Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act. The purpose of the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act is to reform the statutory scheme governing judicial review of immigration removal orders. Currently, we have an absurd situation in which criminal aliens are entitled to more review and have more opportunities to file frivolous dilatory appeals than non-criminal aliens. The legislation which I am introducing will streamline the process of reviewing final administrative immigration orders, thereby eliminating such unfair results under the current statutory scheme. In 1961, Congress amended Section 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, to specify the circumstances under which final orders of deportation and exclusion could be reviewed in the federal courts. The statute provided that petitions for review in the circuit courts of appeal were the ``sole and exclusive'' procedure for reviewing deportation orders, and that habeas corpus was available only to challenge exclusion orders of the custodial aspects of immigration detention. The jurisprudence was settled that there were no alternative or additional avenues of judicial review of immigration orders beyond those provided in Section 106. In 1996, seeking to provide for the more efficient and expeditious removal of aliens who commit serious crimes in the United States, Congress attempted to streamline the judicial review of immigration orders against such aliens. Passed by wide, bipartisan margins, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) eliminated judicial review of immigration orders for most criminals. IIRIRA recognized that criminal aliens had already received a full measure of due process in their criminal cases, as well as in their immigration proceedings, and that additional review typically only served to delay their inevitable removal. However, because the 1996 reforms lacked express language precluding habeas corpus review, the Supreme Court decided in INS v. St. Cyr that habeas review remained available to criminal aliens other than or in addition to the review specified in the INA. Consequently, under current law, criminal aliens may seek habeas review of their deportation orders in district courts and then appeal adverse decisions to the courts of appeals. By contrast, non-criminal aliens are governed by INA Sec. 242, and must appeal directly to the court of appeals without the additional layer of review in the district courts. The result is that criminal aliens who have no claim to relief from deportation file frivolous petitions, causing serious delay in securing final judgment against them. This is a complete perversion of the reforms intended by Congress in 1996, and it must be corrected. Let me illustrate the extent of the problem. In 1995, just before IIRIRA's enactment, there were 403 immigration habeas petitions filed. In 2003, that number rose to 2,374. Over the same period, the total number of immigration-related cases in federal courts rose from 1,939 to 11,906. This is after Congress passed a law to limit the review for criminal aliens. Clearly, the intent of Congress has been frustrated. Consistent with the settled principled that petitions for review should be the ``sole and exclusive'' means of judicial review for aliens challenging their removal (as reaffirmed in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b)(9) requiring that all issues pertaining to removal orders be brought to the circuit courts of appeal), the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act streamlines immigration review and protects an alien's right to review by an independent judiciary. It also ensures that even criminal aliens may receive review of pure questions of law and Constitutional claims, as dictated by the Supreme Court in S. Cyr. With the expanded subject matter jurisdiction in the courts of appeals, the proposed legislation will eliminate the confusing, and indeed inequitable practice of allowing criminal aliens to obtain an additional layer of review through habeas corpus petitions. This legislation is fully consistent with both the Supreme Court's decision in S. Cyr and settled jurisprudence regarding the availability of habeas corpus. These reforms will ensure that aliens will have their day in court, and ensures that the law does not place criminals in a position that is superior to non-criminals. In sum, the Act restores order to the judicial review process in the courts as well as fairness for alien petitioners. Moreover, the deportation proceedings too often are frustrated by activist judges who place unreasonable burdens on the government to show why a lawfully issued deportation order should be enforced, and who stop the lawful execution of deportation orders even though the aliens have advanced no legal basis to challenge the deportation order. Such activism combined with murkiness in the law have slowed and in some cases halted the government's ability to deport criminal aliens and others who have no right to stay. It is time we clarify the law so that the government can effectively deport those who should be deported. Often, we hear complaints that the government is not doing enough to protect our borders against illegal entry, and that we need to do more to catch and deport the illegal aliens who have made their way into our country. Without question, sealing our borders and arresting every illegal alien is a monumental undertaking. But with this legislation, we can easily address the immediate problem of removing the illegal aliens that we already have in the system, and sometimes even in our custody. I want to emphasize that the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act does not abridge an immigration detainee's right to challenge actual, physical custody through a habeas corpus petition. It is not my intention at all to take away the habeas petition as a legitimate way to challenge physical custody. Instead, this legislation narrowly applies to judicial review of final agency orders of removal, which involve legal issues that should be reviewed through a petition for review by the court of appeals. I further want to emphasize that nothing in this legislation deprives deportable aliens of all the procedural and substantive due process that the Supreme Court said was required. It simply bars unnecessary delays through collateral attacks. In fact, the only ones who are affected by this bill are criminals who have had their review, but who want to avoid enforcement of their deportation orders by initiating dilatory, collateral attacks, and perhaps their lawyers who charge thousands of dollars to file petitions that they know to be without merit. In sum, the legislation which I am introducing today will expand the subject matter jurisdiction of the court of appeals so that criminal aliens will receive the judicial review to which they are entitled according to St. Cyr. At the same time, the legislation will streamline the process so that we no longer have the absurd result of criminals getting more protection than non-criminals. The legislation also will reduce the possibility that criminals who are without any statutory relief from deportation can abuse the system by filing frivolous petitions solely to delay their eventual removal from the United States. Furthermore, the legislation will properly place the burden of showing eligibility for relief from deportation upon the applicants for relief, and will clarify our statute so that the government can more effectively execute deportation orders without encountering the obstacles that ambiguous statutes have created. I ask for the support of my colleagues in passing the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act, which will restore procedural fairness for all immigrants, but will significantly reduce the backlog in our judicial system created by frivolous and dilatory appeals.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act. The purpose of the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act is to reform the statutory scheme governing judicial review of immigration removal orders. Currently, we have an absurd situation in which criminal aliens are entitled to more review and have more opportunities to file frivolous dilatory appeals than non-criminal aliens. The legislation which I am introducing will streamline the process of reviewing final administrative immigration orders, thereby eliminating such unfair results under the current statutory scheme. In 1961, Congress amended Section 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, to specify the circumstances under which final orders of deportation and exclusion could be reviewed in the federal courts. The statute provided that petitions for review in the circuit courts of appeal were the ``sole and exclusive'' procedure for reviewing deportation orders, and that habeas corpus was available only to challenge exclusion orders of the custodial aspects of immigration detention. The jurisprudence was settled that there were no alternative or additional avenues of judicial review of immigration orders beyond those provided in Section 106. In 1996, seeking to provide for the more efficient and expeditious removal of aliens who commit serious crimes in the United States, Congress attempted to streamline the judicial review of immigration orders against such aliens. Passed by wide, bipartisan margins, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) eliminated judicial review of immigration orders for most criminals. IIRIRA recognized that criminal aliens had already received a full measure of due process in their criminal cases, as well as in their immigration proceedings, and that additional review typically only served to delay their inevitable removal. However, because the 1996 reforms lacked express language precluding habeas corpus review, the Supreme Court decided in INS v. St. Cyr that habeas review remained available to criminal aliens other than or in addition to the review specified in the INA. Consequently, under current law, criminal aliens may seek habeas review of their deportation orders in district courts and then appeal adverse decisions to the courts of appeals. By contrast, non-criminal aliens are governed by INA Sec. 242, and must appeal directly to the court of appeals without the additional layer of review in the district courts. The result is that criminal aliens who have no claim to relief from deportation file frivolous petitions, causing serious delay in securing final judgment against them. This is a complete perversion of the reforms intended by Congress in 1996, and it must be corrected. Let me illustrate the extent of the problem. In 1995, just before IIRIRA's enactment, there were 403 immigration habeas petitions filed. In 2003, that number rose to 2,374. Over the same period, the total number of immigration-related cases in federal courts rose from 1,939 to 11,906. This is after Congress passed a law to limit the review for criminal aliens. Clearly, the intent of Congress has been frustrated. Consistent with the settled principled that petitions for review should be the ``sole and exclusive'' means of judicial review for aliens challenging their removal (as reaffirmed in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252(b)(9) requiring that all issues pertaining to removal orders be brought to the circuit courts of appeal), the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act streamlines immigration review and protects an alien's right to review by an independent judiciary. It also ensures that even criminal aliens may receive review of pure questions of law and Constitutional claims, as dictated by the Supreme Court in S. Cyr. With the expanded subject matter jurisdiction in the courts of appeals, the proposed legislation will eliminate the confusing, and indeed inequitable practice of allowing criminal aliens to obtain an additional layer of review through habeas corpus petitions. This legislation is fully consistent with both the Supreme Court's decision in S. Cyr and settled jurisprudence regarding the availability of habeas corpus. These reforms will ensure that aliens will have their day in court, and ensures that the law does not place criminals in a position that is superior to non-criminals. In sum, the Act restores order to the judicial review process in the courts as well as fairness for alien petitioners. Moreover, the deportation proceedings too often are frustrated by activist judges who place unreasonable burdens on the government to show why a lawfully issued deportation order should be enforced, and who stop the lawful execution of deportation orders even though the aliens have advanced no legal basis to challenge the deportation order. Such activism combined with murkiness in the law have slowed and in some cases halted the government's ability to deport criminal aliens and others who have no right to stay. It is time we clarify the law so that the government can effectively deport those who should be deported. Often, we hear complaints that the government is not doing enough to protect our borders against illegal entry, and that we need to do more to catch and deport the illegal aliens who have made their way into our country. Without question, sealing our borders and arresting every illegal alien is a monumental undertaking. But with this legislation, we can easily address the immediate problem of removing the illegal aliens that we already have in the system, and sometimes even in our custody. I want to emphasize that the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act does not abridge an immigration detainee's right to challenge actual, physical custody through a habeas corpus petition. It is not my intention at all to take away the habeas petition as a legitimate way to challenge physical custody. Instead, this legislation narrowly applies to judicial review of final agency orders of removal, which involve legal issues that should be reviewed through a petition for review by the court of appeals. I further want to emphasize that nothing in this legislation deprives deportable aliens of all the procedural and substantive due process that the Supreme Court said was required. It simply bars unnecessary delays through collateral attacks. In fact, the only ones who are affected by this bill are criminals who have had their review, but who want to avoid enforcement of their deportation orders by initiating dilatory, collateral attacks, and perhaps their lawyers who charge thousands of dollars to file petitions that they know to be without merit. In sum, the legislation which I am introducing today will expand the subject matter jurisdiction of the court of appeals so that criminal aliens will receive the judicial review to which they are entitled according to St. Cyr. At the same time, the legislation will streamline the process so that we no longer have the absurd result of criminals getting more protection than non-criminals. The legislation also will reduce the possibility that criminals who are without any statutory relief from deportation can abuse the system by filing frivolous petitions solely to delay their eventual removal from the United States. Furthermore, the legislation will properly place the burden of showing eligibility for relief from deportation upon the applicants for relief, and will clarify our statute so that the government can more effectively execute deportation orders without encountering the obstacles that ambiguous statutes have created. I ask for the support of my colleagues in passing the Fairness in Immigration Litigation Act, which will restore procedural fairness for all immigrants, but will significantly reduce the backlog in our judicial system created by frivolous and dilatory appeals.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my dear colleagues for allowing me this time. I apologize for taking a little extra time today, but I think it is important. (The remarks of Mr. Hatch are printed in today's Record under ``Executive Session.'')

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I appreciate your patience and I appreciate this extra time. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 5 minutes, not on this subject.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want my remarks to be thought of as constructive remarks rather than not constructive. Yet another week has gone by without this body confirming a judicial nominee. That makes more than 9 weeks since the last judicial confirmation. Only four judges have been confirmed this year, and that is hardly a record of progress. It is not enough for the minority to point out how many nominees were confirmed under their watch 2 years ago. We must also look at what is going on now, and this is a dismal record even for a Presidential election year. Over the last six Presidential election years, both Republicans and Democrats won the White House and both Republicans and Democrats controlled the Senate. On average, the Senate has confirmed 45 judicial nominees in the six most recent Presidential election years, and continued confirmations until October in four of the last six Presidential election years. At this same point in the last six Presidential election years, the Senate confirmed, on average, 21 judicial nominees by now. I repeat, so far this year we have confirmed just four judges. This is not for any lack of activity on the part of the Judiciary Committee. The committee is actually one-third ahead of the average for recent Presidential election years in voting out judicial nominees to the full Senate. We have held 10 nomination hearings this year alone. Yet 32 nominees languish on the Senate calendar in a minority-imposed limbo despite the fact that we all know that if we took the simple up- or-down votes on each and every one of these nominees that the Constitution contemplates, it is probable that virtually all 32 of these nominees would be confirmed. Fully 22 of the 32 nominees on the calendar were reported out of the Judiciary Committee without even one negative vote in the Judiciary Committee. And that is saying something because our committee is known to be the home of some of the most vigorous debates and debaters in the Senate. As anyone who has ever attended one of our markups can verify, no one on the Judiciary Committee is shy about expressing an opinion on most any subject or reticent to reflect or register a dissenting point of view. When a nominee goes through the Judiciary Committee without opposition, the nominee is truly a consensus candidate of high qualifications and deserves prompt consideration by the full Senate. For me and many others, a nominee's American Bar Association rating is a factor to consider. I do not think it is the be all and end all of the confirmation process, but it is something that can be helpful in evaluating a nominee's qualifications. During the Clinton administration, I can recall that some of my friends on the other side of the aisle took the position that the ABA rating was the ``gold standard'' with respect to judicial confirmations. Well, where are they now when 24 of the 32 nominees on the Executive Calendar have received the highest rating, ``well qualified,'' by the ABA? And what is more, 14 of the 24 nominees rated ``well qualified'' by the ABA received this ``well qualified'' rating by a unanimous vote of the ABA evaluators. The Constitution requires, and this body has traditionally provided, a vote for every judicial nominee reaching the full Senate. Every Clinton nominee that reached the Senate floor got a vote, and President Clinton nearly broke the all-time confirmation record set by President Reagan who set this record with 6 years of a Republican-controlled Senate, while President Clinton only had 2 years of a Democratic- controlled Senate to help him. President Bush's nominees should receive the same treatment and get a vote on the floor. I remain hopeful that this body will not abandon past practice and extend the recent spate of unprecedented filibusters of appellate court nominees to district court nominees. That is why I have continued to encourage the leadership on both sides of the aisle and the White House to arrive at an acceptable compromise on the 32 judges on the Senate Calendar. I fully support the nomination of Ms. Marcia Cooke to serve as a District Judge on the Southern District of Florida. Before the Senate votes on the Cooke nomination, it is only appropriate that we spend a few minutes considering her qualifications. Currently serving as Miami Dade County's Assistant County Attorney, Ms. Cooke is one of those nominees who received the ABA's highest ``well- qualified'' rating. Her experience includes service as both a public defender and prosecutor, a plaintiff's attorney and defense counsel, a private practitioner and public servant, and both an advocate and a jurist. I might add that Ms. Cooke is a graduate of Georgetown University and is an active leader in that fine school's alumni association. Marcia Cooke served for 8 years as a Federal magistrate in Michigan. She has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Michigan and Florida. She has served as Florida's Chief Inspector General. Both of Florida's Democrat Senators support her. The position to which she has been nominated has been vacant so long it is now considered a judicial emergency. If confirmed she would be the first African-American woman to serve as a Federal judge in the Southern District of Florida. It is no wonder why the Judiciary Committee approved her without a single dissenting vote. Today, the full Senate should act to support her. I am pleased that a more reasonable and responsible atmosphere has returned to the Senate and this cloture vote has been vitiated as part of a larger agreement on judges. We should all recognize that a cloture vote on a highly qualified, highly respected district court nominee such as Marcia Cooke is not a positive sign. It indicates that our friends across the aisle may be prepared to extend their policy of delay and filibusters to even district court nominees. Many believe that the true target of these unprecedented filibusters of judicial nominees is to set the stage for the next Supreme Court vacancies. What they are trying to do is to, in effect, rewrite article II, section II, clause II, of the Constitution to require a 60-vote supermajority for Supreme Court vacancies. In the process, these misguided efforts have greatly damaged the confirmation process and diminished our efforts to work together on all judicial nominees. Despite many challenges this year on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy and his Democratic colleagues have worked with us to approve many highly qualified consensus candidates. I hope that the progress that we have made in the committee will not be derailed on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to my colleagues for moving forward on this nomination, and other nominations to follow over the next few weeks. I know these have been difficult negotiations. So I express my thanks to the President, to his chief of staff, Andrew Card, to Senator Frist and to Senator Daschle for bringing this agreement to the Senate. I also thank Senator Leahy and other members of the Judiciary Committee for their cooperation. I look forward to continuing the work of the Committee, and this agreement will help us in that effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial published today by the Miami Herald in support of the confirmation of Marcia Cooke be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create a national commission to study the potential establishment of a National Museum of the American Latino Community in Washington, D.C. I am pleased to introduce this measure today, and I am joined by my colleagues Senators Barbara Boxer, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Jeff Bingaman, all of whom have worked extensively with the Hispanic community on issues of importance. The Hispanic community is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States, and in my home State of Utah, Hispanics now account for nearly 10 percent of the population. Utah is a wonderful mosaic, encompassing a diverse number of peoples and cultures, and in fact, the latest census shows that Utah's Hispanic population has nearly doubled since 1990. But this phenomenon is not just happening in Utah. It is clear we are seeing remarkable growth in our Nation's Hispanic population. And with this growth, we need to recognize and find ways to better highlight the accomplishments of Latinos over their rich history in America. We need to express the importance of diversity, pride, and the sharing of the cultures that contribute to the vibrancy and splendor of our Nation. Every day we are reminded of the fact that Latinos are among our Nation's largest minorities, and numbers do have meaning. It is my belief that Latinos in America exhibit a strong desire--a commitment to building a nation where people are judged by their actions and not by their accents. They believe in the work ethic, patriotism, the importance of families, the free enterprise system, and the value of faith; they believe in these things and they experience these tenets, as they live them day in and day out here in America. I believe strongly in preserving the sanctity of the heritage of cultures, and we should treasure these gifts. I believe that all Americans are enriched by learning to view the history of our Nation through the prisms of other cultures and languages. When American and foreign tourists visit Washington, They expect to gain a better understanding of our collective history and culture. They see exhibits that educate visitors about our Nation's miraculous technological achievements, our military sacrifices and accomplishments, and the documents establishing the most sacred tenets of our democratic traditions. Yet, as demonstrated by the efforts to establish the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the lessons taught by our institutions are incomplete. Children who visit museums in Washington should have the opportunity to learn the full history of who we are and who we are becoming as Americans. Nearly 40 million U.S. residents share a cultural heritage that is only beginning to be understood as wholly American, yet few of the exhibits in the Smithsonian's and other museums in Washington commemorate American Latino cultural contributions. This legislation would take the next step toward ensuring that the lessons taught by our premier institutions for the arts and humanities include a better representation of American Latino cultural contributions. I hope that we will soon be able to say that the Nation's Capital truly exhibits America's rich cultural diversity. I would like to note that Representative Xavier Becerra has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives, and I am honored to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate. I hope this measure will be approved by the Senate in short order.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create a national commission to study the potential establishment of a National Museum of the American Latino Community in Washington, D.C. I am pleased to introduce this measure today, and I am joined by my colleagues Senators Barbara Boxer, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Jeff Bingaman, all of whom have worked extensively with the Hispanic community on issues of importance. The Hispanic community is the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States, and in my home State of Utah, Hispanics now account for nearly 10 percent of the population. Utah is a wonderful mosaic, encompassing a diverse number of peoples and cultures, and in fact, the latest census shows that Utah's Hispanic population has nearly doubled since 1990. But this phenomenon is not just happening in Utah. It is clear we are seeing remarkable growth in our Nation's Hispanic population. And with this growth, we need to recognize and find ways to better highlight the accomplishments of Latinos over their rich history in America. We need to express the importance of diversity, pride, and the sharing of the cultures that contribute to the vibrancy and splendor of our Nation. Every day we are reminded of the fact that Latinos are among our Nation's largest minorities, and numbers do have meaning. It is my belief that Latinos in America exhibit a strong desire--a commitment to building a nation where people are judged by their actions and not by their accents. They believe in the work ethic, patriotism, the importance of families, the free enterprise system, and the value of faith; they believe in these things and they experience these tenets, as they live them day in and day out here in America. I believe strongly in preserving the sanctity of the heritage of cultures, and we should treasure these gifts. I believe that all Americans are enriched by learning to view the history of our Nation through the prisms of other cultures and languages. When American and foreign tourists visit Washington, They expect to gain a better understanding of our collective history and culture. They see exhibits that educate visitors about our Nation's miraculous technological achievements, our military sacrifices and accomplishments, and the documents establishing the most sacred tenets of our democratic traditions. Yet, as demonstrated by the efforts to establish the National Museum of the American Indian and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the lessons taught by our institutions are incomplete. Children who visit museums in Washington should have the opportunity to learn the full history of who we are and who we are becoming as Americans. Nearly 40 million U.S. residents share a cultural heritage that is only beginning to be understood as wholly American, yet few of the exhibits in the Smithsonian's and other museums in Washington commemorate American Latino cultural contributions. This legislation would take the next step toward ensuring that the lessons taught by our premier institutions for the arts and humanities include a better representation of American Latino cultural contributions. I hope that we will soon be able to say that the Nation's Capital truly exhibits America's rich cultural diversity. I would like to note that Representative Xavier Becerra has introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives, and I am honored to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate. I hope this measure will be approved by the Senate in short order.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S. 1248, the IDEA Reauthorization Act. A concerned Utah parent called one of the school districts yesterday to ask for help. Her son is being released from a 24-hour mental health facility. He is not ready for a regular class setting, but there isn't room for him to be accommodated in a self-contained setting even though that school district is trying to provide a quality education for all students, including those with special needs. ``We love them, even though sometimes they burn us out,'' said one of our outstanding (and overworked) special education teachers. She is dedicated to these children who are guaranteed an education under IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. All students identified for special education present unique challenges. There are students with specific learning disabilities that are mild to moderate. Of these, many will be successfully educated and have futures filled with higher education or specialized technical training, careers, and families. Even many of the students with profound, significant disabilities will become wage earners, thanks to a great nation that understands and upholds the right of all students to an education. Utah is particularly successful with those students because of strong family and community-based support. Though they may never be able to live in complete independence, they realize an excellent measure of accomplishment and contribution. Of major concern are students such as the young teen who just walked out the front door of the mental health facility. He is among a growing number of students with severe emotional problems. Their disabilities may prevent them from becoming wage earners, good parents, and responsible citizens. Many will end up in prison. Unfortunately, there is a lot of lost potential here. But they will not be lost if we can tap into their potential. With this important reauthorization, I have had the benefit of input from various groups and individuals, including my own Disability Advisory Committee in Utah, made up of State and local officials and representatives from organizations specializing in disability advocacy. The Utah State Legislature has been in the forefront of the debate about the Federal funding of education as they continue to take the responsibility of providing an education to every child in my State. Funding special education is an important priority. I believe that the Federal Government's responsibility is to do its utmost, through the appropriations process, to direct funds to the States, who are certainly in the best position to decide how best to utilize these funds. Although appropriations for IDEA part B grants to states have increased significantly over the last 9 years, funding still falls short of the amount that would be necessary to provide maximum grants to all States. I agree that we need to put IDEA on the path of full funding with the goal of reaching the Federal Government's promise of 40 percent. While funding since 1996 has quadrupled, we are only halfway there. For this reason, I supported Chairman Judd Gregg's funding amendment, passed by a vote of 96-1 yesterday, that sets increasing discretionary authorizations for special education grants to States so that Congress will be on track to meet 100 percent of the full funding commitment by 2011. I am heartened that we have the support of the appropriators to reach the commitment. I am satisfied that the President will keep education as one of his highest priorities. Be assured that I will be keeping a watchful eye on this funding as we review it every year. If we fall short, I will be prepared to revisit this issue. It is not fair for States and localities to be saddled with Federal mandates they can ill afford. Congress should live up to its commitment, which I believe we have with passage of the Gregg amendment and assurances of our appropriators. While I am on the topic of the unwise burdens the Federal Government imposes on States, I would be remiss if I did not emphasize the tremendous costs of overregulation. Paperwork saps valuable time away from educators and diverts their number one focus: educating Utah's students. Senator Rick Santorum's amendment will give States the opportunity to reduce paperwork burdens associated with IDEA requirements and increase the resources available for improving results for children with disabilities. That is why I strongly support it. Indeed, reduction in paperwork is also a priority for the teachers. We need to encourage individuals to become qualified special education teachers. Take for example Utah--which is unquestionably a great place to live. Even there, it is difficult to find teachers to fill these crucial positions. It is even more difficult in rural districts. I am confident that under IDEA reauthorization, we can address these deficiencies by reducing paperwork, providing resources for recruitment of new teachers and for training, and making classrooms safer. The IDEA reauthorization, albeit imperfect, provides a pathway to success for our greatest asset: all of America's children.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, from time to time the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts recommend legislative proposals to improve the efficiency and enhance the operations of the Federal courts. I believe that, out of comity to the judicial branch, the Senate should have the judiciary's specific proposals on record so that we can give those suggestions proper consideration. Today, joined by Senators Leahy, Chambliss, Clinton, Durbin, and Schumer, I am introducing the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004. This bill contains both technical and substantive changes in the law. These recommendations made by the judicial branch will improve the judicial process and enhance judiciary personnel administration, benefits, and protections. Some proposals have been carried over from previous Congresses, but the legislation also contains some new proposals which the Federal judiciary believes will improve its operation. I appreciate the support of my cosponsors, and encourage the entire Senate to support this legislation. Many provisions contained in this bill streamline the operation of the Federal court system or otherwise facilitate judicial operations. The bill authorizes some realignments in the composition or the place of holding court of specified district courts. For example, section 120 would grant emergency authority for circuit, district and bankruptcy courts, as well as magistrate judges, to conduct court proceedings outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The need for this legislation has become apparent following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact of that disaster on court operations, in particular in New York City. In emergency conditions, a Federal court facility in an adjoining district (or circuit) might be more readily and safely available to court personnel, litigants, jurors and the public than a facility at a place of holding court within the district. This is particularly true in major metropolitan areas such as New York, Washington, DC, Dallas and Kansas City, where the metropolitan area includes parts of more than one judicial district. Other sections of the bill contain provisions that would improve resource management within the judiciary. The bill would improve the procedures for recouping technology costs and also would broaden the courts' investment options and offer an improved procedure for investing court registry funds in Treasury securities. Other provisions increase the approval thresholds for payment vouchers or expand the delegation authority of respect to approving vouchers. These improvements will reduce the amount of time judges must devote to non- judicial matters. Provisions in this bill also clarify existing law to better fulfill Congress's original intent or to make technical corrections. For example, sections 113 and 114 clarify diversity jurisdiction rules as applied to resident aliens and foreign corporations. Section 117 repeals references to obsolete sections of the U.S. Code. In addition, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004 also contains provisions designed to improve personnel administration, benefits and protections for employees working for the Federal judiciary. These provisions, in some cases, bring the Federal judicial system in line with the executive branch and other governmental bodies. Other provisions are designed to improve the ability of the judiciary to recruit and retain personnel. Several sections improve the judicial system in other ways. The bill offers protection of certain information contained in bankruptcy case files, such as Social Security account numbers, from public disclosure. The proposed legislation provides protection against malicious recording of fictitious liens against Federal judges. The bill provides for improving the process for determining Federal court security requirements. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, along with a section-by-section analysis of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation along with Senator Bennett to designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the James V. Hansen Federal Building. I am pleased to introduce this measure today to honor my friend from Utah, former Congressman Jim Hansen. I am joined by my colleague Senator Bennett, who has also worked extensively with Congressman Hansen on issues important to the people of Utah. Congressman Hansen retired last year after serving in the United States House of Representatives, representing Utah's First Congressional District, for 22 years. Before his 11 terms in Congress, he served in the Utah State Legislature for 8 years, where he ascended to the role of speaker of the Utah House of Representatives. For 12 years, he served on the Farmington City Council. He is a veteran of the Korean War and served in the United States Navy. Congressman Hansen has served the people of Utah with great distinction in the House of Representatives. He served as the Chairman of the House Resources Committee, as a senior member on the Armed Services Committee, and as a member of the House Ethics Committee,. He is one of the three founders of the Western Caucus and served as its chairman from 1988 to 1999. While serving as the Chairman of the Resources Committee, Congressman Hansen guided hundreds of difficult and complex bills through the legislative process. He sponsored numerous pieces of legislation to protect land in Utah and the Arizona Strip, and designate wilderness lands in Wyoming and Montana. Congressman Hansen proved to be an effective broker in the Congress, as he crafted numerous agreements that provided sensible policies to encourage multiple use of public lands, preservation of the environment, and sound economic principles. As the Resources Committee Chairman, Congressman Hansen facilitated compromises and negotiated many agreements among diverse parties. Congressman Hansen also rose to the role of the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. He was instrumental in helping preserve Hill Air Force Base through three rounds of base closures. While on the Committee, he led the effort to stop President Clinton's attempt to transfer work being conducted at Hill Air Force Base to California. He came to be known as an expert leader on defense issues, and he has a distinguished reputation for speaking with authority on intricate military topics. Congressman Hansen served longer than any member to date on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. His colleagues in the House reappointed him three times, and in the third term he served as Chairman. When Hansen was a freshman in Congress, he worked with President Ronald Regan to establish the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. In the first year of the program, the number of deaths resulting from drunk driving declined by 4,700. Over the course of his life, Congressman Hansen has built a reputation as a decent, commonsense, hard-working public servant. He is respected by members on both sides of the aisle as a straightforward, rational lawmaker who works hard to reach sensible solutions. Mr. President, it is only fitting that the Federal building in Ogden bear Congressman Hansen's name. He devoted time, energy, and talent to improving the State of Utah. The name of Jim Hansen will bring a level of trust, a level of fairness, and a level of understanding to all who enter this building. His name will continue to be synonymous with excellence in public service in Utah. Congressman Hansen advocated what was best for his constituents and what was best for the Nation. I thank Congressman Hansen, and I wish him the best in the activities he chooses to pursue. Senator Bennett and I are pleased to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate. I note that Representative Cannon has introduced a companion bill which has been passed by the House of Representatives. I hope this measure will be approved by the Senate in short order.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, over 6 weeks ago, the Senate minority instituted what resulted in a virtual freeze on the Senate's constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent on the President's nominees. This is troubling to me for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I am slightly encouraged by the movement on a few executive nominations last week, even though I remain extremely concerned about the current and continuing freeze on judicial nominations. The last time the Senate confirmed a judge was on March 12, about 2 months ago. So it is past time for a rollcall. Yesterday, in addition to being Mother's Day, marked the beginning of the fourth year since the President sent to the Senate his first nominations to the Federal judiciary. Back on May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated 11 outstanding individuals to serve on the bench. The Senate has confirmed eight of those nominees. One has withdrawn, and two are still pending. I commend Senator Daschle and other colleagues across the aisle, especially my friend the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for working with us and the administration in confirming to date 173 of President Bush's judicial nominations. As Senator Leahy frequently reminds us, 100 of those nomination confirmations took place during his tenure as Judiciary Committee chairman from mid-2001 through 2002. But more work can and needs to be done so that the American public can enjoy the benefits of a more fully staffed Judiciary. Unfortunately, the old saying, ``justice delayed is justice denied'' is true. The Senate needs to consider the judges on the calendar and give each one an up-or-down vote, as the Constitution requires. At present, there are 32 nominations for our district and circuit courts pending before the full Senate. Among this group are 22 men and 10 women. This is an outstanding group of candidates with diverse backgrounds. These candidates include a number of impressive minority candidates such as Justice Janice Rogers-Brown of the California Supreme Court, who has been nominated to serve on the influential Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The nominees being held in limbo are highly qualified. Each and every one of them deserves the consideration of the full Senate. They include sitting State supreme court justices, State and Federal trial judges, and distinguished members of the bar. Many have served as judicial clerks in our Federal trial and appellate courts and in the Supreme Court. Others have served at the highest levels of all three branches of Government. All have distinguished academic records. Twenty-four of these nominees received a Well Qualified rating from the American Bar Association. Fourteen of those Well Qualified ratings were unanimous. While I do not take the position that the ABA ratings are or should be dispositive on judicial nominations, let me remind my colleagues what a Well Qualified rating means. According to guidelines published by the American Bar Association, standing committee on Federal judiciary: To merit a rating of ``well qualified,'' the nominee must be at the top of the legal profession in his or her legal community, have outstanding legal ability, breadth of experience, the highest reputation for integrity, and either have demonstrated, or exhibited the capacity for, judicial temperament. This rating accurately describes the nominees before the Senate. When votes are held, I believe we will find there is bipartisan support for all of the nominees pending before the Senate. Even those who have been previously filibustered have received an affirmative vote of support by a majority of the Senate and have supporters across the political spectrum. Yet they are being held up, for the first time in this country's history, by filibusters. As further evidence of the qualifications and support of the nominees, I note that 22 nominees were reported out of the Judiciary Committee without a single negative vote. Eighteen district judges were reported by voice vote and with no announced opposition. Four circuit nominees received a 19-to-0 Judiciary Committee vote. I see no reason all cannot expeditiously be acted on by the Senate. That means all of the 22 Judiciary Committee consensus nominees by voice vote or by unanimous consent, and the others, as well. I have been troubled by the practice in this Congress of demanding time-consuming rollcall votes on nominees who pass unanimously or nearly unanimously. I understand these positions are lifetime appointments, but the Senate acts on many extremely important matters by unanimous consent or by voice vote. I have been told that last year alone we took about twice as many rollcall votes on unopposed judicial nominees than in 8 years under President Clinton. That is just last year. Like every other Senator, I took an oath to defend and support the Constitution. Every Senator has his or her view on how that responsibility is to be exercised with respect to acting on judicial nominees. In my view, the Constitution requires the Senate provide its advice and consent regarding the judicial nominees. Fulfilling my oath means I have a stake in seeing that happen. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have a special role in working with the leadership in seeing the nominees, once reported from the committee, are brought up for floor action. Vote up or down, but just vote. Every judicial nominee who reaches the Senate floor is entitled to an up-or-down vote. I am hopeful the votes will be held on all judicial nominees presently on the Executive Calendar, as well as for nominees who may yet be reported this year by the Judiciary Committee. Now, I intend for my remarks today to bring us closer together on considering nominations in the Senate. While I will not fully discuss this matter today, I will note I am not persuaded by arguments that suggest that President Bush's exercise of his constitutional prerogative to make recess appointments somehow justifies this current freeze on nominations. Absent the refusal to allow the simple up-or- down vote on judicial nominees that article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution requires, the recess appointments would not have been made in the first place. I am mindful that my colleagues across the aisle have also expressed an interest in seeing that minority party nominees to bipartisan boards and commissions be acted upon. For the last several weeks, I have publicly stated on a number of occasions that I understand this concern and that I would support qualified Democratic nominees such as Jon Leibowitz, a former Judiciary Committee staffer of Senator Kohl, to serve as a Commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission. Likewise, I am pleased that the White House is considering a particular Democratic attorney, also a former Judiciary Committee staffer, to serve on the Federal Sentencing Commission. I hope that significant and mutually satisfactory progress can be made on judges and other nominees. I hope such progress will be made. I know from my experience in this body if we work together we can usually find solutions to these matters, even in an election year. Senator Leahy and I and other members of the Judiciary Committee have worked hard on nominations, even as we faced other difficult issues in the committee this year. I know Senator Frist and Senator Daschle are working hard with the administration, and I wish them well. I simply implore them--each and every one of them--to accelerate the pace of these discussions. But I must also state I believe the time for discussions, negotiations, and talk is drawing to a close. At some point, the Senate must do its sworn duty and vote up or down on judicial nominations. That is just right. It is the right thing to do. The time for action is quickly coming upon us. Some believe that point has already passed. To do otherwise is unfair to this institution, unfair to the nominees, unfair to the President, and, most importantly, unfair to the American public who entrusted us with the responsibility to conduct the public business. Madam President, we can and should do a better job of considering judicial nominees on the Senate floor. I stand ready and willing to continue to work with all of my colleagues and the administration on this important matter. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Hatch pertaining to the introduction of S. 2398 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to echo the horror that all of our citizens felt when we first viewed the photographs taken at Abu Ghraib prison. It is a stain upon the honor of our nation and the actions of these few individuals have undermined many of the substantial gains and sacrifices that our service men and women have achieved since the events of September 11th. At the same time, it is important to remember that these are the disgraceful actions of a few and by no means do they represent the hard work and honorable service of the 138,000 soldiers, sailors, airman, marines, and coast guardsman that are serving our country in Iraq and surrounding countries. During this trying time, I am also reminded that one of our troops' primary responsibilities is to do what is necessary to minimize civilian casualties. As some of my colleagues have mentioned on numerous occasions, one of their most vivid memories of the war was when a young American service member ran out onto an exposed bridge in order to save a young Iraqi woman. This is just one of many examples of the high personal, professional and moral conduct that is displayed every day by our Nation's service members. The question then arises, how do we remove this stain on our honor? Our commander-in-chief, the President, as always, is leading the way by expressing his outrage over these actions and has apologized to the world. The Department of Defense has followed the President's example. In his very forthcoming and candid comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Secretary of Defense apologized and took full responsibility for these mistakes. The statements by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld were the hallmarks of leadership and show the world what is best about the United States. It is the sign of a great nation to acknowledge openly when laws have been broken, bring those violators to justice, and apply the law equally to all. We are working with the Iraqi people to use these same legal principles as the cornerstone of their developing legal system. Therefore, it is my hope that the results of the trials to come will form the real enduring image in minds of the Iraqi people. I strongly support the resolution that is before the Senate. It adds our apology to those offered by the President and the Secretary of Defense; it rightly commends the vast majority of service members who are serving nobly abroad to support liberty; and it reiterates our commitment to bring to justice those who broke the law. It is a beginning to set things right. However, I am dismayed to learn that some have taken this opportunity to make a political point. They have called on the Secretary to resign. It is troubling that some would take advantage of these horrific acts in order to achieve a political gain during an election year. This is a Secretary of Defense who has continued to show that he is a man of honor by taking direct responsibility for the actions of a few rogue individuals. Secretary Rumsfeld has proven conclusively time and again that he is a positive agent for change at the Department of Defense. I know of no other individual who will engage in a more aggressive investigation of the events that have occurred and will institute whatever changes are necessary to prevent these violations from ever happening again. We have much to do to repair our credibility. The President's apology, followed by the acceptance of responsibility by Secretary Rumsfeld and the actions of the Senate today, begin this process. However, this process will also require a rigorous investigation. There is one man who I know who is up for that challenge and it is Secretary Rumsfeld. This great Nation must stand behind him. (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation along with Senator Bennett to designate the Federal building located at 324 Twenty-fifth Street in Ogden, Utah, as the James V. Hansen Federal Building. I am pleased to introduce this measure today to honor my friend from Utah, former Congressman Jim Hansen. I am joined by my colleague Senator Bennett, who has also worked extensively with Congressman Hansen on issues important to the people of Utah. Congressman Hansen retired last year after serving in the United States House of Representatives, representing Utah's First Congressional District, for 22 years. Before his 11 terms in Congress, he served in the Utah State Legislature for 8 years, where he ascended to the role of speaker of the Utah House of Representatives. For 12 years, he served on the Farmington City Council. He is a veteran of the Korean War and served in the United States Navy. Congressman Hansen has served the people of Utah with great distinction in the House of Representatives. He served as the Chairman of the House Resources Committee, as a senior member on the Armed Services Committee, and as a member of the House Ethics Committee,. He is one of the three founders of the Western Caucus and served as its chairman from 1988 to 1999. While serving as the Chairman of the Resources Committee, Congressman Hansen guided hundreds of difficult and complex bills through the legislative process. He sponsored numerous pieces of legislation to protect land in Utah and the Arizona Strip, and designate wilderness lands in Wyoming and Montana. Congressman Hansen proved to be an effective broker in the Congress, as he crafted numerous agreements that provided sensible policies to encourage multiple use of public lands, preservation of the environment, and sound economic principles. As the Resources Committee Chairman, Congressman Hansen facilitated compromises and negotiated many agreements among diverse parties. Congressman Hansen also rose to the role of the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. He was instrumental in helping preserve Hill Air Force Base through three rounds of base closures. While on the Committee, he led the effort to stop President Clinton's attempt to transfer work being conducted at Hill Air Force Base to California. He came to be known as an expert leader on defense issues, and he has a distinguished reputation for speaking with authority on intricate military topics. Congressman Hansen served longer than any member to date on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. His colleagues in the House reappointed him three times, and in the third term he served as Chairman. When Hansen was a freshman in Congress, he worked with President Ronald Regan to establish the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. In the first year of the program, the number of deaths resulting from drunk driving declined by 4,700. Over the course of his life, Congressman Hansen has built a reputation as a decent, commonsense, hard-working public servant. He is respected by members on both sides of the aisle as a straightforward, rational lawmaker who works hard to reach sensible solutions. Mr. President, it is only fitting that the Federal building in Ogden bear Congressman Hansen's name. He devoted time, energy, and talent to improving the State of Utah. The name of Jim Hansen will bring a level of trust, a level of fairness, and a level of understanding to all who enter this building. His name will continue to be synonymous with excellence in public service in Utah. Congressman Hansen advocated what was best for his constituents and what was best for the Nation. I thank Congressman Hansen, and I wish him the best in the activities he chooses to pursue. Senator Bennett and I are pleased to introduce this companion legislation in the Senate. I note that Representative Cannon has introduced a companion bill which has been passed by the House of Representatives. I hope this measure will be approved by the Senate in short order.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, from time to time the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts recommend legislative proposals to improve the efficiency and enhance the operations of the Federal courts. I believe that, out of comity to the judicial branch, the Senate should have the judiciary's specific proposals on record so that we can give those suggestions proper consideration. Today, joined by Senators Leahy, Chambliss, Clinton, Durbin, and Schumer, I am introducing the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004. This bill contains both technical and substantive changes in the law. These recommendations made by the judicial branch will improve the judicial process and enhance judiciary personnel administration, benefits, and protections. Some proposals have been carried over from previous Congresses, but the legislation also contains some new proposals which the Federal judiciary believes will improve its operation. I appreciate the support of my cosponsors, and encourage the entire Senate to support this legislation. Many provisions contained in this bill streamline the operation of the Federal court system or otherwise facilitate judicial operations. The bill authorizes some realignments in the composition or the place of holding court of specified district courts. For example, section 120 would grant emergency authority for circuit, district and bankruptcy courts, as well as magistrate judges, to conduct court proceedings outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The need for this legislation has become apparent following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact of that disaster on court operations, in particular in New York City. In emergency conditions, a Federal court facility in an adjoining district (or circuit) might be more readily and safely available to court personnel, litigants, jurors and the public than a facility at a place of holding court within the district. This is particularly true in major metropolitan areas such as New York, Washington, DC, Dallas and Kansas City, where the metropolitan area includes parts of more than one judicial district. Other sections of the bill contain provisions that would improve resource management within the judiciary. The bill would improve the procedures for recouping technology costs and also would broaden the courts' investment options and offer an improved procedure for investing court registry funds in Treasury securities. Other provisions increase the approval thresholds for payment vouchers or expand the delegation authority of respect to approving vouchers. These improvements will reduce the amount of time judges must devote to non- judicial matters. Provisions in this bill also clarify existing law to better fulfill Congress's original intent or to make technical corrections. For example, sections 113 and 114 clarify diversity jurisdiction rules as applied to resident aliens and foreign corporations. Section 117 repeals references to obsolete sections of the U.S. Code. In addition, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004 also contains provisions designed to improve personnel administration, benefits and protections for employees working for the Federal judiciary. These provisions, in some cases, bring the Federal judicial system in line with the executive branch and other governmental bodies. Other provisions are designed to improve the ability of the judiciary to recruit and retain personnel. Several sections improve the judicial system in other ways. The bill offers protection of certain information contained in bankruptcy case files, such as Social Security account numbers, from public disclosure. The proposed legislation provides protection against malicious recording of fictitious liens against Federal judges. The bill provides for improving the process for determining Federal court security requirements. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, along with a section-by-section analysis of the bill, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. HATCH. We are on the Negroponte nomination?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand today in full support of the President's nominee to be our first ambassador to the new Iraq, Ambassador John D. Negroponte. This is the most important nomination for an ambassador that we have considered in several decades. This moment is historic. We are asked to approve the President's choice for an ambassador to a country whose previous leadership was an enemy to America, to its neighbors and to its own people. That dictatorship, the brutal and bloody regime of Saddam Hussein, was removed by force, by a coalition of nations led by this country, in a military campaign where we still face, every day, bloody resistance from the remnants of Saddam's Ba'athis regime, his criminal associates, and the international jihadists who have joined forces with the tattered remnants of the Arab world's bloodiest regime. We are engaged in a conflict we cannot, and will not, lose and the President has shown that our military determination is matched by our political determination to return this country to its people, beginning with the opening of an American embassy on July 1 of this year. That we are providing our advice and consent on this ambassadorial nomination demonstrates that this President is dedicated to returning sovereignty to the Iraqi people. Under the President's direction, Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority, working with the international community, now represented by U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, have listened to Iraqi leaders and are holding to the deadline of June 30 for the transfer of authority. That transfer of authority and the return of sovereignty require that the U.S. political presence be transferred from the office of the administrator, held by Ambassador Bremer, to a U.S. embassy, to be led, if this Senate approves, by Ambassador Negroponte. Jerry Bremer and John Negroponte are two of the finest diplomats ever to serve this country. Their contributions throughout their careers reveal skill and dedication that will set the standards for our diplomatic corps for generations to come. I truly hope that Ambassador Bremer, when his historic mission is over with the CPA, will continue to play a leading role representing our country to the world. Ambassador Negroponte has represented our country to the world on many fronts, serving as ambassador in the Philippines, Mexico and Honduras. Most recently he has served as permanent representative to the United Nations, where he has been as our ambassador since September 18, 2001. There are those who charge that this administration has been unduly unilateral, caustic to coalition-building, and dismissive of the diplomacy necessary to winning the war on terrorism that erupted on our land on September 11, 2001. Frankly, that charge, now becoming a theme in a campaign year, leaves me baffled. It reveals deeply flawed thinking, and deeply flawed perception. Diplomacy cannot be measured by outcomes as expected by the multilateralists. This is a definition of diplomatic success that becomes a euphemism for subjugating national interest to international veto. The citizens of Utah reject this thinking, and they are correct. And I believe the rest of the country does as well. If diplomacy cannot be measured by multilateral consensus, it should not be shunted by unilateral arrogance. To suggest, as many on the left seem to do these days, that this administration has ignored diplomacy is to, in my opinion, ignore the facts. This administration has been, in my opinion, extraordinarily engaged in the international community. No President since the founding of the United Nations has been as respectful, solicitous and encouraging of the United Nations as has President Bush. That he has done so without ever sacrificing the fundamental sovereignty that rests in our Constitution makes him no less remarkable for the very public appeals he has made directly to the United Nations. On November 10, 2001, fewer than 2 months after the most catastrophic terrorist attacks on our homeland in the history of the Republic, President Bush traveled from Washington to speak before the U.N., where he recognized: The United Nations has risen to this responsibility. On the 12th of September, these buildings opened for emergency meetings of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Before the sun had set, these attacks on the world stood condemned by the world. And I want to thank you for this strong and principled stand. Less than a year later, on the day after the first anniversary of September 11, President Bush traveled from the White House to address the General Assembly again, where he declared: The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant? The President answered the question: The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be enforced. Critics of this administration have declared that our doctrine of preemption, not a doctrine new to this administration, is incompatible with a desire for international consensus. This is simply not true. For a nuanced perspective, may I recommend a review of none other than Secretary General Kofi Annan's words, in his address of October, 2003 before the General Assembly? In that speech, he was expected to denounce the doctrine of preemption. But while he stood by the principle of collective action enshrined in article 51 of the U.N. Charter, he recognized, as the honest man he is, that states which were threatened had to respond, and that if the United Nations were to retain its legitimacy in the 21st century, it would have to develop mechanisms to promptly address the threats of this new century. In my view, this was a recognition, by the Secretary General of the United Nations no less, that in dealing with Iraq, 12 years and 14 resolutions without resolve could not be the way the United Nations retained its relevancy in addressing the security challenges we face today. In that same week, President Bush addressed the General Assembly yet a third time. And I note that no President of the United States has addressed the General Assembly three times in one term. He declared: The Security Council was right to be alarmed about Iraq. The Security Council was right to declare that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so. The Security Council was right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply. And because there were consequences, because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace, and the credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free and today we are joined in the General Assembly by representatives of a liberated country. John Negroponte, as ambassador to the United Nations, stood by the President during those three historic addresses to the international community. Today, the President has chosen our current ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, to be the first U.S. ambassador to an Iraq liberated from tyranny. Ambassador Negroponte has worked with the United Nations through this most historic of times. During this time, he worked closely with U.N. Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi on supporting Afghanistan after our forces deposed the Taliban. Ambassador Brahimi's efforts to guide the transition in Iraq from the Coalition Provisional Authority to sovereignty under an interim government has, as my colleagues know, the support of President Bush and his administration. Ambassador Negroponte understands this. In his statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he said: The prospect of legitimacy that the United Nations can bring to the process of political reconciliation is a point of crucial interest in both the region and the broader international community. With an expanded United Nations role in the political arena, I believe that it will be easier to generate the international support that the successful rehabilitation of Iraq requires. Secretary General Annan's and Ambassador Brahimi's contributions may well open the door to creative thinking about ways in which the international community, as well as the Coalition, can further contribute to the process of rehabilitating Iraq, both politically and economically. I want to be clear that a vital United Nations role does not come at the expense of the United States' influence or interests. Our efforts can be well coordinated and complementary; there is ample evidence across a broad range of situations that a strong partnership with the international community, including the United Nations organization, is in our strategic interest. I hope my colleagues recognize that in supporting this nominee, we are supporting a man of exceptional experience, a man who represents the best thinking by this administration on the challenges we still face in Iraq. He is also a very good man, a good father, a good husband. He is an example to us all. Let us be honest: The challenges in Iraq remain large. Our engagement there is historic, and our commitment to support this engagement until we achieve success must remain strong. As all of my colleagues, I have been shocked by the reports out of Abu Ghraib prison in the past weeks. I have been shocked and I have been disgusted. I join the people of Utah, and the good citizens throughout this country, in expressing how appalled we all are at the barbarous acts we have witnessed. In the prison that Saddam Hussein used to torture Iraqis, a few Americans have engaged in acts that demean Iraqis and besmirch the honor of Americans in uniform. Every day, members of the American military are risking their lives in Iraq, in order to bring about a better society for the Iraqi people. In combat, American military, the best trained in the world, have, time and again, exercised restraint of force in order to minimize civilian casualties. Sometimes that restraint has resulted in increasing the risk to our soldiers. That a handful of American soldiers committing brutalities in one of Saddam's reclaimed prisons could occur is worthy of all of our outrage--not least because we are proud of the honor and decency and sacrifice offered by the vast majority of our military in Iraq everyday. We must expose what went on in Abu Ghraib prison. We must conduct full investigations, and follow those investigations wherever they lead. Those who committed crimes must and will be held accountable. Respect for the Iraqi people demands this, as does respect for the honor of all Americans in uniform, and all Americans who support them. The security situation in Iraq is still hostile. We face enormous challenges, challenges we will meet. We have learned in recent days about the President's request for appropriations to fund our historic mission. This will lead to further debate, as it should. Our duty as legislators is to render democratic scrutiny to the most important issues before this government. If you want to support the transition to the first stage of Iraqi sovereignty, as the President has committed to do by the end of June, if you want to support continuing our appeal to the international community to join in the historic cause of rebuilding Iraq, and if you want to support this President, as he asserts his constitutional prerogative to conduct diplomacy at this most critical time in the history of our foreign policy, you must support his superb selection of John D. Negroponte to be the first Ambassador to an Iraq free of despotism. He is certainly going to have my vote. I have met him in various nations around the world. I have seen him in action in diplomacy. I know what a brilliant man he is, I know what a good man he is, I know what a fine man he is, I know what a good family man he is, and I know what he has meant to the diplomatic corps in this country, and I know what he has meant at the United Nations. I support him fully, and I hope every other Senator in this body will support him as well. There may be some who do not, but if they don't, they just plain do not know the man. This is not an easy position. This is a position which will take a great deal of courage, a great deal of diplomacy, a great deal of common sense, a great deal of genius. This is the fellow who can provide all that. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, the Harkin amendment is being debated?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Department of Labor's revisions to the Fair Labor Standards Act--FLSA-- to protect and extend overtime benefits to hardworking Americans. I wish to thank Labor Secretary Elaine Chao for her leadership and vision in bringing about this important reform for American workers. Overtime provisions in Federal labor law are meant to safeguard low-income workers from employers who would take advantage of them, but the current regulations that implement the law are muddy, outdated, and have led to countless law suits, some of which are frivolous and fruitless. Truly, Secretary Chao has recognized that it is long past due to reform our nation's antiquated overtime regulations. The new regulations replace long-standing regulations which the Department of Labor has characterized as ``confusing, complex, and outdated.'' I agree. Consider the fact that the Federal overtime regulations were last overhauled when Harry Truman was in the White House. That's more than 50 years ago. We are relying on a half-century old law to protect overtime rights for workers with job duties that didn't exist in 1949. Yet, there are some among us who are determined to push legislation to block these rules. Some Members of Congress see a chance to score political points by acting as if something oppressive is occurring. This could not be farther from the truth. Under the current regulations--these are the regulations Secretary Chao is trying to improve--some low-income workers haven't been protected at all, while some high-income workers and professionals have used the law to make sure they are paid the overtime rate, time and a half per hour for any work exceeding 40 hours in a week. For example, under the current regulations: Only workers earning less than $8,060 were guaranteed overtime pay because the minimum salary level had not been updated for nearly 30 years; the descriptions of job duties required for overtime exemption had been frozen in time for nearly 50 years, resulting in confusion and uncertainty for both workers and employers; and, the previous regulations were outdated, confusing and complex, and have led to an explosion of law suits. That seems to be the history of our country. Everything is coming down to litigation. For a year, the Labor Department has been trying to update these cumbersome regulations to benefit the American workforce. The new overtime regulations were not simply conjured up overnight. On the contrary. Nearly 80 stakeholder organizations, including 16 employee unions, were invited to participate in meetings with the Department of Labor. Over 40 of those organizations attended stakeholder meetings and provided input on the proposed regulations. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2003. After a 90-day comment period, the Department of Labor received 75,280 public comments. I was supportive of the Department's overtime regulations proposed last March; however, some argued that the $22,100 annual minimum salary level for exemption was too low; the middle-income workers would be harmed because workers earning more than $65,000 per year might not be entitled to overtime pay; and, too many workers would be denied overtime protections. In an effort to be even more inclusive and respond to the criticisms from Administration opponents, the Labor Department revised its proposal--that is after all of the comments--which is the way the system is supposed to work. Under the final rule, workers making less than $23,660 a year are automatically eligible for overtime--this means that 1.3 million low- income workers will be eligible for overtime pay for the first time in history. The new regulations will preserve eligibility for most white-collar workers making up to $100,000 a year. However, workers making more than $100,000 who regularly perform some administrative, executive, or professional duties will no longer automatically be eligible for overtime. This change will affect 107,000 workers. It doesn't take a particularly clever politician to see that you might win votes if you fight to make these high earners higher earners and otherwise carry on as if a Republican, business-friendly Administration cannot be trusted to do right by employees. The final rule strengthens overtime protections for licensed practical nurses and first responders, such as police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, by clearly stating for the first time that these workers are entitled to overtime pay. Plain and simple, under the new overtime regulations, 6.7 million workers are guaranteed overtime status. I am aware that a week before the Department of Labor's revised rule was finalized and made publicly available, the AFL-CIO began attacking the overtime regulations. These tactics reflect a greater interest in playing politics than in protecting America's workers. Fortunately, the union movement is not entirely opposed to the regulations. Take for example the Nation's largest police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, whose National President, Chuck Canterbury, recently hailed the Department of Labor's final regulations as an ``unprecedented victory'' for America's first responders. The International Association of Fire Fighters has said they support the rule going forward. You also won't be hearing voices of opposition from the Ironworkers, Carpenters, or Operating Engineers, because they know that the new rule expressly protects construction workers. Suing employers about overtime has become very lucrative for trial lawyers. Why is this the case? Because the current overtime regulations contain so many ambiguities when applied to the modern workforce, lawsuits naturally follow. Without a doubt, the Fair Labor Standards Act is the new playground for plaintiffs lawyers--they are going after everybody: companies; school districts; local governments; you name it. Some argue that these lawsuits benefit workers, particularly since they may win some cases. But, spending an average of 2 years in court to recover wages workers should have had in their pockets on pay day is not a benefit. Not surprisingly, workers are getting a few thousand dollars from these settlements, while trial lawyers are walking away with millions. These lawsuits are a terrible drain on the economy for employers and worker groups alike to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on such litigation. We ought to be spending these resources to create new jobs. I am amazed that the Department of Labor's changes haven't been enough to satisfy all critics. Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry asserts that the new overtime regulations ``strike a severe blow to what little economic security working families have left as a result of historic policies.'' That is pure bunk, and he ought to know it. Somehow, opponents have conveniently overlooked the Department's good faith efforts in creating today's overtime regulations. Are the new rules perfect? No, but they have been welcomed by many business owners because they will, finally, provide some certainty on this issue. Contrary to the propaganda being disseminated by its proponents, under the new overtime rules: ``Blue collar'' workers are entitled to overtime pay; employers are not relieved from their contractual obligations under collective bargaining agreements; the ``highly compensated'' test applies only to employees who earn at least $100,000 per year and who ``customarily and regularly'' perform exempt duties; the special rules for exemption applicable to ``sole charge'' executives are deleted, strengthening protections for workers under the executive duties test; a requirement is added that employees who own at least a bona fide 20 percent equity interest in a business are exempt only if they are ``actively engaged in its management''; and the previous requirement that exempt administrative employees must exercise discretion and independent judgment is maintained. The department's intent not to change the educational requirements is clarified for the professional exemption, and defines ``work requiring advanced knowledge'' as ``work which is predominately intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment;'' and, terms used in the previous regulations are retained, but it makes them easier to understand and apply to the 21st Century workplace by better reflecting existing Federal case law. In addition, the overall length of the regulations has been reduced from 31,000 words to just 15,000. Just yesterday, I received a phone call from Cheryl Lake of Draper, UT. Cheryl has been a human resources professional for over 20 years. She called my office yesterday in strong support for the Department of Labor's new overtime regulations. She explained to me how helpful these new regulations will be for employees and companies alike. Cheryl expressed major concern about Senator Harkin's amendment, and explained how complicated and confusing his amendment would make her job. The Harkin amendment is easy to describe in a brief sound bite, but impossible to defend on legal, procedural, or economic grounds. The amendment presumes facts that do not exist and assumes there are no consequences for its folly. To anyone who looks at this issue objectively, the decision is a no- brainer. Reforming the regulations is the right thing to do, and we need to let the Department of Labor move forward. There is nothing in the latest revisions that appears either unreasonable or counter to the spirit of the law. It is possible to argue with some particulars, but extremely difficult to make the case that the new regulations are unfair to workers. The workplace is far different from a half-century ago. Overtime rules should reflect that. Workers will be better off. Companies will be better off. I actually believe trial lawyers will be better off because there won't be any more of these phony lawsuits where they reap the benefits in comparison to what the workers themselves get. I think trial lawyers who have legitimate cases will be able to prove them with more specificity and will be able to do a better job with their clients than is currently being done by the abuse of the process because of the ambiguities of the law. This goes a long way toward getting rid of those ambiguities and making the law extremely functional compared to the current regulations. I want to personally compliment the distinguished Secretary of Labor for being willing to take this on. This is a type of job that will always be attacked by those who do not understand these regulations. This will always be attacked by those who want to keep going the same system of overlitigation in our society. This will always be attacked by those who basically don't understand labor law. This will always be attacked by those who do not want to get things straightened out so that the system works in the best possible way it can, in the most efficient and economically sound way, while at the same time expanding all of the benefits and expanding all of the laws to embrace even more people than have ever been embraced. These are very important regulations. I hope our colleagues will reject the Harkin amendment, which I believe will cause further damage and harm to our system while not doing anything substantively important for the workers.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, may I know what the parliamentary state of affairs is?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to allow penalty-free withdrawals from retirement plans during the period that a military reservist or a National Guardsman is called to active duty. Specifically, the provision would allow individuals who are called to active duty for at least 179 days between September 11, 2001, and September 15, 2005, to avoid the 10-percent penalty tax that is normally imposed on early distributions. This bill passed the House of Representatives by unanimous consent late last month, and it is my hope that this important and appropriate legislation will receive the same resounding support by my colleagues in the Senate. Nearly 3,000 reservists and Guard members from my home State of Utah have been called to active duty and are currently stationed in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. I believe it is safe to say that when many of these brave young men and women were informed by their commanding officers they would be placed on full-time active duty, they were not only concerned with the extended time period they would be called away from their families, but also with the reality that by temporarily leaving behind their full-time civilian jobs, many of them would leave behind a higher paycheck. Many reservists are suddenly faced with the prospect that their income may no longer cover all of the expenses for themselves and their families. Some may say that allowing reservists to make withdrawals from their retirement accounts without incurring a penalty is too small a step and not worthy of our time. But to many reservists and Guard members, these retirement accounts can be a significant resource in helping to alleviate some of their financial stress. Providing our soldiers with an additional option to support their families certainly seems like a worthwhile cause to me. The cost of this bill to the U.S. Treasury is estimated to be only $4 million over 10 years. I think we can all agree this cost is minimal considering the tremendous sacrifices that our reservists, Guard members, and their families are making each day. In addition, there is a provision in this bill that would allow our soldiers to repay any amount withdrawn, without penalty, for 2 years after leaving active duty. There is no doubt that there are many additional much needed improvements to our policies that each of us must work together towards to ensure the financial peace of mind for our Guard and Reserve members and their families. It is imperative for each of us to give our soldiers not only all of the tools, armor, and technology to fight those who seek to destroy peace, but we must also do everything within our power to give our soldiers every appropriate resource to make it easier to care for their loved ones they have left behind. I urge my colleagues to give serious consideration to this bill, and it is my hope that it can be passed by unanimous consent. I am confident that President Bush would have no hesitation in signing this important bill into law, if we can pass it in the Senate and send it to him.