Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President I express my gratitude to the distinguished chairman and other members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services for the work they do. The chairman has worked long and hard to try to bring this bill to the Senate floor and do things in the best interest of our country, and others have worked with him. I appreciate that.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an ardent supporter of the F/A-22 Raptor. I am pleased that the Armed Services Committee has agreed to authorize appropriations for 24 F/A-22 Raptors. However, I am deeply troubled that the Department of Defense has made the decision to only purchase this extraordinary aircraft through fiscal year 2008, in effect, limiting the number of Raptors to 180. This is far below the 381 aircraft that the Air Force has repeatedly stated are required for that service to meet its responsibilities as outlined in the National Defense Strategy. Over the past year and half, I have made two trips, to be briefed on the capabilities of this extraordinary aircraft. The first was to Tyndall Air Force Base, FL, where our pilots are learning to fly the Raptor and second to Langley Air Force, VA, where the first operational F/A-22 units will be based. As a result of these meetings and discussions with the pilots who are training to fly the aircraft and the ground personnel who are learning to maintain the Raptor, I have come to conclusion that purchasing sufficient numbers of Raptors is absolutely vital to our national security. Over the past 30 years, the United States has been able to maintain air superiority in every conflict largely due to the F-15C. However, with the great advancements in technology over the past several years, the F-15 has struggled to keep pace. For example, the F-15 is not a stealth aircraft and its computer systems are based on obsolete technology. My colleagues should remember that the F-15 first flew in the early 1970s. During the ensuing years, nations have been consistently developing new aircraft and missile systems to defeat this fighter. Realizing that the F-15 would need a replacement, the Air Force developed the F/A-22 Raptor. The result is a truly remarkable aircraft. The F/A-22 has greater stealth capabilities than the F-117 Nighthawk. This is a powerful attribute when one remembers that it was the Nighthawk's stealth characteristics that enabled that aircraft to penetrate the integrated air defenses of Baghdad during the first night of the 1991 gulf war. The Raptor is also equipped with super-cruise engines. These engines do not need to go to after-burner in order to achieve supersonic flight. This provides the F/A-22 with a strategic advantage by enabling supersonic speeds to be maintained for a far greater length of time. By comparison, all other fighters require their engines and these are foreign fighters, as well--to go to after-burner to achieve supersonic speeds. This consumes a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limits an aircraft's range. The F/A-22 is also the most maneuverable fighter flying today. This is of particular importance when encountering newer Russian-made aircraft which boast a highly impressive maneuver capability. Yet a further advantage resides in the F/A-22's radar and avionics. When entering hostile airspace, one F/A-22 can energize its radar system, enabling it to detect and engage enemy fighters far before an enemy's system effective range. However, one of the most important capabilities of the Raptor is often the most misunderstood. Many critics of the program state that, since much of the design work for this aircraft was performed during the Cold War, it does not meet the requirements of the future, I believe that this criticism is misplaced. The F/A-22 is more than just a fighter, it is also a bomber. In its existing configuration it is able to carry two 1,000 pound GPS-guided JDAM bombs and the aircraft will also be able to carry the Small Diameter Bomb. In 2008, the F/A- 22's radar system will be enhanced with a ``look-down'' mode enabling the Raptor to independently hunt for targets on the ground. All of these capabilities are necessary to fight what is quickly emerging as ``the'' threat of the future--the anti-access integrated air defense system. Integrated air defenses include both surface to air missiles and fighters deployed in such a fashion as to leverage the strengths of both systems. Such a system could pose a very real possibility of denying U.S. aircraft access to strategically important regions during future conflicts. It should also be noted that--for a comparably cheap price--an adversary can purchase the Russian SA-20 surface-to-air missile. This system has an effective range of approximately 120 nautical miles and can engage targets at greater then 100,000 feet, much higher then the service ceiling of any existing American fighter or bomber. The Russians have also developed a family of highly maneuverable fighters, the Su-30 and 35s, which have been sold to such nations as China. Of further import, 59 other nations have fourth generation fighters. It has also been widely reported in the aviation media that the F- 15C, our current air superiority fighter, is not as maneuverable as newer Russian aircraft, especially the Su-35. However, the F/A-22 is designed to defeat an integrated air defense system. By utilizing its stealth capability, the F/A-22 can penetrate an enemy's airspace undetected and, when modified, independently hunt for mobile surface- to-air missile systems. Once detected, the F/A-22 would then be able to drop bombs on those targets. Some, correctly state that the B-2 bomber and the F-117 could handle these assignments. However, the F/A-22 offers the additional capability of being able to engage an enemy's air superiority fighters such as the widely proficient Su-35. Therefore, the Raptor will be able to defeat, almost simultaneously, two very different threats that until now have been handled by two different types of aircraft. I should like point out that these potential threats are not just future concerns, but they are here today. For example, last year the Air Force conducted an exercise called Cope India, as part of our effort to strengthen relations with India. The Indian Air Force has a number of Su-30 MKKs, an aircraft which is very similar to a version of aircraft sold in large quantities to the People's Republic of China. During this exercise, it has been widely reported in the aviation and defense media that the Indian Air Force's Su-30s won a number of engagements when training against our Air Force's F-15s. So let me be clear on this point: a developing nation's air force was able to defeat the F-15. This was a stunning event and one that requires our immediate attention. Despite the obvious advantages, and now necessity, of this aircraft, the Department of Defense has made the decision to purchase only 180 F/ A-22s. Some argue that the cost of this aircraft is too high. In response, the supporters of the F/A-22 devised a new procurement strategy called ``Buy to Budget.'' This strategy capped the total cost for the procurement of the aircraft and forced the Air Force and the Raptor's primary contractor, Lockheed Martin, to cut the cost of plane. These efforts have so far been successful, and two years ago an additional F/A-22 was procured solely based upon savings. I am also pleased to state that recent articles in the media report that the ``fly-away'' price for an F/A-22 is now approximately $130 million, down from $185 million an aircraft. Officials of the manufacturer are quoted as saying that each new lot of Raptors costs on average 13 percent less than its predecessor. The manufacturer also believes that this price can be further brought down to the $110 million range. Now, of course, this is still a lot of money. However, when compared to similar aircraft such as the nonstealth Eurofighter, which cost approximately $110 million an aircraft, coupled with the estimated cost, as high as $90 million, for a new F-15, one easily conclude that the F/A-22 is much better deal then its critics contend. I wish to reiterate a point that is deeply troubling. I have always listened very closely when our servicemembers have outlined their equipment requirements based upon the national security goals that our Government has outlined. As I have studied this issue, I have been struck by the unanimous opinion of all the members of the Air Force to whom I have spoken. What is their expert opinion? That if the Air Force is to succeed in the tasks outlined in our National Defense Strategy that they require additional F/A-22 aircraft. I should also add that this is not just the opinion of those stationed here in Washington but the opinion of the pilots and ground crew in the field such as those of Tyndall Air Force Base and Langley Air Force Base. They were truly excited about the F/A-22 Raptor's potential. They understand that this aircraft will ensure American dominance of the skies for the next half century. These young men and women stand ready to sacrifice so much for us, we owe them the best that our country has to offer. Therefore, I respectfully urge my friends in the Department of Defense to rethink their plans for this aircraft and provide our warfighters sufficient numbers of this remarkable fighter/bomber. I ask that the pending amendment be set aside so I can call up another amendment.

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

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

Mr. HATCH. Today I rise to propose an amendment that is cosponsored by fellow members of the Senate Air Force Depot Caucus, specifically Senators Inhofe, Bennett and Chambliss. Before I proceed to discuss the merits of my amendment, I thank publicly my colleagues, and their staffs, of the depot caucus, not only for their assistance in supporting this amendment, but for the tireless work that we have all performed over the past several years to modernize and recapitalize our Nation's Air Force Depots. Why is that important? Why do we need our Air Force Depots? Simply put, today the United States boasts the most formidable military that the world has ever known. However, history has shown, that a technologically superior force can be defeated if the weapons systems being utilized by that force cannot be maintained or repaired in a timely fashion. Mindful of this lesson, the Department of Defense and Congress have created an infrastructure designed to meet the unique sustainment challenges faced by a nation that harnesses the advantages of technology on the battlefield. It bears remembering that one of our Nation's primary means of maintaining this advantage is through the integrated sustainment support provided by the Air Force's depots. This is true for the maintenance of tactical aircraft, such as the F-16 and A-10, which is performed in my home State of Utah at Hill Air Force Base. Tactical aircraft require this level of maintenance due to the stress caused by supersonic flight and high-g turns. Our tanker and airlift fleets also require this level of service due to corrosion and metal fatigue. Equally impressive, this support is accomplished while simultaneously providing supply chain management for millions of components and pieces of equipment. However, what makes our depots truly vital to national security is their ability to provide immediate support during periods of conflict or urgent need. In fact, no one matches our Nation's depots in meeting the critical ``surge'' requirements of our Nation. Unfortunately, during the 1990s, our Nation did not make the necessary investments in our depots to build and procure technologically advanced facilities and equipment technologies. Therefore, the depots were not meeting their full potential. Congress and the Air Force identified this problem and, I am proud to say, worked together to find a solution. That solution was the Air Force Depot Maintenance Strategy and Master Plan. This strategy reaffirmed our Nation's commitment to the ``essential requirement for the Air Force to maintain a ready and controlled source of organic technical competence to ensure an effective and timely response to national defense contingencies and emergency requirements.'' But more than just a piece of paper articulating lofty goals, this strategy committed the Air Force to allocating $150 million a year for 6 years in order to achieve the objectives of maintaining the depots status as ``world class'' maintenance repair and overhaul operations. One of the most clear examples of how this money has been constructively allocated can be found in the success of the initial implementation of revolutionary lean production techniques at our Nation's depots. Lean manufacturing principles, first developed by the Toyota Corporation, aim to eliminate waste in every area of production. In practice, workers are no longer just responsible for a specific section of production. Workers are challenged to develop new skills and trades so they are responsible for more portions of the production process. The results have been outstanding. Workflow days, the days it takes to provide maintenance to a part or system, are down. At Hill Air Force Base, the C-130 and F-16 aircraft maintenance lines have achieved and sustained 100-percent on-time delivery rates, a large extent due to the efficiencies created by lean techniques. When you tour our depots, you can sense the excitement and renewed pride the workers have, in part, because of the lean processes and the new tools and infrastructure provided by the funds allocated by the Depot Strategy which make lean possible. This has truly been a successful investment. Another example of how the funds allocated under the Depot Strategy are assisting the war fighter while providing value to the taxpayer can be found in a project in this year's Defense authorization bill. Hill Air Force Base is home to one of only two Carnegie Mellon-rated capable maturity model level 5 software centers in the Department of Defense. A level 5 designation facility indicates that the facility is in the top 2 percent of all software development centers. In addition, Hill's Software Engineering Division affords the Air Force a $40-per-hour labor rate savings over its major industry competitors. For these reasons, the Air Force decided to increase the amount of work performed by the division by 176,000 direct product standard hours. However, the existing building is full and unable to support the increase in personnel necessary to accomplish this new workload. The funding allocated under the Depot Maintenance Strategy provides the solution, and this bill authorizes appropriations to build a new extension to the facility. Not too bad when it has been determined that this project will pay for itself in 8.75 years. We are only halfway through the 6-year investment plan as called for by the Depot Maintenance Strategy. I rise with my colleagues to say to the Air Force: Well done. But I must add--and this is the essential point of my amendment--the Air Force must keep going. The depots have made enormous progress in even further efficiently supporting the war fighter, which now is more important than ever. However, if we are to support our war fighters in the manner in which they deserve, this investment must continue. The first steps have been made. Completing the full 6 years of Depot Strategy modernization funding is an essential component to ensure we will always provide the best to the men and women who risk so much to keep us free. Mr. President, I also desire at this time to thank three individuals who have been steadfast supporters of the Depot Maintenance Strategy. First, I must recognize retiring Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Nelson Gibbs, who is one of the authors of Depot Strategy. We would not be where we are today without his support and guidance. I wish him well in his well-deserved retirement. I also wish to thank the implementers of the Strategy, GEN Lester Lyles, the former commander of Air Force Materiel Command and its present commander, and my good friend, GEN Gregory Martin. You will not find two finer officers who have ever served. To them I say: Thank you for your leadership and guidance in modernizing our infrastructure so we can most efficiently and effectively support the war fighter. I thank them. I thank my colleagues, all of whom support this as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday, President Bush fulfilled his constitutional duty and nominated John Roberts to fill the vacancy left by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States. The spotlight is now on the Senate of the United States of America. The President has done his duty, and now we need to do ours. Let me first pay tribute to Justice O'Connor who has been a real trailblazer in her own right. The first woman on the Supreme Court, a thoughtful and dedicated jurist, she has ably served on the highest Court for the past nearly 24 years. Her announced retirement creates the first vacancy in nearly 11 years. This has been the longest period with the same set of Justices in more than 175 years. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says that the President alone nominates, but he appoints only with the advice and consent of the Senate. One of the best shorthand ways of understanding the Senate's role is that by deciding whether to consent to the nomination, we give the President advice about whether to appoint the person he has nominated. Traditionally, we have done so by means of an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. I commend the President and his team of senior advisers for broadly soliciting the views of Senators and other interested parties. The President and his staff spoke with more than two-thirds of the Members of this body, over 70 Senators, an absolutely unprecedented level of interaction. For some, though, it appears that even extensive consultation with all 100 Senators would not be enough if they did not like the President's nominee. On the other hand, if they did like the nominee, I suppose they would declare a 5-minute chat with a Senate staffer to have been a consultative triumph. No President need consult at all with any Senator or with anyone else for that matter. The President does so because, in his judgment, it will help him fulfill his constitutional responsibility. President Bush has done that and has nominated John Roberts to be the 109th individual to serve on the Supreme Court in American history. The ball is now in our court. Judge Roberts has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ever since we confirmed him on May 8, 2003, without even a rollcall vote, I might add, one of the few people who have ever been confirmed by unanimous consent on the floor of the Senate. Judge Roberts was so easily confirmed because he is so eminently qualified. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Law School and served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review--no small achievement. In other words, No. 1 in his class. He clerked for Judge Henry Friendly, one of the alltime great judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and then for Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court, one of the alltime great Justices on the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts served as Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush. And before his judicial appointment, he was head of the appellate practice group at the distinguished law firm, internationally recognized, of Hogan & Hartson. He has been widely acknowledged as one of the most accomplished appellate attorneys in America, having argued nearly 40 cases before the Supreme Court on a wide range of issues from antitrust and the first amendment to Indian law, bankruptcy, and labor law. Not surprisingly, the American Bar Association unanimously gave Judge Roberts its highest well-qualified rating for his appeals court appointment. This has been the Democrats' gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees, and he has met every aspect of that standard. The question now is how we should evaluate Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court and what standards we should apply. There is more confusion about that than there should be. Yet I believe, like so many other endeavors, ending in the right place requires starting in the right place. An effective process for hiring or selecting someone to fill a position, any position, must start with an accurate description of that position. I am reminded of a 1998 article by Judge Harry Edwards appointed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I was in this body at the time. He was that court's chief judge from 1994 to 2001 and a colleague of Judge Roberts. Judge Edwards warned that giving the public a distorted view of what judges do is bad for both the judiciary and the rule of law. The debate about judicial selection is a debate about what judges do, about their proper place in our system of representative government. Getting the judicial job description right is necessary for a legitimate and effective selection process. It defines the qualifications for the job. It identifies the criteria we should apply. It guides the questions that may properly be asked and answered and the conclusions that should be reached. Judges take law that they did not make and cannot change, determine what it means, and apply it to the facts of a legal dispute. That is what judges do. That judicial job description applies across the board. It does not depend on the parties or the issues before the court. It does not depend on the law that is involved in a particular case. And it certainly does not depend on which side wins or should win. I believe we must help our fellow citizens better understand what judges do so they can better evaluate what we will be doing in the weeks ahead as we consider this nomination now before us. Without in any way trivializing the work of judges, I want to use a practical example because I believe it can be simple without being simplistic. Judges are like umpires or referees. They are neutral officials who take rules they did not make and cannot change and apply those rules to a contest between two parties or multiple parties. How would we evaluate the performance of an umpire or referee? Would we say he or she did a good job as long as our favorite team won the game? If we were hiring an umpire or referee, would we grill him or her about which side he or she were likely to favor in the upcoming matches? Of course not. Desirable results neither justify an umpire or referee twisting the rules during the game nor are automatic proof that the umpire or referee is fair and impartial. Umpires and referees must be fair and impartial from beginning to end during the contest before them. They do not pick the winner before the game starts, nor do they manipulate the process along the way to produce the winner they want. In the same way, we must not evaluate judges solely by whether we like their decisions or whether their decisions favor a particular political agenda. The political ends do not justify the judicial means. This is a very important point, something we must keep in clear focus throughout the weeks ahead. That is why I wanted to raise it now at the beginning of the confirmation process. One thing that is becoming increasingly clear is not everyone who says judges must interpret but not make the law means the same thing. Some who use that language still determine whether that standard is met the same old way by whether a judge's decisions meet a litmus test. Once again, an umpire or referee is not there to pick the winner. He or she is there to fairly and impartially apply the rules. Similarly, judges are not there to pick the winner. They are there to fairly and impartially apply the law. I emphasize this because it is at the heart of this entire debate over judicial selection, and I will be returning to it throughout this process. We may like or dislike a judge's decision, but that is not the point. His or her decisions may be consistent with certain political interests, but that is not the point. That is not what judges do. It is not their role in our system of representative government. Rather, if the people do not like what the faithful and impartial application of the law produces, then they and their elected representatives can change the law. That is our rule in our system of representative Government. Expecting judges to do our job--our legislative job--undermines the judicial branch and demeans the legislative branch. Simply put, judges must be evaluated not by the results they reach but by the process they follow to reach those results. That is what judges do. Mark my words, we will hear in the days and weeks ahead this group or that Senator demanding to know whether the nominee now before us would produce the results they want or that they like. They want to know whether the nominee will rule this way on this issue and that way on this other issue. Some may try to cloak their mission, perhaps using terms their focus groups say will go down more smoothly with the public. But we all know what is going on. They want to know which side the umpire or referee will favor. They want to know that their team will have an upper hand even before that team takes the field. In recent days, we have heard speeches by Senators and seen letters by interest groups and law professors with lists of questions to ask this nominee. Most of those questions are geared in one way or another to finding out how this nominee would likely rule; that is, the results this nominee would likely deliver on certain issues. Past nominees, including virtually every current member of the Supreme Court, have resisted such intrusive attempts to extract either commitments or previews of future rulings. In that way, judicial nominees sometimes appear to have a deeper commitment to judicial independence than some Senators. I expect Judge Roberts will take a judicious approach to answering questions, mindful of both the judicial position he already occupies and the one to which he has been nominated. Last night, the head of one of the leftwing groups primed to attack Judge Roberts was on one of the cable talk shows as the news about the nomination circulated. It took him about 15 seconds to say the words, ``serious problems,'' regarding this superbly qualified nominee. Within minutes of the President's announcement last night, other groups had already proclaimed the nominee an unacceptable extremist. That kind of knee-jerk, results-oriented standard is wrong, whether such calls come from the left or the right. As Judge Edwards reminded us, misrepresenting what judges do harms both the judiciary and the rule of law. Judges take law they did not make and cannot change, determine what that law means, and apply it to settle legal disputes. That is what judges do. In the days and weeks ahead, let us keep that job description in mind and set about determining whether the nominee now before us can do that job. Judge Roberts twice came before the Judiciary Committee. As a matter of fact, he had to wait 14 years to finally be confirmed by the Senate. He was nominated by George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush 1, and then renominated by Bush 2, George W. Bush. But I remember him when he came before the committee. We had two hearings for him. I remember him as an intelligent, fair-minded, and thoughtful person, and so does everybody else who knows him. While I, of course, must withhold final judgment on Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court until after the confirmation hearing, my initial reaction is President Bush appears to have submitted to the Senate a well-qualified nominee with the kind of intellect, integrity, and independence that is required for a Supreme Court Justice. We must apply the right standard as we evaluate this nominee. Having said all of that, I understand Senators are saying they can ask any question they want, and I have said Senators on the Judiciary Committee can ask any question they want, no matter how stupid the question may be. And we have all asked stupid questions from time to time, I am sure. At least most of us have. But the judge does not have to answer those questions. In fact, under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, judges should not be opining or answering questions about issues that may possibly come before them in the future. I would like this body to remember some past nominations, and I will cite with particularity the nomination of Antonin Scalia to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I remember time after time Senators asking him questions about how he might rule in the future on various issues, including Roe v. Wade. He refused to answer those questions because he thought those issues might come before him as a Justice on the Supreme Court and, frankly, wanted to abide by the Canons of Judicial Ethics. He was not overly pressured. The Judiciary Committee treated him with respect. He passed through the Senate 100 to zip and, of course, has become one of the leading conservative jurists in the history of the Court. But he did not have to answer questions that asked for specific conclusions in areas that likely would come before the Court, and that is almost anything. In this day and age, there is so much litigation almost anything could come before the Court. The second illustration is the Ruth Bader Ginsburg illustration. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when she came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, refused to answer questions with regard to matters that might come before her if she would be confirmed as a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our side did not overly press her to answer those questions. We did not scream and shout about, She has to answer my questions or I am not going to vote for her. We did not make demands on her that were inappropriate. We did not have outside groups giving us questions to ask that are outrageous and formed for the purpose of trying to scuttle the nomination. She took that position, and we honored her in taking that position. If I recall it correctly, she passed through the Senate I believe 96 to 3. We knew that she was a social liberal. We conservatives who are pro-life knew she was pro-abortion. We knew that she differed with our side on many issues. We also knew that she was qualified, and we knew she deserved a vote up or down out of respect for the position, out of respect for the U.S. Supreme Court, and out of respect for her. She received her vote up or down, and there was not a lot of screaming and shouting about it, nor were there threats made, nor were there threats that we might someday filibuster her if she did not agree with the results we wanted her to rule on in advance. That is what is going on, and it has been going on ever since the Rehnquist nomination for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has only gone on on one side, and that is the Democrat side, in a series of very embarrassing Supreme Court nomination proceedings, starting with Justice Rehnquist. Why, some even violated the law and put out some of his medical records that were highly confidential. When Bob Bork came up, it was unmitigated the way they treated him. Even Justice Souter was mistreated because they thought he might possibly be pro-life. Justice Kennedy was not as mistreated as the others, but they were very concerned because they thought he might be pro-life. In fact, even Justice O'Connor when she came to the floor had her critics on both sides because they were afraid she might be one way or the other on Roe v. Wade. The fact is, we now know where Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter are on these issues, but we did not know at the time, nor do we know where to-be Justice Roberts is on these issues as well. Nobody has asked him those questions and nobody should because those questions are all hot-button issues that may come before the Supreme Court. If there has ever been anybody qualified to go on the Supreme Court, one would have to say John Roberts meets every requisite standard to be confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court. This is a brilliant man. This is an honest man with a sense of humor. This is a leading appellate advocate. He has held responsible positions in Government. He has risen to the top of the legal profession. He has the highest recommendation of the American Bar Association for the circuit court of appeals seat. He is one of the great legal thinkers of America. How he will rule on various issues I, frankly, do not know. I believe him to be conservative. The President said he would appoint only conservatives, which is his right. That is what one gets when they vote for President. If I have ever seen anybody who deserves being on the Court more than John Roberts, I have to think pretty hard. John Roberts is a fine man. I hope he will be treated with great respect and deference, and I hope these very partisan, very nasty groups from the left and maybe even the right pack up their tents and go home because they do not belong in this process the way they are acting, though in a free country they can act that way, and I would fight for their right to do so. We should not be influenced by that type of inappropriate, prejudgmental approach to Supreme Court nominees. I believe John Roberts will become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, I hope expeditiously, certainly before the first Monday in October so that the Court can have a full complement. I believe the Senate will overwhelmingly support him, and I hope that is the case. If it is not, then we are going to have to reexamine the way things go around here. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Dr. Lester Crawford for the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering Dr. Crawford's nomination and urge my colleagues to support his nomination. I want to stress that tonight's vote is extremely important--not only for the FDA--but for all Americans. FDA needs a permanent Commissioner--in fact, the agency has not had a Commissioner since May 2004. The FDA needs someone to lead on important matters where the agency has oversight--such as drug safety, food safety, approval for drugs and medical devices, and counteracting biological attacks. Dr. Crawford is that man. Since Dr. Crawford has been the Acting Commissioner of the FDA, he has had many accomplishments of considerable note. Under his leadership, the FDA has undergone the most significant consolidation of FDA expertise in history with the physical facility moves to the Harvey Wiley building--the FDA's Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition near University of Maryland--and the White Oak campus. As a result of Dr. Crawford's personal intervention and involvement, the most at-risk Americans were able to receive a safe and effective flu vaccine last year during the shortage crisis. Dr. Crawford steered the FDA through one of the most difficult times in its history with the various drug safety issues of last year resulting in the creation of a new Drug Safety Oversight Board and Drug Watch internet page for consumers. This is a landmark milestone in drug safety and a paradigm shift for the FDA to one of openness and transparency. Dr. Crawford has led the FDA on a series of important decisions that have transformed the regulation of food in the United States. Under his leadership, the FDA fully implemented the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 a law that helps make our food supply safe on a daily basis. We have much more work to do and I am pleased to say you are helping to lead in that regard, Mr. President, and I am very appreciative of that. Dr. Crawford implemented a risk management plan for the shell eggs industry that reduces dramatically the probability of salmonella. Dr. Crawford is personally responsible for the complete overhaul and reform of good manufacturing practices for drugs, foods, and dietary supplements. When all of these major regulations are fully implemented, Dr. Crawford will be successful in creating the best quality control system in the world for regulating these consumer products. Most recently, he assured me that the agency's final action on dietary supplement GMPs will be forthcoming in the near future. I welcomed his decision and the finality he has promised to this long overdue process. Dr. Crawford has overseen user fee programs for both medical devices and veterinary drugs. Dr. Crawford has led the agency in the development of the ``critical path'' that promotes a plan for bringing novel discoveries to market through the FDA system to fight such diseases as cancer. I am convinced that Dr. Crawford is the best person for the job and the sooner we get him confirmed, the better. On a personal note, I have known Dr. Crawford for many years. He is a man of integrity. He is a strong leader. He is accessible. He is someone who understands both science and public policy. I believe that Dr. Crawford has all the qualities necessary to be the best Commissioner the FDA has ever had. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Dr. Crawford today, a vote so long overdue. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield also for just a moment? We introduced the bioshield II, the Lieberman-Hatch bill that has gone a long way to resolving this matter, and I intend to work with the Senator from North Carolina and the distinguished chairman and ranking member to see if we can bring this to a conclusion that works. I thank the chairman.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. HATCH. Isn't it true we passed the FDA revitalization bill back in 1989 to create this central campus where we could have the best state-of-the-art equipment? We had 48 different locations where FDA was located all over the greater Washington area; is that true?

Mr. HATCH. We have treated the FDA like a wicked stepsister instead of giving it the money it needs. It handles more than 25 percent of all consumer products in America, right?

Mr. HATCH. No matter who is FDA Commissioner, under those circumstances it is very difficult to get a handle on everything that needs to be addressed by the FDA.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Dr. Lester Crawford for the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering Dr. Crawford's nomination and urge my colleagues to support his nomination. I want to stress that tonight's vote is extremely important--not only for the FDA--but for all Americans. FDA needs a permanent Commissioner--in fact, the agency has not had a Commissioner since May 2004. The FDA needs someone to lead on important matters where the agency has oversight--such as drug safety, food safety, approval for drugs and medical devices, and counteracting biological attacks. Dr. Crawford is that man. Since Dr. Crawford has been the Acting Commissioner of the FDA, he has had many accomplishments of considerable note. Under his leadership, the FDA has undergone the most significant consolidation of FDA expertise in history with the physical facility moves to the Harvey Wiley building--the FDA's Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition near University of Maryland--and the White Oak campus. As a result of Dr. Crawford's personal intervention and involvement, the most at-risk Americans were able to receive a safe and effective flu vaccine last year during the shortage crisis. Dr. Crawford steered the FDA through one of the most difficult times in its history with the various drug safety issues of last year resulting in the creation of a new Drug Safety Oversight Board and Drug Watch internet page for consumers. This is a landmark milestone in drug safety and a paradigm shift for the FDA to one of openness and transparency. Dr. Crawford has led the FDA on a series of important decisions that have transformed the regulation of food in the United States. Under his leadership, the FDA fully implemented the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 a law that helps make our food supply safe on a daily basis. We have much more work to do and I am pleased to say you are helping to lead in that regard, Mr. President, and I am very appreciative of that. Dr. Crawford implemented a risk management plan for the shell eggs industry that reduces dramatically the probability of salmonella. Dr. Crawford is personally responsible for the complete overhaul and reform of good manufacturing practices for drugs, foods, and dietary supplements. When all of these major regulations are fully implemented, Dr. Crawford will be successful in creating the best quality control system in the world for regulating these consumer products. Most recently, he assured me that the agency's final action on dietary supplement GMPs will be forthcoming in the near future. I welcomed his decision and the finality he has promised to this long overdue process. Dr. Crawford has overseen user fee programs for both medical devices and veterinary drugs. Dr. Crawford has led the agency in the development of the ``critical path'' that promotes a plan for bringing novel discoveries to market through the FDA system to fight such diseases as cancer. I am convinced that Dr. Crawford is the best person for the job and the sooner we get him confirmed, the better. On a personal note, I have known Dr. Crawford for many years. He is a man of integrity. He is a strong leader. He is accessible. He is someone who understands both science and public policy. I believe that Dr. Crawford has all the qualities necessary to be the best Commissioner the FDA has ever had. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Dr. Crawford today, a vote so long overdue. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished chairman.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield also for just a moment? We introduced the bioshield II, the Lieberman-Hatch bill that has gone a long way to resolving this matter, and I intend to work with the Senator from North Carolina and the distinguished chairman and ranking member to see if we can bring this to a conclusion that works. I thank the chairman.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. HATCH. Isn't it true we passed the FDA revitalization bill back in 1989 to create this central campus where we could have the best state-of-the-art equipment? We had 48 different locations where FDA was located all over the greater Washington area; is that true?

Mr. HATCH. We have treated the FDA like a wicked stepsister instead of giving it the money it needs. It handles more than 25 percent of all consumer products in America, right?

Mr. HATCH. No matter who is FDA Commissioner, under those circumstances it is very difficult to get a handle on everything that needs to be addressed by the FDA.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1414, a bill that authorizes a study necessary for establishing the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area in the Four Corners region of the States of Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. I am joined by Senators Bennett, Bingaman, Domenici, and Allard as cosponsors of this bill. The Four Corners region in the Southwestern United States contains many of the most stunning and well-preserved archaeological sites in our country. It also offers monuments, museums, and other attractions which draw visitors from all over the world. The rare archaeology of this part of the world combined with an awesome natural setting makes this a region like no other. With this bill we hope to lay the groundwork to give this region the attention that it so richly deserves. Six years ago, Congress voted to support a partnership among these four States and the Federal Government in order to construct an Interpretive Center at the intersection of the Four Corners. This Center has recently opened and now provides a wonderful physical locus for travel in the region. Visitors to this spot can stop, rest, learn about the area, and purchase goods produced by the local Tribes. The designation of the surrounding region as a National Heritage Area would complement this experience at the Center and is the logical next step. Designation as a National Heritage Area would provide geographic and interpretive coherence to the region's remarkable landscape and the amazing cultural sites dispersed within it. Designation as a National Heritage Area would give visitors to this area an experience that integrates land, people, and history in a meaningful way. The Four Corners region is also home to the Navaho, Hopi, and Ute Indian Tribes, whose ancestors contributed to this remarkable heritage. Ancestral Puebloan Indians lived here from about A.D. 1 to 1300 and left many of the distinctive sites and structures that are visible today. The Navaho and Ute are descendants of these early peoples. The history of this area stretches even further back in time, to the Paleo- Indian era of at least 10,000 years ago. Remains from this era provide a glimpse into a way of life very different from today. The area also features sites that chronicle the more recent history of the region's native peoples, and of the immigrants who came to this area as our country expanded to the West. This bill provides for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the suitability and feasibility study in cooperation with the Four Corners Heritage Council. This Council is a critical partner in the study, and is prepared to take the lead in this task. The Council consists of members from all four States in the Four Corners area. These members are appointed by the governor of each State and include representatives from the private sector, local communities, and the Tribes. We are fortunate to have such a well-established entity with a good track record of accomplishments to take on the study task. The bill follows the new guidelines for National Heritage Areas recently passed by this body and was crafted in consultation with the National Park Service and the Four Corners Heritage Council. Once passed, this bill should move easily through the process to completion. Final designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would link many of the cultural and recreational sites in the region for the benefit of local communities and visitors to the area. Designation of the area would not impose restrictions on private property or require acquisition of additional land. S. 1414 is the first step in the national heritage area designation process. Designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would give these remarkable historic treasures the national prominence they deserve, and would provide a structure for the State and local communities to promote heritage tourism and economic development. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1414, a bill that authorizes a study necessary for establishing the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area in the Four Corners region of the States of Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. I am joined by Senators Bennett, Bingaman, Domenici, and Allard as cosponsors of this bill. The Four Corners region in the Southwestern United States contains many of the most stunning and well-preserved archaeological sites in our country. It also offers monuments, museums, and other attractions which draw visitors from all over the world. The rare archaeology of this part of the world combined with an awesome natural setting makes this a region like no other. With this bill we hope to lay the groundwork to give this region the attention that it so richly deserves. Six years ago, Congress voted to support a partnership among these four States and the Federal Government in order to construct an Interpretive Center at the intersection of the Four Corners. This Center has recently opened and now provides a wonderful physical locus for travel in the region. Visitors to this spot can stop, rest, learn about the area, and purchase goods produced by the local Tribes. The designation of the surrounding region as a National Heritage Area would complement this experience at the Center and is the logical next step. Designation as a National Heritage Area would provide geographic and interpretive coherence to the region's remarkable landscape and the amazing cultural sites dispersed within it. Designation as a National Heritage Area would give visitors to this area an experience that integrates land, people, and history in a meaningful way. The Four Corners region is also home to the Navaho, Hopi, and Ute Indian Tribes, whose ancestors contributed to this remarkable heritage. Ancestral Puebloan Indians lived here from about A.D. 1 to 1300 and left many of the distinctive sites and structures that are visible today. The Navaho and Ute are descendants of these early peoples. The history of this area stretches even further back in time, to the Paleo- Indian era of at least 10,000 years ago. Remains from this era provide a glimpse into a way of life very different from today. The area also features sites that chronicle the more recent history of the region's native peoples, and of the immigrants who came to this area as our country expanded to the West. This bill provides for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the suitability and feasibility study in cooperation with the Four Corners Heritage Council. This Council is a critical partner in the study, and is prepared to take the lead in this task. The Council consists of members from all four States in the Four Corners area. These members are appointed by the governor of each State and include representatives from the private sector, local communities, and the Tribes. We are fortunate to have such a well-established entity with a good track record of accomplishments to take on the study task. The bill follows the new guidelines for National Heritage Areas recently passed by this body and was crafted in consultation with the National Park Service and the Four Corners Heritage Council. Once passed, this bill should move easily through the process to completion. Final designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would link many of the cultural and recreational sites in the region for the benefit of local communities and visitors to the area. Designation of the area would not impose restrictions on private property or require acquisition of additional land. S. 1414 is the first step in the national heritage area designation process. Designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would give these remarkable historic treasures the national prominence they deserve, and would provide a structure for the State and local communities to promote heritage tourism and economic development. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Would the gentleman from New Hampshire yield for a question?

Mr. HATCH. As the chairman knows, one of the greatest roles entrusted to the hardworking employees of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect our Nation's borders and curb the growing tide of illegal immigration in this country. I thank my friend and colleague from New Hampshire for doing his best to address this great need with increased funding for, and greater attention to, this problem. As I travel around the State of Utah, there is not a single place I go where I do not have citizens come up to me and ask me to do something about the illegal immigration problems in their area. They are upset that our country continues to be unable to enforce our immigration laws and I do not blame them. I feel the same frustration. For example, Mayor Toni Turk of Blanding recently informed me that his police department has made several arrests of illegal aliens and seized nearly 7 kilos of cocaine in the process. It would seem drug smugglers--most of whom are in the country illegally--are taking advantage of the de minimis level of immigration enforcement in remote areas of southeastern Utah. Incidents such as this one formed the basis of my request for the creation of an ICE/CBP office in Blanding, UT and I am grateful to the chairman for addressing my request in his committee report. I have heard it said many times that the objective of illegal immigrants coming through the southern border of the country is to get as far north as possible as fast as he or she can. This comes from the either perceived or real concern that immigration enforcement is much tougher in the southern portion of the U.S. than it is in the northern portion. For a State located directly above some of the most porous borders in the country, this is a real concern. U.S. Interstate 70 and U.S. Interstate 15 in Utah have become large conduits for the smuggling of illegal immigrants and illegal substances as these foreigners flee from the southern states as fast as possible in order to get north where they believe enforcement is less stringent. With two major arteries for illegal immigration running through the southern portion of Utah, citizens in that beautiful area have grown tired of the strain and difficulties presented by the flood of illegal immigrants. Is the distinguished Senator aware of the significant immigration- related problems facing Utah, especially in the southern portion of the state including St. George and Blanding, UT.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chairman for recognizing what so many people do not; namely, that immigration problems are not limited to the border States. One of the greatest concerns we Utahns have with the immigration enforcement in our State is the fact that the field office director overseeing Utah is located in San Francisco, CA. I hope my colleague will agree with me that having the oversight for a major illegal immigration artery located over 650 miles away from the area is disconcerting. The immigration problems facing San Francisco are very different from the problems facing St. George, Blanding, Richfield, Cedar City, Provo, and Salt Lake and that is precisely why I would like to see a new field officer director located in Utah. It is my hope that the chairman will work with me to remedy these issues. GREGG. I thank the Senator for his comments. I am pleased to say that we have included significant increases in immigration funding in this bill. It is my desire to see those funds spent in the most crucial areas of concern to this Nation and I believe they will help us make significant progress in the fight against illegal immigration. While the issue of establishing new field office directors is properly that of the Secretary of Homeland Security, I will work with my colleague from Utah to address the issues troubling his State as I have done with all of my colleagues. I recognize that Utah faces certain unique challenges and I am confident they can be addressed. I thank my colleague from Utah for his support in our efforts to secure the homeland, and I appreciate his bringing the problems facing southern Utah to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak of the Controlled Substances Export Reform Act of 2005. This bill would make a minor, but long overdue, change to the Controlled Substances Act to reflect the reality of commerce in the 21st Century and to protect high-paying American jobs, while maintaining strong safeguards on exports. Before I discuss this bill, I want to thank Senator Biden for working with me on this important legislation. Senator Biden has long been recognized as a national leader on drug-related measures, and we have a history of working together on a bipartisan basis to enact sensible reforms in this area, as evidenced by the recent enactment of our steroid precursor bill. I respect his thoughtful collaboration, and I thank him for his work on this proposal. I would also like to thank Chairman Specter for his critical work on this legislation. We would not be able to move this important bill without his efforts. Furthermore, I would like to thank the majority leader for moving this legislation during the last Congress. We were able to pass the measure last fall, and I hope that we may do so again in the near future. This Hatch-Biden bill has been my priority for a number of years. The need for this legislation was first brought to my attention by a number of Utah companies, who had experienced significant difficulties in exporting their pharmaceutical products. Under current law, there are two differing regulatory schemes governing export of U.S.-manufactured pharmaceutical products. One system, adopted by the Congress 10 years ago, governs products regulated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The other, which we are today proposing to harmonize with the food and drug law, governs pharmaceuticals with abuse potential regulated under the Controlled Substances Act. In sum, our proposed legislation amends the Controlled Substances Act to allow greater opportunities for U.S. manufacturers to send their products abroad, still retaining full Drug Enforcement Administration authority over those exports. At present, U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers are permitted to export most controlled substances only to the immediate country where the products will be consumed. Shipments to centralized sites for further distribution across national boundaries are prohibited, even though this same system is allowed under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for products which are not controlled substances. The current system for export of controlled substances should be contrasted with the freedom of pharmaceutical manufacturers throughout the rest of the world to readily move approved medical products among and between international drug control treaty countries without limitation or restriction. The unique prohibitions imposed on domestic manufacturers disadvantage U.S. businesses by requiring smaller, more frequent and costly shipments to each country of use without any demonstrable benefit to public health or safety. By imposing significant logistical challenges and financial burdens on U.S. companies, the law creates a strong incentive for domestic pharmaceutical manufacturers to move production operations overseas, threatening high-wage American jobs. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 permits U.S. manufacturers of Schedule I and II substances and Schedule III and IV narcotics to export their products from U.S. manufacturing sites only to the receiving country where the drug will be used. The law prohibits export of these products if the drugs are to be distributed outside the country to which they are initially sent. The effect of this restriction is to prevent American businesses from using cost- effective, centralized foreign distribution facilities. In addition, under the current regime, unexpected cross-border demands or surges in patient needs cannot be met. Likewise, complex and time-sensitive export licensing procedures prevent the shipment of pharmaceuticals on a real time basis. European drug manufacturers face no such constraints. They are able to freely move their exported products from one nation to another while complying with host country laws. This is entirely consistent with the scheme of regulation imposed by international drug control treaties. Only the United States imposes the additional limitation of prohibiting the further transfer of controlled substances. Thus, while a French or British company can ship its products to a central warehouse in Germany for subsequent distribution across the European Union, an American company must incur the added costs of shipping its products separately to each individual country. S. 1395, the Controlled Substances Export Reform Act, would correct this imbalance and permit the highly-regulated transshipment of exported pharmaceuticals placing American businesses on an equal footing with the rest of the world. Importantly, however, DEA's authority to control U.S. exports would not be diminished. The legislation authorizes the Attorney General, or his designee, the DEA, to permit the re-export of Schedule I and II substances and Schedule III and IV narcotics to countries that are parties to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances under tightly controlled circumstances: First, each country is required to have an established system of controls deemed adequate by the DEA. Next, only permit or license holders in those countries may receive regulated products. Third, re-exports are limited to one single cross-border transfer. Then the DEA must be satisfied by substantial evidence that the exported substance will be used to meet an actual medical, scientific or other legitimate need, and that the second country of receipt will hold or issue appropriate import licenses or permits. Fifth, in addition, the exporter must notify the DEA in writing within 30 days of a re-export. And finally, an export permit must have been issued by the DEA. These safeguards are rigorous but fair, and represent a much-needed modernization of the law. The current restrictions on U.S. exports of controlled substances have remained essentially unchanged for more than 30 years. In that time, the global economy has changed dramatically. For those among us who express concerns about the outsourcing of American jobs and the competitiveness of U.S. companies, this modest change represents an opportunity to address such problems head-on. The Controlled Substance Act's limitation on U.S. pharmaceutical exports imposes unique, unnecessary, and significant logistical and financial burdens on American businesses. The effect of this outdated policy is to create a strong incentive for domestic pharmaceutical companies to move production overseas, threatening American jobs and eliminating DEA jurisdiction over the manufacture and shipment of their products. The Controlled Substances Export Reform Act removes this unwarranted barrier to U.S. manufacturers' use of cost-effective distribution techniques while retaining full DEA control of U.S. exports and re-exports. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Biden and myself in support of this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next Senator to be recognized be Senator Cornyn for 10 minutes from our time, and then Senator Kerry for 15 minutes from Senator Baucus's time, and then Senator Vitter for 10 minutes from Senator Grassley's time.