Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Vitter be recognized for his 10 minutes, and then we will go immediately to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin on the Democratic side be the next speaker for 20 minutes, that he be followed by Senator Lautenberg for 10 minutes, and then Senator Voinovich will immediately follow Senator Lautenberg for at least 20 minutes.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Over the years, I have been a strong advocate for free trade. Free trade is important. I know of no other endeavor that affords us the opportunity to forge closer links between nations while simultaneously improving the lives of millions. The vast majority of economists agree that free trade is in every nation's long-term best interests. Diplomats also know that it is far easier to reach a compromise between nations whose economies are mutually reliant. That being said, there are certain aspects of free trade that cause me concern. We need to be ever vigilant to ensure our approach to free trade does not relinquish our sovereign rights as a nation. Over the last few years, I have heard from many Utahns who are concerned that the U.S. is relinquishing sovereignty to other countries through our trade agreements. Let me make clear that we absolutely cannot give up our right to govern within our own borders. We have laws for a reason and they represent the ideals and values we hold dear in our society. Constituents contact me on a constant basis to underscore their frustration with the gradual loss of sovereignty the U.S. is experiencing in international arenas. Local lawmakers from across the country are reaching out to us and asking for our help in ensuring their local laws and authority remain intact as we enter into international trade agreements. Indeed, recently, the Utah State Legislature passed a resolution which echoes these concerns. The issue of maintaining sovereignty was highlighted by a recent World Trade Organization, WTO, dispute resolution body ruling on Internet gambling. The ruling stated that the United States cannot block other countries from offering Internet gambling to U.S. residents, even if they live in States such as Utah where gambling is illegal. This is outrageous. We absolutely cannot enter into agreements where our laws are overturned by outsiders. It is important for my colleagues to be aware, however, that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has interpreted the language in the WTO decision stating that gaming laws are ``necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order'' to mean that ``WTO members are entitled to maintain restrictions on internet gaming . . . and U.S. restrictions on internet gambling can stand.'' I am aware that many in Utah are concerned that CAFTA could usurp our State's right to regulate gambling. That is a concern I shared as well. However, many of us were reassured by the statements made by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that CAFTA does not jeopardize any existing State laws, including Utah's antigambling laws. We will have to stay on top of this, though. I do not intend to let any international agreement affect the laws our great State has enacted that represent the predominant moral views of our citizens. Other concerns with CAFTA regarding ``investor-state provisions that will allow corporations to challenge public interest policies at the state and local level'' have also been raised. Once again, however, the Office of the United States Trade Representative has clearly stated that ``nothing in CAFTA, or any other free trade agreement or bilateral investment treaty, interferes with a state or local government's right to regulate. An investor cannot enjoin regulatory action through arbitration, nor can arbitral tribunals.'' This statement, in black and white, will ensure that Internet gambling is not--and will not--become legal in the State of Utah without the consent of its citizens. There can be no ``end-run'' around the USTR's interpretation of the Internet gambling decision. Although our CAFTA trade negotiators have done much to protect our sovereignty, it is obvious that we must remain vigilant and ensure that the sovereignty of not only our Nation, but also our States, is maintained. I will work to maintain this sovereign right of the people. Mr. President, I have become convinced that many of these problems and concerns with U.S. trade agreements could be alleviated if we improved the amount and quality of consultation occurring between States and the Federal Government with respect to trade agreements. Simply put, we need to provide greater opportunities for substantive consultation to occur. This problem was the topic of a recent letter signed by 28 States attorneys general, including Utah, requesting greater consultation between the U.S. Trade Representative and the States on issues affecting States rights. I believe we need to take action on this immediately and ensure that we provide greater access to and consultation with our States and citizens. We clearly are seeing how big of an impact these trade agreements are having in every State and city in America. We need to give the States a direct conduit for their input. Negotiators need to have this information in order to ensure we are representing the interests and beliefs of our constituents. Mr. President, these concerns have weighed heavily upon my mind. At the same time, I am encouraged by the many positive results CAFTA will have for our State, our country, and for Utah's farmers and industries. According to the Department of Commerce, between 2000 and 2004, Utah's exports to CAFTA nations increased by 58 percent. This includes such product areas as plastics, electronics, and instrumentation. In plastic products, Utah industries sold $18.6 million in goods in 2004. In electronic and instrumentation products, Utah businesses sold $5.6 million worth of goods in 2004. The elimination of tariffs will make these products even more competitive in this developing market. We have reason for our optimism. While our experience with the Chilean Free Trade Agreement provides no guarantees, it is illustrative. In the first year of the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, Utah's exports to Chile grew by 152 percent. I am also pleased that CAFTA will level the playing field so that American goods and products can have better access to Central American markets. As part of our long-standing effort to support democracies in the region, the United States has afforded unilateral preferences to Central American goods under the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of Preferences. CAFTA eliminates these preferences while simultaneously strengthening our commercial ties by making the trading relationship permanent. All of this will be accomplished while American products will have greater opportunities for export in the region. One example of the positive attributes of CAFTA can be found in the agreements effect on the hard-pressed textile and yarn producing industries. Our nation, through the use of modern equipment and greatly improved efficiency, continues to be competitive in this area. Where we have lost ground is in the labor-intensive apparel construction industry. CAFTA provides an opportunity to help rectify this setback. Under current agreements, 56 percent of all textile products that are imported from CAFTA nations to the United States contain U.S. yarns or fabrics. When CAFTA is enacted, we can only expect these numbers to increase. This stands in marked contrast to apparel imported from Pacific Rim, and in particular China, where less than 1 percent of all of apparel imports contain U.S. yarns and fabrics. Therefore, I believe, that in the case of CAFTA, the pros do outweigh the cons. But, I will end on this note of caution. I will watch implementation of this agreement carefully. We need to have recognition of the fact that States are partners in these agreements. There must be greater opportunities afforded to the States to be consulted on free-trade agreements. Likewise, we must remain vigilant that our Nation's and respective States' sovereignty is maintained. On balance, Mr. President, any reasoned analysis indicates that CAFTA will benefit our Nation and our State. It is for this reason that I will cast my vote in support of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce ``The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005.'' I am grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed and Ensign have joined me as sponsors of this important, bipartisan bill. All five sponsors of this bill have been working on this legislation for the past few months. We have met with organizations that are deeply interested in participating in this new program and heard their input. We talked to other Senators, including members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, who have a deep commitment to getting this legislation signed into law by the President. This bill was a group effort and I commend the sponsors of this bill on a job well done. I am pleased that this legislation will be considered by the Senate HELP Committee on Wednesday; we are hopeful it will then be passed by the Senate in the near future. HELP Chairman Enzi and Ranking Democrat Kennedy and their staffs have been very supportive of our efforts in getting this bill through the Senate in a timely manner. I greatly appreciate their willingness to work with all of us on this important issue. As many of my colleagues know, I introduced a bill earlier this year S. 681, the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005. I have introduced that legislation during the past three Congresses. The bill I have introduced with my colleagues today is a much improved version of my original cord blood legislation, primarily because it reflects a compromise between the key stakeholder groups that are deeply interested in providing federal funding to establish cord blood banks for public use. This legislation creates an easily accessible network of adult stem cell transplant material for the treatment of patients and supports the research into the uses of such cells. One of the biggest changes in this bill is the establishment of a three year demonstration project for the collection and storage of cord blood units for a family in which a child has been diagnosed with a condition that will benefit from a cord blood transplant at no cost to the family. When we were meeting with individuals interested in this legislation, we were told by scientific experts that the most successful cord blood transplants come from a sibling's cord blood. Once a cord blood unit is put in a public cord blood bank, there is no guarantee that a family will be able to get that specific cord blood unit back if it is needed. Therefore, we believed that it was necessary to create this demonstration project so that families would have immediate access to its cord blood units. It is important to emphasize that the only families that may participate in this demonstration project are those that have a sick child or parent. In addition, this legislation includes language calling for single point of access. The purpose of a single point of access is to provide health care providers with the ability to search for bone marrow donors and cord blood units through a single electronic point of access. Today, doctors have to search several places in order to find available cord blood units and bone marrow donors. A single point of access improves this process dramatically for both doctor and patient by making the search process much more efficient. There is strong, bipartisan interest throughout the Congress for using adult stem cells to treat a wide variety of medical conditions. Our bill not only reauthorizes the National Marrow Donor Program, but it also creates a national network of public cord blood banks. Together, these two programs for umbilical cord blood and adult bone marrow will provide us with a widely-accepted source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplant and research. For several decades, thousands of Americans have received and been saved by bone marrow transplants. But thousands more die for lack of an appropriate donor. The good news is that research now suggests that the blood and stem cells from human placenta and umbilical cords may in some cases provide an alternative to bone marrow transplantation. For some patients, particularly those for whom a bone marrow match cannot be found, transplantation of these cells may be a life-saving therapy. Cord blood stem cells are readily available, and they require less- stringent matching from donors to recipients, thus decreasing the difficulty of finding a fully matched donor. Cord blood transplantation has been used successfully to treat leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and certain metabolic diseases. However, the number of available cord blood stem cell units in the United States is insufficient to meet the need. The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 will establish an inventory of 150,000 new cord blood stem cell units that reflects the diversity of the United States' population. In conjunction with the five million potential bone marrow donors registered through the National Marrow Donor Program, this cord blood network will enable 95 percent of Americans to receive an appropriately matched transplant. The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 also incorporates recommendations from the Institute of Medicine's recent report on cord blood. The Institute provided Congress with guidelines and recommendations to enhance the structure, function, and utility of the program. As a result, I am confident that this Nation's system for obtaining adult stem cells for transplantation purposes will improve dramatically, and that many more of our citizens will have access to the life-saving therapies they offer. Through transplants of this nature, we can finally cure previously incurable diseases such as sickle cell anemia. It is my hope that this legislation will help us ensure that children with this and other illnesses will be able to achieve their full potential, unhindered by poor health. My goal, which I share with the other sponsors of this bill, is to create the best possible system to provide patients, clinicians, and families with access to these life-saving treatments. I believe the current bill does this by ensuring that the number of bone marrow donors and cord blood units available for transplant and research increases in the coming years. The integrated system will include not only the international bone marrow donor registry, but also a network of qualified cord blood banks which will collect, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells. In addition, the system will educate and recruit donors, facilitate the rapid matching of donors and recipients, and quickly make such cells available to transplant centers for stem cell transplantation. The establishment of a national infrastructure for transplant material will help save the lives of thousands of critically ill Americans. We must be sure that our Nation can meet the needs of patients and physicians by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood in this country. My primary goal is to ensure that the amount of transplant material available for patient care and research increases in the coming years. The only way that goal may be accomplished is through strong federal support. I look forward to working with my colleagues on doing everything possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood transplantation in this country. This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce ``The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005.'' I am grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed and Ensign have joined me as sponsors of this important, bipartisan bill. All five sponsors of this bill have been working on this legislation for the past few months. We have met with organizations that are deeply interested in participating in this new program and heard their input. We talked to other Senators, including members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, who have a deep commitment to getting this legislation signed into law by the President. This bill was a group effort and I commend the sponsors of this bill on a job well done. I am pleased that this legislation will be considered by the Senate HELP Committee on Wednesday; we are hopeful it will then be passed by the Senate in the near future. HELP Chairman Enzi and Ranking Democrat Kennedy and their staffs have been very supportive of our efforts in getting this bill through the Senate in a timely manner. I greatly appreciate their willingness to work with all of us on this important issue. As many of my colleagues know, I introduced a bill earlier this year S. 681, the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005. I have introduced that legislation during the past three Congresses. The bill I have introduced with my colleagues today is a much improved version of my original cord blood legislation, primarily because it reflects a compromise between the key stakeholder groups that are deeply interested in providing federal funding to establish cord blood banks for public use. This legislation creates an easily accessible network of adult stem cell transplant material for the treatment of patients and supports the research into the uses of such cells. One of the biggest changes in this bill is the establishment of a three year demonstration project for the collection and storage of cord blood units for a family in which a child has been diagnosed with a condition that will benefit from a cord blood transplant at no cost to the family. When we were meeting with individuals interested in this legislation, we were told by scientific experts that the most successful cord blood transplants come from a sibling's cord blood. Once a cord blood unit is put in a public cord blood bank, there is no guarantee that a family will be able to get that specific cord blood unit back if it is needed. Therefore, we believed that it was necessary to create this demonstration project so that families would have immediate access to its cord blood units. It is important to emphasize that the only families that may participate in this demonstration project are those that have a sick child or parent. In addition, this legislation includes language calling for single point of access. The purpose of a single point of access is to provide health care providers with the ability to search for bone marrow donors and cord blood units through a single electronic point of access. Today, doctors have to search several places in order to find available cord blood units and bone marrow donors. A single point of access improves this process dramatically for both doctor and patient by making the search process much more efficient. There is strong, bipartisan interest throughout the Congress for using adult stem cells to treat a wide variety of medical conditions. Our bill not only reauthorizes the National Marrow Donor Program, but it also creates a national network of public cord blood banks. Together, these two programs for umbilical cord blood and adult bone marrow will provide us with a widely-accepted source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplant and research. For several decades, thousands of Americans have received and been saved by bone marrow transplants. But thousands more die for lack of an appropriate donor. The good news is that research now suggests that the blood and stem cells from human placenta and umbilical cords may in some cases provide an alternative to bone marrow transplantation. For some patients, particularly those for whom a bone marrow match cannot be found, transplantation of these cells may be a life-saving therapy. Cord blood stem cells are readily available, and they require less- stringent matching from donors to recipients, thus decreasing the difficulty of finding a fully matched donor. Cord blood transplantation has been used successfully to treat leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and certain metabolic diseases. However, the number of available cord blood stem cell units in the United States is insufficient to meet the need. The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 will establish an inventory of 150,000 new cord blood stem cell units that reflects the diversity of the United States' population. In conjunction with the five million potential bone marrow donors registered through the National Marrow Donor Program, this cord blood network will enable 95 percent of Americans to receive an appropriately matched transplant. The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 also incorporates recommendations from the Institute of Medicine's recent report on cord blood. The Institute provided Congress with guidelines and recommendations to enhance the structure, function, and utility of the program. As a result, I am confident that this Nation's system for obtaining adult stem cells for transplantation purposes will improve dramatically, and that many more of our citizens will have access to the life-saving therapies they offer. Through transplants of this nature, we can finally cure previously incurable diseases such as sickle cell anemia. It is my hope that this legislation will help us ensure that children with this and other illnesses will be able to achieve their full potential, unhindered by poor health. My goal, which I share with the other sponsors of this bill, is to create the best possible system to provide patients, clinicians, and families with access to these life-saving treatments. I believe the current bill does this by ensuring that the number of bone marrow donors and cord blood units available for transplant and research increases in the coming years. The integrated system will include not only the international bone marrow donor registry, but also a network of qualified cord blood banks which will collect, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells. In addition, the system will educate and recruit donors, facilitate the rapid matching of donors and recipients, and quickly make such cells available to transplant centers for stem cell transplantation. The establishment of a national infrastructure for transplant material will help save the lives of thousands of critically ill Americans. We must be sure that our Nation can meet the needs of patients and physicians by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood in this country. My primary goal is to ensure that the amount of transplant material available for patient care and research increases in the coming years. The only way that goal may be accomplished is through strong federal support. I look forward to working with my colleagues on doing everything possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood transplantation in this country. This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of the people of Utah, I thank the managers of this Omnibus Energy bill for their leadership in producing a comprehensive and broadly supported proposal. If the American people think bipartisanship is dead in Congress, they should look at this bill and how it is being managed on the floor these past 2 weeks. On behalf of the people of Utah, I want to thank the managers of this Omnibus Energy bill for their leadership in producing such a comprehensive and broadly supported proposal. If the American people think that bipartisanship is dead in Congress, they should take a look at this bill, and how it is being managed on the floor these 2 weeks. I must commend the leadership of Chairmen Domenici and Grassley, and their Democratic counterparts, Senators Bingaman and Baucus as the Senate considers this critically important piece of legislation. In addition, I want to thank Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus for working so closely with me on the energy tax incentive package, now part of the Omnibus Energy bill. In particular, this bill includes a number of provisions of great importance to Utahns, provisions I authored. These include my CLEAR Act, which promotes alternatives in the transportation sector, my Gas Price Reduction through Increased Refinery Capacity Act, and my proposal to improve the treatment of geothermal powerplants. All were included in the energy package. I am also grateful to the leaders of the Energy Committee, Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, for agreeing to include the major provisions of another bill of keen interest to Utahns, my bill, the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Promotion Act, S.1111, which was cosponsored by Senators Bennett and Allard. Our bill would promote development of the largest untapped resource of hydrocarbons in the world. There is more recoverable oil in the oil shale and oil sands of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming than in the entire Middle East. The chairman and his staff have done yeomen's work to successfully strike a compromise on S. 1111 that is agreeable to all sides and that can be accepted into this bill. I thank both leaders for that effort. And finally, I thank them for including my bill, S. 53, in the Energy bill. S. 53 would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sands and a lease for oil and gas, thus freeing up a new resource of natural gas in our Nation. Now, I would like to turn to the Hatch-Bennett amendment on high level nuclear waste, which we filed in an effort to bring some focus to our Nation's policy for handling spent nuclear fuel. In my hand is an article from yesterday's Washington Post. The headline reads, ``Bush Calls for More Nuclear Power Plants.'' And the article begins: ``President Bush called today for a new wave of nuclear power plant construction as he promoted an energy policy that he wants to see enacted in a bill now making its way through Congress.'' The President is calling for a robust nuclear power strategy, and his reasons are clear: nuclear power is clean and safe, and there is an abundant supply of cheap uranium in Northern America. But my question is, ``What are we going to do with all the waste?'' We cannot have a nuclear power strategy until we know what to do with all the spent nuclear fuel. And what is becoming quickly apparent to me and to the people of Utah is that we do not have a coherent national nuclear waste policy. Until we do, we are putting the cart before of the horse. For years, I have supported sending this high level nuclear waste to the desert of Nevada. To be honest, it has never been an easy vote for me, because it was against the wishes of my friends and colleagues from that State. However, it has been our national policy for more than two decades to build a site at Yucca Mountain, a safe, remote location, where spent fuel could be taken over by the Federal Government and buried deep beneath the desert. Even though Utah does not use or produce nuclear power, I have recognized the need to have a nuclear power program in the U.S. that relies on a plan to safely handle our waste. In other words, we need a strong nuclear waste program. Here is a picture of the desert area where Yucca Mountain actually is. You can see it is desolate and out in the middle of nowhere. Unfortunately, a few nuclear power utilities are attempting to hijack our Nation's nuclear waste strategy by joining forces to build an away- from-reactor, aboveground storage site for one-half of our Nation's high level nuclear waste on a tiny Indian reservation in Tooele, UT. Even more unfortunate is that the only tribe they could con into taking this waste was the Skull Valley Band of the Goshutes, whose small reservation just happens to sit on one of the most dangerous sites you could imagine for storing high level nuclear waste. The Skull Valley reservation is directly adjacent to the Air Force's Utah Test and Training Range and Dugway Proving Grounds where live ordnance is used. Here is an illustration of an F-l6 that flies regularly in this area. This location proposed for the aboveground storage of half of our nuclear waste sits directly under the flight path of 7,000 low altitude F-16 flights every year. Even if this area were truly remote from all civilization, which it is not, its location alone should disqualify it for the storage of even one cask of high level nuclear waste. But that's the problem with allowing private intrests to establish our nuclear waste strategy, economics can get in the way of reason and safety. Mr. President, 80 percent of Utah's population sits within 50 miles of the Skull Valley reservation. Represented on this picture are the type of communities we have near that place. As a crow flies, Skull Valley is less than 15 miles away from Tooele City, one of the fastest growing cities in Utah, which is becoming a major suburb of Salt lake City. Skull Valley is only about 30 miles from the Salt Lake City International Airport. And let us not forget that many of the families of the Skull Valley Band live right on the reservation, and half, if not more, of them are against this. These families face, by far, the greatest risk. When this group of utilities, known as Private Fuel Storage, or PFS, applied for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Commission's three judge Atomic Licensing Board ruled that the threat of a crash from an F-16 was too great to allow a license for the proposed facility. Not letting science get in its way, PFS came back later after two of the three judges were replaced with new ones, this time making a different pitch even though all the facts remained the same. As a result, the two new judges ruled, in a two-to-one decision, that the risk of a crash from an F-16 was low enough to allow the license. One has to wonder who in the world would allow the license for a small tribe in this area with this type of danger. The trustee I don't think could possibly do that. Nevertheless, they ignored the prior commission and went ahead and did it. However, Judge Peter Lam, the senior member of the panel, and its only nuclear engineer, gave a very strong dissent. I would like to quote from Judge Lam's dissent: The proposed PFS facility does not currently have a demonstrated adequate safety margin against accidental aircraft crashes. . . . This lack of an adequate safety margin is a direct manifestation of the fundamentally difficult situation of the proposed PFS site: 4,000 spent fuel storage casks sitting in the flight corridor of some 7,000 F-16 flights a year. Judge Lam also cited the inadequacy of the new methodology used to determine that the site would be safe. He writes: In this current proceeding, the Applicant has performed an extensive probability analysis and a structural analysis to rehabilitate its license application. As explained below, the Applicant's probability and structural analyses both suffer from major uncertainties. These uncertainties fundamentally undermine the validity of the analyses. Mr. President, with 7,000 F-16 flights every year, one can imagine that emergency landings are not uncommon at the training range, and I am unhappy to report that crash landings are not rare, either. In the last 20 years, there have been 70 F-16 crashes at the Utah Test and Training Range, and a number of these crashes have occurred well outside the boundaries of the training range. I have found it baffling that the Final EIS for the Skull Valley plan does not require PFS to have any on-site means to handle damaged or breached casks. Rather, the NRC staff concluded the risk of a cask breach is so minimal that they did not have to consider such a scenario in their EIS. I find this conclusion dubious and dangerous in light of the facts relating to F-16 overflights. In his dissent, Judge Lam refers to the threat of accidental aircraft accidents. He doesn't even go into the possibility of terrorists. Since the events of September 11, we have learned that one of our Nation's most serious threats may come in the form of deliberate suicide air attacks. It would seem inconceivable that a Government entity would consider giving their endorsement of the PFS plan without thoroughly taking into account the added terrorist threat our Nation now faces. Yet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has refused to reopen the Environmental Impact Statement to consider this new threat, even though post-9-11 studies have been completed at all other facilities licensed by the NRC. It is apparent they just want to dump this stuff somewhere. I have to say, if this continues, I am certainly going to do some reconsidering myself. I found this especially troubling since the NRC has never granted a license for the storage of more than about 60 casks, but the Skull Valley site will hold up to 4,000 casks of this waste. I want my colleagues to understand that not only is the size of the PFS proposal a gigantic precedent, but issuing itself a license for a private away-from-reactor storage site has never been done and runs counter to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which clearly limits the NRC to license storage sites only at Federal facilities or onsite at nuclear powerplants. Former Secretary of Energy Abraham stated publicly he shares our interpretation. In a letter to members of the Utah congressional delegation, Secretary Abraham issued a policy statement that barred any DOE reimbursement funds from being used in relation to the Skull Valley site. This would include industry members who would lease space at the site. He said: Because the PFS/Goshute facility in Utah would be constructed and operated outside the scope of the [Nuclear Waste Policy] Act, the Department will not fund or otherwise provide financial assistance for PFS, nor can we monitor the safety precautions the private facility may install. My amendment is compatible with the policy outlined by Secretary Abraham in his letter. It would ban the transportation of high level nuclear waste to private away-from-reactor waste sites and calls for a study to the feasibility of storing spent fuel either at Department of Energy facilities or of the Department taking possession of the spent fuel onsite at nuclear reactors. My amendment calls also for a study of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for future use. Let me state the obvious for the record. The PFS plan is vehemently opposed by the entire Utah congressional delegation, Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Gov. Michael Leavitt, and an overwhelming majority of Utahans. In fact, virtually everybody in Utah. A large portion of the 70-member Goshute Band is strongly opposed to the proposal. We believe a majority of them are, but there is some indication of fraud in their elections out there. Furthermore, the leader of the band, Leon Bear, has pleaded guilty to a Federal indictment. It is notable that every other tribal government in Utah has come out flatly against it. How could any trustee for the Indians allow something like that to be? Utahns are well aware of the points I have made today. Because of the risks we face associated with the PFS proposal, we know better than any that our Nation's nuclear waste policy is broken. It was with good reason that our Nation's nuclear waste strategy has been built around the expectation that the Federal Government, namely the Department of Energy, would take possession of spent nuclear fuel rods. What better example do we need than the PFS plan to see why private industry should not be allowed to develop and implement our Nation's nuclear waste strategy. Think about it. PFS is a shell corporation. If anything went wrong, Utah is going to eat it. That is all there is to it. It is ridiculous. I understand why our colleagues from Nevada oppose the Yucca Mountain site. I am getting more and more understanding of that as I go along. But if they are concerned about waste at Yucca Mountain, they should be exponentially more concerned over the PFS site which is so flawed as to be inherently dangerous, extremely dangerous. In closing, let me drive home one point. Our President has called for a dramatic increase in our Nation's capacity to generate nuclear power. As Congress considers that proposal, I ask, Should any increase we might authorize rest on a nuclear waste policy established by the Federal Government or should that policymaking rest with a couple of private companies that are driven by profit? Do we want the Federal Government to take possession of our high level nuclear waste or is our national waste policy to allow private companies to control the transport, storage, and security of this waste? And with shell corporations at that. If that is to be our policy, then I need to inform our colleagues that our Nation's nuclear power strategy is a house built on sand. Let me summarize my remarks. We Utahns are adamantly opposed to the storage of spent nuclear fuel at the Skull Valley reservation. The current site that has been selected by a consortium made up of eight utilities has several fatal flaws, including the fact that it contemplates a facility that is, one, located fewer than 50 miles from the Salt Lake Valley where 80 percent of our fellow Utahans live; two, directly under the Utah Test and Training Range where roughly 7,000 low-altitude F-16 training flights take place each year, many with live ordnance, and over a range where 70 crashes have taken place already; and three, on the small Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation where about 40 of the band's 120 total members reside--only 40. Moreover, the Skull Valley Band's leadership is in question. Leon Bear, the band's current chairman, has been accused by his colleagues of disregarding a vote of no confidence. In addition, Mr. Bear recently pleaded guilty to Federal criminal charges and is awaiting sentencing relating to his management of tribal financial resources. I would like to know if my friend, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, believes that storing spent nuclear fuel on a privately run and privately owned offsite facility, such as the Skull Valley reservation in Utah, is a component of our national nuclear waste policy.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for that clarification. I again thank the leaders of this bill who have done such a great job in bringing both sides together to pass what will be one of the most important energy bills in the history of the world. It certainly is going to do a lot for our country if we will continue to follow this through conference and get it back for final passage. It is long overdue. I know it has been an ordeal for Senator Domenici in particular and others as well. I pay my tribute to them for the hard work they have done. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I want to take a few moments to honor one of the State of Utah's finest men and an ambassador for golf throughout the world. On May 29, 2005, Mike Reid won the 66th Senior PGA tournament at Laurel Valley Golf Club in Ligonier, PA. Mike won this event in dramatic fashion. As he strode to the 18th hole, he was three shots down to the leader, Jerry Pate. This hole was a par five that called for a long shot over water if you dared to try and hit the green in two shots. Dana Quigley was already in the clubhouse at 8 under par with Mike at 6 under par and Jerry Pate at 9 under par. Mike had to gamble and went for the green in two. He was able to stick a three iron about 20 feet below the hole and then made a dramatic eagle to go 8 under par and tie Dana Quigley. When Jerry Pate failed to make his par putt, the three men entered a sudden death playoff. Once again Mike was the only player to hit the par five green in two shots, and his tap-in birdie sealed the win in the first Senior Major event of the year. I have had the privilege of knowing Mike Reid for many years. Mike was a two-time All American at Brigham Young University and finished his collegiate career in 1976. I came to know Mike when he started visiting Washington, DC, to play in the Kemper Open. Over the years, our friendship has continued, and Mike has been gracious enough to donate his time to the charity golf tournament I host each year for the Utah Families Foundation. He had a distinguished career on the regular PGA tour, winning the Tucson Open in 1986 and the World Series of Golf in 1987. In 1990, he won the Casio World Open in Japan. Mike is a humble soft spoken man, a husband to his wife, Randolyn, and a father to six children, and grandfather to one grandson. When others are seeking the spotlight, Mike is content to look for the things that interest him in life. This was never more evident than during the tournament in Western Pennsylvania, when he left the course on Friday tied for the lead. In the press interviews, they asked him what he would be doing for the rest of the day. Mike informed them that he had always wanted to visit the Jimmy Stewart Museum in Indiana, PA-- and that is exactly what he did. His interest in Jimmy Stewart was two- fold: First, Mike admired him as a man who made movies that his whole family could watch and someone willing to walk away from his movie career to serve his nation during World War II; second, Jimmy Stewart shared a spot on a list of pilots receiving medals that included Mike's own father, a B-17 pilot. Mike followed up his win at the Senior PGA by jumping right back on the leader board at the Allianz Open in Iowa the following week. At the end of the second day he had a two-stroke lead and eventually finished third. True to his form, Mike then went to Colorado to support his son, Daniel, while he played in a junior golf tournament. The fact that Mike played in the Senior PGA Tournament says much about Mike and his family. As they looked at the schedule, they realized that the Senior PGA Championship was being played on the weekend that his oldest son, Daniel, was graduating from Orem High School, and it was his daughter Clarissa's birthday. The family talked and urged Mike to play that week. Daniel told him that he would rather caddy for his dad than walk across a stage for a minute, but Mike assured him that it was more important for him to stay home and attend his graduation. Mike then took the week off before the Senior PGA to spend with his family. Mike is a devoted father, a quality best represented by a quote he gave to Sports Illustrated: I can live without winning golf championships, but it would be hard to look in the mirror if I was a crummy dad. I'm not going to let golf own me again. This is the type of athlete that all of us are proud to call a hero, someone that has his life in perspective and knows the real things that surround us each day. I congratulate Mike Reid on his victory at the Senior PGA and I know that we will be seeing much more of Mike on the leader boards of future events.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague not objecting, and I will limit myself to about half the time that he has taken this morning just out of courtesy to him. I know Tom Griffith. We all know Tom Griffith. Tom Griffith was general counsel of the Senate. He served the Senate well. He did it in a nonpartisan way, even though he is a Republican. He helped all of us during the impeachment. Both sides acknowledge that he was terrific. He has all the academic and legal credentials necessary to fulfill this position. He is a person who is a consensus builder, someone who tries to get along with everybody and who, I think, will be perfect on this particular court. So I hope everybody will vote for Tom. He is a member of our family. He served us all. As a general rule, in the past, people who have served us such as Tom Griffith has would pass this body 100 to zip. Unfortunately, we have had some very forceful partisan politics rear its ugly head in some of these judgeship issues, and from time to time it may have been on both sides, but in this particular case it has been all on one side. I get a little tired of hearing the same arguments over and over again. The fact is, when President Bush 1 left office there were 54 holdovers with the Democrats in control of the Senate, and he only served 4 years. One could imagine how many there would have been if he served 8 years. The fact is, the all-time confirmation champion was Ronald Reagan who had 382 judges confirmed in his 8 years, but he had 6 years of a Republican Senate to help him. President Clinton got almost the same number, a total of 377, with only 2 years of his own party to help him. As chairman of that committee, I know I did everything in my power to give the Clinton nominees an opportunity to get an up-or-down vote, and when they reached the floor I think virtually all of them got an up-or- down vote without any delays or filibusters. The Clinton administration was treated very fairly. There were people left over at the end of his administration, and he had 8 years, no more than were left over basically when President Bush I left the Presidency. Getting back to Tom Griffith, as most of my colleagues know, Tom served as Senate legal counsel for 4 years so many of us have had first-hand experience with him. Because the D.C. Circuit reviews cases involving Federal statutes, regulations, and other important matter, this is a tough assignment. Many observers believe that the D.C. Circuit's jurisdiction makes it second in importance to that of the U.S. Supreme Court. Tom Griffith is up to the task of sitting on this court. At some length yesterday, I detailed his qualifications. Time is short today, so I will make only a few summary comments. In order to become the exceptional lawyer that he is today, Tom Griffith had to gain an exceptional educational foundation. He accomplished this first as an undergraduate at my alma mater, Brigham Young University. He graduated summa cum laude and was the valedictorian of the BYU College of Humanities. Tom then attended the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a member of the law review. Upon graduation, Tom joined the leading Charlotte, NC, law firm of Robinson, Bradshaw, and Hinson where he was an associate specializing in commercial litigation. In 1989, Tom moved to Washington, DC, to become an associate, and then a partner, in the firm of Wiley, Rein and Fielding--by all accounts, a highly-regarded law firm. He began his four year stint as Senate legal counsel in 1995 and served through the very challenging impeachment trial of President Clinton that concluded in early 1999. Upon departing from the Senate, Tom returned to Wiley, Rein and Fielding for a period of time before he went to Utah in 2000 to serve as assistant to the president and general counsel of Brigham Young University. He serves in that capacity today. This is a bare bones sketch of a distinguished professional career. Along the way, Tom Griffith has faced many challenges and he has impressed many with his legal skills. Here is what associate dean and professor of law, Constance Lundberg, of the J. Reuben Clark School of Law has to say about Mr. Griffith: [Tom] is also a lawyer of unexcelled ability. He understands the differences between law and policy and has a deep understanding of the powers and prerogatives of each of the three branches of government. He is immensely fair and compassionate. The laws and Constitution of the United States could not be in better hands. These comments do not stand alone in academic circles. Harvard Law Professor William Stuntz has said the following about Tom: I know a great many of talented men and women in America's legal profession. I have taught more than three thousand students at three top law schools, and I have friends scattered across the country in various kinds of law practice and in academics. I do not know anyone whom I would rather see on the federal bench than Tom Griffith. If he is confirmed, he will not be a good judge. He will be a great one. I think that both of these professors have made assessments that we would be wise to take into account. Over the past 10 years, Tom has demonstrated his commitment not only to the legal profession but to the broader justice system. He has volunteered a great deal of time in training judges and lawyers in Eastern Europe, impressing many, including Mark Ellis, the executive director of the International Bar Association, who had this to say about Tom Griffith: The duty of a judge is to administer justice according to the law, without fear or favor, and without regard to the wishes or policy of the governing majority. Tom Griffith will fervently adhere to this principle. We in the Senate have ample evidence that Tom Griffith will place the law over partisan politics. Tom was Senate legal counsel during the Clinton impeachment trial and won praise from those on both sides of the aisle. Yesterday, I quoted from Senator Dodd's speech in tribute to Tom on his departure from the Senate. Senator Bennett, my colleague from Utah, has already explained the constructive role that Tom played in keeping the Senate together during the impeachment trial. I agree that the reputation of the Senate was enhanced rather than degraded through that time, in part because of the steady hand and solid guidance of Tom Griffith. Few nominees that come before the Senate are as well-known by Senators as Tom Griffith and we know that he can handle complex problems in a charged atmosphere in a manner that brings consensus. I think that the qualities that Tom displayed as Senate legal counsel are exactly those that we need on the Federal bench. Many agree with this assessment. For example, here is what one of our Nation's leading appellate lawyers, the Clinton administration's Solicitor General Seth Waxman, had to say about Mr. Griffith: I have known Tom since he was Senate Legal Counsel and I was Solicitor General, and I have the highest regard for his integrity . . . For my part, I would stake most everything on his word alone. Litigants would be in good hands with a person of Tom Griffith's character as their judge. This strong sentiment in favor of Tom Griffith's competence and character is shared, not surprisingly, by his former law partners and mentors. Fred Fielding, former White House Counsel to President Reagan and former chairman of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, has described Tom Griffith as ``a very special individual and a man possessed of the highest integrity. He is a fine professional who demands of himself the very best of his intellect and energies.'' Another law partner of Mr. Griffith, Richard Wiley, has this to say about his qualifications: Tom is an outstanding lawyer, with keen judgment, congenial temperament and impeccable personal integrity. He would bring great expertise and fair-minded impartiality to the bench and, in my judgment, would be a considerable credit to the D.C. Circuit and the Federal Judiciary as a whole. Tom Griffith has the education, experience, judgment, and character to make an outstanding member of the Federal judiciary. I commend President Bush for nominating an individual from Utah who has a proven track record as a lawyer and has strong bipartisan support. In addition to this affirmative discussion of Tom Griffith's qualifications and bipartisan support, I do need to respond to the few arguments that have been raised against his nomination by some on the other side of the aisle. First, my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, referred to Mr. Griffith yesterday as someone who ``admittedly practiced law illegally first in the District of Columbia and then in Utah.'' Mr. President, this statement is patently false. Mr. Griffith has admitted no such thing because he did no such thing. No court or administrative body, including no bar association, anywhere has ever concluded that Mr. Griffith has, in the Senator from Vermont's ill-chosen words, practiced law illegally. Neither have they found that Mr. Griffith engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, either in the District of Columbia or in Utah. Let me once again set this record straight with respect to both of these jurisdictions. In 2001, Mr. Griffith discovered that his D.C. bar membership had been suspended for failing to pay his annual dues. As soon as he became aware of the problem, he rectified it. He paid his dues in full and was promptly reinstated as a bar member in good standing. He remains a member in good standing today. This matter involving Mr. Griffith's bar dues does involve several unfortunate mistakes. In the early 1990s, Mr. Griffith worked for a large law firm in Washington and became accustomed to the firm's practice of paying its attorneys' bar dues. When he returned to that firm following his service as Senate legal counsel, he wrongly assumed the firm was once again paying his bar dues. He accepts full responsibility for the oversights and, as I said, is today a member in good standing. Mr. President, the only, I repeat, the only question is whether this error was anything other than inadvertent. And Mr. Griffith has answered that question with a clear and resounding no. No one, including the Senator from Vermont, has offered a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. Each year, more than 3000 lawyers in the District of Columbia alone-- and, I understand, a number of sitting judges--similarly see their law license suspended for failure to pay bar dues. As in Mr. Griffith's situation, this is an administrative suspension, not a disciplinary suspension. Despite the rhetoric from the Senator from Vermont, we do not have thousands and thousands of lawyers practicing illegally in the Nation's Capital. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee dated June 14, 2004, former ABA Presidents Bill Ide and Sandy D'Alemberte wrote: By immediately paying his dues when he became aware of the oversight, Tom took the proper course of action. According to D.C. bar counsel, such an oversight is entirely common and of no major concern. Yesterday the Senator from Vermont was trying to turn something entirely common and of no major concern into something untoward and of very grave concern. It will not work. The story is no different with respect to the Utah chapter of this story. Mr. Griffith graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law and practiced law in North Carolina and Washington, DC, for 15 years, including service as Senate legal counsel. The position he accepted of general counsel of Brigham Young University was very different, in both content and location, than his previous experience. He consulted with Utah attorneys requiring Utah's requirement for in-house counsel, and he has always complied with the advice he has received in this regard. Simply put, the advice he received was that he need not become a member of the Utah bar, so long as he worked with a bar member when engaged in legal practice activities. No one, including the Senator from Vermont, has documented that he has not met this standard. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee dated June 28, 2004, five former presidents of the Utah bar affirmed that ``a general counsel working in the state of Utah need not be a member of the Utah bar provided that when giving legal advice to his or her employer that he or she does so in conjunction with an associated attorney who is an active member of the Utah bar.'' In a letter dated July 2, 2004, John Baldwin, executive director of the Utah bar, similarly affirmed that ``those who follow that advice are not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.'' Mr. Griffith not only complied with the letter of the advice he received, his actions are consistent with the spirit of that advice as well. In a letter to the editor of the New York Times dated July 4, 2004, law professors and legal ethics experts Monroe Freedman of Hofstra University and Thomas Morgan of George Washington University, emphasized that the requirement of bar membership is not a rule of legal ethics. Rather, it assures the public--those to whom lawyers offer their services--that lawyers are competent. Their letter states: The requirement of membership in a particular bar is not in itself a rule of ethical professional conduct, but a lawyer's guild rule . . . designed to restrict competition . . . At best, the requirement of a license is intended to assure that one who holds himself out to the public as a lawyer is indeed competent to serve as a lawyer. In that regard, there is no question about Mr. Griffith's competence, which is the only ethical issue that is material. Obviously, this does not apply to an in-house counsel who does not hold himself out to the public. Brigham Young University, Mr. Griffith's employer, was well aware that he was not a bar member and was thoroughly satisfied with both his status and his service. The unsubstantiated charge that Mr. Griffith has practiced law without a license is pure hokum. Or as I explained yesterday, in the opinion of Abner Mikva, a former Democratic Congressman, White House Counsel to President Clinton, and former Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, this charge amounts to ``a whole lot of nothing.'' Judge Mikva has it right. My friend from Vermont is simply wrong. The other area of criticism involves Mr. Griffith's views on title IX, a statutory provision which provides equal opportunities for women in college sports. Tom has proven that he is a strong supporter of title IX and women's rights. In fact, he was appointed to the Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics by Rod Paige in part because of his outspoken support of title IX's objectives. In response to written questions from members of the Judiciary Committee, Tom Griffith expressed his personal convictions about title IX. He wrote: I am deeply committed to Title IX in particular and to expanding and advancing opportunities for women in all areas of our society. I am committed to that because it is the right thing to do. But it is also personal for me. I am the father of five daughters and a son. My entire adult life, I have been an outspoken advocate for expanding opportunities for women in part because it means more opportunities for my daughters and a better society for my son. Those who know me best know that about me. Let us consider what those who know Tom Griffith say in this regard. Brian Jones, former title IX commissioner and general counsel of the Department of Education, said: During the Commission's months of deliberation it was quite clear that every member of the Commission--including Tom-- strongly supports Title IX and is immensely proud of the progress brought about by its passage. . . . Tom was consistently a member of the Commission who was not only willing but also eager to engage every commissioner's opinions--listening and deliberating in a thoughtful manner, in a sincere effort to bridge disagreements and seek consensus where possible. Graham Spanier, president of Penn State University and another former title IX commissioner, had this to say: During the many months that Mr. Griffith served on the Commission charged with reviewing Title IX, I found him to be supportive of the law that established Title IX. He was, in fact, outspoken in his support for the law while thoughtfully reflecting on matters of interpretation and commenting on potential refinements to enforcement protocols. . . . During our work, Mr. Griffith stated his belief that Title IX was one of the great landmarks in civil rights in our Nation. Ted Leland, former cochair of the title IX commission and director of athletics at Stanford University, affirms Tom's clear commitment to title IX: During our numerous public meetings, I found Mr. Griffith not only a diligent commission member, but a staunch supporter of Title IX. The list goes on, but because these baseless allegations linger, I want to also offer the views of Tom's colleagues at Brigham Young University. The executive director of BYU Women's Athletics, Elaine Michaelis, applauded Tom's efforts: Tom has been very supportive of our women's athletic program, the coaches, and the athletes. I believe that he is committed to women and minorities and to fairness in all aspects of the law. B.R. Siegfried, an associate professor of English literature and Women's studies at BYU, said the following: I am an especially fierce advocate of equality for women, and of the civil liberties that lend themselves to the expansion and development of women's opportunities. . . . Tom is and has been a steadfast and enthusiastic advocate for women. In a local context in which there is tremendous social pressure to gloss over gender issues, he has spoken out repeatedly in support of fairness and justice. His support has been constant and resolute, and his words are founded on deeds of practical service. As a member of a commission overseeing a review of title IX's application, Tom recommended some changes. He is the kind of person to take such a role seriously; I am sure he did not consider it sufficient to fill a chair and not bring his considerable judgment, insight, and experience to bear in a constructive way. In some respects, however, Tom's recommendations are beside the point. As the many lawyers who now serve here in the Senate, lawyers wear many different hats over the course of their careers. When Stephen Breyer, for example, was chief counsel to my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, believe me, we did not always see eye to eye on issues. But when he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals and later to the Supreme Court, I was confident that he would be able to put politics aside, apply the law to the facts, and make fair and objective judgments. I hope there is no partisan double-standard at work here. Tom Griffith is also a fair, reasonable, and accomplished lawyer who has served us well here in the Senate and who will properly move into a judicial role. There is no justification for treating him differently because he happens to be the nominee of a Republican President. Now let's address Tom's supposedly radical policy views. The Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education uses a three prong test to determine an educational institution's adherence to title IX. That test requires that an institution demonstrate one of the following: that the male to female ratio of athletes is substantially proportionate to the male to female ratio of student enrollment; that the institution has a continuing practice of program expansion for members of the under-represented gender; or that the institution is fully and effectively accommodating the athletic interests and abilities of the under represented gender. The first prong, the substantial proportionality test, has been designated by the Office of Civil Rights as a safe harbor. If an institution meets the requirements of a numeric formula, the university can avoid liability under title IX. The commission found that many institutions have transformed substantial proportionality into strict proportionality. The problem represented by this legalese is clear. This automatic adherence to a numeric formula means that a quota system has been established. Regardless of the number of young women interested in collegiate sports, colleges and universities must offer equal numbers of athletic slots. This is a radical revision of title IX's intention, which was to provide equal opportunity for participation in college sports, not equal results. The perverse result of shifting from equal opportunity to equal results has been documented on numerous occasions. It has required closing down men's sports teams in swimming, wrestling, gymnastics, and baseball. In 1999, for example, Providence College cut its 78-year-old baseball program to bring it within the proportionality requirement. In 1996, California State University at Bakersfield's wrestling program, a two-time PAC 10 champion, was eliminated to conform to the proportionality requirement. A General Accounting Office study found that from 1985-86 to 1996-97, no less than 21,000 male athletic spots disappeared, a 12-percent drop overall. Carol Zaleski, the former president and executive director of USA Swimming, had this to say: The unfortunate truth is that Title IX has evolved into something never intended. The act was intended to expand opportunity. The interpretation by the Office of Civil Rights and the evolved enforcement has turned into a quota system. Title IX is a good law with bad interpretation. Tom Griffith argued that while such rigid numerical quotas may be easy to administer, they fail actually to provide women with more athletic opportunities and that using this quota went beyond the powers Congress had allocated to the Department of Education. Tom has hardly been the only individual opposed to this quota approach. Our former colleague, Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, said: The word quota does not appear [in Title IX] . . . What we were really looking for was equal opportunity for young women and for girls in the educational system. Despite divergent views over the best application of the law, Tom Griffith wholeheartedly joined the recommendations of the commission to strengthen title IX and ensure that the test did not simply become a quota. Specifically, he joined recommendations calling for clearer guidelines for implementation of title IX and a method of ``demonstrating compliance with Title IX's participation requirement that treats each part of the [three-part] test equally.'' The question here is not whether Tom Griffith agrees with a particular policy evaluation. The real question is whether he supports women's rights and is committed to equal opportunity. The answer to that is a resounding answer is yes. Three Associate Deans at Brigham Young University Law--Constance Lundberg, Katherine Lund and Mary Hoagland--wrote to me and had this to say about Tom Griffith: In specific instances of which we have personal knowledge, [Mr. Griffith] has fought for the promotion and recognition of women, including ethnic minorities. His support has been vigorous even when faced with substantial administrative roadblocks. . . . In our experience, some men in similar roles are not comfortable working with women as colleagues. Tom, on the other hand, seeks out and respects women's opinions. Indeed, if every person in university administration were as evenhanded on gender issues as Tom, Title IX and other ameliorative measures would be moot. In both of these areas of criticism--whether he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and whether he supports equal opportunity for women--the pattern is the same. The allegations bear no relationship whatsoever to the facts, and those who know Tom Griffith best and have worked with him most strongly support his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. I do think that this nominee has been treated badly, and I hope Senators will do the right thing and allow him to take this very important position. He will be a consensus builder and will work to make sure the law is implemented as the law was intended to be. At one time, when another person was being nominated for this position, I had those in the minority say: You ought to nominate Griffith. Some of the chief staff people said: Why not nominate Tom Griffith? These senior staff members said that Tom would be a slam dunk because everybody knows how great he is and what a good person he is. Well, I fought to get him nominated all the way to the White House itself. Almost immediately after he was nominated, we instead hear some of these ridiculous arguments that, if not frivolous, certainly off the mark. What is important is we have a man of integrity, ability, and capacity who could fulfill this position in a way that might bring other people together. We all know it because we have seen him for four solid years right here in the Senate doing the Senate's business. I appreciate my colleagues on the other side, and especially those who are willing to vote for Tom Griffith. I think he deserves their vote. He deserves the vote of all of us, and I hope everybody in this body will give him a fair vote today.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be given equal time as the Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HATCH. I ask that I be given the same amount of time that the Senator from Vermont had to speak on Mr. Griffith.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted for the remainder of this session to Ken Valentine, a detailee from the Secret Service who is serving on my staff.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of William Pryor to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or, to put it more precisely, I rise to support the permanent appointment of Judge William Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. Judge Pryor's credentials, his character, and commitment to judicial restraint already make a compelling case for his appointment. His continuing service on the Eleventh Circuit only adds to that compelling case. I urge my colleagues to vote for confirmation so Judge William Pryor can continue to be a valuable member of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Debate about this nomination did not just begin. President Bush nominated William Pryor more than 2 years ago. During a lengthy hearing before the Judiciary Committee in June 2003, he answered more than 185 questions. It has now become common practice for Senators to deluge a nominee with post-hearing written questions. Judge Pryor answered nearly 300 of those as well. The Judiciary Committee debated this nomination during three different business meetings and favorably reported it twice here to the Senate floor where we have already debated it in the context of two previous attempts to invoke cloture. Here we are debating the Pryor nomination again. I am one of many Senators who believes we should have confirmed this nomination a long time ago. Yesterday more than one of our Democratic colleagues complained that we are debating judicial nominations when, they said, ``we should be doing legislative business.'' That is exactly what we would be doing were it not for the confirmation obstruction campaign led by those very same Democratic Senators. They are the ones who met in 2001 to change the confirmation ground rules. They are the ones who demand dozens and dozens of unnecessary rollcall votes that have eaten up literally days of floor time. They are the ones who launched this campaign of outrageous and unprecedented judicial filibusters. Our Democratic colleagues have changed the way we do judicial confirmation business in the Senate, and that has changed the way we do legislative business. They have no one to blame but themselves. To come in here and complain that we are not doing the business of the people when one-third of the separated powers in this country involves judges is pretty much out of line. Under the standards the Senate traditionally applied to judicial nominations, we would already have confirmed the nomination before us. Although some across the aisle have attempted to change the ground rules, I am pleased we have now invoked cloture and are in the final stretch of debate on this very important nomination. There is light at the end of the confirmation tunnel. We have become accustomed to the pattern of attack by those who oppose President Bush's judicial nominees. They equate a nominee's personal views with that nominee's judicial views. They create the most wretched and distorted caricature of a nominee, turning him into some creature one might see on ``Law and Order'' or ``America's Most Wanted.'' What it boils down to is the wrongheaded notion that no one who thinks for himself, who does not toe the leftwing line, whose perspective or values did not turn the liberal litmus paper the right-- or left--color, or who as a judge may fail consistently to deliver politically correct results is acceptable. These advocates of an activist judiciary are not foolish enough to attack every nominee. They will remind us of how many of this President's judicial nominees they have supported. But the circumstances that have brought us here today demonstrate the confirmation ground has shifted. I urge my colleagues not to be persuaded by the caricatures created by Washington-based lobbyists and leftwing groups which need to send out the next fundraising appeal. Instead I urge my colleagues to listen to those who actually know William Pryor, who have worked with William Pryor, because they are among his strongest supporters. Dr. Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference--yes, that is right, the Alabama Democratic Conference, the State Democratic Party's African-American caucus--knows William Pryor. He has worked with William Pryor, and he strongly supports William Pryor. Note what Dr. Joe Reed has to say about this nominee. He says that William Pryor: will uphold the law without fear or favor. I believe all races and colors will get a fair shake when their cases come before him. I am a member of the Democratic National Committee and, of course, General Pryor is a Republican, but these are only party labels. I am persuaded that in General Pryor's eyes, Justice has only one label--Justice! Any of us would certainly be hard pressed to come up with a better endorsement or a more substantive compliment for any judge on any court anywhere in America. Listen to Alvin Holmes, an African American who has served in the Alabama House of Representatives for nearly three decades. He introduced a bill to remove the State Constitution's ban on interracial marriage. Representative Holmes says that while white political leaders in the State, Democrats and Republicans, either opposed the bill or kept quiet, then-Attorney General William Pryor spoke out. William Pryor urged Alabamans to vote for removing the ban on interracial marriage and then, when it passed, he defended the measure in court against legal challenge. Representative Holmes knows William Pryor. He has worked with William Pryor, and he strongly supports William Pryor. Listen to what Representative Holmes says about this nominee, this African-American leader of the Alabama House of Representatives: I request your swift confirmation of Bill Pryor to the 11th Circuit because of his constant efforts to help the causes of blacks in Alabama. Or consider the opinion of Judge Sue Bell Cobb who sits on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. This is what she says: I write, not only as the only statewide Democrat to be elected in 2000, not only as a member of the Court which reviews the greatest portion of General Pryor's work, but also as a child advocate who has labored shoulder to shoulder with General Pryor in the political arena on behalf of Alabama's children. It is for these reasons and more that I am indeed honored to recommend General Pryor for nomination to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That is the Honorable Sue Bell Cobb, judge of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Think about that. These are people who know William Pryor. These testimonies--and there are many more like them--describe a man who cares deeply about what is right and who has the character to do what is right, no matter what the political cost. People such as these are in the best position to know the real William Pryor. If this were a court of law, their testimony would be deemed especially credible. Theirs is not hearsay testimony such as we are hearing from some with the other side. They are not repeating someone's talking points. They are not offering generalities or cliches. Talking points, generalities, and cliches, however, are all that Judge Pryor's opponents have to offer. The far left-wing Washington- based lobbyists who appear to make their living opposing President Bush's judicial nominations repeat the same rhetoric about nominee after nominee. Sometimes I wonder whether they put together their press releases and action alerts simply by cutting and pasting in the name of a new nominee. They use the same mantra now, saying Judge Pryor is hostile to civil rights, hostile to virtually every right under the sun. Perhaps he is also the cause of childhood asthma, global warming, and rising interest rates. I would listen to the people I have just quoted who know the man. They are all Democrats, by the way. If there is any reason to believe such a thing as these awful comments that have been made by our colleagues on the other side, then these left-wing Washington lobbyists should be able to convince Dr. Joe Reed, Alvin Holmes, and Judge Sue Bell Cobb that Judge William Pryor is hostile to civil rights. I wish them luck because I know they can't do that. And they know they can't do it. That is what is reprehensible. Perhaps the most important element of judicial duty is the commitment to follow the law regardless of personal views. Throughout his career William Pryor has not just stated such a commitment to judicial restraint, he has demonstrated it. We all know, for example, that William Pryor is pro-life. His belief in the sanctity of human life no doubt helps explain his advocacy for children. Like millions of Americans, most Alabamians apparently share such pro-life values. In 1997, the State legislature enacted a ban on partial-birth abortion. If William Pryor were what his critics claim, that would surely have been his chance to take a stand, stake a claim, defy the Supreme Court, and to seek to impose his personal moral code. He did no such thing, proving once again that his critics are flat wrong. (Mr. ALEXANDER assumed the chair.)

Mr. HATCH. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Stenberg v. Carhart that a State legislative ban on partial-birth abortion is unconstitutional, Attorney General William Pryor instructed State law enforcement officials to abide by that decision, even though he personally disagreed. The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, presiding in the Chair right now, reminded us earlier today that this was at General Pryor's own initiative. The law, not his personal views, formed how he carried out his official duties. Attorney General Pryor filed an amicus brief in the Lawrence v. Texas case defending a State's right to prohibit certain sexual conduct. Alabama had a statute similar to the Texas statute being challenged in that case. When the Supreme Court ruled against his position, he immediately released an official statement that the Supreme Court decision rendered Alabama's law unenforceable. Similarly, the entire country knows that as Alabama Attorney General, William Pryor took an unpopular stand regarding the Ten Commandments display in the Alabama judicial building. One respected religious magazine placed a picture of Judge Pryor on its cover with a headline asking whether his legal stance amounted to political suicide. It is clear that Judge Pryor places the law above personal priorities and political expediency. This stuff about following the law rather than personal opinions is not rhetoric, talking points, or window dressing. This is not just William Pryor's stated commitment, this is his demonstrated commitment. It is a record that makes former Alabama Attorney General Bill Baxley, another Democrat, strongly support Judge Pryor's nomination. Here is what General Baxley, a leading Democrat in Alabama, said about William Pryor: In every difficult decision he has made, his actions were supported by his interpretation of the law, without race, gender, age, political power, wealth, community standing, or any other competing interest affecting judgment. I often disagree, politically, with Bill Pryor. This does not prevent me from making this recommendation because we need fairminded, intelligent, industrious men and women, possessed of impeccable integrity, on the Eleventh Circuit. Bill Pryor has these qualities in abundance. . . . There is no better choice for this vacancy. That is Bill Baxley, former Alabama Attorney General, leading Democrat in the State. Just think about that. These Democratic leaders from Alabama paint a very consistent picture of William Pryor. He will uphold the law without fear or favor. He makes decisions without regard to political or irrelevant factors. He is fairminded, intelligent, and industrious. I certainly agree with this assessment, though it does not come first from the Senator from Utah. Democrats such as Dr. Joe Reed, Representative Alvin Holmes, Judge Sue Bell Cobb, and Attorney General Bill Baxley know the difference between private views and public duty. They know the difference between personal opinion and judicial opinion. And they strongly support William Pryor's nomination to the Eleventh Circuit. I wish some of my Democratic colleagues and their left-wing enablers knew the difference. Instead they focus only on results. All that matters, it appears, is that a judge rules right or left, as the case may be. On Tuesday a Democratic Member of this body summed up their results- oriented litmus test approach when he said: with respect to a whole series of issues, this nominee is profoundly wrong. No doubt each of us in this body has heard something like that in a campaign commercial. We might hear it here when the Senate is in legislative session. But this is a judicial nomination we are debating. What does it mean to say that the judicial nominee is wrong on the issues? Never mind being judicially correct, just be politically correct. Results are all that matters. Yesterday during the debate on the Brown nomination, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, took a similar tack. She put up one poster after another, each stating in the most simplistic terms the results of a case, and then claimed that Justice Brown personally favored the result for which she voted. This insidious tactic claims, for example, that if a judge votes that the law does not prohibit racial slurs, then the judge must favor racial slurs. If a judge votes that the law does not prohibit an employer's hiring decision, then the judge must favor that hiring decision. In March of 2000, 29 current Senators, including my friend from California, Senator Boxer, voted against a constitutional amendment to allow protection of the American flag. How would any of them respond--how would the Senator from California respond--to the accusation that by that vote, they were siding with the flag desecraters? That would be an outrageous charge, and we all know that. Yet opponents of these judicial nominees, including the Senator from California, are using exactly the same tactic, exactly the same logic. They continue doing so in this debate over William Pryor's nomination. But this tactic misleads the American people about what judges do, and it twists and distorts these debates about whether to confirm judicial nominees. I am reminded of a 1998 article written by the distinguished Judge Harry Edwards, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit by President Jimmy Carter, in which he warned that giving the public a distorted view of judges' work is bad for the judiciary and the rule of law. The tactics being used against nominees such as William Pryor are, indeed, giving the public a distorted view of judges' work. Thankfully, Judge Pryor knows the difference between personal views and the law. He knows the difference between means and ends. And I am proud to say that Judge Pryor refuses to go down the politicized road of judicial activism. He has demonstrated where his commitment lies. He has shown, in each phase of his career, that he will follow the law. Our colleague and my fellow Judiciary Committee member, Senator Sessions, has worked very hard to educate this body about this fine nominee. He has a special perspective on Judge Pryor's commitment to follow the law. He hired William Pryor in the Alabama attorney general's office and Judge Pryor replaced him when then-Attorney General Sessions joined us here in the Senate. I thank our colleague for his tireless and principled efforts. I know this Senator's understanding of this nominee is better as a result. William Pryor is demonstrating that same commitment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. That is exactly what America needs in her judges, and I urge my colleagues to support a permanent appointment for Judge William Pryor. Mr. President, I have taken a minute or two over my allotted time. I apologize to my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Janice Rogers Brown's deep and uncompromising desire to secure equal justice for everyone who appears before her is evident off the bench as well. She has served as a member of the California Commission on the Status of African-American Males. This bipartisan commission made recommendations for addressing inequities in the treatment of African-American males in employment, business development, and the criminal justice and health care systems. This was noble work. In addition, as a member of the Governor's child support task force, she made recommendations on how to improve California's child support enforcement system. No small matter. She would not have been trusted with that had she been as described by some of my eminent colleagues and friends on the other side. Justice Brown's critics cannot escape this story, so they turn to her statements off the bench and to her decisions on the bench in California to assert misleadingly that she is extreme. The instances they cite do not support these hysterical charges, and I want to consider them at some length. One of Justice Brown's speeches received quite a bit of attention. In April 2000, she was invited to speak at the University of Chicago Law School. I have had the same privilege, by the way. Evidently, her critics say what she said there was so radical that we should keep her off the Federal bench. Never mind that a public speech is an opportunity to be provocative, especially at a law school. Never mind that judges, like most folks, are able to separate out their personal and political beliefs from their professional duties. And never mind that Justice Brown was doing a service to these students by coming to speak before them, jar their imaginations, and give them something more to think about. The fact is, what she said was not that radical. Groups have keyed in on her colorful critique of the New Deal. Give me a break. The same people who come down here decrying Justice Brown's description of the New Deal as revolutionary turn around 5 minutes later and claim that our current Social Security system cannot be adjusted one iota to address contemporary concerns because it was central to the New Deal's political revolution. Can you imagine, these very same people who find so much fault with her? You cannot have it both ways. Their real problem is that Justice Brown then went on to criticize some of the unintended social and political consequences of big Government. When she claimed that an increasing public sphere tended to undermine the individualist spirit present at America's founding, she was saying nothing other than what de Tocqueville, Ronald Reagan, Booker T. Washington, Robert F. Kennedy, and countless political philosophers and economists have noted over the years. Everyone knows that it takes a village--families and communities--not a sterile Government-mandated bureaucracy to raise a child or, rather, that it takes a family, not the Government, to raise young citizens. Yet her critics treat Justice Brown's claims as trying to prove that the world is flat. The senior Senator from Massachusetts was on the floor yesterday afternoon and today arguing that Justice Brown's claim that an increasing public sphere is detrimental to civil society is outside the legal mainstream. Again, give me a break. I cannot help but think that for Janice Rogers Brown, this criticism of big Government is related to her experience growing up in the Deep South and her adulthood working for the State of California. She did not have to read about Jim Crow in books. She lived it. My sense is that part of Justice Brown's commitment to rugged individualism is related to this hard-learned lesson: There are limits to what Government can accomplish. That is precisely what President Reagan stated in his first inaugural address. When he said this in 1981, some of the very same people who attack Janice Rogers Brown today said President Reagan was out of the mainstream. That was the argument by the very same people back then. Nowhere was this well-intentioned governmental overreach more apparent than in our failed experiment with welfare. Republicans and Democrats alike, originally led by the insights of our former colleague, the late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, understood the detrimental impact of welfare on the urban poor in particular. I think Janice Rogers Brown understood that lesson as well. But for articulating a similar skepticism about Government, Janice Rogers Brown has been branded a radical revolutionary. Quite the contrary. Her arguments have been based on reasonable concerns. And hers was a conclusion reached over the years by millions of Americans. A few of Justice Brown's many decisions while a judge have also served as a source of the criticism that has been unfairly leveled at her. Of all the criticisms of Justice Brown, none more rankles than the claim she opposes civil rights. That is laughable. This is par for the course for some of these leftwing, fringe groups that have been smearing and attacking Republican nominees ever since I can remember, but certainly ever since Justice Rehnquist had his hearings and was confirmed to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. Just this week, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee was quoted as telling a group in San Francisco that Republicans are ``not very friendly to different kinds of people.'' He called the GOP ``pretty much a monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party.'' This is racial demagoguery, pure and simple, done by the chairman of the Democratic National Party. If I didn't know how bright he was, I would call him a raving idiot. But maybe he is just that part of the time. This desperate rhetoric has a purpose: to mask the increasing attraction of conservative ideas to African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Jewish Americans, and other minorities the Democrats have felt they have an absolute claim to, no matter how outrageous some of their programs and ideas are. So it is not surprising that when the organized critics of Janice Rogers Brown send their faxes to the press, her argument in the decision People v. McKay is notably absent. This is what she had to say there: In the Spring of 1963, civil rights protests in Birmingham united this country in a new way. Seeing peaceful protesters jabbed with cattle prods, held at bay by snarling police dogs, and flattened by powerful streams of water from water hoses galvanized the nation. Without being constitutional scholars, we understood violence, coercion and oppression. We understood what constitutional limits are designed to restrain. We reclaimed our constitutional aspirations. What is happening now is more subtle, more diffuse, and less visible, but it is only a difference in degree. If harm is still being done to people because they are black, or brown, or poor, the oppression is not lessened by the absence of television cameras. She wrote those words while arguing for the exclusion of evidence of drug possession discovered after an African-American defendant was arrested for riding his bicycle the wrong way on a residential street. She believed that the only reason this person was stopped was because of his race, and she was the only one of her colleagues on the supreme court to argue for the exclusion of this evidence on the grounds that it was the product of improper racial profiling. Yet our colleagues over here say she is an opponent of civil rights. Give me a break. I have seen and heard just about everything in my years in the Senate, but the highly partisan campaign of the NAACP against Janice Rogers Brown is particularly shameful. It is sad to see the NAACP, the Nation's foremost civil rights institution, become little more than a partisan special interest group. The other day I received a fax from their office urging me to vote against Justice Brown's confirmation because she was, ``hostile towards civil rights and the civil liberties of African Americans and other racial and ethnic minorities.'' My stomach turned when I read this. Not only is this irresponsible rhetoric, not only is it unfair and uncharitable, it is without any real foundation. In other words, it is total bullcorn, and it is wrong. The NAACP, along with a number of other groups, has turned to Justice Brown's opinion in Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc., v. City of San Jose to show that she is inhospitable to minorities because of her supposed stance on affirmative action. These arguments, again, are way off the mark and an analysis of them demonstrates not only that Justice Brown is a mainstream conservative judge but also that these interest groups are extremely liberal outfits attempting to gain through judicial fiat what they cannot fairly win through the legislative process through the elected representatives of the people. The Hi-Voltage case involved California's proposition 209. In a popular referendum, the people of California were clear: Discrimination or preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin violates core constitutional principles of equal treatment under the law. Therefore, proposition 209 prevented discrimination in any public employment, public education, or public contracting. Now, at issue in this case was a San Jose minority contracting program that required contractors bidding on city projects to employ a specified percentage of minority and women contractors. In her opinion, Justice Brown merely did what every judge who ever reviewed this case did. Through the trial court, through the appellate court, to the Supreme Court, all concurred with Justice Brown that this program was exactly the type of noxious racial quota program that proposition 209 was designed to prevent. Her critics charge this demonstrates her blanket opposition to affirmative action. Such a conclusion depends on a deliberate misreading of Justice Brown's opinion in this case. She could not have been any more clear. She did not oppose affirmative action in all circumstances. These are her words: Equal protection does not preclude race-conscious programs. Contrary to the propaganda being issued by liberal interest groups, Justice Brown's opinion explicitly authorizes affirmative action programs. I do not blame my colleagues on the other side completely because most of the time they just take what these outside leftwing radical groups give them and read it like it is true. So I say I do not blame them completely. But unlike the Supreme Court of the United States, the people of California have rejected quotas and race-based head counting. Those are not affirmative action programs that merely take race into account. Programs such as the one under review in the Hi-Voltage case are improper quota programs. For following the mandate of California citizens on this subject, she has been called radical. The NAACP's criticism is, as usual, overblown. They claim that Justice Brown's decision ``makes it extremely difficult to conduct any sort of meaningful affirmative action program in California.'' But what is a meaningful affirmative action program? I fear that these leftwing liberal interest groups are suggesting that the only meaningful type of affirmative action program is the type of quota program specifically banned by proposition 209. As it turns out then, Justice Brown's real failure in this case is that she did not tailor the law to suit her own moral and political preferences. For this, she is demonized as a radical. It is her failure to embrace full-blown judicial activism that is her principal failing in the minds of her detractors. Consider her opinion in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lundgren. This case involved California's parental consent law. Parental consent laws are not rightwing policies. They are moderate restrictions on abortion rights supported by substantial majorities of the American people. I find it interesting that the same groups that champion the right of a woman to make an informed choice about obtaining an abortion also reject moderate restrictions on the accessibility of abortion to minors who routinely do not possess the judgment necessary for the profound moral and philosophical decision to obtain an abortion. We should not forget the U.S. Supreme Court, while acknowledging the right to an abortion, also has held that it is permissible under the Constitution to establish parental consent laws such as California's. California courts have long relied on Supreme Court precedents when defining the boundaries of their State's own constitutional right to privacy. That is the context of this decision, and in it Justice Brown dissented from the determination of an activist court to overturn California's moderate restriction on abortion rights. She wrote: When the claim at issue involves fundamentally moral and philosophic questions as to which there is no clear answer, courts must remain tentative, recognizing the primacy of legislative prerogatives. She continued, adding that: The fundamental flaw running through its analysis is the utter lack of deference to the ordinary constraints of judicial decision-making--deference to state precedent, to federal precedent, to the collective judgment of our Legislature, and, ultimately to the people we serve. This is not some debate over a speech that Justice Brown gave at a law school forum. We know that is not the real threat to these interest groups. They can see that judges such as Janice Rogers Brown take their oaths seriously. They will interpret the law rather than act as super legislators and make the law. By showing deference to the people's representatives and the legislative and executive branches, these groups which too often today try to take the easy way out will now have to engage in the political process to win their points of view. Personally, I believe this would be a healthy development, but to those uncompromising special interest groups the democratic process is a threat, not a gift. Soon we are going to have to vote on Justice Brown's nomination. I am glad and thankful that we are finally reaching this point after the number of years we have been at it. I know many people wanted to move beyond these divisive debates over judges. I appreciate their desire to move beyond this messy business of judicial nominations and I understand the desire to applaud the deal that has allowed last week's vote on Priscilla Owen and our vote later today on Janice Rogers Brown. The ultimate meaning of this compromise is yet unknown, but one thing we do know, these qualified women will have long careers on the bench in large part because the majority leader had the guts and decided to press this issue, reestablish longstanding Senate precedents, and tried to support the constitutional separation of powers. Our senatorial power of advice and consent does not include the right to permanently filibuster judicial nominees. We have gone a long way to reaffirming what used to be an obvious truth, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the leader for helping to make this happen. We should also acknowledge the well-intentioned efforts of the 14 Senators involved in facilitating these votes. I know many conservatives are upset with this arrangement. I am myself. I am certainly not entirely comfortable with all the aspects of it myself, and I have said that it may prove to be a truce, not a treaty. We will have to wait and see what the full implications of this deal really are. It does seem, however, that the cloture votes on nominees such as Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William Pryor demonstrate the emergence of a filibuster-proof majority that believes even judges with conservative judicial philosophies are not the extraordinary cases that would trigger a filibuster and that even a conservative African- American woman has a chance to serve in this country. Unfortunately, some have been against her primarily because she is a conservative African-American woman. We seem to be gaining ground in the fight against the erroneous belief that nominees with whom one disagrees politically are undeserving of an up-or-down vote. Of course, the acid test of this agreement will come in the weeks ahead when the Senate addresses nominees not specifically granted a safe harbor by the compromise. This debate over Janice Brown and others with her conservative philosophy of judicial restraint is an important one. I will not compromise on the principle that the American people and their elected representatives, not judges, should make social policy. Our courthouses were never intended to be mini-legislatures. Judges do not have the constitutional responsibility, institutional capacity, the staff, or the wisdom to be good policymakers, and judges are not and should not be philosopher kings with some ability to divine the existence of rights not clearly expressed in statutory law created by the people's elected representatives or in constitutions established by the people themselves. We are told by some that Justice Brown is a radical. Shortly after the President was elected in 2000, the Democratic Party held a retreat at which a number of liberal law professors urged them to ``change the ground rules'' on judicial nominations. That was radical advice. It upset longstanding constitutional balances, and unfortunately it was accepted by the former minority leader. We must reject this effort. I, for one, am not afraid to have this debate. The American people know judicial activism when they see it. Just in the last few years we have been told by judges that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, that our Bill of Rights should be interpreted in light of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, and that well-considered bans on partial-birth abortion violate core constitutional principles. Only a few weeks ago, a Federal judge in Nebraska invalidated the duly passed State constitutional amendment that preserved traditional marriage in that State. The definition of a judicial activist is someone who puts his or her own personal views ahead of what the law really is. Some of the leading groups opposed to Janice Brown oppose her precisely because she will faithfully interpret the law rather than remaking it according to her own theory of justice. What they really object to is Justice Brown's refusal to revise legal guarantees according to some version of justice not present in a text. I am proud of this body for allowing Justice Brown's nomination to finally, at long last, come up for a vote. My guess is that she will soon be sworn in as a Federal judge. That will be a great day not only for Janice Rogers Brown, who has had to endure these coordinated, calculated attacks on her character, but it will be a great day for this Nation as well, and it will bring a lot of joy to me personally. In all of the hundreds of judges who now sit on the bench, Janice Rogers Brown is one of the finest people I have met and interviewed. So is Priscilla Owen. So is William Pryor, whom we will vote upon probably tomorrow. These are outstanding people, and so are the others who have been waiting for so long to just have the opportunity for a vote up or down on this floor. I am tired of seeing these good people maligned with false facts, to begin with. I am tired of seeing them maligned with misinterpretations of the case law, primarily written by some of these outside groups that have real axes to grind and that are on the far left bank outside of the mainstream of the law itself. I hope everybody will vote for Janice Rogers Brown. She will make a real difference on the bench. She is a good person. I interviewed her for more than 3 hours. I can say, I have seldom met a person of such capacity, decency, dignity, and honor as she and Priscilla Owen. It will be a great day to confirm her as a judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, the debate in this Chamber captured the attention of the Nation. At stake was the maintenance of core constitutional principles of separation of powers and a limited judiciary against an unprecedented strategy of filibustering judicial nominees. Prior to 2003, Senators exercised self-restraint. In theory, the opportunity was always there for us to filibuster the President's judicial nominees, but out of proper respect for the President, whoever the President was, his power of appointment, and with an appropriate modesty about our own constitutional role, we refrained from exercising this power to filibuster judges. We kept ourselves in check. In spite of real philosophical differences about the nature of judging and the meaning of the Constitution's fundamental guarantees, we all agreed on one thing: The Constitution's separation of powers prevented us from adopting a strategy of permanent minority-led filibusters of judicial nominees. That self-restraint was tossed aside, however, in 2003. Led in large part by my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from New York, the Democratic leadership determined to engage in a full-blown inquiry of what they called the ideology of judicial nominees. Never before have opponents of a limited judiciary been so brazen with their litmus tests. They would now openly reject qualified nominees because of their strongly held personal beliefs, not for their judicial temperament, not for their experience, not for their character. Rather, nominees would be rejected because of their personal beliefs. For some reason, what they termed ``strongly held personal beliefs'' were particularly suspect. California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, an eminently qualified jurist, was one of the primary targets of this radical strategy. For a few thought-provoking speeches she had given, some have tried to label her too extreme for the bench. There is no doubt Janice Rogers Brown is conservative, but her views are hardly out of the ordinary. They are views shared by many millions of regular citizens, citizens of different economic, geographic, financial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. Most importantly, however, it is clear that her personal views, whatever they are, do not cloud her judgment on the bench. Justice Brown's opinions are fully within the mainstream of American jurisprudence. It is the liberal activist groups that are purposefully misrepresenting Justice Brown's opinions, and what they think are her views, that are stranded out on the far left bank of American politics. Those groups belong on the far left bank of American politics, and that bank is way out of the mainstream. The President takes his constitutional responsibilities seriously when he nominates individuals to the Federal bench. I have worked closely with the White House for the last 4\1/2\ years on these judges, so I know that to be true. I know that as Senators, we take our responsibilities seriously when we review and confirm these individuals. When determining a person's fitness for the Federal bench, we evaluate their character and we inspect their records. We consider judicial experience, public service, legal work, academic achievement, personal character, and the ability for objectivity. With these qualities in mind, it is worth considering the view of Justice Brown held by a number of prominent California law professors. In a letter sent to me in my former capacity as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a group of 15 distinguished California law professors had the following to say about Justice Brown: We know Justice Brown to be a person of high intelligence, unquestioned integrity, and evenhandedness. Since we are of differing political beliefs and perspectives, Democratic, Republican and Independent, we wish especially to emphasize what we believe is Justice Brown's strongest credential for appointment to this important seat on the D.C. Circuit: her open-minded and thorough appraisal of legal argumentation-- even when her personal views may conflict with those arguments. Having gotten to know Justice Brown during this unnecessarily protracted confirmation process, I fully concur in this bipartisan consensus. And I can tell you she has cultivated these virtues against many odds. Janice Rogers Brown was born in Greenville, AL, in 1949. She attended segregated schools. She was a firsthand witness to the injustice of Jim Crow and its failure to extend the promise of the 14th amendment to the descendants of freed slaves. Equal protection under the law was only a dream in the Deep South at that time when young Janice Rogers Brown left her African-American family for California. Yet this girl who grew up listening to her grandmother's stories about NAACP Fred Gray, the man who courageously defended Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rosa Parks, brought to the golden State of California a passion for civil rights and a need for impartial justice. Janice Rogers Brown cultivated this passion for justice through a career of almost uninterrupted public service as an attorney. After graduating from law school at UCLA, she served 2 years as deputy legislative counsel in the California Legislative Counsel Bureau. Then from 1979 to 1987, she was deputy attorney general in the office of the California Attorney General. Her work there was of such high quality that it led to her appointment as the deputy secretary and general counsel for the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency in 1987 where she supervised the State's banking, real estate, corporations, thrift, and insurance departments. No dunce could have done that. No person as described by some of my colleagues on the other side would have been chosen in that great State of California to do that. She has been very badly derided by picking and choosing little snippets here and there and taking them out of context. From 1991 until 1994, she served as the legal affairs secretary to California Gov. Pete Wilson. I personally chatted with Pete Wilson, who is an old friend. He said she was terrific. He relied on her legal abilities. Then in 1994, she embarked on the professional journey that culminated in her nomination to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. First, she was nominated and confirmed as an associate justice on the California Third District Court of Appeals. Then in 1996, Gov. Pete Wilson elevated her to the position of associate justice on the California Supreme Court. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record her funeral eulogy for one of the great judges on that first appellate court.

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

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that, after much too long a delay, the Senate will meet its constitutional responsibility to vote on an important nomination for the President's national security team. I am referring to the nomination of Mr. John Bolton to be our next ambassador to the United Nations. This position must be filled if the administration is to advance its foreign policy, which includes both the use of the United Nations to support our country's goals, as well as our goals to advance reform in a very difficult international organization that, to be frank, has earned the skepticism of a good many Americans, including many in my home State of Utah. It would be a mistake, however, to suggest that this administration is anti-U.N. After all, during his first term, President Bush addressed the United Nations more times than any of his predecessors ever had in the same period, throughout the entire history of the United Nations. That the President has regularly consulted with, and sought the support of, the United Nations gives lie to accusations that he is a unilateralist. That he has never hinged our foreign policy needs and goals on the support of the United Nations demonstrates that our President has a proper understanding of our sovereign rights, as well as a realistic understanding of what the U.N. can contribute. The vast majority of the citizens of my State agree with President Bush that the U.N. can be sought as a useful tool to advance our national security, but that the pursuit of our foreign policy goals should never, never be conditioned on U.N. approval. John Bolton, whose career in foreign policy has included numerous positions where he was worked with international organizations, including much experience with the U.N., understands this. Certainly it is not for lack of experience that Mr. Bolton's nomination has become so controversial. Nobody can credibly make that argument. It is because of his philosophical convictions about the limits of international organizations--convictions shared by the President who nominated him--that Mr. Bolton's nomination has been delayed. I have found this entire spectacle to be dismaying. Early objections were quite plain in this approach: John Bolton was charged with an unnecessarily skeptical view of multilateralism. In my opinion, the reason George Bush won a decisive victory in a close re-election campaign is because the American public recognizes that national security issues are of dire importance, and that the President has a better grasp of how the real world works. The vast majority of the Utahns I represent object to any suggestion of checking American power with multilateral institutions. They do not believe in ``aggressive multilateralism'' an expression used during past administrations. They do not believe that the reluctance of European powers to join us in all our causes is a failure of our diplomacy, because nations will pursue their national interest no matter what the rhetoric may be. To measure diplomacy by the decisions of nations is to misunderstand both diplomacy and the dynamics of how nations pursue their national interest. President Bush understands this, as does John Bolton. The nomination process grew quite tawdry, in my opinion, when it turned to innuendo and, in some cases, attacks on the nominee's character. I know John Bolton. He is a decent, honorable man of inestimable intelligence who has done a tremendous job in every public position he has held. Opponents of Mr. Bolton declared, insinuated, and denounced the nominee based on a handful of alleged reports of his cantankerousness. Imagine that. A cantankerous personality in a high-powered job. In Washington, no less. Give me a break. Mr. President, the list of those who have stood up for Mr. Bolton is one of the most impressive I have ever seen in my years in the Senate, And I will leave it to my colleagues to attempt to include it all in the Record. I must note, however, the following statement included in a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: We, the undersigned, have been appalled at the charges that have been leveled at John Bolton during the course of his nomination hearing to be this country's ambassador to the United Nations. Each of us has worked with Mr. Bolton. We know him to be a man of personal and intellectual integrity, deeply devoted to the service of this country and the promotion of our foreign policy interests as established by this President and the Congress. Not one of us has ever witnessed conduct on his part that resembles that which has been alleged. We feel our collective knowledge of him and what he stands for, combined with our own experiences in government and in the private sector, more than counterbalances the credibility of those who have tried to destroy the distinguished achievements of a lifetime. This is a letter signed by former Attorney General Ed Meese, former Attorney General and Governor of Pennsylvania Dick Thornburgh, former Associate Attorney General and Governor of Oklahoma, Frank Keating, former Assistant Attorney General and Governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, and more than 30 of Mr. Bolton's former colleagues in the Department of Justice. Following the ideological criticisms, following the attacks on his character, the opponents of Mr. Bolton tried the intelligence angle. Apparently, Mr. Bolton has disagreed with a few intelligence reports and analysts. His opponents appear to believe that by waving a specious charge of ``misrepresenting intelligence,'' they can hit the theme of imperfect intelligence that serious policymakers have been wrestling with during the last few years of this administration. And we all know, and certainly we members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence know, that intelligence has been seriously flawed in recent years. We all know that. But to take a serious problem, which our committee has now spent years exposing and correcting, with the support of the administration-- and to turn it into an opportunistic attack on a nomination for the U.N. ambassador is specious at best. At no point in our investigations of intelligence regarding Iraq, have we found convincing evidence that intelligence analysts were pressured to change their views based as a result of political pressure. And none of our conclusions have indicated that the intelligence process would be made better if dissenting views would be suppressed. If anything, we need more dissent to qualify and verify our intelligence products. If there is anything we have learned in our review of faulty intelligence, it is that there is not enough scrutiny, not enough skepticism and, frankly, not enough expressing contrasting views. Apparently, our friends on the other side, the Democrats, do not seem to understand this. I am relieved now that after all the delay, the President will get his vote on his nomination of this very fine man for this very important position. I commend the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his commitment and patience in bringing this nomination to the floor. I know how tough it is to sit through meeting after meeting where the nominee is being attacked with what really amount to almost flippant attacks. Both of Senator Lugar's virtues--his commitment and patience-- have been, I suspect, severely tested. John Bolton served as a senior diplomat for this country in various capacities for over 20 years. He has served with great distinction and has many accomplishments to his credit. He has my personal admiration for these accomplishments. Whether they have been standing up to the United Nations and our country's rejection of that organization's intellectual disease, known as declaring Zionism as racism, or in his post-9/11 efforts to advance multilateral cooperation in his proliferation security initiative, Mr. Bolton's efforts have advanced U.S. interests and U.S. values. I am grateful for his work on behalf of our Nation, and I am grateful that he chooses to continue to serve. In closing, I note a section of a letter sent to the Foreign Relations Committee by former Secretaries of State Baker, Eagleburger, Haig, Kissinger, and Shultz, and former Secretaries of Defense Carlucci and Schlesinger, former U.N. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, and other distinguished former national security officials: Secretary Bolton, like the administration, has his critics, of course. Anyone as energetic and effective as John is bound to encounter those who disagree with some or even all of the administration's policies. But the policies for which he is sometimes criticized are those of the President and the Department of State which he has served with loyalty, honor, and distinction. President Bush has the right to his nominee for the United Nations. All Senators have the right to refuse consent if they so choose. If our friends on the other side, or even friends on this side, disagree with Mr. Bolton and want to vote ``no,'' they have every right to do so. But he certainly deserves a vote up or down for this very important position, and he does not deserve to have his nomination filibustered. All Senators, as I say, have a right to refuse consent. In a time of war--and we remain in a complicated global war--a President's right to assemble his national security team should not be hindered, and it certainly should not be hindered by people on the floor of the Senate. It is time, well past due, to have this vote. Mr. Bolton is a good man. I have known him for most of those 20 years. I know him personally. I know he is a man of integrity. I know he is a man of great intelligence. I know he is a tough person, exactly what we Americans would like to have at the U.N., sometimes called a dysfunctional U.N. This is a man who can bring some credibility. This is a man who can straighten some of the mess out. This is a man who can make a difference. He has been confirmed so many times in the Senate, one would think we would be ashamed to make some of the arguments that have been made against this very fine man. I will vote for Mr. Bolton, and if he is confirmed, I will offer him my continuing support as he undertakes yet another demanding mission, and it is demanding. I urge all my colleagues to be fair. That is what is involved here. It is a question of fairness. I hope they will be fair and vote for this very fine man and give our side a chance to have somebody there who is strong, tough, knowledgeable, loyal, and capable. He is all of those things. I can personally testify to that extent, knowing this man as I do. I hope everybody will vote for cloture today and then hopefully afterwards vote Mr. Bolton up so he can start serving and the President can have his foreign policy team in place. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, S. 1156, to extend and enhance a provision in the Internal Revenue Code that gives tax incentives for the production of electricity from renewable resources. The legislation I am introducing today is central to our Nation's goal of achieving energy independence, which is at the heart of the energy bill that will soon be considered by the Senate. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has included in its energy bill a renewable energy title that directs the Federal Government ``to the extent economically feasible and technically practicable'' to implement programs that will produce at least 7.5 percent of the electricity from renewable sources by 2013. The Senate Committee on Finance, on which I serve, will soon consider an energy tax bill to complement the bill from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to provide incentives to help us reach this level of renewable energy production. Specifically, my bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to extend the Section 45 production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable resources for facilities placed in service before January 1, 2011, pursuant to a written binding contract in effect on December 31, 2007. This extension is designed to take into account the extended length of time it takes for many renewable energy facilities, particularly geothermal facilities, to be built. In addition, my bill would provide for a 10-year credit period for all renewable energy sources covered by this tax credit. Current law allows a 10-year credit period for certain renewable sources, such as wind, but only a 5-year credit period for other renewable sources, such as geothermal. This results in an uneven playing field under current law that tilts investors toward certain renewable energy resources over others. This represents poor energy policy and it represents poor tax policy. I believe this disparity in credit periods undermines the development of all of our renewable energy resources and thereby inhibits our goal of energy independence. This legislation would equalize the tax credit period for all renewable resources and even up the playing field. I would like my colleagues to know more about the importance of our Nation's vast supply of geothermal energy resources. Geothermal is a clean, renewable energy resource that presently contributes over 2,718 megawatts to the U.S. energy supply. Renewable energy, excluding hydroelectric, makes up 2 percent of U.S. energy consumption; of that 2 percent, geothermal energy accounts for .44 percent, solar .06 percent and wind 1 percent. Geothermal technology is used in commercial, industrial and residential application in 26 States. However, geothermal energy generation has not been fully exploited. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, there is almost 25,000 megawatts of undeveloped geothermal energy production potential in the United States. This is enough power to serve more than 22 million homes. Furthermore, this is an energy source that is not subject to the price and supply volatility of fossil fuels. Our energy policy should not overlook this potential or sell short its potential. My home State of Utah has an abundance of high and low temperature geothermal resources that this bill would allow to be economically developed. For example, a new 36 megawatt geothermal plant near Cove Fort, UT, is scheduled to be under construction by the spring of 2006 with completion expected by the end of 2007. Without this legislation, it is unlikely that this plant, as well as others around the Nation, would be able to be built. That would be very unfortunate. The area around Cove Fort has one of the largest, proven geothermal resources in the Nation. There are 3,000 contiguous acres of leased land associated with the project now on the drawing boards. At 2,000 feet underground, the geothermal resource there is relatively shallow and is considered by most geologic experts to be one of the largest underground hot water reservoirs in North America. A leading geothermal engineering company recently issued a report indicating that the Cove Fort hot water resource can support and sustain power production in excess of 100 megawatts. Utah is but one State with geothermal resources that can help lead our Nation toward energy independence. Other States with considerable geothermal resources include Nevada, California, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Kansas. We need to get the process of developing these resources started, and the bill I am introducing today would make sure that happens. This legislation would provide the necessary boost to the development of our geothermal energy resources as well as all other renewable energy resources available to our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, S. 1159, to make permanent a provision under subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code regarding active financial services income earned abroad. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues Senators Baucus, Smith, Schumer, Crapo, Lott, Kyl, and Lincoln. Under current law, the provision will expire at the end of next year. This legislation would ensure that U.S. financial services firms and U.S. manufacturing companies with financial services operations are subject to U.S. tax on income from their active overseas financial services operations only when such earnings are sent home to the U.S. parent company. As my colleagues know, this is the treatment provided under the U.S. tax law for other active business income earned overseas. Our legislation simply extends, on a permanent basis, the expiring provision that ensures this same treatment for the financial services industry. The permanent extension of this provision is critically important in today's global marketplace. Over the last few years, the financial services industry has seen technological and global changes that have altered the very nature of the way these corporations do business, both here and abroad. The U.S. financial industry is a worldwide leader that plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace and positively contributes to the U.S. international trade balance. We believe it is essential that our tax laws not impose anti- competitive burdens on this important U.S. industry. If we allow the active financial services provision to lapse, U.S. companies would have to pay both local tax and current U.S. tax on the financial services income they generate overseas. While some of this double taxation is often alleviated by the foreign tax credit, we all know that this system works imperfectly. The result is that U.S. firms end up with a cost that is not borne by their European and Asian competitors, because companies based in these areas do not face current home country taxation on financial services income. In an industry where companies compete on price and a few basis points can mean the difference between getting the business or losing it to a competitor, the imposition of this additional tax cost on U.S.-based companies would translate into a competitive disadvantage for U.S. companies and a competitive advantage for their foreign counterparts. Given the thousands of U.S. jobs at stake, many of them in Utah, we do not believe our tax policy should allow this to happen. While this provision may seem far removed from the average Utahn or the average American, I can assure you that this is not true. For example, the Salt Lake City area serves as the headquarters location for the banking operations of American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB, which are important parts of the worldwide American Express Card system. Salt Lake City is also the headquarters of American Express Travelers Cheques, with its Utah facility servicing Travelers Cheques clients on a worldwide basis. Thousands of Utahns are employed by these companies. These businesses are tied to the international marketplace through the competitive strength of the American Express global franchise. For American Express and other U.S. companies to compete on par with their foreign competitors, the U.S. tax rules need to provide fair and equitable treatment of their overseas operations. To the extent foreign competitors can take business away from U.S. firms because of an uneven playing field, U.S. jobs are at risk. The bill we are introducing today would provide equitable and consistent tax treatment for this important component of our economy. Making this provision permanent would provide American companies much- needed stability. The current provision has been renewed several times, most recently for 5 years in the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. Our ``on-again, off-again'' habit of extensions prevents U.S.- based firms from competing fully in the global marketplace by interfering with their ability to make business decisions and plan on a long-term basis. The permanent extension of this subpart F provision would ensure that the U.S. financial services industry is on a competitive footing with their foreign-based competitors and would provide tax treatment that is consistent with the tax treatment accorded other U.S. businesses. The Congress and the administration took an important step toward modernizing our international tax rules with the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The legislation we introduce today furthers that act's goals of ensuring that American firms can compete in the 21st century economy. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, S. 1159, to make permanent a provision under subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code regarding active financial services income earned abroad. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues Senators Baucus, Smith, Schumer, Crapo, Lott, Kyl, and Lincoln. Under current law, the provision will expire at the end of next year. This legislation would ensure that U.S. financial services firms and U.S. manufacturing companies with financial services operations are subject to U.S. tax on income from their active overseas financial services operations only when such earnings are sent home to the U.S. parent company. As my colleagues know, this is the treatment provided under the U.S. tax law for other active business income earned overseas. Our legislation simply extends, on a permanent basis, the expiring provision that ensures this same treatment for the financial services industry. The permanent extension of this provision is critically important in today's global marketplace. Over the last few years, the financial services industry has seen technological and global changes that have altered the very nature of the way these corporations do business, both here and abroad. The U.S. financial industry is a worldwide leader that plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace and positively contributes to the U.S. international trade balance. We believe it is essential that our tax laws not impose anti- competitive burdens on this important U.S. industry. If we allow the active financial services provision to lapse, U.S. companies would have to pay both local tax and current U.S. tax on the financial services income they generate overseas. While some of this double taxation is often alleviated by the foreign tax credit, we all know that this system works imperfectly. The result is that U.S. firms end up with a cost that is not borne by their European and Asian competitors, because companies based in these areas do not face current home country taxation on financial services income. In an industry where companies compete on price and a few basis points can mean the difference between getting the business or losing it to a competitor, the imposition of this additional tax cost on U.S.-based companies would translate into a competitive disadvantage for U.S. companies and a competitive advantage for their foreign counterparts. Given the thousands of U.S. jobs at stake, many of them in Utah, we do not believe our tax policy should allow this to happen. While this provision may seem far removed from the average Utahn or the average American, I can assure you that this is not true. For example, the Salt Lake City area serves as the headquarters location for the banking operations of American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB, which are important parts of the worldwide American Express Card system. Salt Lake City is also the headquarters of American Express Travelers Cheques, with its Utah facility servicing Travelers Cheques clients on a worldwide basis. Thousands of Utahns are employed by these companies. These businesses are tied to the international marketplace through the competitive strength of the American Express global franchise. For American Express and other U.S. companies to compete on par with their foreign competitors, the U.S. tax rules need to provide fair and equitable treatment of their overseas operations. To the extent foreign competitors can take business away from U.S. firms because of an uneven playing field, U.S. jobs are at risk. The bill we are introducing today would provide equitable and consistent tax treatment for this important component of our economy. Making this provision permanent would provide American companies much- needed stability. The current provision has been renewed several times, most recently for 5 years in the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. Our ``on-again, off-again'' habit of extensions prevents U.S.- based firms from competing fully in the global marketplace by interfering with their ability to make business decisions and plan on a long-term basis. The permanent extension of this subpart F provision would ensure that the U.S. financial services industry is on a competitive footing with their foreign-based competitors and would provide tax treatment that is consistent with the tax treatment accorded other U.S. businesses. The Congress and the administration took an important step toward modernizing our international tax rules with the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The legislation we introduce today furthers that act's goals of ensuring that American firms can compete in the 21st century economy. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, S. 1156, to extend and enhance a provision in the Internal Revenue Code that gives tax incentives for the production of electricity from renewable resources. The legislation I am introducing today is central to our Nation's goal of achieving energy independence, which is at the heart of the energy bill that will soon be considered by the Senate. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has included in its energy bill a renewable energy title that directs the Federal Government ``to the extent economically feasible and technically practicable'' to implement programs that will produce at least 7.5 percent of the electricity from renewable sources by 2013. The Senate Committee on Finance, on which I serve, will soon consider an energy tax bill to complement the bill from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to provide incentives to help us reach this level of renewable energy production. Specifically, my bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to extend the Section 45 production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable resources for facilities placed in service before January 1, 2011, pursuant to a written binding contract in effect on December 31, 2007. This extension is designed to take into account the extended length of time it takes for many renewable energy facilities, particularly geothermal facilities, to be built. In addition, my bill would provide for a 10-year credit period for all renewable energy sources covered by this tax credit. Current law allows a 10-year credit period for certain renewable sources, such as wind, but only a 5-year credit period for other renewable sources, such as geothermal. This results in an uneven playing field under current law that tilts investors toward certain renewable energy resources over others. This represents poor energy policy and it represents poor tax policy. I believe this disparity in credit periods undermines the development of all of our renewable energy resources and thereby inhibits our goal of energy independence. This legislation would equalize the tax credit period for all renewable resources and even up the playing field. I would like my colleagues to know more about the importance of our Nation's vast supply of geothermal energy resources. Geothermal is a clean, renewable energy resource that presently contributes over 2,718 megawatts to the U.S. energy supply. Renewable energy, excluding hydroelectric, makes up 2 percent of U.S. energy consumption; of that 2 percent, geothermal energy accounts for .44 percent, solar .06 percent and wind 1 percent. Geothermal technology is used in commercial, industrial and residential application in 26 States. However, geothermal energy generation has not been fully exploited. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, there is almost 25,000 megawatts of undeveloped geothermal energy production potential in the United States. This is enough power to serve more than 22 million homes. Furthermore, this is an energy source that is not subject to the price and supply volatility of fossil fuels. Our energy policy should not overlook this potential or sell short its potential. My home State of Utah has an abundance of high and low temperature geothermal resources that this bill would allow to be economically developed. For example, a new 36 megawatt geothermal plant near Cove Fort, UT, is scheduled to be under construction by the spring of 2006 with completion expected by the end of 2007. Without this legislation, it is unlikely that this plant, as well as others around the Nation, would be able to be built. That would be very unfortunate. The area around Cove Fort has one of the largest, proven geothermal resources in the Nation. There are 3,000 contiguous acres of leased land associated with the project now on the drawing boards. At 2,000 feet underground, the geothermal resource there is relatively shallow and is considered by most geologic experts to be one of the largest underground hot water reservoirs in North America. A leading geothermal engineering company recently issued a report indicating that the Cove Fort hot water resource can support and sustain power production in excess of 100 megawatts. Utah is but one State with geothermal resources that can help lead our Nation toward energy independence. Other States with considerable geothermal resources include Nevada, California, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Kansas. We need to get the process of developing these resources started, and the bill I am introducing today would make sure that happens. This legislation would provide the necessary boost to the development of our geothermal energy resources as well as all other renewable energy resources available to our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this bill.