comfortable, and efficient choice for transportation. Utah will also receive $30 million for its statewide bus and bus facilities for the purchase of buses, upgrading existing buses, and for improving maintenance facilities and storage yards. At my urging as a Senate conferee to the Transportation bill, Utah State University was designated as a University Transportation Center. USU will receive approximately $2 million over the next 5 years and will greatly improve the statewide knowledge base and transportation research being done in Utah. Mr. President, a few months ago, executives of Wavetronix, a traffic- data collecting company based in Lindon, UT, asked for my help in amending the Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Program, ITIP. Wavetronix sells sensors that detect speed and flow in highways for purposes of gathering information to determine real-time traffic data and would like to have access to ITIP funds. Unfortunately, since 1998, a Pennsylvania-based company, Traffic.com, has had total control over how and where to use Federal ITIP funds. Wavetronix and many others have been shut out from receiving ITIP funds because of the closed nature of the program. One large company should not have a monopoly on the funds provided for traffic data collection. We should benefit from innovative solutions coming from small businesses in Utah and other States, not funnel millions of dollars each year to a company that does not have to compete for--the money. In May, I included in the Senate highway bill language that gives qualified companies, including Wavetronix, the ability to compete for ITIP funding. I am pleased that the conference report maintained the important language which provides a fair and level playing field for State DOTs and qualified private-sector companies wishing to access ITIP funds, without requiring them to work with Traffic.com. This is a significant victory for Wavetronix and other similarly situated small companies across the Nation. Finally, I want Utahns to know that the delegation worked very hard to include language in this bill to resolve the Legacy Parkway issue and perhaps save Utah hundreds of millions of dollars--and it came right down to the wire. We took this action after we received reports that the negotiations involving the Utah State Legislature, UDOT, and the Sierra Club, although promising, could not be implemented in a timely fashion. So the delegation attempted to use this bill to bring this longstanding battle to a close in a way that respected the environmental concerns that have been expressed. We worked day and night to design language that would allow this 14-mile highway addition and at the same time alleviate the horrendous traffic jams we have witnessed in northern Utah. In the end, the language was blocked. The people who have now cost the State of Utah what some estimate to be over $300 million made it impossible, with the help of a very few allies in Congress, to get it through. In my estimation, this fight is not over. My goal is to save our State millions of additional dollars and get this highway done so the quality of life of those who work south and live north of the project will be improved. Despite my disappointment that this provision was not included in the final bill, I still believe this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will consider this year. This bill will help ensure the safety, efficiency, and mobility that every American expects from their transportation system. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to speak very briefly on another topic. I am an unqualified supporter of the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,'' on which we will be voting later today. My colleague, Senator Craig, should be commended for his hard work on this important legislation, which will protect gun manufacturers and distributors from unwarranted lawsuits. While we must always be vigilant in protecting our rights--including our Second Amendment rights--it is also critical that we encourage responsible exercise of those rights. For that reason, I want to say a few words in support of the ``Child Protection and Home Safety Act of 2005,'' which I am introducing today. This Act would promote the safe storage of firearms by providing a 25 percent tax credit toward the purchase of a gun safe, up to a maximum of $250. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Craig, Burns, Lincoln, and Smith, are cosponsoring this important bipartisan legislation. Our bill will encourage gun owners to purchase gun safes for the safe storage of firearms, thereby preventing the mishandling of guns and keeping our families and communities safer. This bill has widespread support from numerous national organizations, including the National Association of Police Organizations, the American Association of Suicidology, the American Ethical Union, the National Black Police Officers Association, and SAVE, the Suicide Awareness Voice of Education. In my home State of Utah, law enforcement has given this bill unqualified support. In addition to the Utah Sheriff's Association and the Utah Police Corps, the Utah Highway Patrol Association has enthusiastically endorsed this legislation. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to include a copy of their letter of support in the Record. Many of the guns used in violent acts are acquired on the black market, having been stolen from the homes of law abiding Americans. Nearly 10 percent of state prison inmates incarcerated on gun crimes say the weapons they used were stolen. Safely securing a firearm within a person's home is a fundamental way to help ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands. One important step that can be taken in this regard is for families to lock firearms within a theft-resistant safe. This bill, by encouraging the purchase and use of gun safes, will significantly reduce the rate of stolen guns, thereby reducing the incidents of homicides and violent crimes. Another problem plaguing America today is that of children gaining access to their parents' firearms and using those firearms to commit homicide or suicide. The school shootings in Columbine, Santee, Lake Worth, Florida, Fort Gibson, Oklahoma and Deming, New Mexico, are a sad legacy we hope to leave far behind us. It is the responsibility of gun owners to ensure that our children cannot gain access to firearms and unintentionally or intentionally use those firearms to harm themselves or someone else. This bill, by encouraging gun owners to lock up their firearms in gun safes, will make it more difficult for children to access their parents' guns. Utah is home to several fine manufacturers of gun safes. The employees at companies such as Liberty, Fort Knox, and others know that while there are many ways to attempt to secure a firearm, gun safes are the best way to reliably secure firearms and keep them out of the hands of those who should not have access to them. Other methods of securing firearms may only give the purchaser a false sense of security. Trigger locks do not prevent loading and can easily be opened by a child with a screwdriver. Cable locks can easily be cut open with a simple wire-cutter. Locked case boxes are small and light and can easily be picked up and carried away by a thief. Quality gun safes can provide the security our children and our communities deserve. And through the vehicle of a tax credit, this bill encourages gun safety while preserving Second Amendment liberties. I want to thank everyone who has worked with us to craft this bill. By encouraging gun owners to purchase residential gun safes for the safe storage of firearms we move a little bit closer to creating a safer America. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support the ``Child Protection and Home Safety Act of 2005,'' and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I may, I would like to speak very briefly on another topic. I am an unqualified supporter of the ``Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,'' on which we will be voting later today. My colleague, Senator Craig, should be commended for his hard work on this important legislation, which will protect gun manufacturers and distributors from unwarranted lawsuits. While we must always be vigilant in protecting our rights--including our Second Amendment rights--it is also critical that we encourage responsible exercise of those rights. For that reason, I want to say a few words in support of the ``Child Protection and Home Safety Act of 2005,'' which I am introducing today. This Act would promote the safe storage of firearms by providing a 25 percent tax credit toward the purchase of a gun safe, up to a maximum of $250. I am pleased that my colleagues, Senators Schumer, Craig, Burns, Lincoln, and Smith, are cosponsoring this important bipartisan legislation. Our bill will encourage gun owners to purchase gun safes for the safe storage of firearms, thereby preventing the mishandling of guns and keeping our families and communities safer. This bill has widespread support from numerous national organizations, including the National Association of Police Organizations, the American Association of Suicidology, the American Ethical Union, the National Black Police Officers Association, and SAVE, the Suicide Awareness Voice of Education. In my home State of Utah, law enforcement has given this bill unqualified support. In addition to the Utah Sheriff's Association and the Utah Police Corps, the Utah Highway Patrol Association has enthusiastically endorsed this legislation. Mr. President, I will ask unanimous consent to include a copy of their letter of support in the Record. Many of the guns used in violent acts are acquired on the black market, having been stolen from the homes of law abiding Americans. Nearly 10 percent of state prison inmates incarcerated on gun crimes say the weapons they used were stolen. Safely securing a firearm within a person's home is a fundamental way to help ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands. One important step that can be taken in this regard is for families to lock firearms within a theft-resistant safe. This bill, by encouraging the purchase and use of gun safes, will significantly reduce the rate of stolen guns, thereby reducing the incidents of homicides and violent crimes. Another problem plaguing America today is that of children gaining access to their parents' firearms and using those firearms to commit homicide or suicide. The school shootings in Columbine, Santee, Lake Worth, Florida, Fort Gibson, Oklahoma and Deming, New Mexico, are a sad legacy we hope to leave far behind us. It is the responsibility of gun owners to ensure that our children cannot gain access to firearms and unintentionally or intentionally use those firearms to harm themselves or someone else. This bill, by encouraging gun owners to lock up their firearms in gun safes, will make it more difficult for children to access their parents' guns. Utah is home to several fine manufacturers of gun safes. The employees at companies such as Liberty, Fort Knox, and others know that while there are many ways to attempt to secure a firearm, gun safes are the best way to reliably secure firearms and keep them out of the hands of those who should not have access to them. Other methods of securing firearms may only give the purchaser a false sense of security. Trigger locks do not prevent loading and can easily be opened by a child with a screwdriver. Cable locks can easily be cut open with a simple wire-cutter. Locked case boxes are small and light and can easily be picked up and carried away by a thief. Quality gun safes can provide the security our children and our communities deserve. And through the vehicle of a tax credit, this bill encourages gun safety while preserving Second Amendment liberties. I want to thank everyone who has worked with us to craft this bill. By encouraging gun owners to purchase residential gun safes for the safe storage of firearms we move a little bit closer to creating a safer America. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support the ``Child Protection and Home Safety Act of 2005,'' and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of arguments on the floor in my day, but some of these arguments are some of the worst ever heard. I don't know, maybe I missed something. We were moving ahead on the Defense authorization bill when all of a sudden we couldn't get cloture. We couldn't move ahead because of the very people who have been making these arguments, in a holy fashion, that they want to help our soldiers. Yet they filibuster by preventing cloture and preventing a full acceptance of the Department of Defense authorization bill, and then turn around and say we stopped them from amending the bill. If they were stopped, it is because their amendments were not germane. I have never heard arguments like this, that we are just going to give gun dealers an absolute right to violate the law. They haven't read this legislation at all. And then they bring in an antiterrorism argument. What they do not tell the American public is that there are millions of guns out there in the underworld that people can get. But that doesn't justify holding liable gun manufacturers--who manufacture guns for our soldiers, by the way; if they all go broke we will not have the guns for our soldiers-- when somebody takes one of their guns and misuses it. The person misusing it ought to be liable, not the gun manufacturer who cannot supervise the persons to whom they legitimately sold guns. Let's face it. The folks on that side of the aisle hate guns. They talk in terms of, We want to take care of our hunters and our gun collectors and people who love guns who are decent, law-abiding citizens. But look over the years how they have argued against anything that makes sense with regard to the right to manufacture weapons that we have always had in this country, and the right to keep and bear arms, which is explicitly in the Constitution. These are the same people who are constantly arguing about things that are not explicitly in the Constitution, claiming that they should be given the sanctification of constitutional protection. Yet something that is expressly written in the Constitution, they turn around and blast. I could spend a lot of time on that, but that is not what I came over here to do. All I can say is I find it amazing that an argument would be made, after they voted against cloture--in other words, proceeding with the Defense authorization bill, they voted against proceeding--and now they are saying, Why didn't we proceed. I missed something maybe. But I don't think so. This is just typical: Politics trumps everybody. No one is saying, with regard to this issue of the gun manufacturer's right to manufacture guns that are legal, they have a legal right to do so--nobody is making the argument that dealers who are honest and decent and honorable should not be able to sell those guns to decent, honorable people. We have plenty of restrictions already in law against illegality with regard to the sale of weapons. My gosh, is there no end to politics in these issues? This argument that this modest bill gives criminals a free pass and aids and abets terrorists is as phony an argument as I have heard. And the argument that it lets manufacturers off the hook for their wrongdoing--if they do wrong, they are on the hook under this bill. They are not doing wrong. That is the problem. What is wrong is the chief fundraiser of our friends on the left happens to be--the chief hard-money funder in this country happens to be the personal injury trial lawyer for liberals. And those people literally are the reason why we have these, I think, misconceived arguments. I could not sit here without saying something about it because it is hard to believe that they can stand and make these kinds of arguments. Much as I respect my fellow Senators, it is mind-boggling that they can make an argument that we are preventing going ahead with the DOD bill when they are the ones who stopped it. My gracious. Let me shift gears. I could talk for hours on that subject.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court presents the Senate with some real challenges and opportunities. First, it allows us the specific opportunity to place on our Nation's highest Court a man of impeccable qualifications and unquestioned character. Everbody here knows that. After an unprecedented degree of consultation with the Senate, President Bush has nominated a truly outstanding individual. Judge Roberts has a strong background in terms of education and experience. Judge Roberts is a summa cum laude graduate of Harvard College--a degree which he finished in just three years--and a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, where he was the managing editor of the Harvard Law Review; meaning he is at the pinnacle of Law school students at the time throughtout the country. He was a law clerk for two distinguished Federal judges: First for the late Judge Henry Friendly on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, widely recognized as one of the most influential appellate judges of his time; and next on the U.S. Supreme Court for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist. Now Chief Justice, he too is one of the most outstanding jurists of his time. Judge Roberts's career in legal practice covers both the public and private sectors. He held several positions in two administrations, including Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Associate Counsel to the President, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General, all high positions. They don't get much higher in the law. In between his stints in public service, Judge Roberts became a leading member of the prestigious law firm of Hogan and Hartson, an internationally recognized law firm. Overall, Judge Roberts became, by all accounts, one of the leading practitioners before the Supreme Court, arguing nearly 40 cases. Not only does Judge Roberts have the education and experience, but his colleagues in the bar tell us that he possesses the integrity and character to make a fine member of the Supreme Court. Just two years ago, the American Bar Association unanimously gave Judge Roberts its highest well qualified rating for serving in his current position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Mr. President, a second opportunity, as well as a great challenge, presented by this nomination is more general. We can better educate ourselves and our fellow citizens about the proper role of judges in our system of government. We can clarify the kind of judge we need on the bench. We can get straight just what judges are supposed to do. We must seize this opportunity, because I am concerned that lack of clarity on this point, a misunderstanding of what judges are supposed to do, contributes to the rancor and the partisan conflict surrounding the judicial selection process. Mr. President, last week here on the Senate floor, I began to address this by comparing judges to umpires or referees. I used that analogy because I believe we can be simple without being simplistic, even regarding some of these very important, and sometimes confusing matters. Judges, like umpires or referees, take rules they did not make and cannot change and apply them to the contest before them. Neither judges nor umpires may first pick a winner and then manipulate the rules to produce that outcome or the final result. Every American of a certain age remembers only too well the Olympic basketball game in which biased referees unfairly replayed the final seconds of the game so that the Soviets would win. And we all saw the tainted, colluding French ice skating judge at the last winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Neither judges nor umpires may allow their personal views of the parties or teams before them to influence their application of the law or the rules. And they certainly may not prejudge the contest before the teams even take the field. This role or function, this job description, must guide the hiring or selection process. We hear it said, for example, that we must know a judicial nominee's views. At least on the surface, that notion sounds practical, even an assertin of common sense. The problem is, that by itself, this general demand to know a nominee's views begs rather than answers the important questions. It is so general that it simply cannot mean what it says. We have neither desire, need, nor right to know most of Judge Roberts's views on most imaginable subjects. The real questions are these: What views do we actually need to know? What views may we properly seek to know? I submit, that properly understanding what judges do helps us properly establish which of a nominee's views we need to know. This is quickly coming to a head. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, aided in turn by some of their friends among left-wing interest groups, are demanding to know Judge Roberts's views related to how he is likely to rule on certain issues. They seek to elicit those views in a variety of different ways and seem committed to ask carefully crafted questions designed to poke and prod, cajole and extract, but they are after the same thing. Simply put, it appears that some of our Democratic colleagues want, in essence, Judge Roberts to prejudge issues and cases that might come before him. It appears some Senators may even base their confirmation vote on his future judicial votes. I might add that one Senator, I believe, said that he would vote no if the Jugde Roberts does not explicitly endorse Roe v. Wade. That is outrageous. When Judge Roberts appears before the Judiciary Committee, I hope we will follow a standard, for both questions and answers, that is consistent with the nature of the judicial office and with Senate tradition. The nature of the judicial office itself requires independence and impartiality. Nominees for judicial office, and especially those who are already sitting judges, must protect these essential elements of judicial character. Many questions and answers will be consistent with judicial independence and impartiality, but others are not. I have said before that Senators can ask any questions they choose, whether I disagree with those questions or not, whether I feel those questions are wise or not. I have served on the Judiciary Committee during hearings for eight of the nine current Supreme Court Justices and more than 1400 lower court judges. I know from experience that Senators want to know a great many things from a judicial nominee. Being legislators and being political, we may even want to know many political things. I do, however, encourage my colleagues, and remind myself, to resist using a purely political standard to evaluate a nominee for judicial office. Even more than Senators, however, the nominee before us will certainly use a judicial standard to answer even political questions. Many of us have already met with Judge Roberts. I know him personally. I have seen him sit there for 14 years because he wasn't even given the courtesy of a hearing. He is a thoughtful, sincere, and honest man. We can be confident that he will do his best to balance the need to be forthcoming and responsive, on the one hand, with his commitment to judicial independence and impartiality, on the other. There is, however, more for him to consider than simply that a Senator wants to know something. Judge Roberts has not only been nominated to a judicial position, he already has one. He is a sitting judge. He will be on the Federal bench, on one court or another, for many years to come. Those who come before him deserve to know, need to know, that he is impartial. Nothing shatters that confidence more than knowing a judge has, under oath, already pledged to rule one way or another, which is being demanded by some of my colleagues on the other side. In fact, this duty not to prejudge issues or cases is so important that it is codified in the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Let me read a portion of it here. I think it should be interesting to everybody. ``[A] judge or a candidate for appointment . . . to judicial office shall not . . . with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the office.'' I know that Judge Roberts takes his judicial responsibilities, his judicial ethics, very seriously. We can look not only to the nature of the judicial office, but to past judicial confirmations, for more concrete definition of this judicial standard. As each Supreme Court nominee came before the Judiciary Committee, Senators asked different kinds of questions on a wide range of issues. Some of them sought, more or less obviously, to zero in on how the nominee would likely rule in the future cases raising particular issues. We are probably all guilty of that at one time or another, but judges who use common sense refuse to answer those kind of questions. They should. Senators of both parties pressed nominees of both parties. The remarkable thing, which we will do well to keep in mind today, is the consistency with which nominees handled these questions. There were variations, to be sure, but those were variations in degree. Nominees regularly took the same basic approach to the issue of prejudging issues and cases. Let us look briefly at some examples from nominees of both parties. Anthony Kennedy's nomination was sent by a Republican President to a Democratic Senate. At his confirmation hearing in January 1988, he said, ``[T]he public expects that the judge will keep an open mind, and that he is confirmed by the Senate because of his temperament and his character, and not because he has taken particular positions on the issues.'' That is a pretty important statement. The Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy by a vote of 97-0. David Souter's nomination was also sent by a Republican President to a Democratic Senate. At his confirmation hearing in September 1990, he asked rhetorically, ``[C]an you imagine the pressure that would be on a judge who had stated an opinion, or seemed to have given a commitment in these circumstances to the Senate of the United States?'' By the way the Senate confirmed Justice Souter by a vote of 90-9. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's nomination was sent by a Democratic President to a Democratic Senate. At her confirmation hearing in July 1993, she gave what she called her rule when asked to prejudge issues or cases--a rule which we honored in the committee and the Senate ``No hints, no forecasts, no previews.'' That was a Democratic nominee and we honored those views, Democrats and Republicians. The Senate confirmed Justice Ginsburg by a vote of 96-3. And finally, Stephen Breyer's nomination was sent by a Democratic President to a Democratic Senate. At his confirmation hearing in July 1994, he said, ``I do not want to predict or to commit myself on an open issue that I feel is going to come up in the Court. . . . it is so important that the clients and the lawyers understand the judges are really open-minded.''I agree with his statement and so did members of the Judiciary Committee by and large. The Senate confirmed Justice Breyer by a vote of 87-9. I hope everyone sees the pattern here. Each of these Supreme Court nominees was, like Judge Roberts, already a Federal appeals court judge. Each of them, whether Republican or Democrat, used the same judicial standard when Senators, Republican or Democrat, sought prejudgment. They refused. These judicial nominees refused to prejudge issues or cases because it would compromise their own independence and impartiality. They refused to prejudge issues or cases because litigants deserve confidence that the judge before whom they appear is impartial and open-minded. Let me put back up here the simple, straightforward Ginsburg Rule. No hints, no forecasts, no previews. We honored her in that. Why is it that somebody can come to the floor and say, unless he is against overturning Roe v. Wade, I will not vote for him? I guess that is a Senator's right, but it certainly is not consistent with the way we treated other Supreme Court nominees. She was asked about her personal views on issues and precedents. She was asked her judicial views on issues and cases. She steadfastly refused. Once again, the Ginsburg Rule is no hints, no forecasts, no previews. I know that this way of balancing responsiveness to Senators with commitment to judicial independence and impartiality can be frustrating. But we confirmed her nomination overwhelmingly. Let me be clear. Senators have the right to ask any questions they choose. I do hope that Senators, myself included, consider the absolute imperative of judicial independence and impartiality when we decide what questions to ask. But we must realize as we have in the past that simply asking the question does not mean a judicial nomination answer. I am concerned that some are already planning to change standards to demand that Judge Roberts abandon the Ginsburg rule or the rule of the other Justices. Some have already released a list of questions they intend to ask this nominee. Many of the questions asked in various ways how Judge Roberts will rule on issues. Many of the questions ask how he will prejudge cases. I am concerned that we might hear Senators demand that Judge Roberts sacrifice his independence and impartiality, that he violate his sense of judicial ethics before they will vote for him. I hope this does not happen. This political standard will not only undermine judicial independence and impartiality but will be a radical departure from Senate tradition. I hope we do not see it. Some have also argued that the Senate allowed Justice Ginsburg to follow her ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews'' rule because she had already been on the appeals court for more than a decade. This reasoning is faulty also. As I have described, the Ginsburg rule is compelled by the judicial function itself, by the absolute imperative of judicial independence and impartiality. This imperative exists whether someone had never before been a judge, been a judge for 2 weeks, or was a judicial veteran of 25 years. We should have faith in this fine nominee to take his responsibility as a judge seriously. I firmly believe we should follow the standard that the judicial function compels and Senate tradition confirms. Justice Ginsburg stated it as ``no hints, no forecasts, no previews.'' We respected her and we confirmed her. This administration has given up 75,000 pages of materials. Frankly, that is the haystack. I guess some are calling to now look for the needle. We should do the same for Judge Roberts, and that is respect him and confirm him. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. He has made very strong arguments here. Nobody who is thinking should vote for this amendment. I rise today to speak against this amendment No. 1623, an amendment which, in my view, would have the effect of gutting this gun liability bill. This amendment, if passed, could actually expand the number of lawsuits against gun makers and sellers dramatically. This is because the definition of gross negligence referenced in the amendment eliminates the requirement that a duty of care exists in order to be negligent in one's actions toward another. As any of us who has been to law school knows, a duty toward another is the first element of any tort. But this amendment wipes out this element from the definition of gross negligence. In other words, this amendment would allow anti-gun lawyers to easily claim that gun makers and sellers know their products are ``likely to be harmful,'' without having to prove any duty or clear connection to the injured party. This turns common law tort principles on its head. This is nothing more than a calculated effort by opponents of this legislation to expand the reach of this doctrine to get at conduct that had not previously been covered. Furthermore, this amendment is simply not needed. Virtually any act that would meet the definition of gross negligence referenced in this amendment would already be a violation of Federal, State or local law, and therefore would not receive the protection of this law anyway. This amendment is an attempt to undermine this legislation. We defeated this amendment soundly last year--soundly. I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat it again. I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Idaho who has led this fight courageously and in every way with the highest of standards. Frankly, this is one that should not see the light of day. I hope our colleagues will vote against it. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, I would like to associate myself with his remarks and make an additional point. As a sponsor of the Energy bill amendment, I want to make clear that even though we were able to stop the specific proposal on fees for processing of applications for permits to drill during the pilot program relating to such permitting, the BLM should understand that our concern is with the broader issue of cost shifting. We would be as concerned if BLM proposed to shift the permitting burden for any fluid or solid mineral leasing or permitting to those who are already required to pay for their Federal mineral rights through bonuses, rents and royalties. I do not want to see additional attempts to shift costs in this manner.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. It is my understanding the Senator from South Carolina would like to take 2 minutes. If I can be recognized after that, I would appreciate it.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to express my continued, strong support of S. 397, the gun liability bill. As I outlined yesterday, this legislation is a necessary and vital response to the growing problem of unfounded lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers and sellers. These suits are being filed in no small part with the intention of trying to drive them out of business. These lawsuits, citing deceptive marketing or some other pretext, continue to be filed in a number of States, and they continue to be unsound. These lawsuits claim that sellers give the false impression that gun ownership enhances personal safety or that sellers should know that certain guns will be used illegally. That is pure bunk. Let's look at the truth. The fact is that none of these lawsuits are aimed at the actual wrongdoer who kills or injures another with a gun--none. Instead, the lawsuits are focused on legitimate, law-abiding businesses. It is this kind of rampant, race-to-sue mentality, that fuels our tort-happy, litigious culture. It has to stop. In its Statement of Administration Policy, the White House has urged us to pass a clean bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Amendments that would delay enactment beyond this year are simply unacceptable. The administration knows what we also know: This is a modest bill to help prevent the gun industry from a tidal wave of baseless lawsuits. It is also highly relevant, I believe, that the leading suppliers of small arms to our Armed Forces are the same targets of these reckless lawsuits: Beretta, Bushmaster, Remington, Smith & Wesson. These are the companies we rely on for small arms for the military. But if the proliferation of lawsuits against them continues, it could jeopardize the supplies we receive and need for our military. This bill does nothing more than prohibit--with five exceptions lawsuits against manufacturers or sellers of guns and ammunition for damages ``resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse'' of nondefective guns and ammunition. Let me repeat that: ``resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse'' of nondefective guns and ammunition. This bill is not a license for the gun industry to act irresponsibly. If a manufacturer or seller does not operate entirely within Federal and State law, it is not entitled to the protection of this legislation. I should also note that this bill carefully preserves the right of individuals to have their day in court with civil liability actions where negligence is truly an issue, or where there were knowing violations of laws on gun sales. It is also noteworthy that in a recent poll by Moore Information Public Opinion Research, 79 percent of Americans do not believe that firearms manufacturers should be held legally responsible for violence committed by armed criminals. Seventy-nine percent! And in this poll, 71 percent of Democrats hold this view. So this should not be a partisan issue. Let me just read a postcard from one of the thousands of people who have written me in support of this bill from Utah. This Utahn, from the city of Hyde Park, writes: Dear Senator Hatch: Please give your full support for S. 397 with no anti-gun amendments. As a business woman I know the strength of America is productive businesses that keep America strong and my fellow citizens employed! These are the people I represent. I not only represent them, I am proud to be one of them. I am proud to help small businesses. And I am proud to help gun owners. Let me just say a word about the precedents for this legislation. Congress has the power--and the duty--to prevent activists from abusing the courts to destroy interstate commerce. We did this in the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 where we protected manufacturers of small planes against personal injury lawsuits. That act superseded State law, as does the gun liability bill. There are many other precedents for abusive lawsuit protection, including light aircraft manufacturers, food donors, charitable volunteers, medical implant manufacturers and makers of anti-terrorism technology, just to mention a few. There is simply no reason the gun makers should have to continue to defend these types of meritless lawsuits. We must protect against the potential harm to interstate commerce. The gun industry has already had to bear over $200 million in defense costs thus far. The bottom line is that this is a reasonable measure to prevent a growing abuse of our civil justice system. The bill provides carefully tailored protections for legitimate lawsuits, such as those where there are knowing violations of gun sale laws, or those based on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment or breach of contract. We simply should not force a lawful manufacturer or seller to be responsible for criminal and unlawful misuse of its product by others. We do not hold the manufacturers of matches responsible for arson for this same reason. Individuals who misuse lawful products should be held responsible, not those who make the lawful products. In closing, I leave my colleagues with one last thought. These abusive gun liability actions usurp the authority of the Congress and of State legislators. They are an obvious and desperate attempt to enact restrictions that have been widely rejected. It is for this reason that many States have enacted statutes to prevent this type of litigation. Congress should do the same. As with class action lawsuits, the few States that allow jackpot jurisdictions can create a disastrous economic effect across the entire country, and across an entire industry. We cannot allow this to happen. We must stop these abusive lawsuits. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if you could tell me the parliamentary state of affairs.

Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in strong support of S. 397, the gun liability bill. Now, this legislation is a necessary response to the growing problem of junk lawsuits filed, no doubt, in part with the intention of driving the firearms industry out of business. These ill-advised suits attempt to hold manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties, actions totally beyond the control of the manufacturer. These types of lawsuits continue to be filed in multiple States, seeking a vast array of remedies concerning the marketing of guns and alleged design flaws. And they continue to be flawed. The White House, in its Statement of Administration Policy, summarized the current problem well. This is what they said: The possibility of imposing liability on an entire industry for harm that is solely caused by others is an abuse of the legal system, erodes public confidence in our Nation's laws, threatens the diminution of a basic constitutional right and civil liberty, sets a poor precedent for other lawful industries, will cause a loss of jobs, and burdens interstate and foreign commerce. That is a heck of a good statement because that is exactly what will happen if we allow these types of suits to continue. This bill does nothing more than prohibit--with five exceptions-- lawsuits against manufacturers or sellers of guns and ammunition for damages ``resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse'' of nondefective guns and ammunition. Now, let me repeat that: ``resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse'' of nondefective guns and ammunition. This bill is not a license for the gun industry to act irresponsibly. If a manufacturer or seller does not operate entirely within Federal or State law, it is not entitled to the protection of this legislation. Listen to a few comments from one judge who dismissed some of these suits. In Ohio, a judge dismissed a gun liability lawsuit, and the court of appeals affirmed this decision saying: to do otherwise would open a Pandora's box. For example, the city could sue manufacturers of matches for arson, or automobile manufacturers for traffic accidents, or breweries for drunk driving. Now, there is no reason the gunmakers should have to continue to defend these types of meritless lawsuits. We must protect against the potential harm to interstate commerce here. The gun industry has already had to bear over $200 million in defense costs thus far. That is ridiculous. It is immoral. It is wrong. This legislation is not without precedent. In the 106th Congress, legislation was introduced to address the possibility of junk lawsuits related to the Y2K computer problems. This bill sought to ``lessen the burdens on interstate commerce by discouraging insubstantial lawsuits.'' It sought to do so by preempting State law to provide a uniform standard for such suits. This bill merely seeks the same type of remedy using the same reasoning. In the past, some have thrown out red herrings arguing against this bill and suggesting that negligent entrustment will be immunized. This is pure bunk. It is untrue. That argument doesn't deserve to see the light of day. Those who make it ought to be ashamed of themselves. The bill provides an explicit exception for anyone who supplies a gun to someone they reasonably should have known was likely to use that gun in a way that would injure another person. Let me state that again. The bill provides an explicit exception for anyone who supplies a gun to someone they reasonably should have known was likely to use the gun in a way that would injure another person. The bottom line is that this is a reasonable measure to prevent a growing abuse of our civil justice system. We have had far too many abuses of that system. This is a chance for Members of this body to stand up and do something about it. If we allow these kinds of suits to go forward with guns, then what is next? Holding manufacturers of knives responsible for stabbings? Holding manufacturers of baseball bats liable for beatings? We simply should not force a lawful manufacturer or seller to be responsible for criminal and unlawful misuse of its products by others. Individuals who misuse lawful products should be held responsible, but not those who make lawful products. We have had through the years a desire by some to put gun controls on all kinds of guns, even though the second amendment gives us the freedom to keep and carry arms. To be honest with you, it is an explicit provision of the Constitution. We should not allow any misuse of guns, but we should not allow a change in the Constitution by mere statute that takes away our right to keep and bear arms. That is a God- given right, in my book, especially in some of the areas of the country where people have to defend themselves. In my area of the country, we had to defend ourselves in tremendous ways throughout the whole history of the West. To make a long story short, we should not be abusing honest, decent, law-abiding people who want to collect, shoot, target practice, hunt, and own guns. We have been through it before. It is time to stand up and realize that the people who misuse guns are criminals. Those criminals should be prosecuted. But to make gun manufacturers responsible for the irresponsible acts of others, over which the gun manufacturers had no control, is just plain wrong. I hope we can pass this bill. It would set a good standard to stop the frivolous and abusive lawsuits that are occurring in this country in so many ways, but especially in this particular way. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise, in support of S. Res. 207, the Americans with Disabilities Act resolution commemorating the 15th anniversary of the signing of the law. As one of the original authors of the Americans with Disabilities, ADA, I am a proud cosponsor of this important resolution. I am pleased that the Senate took the time today to remember the passage of landmark legislation which changed the lives of disabled individuals across the country. I am also pleased to stand with my colleague, Senator Harkin, who did so much to advance this legislation in 1990, and indeed, to nurture its implementation ever since. When this legislation was being debated on the Senate floor back in 1990, I told my colleagues that I believed that the Americans with Disabilities Act would be good for all America. And 15 years later, I feel the same way. The Americans with Disabilities Act has done so much for the disabled community throughout our country--due to this law, the lives of disabled individuals have improved dramatically. When Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, we knew that this bill would make a difference. As a result of the passage of this bill, valuable resources were dedicated to improving the lives of the disabled through employment, in public accommodations, in transportation, and in communications services. I credit the passage of this legislation to the millions of disabled Americans, all of whom benefit from the ADA. It was their dedication, determination and courage that made the difference. They took the time to educate their members of Congress about why the Americans With Disabilities Act was necessary. And they made a convincing case to many of us. That dedication is why we are celebrating the 15th anniversary of the passage of this law today. In Utah, I have a disabilities advisory committee that keeps me abreast of all issues of interest to the disability community. I must pay great tribute to the members of this committee as well, for it is their insights that have helped me to reach a better understanding of the partnership our Government must undertake to promote initiatives benefitting the disabled. I am pleased to be a supporter of the resolution before the Senate today and urge colleagues to support the passage of this resolution.