Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I am happy to yield whatever time the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi desires.

Mr. HATCH. That is right, with the understanding that Senator Cochran will be the last to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Georgia.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that there be an additional 10 minutes equally divided with, of course, the same understanding that Senator Cochran will be the last to speak for 5 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. HATCH. How much time is remaining?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand the time has been used. I know the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee are much more lengthy. I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote, he be given time to finish his remarks.

Mr. HATCH. That immediately following the vote on Judge Pickering, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee be given time to finish his remarks because he has prepared extensively.

Mr. HATCH. That will be fine with me.

Mr. HATCH. We have no objection.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. HATCH. Is that all the time left on either side?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard my distinguished friends on the other side say we have approved 167 judges but have rejected only 3 with a filibuster. Actually, that is a little bit of an untruth because Miguel Estrada was filibustered and, of course, withdrawn. Priscilla Owen is presently being filibustered. Carolyn Kuhl, there is a threatened filibuster on her. These are all circuit court of appeals nominees. William Pryor has already been filibustered. Charles Pickering is being filibustered. This is a cloture vote to determine whether we can even have the dignity of an up-or-down vote. Leon Holmes has been threatened with a filibuster. Janice Rogers Brown has been threatened with a filibuster. Claude Allen has been threatened with a filibuster. The fact is, we have never had a filibuster before in the history of the Senate, in the history of this country, with regard to judicial nominees. I have heard a lot of comments about what a nice man Judge Pickering is and all of this; it is the record they disagree with. This is a man who has been on the bench for a long time, and he would be a rare person if you didn't find one or two cases with which you disagree. I have to say that in all honesty, most of these arguments they have made are smokescreen issues and arguments.

Mr. HATCH. I can't right now because I have a limited time. Every one of them can be answered. Let me tell the principal reason behind this. After we voted Judge Pickering out of the committee a few weeks ago, we held a press conference. One of the people who appeared with us at the press conference was one of the leading civil rights ministers of the South, former head of the ACLU in Mississippi, really one of the most respected people in the civil rights cause. His life had been threatened. He came and spoke fervently for Judge Pickering. Before he did, I got up and I said: This is all about abortion. After he spoke, he came up to me and he said: Senator, as you know, I am pro-choice, but you are absolutely right. This is all about abortion. Let me make that case by putting up this chart, the National Abortion Rights Action League.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds for each side.

Mr. HATCH. The National Abortion Rights Action League, Pro-choice America sent this out to everybody they could: ``Urge your Senators to stop anti-choice nominee Pickering'' because they know he is pro-life, even though he has agreed he will abide by the law. He will abide by Roe v. Wade. He will abide by the other abortion cases. That is what this is all about. Frankly, I have it on impeccable information that that is what this is all about. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I appreciate Senator Collins, Chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, entering into a colloquy on a matter that concerns the Judiciary Committee. In particular, our colloquy involves the nomination of Michael Garcia to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. Following our statements, I will seek a unanimous consent agreement to refer Mr. Garcia's nomination to the Judiciary Committee. All committees derive their ``respective jurisdictions'' from Senate Rule XXV, among other sources. As such the Governmental Affairs Committee, in its responsibility for the ``organization and reorganization of the executive branch of the Government,'' played a crucial role in establishing the new Department of Homeland Security. I would like to compliment Senator Collins on her leadership and the significant improvements that have resulted in our nation's security since September 11th. Also, under Senate Rule XXV, the Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over ``Immigration and naturalization.'' It is important for the immigration and naturalization functions which have been transferred from the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies to the Department of Homeland Security to remain under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. With the formation of three new bureaus for immigration policy in the Department of Homeland Security, countless situations--from day-to-day immigration services and enforcement to long-term border security planning--will arise in which legislation affecting these bureaus and oversight of these bureaus is an essential role of the Judiciary Committee. I appreciate my colleague taking the time to clarify the confirmation process of Mr. Garcia and the commitment to Senate Rules XXV and XXVI, Section 8 as it affects the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair of the Governmental Affairs for her comments and efforts on this matter.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this year marks the 10th anniversary of the opening of one of this country's greatest museums and educational institutions, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I have been privileged to serve on the Council of this great institution since its founding, and I have had no greater honor in the years I have served in Washington. The Museum opened in April of 1993. Speaking in this chamber at that time, I said that the reason we needed to support this institution was simple: ``To remember, and by remembering, to strengthen America's moral compass.'' The Museum has served as an institution of remembrance and study since then, and its contribution has been immense. Over 19 million visitors have gone through its doors in the past decade, making this museum one of the most popular in Washington, and in the United States. Of these 19 million, nearly six million of those visitors were children, who have seen and been moved by the exhibit ``Daniel's Story,'' which renders the story of the Holocaust from the perspective of a child. Over two million international visitors have come to the Museum in the past 10 years. This includes seventy-three heads of state have been included among those foreign visitors. I am heartened to imagine how they have returned to their many nations with the striking impression of how profoundly this country considers the most cataclysmic human event of the 20th century, the Holocaust, and how we demonstrate this by supporting this institution in the heart of Washington, D.C. Not only have nearly 20 million people come to the Museum, but the Museum, through its many traveling exhibits, has brought the story of the Holocaust to many cities around this country. In 2002, the Museum brought another exhibit, ``The Nazi Olympics: Berlin 1936'' to my home State of Utah, to show during our historic Winter Olympics. Over 20,000 Utahns and foreign visitors attended that exhibit, which demonstrated the historic arc from an era of national fascism and barbaric racism to the present day vision of tolerance and good will that my state showed the world in the winter of 2002. The Museum also serves as a educational center for Holocaust scholarship. The Museum's Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies supports scholarship and publications at the Museum as well as in conjunction with universities throughout this country. In the short period of its existence, the Museum has already greatly advanced Holocaust studies and I say with confidence that future scholars of this seminal event of the 20th century will all be influenced by the work of this great Museum. As I've mentioned already, this is not the first time I have taken to the floor to laud the work of this great institution. In November of 1995, concerned about a rise in episodes, both here and abroad, of Holocaust deniers perpetuating their grotesque perversions of history, I introduced S. Res. 193, a resolution denouncing Holocaust denial. Recognizing the scholarship already being promoted by the Museum, the resolution ``commended the vital, ongoing work of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which memorializes the victims of the Holocaust and teaches all who are willing to learn profoundly compelling and universally resonant moral lessons.'' I introduced that resolution on November 9, 1995, which was the 57th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass, the notorious 1938 pogrom of Jewish persecution by the Nazi regime, preparing the dark descent to the Holocaust that was to follow. In my statement, I said: ``Fifty-seven years after Kristallnacht, we are fortunate to still have survivors of the Holocaust among us. I worry about the memory of the Holocaust when the survivors will no longer be here. With each passing year, we have fewer survivors among us.'' The stewards and scholars of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum embody the recognition that the mission of the Museum is to preserve the memory of the victims. And for this reason, the Museum is marking its 10th anniversary in the only way it could: By hosting a historic ``Tribute to Survivors,'' which will occur at the end of this week, on November 1st and 2nd. It is fitting and proper that this would be the way to mark this anniversary. To date, 6,500 Holocaust survivors and their families are scheduled to attend, making this perhaps the last reunion of this kind. I urge all of my colleagues to review the schedule of events and, if at all possible, to go to the Museum to pay tribute to the survivors and this great institution. To commemorate this event, and to honor the Museum on its 10th anniversary, I wish to submit this resolution honoring the victims of the Holocaust and recognizing the vital work of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I am most grateful for the co-sponsorship of Senators Voinovich, Reid, Coleman, Collins and Smith.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague for reserving his time for me. I also want to pay tribute to the distinguished Senator from Vermont and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma for their leadership on this matter, for their goodness and kindness in support. I have to say with these two fine Senators we have in the Senate, both of them supporting this nominee speaks volumes of the fine man he is. But I have also heard from a couple of my colleagues whom I respect that they have ``serious concerns.'' Governor Leavitt has had a ``careless disregard for water and air,'' ``a disturbing tendency to ignore regulations,'' ``a hands off approach.'' He is a ``rollback administrator.'' As I understand it, those statements were made this morning. The distinguished Senator from Illinois said that Governor Leavitt has ``turned his back on the wilderness.'' He also said that ``Utah is one of the biggest polluter States in the Nation.'' I cannot blame him too much for making that statement because he is just quoting some of the irresponsible people in the environmental field who basically have totally ignored the facts, which I am going to speak about in a minute. I am grateful to these two leaders for the kind way they have handled this nomination and for the effective way they have handled it so we will have a final vote on one of the finest Governors in this land to head one of the most difficult agencies in this land. He is a Governor who is known for working with everybody, known for keeping an open mind, known for being honest, known for being active, and known for intelligence. I could go on about Mike Leavitt. He is a very fine man. Yesterday during the debate on the nomination of Gov. Michael Leavitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, my friend and colleague Senator Richard Durbin from Illinois stood up on the Senate floor and began an attack on the State of Utah and on Utah's Governor. Now this morning, I find that another friend and colleague, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, has been following suit. I am certain both of them are sincere, but I am going to show that both of them are absolutely wrong as well. First, I am very disappointed that my colleagues would spend time highlighting the supposed weakness of another Senator's State and the supposed weakness of that State's top elected official, especially when they are wrong in both instances. It was very appropriate for the Members of the Senate in the Environment and Public Works Committee to ask the Governor questions orally and in writing about his management of Utah's natural resources and to allow him to provide answers to those questions, but to ignore his answers to those questions and to use the Senate floor to cast aspersions at Utah I find personally offensive. Secondly, to be frank, I have to say I am especially offended that my colleagues choose this forum to make these attacks with information that is so clearly inaccurate and so cleverly twisted to cast Utah and its Governor in the worst possible light, so I find it necessary to make part of the Record the truth about some of the aspersions cast at my State. Utah is one of the cleanest States in the Nation, and in large part this is due to Gov. Michael Leavitt, so one can imagine my surprise when one of my colleagues comes to the Senate floor to call Utah one of the Nation's biggest polluters and to blame our Governor for it. What does my colleague mean when he calls Utah a big polluter? A more important question is, What does the public think it means when they hear my colleagues say it? Let me shed some light on where others have sown confusion. One of the principal indexes being looked at by my colleagues is the Toxic Release Inventory, or TRI, which is collected and published by the EPA. The most recent TRI report came out in 2001, but we should keep in mind that the data for that report, or for the TRI, are 2 years old. In other words, the 2001 TRI report makes use of data from 1999. A very careful distinction must be made before using numbers from the TRI report. Some may believe or wish to cause others to believe that the TRI simply counts up how much pollution goes into our water and our air, but this is not necessarily the case, to say the least. In fact, every time a company uses a chemical and then correctly and legally disposes of it, that is considered a release. Even if a pound of a certain chemical is properly recycled, that, too, is considered a pound of release. When a mining company takes a pound of dirt and rock and removes metals from it, that leftover soil and rock often contains chemicals from the processing and must be handled according to a very strict environmental set of regulations. However, each pound of that soil and rock is counted as a release under the TRI. States such as Utah and Nevada have very large mining operations, and because the amount of leftover rock and soil from these operations is very large, these two States show up at the top of the list when all types of releases are combined. So do TRI numbers really reflect pollution that is going into our air and water? Yes, in some cases. But as I just pointed out, many of the ``releases'' reported under TRI never go into our air or our water but are safely sequestered according to the law. I quote from the EPA's TRI report itself, 2001 TRI public data release, ES-26: TRI reports reflect releases and other waste management activities of chemicals, not exposures of the public to those chemicals. Release estimates alone are not sufficient to determine exposure or to calculate potential adverse effects on human health and the environment. Most citizens will be more concerned about chemicals actually emitted into the air and discharged into our surface water than they will about leftover rock and soil from mining activities that are legally sequestered. According to the 2001 TRI report, Utah emitted about 19 million pounds of chemicals into the air during 1999, but the same report shows that the State of Illinois released nearly 60 million pounds of chemicals into the air. In other words, according to the TRI, during 1999 Illinois was three times the air polluter that Utah was. I point out that since then, Utah's biggest air polluter, MagCorp, has voluntarily upgraded its facilities and reduced its emissions by more than 90 percent. This is all under Governor Leavitt's management. Let's look at surface water discharges. During that same year, Utah released 1.2 million pounds of chemicals into the surface water. This was below the average of all States. However, the TRI report shows that New Jersey released 3.7 million pounds and Illinois released 8 million pounds of chemicals into the surface water. In other words, according to the EPA, New Jersey is three times the water polluter that Utah is and Illinois almost eight times the polluter that Utah is. So what does this mean? Does it mean that Illinois and New Jersey should be labeled as large polluters or, as my State was erroneously labeled, the biggest polluters in the country? No, of course not, and I certainly do not believe that to be the case. I believe they are both beautiful and well run States, just as I know Utah to be. I think it does mean, though, that the Senators from these two States should be more careful about attempting to pin the ``polluter'' label on my State and on my Governor, and I am not going to stand for it. That is why I am making these remarks today, among other reasons. Frankly, I am going to stand up for this very fine Governor and good person who is known to be a person who works with people of all beliefs and from all parties. Some of my colleagues and many in the environmental community have been a little too fast and too loose with pinning that unhelpful label of ``polluter'' on others and on the industries that keep our society running. I have also heard on the Senate floor that Utah has one of the worst records for water quality enforcement in the Nation. This is patently false. There was a report put out by the environmental group that states this falsehood. However, the statement was based on incomplete reporting on water quality data from Utah. In an analysis of the complete data, the EPA has in fact determined that Utah ranks among the top 10 States in water quality compliance-- one of the top 10 States--and yet we have to put up with this type of unfortunate mischaracterization of my State. Admittedly, some of my colleagues pay much too much attention to some of these people who are in this game for politics rather than for doing what is right for the environment. I might as well point out that Utah is also in complete compliance with EPA's air quality standards. This is rare amongst States, and it was not the case when Governor Leavitt took office. I have also heard that Governor Leavitt has turned his back on wilderness in Utah and he supports bulldozing new roads through our national parks. Both statements are false as well, and rather than launch into a long debate about wilderness and BLM roads, I ask unanimous consent that the memorandum of understanding between the State of Utah and the Department of the Interior on State and county road acknowledgment be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Anyone who reads this document will see that the understanding does nothing to allow new roads or even the upgrade of existing roads.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. HATCH. They will also see that the understanding specifically excludes roads in our parks, refuges, wilderness areas, and even in our wilderness study areas. More important, these issues have nothing whatever to do with the Environmental Protection Agency, and that needs to be pointed out. Finally, I reiterate my love for my beautiful State of Utah and for my good friend Michael Leavitt. In my statement yesterday, I showed that the record is clear that Michael Leavitt is a champion of the environment and that he is widely recognized as one of our Nation's top public managers. I urge my colleagues to put their full support behind his nomination to head up the Environmental Protection Agency and I do not believe they will be sorry. I believe my colleagues will find him to be the great leader that we all know him to be. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between the State of Utah and The Department of the Interior on State and County Road Acknowledgment This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into between the U.S. Department of the Interior and the State of Utah on this 9th day of April 2003. Whereas, 1. In a Report to Congress prepared in June of 1993, the Department of the Interior explained that unresolved conflicts over the status of rights-of-way created pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 were creating a continuing cloud on federal agencies' ability to manage federal lands. 2. On August 7, 2002, a bipartisan group of eight western governors wrote urging the Department of the Interior to bring finality to R.S. 2477 disputes in a cooperative manner. 3. On July 16, 2002, the National Association of Counties adopted a resolution urging the Department of the Interior to adopt a policy approach to R.S. 2477 rights-of-way that would allow counties to maintain historical rights of way across federally managed lands. 4. Disputes involving R.S. 2477 rights-of-way have generated numerous expensive and inconclusive federal court lawsuits that have left numerous questions concerning the ownership status of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way unresolved; and the high cost of this litigation has made it difficult for states and counties to assert their rights and for conservation groups to assert their interests. 5. The Department of the Interior has traditionally approached R.S. 2477 issues by trying to define the precise legal limits of the original statutory grant. 6. Most of the asserted R.S. 2477 rights-of-way that actually have been part of western states-inventoried and maintained transportation infrastructure since before the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 1976 satisfy the statutory requirements of ``construction'' and ``highway'' under almost any interpretation of those statutory terms. 7. The State of Utah has many R.S. 2477 claims, and on June 14, 2000, sent to the Secretary of the Interior a Notice of Intention to File Suit under 28 U.S.C.\1\ 2409a(m) to quit the title to those claims. 8. The roads in which the State of Utah and Utah counties assert claims include many roads of continuing importance to rural transportation. 9. Rights-of-way granted under R.S. 2477 are vested property rights that cannot be eliminated or diminished without due process. However, the statutory grant of the rights-of-way did not require the issuance of an identifying record, such as a patent. The resulting uncertainty surrounding the identity and scope of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way has created unnecessary difficulties in federal, state and local transportation and land use planning decisions. 10. The State of Utah and Utah counties have spent considerable time and substantial resources to gather information about road claims and are prepared, if necessary, to litigate those claims. 11. Federal, state and local managers and environmental advocacy organizations have all demonstrated a desire to put disputes surrounding R.S. 2477 to rest and move toward an approach to land management that emphasizes cooperation. Now, therefore, the parties stipulate and agree as follows: 1. The Department shall implement a State and County Road Acknowledgment Process (Acknowledgment Process) to acknowledge the existence of certain R.S. 2477 rights-of-way on Bureau of Land Management land within the State of Utah, as further described in, and subject to the terms and conditions of, this MOU. 2. For purposes of the Acknowledgment Process only, neither the State nor any Utah county shall assert a right-of-way for any: a. roads that lie within Congressionally designated Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas designated on or before October 21, 1993, under Section 603 of FLPMA; and b. roads that lie within the boundaries of any unit of the National Park System; and c. roads that lie within the boundaries of any unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and d. roads that are administered by a federal agency other than the Department of the Interior, unless that federal agency consents to the inclusion of the road in the Acknowledgment Process. 3. The State of Utah, or any Utah county, shall submit a request to initiate the Acknowledgment Process for a candidate road and shall reimburse the Bureau of Land Management for the reasonable and necessary cost of processing each request. Each eligible road submitted shall have the following characteristics: a. the road existed prior to the enactment of FLPMA in 1976 and is in use at the present time; b. the road can be identified by centerline description or other appropriate legal description; c. the existence of the road prior to the enactment of FLPMA is documented by information sufficient to support a conclusion that the road meets the legal requirements of a right-of-way granted under R.S. 2477; this information may include, but is not limited to, photographs, affidavits, surveys, government records concerning the road, information concerning or information reasonably inferred from the road's current conditions; and d. the road was and continues to be public and capable of accommodating automobiles or trucks with four wheels and has been the subject of some type of periodic maintenance. 4. The Acknowledgment Process referenced in this MOU that the Department shall use to acknowledge eligible roads is FLPMA's recordable disclaimer of interest process. See 43 U.S.C. 1745; 43 C.F.R. subpart 1864. The recordable disclaimer of interest process provides a clear statutory basis for resolving claims and provides an opportunity for public notice and participation. The Utah State Director of the Bureau of Land Management will issue a recordable disclaimer of interest if the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations, and the terms of this MOU, have been satisfied. 5. By signing this agreement, the Department recognizes that road width and ongoing maintenance levels are essential aspects of road management. Therefore, the scope of a road that the Department disclaims should include a sufficient width to allow the State or county to maintain the character, usage, and travel safety of the road existing at the date of this MOU. For purposes of the Acknowledgment Process only, the width of the road asserted and the width of the road disclaimed shall not exceed the width of ground disturbance that currently exists for the road at the date of this MOU. 6. After the Department issues a recordable disclaimer of interest for an acknowledged road, the State or a county may want to increase the road's width beyond the already disclaimed right-of-way, or to improve the road in a way that substantially alters its character (such as by paving a previously unpaved surface). But the recordable disclaimer of interest process will not be used as a mechanism to substantially alter the characteristics of a road. In cases where the State or a county wishes to substantially alter a road that is subject to the Acknowledgement Process in a way that is outside the scope of ordinary maintenance, it will do so only after notifying BLM of its intentions and giving BLM an opportunity to determine that no permit or other authorization is required under federal law; or, if a permit or other authorization is required, securing such a permit or other authorization, issued in compliance with any applicable law, including requirements of Title V of FLPMA and the National Environmental Policy Act. In the event a permit is deemed necessary, the Department will make its best effort to process requests for access under Title V of FLPMA promptly and cooperatively. 7. In order to facilitate the Acknowledgment Process in Utah, the Department hereby declares that the requirements for determinations under the ``Interim Departmental Policy on Revised Statute 2477 Grant of Right-of-Way for Public Highways; Revocation of December 7, 1988 Policy,'' dated January 22, 1997, shall be inapplicable to acknowledgment requests submitted in accordance with this MOU. While the 1997 Interim Policy shall still apply to all other requests for right-of-way acknowledgment that are not submitted pursuant to this MOU, the Department recognizes that other interested states and counties may wish to submit proposed MOU's for consideration by the Department that are generally consistent with the principles set out in this agreement. 8. The State, Utah counties and the Department shall work cooperatively to minimize trespass situations on roads that are outside the scope of this MOU. 9. It is understood that the State and counties have evidence regarding the existence of many roads, including those in which they assert no ownership interest. They may choose to use this evidence for other purposes, such as to illustrate whether the land through which the roads run have wilderness-like characteristics or resource values. The Acknowledgment Process will take place independently and without prejudice to any other use of this evidence or other valid existing rights, if any. 10. After submitting a road to the Acknowledgment Process, the State or a county may withdraw it from consideration at any time prior to the actual recording of the disclaimer issued by the Department, for any reason, without prejudice. The submission of a road to the Acknowledgment Process does not prejudice the State's or a county's valid existing rights regarding that road under the law. 11. The Department shall execute any implementing agreements with the State of Utah or Economy Act agreements as appropriate with other federal agencies, as required by applicable statutes and regulations, when effectuating the purposes of this MOU. 12. Activities under this MOU and any implementing agreements shall be conducted in accordance with mutually- agreed upon plans for the classification of information by the State, for the review and release of information, and for cooperation in the preparation of any and all reports to Congress. The release of any information by the Department under this MOU will be in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. 13. Any expenditure of appropriated funds by the Department will be developed in specific agreements authorized by applicable statutes and regulations and is subject to the availability of funds. This MOU shall not be used to obligate or commit funds or as the basis for the transfer of funds. 14. This MOU shall not be construed as creating any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by a party against the State of Utah, Utah counties, the United States, it agencies, its officers, or any other person. This MOU shall not be construed to create any right to judicial review involving the compliance or noncompliance of the State of Utah, Utah counties, the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person with the provisions of this MOU. Signed 4-9-03 Gale A. Norton Secretary United States Department of the Interior. Signed 4-9-03 Michael O. Leavitt Governor State of Utah. \1\ For purposes of this MOU, the terms ``road'' and ``highway'' shall be deemed synonymous.