Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I would just like to make clear that the understanding of the Senator from Delaware comports completely with mine.

Mr. HATCH. And mine as well.

Mr. HATCH

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be considered as in morning business.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I come to the floor to respond to some of the comments that I have heard concerning the CIA's request that the Department of Justice look into the leak of the name of one of its employees. My friends on the other side claim that a special counsel should be appointed and that the Department should recuse itself from the investigation. Quite simply, the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency to look into this matter. The CIA notifies the Department approximately 50 times per year to investigate complaints about the leak of classified information. The Department has career professionals that address matters like these. This professionalism and experience is needed in instances like these to ensure that the investigation is done in a competent and complete manner. Some of my colleagues believe that a special counsel is needed because there has been a ``clear violation of the law.'' I respectfully disagree. While I agree that this matter is a significant one and needs to be promptly examined, it is premature to conclude that the Protection of Identities of Certain United States Undercover Intelligence Officers, Agents, Informants, and Sources statute has been violated based merely upon media reports. In fact, there is reason to believe that no violation of this statute has occurred. The intelligence statute prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a convert agent whose identity and relationship to the United States the Government has affirmatively sought to conceal or that the defendant disclosed the name of a covert agent with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States. Robert Novak, the reporter who wrote the story, has since stated: ``Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this.'' He also stated that, ``According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson is an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives.'' If that is true, there is no violation of this statute. I would further urge those whose knee-jerk reaction is to call for a special counsel to step back for a moment. Political opponents of the President have charge that Karl Rove leaked this information. When pressed for specific evidence about Mr. Rove's involvement, they are at a complete loss. In fact, it is my understanding that former Ambassador Wilson, who has also charged that Karl Rove leaked this information, recanted when pressed for evidence on Karl Rove's involvement. This kind of speculation is unfounded. Unsubstantiated statements like these should simply not take place on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Since the Independent Counsel Statute expired in 1999, the Justice Department, under former Attorney General Reno, promulgated new regulations when the Attorney General may appoint a special counsel. The regulation allows the appointment of a special counsel when there is a need to investigate a unique case involving high-ranking executive branch officials and/or there is a conflict of interest for the Department. The regulations allow the attorney general to appoint a special counsel when he or she determines that a criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and (a) that investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by the Department would present a conflict of interest, or other extraordinary circumstances exist, and (b) that under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside special counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. I have every confidence in Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller's integrity and ability to investigate this matter. The FBI and the Department have career employees with the skill, experience, and honesty to look into this matter. For those who doubt this, I would point out that similar skepticism was raised in the Department's ability to investigate the complaints made against it by those detained following September 11th. My colleagues on the Judiciary Committee know, because I held a hearing on the report, that the Department's Inspector General issued an exacting report on the 9/11 abuses. The report shows that the Department's Inspector General, and career employees within the Department, pulled no punches regarding the treatment of the 9/11 detainees. This is the nature of career employees within the FBI and the Department of Justice. The continuity of service within our law enforcement community is what makes our criminal justice system the best in the world. So I recommend to those who are recklessly casting aspersions about the ability of the Department and the FBI to professionally conduct this investigation to take a careful look at the facts. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of Marcia Crone, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Crone received a bachelor of arts degree, summa cum laude, from the University of Texas at Austin, graduating with a 4.0 grade point average and as valedictorian in 1973. She then graduated first in her class from the University of Houston Law Center in 1978, receiving a juris doctor degree, summa cum laude. After graduating from law school, she entered private practice, first as an associate and later as a partner at the law firm of Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P. During her years in private practice Judge Crone represented both individuals and corporations, litigating primarily in the areas of labor law, employment law, products liability, and commercial litigation. Judge Crone was appointed in 1992 as a Federal magistrate judge in the Southern District of Texas. She has presided over numerous trials in civil cases involving a wide range of issues, including securities fraud, employment discrimination, intellectual property rights, personal injury claims, contract disputes, admiralty, civil rights, insurance matters, social security appeals, and prisoner litigation. In her more than 10 years on the Federal bench, Judge Crone has authored approximately 700 opinions. Judge Crone devotes substantial amounts of time to programs mentoring students from the three local law schools, giving them the opportunity to serve as interns in her chambers, judging mock trial and moot court competitions, and participating annually in the American Bar Association's Minority Judicial Externship Program. She previously served on the board of directors of the southeast Texas Chapter of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and has performed volunteer work for a local adoption agency. I have no doubt that Judge Crone's elevation to the district court will greatly benefit the Eastern District of Texas. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my unqualified support for the nomination of Ronald White to the Eastern District of Oklahoma and to urge my colleagues to confirm this fine nominee. Mr. White is a distinguished litigator. After graduating from the University of Oklahoma law school in 1986, Mr. White joined the law firm of Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson in Tulsa. His practice has focused on litigation in the areas of tort and insurance defense, medical malpractice, corporate litigation, ERISA, and telecommunications. Mr. White is a well respected legal practitioner in his home State and he will make a fine addition to the Federal bench.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are considering the nomination of Judge Carlos Bea to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He has had an exemplary legal career in California as a successful attorney and an impartial jurist, and will serve with honor and distinction on the ninth circuit. After a distinguished 32-year career in private practice, Judge Bea was appointed and subsequently elected to his current position as a judge on the San Francisco Superior Court in 1990. He was re-elected, without opposition, to the Superior Court bench in 1996 and 2002. In this capacity, he has handled literally thousands of cases and presided over hundreds of trials. In fact, his colleagues and attorneys who practice before him have commented publicly that Judge Bea is at his best when handling complex trials and difficult legal issues. As with other nominees to the ninth circuit that this committee has considered this year, Judge Bea's colleagues overwhelmingly support his confirmation to the Federal appellate bench. Thirty-seven judges of the San Francisco Superior Court, who serve with Judge Bea and work with him every day, sent a letter to the committee praising his skills as a jurist, and recognizing his service on many of the Superior Court's management committees. He also serves, at the State level, on the California Judicial Council's Advisory Committee on Access and Fairness. In addition to his Superior Court colleagues, California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and representatives of the San Francisco Bay Area's Hispanic community all wrote to the Judiciary Committee, expressing enthusiastic support for Judge Bea's confirmation to the ninth circuit. I join them in strong support for Judge Bea's confirmation and urge my colleagues to do likewise. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to a wonderful public servant, Rod L. Betit, who is retiring after a long and distinguished career in public health policy and administration for the State of Utah. His leadership and integrity leave the Utah Department of Health with a long legacy of initiative and excellence. In 1992, Utah Gov. Norman Bangerter appointed Rod as the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Health making him the longest serving Health Director in the country. This appointment put him in charge of more than 1,300 employees with an annual budget in excess of $1 billion. While serving in this position, Rod established himself early on as an innovator, and someone who was not afraid to try new things. He developed a priority management approach for the Department which significantly improved the Department's ability to make progress in areas such as childhood immunization rates, tobacco control, American Indian health care system issues, youth suicide prevention, and health information systems development. In addition, Rod has designed and launched a number of innovative health access programs by obtaining special federally-approved waivers. Some of his greatest achievements have included the nation's only comprehensive public mental health system, a managed care program that focuses on moving nursing home residents back into the community; and more recently an initiative that uses a unique 1115 waiver under Medicaid that establishes a Primary Care Program that brings basic health coverage to 25,000 working Utahns whose employers do not offer health care coverage. More than 11,000 adults had enrolled in the first six months of this program. United States Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson had this to say about the new program: ``I am approving this waiver over the objections of my staff because I see great potential for this approach to help reduce the number of working uninsured throughout the country once its success has been demonstrated by Utah.'' Rod's leadership abilities and vision prompted Utah Gov. Michael Leavitt to call on him for additional service in 1995 when he asked him to assume the role of the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services while retaining his position with the Department of Health. This is the only time in Utah history that one person has been appointed to oversee two key agencies in state government. The Department of Human Services was facing some very difficult challenges at that time, and Rod, in true capable and courageous fashion, was able to step in and make a difference. He solved some key problems and was able to return to running only the Department of Health 2 years later. Prior to assuming the role of Executive Director in 1992, Rod served as the Utah Director of the Division of Health Care Financing. In this position he was responsible for all facets of the state Medicaid program and the Utah Medical Assistance Program. Rod's experience directing the Alaska Medical Assistance Program for 12 years before coming to Utah had served him well, and established him as a capable leader. Rod has not only made a name for himself in Utah he is widely respected throughout the Nation. He is frequently called upon to represent the States' perspectives before Federal officials. He is a recognized expert on Medicaid and health care financing, and is widely viewed as an expert on health care reform. Rod is returning to his native Alaska to become the President and CEO of the Alaska State Hospital and Nursing Home Association. He will also be able to pursue his love of King salmon fishing, and to be near his family. He will be deeply missed throughout Utah for his expertise, commitment and leadership. I want to commend Rod for the exemplary service he has given to the Utah Department of Health, Utah State Government, and to our nation. He is not only a truly great public servant, he is a loving husband and father to his wife, Ellen, and their three children. I wish Rod the very best life has to offer and pray for his continued good health, success, and happiness.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my unqualified support for the nomination of Michael Mosman for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon and to urge my colleagues to confirm this fine nominee. Mr. Mosman has excellent academic and professional qualifications for the federal bench. After graduating magna cum laude from the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University, he clerked first for D.C. Circuit Judge Malcolm Wilkey and then for Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. Mr. Mosman also has impressive courtroom experience. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, Mr. Mosman has worked on cases in all four prosecuting units in his office: narcotics, violent crimes, organized crime, and fraud. He has tried about 50 cases, including large multidefendant drug conspiracies, international money laundering, multimillion dollar counterfeiting cases, and multidistrict immigration fraud. Mr. Mosman also displayed stellar leadership and integrity in the wake of the September 11 tragedy. He deftly guided his office in the apprehension and prosecution of several would-be terrorists, all the while taking steps to ensure that those individuals' civil liberties were not violated. Mr. Mosman is an exceptional nominee. He merited an ABA rating of unanimously well-qualified, and I fully expect him to serve with distinction on the federal bench in Oregon.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Glen Conrad, who has been confirmed for the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Judge Conrad is no stranger to the Western District or its Federal court: He has served there as a magistrate judge for 27 years. Following his graduation from the Marshall Wythe School of Law at the College of William and Mary in 1974, he clerked for district judge Ted Dalton of the Western District of Virginia--the same court to which Judge Conrad has been nominated. During the time of his clerkship, Judge Conrad also served as Federal probation officer. Since the end of his clerkship in 1976, to the present day, Judge Conrad has served as Federal magistrate judge in various districts throughout Virginia. During his lengthy tenure on the bench, Judge Conrad has been recommended for reappointment by three separate Merit Selection Committees. Judge Conrad has illustrated exemplary care and concern for the state of the law in his home district. He has contributed to continuing legal education efforts over the course of his career, helping to produce course materials for young lawyers starting their practice in the Western District of Virginia. He has also served as a member of the Civil Justice Reform Act Advisory Committee, where he has helped recommend measures to improve the efficiency of the Virginia court system and reduce the costs of civil litigation. In addition to being a model citizen, Judge Conrad is an extremely qualified judge. I thank my colleagues for supporting his confirmation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Henry Floyd, who has been confirmed for the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Judge Floyd has had a stellar legal career on both sides of the bench. He served as a private practice litigator for 19 years before being elevated to the 13th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina in 1992, where he currently sits. He has also served as a 1st Lieutenant in the U.S. Army and as a member of the South Carolina House of Representatives. During his tenure in private practice, Judge Floyd specialized in civil, criminal, and domestic relations litigation, with a general practice of deeds, wills, and estates, and real estate closings. He represented regulated utilities, including an electric cooperative, municipalities, and the County of Pickens. Judge Floyd served on the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, which was empowered to deal with complaints against members of the bar in the State and to make certain recommendations for disciplinary conduct. Since his elevation to the bench, Judge Floyd has also been designated to sit as an Acting Justice on the South Carolina Supreme Court from time to time. Judge Floyd is an extremely well-qualified nominee. He brings more than 30 years of legal experience to the Federal bench. I am confident that he will be a fine addition to the bench and thank my colleagues for supporting his confirmation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased today to speak in support of R. David Proctor, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Mr. Proctor graduated with honors from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1986. Following his graduation, he clerked for the Honorable Emory Widener Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Mr. Proctor next entered private practice with the law firm of Sirote & Permutt, first as an associate and then as a partner. He left Sirote in 1993 to become a partner at Lehr, Middlebrooks, Price & Proctor, where he currently practices law. He specializes in labor, employment and civil rights law, representing employers and public sector entities ranging from Fortune 500 companies to small businesses. Furthermore, he has authored numerous articles on employment law. In recent years, Mr. Proctor has augmented his litigation practice with mediation. I would like to share with my colleagues a letter sent to the committee in support of Mr. Proctor's nomination by Alex Newton, a partner in the Birmingham law firm of Hare, Wynn, Newell and Newton. Mr. Newton is a self-described ``lifelong active Democrat.'' He has known Mr. Proctor since the beginning of his legal career and highly recommends him to the bench. He writes that Mr. Proctor has ``broad experience . . . as an attorney. He is energetic, personable and blessed with absolute integrity. As a judge, I have no doubt he would rule without being influenced by race, creed, wealth or poverty of the litigant before him. He would serve . . . with distinction.'' As this letter attests, Mr. Proctor is an experienced attorney who will be an asset to the Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to express my unqualified support for the nomination of Sandra Feuerstein to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and to urge my colleagues to confirm this fine nominee. Justice Feuerstein has excellent academic and professional qualifications for the Federal bench. After her graduation from Cardozo Law School, she joined the clerk pool of the New York Supreme Court Law Department. In 1985, she was chosen to clerk for Justice Leo H. McGinity, an administrative judge in the New York State Supreme Court. In 1987, she joined the bench of the Nassau County District Court. In 1994, Justice Feuerstein became a Justice of the New York State Superior Court, where she would remain for the next five years. Since 1999, she has been a Justice on the New York State Appellate Division-- New York's highest State court. In addition to her proven bench experience, Justice Feuerstein is a highly recognized public figure. She has lent her extensive talents to the Nassau County Bar, various pro bono programs that she has founded or chaired, and many charitable organizations like the American Cancer Society. In the last decade, Justice Feuerstein has been the recipient of such awards as: Judge of the Year twice, Woman of the Year, Pro Bono Recognition Award, and Outstanding Committee Chairperson of the Year Award, to name a few. Earlier in her career, Justice Feuerstein was both an associated editor and editor of the Nassau Lawyer. In addition to her professional, charitable and publishing duties, she has been an adjunct professor at Hofstra University Law School since 1998. Justice Feuerstein possesses the qualifications, the capacity, and the temperament a judge needs to serve on the federal bench. I am pleased to support this stellar nominee.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Stephen Robinson to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Robinson has had a diverse and distinguished legal career. After graduating from the prestigious Cornell Law School, he worked for two corporate law firms, concentrating almost exclusively on civil matters. In 1987, he shifted gears and joined the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where he represented the United States primarily in criminal trials. In 1991, Mr. Robinson joined Kroll Associates, an international risk consulting company, serving as an advisor to the company on legal matters and conducting investigations for governments, corporations and law firms. From 1993 to 1995, Mr. Robinson worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, providing advice and counsel to the FBI regarding various policy issues in both civil and criminal matters. Then in 1995, Mr. Robinson became counsel for Aetna U.S. Healthcare, where he provided advice to the internal audit, compliance and investigative services departments and was ultimately promoted to chief compliance officer. In 1998, Mr. Robinson returned to public service as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut. He supervised over 50 lawyers in three offices and set policy and prosecution guidelines for all civil and criminal matters. Additionally, he coordinated the investigative strategy for Federal law enforcement agencies, while managing all aspects of the office's operations, including budget, personnel and press issues. For the past 2 years, he has worked with Empower New Haven, Inc., a nonprofit corporation. Mr. Robinson's extensive experience in both the public and private sectors makes him amply qualified for judicial service. He possesses the qualifications, the capacity, and the temperament a judge needs to serve on the Federal bench.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased today to speak in support of P. Kevin Castel, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Castel is a highly regarded litigator. Upon graduating from St. John's University School of Law in 1975, he clerked for Judge Kevin Duffy on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following his clerkship, he worked as an associate for Cahill Gordon & Reindel until 1983, when he was elevated to partner and where he remains today. Mr. Castel has focused much of his professional career on complex commercial litigation, including securities, antitrust, intellectual property, employment and products liability cases. Furthermore, as president of the Federal Bar Council, he has written extensively on corporate litigation issues. In addition to the Federal Bar Council, Mr. Castel holds leadership positions in other notable organizations, including the New York State Bar Association and the Legal Aid Society. Mr. Castel will bring 20 years of legal experience and sharp acumen to the Federal bench. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Richard J. Holwell, who has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Holwell is a 1970 cum laude graduate of Columbia Law School. The following year he earned his diploma in criminology from the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology. He then entered private practice with the New York law firm White & Case, first as an associate, then as a partner. Currently, he heads the firm's global litigation practice. Mr. Holwell has spent most of his professional career litigating complex securities, antitrust, bankruptcy, and other financial market cases before both trial and appellate courts. He has extensive experience in both civil and criminal investigations conducted by the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other Federal agencies. Mr. Holwell has also been a zealous advocate for the underserved. In 1987, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund awarded him its Pro Bono Award for his successful litigation of Capers v. Long Island Rail Road, a 10-year protracted title VII case in which he fought to protect the rights of black employees. In addition to title VII suits, he has represented indigent clients in landlord-tenant and custody disputes. Mr. Holwell is an extremely well-qualified nominee. He brings compassion as well as more than 30 years of legal experience to the Federal bench. I am confident that he will be a fine addition to the bench and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his confirmation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise to outline my concerns about Senator Dorgan's resolution to disapprove the Federal Communications Commission's June 2, 2003 decision to relax the broadcast media ownership rules. The FCC's decision to increase the proportion of market share broadcasters may own in any given market from 35 percent to 45 percent and to give newspaper owners the ability to own radio stations and vice versa has raised significant questions relating to the proper scope of regulation and protection of our fundamental First Amendment values. As a procedural matter, I am concerned about the Senate acting on the Dorgan resolution given the pending court proceedings reviewing the FCC's rule modifications. On September 3, 2003, in Prometheus Radio Project v. Federal Communications Commission, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the effective date of the FCC's new rules, pending resolution of the appeal on the merits. No. 03-3388, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 18390. Given the procedural status of the FCC's rules, it is premature for the Senate to act on the Dorgan resolution. A more prudent course for the Senate is to await the Court of Appeals decision, review it carefully, and then determine what action, if any, is warranted. With respect to the substance of the FCC's rule modifications, I want to reiterate my strong support of the bedrock principles underlying the FCC's regulation of our Nation's media: diversity of viewpoints; localism; and competition. I have been--and remain--committed to these principles, particularly with respect to examining critical regulatory and enforcement issues surrounding increased concentration of our Nation's media outlets. We must preserve our fundamental First Amendment values by protecting our marketplace of ideas--that is, freedom of expression and diversity of viewpoints. When it comes to ensuring competition and diversity in our media markets, I have not--and will not--analyze the issue by blindly condemning all merger consolidations. To me, ``big'' is not necessarily bad. Rather, the issue of media consolidation requires a careful weighing of our Nation's interest in promoting competition and diversity. In my view, such an analysis requires careful examination of the potential for anti-competitive conduct, rather than adherence to inflexible regulatory restrictions or hard and fast enforcement rules. Market forces--not Federal across-the-board regulations--will ensure that consumers benefit from a merger or consolidation in the media industry. Like many of my Senate colleagues, I am concerned about the health and well-being of the small and mid-sized media companies in our nation. In the State of Utah, we have many excellent small and mid- sized media companies who provide a great service to all Utahns. To this end, traditional antitrust enforcement can more effectively and efficiently protect competition and enhance diversity than regulatory one-size-fits-all approaches. I believe appropriate enforcement of our nation's antitrust laws will provide greater protection to small and mid-sized media owners than any arbitrary FCC rules. In light of all of these considerations, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Dorgan resolution. Given the significant interest in the issue here in the Senate, we should monitor the court proceedings reviewing the FCC rule. Once the Court has acted, we should then determine what appropriate steps, if any, are needed to preserve and protect our bedrock First Amendment principles of media ownership: diversity, local programming and competition.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parental Responsibility Obligations Met Through Immigration System Enforcement Act, or PROMISE Act. Sadly, there are many in our society who do not honor their child support obligations, and ultimately, it is the children who are hurt by such irresponsibility. Shockingly, many foreign nationals are able to benefit from our immigration laws notwithstanding their failure to live up to their child support obligations. As a matter of sound policy, our immigration laws should require those who wish to come into or remain in our country to comply with our moral and ethical standards. Let us be clear in our message. If you do not live up to your financial obligations to your own children, then you are not welcome in the United States. I am introducing this legislation now because it is time to do something to protect many children who are economically disadvantaged or neglected. These children need clothes, food, and shelter--basic necessities of life. Moreover, when the deadbeat parents fail to meet their obligations to their own children, it is our society and our taxpayers who must pick up the cost. Of course, we will do what we have to for the children in our country, but we need to hold the parents responsible and impress upon them we will no longer tolerate their irresponsible attitude toward their own children. Specifically, this legislation amends the current Immigration and Nationality Act, section 212(a), to include failure to pay child support as a ground of inadmissibility. It will also amend section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act so that one who fails to pay child support is statutorily without good moral character. The legislation will cover not only orders from a court in the United States but also foreign courts with which our Federal or State governments have reciprocity agreements. As such, deadbeat parents cannot use the United States as a haven from child support enforcement by other governments. In conclusion, we must be mindful that permission to enter the United States is a privilege and not a right. We will not grant this privilege to individuals who do not respect the law of our Nation, the laws of their home country, or their moral duty to provide for their children. I ask for your support of the PROMISE Act.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parental Responsibility Obligations Met Through Immigration System Enforcement Act, or PROMISE Act. Sadly, there are many in our society who do not honor their child support obligations, and ultimately, it is the children who are hurt by such irresponsibility. Shockingly, many foreign nationals are able to benefit from our immigration laws notwithstanding their failure to live up to their child support obligations. As a matter of sound policy, our immigration laws should require those who wish to come into or remain in our country to comply with our moral and ethical standards. Let us be clear in our message. If you do not live up to your financial obligations to your own children, then you are not welcome in the United States. I am introducing this legislation now because it is time to do something to protect many children who are economically disadvantaged or neglected. These children need clothes, food, and shelter--basic necessities of life. Moreover, when the deadbeat parents fail to meet their obligations to their own children, it is our society and our taxpayers who must pick up the cost. Of course, we will do what we have to for the children in our country, but we need to hold the parents responsible and impress upon them we will no longer tolerate their irresponsible attitude toward their own children. Specifically, this legislation amends the current Immigration and Nationality Act, section 212(a), to include failure to pay child support as a ground of inadmissibility. It will also amend section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act so that one who fails to pay child support is statutorily without good moral character. The legislation will cover not only orders from a court in the United States but also foreign courts with which our Federal or State governments have reciprocity agreements. As such, deadbeat parents cannot use the United States as a haven from child support enforcement by other governments. In conclusion, we must be mindful that permission to enter the United States is a privilege and not a right. We will not grant this privilege to individuals who do not respect the law of our Nation, the laws of their home country, or their moral duty to provide for their children. I ask for your support of the PROMISE Act.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my Senate colleagues to support the Department of Labor's proposed changes to our nation's overtime regulations. The amendment being offered by my friend Senator Harkin to the 2004 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill would prohibit spending to implement the Department of Labor's proposed regulations and, thereby, cripple the Department in making these important changes. This is not a wise course of action and I wish to voice my support today for the Department's proposed regulations changes. Before discussing the proposed regulations, I would like to take a moment to address current overtime rules. As you may know, there have been very few changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act's, FLSA, overtime provisions since the early 1970s. Under these outdated rules, most workers are only guaranteed time- and-a-half overtime pay if they earn less than $155 per week. If they earn more than $155 per week, then employers have to use a number of complicated and confusing tests to decide if a particular worker's job is ``executive, administrative, or professional,'' and must also use complicated tests to determine if the worker's pay qualifies as a ``salary'' rather than an hourly wage. Thus, if a job pays over $155 per week--$170 per week for ``professionals''--and the job is executive, administrative or professional, and the worker's pay fits the official definition of a ``salary,'' then that particular worker is not eligible for overtime. You can imagine the complexity and confusion that businesses have to deal with when they try to determine which workers have to be paid overtime and which do not. The current rules mean that a restaurant manager or a factory shift supervisor who is paid a salary of $300 per week would be ineligible for overtime, since these kinds of work are generally considered executive or administrative. I want to discuss the proposed rules in some detail, as I believe there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what they would do and why they are necessary. The Department of Labor's proposed regulations would raise the $155 per week test to $425 per week. That means that, as a general rule, anyone earning less than $425 per week would automatically be guaranteed to be eligible for overtime pay, regardless of what kind of work they do. Therefore, the Department of Labor's proposed rules will guarantee overtime pay to both the restaurant manager and the shift supervisor I mentioned above. The proposed regulations will be a boon to lower-income salaried workers. The Department of Labor estimates that its proposed rules will make 1.2 million more lower- income workers eligible for overtime pay. They also estimate that 20 percent of salaried employees earn $425 per week or less, roughly $21,000 per year. The rules will also modernize the definition of ``executive, administrative, or professional'' work to reflect better the realities of today's workforce and to reduce the incomprehensible regulatory definitions that businesses have had to interpret for the last 20 years. That means that workers who earn more than $425 per week will find it easier to determine whether or not they qualify for overtime pay, and it will reduce the number of lawsuits over the ``gray areas'' in current overtime regulations. Further, the Department of Labor also proposes to allow salaried employees' pay to be docked for full-day absences taken for disciplinary reasons, such as sexual harassment or workplace violence. Currently, only hourly workers' wages are subject to such discipline- related pay deductions. And finally, the proposed rules state that workers who earn more than $65,000 per year will be ineligible for overtime pay if their job has at least some duties that are ``executive, administrative, or professional.'' Therefore, employers who have these kinds of highly compensated workers will find it easier to make them ineligible for overtime. The Department of Labor chose the $65,000 threshold because roughly 20 percent of salaried workers earn $65,000 or more per year. The Department chose to focus its energies on strengthening access to overtime for the most vulnerable workers, a group that is unlikely to include many workers whose salaries are in the top 20 percent. I believe that the current overtime regulations are confusing and outdated. They have created a maze of uncertainty for business owners, who can be fined up to 3 years of back wages if they misinterpret the overtime eligibility rules. The Department of Labor's proposed rules will make over a million more lower-income workers eligible for overtime while also creating clearer overtime eligibility rules for all businesses to follow. The Department of Labor's rules would guarantee overtime pay to the bottom 20 percent of salaried workers--some of the most economically vulnerable people in our society--while at the same time giving employers more freedom over how they compensate the top 20 percent of salaried workers. These rules are part of this administration's broader agenda for long-lasting, long-term wage growth. These clearer, simpler regulations will increase the efficiency and productivity of American businesses. And since higher productivity is the key to higher wages, I expect these regulations to help increase the typical American's standard of living. I have received numerous letters from individuals and industry who support these regulatory efforts by the Department of Labor. I believe the Department has done an excellent job of researching the overtime issue and preparing regulations that meet the needs of American workers. I encourage all of my Senate colleagues to support these regulations and vote against any amendments that would weaken or impede these much-needed overtime regulation updates.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH

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