Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed yet another short-term extension of the 1996 welfare law. This marks the eighth temporary extension--and the third year we have been unable to improve this program that serves millions of needy families. I rise today to express my disappointment that improving this legislation has not been realized because of efforts by some of my colleagues to undermine the principles and goals of reform. I think we can all agree that welfare reform has been one of the most successful social policy reforms in U.S. history. The 1996 welfare reform legislation made remarkable headway in helping welfare dependents move toward self-sufficiency. It dramatically reduced State welfare caseloads, reduced child poverty, and increased employment. But there is still room for improvement. It is a misfortune that we had to pass yet another short-term extension that doesn't give States the certainty they need to best plan for the future. We passed this welfare extension because we had to--it bought us another 6 months in the hopes that we can finally act on a broader welfare reform bill in the 109th Congress. We want more welfare recipients to prepare for work, which is the true path off welfare. We want to help more parents marry or stay married, which helps them and helps their children. We want to help more parents get ready for full-time work, which is what it takes to lift families out of poverty. We want to provide more child care, so more parents can go to work knowing their children are cared for and safe. In 2003, I worked tirelessly with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to produce a comprehensive welfare reform bill that enjoyed substantial Democratic support. Many of the provisions in the bill we should have passed in March reflected the provisions in the 2003 bill. This further underscores my frustration with the Senate Democrats' failure to support a comprehensive reauthorization bill, and in effect, force both bodies to fund welfare programs through a series of short- term extensions, without any further improvements. Welfare reform has saved taxpayers money, but it has not been free. It will not be free in the future. The welfare reform bill we tried to pass 6 months ago included meaningful reforms and resources needed to help more low-income parents go to work. We understand that parents need to know they have access to quality child care, and the bill included an additional $6 billion--for a total of $7 billion--in child care funding to support the efforts of working families who need help with this essential assistance. I have seen in my home State of Utah, that many of these parents, hardworking people, young and old, end up finding great self- satisfaction in giving their gift of skill at work, at giving themselves to a task at hand so thoroughly, that they have a meaningful relationship with their work. I think we will all agree that sometimes it isn't easy to dive into your work with enthusiasm. But sometimes this is necessary and appropriate. That is why I would like to talk a little bit about its importance, that work requirements are increased. The increased work requirements in H.R. 4 would have changed the core work requirement from 20 hours per week to 24 hours per week. Total hours required for a state to receive full credit would have increased from 30 hours per week to 34 hours per week for single-parent families. Now these are sensible, reasonable requirements. Two-parent families would have been required to work 39 hours per week, or 55 hours per week if they received subsidized child care. States would have received partial credit if individuals worked 20 hours per week, and extra credit if they worked more than 34 hours per week. Current law provides full credit only at 30 hours. Again, I think these modifications could have made real progress. The more a person sets goals and takes responsibility for the career they want, they will better be able to decide if a particular job fits into the scheme of their life. The harder you work, that is the more hours you work, the more you understand why you're working at a particular job and how your hard work is going to benefit you. Another important provision in H.R. 4 was the establishment of a meaningful State participation rate. For years now, States have had no real Federal requirements to actively recruit adults into industrious work and work related activities. Under H.R. 4, States would have been required to have 70 percent of their caseload involved in approved work activities by 2008. It is important to know that most States currently have less than 50 percent of their caseloads in approved, full-time, work-related activities. Several states are below 25 percent. Requirements would oblige States to significantly ramp up their efforts to engage a much greater number of families in activities that count toward the work participation rate. Right now, the majority of adults receiving assistance are reporting zero hours of activity. I think it is time we recognize that an effective participation rate, and by the elimination of the caseload reduction credit in the 1996 welfare law, we will encourage people to commit, to careers, to goals, to real recovery. Just half-heartedly trying will not enable a person to succeed, but committing yourself will. For the sake of the millions of families that remain in the welfare system, we should have been able to come to a final agreement that would have helped Americans achieve independence and a brighter future. Again, I am very frustrated that we have caved to the passage of another short-term placeholder extension. Unfortunately, the remarkable improvements included in H.R. 4 will remain on hold while we continue to kick the ball down the field. As time passes, budget pressures will only squeeze tighter and tighter. The additional help we could have offered will become only harder to come by.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paiute Land Adjustments Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey or transfer four small Paiute trust land parcels totaling about five acres. My introduction of this bill at the closing of the 108th Congress is to show my support to the Paiute Tribe, the city of Richfield, UT and to Congressman Chris Cannon's companion measure, H.R. 3982, which has passed the House and has been held at the desk in the Senate. There are, however, some minor aspects of H.R. 3982 which I believe merit some clarification and may even require future technical amendments. The bill I am introducing today reflects some of the minor changes that have been requested by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and my introduction of the bill is also an effort to get those clarifications on record. I do strongly support the passage of H.R. 3982, and I am working with Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and Senate leadership to secure its final passage before the close of this Congress. The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would allow the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to convey at fair market value three acres of trust land to the city of Richfield, UT. This land transfer would allow expansion of the Richfield Municipal Airport and provide the Tribe with proceeds to purchase land that has economic development potential. The city of Richfield approached the tribe about acquiring this parcel of land adjacent to the airport runway. The tribe agreed and the Paiute Tribal Council passed Resolution 01-36, unanimously agreeing to the conveyance of this parcel of land to the city. In 1974, the private nonprofit Utah Paiute Tribal Corporation acquired the three-acre parcel of land in fee for the purpose of economic development. With the passage of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act in 1980, the land was placed into trust. The land has not been used by the tribe for more than 20 years. It is not contiguous to the Paiute's Reservation and for nearly 30 years now has had no economic development potential. The tribal resolution expresses the Paiute's desire to accept the city's offer to purchase the land at fair market value and serves as the request to the Secretary of the Interior to convey the trust land. However, only an act of Congress may authorize this land conveyance. The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would also transfer three trust land parcels, each an acre or less in size, from the tribe to its Kanosh and Shivwits Bands. All parcels would remain in trust status. The first parcel of one acre would be transferred from land held in trust by the United States for the Paiute Tribe to land held in trust for the Kanosh Band. This parcel is surrounded by 279 acres of land that is either owned by the Konosh Band or held in trust for the Konosh Band. For more than 20 years, the sole use of this land has been for the Kanosh Band Community Center. The second parcel, two-thirds of an acre in size, would also be transferred from the tribe to the Kanosh Band. The land has been used exclusively by the Kanosh Band. It was originally intended that the land be taken in trust for the Kanosh Band in 1981 under the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act. However, through an administrative error, the land was mistakenly placed in trust for the tribe. By way of several Band resolutions, the Kanosh Band has formally requested correction of this error. The third parcel of land, less than an acre in size, would be transferred from the tribe to be held in trust for the Shivwits Band. The land already is surrounded by several thousand acres of land held in trust for the Shivwits Band, and its sole use has been for the Shivwits Band Community Center. Finally, the bill would eliminate the word ``city'' from the current official name of the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians,'' a name which has never been used by the Band or residents of southwestern Utah. Thus, the bill makes clear that any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians'' shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cedar Band of Paiute Indians.'' I would like to make part of the record some clarifications with regard to this bill. This bill has language that would allow the city of Richfield to purchase land from the tribe and direct the payment directly to the tribe without the funds being funneled through the Department of the Interior. I support that provision. The bill also has a provision that would make land acquired by the tribe after February 17, 1984, be made part of the reservation. This is an effort to clarify that lands already in possession of the tribe should be part of the reservation. It is not an effort to ensure that every parcel of land purchased by the tribe in the future be made part of the reservation without regard to the parcel's location or proximity to the existing reservation. I would also like to clarify that nothing in this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make land conveyances for any tribe or band without their official consent to such a conveyance. This bill will cost U.S. taxpayers nothing, but it will solve the dilemma that the City of Richfield faces as it works to make its airport meet the needs of the citizens of southwestern Utah. Equally important is the fact that this bill will allow the Paiute Tribe to use the proceeds from the land sale to acquire land with economic development potential to facilitate the self-determination of the tribe. The bill also takes care of non-controversial land adjustments and technical corrections. The bill is supported by the Paiute Tribe, its Bands, and the people of southwestern Utah residing nearby. That is why I am introducing this legislation that would convey or transfer these four small Paiute trust land parcels. Finally, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. At the tribe's Annual Restoration Gathering over the weekend of June 12, the Paiutes celebrated the 24th anniversary of their restoration as a tribe. The Federal trust relationship with the tribe was restored in 1980 upon enaction of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act, which I sponsored. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3982 during the 108th Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Paiute Land Adjustments Act. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey or transfer four small Paiute trust land parcels totaling about five acres. My introduction of this bill at the closing of the 108th Congress is to show my support to the Paiute Tribe, the city of Richfield, UT and to Congressman Chris Cannon's companion measure, H.R. 3982, which has passed the House and has been held at the desk in the Senate. There are, however, some minor aspects of H.R. 3982 which I believe merit some clarification and may even require future technical amendments. The bill I am introducing today reflects some of the minor changes that have been requested by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and my introduction of the bill is also an effort to get those clarifications on record. I do strongly support the passage of H.R. 3982, and I am working with Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee and Senate leadership to secure its final passage before the close of this Congress. The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would allow the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah to convey at fair market value three acres of trust land to the city of Richfield, UT. This land transfer would allow expansion of the Richfield Municipal Airport and provide the Tribe with proceeds to purchase land that has economic development potential. The city of Richfield approached the tribe about acquiring this parcel of land adjacent to the airport runway. The tribe agreed and the Paiute Tribal Council passed Resolution 01-36, unanimously agreeing to the conveyance of this parcel of land to the city. In 1974, the private nonprofit Utah Paiute Tribal Corporation acquired the three-acre parcel of land in fee for the purpose of economic development. With the passage of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act in 1980, the land was placed into trust. The land has not been used by the tribe for more than 20 years. It is not contiguous to the Paiute's Reservation and for nearly 30 years now has had no economic development potential. The tribal resolution expresses the Paiute's desire to accept the city's offer to purchase the land at fair market value and serves as the request to the Secretary of the Interior to convey the trust land. However, only an act of Congress may authorize this land conveyance. The Paiute Land Adjustments Act would also transfer three trust land parcels, each an acre or less in size, from the tribe to its Kanosh and Shivwits Bands. All parcels would remain in trust status. The first parcel of one acre would be transferred from land held in trust by the United States for the Paiute Tribe to land held in trust for the Kanosh Band. This parcel is surrounded by 279 acres of land that is either owned by the Konosh Band or held in trust for the Konosh Band. For more than 20 years, the sole use of this land has been for the Kanosh Band Community Center. The second parcel, two-thirds of an acre in size, would also be transferred from the tribe to the Kanosh Band. The land has been used exclusively by the Kanosh Band. It was originally intended that the land be taken in trust for the Kanosh Band in 1981 under the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Restoration Act. However, through an administrative error, the land was mistakenly placed in trust for the tribe. By way of several Band resolutions, the Kanosh Band has formally requested correction of this error. The third parcel of land, less than an acre in size, would be transferred from the tribe to be held in trust for the Shivwits Band. The land already is surrounded by several thousand acres of land held in trust for the Shivwits Band, and its sole use has been for the Shivwits Band Community Center. Finally, the bill would eliminate the word ``city'' from the current official name of the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians,'' a name which has never been used by the Band or residents of southwestern Utah. Thus, the bill makes clear that any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the ``Cedar City Band of Paiute Indians'' shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Cedar Band of Paiute Indians.'' I would like to make part of the record some clarifications with regard to this bill. This bill has language that would allow the city of Richfield to purchase land from the tribe and direct the payment directly to the tribe without the funds being funneled through the Department of the Interior. I support that provision. The bill also has a provision that would make land acquired by the tribe after February 17, 1984, be made part of the reservation. This is an effort to clarify that lands already in possession of the tribe should be part of the reservation. It is not an effort to ensure that every parcel of land purchased by the tribe in the future be made part of the reservation without regard to the parcel's location or proximity to the existing reservation. I would also like to clarify that nothing in this legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make land conveyances for any tribe or band without their official consent to such a conveyance. This bill will cost U.S. taxpayers nothing, but it will solve the dilemma that the City of Richfield faces as it works to make its airport meet the needs of the citizens of southwestern Utah. Equally important is the fact that this bill will allow the Paiute Tribe to use the proceeds from the land sale to acquire land with economic development potential to facilitate the self-determination of the tribe. The bill also takes care of non-controversial land adjustments and technical corrections. The bill is supported by the Paiute Tribe, its Bands, and the people of southwestern Utah residing nearby. That is why I am introducing this legislation that would convey or transfer these four small Paiute trust land parcels. Finally, I offer my congratulations and best wishes to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. At the tribe's Annual Restoration Gathering over the weekend of June 12, the Paiutes celebrated the 24th anniversary of their restoration as a tribe. The Federal trust relationship with the tribe was restored in 1980 upon enaction of the Paiute Indian Tribe Restoration Act, which I sponsored. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 3982 during the 108th Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to offer a Leahy-Specter-Hatch amendment that would preserve the Judiciary Committee's oversight jurisdiction over the U.S. Secret Service. The reason for the amendment is not simply the committee's longstanding relationship with the Secret Service, although that relationship is strong and healthy. It is a very good reason why we should retain the status. The Judiciary Committee has had jurisdiction over the Secret Service's title 18 authority since June 25, 1948. I was astonished to hear one of my colleagues say on the floor earlier today that the Judiciary Committee was trying to move jurisdiction to the Judiciary Committee. The committee has had jurisdiction over the Secret Service for the last 56 years. The more important reason is that a huge percentage of Secret Service operations are authorized by title 18 of the criminal code. That will obviously and appropriately remain under the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction. If the point of this bill is to reform congressional oversight, then it would make no sense to reduce the Judiciary Committee's ability to examine how title 18 of the criminal code authority is used while continuing to rely upon the Judiciary Committee to make sure that title 18 provides appropriate authority to the Secret Service. A little bit of history may be helpful. The Secret Service was established as a law enforcement agency in 1865. While most people associate the Secret Service with Presidential protection, its original mandate was to investigate counterfeiting of U.S. currency. Today, the primary investigative mission of the Secret Service is to safeguard the payment and financial systems of the United States. The Secret Service has exclusive jurisdiction for investigations involving the counterfeiting of U.S. obligations and securities. That authority to investigate counterfeiting is derived from title 18 of the United States Code, section 3056. Some of the counterfeited U.S. obligations and securities commonly dealt with by the Secret Service include U.S. currency and coins, U.S. Treasury checks, Department of Agriculture food coupons, and U.S. postage stamps. The Secret Service combats counterfeiting by working closely with Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, as well as foreign law enforcement agencies, to aggressively pursue counterfeiters. Secret Service agents commonly work with Federal prosecutors--employees of the Department of Justice, over which the Judiciary Committee retains jurisdiction. It is important for Congress to keep up with the times when determining the scope of Title 18. Since 1984, the Secret Service's investigative responsibilities under Title 18 have expanded to include crimes that involve financial institution fraud, computer and telecommunications fraud, false identification documents, access device fraud, advance fee fraud, electronic funds transfers, and money laundering. People who counterfeit things are creative, and so are those who invent new products that are susceptible to being counterfeited. It is important that Title 18 provide the Secret Service with appropriately updated authority, and therefore it is crucial that the Judiciary Committee have the ability to require the Secret Service to report on its use of authority. Listen to some of the types of criminal investigations that the Financial Crimes Division of the Secret Service plans and coordinates: Financial Systems Crimes, including bank fraud; access device fraud; telemarketing; telecommunications fraud; computer fraud; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Farm Credit Administration violations. These are all traditional criminal investigations and they are all governed by Title 18. They are at the core of Judiciary Committee jurisdiction and expertise. Another division of the Secret Service, Forensic Services Division, FSD, is almost entirely focused on providing analysis for questioned documents, fingerprints, false identification, credit cards, and other related forensic science areas. A main purpose of this division is to investigate crimes and provide evidence for prosecutors to use in court. FSD also manages the Secret Service's polygraph program and coordinates photographic, graphic, video, and audio enhancement. Here's an example of how the Judiciary Committee's relationship with the Secret Service works: As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, Congress mandated the Secret Service to provide forensic/technical assistance in matters involving missing and sexually exploited children. The Forensic Service Division offers this assistance to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, the Morgan P. Hardiman Task Force and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It is important for the Judiciary Committee to continue its relationship with the Secret Service to make sure that its capabilities are utilized in important areas of law enforcement such as these. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for keeping the jurisdiction where it belongs, with the people who have to deal with these criminal laws all the time. Frankly, it is a tough process. We should not move the Secret Service out of the Judiciary Committee jurisdiction because that is where this very tough anticrime approach has to occur and has to take place. I hope my colleagues will listen to me. I have no axes to grind here. I am not just trying to preserve jurisdiction; it doesn't make sense to take it out of the hands of the Judiciary Committee as much as some think it may. I don't think it can make a good case that it should be taken out of the Judiciary Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record what looks like 50 or more jurisdictional aspects of the Secret Service investigational approaches.

Mr. HATCH. When you look at these, you cannot conclude anything but this should stick with the Judiciary Committee. I don't have any ax to grind. Everyone knows that. The fact is, this is the right thing to do or I would not be standing here trying to do it. We have had a great relationship with the Secret Service and have done a great deal of work together over my 28 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I know this is right, and we have to do this. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I don't think there is anybody on this floor who respects the chairlady of the appropriate committee and the ranking member more than I do. I think the world of both of them. I think they deserve a commendation for what they have done. I just cannot pay enough tribute to them. I know they are sincere. I want everybody here to know that I don't have an ax to grind. I have a reputation for trying to do what is right. I am very sincere about this. It is not a question of trying to retain jurisdiction for retention's sake. This is really important. I believe we should have a committee on homeland security. I believe it should have jurisdiction over much of the area that applies to terrorism. But I also sincerely believe--and I think the case is overwhelming--that most of what the Secret Service does is pursuant to the Criminal Code. The Judiciary Committee is specifically and especially geared to handle oversight of those problems. You don't have to completely develop a whole new system of oversight. It has worked marvelously well for 56 years. At the end of the day, the Secret Service is a criminal investigative agency. Sure, they may have some peripheral and even very important interests in terrorism, but their interests go way beyond that. Almost everything they do comes because of what the Criminal Code tells them to do. The Secret Service's criminal authority is much broader than homeland security and counterterrorism. Let me review some of the longstanding criminal laws. I will just review some of them. These are criminal statutes and they are important, and the Secret Service works pursuant to these statutes. It has jurisdiction to investigate acceptance of loan or gratuity by financial institution examiners; punishment for section 213, the prior section I mentioned; section 471, counterfeiting U.S. obligations; section 472, uttering counterfeit securities; section 473, dealing in counterfeiting obligations of securities; section 474, possession of device to counterfeit obligations; section 476, theft of tools used in counterfeiting obligations; section 477, selling of tools for counterfeiting obligations; section 478, counterfeiting of foreign obligations; section 479, uttering counterfeit foreign obligations; section 480, possessing counterfeit foreign obligations. This is all pursuant to title 18 USC. Section 481, possession of electronic images for counterfeiting foreign obligations; section 482, forgery or counterfeiting bank notes; section 483, uttering counterfeit foreign bank notes; section 484, fraudulently combining multiple U.S. instruments; section 485, counterfeiting U.S. coins; section 486, unauthorized passing of U.S. coins; section 487, making or possessing counterfeit dyes for coins; section 488, making or possessing counterfeit dyes for foreign coins; section 489, making or possessing a likeness of U.S. or foreign coins. I will not read the rest. But it goes right down the Criminal Code where they spend almost all their time. If you ask virtually anybody in the Secret Service, they believe the jurisdiction ought to be kept with the Judiciary Committee. I do not think there is any question. I know the head of the Secret Service does. There is no question they have overlapping jurisdiction in some areas where they can help with terrorism, but that is a modest amount of what they do. Most all of what they do involves technical Criminal Code laws, and that is judiciary, and the Judiciary Committee is especially equipped to handle those type of activities. The Judiciary Committee has a long history of balancing civil liberties with law enforcement obligations. The Secret Service carries out a host of law enforcement activities. Let's face it, the Judiciary Committee is uniquely qualified and uniquely structured to vigorously oversee and monitor this balance. My office received a letter from organizations from the ACLU to the American Conservative Union expressing civil liberties concerns with this reorganization. Look, I understand my two colleagues and their desire to try to bring everything together, but if you use this as an excuse to do that--in fact, one agency or another might have something to do with terrorism, but that is not its major obligation--my gosh, you might as well take over the whole Government. I think this works well. If it ``ain't'' broke, why are we trying to fix it? I believe very sincerely that my two esteemed colleagues, as much as I love and respect them, are wrong on this. I can live with anything the Senate decides to do, but I think it would be tragic if the Secret Service is moved over to this Department and this committee that is not particularly the committee that should have jurisdiction over it and over the work that the Secret Service does. I do not want to keep the Senate any longer. All I can say is, I would feel badly if this amendment is not agreed to by the Senate. It should be agreed to by the Senate. I am prepared to vote on it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to discuss H.R. 5107, the Justice for All Act that was just passed by the House, by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 393 to 14. The bill is the result of the hard work and dedication of many on both sides of the aisle. In particular, I would like to commend Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Sensenbrenner and Ranking Democrat, Representative Delahunt for their outstanding leadership in shepherding this groundbreaking crime bill that will allow us to further unleash the evidentiary power of DNA. It will provide law enforcement the ability to find and punish the guilty and give use the comfort of certainty in criminal prosecutions. Moreover, the House attached Senator Kyl's and Senator Feinstein's critical Crime Victims Act that ensures victims' rights are protected in criminal prosecutions. That is very important. This House passed bill is the result of months of intense negotiations and addresses the concerns raised regarding title III of the former DNA bill, including the major concerns, I believe, of Senators Kyl, Sessions, and Cornyn. And let me say, the overwhelming support for this bill in the House could not have been achieved without the hard work and dedication of the Department of Justice. I would like to specifically thank Attorney General Ashcroft, Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sean McLaughlin for bringing the parties together to create a truly bipartisan bill that meets the interests of all parties. Without their constructive input we would have never been able to get to where we are. I personally want to thank them for their support. But our work is not done. I call upon the Senate to act expeditiously to pass this anticrime bill so we can present it to the President for his signature. So we all know, there has been a tremendous amount of work done in the 22-page memorandum by Mr. Moschella and the Justice Department. I think we have made a monumental effort to address every one of those concerns. We haven't been able to address every case exactly the way the Justice Department requested, but there has been a good-faith effort on the part of the distinguished Senator from Vermont and Congressman Delahunt to be able to bring this Justice for All Act through to completion. When it passed 393 to 14 yesterday in the House, I think that sent a message to everybody that not only would we get this DNA bill, but we would also get the victims' rights bill for which Senators Kyl and Feinstein have worked so long and hard. Rather than take the time of my distinguished friend from Arizona and any further time from the bill on the floor, I want to compliment the Justice Department. I hope we can get the last few things resolved so that this bill can pass, and that means working it out with a few of our colleagues in the Senate. I believe when they look at this bill and read it, they will realize almost every one of those concerns have been addressed in good faith. Senator Leahy and I have worked hand in hand trying to make sure those matters were addressed. Mr. President, I hope we can get this bill up and out so we can do what should be done for 400,000 rape kits--some of which are 20 years old--to help not only to discover those who are guilty but to put those who are on the streets, who have raped women, in jail where they belong. This bill will do exactly that. It is a very important piece of legislation. Having said that, however, I want to make it clear that this administration has done a great deal. Thus far, it has committed to doing this, and it is the first administration that has done it. We have known about these rape kits for years. This is the final touch in the bill to help protect women in this country. It will be very important for us to pass it today. I hope we can get it done. We are working very diligently to try to satisfy the concerns of all of our colleagues. Thus far, we are down to just one major concern, and hopefully when they read the bill they will realize we have addressed that as well and will agree to satisfy this matter. I thank my colleague from Arizona and my colleague from Kentucky. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the Senate for passing S. Res. 430, a resolution designating November 2004 as National Runaway Prevention Month. National Runaway Prevention Month is a public education initiative to increase awareness of issues facing runaways. This resolution will sensitize the public about solutions to the runaway dilemma and educate them on the role they play in preventing youth from running away. Runaway and ``throwaway'' episodes among our Nation's youth are a widespread problem, with one out of every seven children and youth in the United States running away or being turned out of their home before the age of 18. A recent study by the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention estimates that nearly 1.7 million youth experienced a runaway or throwaway episode in a single year. The primary causal factors of running away or being turned out are severe family conflict, abuse and neglect, and parental abuse of alcohol and drugs. All of the conditions that lead young people to leave or be turned out of their homes are preventable. However, we need to make interventions available to strengthen families and support youth in high-risk situations. Successful interventions are grounded in partnerships among families, community-based human service agencies, law enforcement agencies, schools, faith-based organizations, and businesses. Preventing young people from running away and supporting youth in high-risk situations are a family, community, and national responsibility. Please join us in increasing public attention to the challenges that youth are facing today and in encouraging all Americans to play a role in supporting the millions of young people who have run away from their home environments or who are at-risk of doing so each year.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Paul Kovac, a detailee from the Department of Justice, and Nicholas Rossi, a detailee from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the 108th session.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering the Hatch-Leahy substitute to H.R. 1417, the ``Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004,'' which provides a much-needed overhaul of the process by which statutory royalty rates are determined and the manner in which the fees paid pursuant to statutory licenses are distributed to copyright holders. The extensive reforms made this bill are important to virtual all the participants in the process, and I hope that my colleagues will consent to move this bill without delay. The measure we are considering today represents a recently-reached compromise which I am hopeful can be enacted without delay. Because the areas of disagreement with H.R. 1417 were relatively narrow in scope, the Hatch-Leahy substitute to H.R. 1417 retains most of the House-passed bill, but does contain a few important changes that are the product of several months of negotiations and discussions between the Hatch and Leahy offices and various stakeholders. The most significant substantive change involves the scope of available discovery in ratemaking proceedings. The changes to the discovery provisions are self-explanatory, so I will not belabor them here. This bill responds to widespread dissatisfaction among the participants in the current system involving Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels--or ``CARPs''. I will refrain from going into detail about this highly-technical bill--which many would find about as interesting as watching astroturf grow--and will simply express my firm belief that it addresses many of the legitimate concerns expressed by the stakeholders, the members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, and the many others that have provided valuable input and that lent us their expertise during the legislative process. I am content simply to refer my colleagues to the comprehensive and detailed committee report drafted by the House if they desire an explanation of the concerns and problems this legislation addresses. While we were not able to reach absolute consensus on a few difficult issues, for the most part this legislation reflects broad agreement on the fundamental changes that are required to make the existing CARP process more efficient, logical, and--some would content--bearable by participants. In conclusion, I would be remiss if I did not publicly recognize that this legislation is the product of some very hard work by our counterparts in the House. Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Smith, and Representative Berman deserve much of the credit for building a near consensus on this bill and for moving it through the House. I commend them for their bicameral, bipartisan approach to this legislation and for the hard work put in by their respective staffs. In particular, I would like to thank Blaine Merritt, David Whitney, and Alec French for their hard work. I would also like to thank Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights, and David O. Carson, the General Counsel of the Copyright Office, for providing invaluable technical assistance to members in both chambers of Congress on this complicated bill. I would be equally remiss if I did not recognize the outstanding efforts of some in the Senate, including Senator Leahy and his staff-- in particular Susan Davies, Rich Phillips, and Dan Fine--for their efforts on this bill. I also commend Mary Foden and Dave Jones of my staff for their hard work and their efforts to build a consensus around the bill in the Senate. With that, I will urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1417 with the Hatch-Leahy substitute.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, September was a hard month for the people of Utah. Three more of our sons were called home into the arms of God. Each was a Marine, each a Lance Corporal, each did not live to see their 23rd birthday. I hope that my colleagues will join me in saluting these brave men of honor, who died to defend this nation and to bring freedom to an oppressed people. Lance Corporal Michael Allred was a young man who knew he wanted to be in the military. His brother Brad said it best, that Lance Corporal Allred ``was happy to serve, and he knew what he was doing was right . . . he died doing something he loved.'' Ironically, Lance Corporal Allred was killed in the same attack that also took the life of another one of Utah's sons, Lance Corporal Quinn A. Keith. His family asked that I write a few words that were shared at his funeral. While I was learning about his life, I will always remember what his uncle Clyde said about Lance Corporal Keith, ``He was scared to be there, but he knew he had to be there.'' The third name to be added to this list of honor is Lance Corporal Cesar F. Machado-Olmos. His life is also extraordinary, since at the time of his death, he had not yet become an American citizen. Imagine, a young man who loved this country so much that before he even became a citizen he entered into a life of service and chose to earn the title of United States Marine. Our Nation is truly blessed, not because of our material wealth or our influence across the globe. Our Nation is blessed because the ideas of freedom and liberty still echo in the minds of the young men and women of this country, and in the most selfless of acts, they volunteered to defend our Nation. These three men, Lance Corporal Michael Allred, Lance Corporal Quinn A. Keith and Lance Corporal Cesar F. Machado-Olmos epitomized the sacrifice and devotion to duty that is required to earn the noble title of United States Marine. The United States Senate and I stand in humble tribute to these Marines. They will be missed but never forgotten.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise to express my support for S. Res. 447, which asks the President to pardon posthumously John Arthur "Jack" Johnson for Mr. Johnson's racially-motivated 1913 conviction. As a huge fan of the sport of boxing, I admire the great achievements of Mr. Johnson in his too short career. But I feel a greater need to recognize and pardon Mr. Johnson for the great injustice he suffered. Although it is too late to properly rectify what was done to Jack Johnson, I hope in some small way we can call attention to his remarkable achievements and repair his good name. Jack Johnson was the first African-American boxer to win the heavyweight title. While this was a landmark achievement for African- Americans, Johnson's achievements unfortunately had the effect of escalating racial tensions and his subsequent victories provoked racial rioting. The effort to dethrone him brought about the search for the "Great White Hope" during his 1908-1915 reign as heavyweight champion. The consensus is that while Johnson was not defeated in the boxing ring he could be stopped by trumped-up criminal charges. In 1913, Johnson was found guilty of violating the "white-slavery" Mann Act for taking his future wife out of State. Johnson was convicted and he tried to appeal his sentence. Before the ruling on his appeal, Johnson fled the country and was a fugitive for 7 years before he returned to the United States in 1920. Johnson turned himself over to Federal authorities and served 10 months in Ft. Leavenworth, KS. Mr. Johnson went on to continue fighting but never returned to the same glory. He was killed in a car accident in 1946 at the age of 68. Eight years later, he became a charter member of the Boxing Hall of Fame. I am hopeful that the President will accept this petition and issue a posthumous Presidential pardon for Jack Johnson. Mr. Johnson defied the racist standards of his day to become a world champion. He was a hero and example to a greatly oppressed people who had too few public heroes to look to emulate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. I too would like to thank the senior Senator from Illinois for working with the senior Senator from Delaware and with me on this legislation. I would also like to clarify, however, that the legislation does provide that, if the Drug Enforcement Administration should find that DHEA is being abused by athletes, by youngsters, or by teenagers, DEA can schedule it as a controlled substance.

Mr. HATCH. I will.

Mr. HATCH. Certainly. The legislation clarifies that DEA may schedule DHEA by applying the standards in section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act, including the standard eight factors listed in section 201(c) of that Act.

Mr. HATCH. I will.

Mr. HATCH. The DEA need not find that DHEA meets each of the eight factors before it can be scheduled. For example, if DEA considers that DHEA has no or minimal psychic or physiological dependence liability, DEA may nonetheless schedule DHEA if DEA concludes, after consideration of the facts and relative importance of other of the factors such as the actual or relative potential for abuse; the history and current pattern of abuse; or the scope, duration, and significance of abuse, that it should be scheduled. Karen P. Tandy, the administrator of the DEA, has written me a letter stating that the presence of each of the eight factors is not a mandatory prerequisite to scheduling. I ask unanimous consent that the letter dated May 20, 2004, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Certainly.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, I am committed to stepping in to change the law to protect the public health if abuse of DHEA by athletes or by youngsters or teenagers is a problem and DEA fails to take effective action with the authority we have given it. I must add for the record that at the present time I am not aware of sufficient evidence of DHEA abuse among athletes or young people to warrant it being categorized as an anabolic steroid at this time.

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my colleagues for passing by unanimous consent two bills which I sponsored--a bill to extend the pilot program for national criminal history background checks for volunteers who work with children, and the Prevention of Child Abduction Partnership Act. The first bill extends the pilot program created by the PROTECT Act. The pilot program allows the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, in coorperation with the FBI, to provide a background check process for volunteers working for organizations, such as the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, National Mentoring Partnership, and the National Council of Youth Sports. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children provides its expertise to assist volunteer organizations in evaluating the criminal records of volunteers to determine if the volunteers are fit to interact and provide care for children. So far, the NCMEC has processed over 2,500 checks. Through these checks the Center has been able to prevent criminals, including child molesters, from applying and securing volunteer positions with youth organizations. Of those applicants whose files showed an offense, over 50 percent of the applicants lied and indicated they did not have a criminal record. Some of the startling examples of people who were found unfit to work with children included: (1) one convicted of manslaughter, (2) one found guilty on charges of Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault as well as domestic battery, (3) one convicted of three charges of endangering the welfare of a child, (4) one convicted of lewdness and was charged for kidnapping, (5) one charged with sexual contact with a child under the age of 16, (6) one charged with 31 counts, including multiple rapes and assaults, indecent liberties, eluding, and prostitution, (7) one charged with aggravated battery of a pregnant woman, and (8) one charged with oral copulation by force, rape by force, and oral copulation by force, in one instance the victim under 14 and in another, 10 years younger. My bill would allow this invaluable program to continue to prevent convicted criminals such as these from working with children. The Prevention of Child Abduction Partnership Act grants private entities, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, immunity from tort liability when they are assisting the U.S. State Department in carrying out its functions under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as one of the original authors of the CHIP program, I rise to share my strong support for the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. Many are very worried about unspent CHIP dollars for fiscal year 2002 going back to the Treasury after today. I share those concerns. I want that $1.1 billion to remain available so it can be used to pay for health coverage for children. So does the President. So do my colleagues in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. There is no disagreement on that issue. Let me assure you that this will be resolved. Regardless of what happens on October 1, every State will receive its new CHIP money for fiscal year 2005. Simply put, all States will be given the funds to cover their CHIP expenses while Congress continues to work on ways to use the unspent CHIP money from fiscal year 2002. It is important to remember that Congress has the power to restore these unspent CHIP funds to states once the new fiscal year has begun. In fact, just last year, Congress acted to restore unspent CHIP funds from fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to states several months after these funds went back to the Treasury. And, let me emphasize, once again, the fiscal year 2002 CHIP funds are not needed by any State for its 2005 CHIP program. No child is in danger of losing his or her CHIP coverage. CHIP has been, for the most part, a great success. Today, there are 5.8 million children enrolled in the CHIP program. We have made good progress in providing health insurance to uninsured children. We have had great successes with the CHIP program since 1997, when it was first created. However, important issues concerning the program still must be addressed. I believe that the No. 1 issue is reaching out to CHIP- eligible children who currently are not covered by the program. While many States have been successful with their outreach efforts, that is not the case in all States. I am particularly troubled by the difficulties faced by Native American children. Outreach must be addressed by Congress--my primary goal when we were drafting the original CHIP legislation in 1997 was to ensure that CHIP was available for all eligible children. My biggest concern with one approach for spending the unspent fiscal year 2002 funds is contained in S. 2759, authored by Senators Rockefeller, Chafee, Kennedy and Snowe, is that it does not directly help enroll the millions of uninsured children who are eligible for CHIP program. I have reviewed the Rockefeller-Kennedy bill and I am not convinced that it does anything to increase CHIP enrollment. Providing health insurance coverage under CHIP to uninsured children should be our top priority, not redistributing CHIP funding to states. Congress has redistributed leftover CHIP funds to states more than once and I am sure that the legislation has made a significant difference in increasing CHIP enrollment of uninsured, CHIP-eligible children. That is why I am advocating a different approach and placing a higher priority on outreach to these uninsured children. I strongly support the President's goal to have a broad outreach effort through community- based entities such as hospitals, schools, Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics, tribes and tribal organizations, non-profit community organizations, and Federally-qualified health centers. I also support performance-based grants for states that are successful in enrolling and covering children. These states should be rewarded for their successes in covering more children, instead of facing higher state costs. While today marks the end of the fiscal year, it does not mark the end of the CHIP program. It does not mean that the CHIP program is going to lose money. It does not mean that states are going to run out of CHIP funds tomorrow. We all agree that these funds should remain in the CHIP program--we just have different ideas on how that money should be spent. Regardless, I am convinced that we will be able to work together on a solution regarding this important issue. I urge all of my colleagues to work to ensure that all eligible children are covered under the Children's Health Insurance Program.