Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, over the last several days we have debated some of the most important issues that most of the Members will ever face. Should the same powerful tool, such as the filibuster, that we have long used in the legislative process be part of the confirmation process to defeat a President's judicial nominees? That is a big question. Can the Senate's role of advice and consent regarding judicial nominations be exercised equally by either the majority or minority of Senators? The answer to each of these questions is no. America's Founders designed the Senate without the ability to filibuster anything at all. The filibuster became available later but was restricted to the legislative process which we control. It was not part of the appointment process which the President controls. Allowing a minority of Senators to capture this body's role of advice and consent will allow that minority to hijack the President's power to appoint judges. I admit that we have control of the Executive Calendar, but the President has rights in that calendar, too. We cannot hijack the President's power to appoint judges. Doing so distorts the balance the Constitution establishes and mandates. That situation should not stand. I urge my friends, Senators from the minority, to abandon their destructive course and return to the tradition we followed for more than two centuries. The Senate, acting through a majority, checks the President's power to appoint by voting on whether to consent to those appointments. You will notice it is the Senate--not the minority--who does that check. Any Senator may vote against any nominee for any reason, but we must vote. We followed that tradition for more than 200 years, and we should recommit ourselves to it now. If the minority insists on distorting the Constitution's balance and rejecting Senate tradition, then I believe the Senate must firmly reestablish that tradition by exercising our constitutional authority to determine our own rules and procedures. If the minority will not exercise the same self-restraint this body exercised for the last two centuries, then I believe the Senate must vote to return formally to our tradition. It is surely not a sign of our political culture that we have to enforce by majority vote what we once offered by principle and self-restraint. But the Constitution's balance is too important to allow a minority to erode our principles and past practices. The problem and the solution each have their own frame of reference drawn from the Constitution. The frame of reference for evaluating these judicial filibusters is the separation of powers into three branches. The frame of reference for the solution to this judicial filibuster crisis is the Constitution's grant of authority for us, the Senate, to determine how we want to conduct Senate business. Let me first address the judicial filibuster crisis through the lens, the frame of reference, of the separation of powers. In Federalist No. 47, James Madison wrote of the separation of powers that ``no political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value or stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.'' Two points are particularly important here. First, the separation of powers is exclusive. The powers assigned to one branch are denied to the others. Like our Federal charter, each State constitution also divides the legislative, executive, and judicial branches into separate branches. More than two-thirds of them, however, go even further and make the exclusive nature of separation explicit. They affirmatively prohibit each branch from exercising the powers assigned to the others. The separation of powers is that important. While each branch may not exercise the powers given to the others, we can check the powers given to the others. A check on another branch's power is a safeguard. It is not a separate coequal power. It is neither separate from nor as significant as the power being checked. Nomination and appointment of judges is described in article II which outlines the President's power. Not a word is found in article I which describes our powers. The second point about the separation of powers is equally important. Just as the powers belong to the branches, checks and balances are exercised by the branches. The President, to whom the Constitution gives executive power, can check Congress's legislative power through the veto that he has a right to exercise. He cannot delegate it to someone else in the executive branch. Similarly, the Constitution assigns the role of advice and consent to the Senate, not just to the minority, to the Senate. The question raised by the current filibuster campaign, however, is this: What is the Senate, the minority or the majority? I do not want to get too technical, but these are basic civics principles that apply to legislative bodies everywhere that you can find in most high school textbooks. We must have what we call a quorum, a minimum number of Senators present to be open for business. Senate rule VI defines a quorum as a ``majority of Senators duly chosen and sworn.'' Today that means 51 Senators. Unless the Constitution that created this body says otherwise, when a majority of those Senators acts, it is the Senate itself that acts. This is no different from the Supreme Court. When a majority of its members votes the same way, we say it is the Court that has decided the case. Only the Senate itself can exercise its constitutional role of advice and consent on the President's judicial nominations. That is, only a majority of Senators can exercise that role. I make this point so strongly because the minority is claiming the right to exercise this body's role of advice and consent strictly by the minority. Last Thursday, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry, on the Senate floor, charged that ``the Republican leadership is determined to deny the minority the right to hold the executive responsible for lifetime appointments to the judiciary.'' He was not the first to make this argument. We have heard for a long time now from many Senators who support these filibusters that the Senate rejects a nomination not when the majority has voted it down but when the minority has prevented a final confirmation vote, even though there is a bipartisan majority for the nominee. I should say in this case nominees. The minority does not check the President's power. The Senate itself does. And that means a majority of Senators checks the President's power. When the minority has prevented a confirmation vote, the minority has prevented the Senate from exercising its role of advice and consent altogether. I do not speak primarily of the majority or minority party. I speak of the numerical majority that is required in order for the Senate to act at all. The vast majority of judicial nominations are confirmed either by unanimous consent or by overwhelming margins on rollcall votes. The number of truly controversial, hotly contested judicial nominations is small. Still at least 18 Members of this body have voted against a judicial nomination of their own party. If the case against some of these nominees is so strong--and we have heard a great hue and cry about how some of them are out of some sort of mainstream--then Senators may do so again. But the prospect of being on the losing side of a small number of confirmation votes does not justify turning these fundamental principles of separation of powers inside out. It does not justify the minority hijacking the Senate's role of advice and consent so it can hijack the President's power to appoint judges. Yet that is indeed what these filibusters are attempting to do. Defeating a vote to end debate can serve a laudable, temporary purpose of ensuring full and vigorous debate. That full and vigorous debate can help the Senate make a more informed confirmation decision. But these recent unprecedented, leader-led filibusters defeat all votes to end debate for the purpose of preventing confirmation of these nominations altogether. Doing so turns the separation of powers on its head. Mr. President, the frame of reference, the organizing principle for evaluating these judicial filibusters, is the separation of powers. I think the case is compelling that the judicial filibuster campaign underway today, by which the minority tries to commandeer the Senate's role of advice and consent so they can wrongly attempt to trump the President's constitutional authority to appoint judges, violates that principle and cannot be allowed to continue. If the minority will not relent and return to the tradition by which the Senate, through a majority, exercises its role of advice and consent, then I believe the majority must act to restore that tradition. The frame of reference for solving this judicial filibuster crisis is the Senate's constitutional authority to determine our own rules and procedures. Just as the Constitution establishes a system of self-government for the Nation, it establishes a system of self-government for the Senate. Subject always to the Constitution itself, we choose for ourselves how we want to do business. It may not always be nice, neat, and orderly, but it is up to us to decide. One of the cliches that the judicial filibuster proponents dreamed up is the cry that any solution to this crisis would require ``breaking the rules to change the rules.'' Presumably, that catchy little phrase refers to the fact that invoking cloture on an amendment to the text of our written rules requires not just 60 votes but two-thirds of the Senators present and voting. This argument is, I suppose, intended to make people think our written rules are the only guide for how the Senate operates. Most of our citizens may not know one way or the other. Nobody can fault them for not being schooled in the peculiar art of Senate procedure. But my fellow Senators certainly know the answer. Every Senator in this body knows that the Standing Rules of the Senate are only one of several things that guide how we do business. The solution to the judicial filibuster crisis which the majority leader, Dr. Frist, will pursue will neither break the rules nor change the rules. The Standing Rules of the Senate will read the same next week as they did last week. Instead, the solution we will utilize is a parliamentary ruling by the Presiding Officer, something that is at least as important as our written rules for the way we conduct our day- to-day business. When a Senator asks the question of procedure or raises a point of order, the Presiding Officer's answer to that question, or his ruling on that point of order, becomes a precedent for the Senate. These parliamentary precedents guide what we do as much as our written rules. Let me stress something very important at this point. The Constitution gives the role of advice and consent to a majority, not to a minority. Similarly, the Constitution gives the authority to decide how the Senate does business to the Senate, not to the Presiding Officer. There are no monarchs or dictators in America, or in the United States Senate. Should the Presiding Officer rule that the Senate may proceed to vote on judicial nominations after sufficient debate, that will become a parliamentary precedent guiding this body only after a majority of Senators votes to make it so. As I have discussed before in the Senate, this mechanism might better be called the Byrd option because, when he was majority leader, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, repeatedly used it to change how the Senate does business. The Senator from West Virginia knows that I have the greatest respect for him. I heard him on the Senate floor again this afternoon. But as I will describe in the next few minutes, I believe my friend from West Virginia doth protest too much. In 1977, for example, then-Majority Leader Byrd used this mechanism to eliminate what was called the postcloture filibuster. If the Senate voted to invoke cloture on a bill, rule XXII imposed a 1-hour debate limit on each Senator. Senators could get around that limit, however, by introducing and debating amendments. Rule XXII allowed this practice, but the majority leader opposed it--Byrd. He made a point of order against it, the Presiding Officer ruled in his favor, and a simple majority of Senators voted to back up the ruling. Nearly two decades later, the Senator from West Virginia reflected on how he used the Byrd option in 1977. Let me refer to the chart. He described it this way: I have seen filibusters. I have helped to break them. There are few Senators in this body who were here in 1977 when I broke the filibuster on the natural gas bill. I was here, by the way. To continue: I asked Mr. Mondale, the Vice President, to go please sit in the chair; I wanted to make some points of order and create some new precedents that would break these filibusters And the filibuster was broken--back, neck, legs, and arms. . . . So I know something about filibusters. I helped to set a great many of the precedents that are in the books here. So don't say we are trying to change the rules. We are following the Byrd rule that was set four times as he was majority leader. He changed Senate procedures without changing Senate rules. The Senator from West Virginia did it again in 1979. Rule XVI explicitly states that the Senate itself must decide whether amendments to appropriations bills are germane. Then-Majority Leader Byrd made a point of order that the Presiding Officer may decide that question instead. The Presiding Officer ruled in his favor and a majority of Senators voted to affirm the ruling. Once again, a parliamentary ruling changed Senate procedures without changing Senate rules. It happened again in 1980. As we have discussed, rule XXII requires 60 votes to invoke cloture, or end debate, on any matter pending before the Senate. This includes bills or nominations, but it also includes motions to proceed to those bills or nominations. Then-Majority Leader Byrd wanted the Senate to confirm an individual nomination. He made a single motion to go into executive session to consider a nomination, a step that is not debatable under our rules, and to proceed to an individual nomination, a step that was debatable. This time, the point of order came from a Republican Senator, arguing that this procedural two-step was improper. The Presiding Officer agreed, ruling against what Majority Leader Byrd was trying to do. He still prevailed when a majority of Senators voted to overturn the Presiding Officer's ruling. Doing so eliminated the filibuster on a motion to proceed to a specific nomination. Mr. President, this chart shows that seven Democratic Senators serving in this body today voted to eliminate those nomination-related filibusters. They proved not only that the Byrd option is legitimate, but also that it can be used to limit debate. I leave it to these Senators to explain how they could vote to eliminate nomination-related filibusters in 1980 but support nomination filibusters today. This 1980 example is particularly relevant because it utilized a parliamentary ruling to eliminate a nomination-related filibuster--not a filibuster of the nomination itself but a filibuster on the motion to proceed to the nomination. That is, of course, a distinction without a difference. Either one keeps a nomination from final approval. Mr. President, still other examples exist, but I will not go into more detail. Suffice it to say that using parliamentary rulings to change Senate procedures without changing Senate rules is a well- established method for the Senate to govern itself. Should the majority leader, Senator Frist, utilize it, he will be on solid ground. He will simply be relying upon the precedent that his predecessor, Senator Byrd, helped put on the books. If the majority leader does utilize the Byrd option, nobody will be able to suggest, let alone charge, he is doing so precipitously. He has been patient, methodical, and even cautious when it comes to this important matter. Far from the image of trigger-happy warriors being used in some interest ads out there, the majority leader will utilize the Byrd option only after trying every conceivable alternative first, and he has done so. The minority has had every opportunity to do what it says it wants to do; namely, debate these nominations. The nominees being filibustered, for example, include Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated 1,474 days ago to a judicial position that has been vacant for more than 8 years--more than 8 years and considered a judicial emergency. Justice Owen received a unanimous ``well-qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, the highest rating they give, which our Democratic colleagues once called the gold standard for evaluating nominees. Let me repeat that. She was rated unanimously as ``well- qualified'' by the American Bar Association, which is not a conservative organization, and some are calling her ``out of the mainstream.'' Give me a break. Justice Owen was at the top of her law school class. She had the highest score on the Texas bar exam in 1977. She is supported by 15 past presidents of the Texas Bar Association, both Democrats and Republicans, and was endorsed for reelection by virtually every major newspaper in the State of Texas. Out of the mainstream? My gosh, she defines the mainstream. I mention Justice Owen as an example, though her opponents use the same tactics against nominee after nominee. They claim that Justice Owen is what they call an extremist, or outside of the mainstream, most often by tallying up winners and losers in her judicial decisions. They say she rules too often on this side in criminal cases, too often on that side in civil cases, not enough for this or that political interest. Whether Justice Owen is controversial, whether anybody considers her inside or outside of some kind of mainstream, these may be reasons to vote against her confirmation, not to refuse to vote at all. By the way, we have Senators on the Judiciary Committee--Democratic Senators-- who believe that any business ought to be automatically found against, even if they are right under the law, that anybody who may be an unfortunate person ought to be found for even though they are wrong in the law. That is not the way the law works. They criticize Justice Owen because, even though she has upheld the weak and the oppressed in many decisions in the Texas Supreme Court, she has upheld the law sometimes to the lament of those who think the weak and oppressed should win no matter what the law says. That is all you can ask of a judge. The Judiciary Committee has more than once approved her nomination, and she deserves a vote in the Senate. But rather than give her a fair vote, those fearing they will lose are blocking it with a filibuster. On April 8, 2003, Senator Bennett, my colleague from Utah, asked the then-assistant minority leader, Senator Reid, how much time the Democrats would require to debate the nomination fully. This is what he said: There is not a number of hours in the universe that would be sufficient [to debate this nominee]. They did not want to debate Justice Owen, they wanted to defeat her. Debate was not a means to the end of exercising advice and consent. It was an end in itself to prevent exercising advice and consent. The majority leader has made offer after offer after offer of more and more time, hoping that the tradition of full debate with an up-or-down vote would prevail. That hope is fading, as Democrats have rejected every single offer. Finally, last month, the minority leader admitted that ``this has never been about the length of the debate.'' That is what the minority leader said. It has never been about the length of the debate. That was said April 28, 2005. Unanimous consent is the most common way we structure how we consider bills and nominations. Because the Democrats rejected that course, Majority Leader Frist was forced to turn in March 2003 from seeking unanimous consent to the more formal procedure of motions to invoke cloture. During the 108th Congress, we took 20 cloture votes on 10 different appeals court nominations. More than 50, but fewer than 60, Senators supported every one of these motions. In other words, there was bipartisan support for a vote up or down for each of those nominees. That was enough to confirm but not enough to end debate under the filibuster rules, misapplied here. The circle was complete, and the minority's strategy of using the filibuster to prevent confirmation of majority-supported judicial nominations was in full swing. Still the majority leader held off, resisting the growing calls to implement a deliberate solution to this unprecedented, unfair, and, frankly, outrageous filibuster blockade. The election returns provided more evidence that the American people oppose using the filibuster to prevent fair up-or-down votes on judicial nominations. But hope that the voice of those we serve would change how we serve them was soon shattered. The minority made it clear that they would continue their filibuster campaign. The minority can say this is a narrow effort focused on a few appeals court nominees. It is not. This is about the entire judicial confirmation process. It is about rigging that process so the minority can do what only the majority may legitimately do in our system of Government: determine how the Senate exercises its role of advice and consent. It is the Constitution, not the party line or interest group pressure, not focus groups or interest group ad campaigns, that should guide us here. I have been told, for example, and I hope it is not true, that my friend from Nevada, the minority leader, may appear in a television ad created and paid for by the Alliance for Justice, one of the rabid leftwing groups involved in this obstruction campaign. I hope he will not do that. I think that would be regrettable. They are part of the problem here. They have virtually been against anybody for the circuit courts of appeal and many of the former nominees for the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The Constitution assigns the nomination and appointment of judges to the President, not to the Senate. The Senate checks that power by deciding whether to consent to appointment of the President's nominees. We exercise this role by voting on confirmation. As such, filibusters designed to prevent confirmation of majority-supported judicial nominations undermine the separation of powers. The Constitution helps us both evaluate the problem and highlight the solution. The Constitution gives the Senate authority to determine how we will do our business. That includes not only our written rules but also parliamentary precedents that change procedures without changing those rules. Our Democratic colleagues have had literally dozens of opportunities to return to our confirmation tradition of up-or-down votes for judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor. They have chosen the path of confrontation rather than that of cooperation. They exercised the true nuclear option by blowing up two centuries of tradition. If the majority leader utilizes the Byrd option, it will truly be as a last resort, and it will be a constitutional means of solving an unconstitutional problem. I go back in time because I was here when Senator Byrd was the minority leader. He had a tremendous majority of Democrats on the floor. When Ronald Reagan was President, he never once used the filibuster to stop Ronald Reagan's nominees, even though some of those nominations gave him and other Democrats tremendous angst. He utilized the power to vote against them. Whether he is right or wrong is almost irrelevant here. The fact is that he did what 214 years of Senate tradition required: he allowed those nominees to go ahead and have a vote. And, after all, that is what we need to do here. What is wrong with giving these circuit courts of appeal nominees who have bipartisan support and the support of the American Bar Association simple up-or-down votes? If you do not agree with them, you have the right and power to vote against them, and that is the proper way to handle it. Let's not throw 214 years of tradition down the drain and, of course, let's not blow up the Senate if we do not get our way. Mr. President, I notice the distinguished Senator from Montana is here. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are here today in a battle to save our children, their families, and the victims, of repeat sex offenders. I am so proud of the real warriors in this battle: the victims and their family members. One of those warriors is Ed Smart, from my home State of Utah, whose daughter Elizabeth was kidnapped from her own bedroom by a sexual predator. Ed is joined by Patti Wetterling, Linda Walker, and other outstanding advocates of our children, including John Walsh of America's Most Wanted, Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and Robbie Calloway of the Boys & Girls Club of America in support of this bipartisan legislation we are introducing today along with co-sponsor Senator Biden. We need legislation that will close the gaps in many laws already on the books; integrate and revive the existing laws; and expand covered offenses against children. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act will bring all of the States up to date and enable citizens in every State to inform themselves about predators in their communities. This law will enable States to take public information about sex offenders and make it easy for citizens to access at one, open, web-site. This legislation will put the responsibility on the sex offenders themselves to register with the local authorities. They will be required to notify those authorities when they move or change jobs. And if they don't want to comply with the rules--then they will go to jail! This is common sense--those who break such a sacred trust and intend to harm our children, no matter who they are, where they are from, or where they commit their crime, should have some obligations under this law to voluntarily make their whereabouts known or subject themselves to additional jail time. That's what this bill is about. It's that simple. The victims and victims' families have dealt with the pain and anguish imposed on them by these sexual offenders and predators. But instead of lying down, they are standing up for imposing common-sense rules on those who have taken the life and liberty of the most innocent and defenseless among us. They are standing up for tough sentences against those who won't abide by these very simple rules. They are standing up to say that together we are stronger. Prior to 1994 just five states required convicted sex offenders to register their address with local law enforcement. Today there are over 549,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. Unfortunately, most of these receive and serve limited sentences and roam unchecked and unknown in our communities. Their crimes are heinous and they have a high risk of repeating their crimes on innocent children. Under this Act, sex offenders and predators will be required to register in person, versus mailing in a letter. They will be required to wear a tracking device while they are on probation for a first-time offense--and wear it for life if they choose to repeat their crimes. This Act enables states to offer citizens a searchable, statewide sex offender registry that interacts with all other states to provide seamless registration and notification across the country. The Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act will strengthen and unite cities, communities and states in the effort to stop the assault on American children. This bill has a companion bill in the House, sponsored by Congressman Mark Foley and Congressman Bud Cramer. I invite you to join Senator Biden and me as we close the gaping holes that keep our children at risk.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Alabama. He knows about as much as anybody who has ever sat on this side of the aisle. He has the sting of having been rejected by the Judiciary Committee Democrats when he was nominated for a Federal judgeship years ago. I think that is pretty ironic. They knew he was good and that he could do the job. Now he is a sitting Senator who can no longer be ignored, and he has stood up and triumphed for so many good people through the years. I think it was kind of a God-given thing that he was rejected back then, so he could sit in the Senate and tell people the important aspects of the Federal judiciary we have been discussing. I personally love and appreciate him. He has been a great member of the Judiciary Committee and I have a lot of respect for him. I have also been told that at the beginning of the session today, one of the leaders offered to discharge a number of judges from the committee, or judgeship nominees. I find that pretty ironic because at the end of the 108th Congress, when I attempted to discharge three nominees to the floor--Tom Griffith, our former counsel, nominated for the DC circuit; J. Michael Seabright, who was from Hawaii and was sponsored very strongly by the two Hawaiian Senators; and Paul Crotty, from New York, who was sponsored strongly by the two New York Senators--the Democrats opposed that and said this was extremely unprecedented, and they prevented me from doing so because they claimed ``proper order'' for all nominees. Forgive me, Mr. President, if I find the recent Democratic request to discharge people they want to discharge--three Sixth Circuit nominees-- more than a little disingenuous. It is only done to try to make it look as though they are trying to cooperate when in fact they knew that could not be permitted. The leadership in the Senate will decide what judges come to the floor and we want all of them, including the three from Michigan. Last week when the Judiciary Committee considered the asbestos bill, one of our Democratic colleagues referred to proposed amendments to that bill and said something very important: Let's debate them up or down. He said it the way the American people believe it, and that is debating and voting is what legislators do. Let's debate them and then vote them up or down. The Senator offering that idea was my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy. He was speaking then about legislation, but he and other Democrats once insisted the Senate should follow the same principle as we evaluate the President's judicial nominations. In October 1997, for example, he said on the Senate floor: I hope we might reach a point where we as a Senate will accept our responsibility and vote people up, vote them down. Bring the names here. If we want to vote against them, vote against them. Of course, at that time, a Democratic President was in power. That may have been the difference between then and now. It is always refreshing to see our fellow citizens from all over this great country coming here to sit up in the galleries and observe their Senate at work. Some of them with us today might actually be asking, Why is the Senator from Utah making such a big deal about something that is so obvious--votes up or down, that is. Many of our fellow citizens may be surprised to learn that some of the Senators they elected and sent to Congress are refusing to vote on nominations. They might share the sentiment of former Democratic leader Senator Tom Daschle when he said in 1999--of course, Clinton was President: I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination. That is what they are doing. I guess it makes a difference whether your President is President or whether the opposition President is President. I happen to think there are certain virtues that ought to be maintained, no matter what. Those Senators on the other side are blocking votes because they know they will lose those votes. If we debate these nominees, America would better understand why we need judges who will interpret, not make, the law. Americans will see how these highly qualified judicial nominees meet that standard, and America will see that these nominees, every one of them, have a bipartisan majority support. What is wrong with giving them a vote up or down? The political forces promoting an activist political judiciary oppose many of these nominees, and their strategy is simple. The Senate cannot confirm nominees if Senators cannot vote on them. We cannot vote if we cannot end debate. These filibusters use Senate rules to prevent ending debate, prevent taking a vote, and prevent confirmation of these judges. That is not only baffling, it is unprecedented. This is not a tangent, an academic issue, or a question that will 1 day be found in the game ``Trivial Pursuit Senate Edition.'' This issue is central to this debate, and our Democratic colleagues know it. Some are so desperate to claim even one single solitary precedent for what they are doing that they stretch, twist, and morph the word ``filibuster'' beyond all recognition. They want the word ``filibuster'' to mean so many things that it ultimately means virtually nothing at all. Unfortunately, these mischaracterizations of Senate history, tradition, and rules cynically exploit the fact that many of our fellow citizens have not mastered the particulars of Senate history, the peculiarities of Senate procedure, or the idiosyncrasies of the confirmation process. Misleading, confusing, patently false claims can easily take on a life of their own, echoed and repeated throughout the media, cyberspace, and even here on the Senate floor. We all know it can take a long time for what is true to catch up with what is false. Judicial filibuster defenders who claimed that when the Senate voted to end debate on past judicial nominations, we were actually filibustering those nominations; that when we voted down debate and confirmed them, we were actually filibustering--poppycock. They want Americans to believe that ending debate then justifies refusing to end debate now. Poppycock. Or they claim that when the Senate voted to confirm judicial nominations in the past, we were actually filibustering those nominations when we voted to confirm them. That is how far they have gone to try and justify these inappropriate actions. They want Americans to believe that confirming nominations then, as we did, justifies refusing to confirm them now. Those bizarre claims focus on what happens here on the Senate floor at the end of the judicial confirmation process. Sometimes judicial filibuster defenders on the other side have focused instead on what happens in the Judiciary Committee, an earlier phase in the process. Some appear willing to try anything to create a precedent for their filibusters. Some even claim that any nomination which is not audibly confirmed, no matter what the reason, no matter what the step in the process, has been filibustered. Giving a word any meaning you want may help make any argument you want to make, but it does not make that argument legitimate. This gimmick may have some public relations punch. It leads to cliches such as ``pocket filibuster'' or ``one-man filibuster,'' and creates villains, such as me. What kind of campaign would this be without a bogeyman? After all, I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 6 years under President Clinton. Never mind that the Republican Senate confirmed 377 judges for President Clinton, just 5 short of the all-time confirmation record set by President Reagan. Bill Clinton was the second confirmation champion of judges in the history of this country, and he had 6 years when I was chairman. I wonder how that happened if I was so partisan. Never mind that President Reagan had his own party controlling the Senate for 6 years while President Clinton had the other party, the Republicans, controlling the Senate for 6 of his years. So Reagan had his own party help him for 6 years. President Clinton only had his own party for 2 years, and yet he still came in just five votes shy of President Reagan. And if my recollection serves me correctly, he would have been three ahead of him had it not been for Democratic holds on their side. One Senator was not getting his; therefore, he would not let anybody else get theirs. It happened. Never mind facts such as that. The assistant minority leader yesterday claimed every Clinton nomination that was not audibly confirmed was filibustered and that I personally buried them. My hand alone held back a confirmation wave of apparently mythic proportions. Look for a moment what it takes to believe every unconfirmed nominee is a filibustered nominee. It requires believing dozens of nominees President Clinton himself withdrew were filibustered. Preposterous. President Clinton, for example, withdrew one of his court nominees fewer than 6 months after her nomination because of health concerns. Her nomination did not get out of the Judiciary Committee, did not receive a floor vote, and was not confirmed. But was she filibustered? They seem to think so. Is her situation the same as Justice Priscilla Owen who has been waiting for more than 4 years and cannot get a floor vote because of a Democratic filibuster, a leader-led partisan filibuster, the first time in history? This line that all unconfirmed nominees are filibustered nominees requires you to believe ill-founded arguments such as that. It also requires believing that the 28 nominations sent too late to be considered or which President Clinton chose not to resubmit were filibustered. That is how they add, they double count. It is ridiculous. Preposterous is the word. It requires believing that nominations not given hearings because of opposition by their home State Senators were filibustered. We have had that go on for years, whoever has been in power. Home State Senators have a lot of swat. The Judiciary Committee system that gives extra weight to the views of Senators from a nominee's home State has been in place in various forms for nearly a century. Democrats, as well as Republicans, use it. I do not hear the Democrats who now want to call these situations filibusters also calling to abolish that system of home State senatorial courtesy. They cannot have it both ways. The majority leader, Senator Frist, recently offered a proposal that would not only address our concerns about the floor by ensuring up-or- down votes, but also address Democrats' concerns about the committee by guaranteeing reporting of nominees. The majority leader tried to do that. Democrats rejected that offer. They are not going to give up their rights in committee anymore than Republicans should give up their rights in committee. But that is not filibustering, I can guarantee that. Either they think treatment of judicial nominees in the Judiciary Committee is a problem needing a remedy or they do not. They cannot have it both ways. Democrats know that many factors determining whether a nomination is approved by the Judiciary Committee are not simply up to the chairman's unilateral discretion. What galls me is some who have made the argument. One in particular this morning begged me to get his judges through, and I have to say there were real questions about his judges, but I put them through because they were nominated by the President. He came to me and asked that I get it done. I did it for countless Democrats in the 6 years I was chairman of the committee during the Clinton years, and they know it. They do not have any other arguments. So what do they want to do? They want to vilify the chairman of the Judiciary Committee who has had to put up with all kinds of machinations in the Judiciary Committee from both sides, whoever the chairman is. Democrats know there are procedures in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor for forcing a committee chairman to act if Senators believe the chairman is dragging his feet and that those procedures were never used, never even attempted, while I was chairman. Why? Because they knew darn well I was trying to do the best I could. They do not have any other arguments. They cannot justify their position. Democrats know these things. They also know that many of our fellow citizens do not. So the spin machine cooks up this tail that all unconfirmed nominees are filibustered nominees, attempting to make people believe there is some precedent, even a totally fictional precedent, for their current filibusters. Saying that ending a debate is the same as not ending a debate did not work. Saying that confirming nominations is the same as not confirming nominations did not work. Saying that President Clinton's near record confirmation total is evidence of unfair treatment by Republicans will not work either. On Tuesday the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, was making a few other arguments. He pointed out that the text of the Constitution does not require an up-or-down confirmation vote for a judicial nomination. Well, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle attack judicial nominees when they take the Constitution's text this seriously. But I am glad that the Senator from Wisconsin is doing so. The word ``filibuster'' is not found in the Constitution, either. Nor are phrases such as ``unlimited debate,'' ``minority rights,'' or even ``checks and balances,'' as misused as those terms have been by the other side. None of the phrases used by some to try to give these judicial filibusters a constitutional anchor are in the chartered text, the constitutional text. What the Constitution does say, however, is that the President has the power to nominate and appoint judges--not the Senate, the President has that power. Our role of advice and consent is a check on the President's power to appoint. When the filibuster turns our check on the President's power into a weapon that hijacks the President's power, then, yes, it has indeed violated the design that is most certainly in the text of the Constitution, and that is what they are doing. The Senator from Wisconsin also said the procedure the majority leader may use to prohibit judicial filibusters will mean changing the Senate rules by fiat. That is a variation on the Democratic mantra that this would break the rules to change the rules. That is a catchy little phrase but neither of its catchy little parts is true. The Senate operates not only by its written rules but also by parliamentary precedence established when the Presiding Officer rules on questions of procedure asked by the Senators. What we call the constitutional option would seek such a ruling from the Presiding Officer. After sufficient debate, the Senate should vote on a judicial nomination. That is what the ruling would be. Senate precedents and procedures would change, but Senate rules would remain unchanged. No breaking of the rules, no changing of the rules. Senators use the word ``fiat'' because it sounds bad and fits with the abuse of power theme probably born in some liberal focus group somewhere. The word attempts to give people a bad impression, but it should give them an even worse impression to know that it is patently false. The Constitution gives authority over Senate rules and procedures to the Senate, not to the Parliamentarian or to the Presiding Officer but to the Senate. If the Presiding Officer rules on the question of procedure, it will not actually change Senate procedures until a majority of the Senators vote to do so. Just as American self-government is radically different from monarchy, Senate self-government is radically different from fiat. The Senator from Wisconsin said that whenever the Senate merely takes a cloture vote or a vote to end debate, a filibuster is always underway. That, too, is patently false. Let me refer to this chart. This is what the Congressional Research Service said on April 22, 2005: It is erroneous to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are always the same as those in which a filibuster occurs. Let me repeat that. It is erroneous to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are always the same as those in which a filibuster occurs. Let me use two examples. Among President Clinton's most controversial nominees were Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Our colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, who has spoken many times on the floor on this issue, in November 2003 called these nominees ``very liberal,'' and, ``quite far to the left.'' Now, that is quite something coming from a Senator who has never been called even a little bit to the right. On November 10, 1999, the majority leader at the time, Senator Lott, promised that he would bring these controversial nominations up for a confirmation vote no later than March 15, 2000, and that was at my request. He correctly said that I agreed with using the cloture vote to ensure that a confirmation vote occurred. In other words, it was used to get to a vote. On March 8, 2000, that is exactly what we did. It was of a procedural floor management device. The first two names on the petition for the cloture vote happened to be Senator Lott and myself. We took that cloture vote to prevent a filibuster and to ensure an up-or-down vote. We prevented a filibuster. That vote occurred, and the Senate confirmed both nominees. They are today sitting Federal judges. Otherwise we would have kept going on and on on the Senate floor. We decided that is the way to get to a vote, and we did. The Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, said on Tuesday that the constitutional option which would use a parliamentary ruling to prohibit judicial filibusters would ``use majority power to override the rights of the minority.'' I have called this parliamentary approach the Byrd option because when Senator Byrd was the majority leader in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Senator Byrd used it to change Senate procedures. He did so regarding legislation and also regarding nomination-related filibusters. In 1980, for example, then-Majority Leader Byrd wanted to prohibit filibusters with a motion to proceed to nominations, and they could do that back then, just as a confirmation vote cannot happen if debate does not end. Debate cannot start if the Senate cannot vote to proceed to that debate. Today we hear that any limitation on debate, any restriction of the filibuster, strikes at the very heart of the essence of this institution. Maybe it was a different story back then when they were in control. When the Presiding Officer ruled against what Majority Leader Byrd was trying to do, he then appealed that ruling and the Senate voted to overturn it, effectively terminating those nomination-related filibusters. He knew how the vote was going to turn out in the end. I remind my colleagues what my good Democratic friend from West Virginia said when he used the procedure to change the filibuster rule, on January 4, 1995, during the Clinton administration. He said: I have seen filibusters. I have helped to break them. There are few Senators in this body who were here [in 1977] when I broke the filibuster on the natural gas bill. . . . I asked Mr. Mondale, the vice president, to go please sit in the chair; I wanted to make some points of order and create some new precedents that would break these filibusters. Then he said this: And the filibuster was broken--back, neck, legs, and arms. . . . So I know something about filibusters. I helped to set a great many of the precedents that are on the books here. Well, the Senator was candid. I personally admire him for it. On at least three other occasions, Majority Leader Byrd used a ruling by the Presiding Officer to change Senate procedures without changing the underlying Senate rules. The Senator from Vermont says that using this very same mechanism today would be an outrageous trashing of minority rights. Yet he voted every time to support Majority leader Byrd's use of that mechanism, including to eliminate nomination related filibusters. Yesterday, the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, claimed that Senate rules, in his words, from the very beginning, required an extraordinary majority to end debate. Now that is factual claim, and it is factually false. The Senate adopted its first rules in 1789. Rule eight allowed a simple majority to proceed to a vote. The men who founded this republic designed this Senate without the minority's ability to filibuster anything. Over the last few days, many excuses have been offered why some refuse to debate and vote on judicial nominations that reach the Senate floor. Let me correct that. While these may be their reasons, there are no valid excuses. When procedural obstructive devices such as the filibuster are kept where they belong, in the legislative process, the debate can properly focus on the merits of these nominees. That is what debating and voting should ultimately be about, the President's nominees. The debate we have seen here on the Senate floor regarding nominees such as Justices Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown is typical of what we will see in the future regarding other nominees. Many of our fellow citizen may know little of the Senate's Byzantine procedures, they may know little about judicial rulings, they may not speak legalese, but I hope they will not be afraid to participate in this process. Let me offer a few pointers, a few tips, for the road ahead. Politics is often about results, about winners and losers, and involves politicians asserting their will. Law is about the process of reaching results, about what the law requires, and involves judges using judgment. Politics and law are two very different things, and our liberty depends on preserving that difference. So if you hear critics of judicial nominees talking only in the language of politics, you know something is wrong. In the last day or two, for example, critics of the nominees before us have reduced them to sound bites, checklists, and litmus tests. Senators begin sentences with phrases such as she ruled that . . . or she ruled for. . . . Mentioning only those results, without exploring how a judge reached those results, amounts to applying political criteria to a judicial nominee, and that is fundamentally wrong. Sometimes the law requires results we may not like, results that may even sound dramatic. Mentioning the political results without the judicial process leading to those results misleads people about what judges do and how to choose the rights ones. Or the critics will characterize what a judge said rather than tell us what she actually said. Or if they do quote the judge, critics will often pluck out only a phrase, or use lots of ellipses. These are signs that spin may be in the air. Or the critics will quote other critics. Imagine if the only thing someone knew about you came from what your critics or enemies said about you. That picture would be distorted, incomplete, and just plain false. So our fellow citizens should not be worried that they do not know the language of lawyers, that they have not read a judicial nominee's writings or rulings, or are not well-versed in the fine points of legal argument. I hope they will listen critically to the debate here in the Senate about these nominees, their qualifications, and their records. I hope our fellow citizens will be very skeptical of critics who make a political case against a judicial nominee, skeptical if the case against a nominee is limited to soundbites about results or characterizations by third parties. Let me conclude my remarks by noting that in September 2000, the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, said that the Constitution each of us has sworn to protect and defend requires that we debate and vote on judicial nominations reaching the floor. I agreed with that principle then, and I agree with it today. For more than two centuries, we kept the filibuster out of the judicial confirmation process. It is surely not a good sign about our political culture that we must today formalize by parliamentary ruling a standard we once observed by principle and self-restraint. But that self-restraint has broken down, and maintaining our tradition of up or down votes for judicial nominations is worth defending. Once we take unprecedented obstruction tactics like the filibuster off the table, we can focus where we should, on the merits and qualifications of nominees. We must have a standard that binds both political parties. That standard must be fair, it must respect the separation of powers, and it must be consistent with our own Senate tradition. Between 1789 and 2003, we had a strong consistent tradition of voting on judicial nominations once they reach the Senate floor. We should return to that principle and practice. Unfortunately, in 2003, the Democratic leadership broke with this longstanding Senate tradition and took an ill-founded turn down a partisan political path and unwisely changed the confirmation process in an unprecedented fashion. We must turn back from that path. Once a judicial nomination reaches us here, our course should be clear. Let us debate and then let us vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks, and other colleagues as well. I ask unanimous consent that I be given the original half-hour time and that the Democrats be extended an equal amount of time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are here today in a battle to save our children, their families, and the victims, of repeat sex offenders. I am so proud of the real warriors in this battle: the victims and their family members. One of those warriors is Ed Smart, from my home State of Utah, whose daughter Elizabeth was kidnapped from her own bedroom by a sexual predator. Ed is joined by Patti Wetterling, Linda Walker, and other outstanding advocates of our children, including John Walsh of America's Most Wanted, Ernie Allen of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and Robbie Calloway of the Boys & Girls Club of America in support of this bipartisan legislation we are introducing today along with co-sponsor Senator Biden. We need legislation that will close the gaps in many laws already on the books; integrate and revive the existing laws; and expand covered offenses against children. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act will bring all of the States up to date and enable citizens in every State to inform themselves about predators in their communities. This law will enable States to take public information about sex offenders and make it easy for citizens to access at one, open, web-site. This legislation will put the responsibility on the sex offenders themselves to register with the local authorities. They will be required to notify those authorities when they move or change jobs. And if they don't want to comply with the rules--then they will go to jail! This is common sense--those who break such a sacred trust and intend to harm our children, no matter who they are, where they are from, or where they commit their crime, should have some obligations under this law to voluntarily make their whereabouts known or subject themselves to additional jail time. That's what this bill is about. It's that simple. The victims and victims' families have dealt with the pain and anguish imposed on them by these sexual offenders and predators. But instead of lying down, they are standing up for imposing common-sense rules on those who have taken the life and liberty of the most innocent and defenseless among us. They are standing up for tough sentences against those who won't abide by these very simple rules. They are standing up to say that together we are stronger. Prior to 1994 just five states required convicted sex offenders to register their address with local law enforcement. Today there are over 549,000 registered sex offenders in the United States. Unfortunately, most of these receive and serve limited sentences and roam unchecked and unknown in our communities. Their crimes are heinous and they have a high risk of repeating their crimes on innocent children. Under this Act, sex offenders and predators will be required to register in person, versus mailing in a letter. They will be required to wear a tracking device while they are on probation for a first-time offense--and wear it for life if they choose to repeat their crimes. This Act enables states to offer citizens a searchable, statewide sex offender registry that interacts with all other states to provide seamless registration and notification across the country. The Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act will strengthen and unite cities, communities and states in the effort to stop the assault on American children. This bill has a companion bill in the House, sponsored by Congressman Mark Foley and Congressman Bud Cramer. I invite you to join Senator Biden and me as we close the gaping holes that keep our children at risk.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, once again, I rise to speak on behalf of the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am very honored to do so. As we all know, the debate over this nomination will take place within the context of a historic constitutional struggle over the President's right to obtain an up-or- down vote for his judicial nominees. In all seven of these cases--in all seven--each of them has bipartisan up-or-down majority support. All we ask is they get a vote. Now, that will be resolved soon enough, but we should not forget that this is a fight worth having because this campaign of ongoing obstruction is depriving us of good and needed judges such as Priscilla Owen. We should not forget that in the end this debate is about the individual nominees and their qualifications for service on the Federal bench. This is a debate about Justice Priscilla Owen, and I am proud to support her. Because Justice Owen's nomination has never come up for an up-or-down vote, I have had 4 years to consider this nomination and to get to know her personally, and to further familiarize myself with her record on and off the bench. The passage of time has only strengthened my conviction that she is wholly deserving of a seat on the Federal bench. She is a woman of real accomplishments, and the State of Texas is justifiably proud of her. I am proud of her. I am confident that if she is ever given the vote she deserves, she will do our country proud as a Federal circuit court of appeals judge. In her years as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, Priscilla Owen has demonstrated the cautious, impartial mind and the willingness to listen that we seek from our judges in this country. Both her private practice--where she became one of the first to break through the ``glass ceiling'' for women, became a major partner in one of the major law firms in the country, after being first in her class in law school, first on the bar examination, with the highest grade there--and her actions on the bench provide examples of the honor and dignity that an individual can bring to the practice of law. Finally, she has comported herself with confidence and professionalism in the face of exaggerations and unfair complaints lodged against her by interest groups--the outside, leftwing interest groups--committed to her defeat. The people of Texas have recognized these attributes in Judge Owen and rewarded her twice by electing her and reelecting her to the Texas Supreme Court. In fact, she was reelected with 84 percent of the vote. Yet some try to characterize her as somehow outside of the mainstream. How can they justify that? For 4 long years now, her nomination has languished as a result of a deliberate and systematic strategy to deny up-or-down votes to the President's majority-supported nominees. They claim nominees such as Justice Owen are extremists and conservative activists. Her record does not support these assertions, and I commend the President for renominating this eminently qualified jurist. In contrast to the false charge that she is an extremist--and I might add, how can she be an extremist and have the highest approval of the American Bar Association, certainly not a conservative group? So in contrast to the false charge that she is an extremist, the fact is Priscilla Owen is one of those relatively few nominees who received a unanimously well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association, the highest rating possible. I am under no illusions here. The Senate is a unique, deliberative institution where the opportunity for serious debate must be vigilantly protected. Unfortunately, it seems likely that not many are going to have their minds changed by this debate. I hope the newly elected Members of the Senate will pay close attention to the facts surrounding the nomination of Priscilla Owen. The Senate already knows Justice Owen quite well. We have spent literally hundreds of hours discussing her nomination. Many Senators have probably made up their minds. But for many people, this inside- the-beltway dispute is just now starting to draw attention. Only now, as this debate is coming to a head, is it the leading story on the network nightly news. Therefore, it is as much for the American people tuning into this debate as it is for my colleagues here that I want to address a handful of the unfair charges being made against her. And we have heard them here on the floor today. Justice Owen graduated first in her class from Baylor Law School. She received the highest score on the State bar exam. She went on to become a partner in the prestigious firm of Andrews & Kurth. She was admitted to practice before various State and Federal courts. She is a member of the American Law Institute, a prestigious organization; the American Judicature Society, the American Bar Association, and a fellow of the American and Houston Bar Foundations. In short, she possesses all the attributes and membership in traditional legal organizations that are recognized by all of us, and these organizations place her firmly in the mainstream of all American lawyers and of American jurisprudence. Committed to the principle of equal justice for all, she participated on the committee that successfully encouraged the Texas legislature to enact legislation resulting in millions of dollars per year in additional funds for providers of legal services to the poor. Does that sound like an extremist? This is the resume of somebody fully within the mainstream of our legal community. It is not the resume of a radical or an extremist, as has been portrayed by some in this body on the other side. It is the resume of a successful attorney who went on to serve the public as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. She carried these mainstream professional habits, honed in private practice, with her into her career as a judge on the Texas Supreme Court. It is worth reconsidering what she had to say before the Senate Judiciary Committee during her first confirmation hearing way back on July 1, 2002. In her opening statement, she referred to the four principles that guide her decisionmaking as a judge. I am quoting her here. Now, these are her four rules she lives by. No. 1: Always remember that the people that come into my court are real people with real problems. No. 2: When it is a statute that is before me, I must enforce it as you in the Congress or in the State legislature, as the case may be, have written it, unless it is unconstitutional. No. 3: I must strictly follow United States Supreme Court precedent. No. 4: Judges must be independent, both from public opinion and from the parties and lawyers who appear before them. That is a statement of Justice Priscilla Owen before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 21, 2002. This is hardly radical stuff. In fact, I would wager a vast majority of the American people agree with those principles. Yet to listen to those committed to stonewalling this nomination--she has now been waiting 4 years for this vote--you would walk away with a very different impression, if you listened to them. I have been debating judicial nominations for a long time--all 29 years of my service in the Senate--but these most recent attacks are novel ones. The insistence on denying Justice Owen and other nominees up-or-down votes is part of a larger story dating back over 20 years now. In those earlier debates, some committed to an activist judiciary used to wear the label ``judicial activist'' proudly on their sleeves. Over time, however, they have come to understand that the American people like their judges interpreting rather than making the laws. Judges should behave as judges, not junior auxiliaries to the legislative branch. So now they charge conservative nominees with being activists as well. This is the principle charge against Justice Owen. The American people are going to have to make up their own minds on this, but to me it is very clear that argument does not hold any water. Look at her record. Look at those who are behind her. Look at all the Democrats who have supported her. The abortion rights lobbyists focus their attention on a series of Justice Owen's opinions in cases involving the Texas parental notification statute. It is worth noting that contrary to the wishes of a vast majority of Americans, and the Supreme Court, groups such as the National Abortion Rights Action League oppose even these modest popular restrictions on abortion rights, that are supported by 80 percent of the American people. The reality is it is Justice Owen, not these groups, who is in the mainstream. The groups are the ones who are outside of the mainstream. By the way, these are far-left Democratic Party groups that are far outside the mainstream in their interpretation. Anybody who disagrees with them on anything is ``outside of the mainstream'' or ``extremist.'' Unfortunately, some of our colleagues parrot what they say and what they tell them to say. In Texas, the law requires that a minor notify her parents of her decision to have an abortion. That is what the law of Texas says. This is common in many States. Such statutes receive broad bipartisan support. I have mentioned 80 percent of the American people support these types of statutes. Yet, in their wisdom, the Texas legislature provided an opportunity for a judicial bypass of this notification of parents requirement in certain circumstances. Judge Owen has been vilified in her dissent in the case of In re Doe I where she had to interpret the State's requirement that a minor seeking a judicial bypass of the notification of parents requirement demonstrate sufficient maturity to get the bypass. A fair reading of that opinion shows you Justice Owen made a reasonable interpretation of the Texas law. The other day it was reported that Nancy Keenan, the president of the abortion advocacy group the National Abortion Rights Advocacy League, said she is committed to keeping what she called ``out of touch theological activists'' off the bench. I can only hope this talking point was not aimed at Justice Owen's decision, which is certainly well within the mainstream and supported by 80 percent of the American people. If so, her point misses the point entirely. Sadly, it seems that the deliberate misreading of Justice Owen's opinion may be for the sole purpose of raising ill-founded doubts against Justice Owen and other qualified nominees. Priscilla Owen only interpreted the law to require that a minor seeking an abortion fully understand the importance of the choice she is making and be mature enough to make that choice. I thought these groups were in favor of supporting the right to make an informed choice. When it comes to Justice Owen, I guess it is easier to unfairly tar her as an anti-abortion activist. This is a false charge, and it is contrary to the laws of many States and other laws as well. Yet some interest groups keep feeding this same misleading information to journalists around the country. Just last night, the evening news on one of the major networks reported as fact the patently false charge that Attorney General Gonzales called Justice Owen a judicial activist when he was her colleague on the Texas Supreme Court. This charge was made again this morning by the senior Senator from Massachusetts. Think about that. They know this claim is fiction, but they nonetheless continue to launch it as though people should believe it, even though it is fiction. Attorney General Gonzales confirmed this under oath--he was not criticizing Justice Owen--in his January 6, 2005, confirmation hearing, and it is clear to anyone who bothers to read the opinions that he never referred to Owen or any other judge on the Texas Supreme Court as a judicial activist. He was basically referring to himself. He felt if he didn't rule the way he did, he would be a judicial activist. He didn't make any criticism of her. But to read the newspapers and to hear the television broadcasters and to listen to our colleagues on the other side, they completely distort what Attorney General Gonzales says. As a matter of fact, Attorney General Gonzales was one of the strongest supporters of Priscilla Owen because she is a terrific justice, as he knows because he served side by side with her on the Texas Supreme Court. In the end, I am happy to have this debate. The American people know judicial activism when they see it. Just last week a Federal judge in Nebraska invalidated a State constitutional amendment preserving traditional marriage in that State. If that opinion is upheld, that will bind every State in the Union under the full faith and credit clause. Talk about activism. But I am sure that my colleagues on the other side will find that that judge was in the judicial mainstream or the mainstream of American jurisprudence. If they want to argue that Justice Owen's interpretation of a popular parental notification statute is an activist one, I will be here to debate that all day long. I might add that parents, in many of the cases, who are concerned about their daughters, ought to have at least the privilege of being in a position to help their daughters through those trying times. That is what the courts and the statutes have said. That is what any reasonable person would say. Yet they brand Priscilla Owen as an extremist. Why didn't the American Bar Association do that? Why did the American Bar Association give her the highest possible rating that you can get? During the Clinton years that was the gold standard, the absolute gold standard. Why isn't it the gold standard today? Why is this really terrific person being called a judicial activist, outside of the mainstream, and an extremist? It is awful. Those opposed to Justice Owen ignore the host of decisions in which she protected workers, consumers, the environment, crime victims, and the poor--as though she didn't care about people. There is a host of decisions where she has shown great care for people. They select individual things and then distort them. It makes you wonder what their objection to this nominee really is. It is clear they are not really interested in having a serious debate on the merits of Justice Owen's nomination. For whatever reason, they are dead set on not having her on the Federal bench. We are going to hear her described as an out-of-control activist. That couldn't be further from the truth. The senior Senator from Massachusetts has called her and others of the President's nominees Neanderthals. Come on here. This is supposed to be a sophisticated body. These are decent people. She was supported by virtually everybody in the State of Texas in her last reelection--84 percent of the vote-- every bar association president and former president, 15 of them, every major editorial board. And we know they are not generally in favor of Republicans, but they all supported her. She was first in her law school class, best bar exam in the State, partner in a major law firm, broke through the glass ceiling. She is a sitting justice on the Texas Supreme Court, reelected by an enormous majority, unanimously well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association. And she is a Neanderthal? Give me a break. That is how far these debates have deteriorated over the years, especially when you find a moderate to conservative woman such as Priscilla Owen or a moderate to conservative African-American justice like Janice Rogers Brown. Janice Rogers Brown, think about it--sharecropper's daughter, worked her way through college and law school as a single mother, went on to hold three of the highest positions in California State Government, State counsel to the Governor of the State of California, then-Governor Pete Wilson, nominated her for the Supreme Court of California. She writes the majority of the majority opinions on that liberal court. In other words, she is writing for all the of judges on that court in the majority opinions. She is a terrific human being. Her problem is she is a conservative African-American jurist, approved by the American Bar Association. And they call her an extremist. We have had negotiations here where they were willing to throw these two women, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, off the cliff in favor of three or four men, white males, all of whom deserved being confirmed themselves. I thought they were all bad and extremist, according to them. Why would they allow any of them to go through? Then again, if they are not, why haven't they voted for them and why have they filibustered? I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a long overdue full transportation reauthorization, which has unfortunately been extended on a temporary basis six times and simply must be made permanent. I congratulate Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Minority Member Jeffords for their tireless efforts in moving forward one of the largest bills Congress will consider this year. I am sensitive to the fact that the current spending extension expires at the end of this month. Clearing this legislation through a House-Senate conference before the May 31 deadline may be difficult, but I am hopeful we can move quickly. This is important because the bill will create approximately 47,500 jobs for every $1 billion in highway spending. This bill will also provide desperately needed funds for Utah roads and create jobs for many hardworking Utahns. Transportation is an issue in which all Utahns have a stake. Without a doubt, transportation plays a central role in the State's ability and opportunity to prosper economically. As Utah's population continues to grow, its highways are becoming more congested, negatively affecting Utah's ability to compete economically, and ultimately decreasing the quality of life for many of us. I am concerned that in 5 years, Utahns may be changing the term ``rush hour'' to ``rough 2 hours'' because of the heavy congestion on our freeways. The Utah Department of Transportation--UDOT--estimates that in 10 years, peak congestion along the Wasatch front will increase from 1 hour in the morning and in the evening to more than 3 hours. The effect congestion has had on our quality of life is undeniable. Time after time I have visited with Utah officials who stress that our top priority must be transportation funding, because we simply do not have the money to meet the tremendous demands on our roads. Last year alone, the State of Utah received approximately $254 million in Federal transportation funding. In addition to the Federal funding received, the State of Utah spent over $520 million for transportation projects in 2004. Yet, UDOT maintains the state is unable to increase capacity or maintain existing infrastructure at this level of funding. Responding to Utah's serious transportation needs, I voted to increase total federal funding in the multi-year transportation bill by $11.2 billion, which would raise Utah's portion from the $269 million originally included in the bill to $282 million. Utah desperately needs these funds to fight congestion. I am encouraged by the transportation projects planned for fiscal year 2006 for the State of Utah. This legislation may help us complete many transportation projects throughout Utah, including: new I-15 interchanges in Ogden, Layton and Provo; commuter rail service from Ogden to Provo and light-rail lines to the airport and South Jordan; highway projects on US-6 in Carbon County and State Road 92 in Utah County; a railroad overpass in Kaysville; and building the Northern Corridor in St. George. This legislation also contains a provision that addresses an important competitive issue in the transportation sector. At my urging, Chairman Inhofe has agreed to include compromise language that allows qualified companies the opportunity to compete for Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure Program--ITIP--funding. I consider this a significant victory for small companies, and hope that House-Senate conferees will recognize the importance of providing a fair and level playing field for those wishing to access ITIP funds. Our Nation's transportation infrastructure is in dire need of improvement. I believe this legislation not only addresses these critical needs, but it will create thousands of job opportunities, fight traffic congestion, and improve the safety of our roads and bridges. As the bill moves to conference, it is my hope that we may come together with an adequately funded compromise. I pledge my efforts in this cause and hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gas Price Reduction through Increased Refining Capacity Act of 2005, S. 1039. This bill provides tax incentives to encourage increases in oil refining capacity in the United States. By increasing domestic refining capacity, we will increase supply of refined oil products, thus decreasing the price of gasoline at the pump. This bill is the second in a package of three bills I am proposing to promote long-term solutions to our Nation's energy needs. Our nation needs clean, affordable sources of energy, and we should increase our energy security by focusing on those sources of energy that can be developed domestically. Two weeks ago I introduced the CLEAR ACT, which provides market solutions to promote breakthroughs in the use of alternative fuels and technologies in our transportation sector. The third bill, which I will introduce in the near future, will focus on increasing U.S. energy independence through the development of our nation's gigantic, untapped oil shale and tar sands reserves. Both Republicans and Democrats recognize that increasing our domestic supplies of crude oil is not an effective solution unless we can increase our capacity to refine it. This is the genesis of the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act. Refining capacity in the United States cannot keep up with demand. In fact, there has not been a new refinery built in the United States since the 1976. But that is only part of the story. The fact is that the economics of refining are so tough that we have actually lost about 200 refineries since the last one was built. So now, our powerful Nation is down to only 149 overworked refineries. Technological improvements at existing refineries have brought some increase to capacity, but these increases have fallen far short of demand. As a result, we now meet the gap in demand by importing more and more oil products that have already been refined, which makes us all the more dependent on foreign suppliers. Every day, I hear from Utahns who are burdened by rapidly rising gas prices. Let me quote from just a portion of a letter from one of my constituents, Richard Decker of West Jordan, Utah: ``I am interested in knowing the progress or status of planning to protect Americans from the continually rising oil prices . . . I am just a normal guy with a tiny family. Given salaries, inflation, lack of fuel efficient automobiles at a decent price, I worry if I and others will be able to make a decent life here--not just in Utah but in America. Personally, I wish I had the option of a hydrogen-powered vehicle that would completely rid us of the dependence on foreign oil imports. However, this isn't likely soon, so can we work on the gas prices? Do you have any suggestions? . . . Keep up the good work. Best Regards, Richard Decker'' My answer to Richard is that we hear him, and we are trying to respond. We have a serious problem. It is easy to point a finger at the energy companies for high gas prices, but the reality is that government rules and regulations combined with a complete lack of a national energy policy and unfriendly tax rules have kept our refining capacity far short of our need. There are no silver bullets that will bring price relief immediately, but we can act now to start meeting this need. Last year, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham asked the National Petroleum Council to make recommendations to improve our oil supply and to increase our nation's oil refining capacity. Among the Council's recommendations was a call to adjust the depreciation schedule for new refining equipment from 10 years to five years to make refineries consistent with other manufacturers in the U.S. I believe that the 10-year depreciation schedule is unwarranted, and that it has contributed to a hostile economic environment for refineries. Leveling the playing field on depreciation is long overdue, and the Gas Price Reduction Act would accomplish that goal. But it is also important that we see this new refining capacity as soon as possible. So, I have added a provision in my bill aimed at pushing refining companies to act quickly to increase capacity. For refiners that can commit to starting construction on new refining equipment before 2007 and have new facilities built by 2011, the bill would allow a complete write-off for their new equipment in the first year. This is a powerful incentive, and I believe it will capture the attention of decision-makers in the refining industry. Again, the goal of the Gas Price Reduction Act is to get results as soon as possible, and I believe my legislation will make a difference. This bill will not bring immediate relief at the pump. But it will begin to put the brakes on escalating prices in the next few years and increase our nation's control over our energy future. There are other good reasons to support this bill. As part of my three-pronged approach to meeting our Nation's energy needs, it is in accord with the President's energy plan. It does not provide a windfall to oil companies but puts refineries on an equal footing with other industries in the manufacturing sector, which already have a five-year depreciation. It is important to note that S. 1039 does nothing to weaken our strong environmental laws and regulations; rather, it would lead to cleaner technologies as refineries upgrade equipment. This bill is also an essential part of our strategy to increase domestic production. When we begin to realize the potential of our vast oil shale and tar sands reserves we will need domestic refining capacity to handle any increase in domestic crude oil production. Finally, I must point out that, in the long run, this bill will not have any cost, since refineries are allowed to change the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in this important effort to increase our refining capacity, lower gas prices for our citizens, and provide for our Nation's security through increased energy independence.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gas Price Reduction through Increased Refining Capacity Act of 2005, S. 1039. This bill provides tax incentives to encourage increases in oil refining capacity in the United States. By increasing domestic refining capacity, we will increase supply of refined oil products, thus decreasing the price of gasoline at the pump. This bill is the second in a package of three bills I am proposing to promote long-term solutions to our Nation's energy needs. Our nation needs clean, affordable sources of energy, and we should increase our energy security by focusing on those sources of energy that can be developed domestically. Two weeks ago I introduced the CLEAR ACT, which provides market solutions to promote breakthroughs in the use of alternative fuels and technologies in our transportation sector. The third bill, which I will introduce in the near future, will focus on increasing U.S. energy independence through the development of our nation's gigantic, untapped oil shale and tar sands reserves. Both Republicans and Democrats recognize that increasing our domestic supplies of crude oil is not an effective solution unless we can increase our capacity to refine it. This is the genesis of the Gas Price Reduction Through Increased Refining Capacity Act. Refining capacity in the United States cannot keep up with demand. In fact, there has not been a new refinery built in the United States since the 1976. But that is only part of the story. The fact is that the economics of refining are so tough that we have actually lost about 200 refineries since the last one was built. So now, our powerful Nation is down to only 149 overworked refineries. Technological improvements at existing refineries have brought some increase to capacity, but these increases have fallen far short of demand. As a result, we now meet the gap in demand by importing more and more oil products that have already been refined, which makes us all the more dependent on foreign suppliers. Every day, I hear from Utahns who are burdened by rapidly rising gas prices. Let me quote from just a portion of a letter from one of my constituents, Richard Decker of West Jordan, Utah: ``I am interested in knowing the progress or status of planning to protect Americans from the continually rising oil prices . . . I am just a normal guy with a tiny family. Given salaries, inflation, lack of fuel efficient automobiles at a decent price, I worry if I and others will be able to make a decent life here--not just in Utah but in America. Personally, I wish I had the option of a hydrogen-powered vehicle that would completely rid us of the dependence on foreign oil imports. However, this isn't likely soon, so can we work on the gas prices? Do you have any suggestions? . . . Keep up the good work. Best Regards, Richard Decker'' My answer to Richard is that we hear him, and we are trying to respond. We have a serious problem. It is easy to point a finger at the energy companies for high gas prices, but the reality is that government rules and regulations combined with a complete lack of a national energy policy and unfriendly tax rules have kept our refining capacity far short of our need. There are no silver bullets that will bring price relief immediately, but we can act now to start meeting this need. Last year, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham asked the National Petroleum Council to make recommendations to improve our oil supply and to increase our nation's oil refining capacity. Among the Council's recommendations was a call to adjust the depreciation schedule for new refining equipment from 10 years to five years to make refineries consistent with other manufacturers in the U.S. I believe that the 10-year depreciation schedule is unwarranted, and that it has contributed to a hostile economic environment for refineries. Leveling the playing field on depreciation is long overdue, and the Gas Price Reduction Act would accomplish that goal. But it is also important that we see this new refining capacity as soon as possible. So, I have added a provision in my bill aimed at pushing refining companies to act quickly to increase capacity. For refiners that can commit to starting construction on new refining equipment before 2007 and have new facilities built by 2011, the bill would allow a complete write-off for their new equipment in the first year. This is a powerful incentive, and I believe it will capture the attention of decision-makers in the refining industry. Again, the goal of the Gas Price Reduction Act is to get results as soon as possible, and I believe my legislation will make a difference. This bill will not bring immediate relief at the pump. But it will begin to put the brakes on escalating prices in the next few years and increase our nation's control over our energy future. There are other good reasons to support this bill. As part of my three-pronged approach to meeting our Nation's energy needs, it is in accord with the President's energy plan. It does not provide a windfall to oil companies but puts refineries on an equal footing with other industries in the manufacturing sector, which already have a five-year depreciation. It is important to note that S. 1039 does nothing to weaken our strong environmental laws and regulations; rather, it would lead to cleaner technologies as refineries upgrade equipment. This bill is also an essential part of our strategy to increase domestic production. When we begin to realize the potential of our vast oil shale and tar sands reserves we will need domestic refining capacity to handle any increase in domestic crude oil production. Finally, I must point out that, in the long run, this bill will not have any cost, since refineries are allowed to change the timing of the depreciation of their equipment, but not the amount. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in this important effort to increase our refining capacity, lower gas prices for our citizens, and provide for our Nation's security through increased energy independence.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. How much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. I will not take all that. I apologize to the managers of the bill for taking this time. For over 60 years, Washington has tried to come up with a way to provide access to health insurance for all Americans. The premise of this bill is that instead of relying on Washington for answers, we rely on the people. I compliment my colleague from Oregon for coming up with this idea. I am very happy to sign on and help him with it, the Health Care That Works For All Americans: Citizens' Health Care Working Group legislation. It was created in order to hear what people like and do not like about the current health care system. It is our hope this working group of citizens will have at least one townhall meeting in every State in the Union, pick the brains of all Americans, and see if we can come up with answers to our health care problems. We provide a mechanism once they do for the Congress to at least consider it and see what we can do to go from there. This is one of the biggest issues we all have to face.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, everywhere I go in Utah, people tell me how concerned they are about health care. They are worried about the lack of health insurance, skyrocketing premiums, and unaffordable prescription drugs. They are worried that if they are diagnosed with a serious disease like cancer, they will be wiped out financially, even if they have health insurance. They are worried about losing their family doctor because he or she can no longer afford medical liability premiums. There is no question there are problems with America's health care delivery system. And we have even more problems when the Government tries to impose a one-size-fits-all program on country. That's why Senator Wyden and I reached across the aisle to start a meaningful national discussion with every day people. A few years ago, Senator Wyden came to my office and told me he had a ``terrific idea'' and that he wanted me to be a part of it. I am glad he did. I came to learn that we both have a strong desire to get past the partisan bickering and forge a consensus that would address the problems plaguing our health care system. We both decided to take this problem right to the American people. We want those who deal with these issues day in and day out to have their say. And, hopefully, when the process is finished, we will have a national consensus on how best to improve our health care system. The Health Care That Works For All Americans: Citizens Health Care Working Group legislation was created in order to hear what people like and don't like about the current health care system. It is our hope that there will be at least one town hall meeting in each State. The working group members will hear from the full range of people within our health care system--including health care consumers, health care providers, and others who are impacted by health care. For nearly 60 years, Washington has tried to come up with a way to provide access to health insurance for all Americans. The premise of the Wyden-Hatch bill is that instead of relying on Washington for answers, the working group should hear from people outside of Washington regarding our health care system. The voices of all Americans, insured and uninsured, must be heard and that this issue needs to be addressed. Today, 45 million Americans are uninsured and 8 million of the uninsured are children. We cannot allow these individuals to go without health care coverage. That is why I sponsored the CHIP legislation in 1997 to address this serious matter for children. To me, the most appealing aspect of this Citizens Working Group is that it is unique from other previous commissions that were run by Washington insiders. This working group is composed of individuals from all over the country who have had experience with the current health care system. These are people who have had dealings with different facets of our health care system, and they want to make it better. They will talk to people from all over the country about what is working and what isn't working. And then they will put together recommendations, based on what they heard from their fellow citizens, for Congress and the administration to consider. Again, let me emphasize that the recommendations will come from the bottom-up, rather than being imposed from Washington. This is crucial because one of the first tasks of the working group is not only to get the views from the public but also to help them better understand our health care system. And once these recommendations are issued, Congress will hold hearings to address them. This week, the Citizens' Health Care Working Group members are being briefed on various issues related to our health care system including an overview of the health care system, public health insurance programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the private health insurance market, the uninsured, and drivers of health care costs. In addition, the working group will be discussing the future field hearings, the required report to the American people, and begin consideration of approaches for conducting the community meeting. Again, I am very hopeful about the innovative health care proposals that will be produced by the citizens' working group and want to encourage my colleagues to familiarize themselves with this important effort.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with the untimely death of Vicki Cottrell, Utah's executive director of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, NAMI, a powerful and compassionate voice who spoke for those who suffer the effects of mental illness has been silenced. Vicki Cottrell's untiring efforts across Utah, in the legislature, in the jails and mental health courts, among community and religious leaders, and among families, will be difficult to replace. The passionate spirit and vision that she shared with her staff will continue. Before working for NAMI Utah, Vicki worked in computer software sales. But after her daughter was diagnosed with schizophrenia, Vicki formed her own support group for people who have loved ones with a mental illness. Eventually, she merged her group with NAMI Utah. Over the past 20 years, Vicki has worked for the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill's Utah affiliate. She started as a volunteer teaching classes and worked her way up to the executive director's post. Going the distance to places like Logan was common for her, and she took a message of advocacy around the State. Vicki's influence did not just reach inside Utah's borders, though. Upon hearing of her death, NAMI members and friends from across the country brought forth an outpouring of sympathy. Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. expressed his condolences noting that Vicki helped educate many about mental illness and the way new medical treatments help the afflicted lead very productive lives. He said, ``She traveled throughout the Nation sharing this message of hope and will be greatly missed by all who knew her.'' Vicki was a member of my Advisory Committee on Disability Issues for the State of Utah. She worked closely with my office and visited with me and my staff in both Washington and Utah to advocate for the needs of the mentally ill. Her strong commitment to those suffering from mental illness was well known throughout Utah. She provided valuable insights to the Advisory Committee and will be missed by all of the committee members. The love and respect so many felt for Vicki Cottrell came from her willingness to use her own family's struggle with schizophrenia as an example and turn it into something to help others cope. She worked hard to eliminate the stigma often attached to mental illness, and was tireless, energetic and motivated in her mission. Vicki's grace, humanity, and love touched every life she met. Her public life never overshadowed her deep devotion for her 6 children and 10 grandchildren. She was a loyal friend and enjoyed close relationships with many. Her beautiful and well-attended garden was a metaphor for her life. I ask that my colleagues please join me in extending heartfelt sympathies to Vicki's family and friends. The magnitude of the loss for Utah and the Nation is substantial.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday marked the fourth anniversary of President Bush's first judicial nominations, a group of 11 highly qualified men and women nominated to the U.S. courts of appeals. As I said in the East Room at the White House on May 9, 2001: I hope the Senate will at least treat these nominees fairly. Many of our Democratic colleagues instead chose to follow their minority leader's order issued days after President Bush took office, to use ``whatever means necessary'' to defeat judicial nominees the minority does not like. While the previous 3 Presidents saw their first 11 appeals court nominees confirmed in an average of just 81 days, today, 1,461 days later, 3 of those original nominees have not even received a vote, let alone been confirmed. Three have withdrawn. In 2003, the minority opened a new front in the confirmation conflict by using filibusters to defeat majority-supported judicial nominees. This morning I will briefly address the top 10 most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses. Time permits only brief treatment, but it was difficult to limit the list to 10. No. 10 is the claim that these filibusters are part of Senate tradition. Calling something a filibuster, even if you repeat it over and over, does not make it so. These filibusters block confirmation of majority-supported judicial nominations by defeating votes to invoke cloture or end debate. Either these filibusters happened before or they did not. Let me take the evidence offered by filibuster proponents at face value. Let me refer to these two charts. These two charts list some representative examples of what Democrats repeatedly claim is filibuster precedence. The Senate confirmed each of these nominations. As ridiculous as it sounds, filibuster proponents claim, with a straight face, by the way, that confirming these past nominations justifies refusing to confirm nominations today. Some examples are more ridiculous than others. Stephen Breyer is on the Democrats' list of filibusters, suggesting that the Senate treated his nomination the way Democrats are treating President Bush's nominations today. The two situations could not be more different. Even though President Carter nominated now-Justice Breyer but then attorney Breyer, law professor Breyer, in November 1980, after losing his bid for reelection--that is when he nominated him--and after Democrats lost control of the Senate, we voted to end debate and overwhelmingly confirmed Stephen Breyer just 26 days after his nomination. And I had a lot to do with that. The suggestion that confirming the Breyer nomination for the party losing its majority now justifies filibustering nominations for the party keeping its majority is, well, just plain ridiculous. No. 9 on the list of the most ridiculous filibuster defenses is that they are necessary, they say, to prevent one-party rule from stacking the Federal bench. Now, if you win elections, you say the country has chosen its leadership. If you lose, you complain about one-party rule. When your party controls the White House, the President appoints judges. When the other party controls the White House, the President stacks the bench--at least that seems to be the attitude. Our Democratic colleagues say we should be guided by how the Democratic Senate handled Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to pack the Supreme Court. It is true that FDR's legislative proposal to create new Supreme Court seats failed, and without a filibuster, I might add. But as it turned out, packing the Supreme Court required only filling the existing seats. President Roosevelt packed the Court all right, by appointing no less than eight Justices in 6 years--more than any President, except George Washington himself. This chart is an answer to FDR's court packing without a filibuster. Now, let me just make some points. As the chart shows, during the 75th, 76th, and 77th Congresses, when President Roosevelt made those nominations, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by an average of 70 Democrats to 20 Republicans. Now, that is one-party rule. Yet the Senate confirmed those Supreme Court nominees in an average of just 13 days, one of them on the very day it was made and six of them without even a rollcall vote. That is not because filibustering judicial nominations was difficult. In fact, our cloture rule did not then apply to nominations. A single Member of that tiny, beleaguered Republican minority could have filibustered these nominations and attempted to stop President Roosevelt from packing the Supreme Court--just a single Member could have. The most important number on this chart is the number right at the bottom: the number of filibusters against President Roosevelt's nominees--zero. No. 8 on this list is the claim that without the filibuster the Senate would be a patsy, nothing but a rubberstamp for the President's judicial nominations. To paraphrase a great Supreme Court Justice: If simply stating this argument does not suffice to refute it, our debate about these issues has achieved terminal silliness. Being on the losing side does not make one a rubberstamp. For all of these centuries of democratic government, have we seen only winners and rubberstamps? Was the famous tag line for ABC's Wide World of Sports ``the thrill of victory and the agony of rubberstamping''? Democrats did not start filibustering judicial nominations until the 108th Congress. Imagine the history books describing the previous 107 Senates as the great rubberstamp Senates. Did Democrats rubberstamp the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas in 1991 since they did not use the filibuster? That conflict lasting several months and concluding with that 52-to-48 confirmation vote did not look like a rubberstamp to me. Some modify this ridiculous argument by saying this applies when one party controls both the White House and the Senate. They make the stunning observation that Senators of the President's party are likely to vote for his nominees. The assistant minority leader, Senator Durbin, recently said, for example, that Republican Senators are nothing but ``lapdogs'' for President Bush. Pointing at others can be dangerous because you have a few fingers pointing back at yourself. Counting both unanimous consent or rollcall votes, more than 37,500 votes were cast here on the Senate floor on President Clinton's judicial nominations. Only 11 of them, just a teeny, tiny, three one-hundredths of 1 percent, were ``no'' votes from Democrats--only 11 of 37,500. Were they just rubberstamping lapdogs in supporting President Clinton? The Constitution assigns the same roles to the President and the Senate no matter which party the American people put in charge of which end of Pennsylvania Avenue. In the 1960s, the Democrats were in charge, yet Minority Leader Everett Dirksen refused to filibuster judicial nominees of Presidents Kennedy or Johnson. Was he just a rubberstamp? In the 1970s, the Democrats were in charge, yet Minority Leader Howard Baker refused to filibuster President Carter's judicial nominees. Was he just a rubberstamp? In the 1980s, the Republicans were in charge, yet Minority Leader Robert Byrd did not filibuster President Reagan's judicial nominees. Was he just a rubberstamp? And a decade ago, the Democrats were again in charge, yet Minority Leader Bob Dole refused to filibuster President Clinton's judicial nominees. Was he a rubberstamp? To avoid being a rubberstamp, one need only fight the good fight, win or lose. No. 7 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is that these filibusters are necessary to preserve our system of checks and balances. That is an argument we have heard from the other side. Mr. President, any civics textbook explains that what we call ``checks and balances'' regulates the relationship between the branches of Government. The Senate's role of advice and consent checks the President's power to appoint judges, and we exercise that check when we vote on his judicial nominations. The filibuster is about the relationship between the majority and minority in the Senate, not about the relationship between the Senate and the President. It actually interferes with being a check on the President's power by preventing the Senate from exercising its role of advice and consent at all. Former Majority Leader Mike Mansfield once explained that by filibustering judicial nominations, individual Senators presume what he called ``great personal privilege at the expense of the responsibilities of the Senate as a whole, and at the expense of the constitutional structure of the federal government.'' In September 1999, the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, expressed the same view when he said: It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ``yes'' or ``no.'' Those were the words of our colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy: Give every Senator the opportunity to vote yes or no. That was then; this is now. In case anyone needs further clarification on this point, I ask unanimous consent that the definition of ``checks and balances'' from two sources, ``congressforkids.net'' and ``socialstudieshelp.com,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. No. 6 on the list is that these filibusters are necessary to prevent appointment of extremists. What our Democratic colleagues call ``extreme'' the American Bar Association calls ``qualified.'' In fact, all three of the appeals court nominees chosen 4 years ago who have been denied confirmation received the ABA's highest ``well qualified'' rating. Now, that was the gold standard under the Democrats when Clinton was President. The same Democrats who once called the ABA rating the gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees now disregard it and call these people extreme. Did 76 percent of Californians vote to keep an extremist on their supreme court when they voted to retain Justice Janice Rogers Brown, an African-American woman, a sharecroppers' daughter, who fought her way all the way up to the Supreme Court of California? Did 84 percent of all Texans and every major newspaper in the State support an extremist when they reelected Justice Priscilla Owen to the Texas Supreme Court--84 percent? The Associated Press reported last Friday that the minority leader reserves the right to filibuster what he calls ``extreme'' Supreme Court nominees. Now, that is quite an escape hatch, if you will, since the minority already defines any nominee it does not like as ``extreme.'' This is simply a repackaged status quo masquerading as reform. If Senators want to dismiss as an extremist any judicial nominee who does not think exactly as they do, that certainly is their right. That is, however, a reason for voting against a confirmation, not for refusing to vote at all. As our former colleague, Tom Daschle, said: I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nominee. No. 5 on this list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is the claim that these filibusters are about free speech and debate. If Senators cannot filibuster judicial nominations, some say, the Senate will cease to exist, and we will be literally unable to represent our constituents. The same men who founded this Republic designed this Senate without the ability to filibuster anything at all. A simple majority could proceed to vote on something after sufficient debate. Among those first Senators were Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, who later served on the Supreme Court, as well as Charles Carroll of Maryland and Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who had signed the Declaration of Independence. When they ran for office, did they know that they would be unable to represent their States because they would be unable to filibuster? These filibusters are about defeating judicial nominations, not debating them. The minority rejects every proposal for debating and voting on nominations it targets for defeat. In April 2003, my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, asked him, the minority leader, how many hours Democrats would need to debate a particular nomination. Now, just take a look at chart 4. His response spoke volumes: [T]here is not a number [of hours] in the universe that would be sufficient. Let me just refer to chart 5. Later that year, he said: We would not agree to a time agreement . . . of any duration. Let me go to chart 6. Just 2 weeks ago, the minority leader summed up what really has been the Democrats' position all along: This has never been about the length of the debate. He is right about that. This has always been about defeating nominations, not debating them. If our Democratic colleagues want to debate, then let us debate. The majority leader said we will give 100 hours for each of these nominees. Let's debate them. Let us do what Democrats once said was the purpose of debating judicial nominations. As my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, put it in January 1998: [L]et these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote. No. 4 on the list is that returning to Senate tradition regarding floor votes on judicial nominations would amount to breaking the rules to change the rules. As any consultant worth even a little salt will tell you, that is a catchy little phrase. The problem is that neither of its catchy little parts is true. The constitutional option, which would change judicial confirmation procedure through the Senate voting to affirm a parliamentary ruling, would neither break nor change Senate rules. While the constitutional option has not been used to break our rules, it has been used to break filibusters. On January 4, 1995, the Senator from West Virginia, the distinguished Senator, Mr. Byrd, described how, in 1977, when he was majority leader, he used this procedure to break a filibuster on a natural gas bill. Now, I have genuine affection and great respect for the Senator from West Virginia, and he knows that. But let me just refer to chart 7. Since I would not want to describe his repeated use of the constitutional option in a pejorative way, let me use his own words. Here is what he said back in 1995, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia: I have seen filibusters. I have helped to break them. There are few Senators in this body who were here [in 1977] when I broke the filibuster on the natural gas bill. . . . I asked Mr. Mondale, the Vice President, to go please sit in the chair; I wanted to make some points of order and create some new precedents that would break these filibusters. And the filibuster was broken--back, neck, legs, and arms. . . . So I know something about filibusters. I helped to set a great many of the precedents that are on the books here. Well, he certainly did. I was here. And using the constitutional option today to return to Senate tradition regarding judicial nominations would simply use the precedents the distinguished Senator from West Virginia put on the books. No. 3 on the list of most ridiculous judicial filibuster defenses is that the constitutional option is unprecedented, or should we call it the Byrd option. In 1977, 1979, and 1987, the then majority leader, Senator Byrd, secured a favorable parliamentary ruling through a point of order and a majority of Senators voted to affirm it. He did this even when the result he sought was inconsistent with the text of our written rules. In 1980, he used a version of the same procedure to limit nomination- related filibusters. Majority Leader Byrd made a motion for the Senate to vote to go into executive session and proceed to consider a specific nomination. At the time, the first step was not debatable but the second step was debatable. A majority of Senators voted to overturn a parliamentary ruling disallowing the procedural change Majority Leader Byrd wanted. Let me refer to chart 8. Seven of these Senators serve with us today, and their names appear on this chart. They can explain for themselves how voting against restricting nomination-related filibusters today is consistent with voting to restrict them in 1980. As you can see, they are illustrious colleagues. No. 2 on the list is that preventing judicial filibusters will doom legislative filibusters. As you know, there are two calendars in the Senate. One is the legislative calendar. I would fight to my death to keep the filibuster alive on the legislative calendar to protect the minority. But then there is the executive calendar, which is partly the President's in the sense that he has the power of appointment and nomination and sends these people up here and expects advice and consent from the Senate. Advice we give. Consent we have not given in the case of these nominees who have been filibustered, or so-called filibustered. No. 2 on the list is that preventing judicial filibusters, they claim, will doom legislative filibusters. That's pure bunk. Our own Senate history shows how ridiculous this argument really is. Filibusters became possible by dropping the rule allowing a simple majority to proceed to a vote. The legislative filibuster developed, the judicial filibuster did not. What we must today limit by rule or ruling we once limited by principle or self-restraint--for 214 years, that is. The filibuster is an inappropriate obstacle to the President's judicial appointment power but an appropriate tool for exercising our own legislative power. I cannot fathom how returning to our tradition regarding judicial nominations will somehow threaten our tradition regarding legislation. The only threat to the legislative filibuster and the only votes to abolish have come from the other side of the aisle. In 1995, 19 Senators, all Democrats, voted against tabling an amendment to our cloture rule that would prohibit all filibusters of legislation as well as nominations. As this chart shows, nine of those Senators still serve with us and their names are right here on this chart. I voted then against the Democrats' proposal to eliminate the legislative filibuster, and I oppose eliminating it today. The majority leader, Senator Frist, also voted against the Democrats' proposal to eliminate the legislative filibuster. In fact, that was his first vote as a new Member of this body. I joined him in recommitting ourselves to protecting the legislative filibuster. I urge my friends on the other side, the Democrats, to follow the example of our colleague from California, Senator Boxer, who recently said that she has changed her position, that she no longer wants to eliminate the legislative filibuster. In 1995, USA Today condemned the filibuster as ``a pedestrian tool of partisans and gridlock meisters.'' The New York Times said the filibuster is ``the tool of the sore loser.'' I hope these papers will reconsider their position and support the legislative filibuster. The No. 1 most ridiculous judicial filibuster defense is that those wanting to filibuster Republican nominees today opposed filibustering Democratic nominees only a few years ago. In a letter dated February 4, 1998, for example, the leftwing urged confirmation of Margaret Morrow to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. They urged us to ``bring the nomination to the Senate, ensure that it received prompt, full and fair consideration, and that a final vote on her nomination is scheduled as soon as possible.'' Groups signing this letter included the Alliance for Justice, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and People for the American Way. As we all know, these leftwing groups today lead the grassroots campaign behind these filibusters that would deny this same treatment to President Bush's nominees. Their position has changed as the party controlling the White House has changed. Let me make it easy for the ``hypocrite patrol'' to check out my position on the Morrow nomination. In the February 11, 1998, Congressional Record, on page S640, three pages before that letter from the leftwing groups appears, I opened the debate on the Morrow nomination by strongly urging my fellow Senators to support it. We did, and she is, today, a sitting Federal judge, as I believe she should be. The same Democrats who today call for filibusters called for up-or-down votes when a Democrat was in the White House. Let me refer to chart 10 here. I will just give some illustrations. In 1999, my dear friend from California, Senator Feinstein, a person I have great love and respect for, a Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of the Senate: It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don't like them, we can vote against them. She said: A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up, vote them down. Let me go to chart 11. Another committee member, Senator Schumer, properly said in March 2000: The President nominates and we are charged with voting on the nominees. He was right. Let me refer to chart 12. I have already quoted the Senator from California, Senator Boxer once, but in 2000 she said that filibustering judicial nominees: . . . would be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know--ever. I appreciate what another member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Kohl, said in 1997: Let's breathe life back into the confirmation process. Let's vote on the nominees who have already been approved by the Judiciary Committee. Well, let me go to chart 14. The Senator from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who fought so strongly against the legislative filibuster in 1995, said, 5 years later, about the judicial filibuster: If they want to vote against them, let them vote against them. But at least have a vote. The same view comes from three former Judiciary Committee chairmen, members of the Democratic leadership. Let me refer to chart No. 15. A former committee chairman, Senator Biden, said in 1977 that every judicial nominee is entitled: To have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. Former chairman, Senator Edward Kennedy, said in 1998: If Senators don't like them, vote against them. But give them a vote. And my immediate predecessor as chairman, Senator Leahy, said a year later, judicial nominees are: entitled to a vote, aye or nay. Now, the assistant minority leader, Senator Durbin, had urged the same thing in September 1998: Vote the person up or down. Vote the person up or down. Finally, Mr. President, the minority leader, Senator Reid, expressed in March 2000 the standard that I hope we can reestablish: Once they get out of committee, bring them down here and vote up or down on them. The majority leader, Senator Frist, recently proposed a plan to accomplish precisely this result. But the minority leader dismissed it as--I want to quote this accurately now-- A big fat wet kiss to the far right. I never thought voting on judicial nominations was a far-right thing to do. These statements speak for themselves. Do you see a pattern here? The message at one time seems to be let us debate and let us vote. That should be the standard, no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate. Mr. President, as I close, let me summarize these 10 top most ridiculous judicial filibusters in this way. Blocking confirmation of majority-supported judicial nominations by defeating cloture votes is unprecedented. In the words of the current Judiciary Committee chairman, Senator Specter: What Democrats are doing here is really seeking a constitutional revolution. We must turn back that revolution. No matter which party controls the White House or Senate, we should return to our tradition of giving judicial nominations reaching the Senate floor an up-or-down vote. Full, fair, and vigorous debate is one of the hallmarks of this body, and it should drive how we evaluate a President's judicial nominations. Honoring the Constitution's separation of power, however, requires that our check on the President's appointment power not highjack that power altogether. This means debate must be a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Senators are free to vote against the nominees they feel extreme, but they should not be free to prevent other Senators from expressing a contrary view or advising and consenting. In this body, we govern ourselves with parliamentary rulings as well as by unwritten rules. The procedure of a majority of Senators voting to sustain a parliamentary ruling has been used repeatedly to change Senate procedure without changing Senate rules, even to limit nomination-related filibusters. I have tried to deal with the substance of our filibuster proponents' arguments, albeit with some humor and maybe a touch of sarcasm. A few days ago, as the Salt Lake Tribune reported, the minority leader was in my State: . . . stopping just short of calling Utah Senator Orrin Hatch a hypocrite. That is at least how the newspaper described it. That is not what I consider to be a substantive argument. Perhaps those who dismiss their opponents as liars, losers, or lap dogs have nothing else to offer in this debate. Yet debate we must, and then we must vote. Mr. President, how much remaining time do I have?

Mr. HATCH. Let me just make this point. We confirmed, in 6 years of Republican control of the Senate, 377 judges for President Clinton. That was five less than the all-time confirmation champion Ronald Reagan. All of these people who are up have well-qualified ratings from the ABA, all had a bipartisan majority to support them. What is wrong with giving them an up-or-down vote and retaining 214 years of Senate tradition? What is wrong with that? I think it is wrong to try and blow up that tradition the way it is being done. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support an important resolution designating the 30th day of April 2005 as ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.'' Nations throughout the world, and especially within Latin America, celebrate Dia de los Ninos on the 30th of April, in recognition and celebration of their country's future--their children. Many American Hispanic families continue the tradition of honoring their children on this day by celebrating Dia de los Ninos in their homes. The designation of a day to honor the children of the Nation will help affirm for the people of the United States the significance of family, education, and community. This special recognition of children will provide us with an opportunity to reflect on their future, articulate their dreams and aspirations, and find comfort and security in the support of their family members and communities. This resolution calls on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and States across the Nation to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. Joining me as original cosponsors to this resolution are John Cornyn, Charles E. Grassley, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Mel Martinez, and Lisa Murkowski. I strongly urge my colleagues to join us in promptly passing this resolution designating April 30, 2005, Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the CLEAR ACT, the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act of 2005. This bill passed the Senate as part of the omnibus energy bill last year, but unfortunately was not enacted. Let me begin by thanking those who are cosponsoring this bill, namely Senators Rockefeller, Ensign, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Jeffords, Lieberman and Smith. And I know that a number of other senators will add their names to this legislation in the near future. I appreciate their previous support and look forward to working with them to promote the CLEAR ACT in this Congress. The CLEAR ACT addresses two issues of critical national importance: our dependence on foreign oil; and air pollution. Ultimately, two- thirds of our oil use is consumed by the transportation sector, and transportation in the United States is 97 percent dependent on oil. If we are going to address our energy crisis, we have to address our transportation fuels and vehicle use in a serious way. I was very pleased that President Bush, yesterday, highlighted the need to direct the automotive marketplace toward the widespread use of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT provides powerful market incentives to achieve that goal. It promotes the combination of advances we must have in technology, infrastructure, and alternative fuels in order to bring fuel cell vehicles to a future mass market reality. Even if, in the end, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles prove infeasible, the battery electric and alternative fuel technologies promoted by this bill will play a major role in improving our energy security and our air quality. And we do so without any new federal mandates. Currently, consumers face three basic obstacles to accepting the use of these alternative fueled and advanced technology vehicles. They are the cost of the alternative fuel, the lack of an adequate infrastructure of alternative fueling stations, and the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT attacks each of these obstacles head on, and it is crafted in a way to encourage the greatest social benefit possible for every tax dollar spent. We need to find a way to lower those barriers to widespread consumer acceptance, which will in turn put the power of mass production to work to lower the incremental cost of these alternative technologies. In short, our legislation would bring the benefits of cleaner air and energy independence to our citizens sooner. I have heard one or two senators ask why we need incentives to purchase hybrid vehicles when people are lining up to buy them today. It is true that demand for these vehicles is high in a few areas. However, these high-demand areas tend to have local or state incentives in place for the purchase of the vehicles. Where incentives are not in place, hybrid sales are minimal. This demonstrates that incentives can indeed provide a market breakthrough to consumer acceptance of alternatives vehicles. With the CLEAR ACT we are trying to provide that breakthrough on a national scale. In 2004, hybrid vehicles made up only 0.48 percent of light weight vehicle sales. That's far short of where we need to be as a nation to make a dent in our energy crisis, but at least it's a start. Air pollution is an issue of critical concern in my home State of Utah. While Utah has made important strides in improving air quality, it is a fact that each year we increase the number of vehicular miles driven in our State and mobile sources are the main cause of air pollution in Utah. It is clear that if we are to have cleaner air, we must encourage the use of alternative fuels and technologies to reduce vehicle emissions. The CLEAR ACT will help us do just that. I am very proud to offer this ground-breaking and bipartisan legislation. It represents the input and hard work of a very powerful and effective coalition--the CLEAR ACT Coalition. This coalition includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Environmental Defense, the Alliance to save Energy, Ford Motor Company, Toyota, Honda, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Propane Vehicle Council, the Methanol Institute, the Electric Drive Transportation Association, and others. The CLEAR ACT reflects the untiring effort and expertise of the members of this coalition, and for this we owe them our gratitude. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this forward-looking approach to cleaner air and increased energy independence.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago, our country suffered the most deadly attack ever on our soil. We woke up on the morning of September 11, 2001 to a new reality. A month later, we again realized the magnitude of the ever-changing threat we were facing when the Senate Hart Office Building was contaminated with anthrax and was closed for three months. Most Americans were shaken out of their sense of complacency in 2001. As many will recall, after 9/11, Congress took action to secure our borders, our ports, and our airlines and bolster our public health infrastructure. Yet, it is important to note that the key steps necessary to protect our country against the continuing threat of bioterrorism are still being carefully reviewed and revised. And while these steps are being evaluated, time is running out. Even yesterday, we heard news reports that al-Qaida is planning attacks on our country through chemical plants within the next five years. While Congress took an important step when the Project BioShield Act of 2004 was signed into law last July, I believe that much more still needs to be done. That is why I am once again joining my good friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, in introducing this bipartisan bill. I am proud to have been Senator Lieberman's primary partner on this legislation over the past several years. Indeed, we are pleased that some key concepts contained in our earlier bills, such as the guaranteed market, have been adopted by the administration and our colleagues in Congress. In the last congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a joint hearing with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee to determine what priorities should be included in the follow-on legislation, the Bioshield II bill, and to raise awareness on what else needs to be done in order to combat bioterrorism. It is clear that we do need to continue our efforts, and that is why I will continue to push for action on this legislation until the bill is signed into law by the President. It is well known that terrorists are specifically interested in using biological weapons, such as those produced in the Soviet Union before its collapse. Some experts believe that Soviet scientists were able to develop smallpox strains that were universally lethal. Some believe they developed a strain of Black Plague that is resistant to 10 different antibiotics. Today, it is unclear where some of these former Soviet scientists are working and, even more disturbing, it is not clear if these bioterror agents are still in the former Soviet Union. As new varieties of biological weapons are developed, the threat of another attack becomes a very real possibility. Again, that is why Senator Lieberman and I strongly believe that Congress needs to act on the Liberman-Hatch legislation immediately. Over 4 years ago, Congress instructed the executive branch to perform a bioterrorism exercise to determine our Nation's state of preparedness against a bioterror threat. In May 2000, a bioterrorism exercise was initiated and the naturally occurring plague bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, was theoretically unleashed in Denver. In that exercise, one antibiotic that is available to the public was used to combat the bioterrorism plot and treat the infected individuals. I believe that this exercise needs to be conducted again--a more realistic scenario would be one in which no effective treatment is available. To me, that is the more realistic and threatening scenario. There are already numerous diseases where no actual cure exists, where all the clinicians can do is to support the patient and hope that they survive. We need to focus our efforts on improving our ability to care for these illnesses, as they are currently very attractive weapons to our enemies. Even as we continue to invest resources to build up a prepared public health infrastructure, we must also develop medicines to threat those who are exposed or infected. Otherwise, we will be forced to impose quarantines, just as our ancestors did in times of pestilence, and we will surely find it as difficult a proposition as they did. Quarantining hundreds, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people would, obviously, be extremely difficult to manage. Developing ways to prevent, detect, and treat dangerous pathogens must be a priority for our Nation so that we do not face these dreadful scenarios. Our best defense against bioterrorism is a full medicine chest. We must develop medicines to treat the naturally occurring biologic agents, and, in addition, we need to develop medicines to treat bacteria and viruses that have been genetically manipulated as weapons to cause death or injury to human beings. Therefore, the biopharma companies must be engaged in these discussions because they will play an integral role. Our bill, BioShield II, is the next step in the legislative process to ensure bioterror readiness. We cannot afford to wait. Every day that we sit idle, we encourage our enemies to move forward. We must abandon business-as-usual and take vigorous steps to protect our Nation, our communities, our citizens and our industries from future bioterrorist attack, especially given the implication of further attacks on the United States. BioShield II encourages Congress to take vital steps to protect our Nation through an array of intellectual property, tax, procurement, research, liability, and other incentives to ensure the creation of a robust biodefense industry. Direct government funding can only go so far. To be effective, we must also enact incentives so that potential investors will want to fund the research associated with building a strong and flexible defense against potential attacks. But to accomplish this goal, we must unleash the creative genius of the biopharma industry to work with us on these solutions. Bioshield II will encourage biopharma companies to take the lead in the development of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics to combat bioterrorism. These efforts will also help protect our Nation against naturally occurring diseases. In fact, a major improvement in this bill is that we allow the array of incentives to be employed against infectious diseases and as well as disease prevalent in the developing world. All research on infectious disease is interrelated. SARS, HIV, malaria, and avian and pandemic flue are chilling reminders that our public health system must be able to take on all comers; it is not just deliberately engineered agents that threaten us. Our infrastructure--our researchers, our pharmaceutical industry, our hospitals, and our caregivers--must be prepared and equipped to fight illness, wherever and however it occurs. By expanding the scope of covered research under this bill, we may also discover cures for diseases that afflict the world's poorest nations. The goal of our legislation is to have a safer and better prepared America. But, to do this we must provide researchers and investors with the proper incentives. Forming unprecedented and vigorous partnerships with these companies is the key. Otherwise, this endeavor will never work and the American public will remain at great risk. The harsh reality is that nearly 4 years after 9/11, we have not developed one significant bioterrorism countermeasure. Aside from vaccines for smallpox and anthrax--both of which have their own downsides--and a handful of antibiotics and anti-infectives-- also with their own array of strengths and weaknesses--the cupboard is bare. This is simply not acceptable. As new varieties of bioterror weapons are developed, the threat of another attack comes ever-closer to our shores. For this reason, Senator Lieberman and I are introducing the ``Project BioShield II Act of 2005''. We plan to work closely with all interested members of Congress, including Senator Burr, Senators Enzi and Kennedy, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the HELP Committee respectively, Senators Grassley and Baucus, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Finance Committee, Senators Specter and Leahy, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. We will work closely with all the relevant officials in the Bush administration; and we will work with Senate Leadership and with all interested parties in the House. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am delighted to take this opportunity to reaffirm my support for Representative Portman's nomination to become the United States Trade Representative. Throughout his professional career, his work his exhibited one common characteristic: excellence. From his time working as a young lawyer at a prestigious Washington, DC, law firm to his current responsibilities as a member of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, Representative Portman has done much to make a difference in peoples' lives, in no small part by supporting legislation designed to open markets and strengthen trade relationships. He believes that if we are to create a truly stable and prosperous world and strengthen our own Nation's economic position, our trade policy must be based on free trade agreements that open markets to American goods and products. Representative Portman also shares my belief that it as important to enforce free trade agreements as it is to create new agreements. Without vigilant enforcement of these agreements there remains a possibility of creating a disadvantageous environment for our exports. This is especially true in one of our most important areas, intellectual property. Representative Portman and I have discussed this issue, but I wanted to reiterate its importance by stating publicly how concerned I am about the recent reports that I have heard regarding the increase in intellectual piracy in nations such as Russia and China. Representative Portman will face many challenges in his new assignment as United States Trade Representative. One of the most immediate will be the Dominican Republic--Central American Free Trade Agreement. As many others, I have concerns about what this agreement will mean for U.S. jobs and how effectively the U.S. can compete in this global marketplace. However, after diligently studying the agreement, I have come to the conclusion that U.S. companies and consumers, including Utahns, will benefit exponentially from this agreement with increased exports to our regional trading partners and lower domestic prices for many goods and services. As Congressman Portman has pointed out to many of us and as Acting Representative Allgeier discussed during his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee 2 weeks ago, there are a number of advantages for the United States to ratify this agreement. Particularly interesting is that it would reverse the United States' policy of unilaterally affording preferences to Central American goods under the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of Preferences. That means that where once U.S. goods faced trade hurdles, barriers would be eliminated. Utah exported over $6 million worth of information technology products to CAFTA nations last year. This treaty will eliminate key distribution barriers in those countries, opening markets to Utah companies in the telecommunications and e-commerce arenas. Utah's farmers will also enjoy access to new markets as CAFTA will immediately eliminate tariffs on wheat, barley, oats and rye. However, despite these advantages we must remain on guard that this agreement and previous agreements are adequately enforced to ensure that American products are fairly treated in these markets. This is only the ``tip of the iceberg'' of the challenges that Representative Portman will face. I do not believe that the President could have chosen a better person to create and enforce the extraordinary opportunities afforded by new and existing free trade agreements. Representative Portman's nomination has my full support and confidence.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with heavy heart that I rise today to honor the life of SGT Rocky Payne, a soldier in the Army's 497th Transportation Group, who bravely gave his life in service to his country. Sergeant Rocky Payne, a native of Howell, UT, was killed on March 16, 2005, in an explosion created by a roadside bomb in the city of Baghdad. Sergeant Payne is a true hero who died defending his Nation and bringing freedom to an oppressed people. Sergeant Payne's dream of being a soldier was fulfilled when he joined the Marines at the age of 20, serving 4 years. Shortly after the end of his enlistment with the Marines he joined the Army and was again sent to Iraq, this time as a gunner protecting the supply convoys that make our operations in Iraq possible. In honor of his dedication and service he was posthumously advanced to the rank of sergeant. I have been told that as a young man SGT Payne exhibited an unusual ability to work with his hands. Old bicycles and electronics found new life under his determined resourcefulness. He restored an old rusty truck which hadn't run in years to working condition in only 2 days. Possessing the ability to play piano by ear, SGT Payne apparently could reconstruct a tune he had heard only once and play it on the piano. But it was when his hands were placed in the service of others that they did the most good. ``He was a good, good person,'' his brother is reported as saying. ``One of the kindest people you would ever come across.'' As a soldier SGT Payne fought bravely to ensure that the people of Iraq would one day enjoy freedom from oppression. ``He loved serving,'' said his father in one newspaper story. ``He honestly felt like he was helping the Iraqi people.'' Sergeant Payne served his country with courage and honor and his loss is one that our entire country will share forever.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the CLEAR ACT, the Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act of 2005. This bill passed the Senate as part of the omnibus energy bill last year, but unfortunately was not enacted. Let me begin by thanking those who are cosponsoring this bill, namely Senators Rockefeller, Ensign, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, Jeffords, Lieberman and Smith. And I know that a number of other senators will add their names to this legislation in the near future. I appreciate their previous support and look forward to working with them to promote the CLEAR ACT in this Congress. The CLEAR ACT addresses two issues of critical national importance: our dependence on foreign oil; and air pollution. Ultimately, two- thirds of our oil use is consumed by the transportation sector, and transportation in the United States is 97 percent dependent on oil. If we are going to address our energy crisis, we have to address our transportation fuels and vehicle use in a serious way. I was very pleased that President Bush, yesterday, highlighted the need to direct the automotive marketplace toward the widespread use of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT provides powerful market incentives to achieve that goal. It promotes the combination of advances we must have in technology, infrastructure, and alternative fuels in order to bring fuel cell vehicles to a future mass market reality. Even if, in the end, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles prove infeasible, the battery electric and alternative fuel technologies promoted by this bill will play a major role in improving our energy security and our air quality. And we do so without any new federal mandates. Currently, consumers face three basic obstacles to accepting the use of these alternative fueled and advanced technology vehicles. They are the cost of the alternative fuel, the lack of an adequate infrastructure of alternative fueling stations, and the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicles. The CLEAR ACT attacks each of these obstacles head on, and it is crafted in a way to encourage the greatest social benefit possible for every tax dollar spent. We need to find a way to lower those barriers to widespread consumer acceptance, which will in turn put the power of mass production to work to lower the incremental cost of these alternative technologies. In short, our legislation would bring the benefits of cleaner air and energy independence to our citizens sooner. I have heard one or two senators ask why we need incentives to purchase hybrid vehicles when people are lining up to buy them today. It is true that demand for these vehicles is high in a few areas. However, these high-demand areas tend to have local or state incentives in place for the purchase of the vehicles. Where incentives are not in place, hybrid sales are minimal. This demonstrates that incentives can indeed provide a market breakthrough to consumer acceptance of alternatives vehicles. With the CLEAR ACT we are trying to provide that breakthrough on a national scale. In 2004, hybrid vehicles made up only 0.48 percent of light weight vehicle sales. That's far short of where we need to be as a nation to make a dent in our energy crisis, but at least it's a start. Air pollution is an issue of critical concern in my home State of Utah. While Utah has made important strides in improving air quality, it is a fact that each year we increase the number of vehicular miles driven in our State and mobile sources are the main cause of air pollution in Utah. It is clear that if we are to have cleaner air, we must encourage the use of alternative fuels and technologies to reduce vehicle emissions. The CLEAR ACT will help us do just that. I am very proud to offer this ground-breaking and bipartisan legislation. It represents the input and hard work of a very powerful and effective coalition--the CLEAR ACT Coalition. This coalition includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Environmental Defense, the Alliance to save Energy, Ford Motor Company, Toyota, Honda, the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Propane Vehicle Council, the Methanol Institute, the Electric Drive Transportation Association, and others. The CLEAR ACT reflects the untiring effort and expertise of the members of this coalition, and for this we owe them our gratitude. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join us in this forward-looking approach to cleaner air and increased energy independence.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago, our country suffered the most deadly attack ever on our soil. We woke up on the morning of September 11, 2001 to a new reality. A month later, we again realized the magnitude of the ever-changing threat we were facing when the Senate Hart Office Building was contaminated with anthrax and was closed for three months. Most Americans were shaken out of their sense of complacency in 2001. As many will recall, after 9/11, Congress took action to secure our borders, our ports, and our airlines and bolster our public health infrastructure. Yet, it is important to note that the key steps necessary to protect our country against the continuing threat of bioterrorism are still being carefully reviewed and revised. And while these steps are being evaluated, time is running out. Even yesterday, we heard news reports that al-Qaida is planning attacks on our country through chemical plants within the next five years. While Congress took an important step when the Project BioShield Act of 2004 was signed into law last July, I believe that much more still needs to be done. That is why I am once again joining my good friend and colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman, in introducing this bipartisan bill. I am proud to have been Senator Lieberman's primary partner on this legislation over the past several years. Indeed, we are pleased that some key concepts contained in our earlier bills, such as the guaranteed market, have been adopted by the administration and our colleagues in Congress. In the last congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a joint hearing with the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee to determine what priorities should be included in the follow-on legislation, the Bioshield II bill, and to raise awareness on what else needs to be done in order to combat bioterrorism. It is clear that we do need to continue our efforts, and that is why I will continue to push for action on this legislation until the bill is signed into law by the President. It is well known that terrorists are specifically interested in using biological weapons, such as those produced in the Soviet Union before its collapse. Some experts believe that Soviet scientists were able to develop smallpox strains that were universally lethal. Some believe they developed a strain of Black Plague that is resistant to 10 different antibiotics. Today, it is unclear where some of these former Soviet scientists are working and, even more disturbing, it is not clear if these bioterror agents are still in the former Soviet Union. As new varieties of biological weapons are developed, the threat of another attack becomes a very real possibility. Again, that is why Senator Lieberman and I strongly believe that Congress needs to act on the Liberman-Hatch legislation immediately. Over 4 years ago, Congress instructed the executive branch to perform a bioterrorism exercise to determine our Nation's state of preparedness against a bioterror threat. In May 2000, a bioterrorism exercise was initiated and the naturally occurring plague bacterium, Yersinia Pestis, was theoretically unleashed in Denver. In that exercise, one antibiotic that is available to the public was used to combat the bioterrorism plot and treat the infected individuals. I believe that this exercise needs to be conducted again--a more realistic scenario would be one in which no effective treatment is available. To me, that is the more realistic and threatening scenario. There are already numerous diseases where no actual cure exists, where all the clinicians can do is to support the patient and hope that they survive. We need to focus our efforts on improving our ability to care for these illnesses, as they are currently very attractive weapons to our enemies. Even as we continue to invest resources to build up a prepared public health infrastructure, we must also develop medicines to threat those who are exposed or infected. Otherwise, we will be forced to impose quarantines, just as our ancestors did in times of pestilence, and we will surely find it as difficult a proposition as they did. Quarantining hundreds, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people would, obviously, be extremely difficult to manage. Developing ways to prevent, detect, and treat dangerous pathogens must be a priority for our Nation so that we do not face these dreadful scenarios. Our best defense against bioterrorism is a full medicine chest. We must develop medicines to treat the naturally occurring biologic agents, and, in addition, we need to develop medicines to treat bacteria and viruses that have been genetically manipulated as weapons to cause death or injury to human beings. Therefore, the biopharma companies must be engaged in these discussions because they will play an integral role. Our bill, BioShield II, is the next step in the legislative process to ensure bioterror readiness. We cannot afford to wait. Every day that we sit idle, we encourage our enemies to move forward. We must abandon business-as-usual and take vigorous steps to protect our Nation, our communities, our citizens and our industries from future bioterrorist attack, especially given the implication of further attacks on the United States. BioShield II encourages Congress to take vital steps to protect our Nation through an array of intellectual property, tax, procurement, research, liability, and other incentives to ensure the creation of a robust biodefense industry. Direct government funding can only go so far. To be effective, we must also enact incentives so that potential investors will want to fund the research associated with building a strong and flexible defense against potential attacks. But to accomplish this goal, we must unleash the creative genius of the biopharma industry to work with us on these solutions. Bioshield II will encourage biopharma companies to take the lead in the development of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics to combat bioterrorism. These efforts will also help protect our Nation against naturally occurring diseases. In fact, a major improvement in this bill is that we allow the array of incentives to be employed against infectious diseases and as well as disease prevalent in the developing world. All research on infectious disease is interrelated. SARS, HIV, malaria, and avian and pandemic flue are chilling reminders that our public health system must be able to take on all comers; it is not just deliberately engineered agents that threaten us. Our infrastructure--our researchers, our pharmaceutical industry, our hospitals, and our caregivers--must be prepared and equipped to fight illness, wherever and however it occurs. By expanding the scope of covered research under this bill, we may also discover cures for diseases that afflict the world's poorest nations. The goal of our legislation is to have a safer and better prepared America. But, to do this we must provide researchers and investors with the proper incentives. Forming unprecedented and vigorous partnerships with these companies is the key. Otherwise, this endeavor will never work and the American public will remain at great risk. The harsh reality is that nearly 4 years after 9/11, we have not developed one significant bioterrorism countermeasure. Aside from vaccines for smallpox and anthrax--both of which have their own downsides--and a handful of antibiotics and anti-infectives-- also with their own array of strengths and weaknesses--the cupboard is bare. This is simply not acceptable. As new varieties of bioterror weapons are developed, the threat of another attack comes ever-closer to our shores. For this reason, Senator Lieberman and I are introducing the ``Project BioShield II Act of 2005''. We plan to work closely with all interested members of Congress, including Senator Burr, Senators Enzi and Kennedy, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the HELP Committee respectively, Senators Grassley and Baucus, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Finance Committee, Senators Specter and Leahy, chairman and ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Collins, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. We will work closely with all the relevant officials in the Bush administration; and we will work with Senate Leadership and with all interested parties in the House. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing will be to consider the nomination of Thomas Dorr to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development and to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Commodity Credit Corporation.