Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have been listening to this. I have to tell you, it is apparent that my friends on the other side who are stung a little bit by this. They should be. They should be. Naturally, they don't want religion mentioned because they are referring to it all the time, and it is almost always in the context of abortion. Almost every question that Democrats ask those whom they consider controversial nominees is about abortion. Naturally, they cannot do that to every nominee, even though I believe some of them would like to. So they are selective in choosing certain nominees who have deeply held religious beliefs. But let me just give you a few examples of why I am convinced General Pryor's religion was put squarely at issue during his hearing, and why, at the end of the hearing, I brought up the issue of religion--because I was sick and tired of hearing this kind of stuff, because when Democrats were questioning his deeply held beliefs, they really were questioning his religious beliefs. One Senator--I believe it was Senator Durbin from Illinois--accused General Pryor, during the hearing, of ``asserting an agenda of your own, a religious belief of your own. . . .'' In his opening statement, Senator Schumer stated: [I]n General Pryor's case his beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it is very hard to believe, very hard to believe that they are not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, ``I will follow the law.'' And that would be true of anybody who had very, very deeply held views. I think he had a right to say that, but the point is, there isn't anybody who doesn't understand, when you talk about deeply held views, what those are are religious beliefs. If they don't understand it, then they--well, I will not comment about that. At another point, on the subject of Roe v. Wade--which came up in almost every question to Pryor from a Democratic questioner--Senator Schumer said: I for one believe that a judge can be pro-life, yet be fair, balanced, and uphold a woman's right to choose, but for a judge to set aside his or her personal view, the commitment to the rule of law must clearly supersede his or her personal agenda. . . . But based on the comments Attorney General Pryor has made on this subject, I have got some real concerns that he cannot, because he feels these views so deeply and so passionately. There is only one reason he feels those views so deeply and passionately, and that is because of his religion and his religious beliefs. He is a traditional, conservative pro-life Catholic. I don't think my colleagues are against the Catholic Church, but it sure seems as if they are against the traditional pro-life conservative Catholic-- on a selective basis, of course, because they cannot do this to everybody. Another Senator told General Pryor: . . . I think the very legitimate issue in question with your nomination is whether you have an agenda, that many of the positions which you have taken reflect not just an advocacy but a very deeply held view and a philosophy, which you are entitled to have, but you are also not entitled to get everyone's vote. General Pryor is an openly pro-life Catholic. To me, these questions and comments about his deeply held personal views put his religious beliefs squarely in issue. Some Democrats say that they have, generally, voted to confirm about 140 of President Bush's judicial nominees. And they say some may have been pro-life Catholics, so our charges that they refuse to confirm pro-life Catholics are baseless. But here's what they're really saying: if you're a pro-life Catholic, you'd better keep quiet during your entire legal or political career before you come before us on the Judiciary Committee, because if you have made public statements that indicate you actually believe in official Catholic doctrine or are actually pro-life, that's when you are in real trouble with us. If you are smart, you will keep your religious beliefs to yourself, and maybe we won't ask about them directly or indirectly. So at best, what some Democrats seem to want is a gag order enforced on nominees who have publicly espoused pro-life positions, even in the context of political campaigns. At worse, maybe some would rather that those publicly profess pro-life sentiments be excluded from public service--certainly service on the federal bench--altogether. Let's assume that, as various polls seem to show, the American people are roughly equally divided on the policy questions regarding abortion. There's no question that tens of millions of Catholics, following the official doctrine of the church, and millions of other religious believers of all denominations in this country are on the pro-life side of that divide. An abortion litmus test--which is really a religious litmus test, where pro-life views arise from a person's faith-- effectively excludes judicial nominees from that side, from service on the Federal bench. That is wrong, particularly in the case of Bill Pryor, whose record of subordinating his personal beliefs to the law could not be clearer, and who, like Justice Owen, affirmed to our Committee that he would follow Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court precedents with which he personally disagrees. He understands his role as a federal judge. It's time we act on a proper understanding of our role as Senators and vote for or against his confirmation. We know that our Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office. Nobody would propose a law that excluded persons of certain religions from certain federal offices. But what can't be done overtly is no less objectionable when done indirectly. Article VI of the Constitution states, ``[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'' I do not believe that any Senator would intentionally impose a religious test on the President's judicial nominees, and I do not think any Senators are guilty of anti-religion bias. However, I am deeply concerned that some are indirectly putting at issue the religious beliefs of several judicial nominees--nominees who are avowedly pro-life as a result of their religious beliefs. The most recent example emerged during the debate on the nomination of Bill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit. During his confirmation hearing, General Pryor was asked repeatedly by some Committee Democrats about what one senator called his ``very, very deeply held views.'' In fact, in the portion of his opening statement addressing Roe v. Wade, one of my Democratic colleagues on the judiciary Committee stated I for one believe that a judge can be pro-life, yet be fair, balanced, and uphold a woman's right to choose, but for a judge to set aside his or her personal view, the commitment to the rule of law must clearly supersede his or her personal agenda. . . . But based on the comments Attorney General Pryor has made on this subject, I have got some real concerns that he cannot, because he feels these views so deeply and so passionately. Another Senator accused General Pryor during the hearing of ``asserting an agenda of your own, a religious belief of your own. . . .'' And yet another Senator told General Pryor during the hearing: . . . I think the very legitimate issue in question with your nomination is whether you have an agenda, that many of the positions which you have taken reflect not just an advocacy but a very deeply held view and a philosophy, which you are entitled to have, but you are also not entitled to get everyone's vote. Another colleague remarked: Virtually in every area you have extraordinarily strong views which continue and come out in a number of different ways. Your comments about Roe make one believe, could he really, suddenly, move away from those comments and be a judge? I became concerned after these comments that General Pryor was essentially being questioned about his deeply held religious beliefs, and that is the only reason I myself questioned General Pryor on the subject of religion during his hearing. In my view, it was time to call it like I saw it. But let me make one thing absolutely clear: My questions were an attempt to prevent General Pryor, and any other judicial nominees, from being subjected to a religious test. In no way, shape or form did I attempt, or would I ever attempt, to impose such a test. General Pryor is an openly pro-life Catholic, so there is little doubt in my mind about the nature or source of his ``deeply held views.'' He has publicly stated on numerous occasions, including during his confirmation hearing, that he believes abortion is the taking of innocent human life. My colleagues seem to be arguing that because General Pryor feels passionately that abortion is morally wrong and has publicly expressed his views, he will be unable to set aside his personal views on the subject and follow binding Supreme Court precedent as a judge. But General Pryor's record on the subject of abortion is crystal clear and beyond dispute. He has enforced the law despite his publicly expressed and conflicting personal beliefs. For example, after the Alabama legislature passed a partial-birth abortion ban in 1997, General Pryor issued guidance to state law enforcement officials to ensure that the law was enforced consistent with the Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Although there was considerable outcry against his decision from the pro-life community, the ACLU praised General Pryor's decision, emphasizing that his order had ``[s]everly [l]imited'' Alabama's ban. He issued similar guidance after the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down another state's ban on partial- birth abortion. I doubt that any Supreme Court decision could be more personally distasteful to General Pryor than Stenberg v. Carhart. And he specifically said he disagreed with the decision while emphasizing that it was the law and he would enforce it. Can we ask more of a judicial nominee, than to demonstrate such objectivity and enforce a law so at odds with his personal beliefs? I urge my colleagues to judge General Pryor and other pro-life nominees on their record as it relates to abortion and not on the nominees' person beliefs on the subject. By the way, I am certainly not alone in my concern that the debate over General Pryor's nomination has put his religious beliefs at issue. The Mobile Register in a July 26 editorial wrote that : . . . the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have repeatedly asserted that Mr. Pryor would be incapable of enforcing the law . . . That's a serious charge, in effect saying that if somebody believes deeply, because of his religious faith, that abortion is morally wrong, then that person is unfit for a judgeship. But that onus is on the accusers to prove from Bill Pryor's record that he is thus hampered from enforcing the law. Mr. Pryor has much evidence on his side, but where is their evidence to the contrary? . . . To look at that record and still assert, as the Senate Democrats do, that the strength of Mr. Pryor's personal beliefs disqualifies him, is indeed, effectively, to say that his faith makes him ineligible for office. Their stance against him should anger all people of deep faith, of all religions. In addition, Austin Rusc, President of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, wrote in a letter dated July 29: ``I am deeply troubled by the recent turns of events in the U.S. Senate regarding Catholic nominees to the Federal Court. It appears to me that a faithful Catholic, that is one who upholds the Catholic teaching on the inviolability of innocent human life from conception onward, cannot be confirmed for the Federal bench by this Senate. It very clearly is a religious test for office, and therefore a violation of our Constitution. Moreover, it is an insult to millions of faithful Catholics in this country. I also received a July 23 letter from the president and three other leaders of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America that stated: As a community of religious believers committed to full engagement with modern American society, we are deeply troubled by those who have implied that a person of faith cannot serve in a high level government post that may raise issues at odds with his or her personal beliefs. There is little question in our minds that this view has been the subtext for some of the criticism of Mr. Pryor. We urge you and your colleagues to empathetically reject this aspersion and send a clear message that such suggestions, whether explicit or implied, are beyond the pale of our politics. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the Register editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Any suggestions that a person with deeply held religious beliefs cannot be trusted to follow the law, despite a proven track record of doing just that, is unconstitutional. I will continue to fight any form of religious test, direct or indirect, as long as I am a Member of this Senate. I have stood up for the free exercise of religion time and time again, through such measures as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I am proud of my accomplishments, and I will continue in my quest to ensure that the free exercise of religion is a right that remains uncompromised for everyone--including judicial nominees. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [Mobile Register, July 26, 2003] To Denigrate Pryor, How Low Can They Go? On the matter of the judicial nomination of Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, it's time for his Democratic opponents to put up or shut up. When all the smokescreens dissipate, the Senate Democrats' objections to Mr. Pryor come down to two: First, that his pro-life views are too ``extreme'' for him to be trusted to uphold laws that contradict those views, and second, that they have been denied ample time to investigate his fund- raising activities. Let's take them one at a time. Much has been made of Mr. Pryor's supporters supposedly accusing his opponents of deliberate anti-Catholic bias. But that's not what the supporters have claimed. Instead, they've asserted--quite believably--that the critics' pro-choice litmus test amounts to the kind of ``religious test'' that, whether applied to Catholics (such as Mr. Pryor) or conservative Protestants, or for that matter members of any faith, are explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Too Catholic?: It's not merely Catholics who say Bill Pryor's faith is being unfairly used against him. The president and three other leaders of the Orthodox Jewish Union wrote this in a July 23 letter: ``As a community of religious believers committed to full engagement with modern American society, we are deeply troubled by those who have implied that a person of faith cannot serve in a high level government post that may raise issues at odds with his or her personal beliefs. There is little question in our minds that this view has been the subtext for some of the criticism of Mr. Pryor. . . . In our view, Mr. Pryor's record as Alabama's attorney general demonstrates his ability to faithfully enforce the law, even when it may conflict with his personal beliefs.'' Indeed, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have repeatedly asserted that Mr. Pryor would be incapable of enforcing the law. Here's Senator Charles Schumer of New York: ``In General Pryor's case his beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it is very hard to believe--very hard to believe--that they are not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, `I will follow the law,' and that would be true of anybody who had very, very deeply held views.'' Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois even suggested to Mr. Pryor directly that he was ``asserting an agenda of your own, a religious belief of your own, inconsistent with separation of church and state.'' That's a serious charge, in effect saying that if somebody believes deeply, because of his religious faith, that abortion is morally wrong, then that person is unfit for a judgeship. But the onus is on the accusers to prove from Bill Pryor's record that he is thus hampered from enforcing the law. Mr. Pryor has much evidence on his side, but where is their evidence to the contrary? The Alabama AG, after all, is a white Republican who has taken the side of black Democrats in a suit filed by white Republicans. He is a man who has publicly intervened against the very Republican governor, Fob James, who first appointed him. And on two separate occasions he took stances, as the state's top legal officer, that angered some of his anti-abortion allies. To look at that record and still assert, as the Senate Democrats do, that the strength of Mr. Pryor's personal beliefs disqualifies him, is indeed, effectively, to say that his faith makes him ineligible for office. Their stance against him should anger all people of deep faith, of all religions. False testimony?: Senate Democrats also contend that Republicans have unfairly cut off their ``investigation'' into whether Mr. Pryor testified truthfully about fund- raising activities for the Republican Attorneys General Association--activities the Democrats themselves acknowledge were legal. The truth is that the anti-Pryor forces are the ones whose tactics should be in question. Using a close associate of a man from whom Mr. Pryor recently secured a guilty plea to bribery charges, the Democratic committee staff obtained documents on July 2 that they claim raise questions about the AG's own committee testimony. (It is not clear how long they had been in contact with that associate, but some Republican senators accused them of knowing weeks in advance.) The Democrats did not bother to tell Republicans about the documents until July 8. They did not interview former staffers of the Republican group until July 15, two days before the vote on Mr. Pryor was scheduled. They have not yet put the original source under oath. And, despite being given three opportunities to question Mr. Pryor himself about the charges, Democrats declined all three times to question him. On July 17, the day the committee was scheduled to vote on the nomination, the Democrats presented an ``investigation plan'' that did not include giving Mr. Pryor himself a chance to answer his accusers. Not only that, but Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch announced that, as of yesterday, the committee had interviewed 20 witnesses, and that every one of them ``corroborated the testimony of General Pryor.'' In fact, said Chairman Hatch, ``what's notable'' is the Democrats'' ``complete failure to specify any evidence that General Pryor misled the committee.'' Indeed, they haven't even specified exactly what their charges against him are. There is good reason, then, to agree with Chairman Hatch that the Pryor opponents are engaged in a ``full-scale fishing expedition.'' Enough is enough. The campaign against Bill Pryor has sunk to tawdry depths. Unless the Democrats ``put up'' a legitimate reason to delay, instead of these faith-based and procedural smears, they owe him an up-or-down confirmation vote on the Senate floor, with no filibusters and no more subterfuge.

Mr. HATCH. Now, look, it is a little late to start saying we should have a rule that you can never mention religion. That means you could never mention Roe v. Wade. But that would take away the biggest argument that Democrats have against these people. I don't like to mention religion either--never have except in General Pryor's case, after Democrats had not so subtly raised the issue. Now, with regard to the criticism of Boyden Gray's group, those terms were used first by People for the American Way in formal ads and letters, and then used by, I think, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State. These are two liberal groups. Here is Americans United for Separation of Church and State, criticizing the nomination of John Ashcroft because he was for charitable choice legislation: Ashcroft charitable choice provisions allow a Government- funded program to hang a sign that says ``Catholics need not apply.'' Where did that come from? That was long before Boyden Gray's group used such language--after all of Democrats' attacks on Pryor's deeply held beliefs during his hearing. What about People for the American Way? People for the American Way, again, criticizing John Ashcroft because of the charitable choice legislation and saying: An evangelical church running a Government-funded welfare program could state that ``Catholics need not apply'' in a help wanted ad. Which I doubt any of them would do. Now, leftist groups used such language, and all of a sudden we hear this screaming and shouting that Boyden Gray's group used the same language--after Democrats put Pryor's religious beliefs squarely at issue during his hearing and markup. Now some will say: Well, I certainly didn't mean for my questions to put his religion at issue. Well, what do you mean it to be? Religious beliefs are his deeply held beliefs and personal beliefs. Now, look, my colleagues have a right to ask questions, but I also have a right to point out that I think those questions have led us into some very tender areas. Frankly, what it all comes down to--I hate to say this, but it is true--is Roe v. Wade. That is what it comes down to. It is the be-all and end-all issue to most of our colleagues over here. Now, it has been to a couple of my colleagues over here, too, but we stopped our side from using it as a litmus test. In fact, I don't know of anybody over here who has used it as a litmus test. But in virtually every case, that is the chief issue Democrats use against President Bush's nominees and the chief gripe about what kind of people they are--because they are traditional pro-life religious people. I don't know what other conclusion you can come to. So to bring this resolution up is just a political show, because nobody in their right mind is going to let them get away with that type of treatment--or should I say mistreatment--of any President's judicial nominees. I do not want anybody on our side doing it either. Also, frankly, for my colleague from Vermont, I know he is concerned about this. And I don't think any of these groups, including the conservative groups, should use this type of ``Catholics need not apply'' language. I don't think it is right. I don't think it should be done. But the ones who did it first, the ones who were never criticized by our media in this country, the ones who were never criticized by my colleagues on the other side, who are now decrying all of this, were the Democratic, liberal inside-the-beltway groups. And all of a sudden Boyden Gray's group is a very bad group because they have used the same language as People for the American Way and the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity today to pay tribute to a wonderful man, dedicated public servant, and loyal friend, Ronald E. Madsen. Ron is retiring from my Senate Staff after 21 years of dedicated service to the people of Utah, a time throughout which he worked tirelessly to promote and protect the values and ideals we all hold so dear. Ron joined my staff in the early days of my Senate career and has always been a vital center of my Senate organization. He has served in many capacities including Utah state director, environmental and lands advisor, and most recently as staff counsel. Ron Madsen has been a guiding influence for me. Over the years, we have navigated through many challenges and enjoyed many successes. He has always diligently strived to provide sound counsel and steady support as we have worked together on issues facing Utah and the Nation. In addition, Ron has played a vital role in working with many Utah industries and associations. He spent many years advising and helping to promote the tourism and air travel industries throughout Utah. He is a strong advocate for the Second Amendment and was a key liaison for my office on issues affecting this important constitutional right. Over the years, Ron has spent literally months traveling Utah, meeting with county and city officials and getting a good feel for the issues and challenges Utahns are facing throughout our State. But perhaps the most important and lasting service Ron performed were the literally thousands of hours he spent listening to and counseling constituents who called my office looking for assistance with a myriad of problems. In Ron, they not only found help, they made a good friend. He has always been willing to work with all constituents, no matter their circumstances. The friendship and help Ron Madsen extended has been invaluable to hundreds if not thousands of Utahns and will be felt for many years to come. Ron was born and raised in Provo, UT where his family played an integral role in the community. He attended Brigham Young University where he received a Bachelor of Science Degree and graduated with honors. He was then awarded a 3-year trustee scholarship to George Washington University School of Law in Washington, D.C., where he served on the Law Review. Ron later received his Juris Doctorate Degree with honors and went on to establish a successful and prestigious law career and was admitted to practice law in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Utah, and before the United States Supreme Court. In addition to the service Ron has rendered in his community and our office, Ron is a loving father and grandfather. He is the proud father of one son and 2 daughters, and grandfather to 5 grandsons and 1 granddaughter. I have often admired the dedication and devotion Ron Madsen has always shown, not only to his children and grandchildren, but to his wife Kathryn who was sick for many years and is now deceased. Ron stood by her side through her struggles with health and was a steadfast partner until the end. Ron also has a true love for animals and has opened his home to many animals in need of shelter and care. He has helped his daughter, a veterinarian technician by trade, nurse many wounded creatures back to good health and improved their quality of life immeasurably. He has sacrificed his talents, time and financial resources for the creatures of our earth--something truly noteworthy and honorable. I am truly grateful for the service Ron Madsen has given to me, to his community and to Utah. He has been by my side for many, many years and I will always be extremely grateful for the service he has rendered. I will miss Ron tremendously, but know that life holds many wonderful things for him to savor and enjoy. And as Ron has always liked to quote--``you can go off the Hatch payroll, but never off the Hatch staff.'' In the future, I plan to continue to rely on Ron Madsen for his very expert advice, for his guidance and support. Ron is a truly dedicated public servant, fervently patriotic American, loving father and grandfather, and loyal and cherished friend. I want to wish him the very best in retirement and pray for his continued good health, success and happiness.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of Paul M. Warner of Salt Lake City, who has been renominated by President Bush for the position of U.S. attorney for the District of Utah. Paul Warner has had a remarkable career in public service. After graduating from the J. Reuben Clark Law School in 1976, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy Reserve Judge Advocate General Corps, where he served as both prosecutor and defense counsel. From 1982 to 1989, Mr. Warner served in the Utah Attorney General's Office, where he did tremendous work on both civil and criminal matters. In 1983, he enlisted with the Utah Army National Guard, Judge Advocate Branch, where he has risen to the rank of colonel. Since 1989 he has served in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Utah, where he has worked on both civil litigation and criminal prosecution. He became the U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah in 1998 and has served ably in that office ever since. I think it is important to have a career prosecutor with the reputation and ability of Paul Warner to lead the Federal law enforcement effort in Utah. He is a man committed to the rule of law and has a proven track record on the problems that affect Utah, notably methamphetamine proliferation and illegal reentry by criminal aliens. Paul Warner has been able to be so effective because he has developed a great working relationship with Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel. I believe that without exception he is respected and trusted as a skillful prosecutor and an able administrator. Paul Warner has had several notable career achievements. Most notably he rose to the Olympic challenge of presiding over one of the largest peace time mobilizations of law enforcement personnel in United States history. I can't give him enough credit for facilitating the cooperation of Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel that allowed the Salt Lake Olympic Games to run so smoothly. It was a tremendous undertaking, and the State of Utah, the United States of America, and the World Olympic Community owe a debt of gratitude to Paul Warner for negotiating the Herculean task of facilitating a safe environment that allowed the Salt Lake City Olympic Games to be enjoyed by so many throughout the world. Paul Warner has also used his legal acumen and personal relationships to defuse several tense situations, including the controversies surrounding the Federal land use policies affecting Utah and the imposition of background checks at the Salt Lake International Airport following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Paul Warner has been honored on several occasions for his commitment to public service. He is the recipient of the United States Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service during Operation Desert Storm for legal work done in mobilizing members of the Utah Army National Guard. He later received two oak leaf clusters for meritorious service as Staff Judge Advocate. Mr. Warner was given a Special Achievement Award from the U.S. Department of Justice, and a Special Commendation from U.S. Attorney, District of Utah, for outstanding work as First Assistant U.S. Attorney. Finally, he has received the Community Relationship Award from the Salt Lake City branch of the NAACP. Paul Warner is a man of integrity and honesty. He is a great American who has spent his career in public service. I can't say enough about this honorable and talented man. I have no doubt that he will continue to be an able U.S. attorney. He deserves a speedy confirmation by this committee and by the full Senate. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting his renomination to be the United States Attorney for the District of Utah.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1531, the John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act. This bill authorizes the Treasury Department to mint and issue coins bearing the likeness of Chief Justice John Marshall for the purpose of supporting the Supreme Court Historical Society. Sales of the coin would, in addition to raising funds for the Society, also cover all of the costs of minting and issuing these coins, so that the American taxpayer would not bear any cost whatsoever if this legislation were enacted. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once called John Marshall ``the great Chief Justice.'' After 34 years on the bench, from 1801-1835, Marshall earned that title by establishing many of the constitutional doctrines we revere today. Writing over 500 opinions, he truly made the third branch of government co-equal with the legislative and executive branches. Marshall's greatness lay in his ability to figure out how to put in practice the concept of checks and balances. In powerfully written decisions, the Marshall Court established several constitutional doctrines, forming the bedrock of contemporary jurisprudence including: establishing judicial review, prohibiting State taxation of the Federal Government, making the federal supreme court final arbiter of decisions issued by State supreme courts, and expounding the limits of the contracts and commerce clauses. Indeed, he solidified early Federalist ideas by defining the relationships between the Federal Government and the States; a position that was forgotten and is only very recently re- emerging in our jurisprudence. Born in 1755, Marshall was a key player in the founding generation who established our constitutional government. He was an early and active member in the revolutionary cause, joining with the revolutionary army and fighting as one of George Washington's Officers in at least four major battles and enduring the winter at Valley Forge. Marshall later served as a member of Congress and as Secretary of State before his ascension to the Supreme Court. There is a no more fitting likeness for a coin that would support the efforts of the Supreme Court Historical Society. The Society is a non- profit organization whose purpose is to preserve and disseminate the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. Founded by Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Society's mission is to provide information and historical research on our Nations highest court. The Society accomplishes this mission by conducting programs, publishing books, supporting historical research and collecting antiques and artifacts related to the Court's history. Recent research includes efforts to capture the history of the Court during the Franklin D. Roosevelt period, the Civil War, and the evolution of the Chief Justice's role on the court. Lectures and programs are open to the public as well as Society members. Additionally, the Society seeks to acquire the private papers, period furnishings, and art work relating to court history. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to memorialize the Great Chief Justice John Marshall and assist a worthwhile organization like the Supreme Court Historical Society. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help make the American dream a reality for many young people. ``The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act,'' or ``The DREAM Act,'' resolves immigration status problems that plague undocumented immigrants who came to our country as youths. It also removes barriers to education so that they are better equipped to succeed in our society. Each year, about fifty thousand young undocumented immigrants graduate from high school in the United States. Most of them came to this country with their parents as small children and have been raised here just like their U.S. citizen classmates. They view themselves as Americans, and are loyal to our country. Some may not even realize that they are here in violation of our immigration laws. They grow up to become honest and hardworking adolescents and young adults, and strive for academic as well as professional excellence. Many of these youngsters find themselves caught in a catch-22 situation. As illegal immigrants, they cannot work legally. Moreover, they are effectively barred from developing academically beyond high school because of the high cost of pursuing higher education. Private colleges and universities are very expensive, and under current federal law, state institutions cannot grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, regardless of how long they have resided in that state. To make matters worse, as illegal immigrants, these young people are ineligible for federal tuition assistance. Moreover, these young people have no independent way of becoming legal residents of the United States. In short, though these children have built their lives here, they have no possibility of achieving and living the American dream. What a tremendous loss to our society. One young man who is in this predicament lives in my home State of Utah. His name is Danny Cairo. Danny came to the United States at the age of six with his mother who abandoned him eights years later. Danny had to drop out of school in order to support himself. Fortunately, he met Kevin King, who adopted Danny in 2001. With the help of Mr. King, Danny is presently attending the University of Utah. This story, however, does not necessarily have a happy ending. Because of the date of the adoption, Danny is unable to derive immigration status from Mr. King. He, therefore, lives in legal limbo and faces the threat of deportation daily. In addition, he may never be able to legally work in the United States. As Mr. King wrote to me, ``Danny is exactly what our country needs more of. He is a natural born leader with charisma and intelligence and a drive that will take him wherever he wants to go. But this will not be possible if Danny is unable to obtain permanent residency.'' Our laws should not discourage those with bright young minds from seeking higher education. We should instead assist and encourage the many ``Dannys'' who are in the United States and who have the dedication and drive to achieve their worthy goals. I am proud that the DREAM Act provides illegal alien children with options for higher education, as well as the opportunity to earn legal residence in the United States. First, the DREAM Act repeals the provision of Federal law that prevents States from granting in-State tuition to undocumented aliens, leaving this issue at the discretion of the States. My own State of Utah passed a law that will allow in-State tuition for aliens who have been residents in Utah for at least three years. My States have either passed or are considering the passage of similar legislation. But the fact of the matter is that cheaper tuition at State schools, no matter how beneficial for these young people, will not solve the larger problem: their illegal immigration status. While I do not advocate granting unchecked amnesty to illegal immigrants, I am, however, in favor of providing children--children who did not make the decision to enter the United States illegally--the opportunity to earn the privilege of remaining here legally. The DREAM Act will do just that. It provides young men and women who immigrated to the United States prior to the age of sixteen, who have lived in this country at least five years, and who are of good moral character a chance to earn their conditional resident status upon acceptance by an institution of higher learning or upon graduation from high school. The DREAM Act allows these special young people to pursue their worthy goals and aspirations. The bill I am introducing today will extend DREAM Act benefits to a group of people who were excluded from a similar bill negotiated during the 107th Congress. Today's bill removes the age ceiling so that no one will be arbitrarily cut-off from benefits. Moreover, while the version from the last Congress requires high school graduation as a provision for obtaining legal status, the bill I am introducing today contains a provision that allows high school students who have been accepted into an institution of higher learning, but who have not yet graduated from high school, to obtain conditional resident status. This provision enables these high school students to get an earlier start on procuring the necessary funds for financing their education. Of course, we have to be mindful that the opportunity provided by the DREAM Act is a privilege and not an entitlement. We must make sure that those who reap the benefits of the Act are, in fact, worthy of such benefits. For this reason, the bill I am introducing today tightens certain requirements and eliminates waivers for those who have serious criminal records that would qualify them for deportation. In addition, while I always want to encourage educational advancement, I recognize that not everyone's circumstances allow for full-time attendance at a four-year college. For this reason, the DREAM Act provides for certain alternatives like attending community college, trade school, serving in our armed forces, or performing community service. The purpose of the DREAM Act is to create incentives for out-of- status youngsters to achieve as much as they can in life and to contribute to the greatness of the United States. I recognize that if the bill's requirements are so high that they simply operate as barriers to legalizing status, the bill defeats its own stated purpose. That is why I am committed to ensuring that the requirements imposed by this bill are reasonable and can be met by youngsters who are willing to work hard. The DREAM Act will enable youngsters who have ambition and motivation to obtain permanent legal status. During the 107th Congress, I introduced a version of the DREAM Act, S. 1291. Since then, it has been replaced in favor of the Durbin/Hatch/ Kennedy/Brownback substitute. The substitute was put on the Senate calendar but did not receive a vote. The House Judiciary Committee debated identical legislation during the last Congress but it was defeated. The House Judiciary Committee has not yet moved similar legislation this Congress. I want to make sure that the DREAM Act we introduce in the 108th Congress will not die in the hopper as it did in the House last year. By introducing this bill, I know I am subjecting myself to criticism from both sides of the aisle on my immigration policy. Some proponents of strict immigration enforcement argue that the DREAM Act will encourage illegal entry into the United States. However, the DREAM Act was carefully drafted to avoid this precise problem. The Act specifically limits eligibility to those who entered the United States five years or more prior to the bill's enactment. It applies to a limited number of people who already reside in the United States and who have demonstrated favorable equities in and significant ties to the United States. Anyone who entered the United States less than five years prior to the enactment of this bill or who plans to illegally enter the United States in the future will not be covered by the DREAM Act. On the other hand, proponents for providing general amnesty contend that there shouldn't be any requirements after high school graduation. I agree that for some of these children, graduation from high school is a grand enough accomplishment in itself. My bill recognizes this achievement by providing these graduates with the reward of conditional resident status so that they may work toward permanent status without fear of deportation. Nonetheless, some critics argue that most immigrant children cannot go to college, nor can they meet the standards set by the current version of the DREAM Act. They cite statistics showing that only a small percentage of illegal immigrant children ever attend college and they argue that this DREAM bill will benefit very few. What these critics overlook, however, is that without the DREAM Act, illegal immigrant children simply do not have the means nor the incentive to obtain a higher education. Since the DREAM Act will remove substantial obstacles to higher education, I am confident that many of the children who are currently illegal U.S. residents will seek higher education. Some critics also contained that these immigrant children do not have the aptitude to attend community college or trade school and that even joining the military or performing a few hours a week of community service is out of reach for them. To this criticism I stress that this is not only wholly inaccurate, but it is also an elitist attitude to which I cannot subscribe. Immigrant children, whether legal or otherwise, are no less capable than other children. They just need the opportunity to reach their potential. I also want to point out that everyone who was eligible for benefits under last year's bill will be eligible again this year. In fact, as I explained earlier, those who were left out of last year's bill are included in this year's bill. The only difference is that now, the applicant has to contribute more to American society before transitioning from conditional resident status to permanent resident status. I believe the DREAM Act will live up to its name. It will allow these illegal immigrant children the opportunity to not only dream of the infinite possibilities that their futures may hold in the United States, but it will also afford them the opportunity to realize their dreams. With the passage of the DREAM Act, the United States stands to benefit enormously. Once these children become legal residents of this Nation, they will prove to be motivated, hard-working, and educated contributors to our society. I am pleased and proud once again to work with Senator Durbin on this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 1531, the John Marshall Commemorative Coin Act. This bill authorizes the Treasury Department to mint and issue coins bearing the likeness of Chief Justice John Marshall for the purpose of supporting the Supreme Court Historical Society. Sales of the coin would, in addition to raising funds for the Society, also cover all of the costs of minting and issuing these coins, so that the American taxpayer would not bear any cost whatsoever if this legislation were enacted. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once called John Marshall ``the great Chief Justice.'' After 34 years on the bench, from 1801-1835, Marshall earned that title by establishing many of the constitutional doctrines we revere today. Writing over 500 opinions, he truly made the third branch of government co-equal with the legislative and executive branches. Marshall's greatness lay in his ability to figure out how to put in practice the concept of checks and balances. In powerfully written decisions, the Marshall Court established several constitutional doctrines, forming the bedrock of contemporary jurisprudence including: establishing judicial review, prohibiting State taxation of the Federal Government, making the federal supreme court final arbiter of decisions issued by State supreme courts, and expounding the limits of the contracts and commerce clauses. Indeed, he solidified early Federalist ideas by defining the relationships between the Federal Government and the States; a position that was forgotten and is only very recently re- emerging in our jurisprudence. Born in 1755, Marshall was a key player in the founding generation who established our constitutional government. He was an early and active member in the revolutionary cause, joining with the revolutionary army and fighting as one of George Washington's Officers in at least four major battles and enduring the winter at Valley Forge. Marshall later served as a member of Congress and as Secretary of State before his ascension to the Supreme Court. There is a no more fitting likeness for a coin that would support the efforts of the Supreme Court Historical Society. The Society is a non- profit organization whose purpose is to preserve and disseminate the history of the Supreme Court of the United States. Founded by Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Society's mission is to provide information and historical research on our Nations highest court. The Society accomplishes this mission by conducting programs, publishing books, supporting historical research and collecting antiques and artifacts related to the Court's history. Recent research includes efforts to capture the history of the Court during the Franklin D. Roosevelt period, the Civil War, and the evolution of the Chief Justice's role on the court. Lectures and programs are open to the public as well as Society members. Additionally, the Society seeks to acquire the private papers, period furnishings, and art work relating to court history. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to memorialize the Great Chief Justice John Marshall and assist a worthwhile organization like the Supreme Court Historical Society. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help make the American dream a reality for many young people. ``The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act,'' or ``The DREAM Act,'' resolves immigration status problems that plague undocumented immigrants who came to our country as youths. It also removes barriers to education so that they are better equipped to succeed in our society. Each year, about fifty thousand young undocumented immigrants graduate from high school in the United States. Most of them came to this country with their parents as small children and have been raised here just like their U.S. citizen classmates. They view themselves as Americans, and are loyal to our country. Some may not even realize that they are here in violation of our immigration laws. They grow up to become honest and hardworking adolescents and young adults, and strive for academic as well as professional excellence. Many of these youngsters find themselves caught in a catch-22 situation. As illegal immigrants, they cannot work legally. Moreover, they are effectively barred from developing academically beyond high school because of the high cost of pursuing higher education. Private colleges and universities are very expensive, and under current federal law, state institutions cannot grant in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, regardless of how long they have resided in that state. To make matters worse, as illegal immigrants, these young people are ineligible for federal tuition assistance. Moreover, these young people have no independent way of becoming legal residents of the United States. In short, though these children have built their lives here, they have no possibility of achieving and living the American dream. What a tremendous loss to our society. One young man who is in this predicament lives in my home State of Utah. His name is Danny Cairo. Danny came to the United States at the age of six with his mother who abandoned him eights years later. Danny had to drop out of school in order to support himself. Fortunately, he met Kevin King, who adopted Danny in 2001. With the help of Mr. King, Danny is presently attending the University of Utah. This story, however, does not necessarily have a happy ending. Because of the date of the adoption, Danny is unable to derive immigration status from Mr. King. He, therefore, lives in legal limbo and faces the threat of deportation daily. In addition, he may never be able to legally work in the United States. As Mr. King wrote to me, ``Danny is exactly what our country needs more of. He is a natural born leader with charisma and intelligence and a drive that will take him wherever he wants to go. But this will not be possible if Danny is unable to obtain permanent residency.'' Our laws should not discourage those with bright young minds from seeking higher education. We should instead assist and encourage the many ``Dannys'' who are in the United States and who have the dedication and drive to achieve their worthy goals. I am proud that the DREAM Act provides illegal alien children with options for higher education, as well as the opportunity to earn legal residence in the United States. First, the DREAM Act repeals the provision of Federal law that prevents States from granting in-State tuition to undocumented aliens, leaving this issue at the discretion of the States. My own State of Utah passed a law that will allow in-State tuition for aliens who have been residents in Utah for at least three years. My States have either passed or are considering the passage of similar legislation. But the fact of the matter is that cheaper tuition at State schools, no matter how beneficial for these young people, will not solve the larger problem: their illegal immigration status. While I do not advocate granting unchecked amnesty to illegal immigrants, I am, however, in favor of providing children--children who did not make the decision to enter the United States illegally--the opportunity to earn the privilege of remaining here legally. The DREAM Act will do just that. It provides young men and women who immigrated to the United States prior to the age of sixteen, who have lived in this country at least five years, and who are of good moral character a chance to earn their conditional resident status upon acceptance by an institution of higher learning or upon graduation from high school. The DREAM Act allows these special young people to pursue their worthy goals and aspirations. The bill I am introducing today will extend DREAM Act benefits to a group of people who were excluded from a similar bill negotiated during the 107th Congress. Today's bill removes the age ceiling so that no one will be arbitrarily cut-off from benefits. Moreover, while the version from the last Congress requires high school graduation as a provision for obtaining legal status, the bill I am introducing today contains a provision that allows high school students who have been accepted into an institution of higher learning, but who have not yet graduated from high school, to obtain conditional resident status. This provision enables these high school students to get an earlier start on procuring the necessary funds for financing their education. Of course, we have to be mindful that the opportunity provided by the DREAM Act is a privilege and not an entitlement. We must make sure that those who reap the benefits of the Act are, in fact, worthy of such benefits. For this reason, the bill I am introducing today tightens certain requirements and eliminates waivers for those who have serious criminal records that would qualify them for deportation. In addition, while I always want to encourage educational advancement, I recognize that not everyone's circumstances allow for full-time attendance at a four-year college. For this reason, the DREAM Act provides for certain alternatives like attending community college, trade school, serving in our armed forces, or performing community service. The purpose of the DREAM Act is to create incentives for out-of- status youngsters to achieve as much as they can in life and to contribute to the greatness of the United States. I recognize that if the bill's requirements are so high that they simply operate as barriers to legalizing status, the bill defeats its own stated purpose. That is why I am committed to ensuring that the requirements imposed by this bill are reasonable and can be met by youngsters who are willing to work hard. The DREAM Act will enable youngsters who have ambition and motivation to obtain permanent legal status. During the 107th Congress, I introduced a version of the DREAM Act, S. 1291. Since then, it has been replaced in favor of the Durbin/Hatch/ Kennedy/Brownback substitute. The substitute was put on the Senate calendar but did not receive a vote. The House Judiciary Committee debated identical legislation during the last Congress but it was defeated. The House Judiciary Committee has not yet moved similar legislation this Congress. I want to make sure that the DREAM Act we introduce in the 108th Congress will not die in the hopper as it did in the House last year. By introducing this bill, I know I am subjecting myself to criticism from both sides of the aisle on my immigration policy. Some proponents of strict immigration enforcement argue that the DREAM Act will encourage illegal entry into the United States. However, the DREAM Act was carefully drafted to avoid this precise problem. The Act specifically limits eligibility to those who entered the United States five years or more prior to the bill's enactment. It applies to a limited number of people who already reside in the United States and who have demonstrated favorable equities in and significant ties to the United States. Anyone who entered the United States less than five years prior to the enactment of this bill or who plans to illegally enter the United States in the future will not be covered by the DREAM Act. On the other hand, proponents for providing general amnesty contend that there shouldn't be any requirements after high school graduation. I agree that for some of these children, graduation from high school is a grand enough accomplishment in itself. My bill recognizes this achievement by providing these graduates with the reward of conditional resident status so that they may work toward permanent status without fear of deportation. Nonetheless, some critics argue that most immigrant children cannot go to college, nor can they meet the standards set by the current version of the DREAM Act. They cite statistics showing that only a small percentage of illegal immigrant children ever attend college and they argue that this DREAM bill will benefit very few. What these critics overlook, however, is that without the DREAM Act, illegal immigrant children simply do not have the means nor the incentive to obtain a higher education. Since the DREAM Act will remove substantial obstacles to higher education, I am confident that many of the children who are currently illegal U.S. residents will seek higher education. Some critics also contained that these immigrant children do not have the aptitude to attend community college or trade school and that even joining the military or performing a few hours a week of community service is out of reach for them. To this criticism I stress that this is not only wholly inaccurate, but it is also an elitist attitude to which I cannot subscribe. Immigrant children, whether legal or otherwise, are no less capable than other children. They just need the opportunity to reach their potential. I also want to point out that everyone who was eligible for benefits under last year's bill will be eligible again this year. In fact, as I explained earlier, those who were left out of last year's bill are included in this year's bill. The only difference is that now, the applicant has to contribute more to American society before transitioning from conditional resident status to permanent resident status. I believe the DREAM Act will live up to its name. It will allow these illegal immigrant children the opportunity to not only dream of the infinite possibilities that their futures may hold in the United States, but it will also afford them the opportunity to realize their dreams. With the passage of the DREAM Act, the United States stands to benefit enormously. Once these children become legal residents of this Nation, they will prove to be motivated, hard-working, and educated contributors to our society. I am pleased and proud once again to work with Senator Durbin on this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. Res. 210, which would proclaim the month of October as ``National Work and Family Month.'' In Congress, we talk a lot about the importance of productivity in the workplace. We've all heard it many times: When workers are more productive, their wages and their living standards increase. American workers are just about the most productive in the world, and that's the reason we have the highest living standard of any large country. But this abstract idea we call productivity doesn't really capture what makes modern life so much more comfortable than life in the old days. And for most Americans, the days have gotten a lot nicer over the decades, and that includes the time that Americans spend at work. In my lifetime, the workplace has changed so much that it is unrecognizable. Work in America is a lot less backbreaking than it used to be, it involves a lot more thinking and typing on average and a lot less lifting and hauling and welding and soldering. It involves a balance, a balance between business and personal activities, and between giving and receiving. That's a great thing. In just about every way imaginable, most Americans work in places that are far more family- friendly than in the past. Flexible work schedules are becoming much more common, too. In 1985, just 14 percent of workers were on flexible schedules, but now 28 percent of workers are. Flexible schedules make it easier to balance work and family. And the workweek is getting shorter, too. In 1890, the average workweek was 60 hours; by 1950 it was down to 40, and now it's down to 35 hours a week for factory workers. The major reason for these changes is the constantly innovating free- market economy. As any employer can tell you, the competition for workers is usually just as cutthroat as the competition for customers. Very few employees in the U.S. today would put up with 1950s style working conditions, let alone 1890s style work conditions. In most cases, if employers treat their workers wrong for very long, those workers will find something else to do with their time. Every day in every State across this Nation, people quit jobs they hate so they can look for something better. Stacks of business magazines extol the virtues of the worker-friendly, family friendly workplace, and study after study points out that in many cases, a family-friendly workplace more than pays for itself. But in too many cases, our Nation's laws haven't kept up with changes in the real-world workplace. We have laws from an industrial era that have lagged far behind changes in the economy. And more importantly, our laws have lagged behind changes in people's personal lives. Yes, we've made some progress over the years, but there's still a lot to be done, such as in the areas of early childhood education and elder care, two areas that I have worked on in the past, and where I know we need to do more work in the future. Today I'd like to focus on one area where we are on the cusp of making a lot more progress, and that is the area of flex time for America's workers. Right now, millions of employees in both the public and private sectors enjoy flexible work schedules. But our industrial- era laws completely shut millions of hourly wage-earners out of the world of flex-time. Over the last few Congresses, a number of proposals have been offered, by President Clinton, by President Bush, and by many members of Congress, to give hourly workers in the private sector the same job flexibility that government workers already enjoy. Right now, federal law decrees that any hourly wage-earner who works more than forty hours per week must be paid overtime at time-and-one- half. But these rules, which I admit sound quite sensible at first, mean that hourly workers in the private sector can't have the ``nine- nines'' workweek that so many federal and state government employees take advantage of. Under the nine-nines workweek, a worker works for nine hours per day for eight days, then works for eight hours on the ninth day, and then the worker can take every other Friday or every other Monday off as a holiday. This adds up to eighty hours over two weeks, but it turns every other weekend into a three-day weekend. Millions of hourly wage-earners would love to be able to have this kind of work schedule, but our industrial-age rules make it impossible for companies to do that without paying overtime wages. It's illegal. If we can amend Federal law to change the standard work period from forty hours every week to eighty hours every two weeks, that would be a great help to America's hourly workers. And it would make it easier for millions of workers to take more weekend trips with the kids, to make doctor's appointments without taking time off of work, and to just live a life that is a little bit less hectic. And that's what family- friendly business policies are all about. Right now, we're seeing a fair amount of controversy over another family-friendly work proposal that goes by the name of comp-time legislation. This is another idea that has been around here for too long, and it's time for it to become law. Comp time would allow workers who work overtime a choice: either they could receive overtime pay in the form of time-and-one-half in cash, or they could receive their pay as time-and-a-half in the form of paid time off. Ten hours of overtime this week could mean fifteen hours off next week, all of it paid time off. This would be unbelievably valuable for workers who would appreciate some extra time with their families. And despite some of the false claims made about comp time, the law would let unionized workers negotiate comp-time agreements through their unions, so it would completely respect worker's rights to organize. As I said earlier, the flex-time and comp-time proposals would provide private sector employees the same opportunities that Federal employees currently have. These proposals would help husbands and wives balance the demands of work and family. This is the kind of legislation that Congress should be enacting to bring our laws into the 21st century. I keep hearing from working parents who struggle to balance the worlds of work and family, and I'm convinced that changing our industrial-era wages and hours laws will give them the flexibility they so desire. I would like to say a little bit more about what Congress can do in the critical area of elder care. I come from a state with a large proportion of elderly citizens, and I know that this is an issue that weighs heavily on the minds of a lot of working families. Our society often overlooks the importance of caring for elderly parents, but I know how hard it is for a husband or a wife to concentrate on work when they have to be concerned about a frail parent. I've sponsored legislation to help our medical system help our nation's frail elderly. One of the major benefits of this kind of reform is that adult children won't have to live in fear of whether or not their parents will be cared for. The Medicare Improvements for Special Needs Beneficiaries Act, which I introduced in the 107th Congress, would be a big help to elderly Americans who have complex, long-term care needs. And it would be a great relief to their adult children. There is a joy in giving the gift of our skills at work, at giving ourselves to the task at hand so thoroughly that we accomplish a task and can say to ourselves, ``well done.'' Fortunately, most working Americans also have the reassurance that they can draw a healthy line, a healthy boundary, between their family and their job, caring for both their loved ones and their work. The rise of flex-time in salaried jobs is a great example of this. When people are able to find a job where they can draw this line, we are happier and more content individuals. I hope that Congress can remove some of the legal barriers that stand between the American people and their ability to draw that line where they see fit. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Kennedy and myself to bring attention to the need for a family-friendly work environment. I urge them to cosponsor this resolution. Our industrial-era labor laws and labor regulations are a barrier to a healthy work environment, and they need serious reform. As I said, I've been working on this along with my old friend Senator Kennedy, and I'm also grateful to have the help of Senator Dodd and Senator Alexander. The four of us may not always see eye to eye on the precise way to help the private sector to build a family-friendly workplace, but I know we agree on the goal: A better life for American families.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. People have a right to schedule the judge.

Mr. HATCH. This is the first time we have ever----

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me take the floor. I am going to yield the floor in just a second. I expect the distinguished Senator from California to be recognized so she can take 15 minutes. Then I am going to warn the Senate, right now, the minute she is through, I want the floor back, and I have a right to have it as the leader on the majority side. Am I right, parliamentarily?

Mr. HATCH. I didn't do that.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from California as well. I feel very deeply toward her. I think she is a wonderful person, and I think she is a fine Senator who works very hard on the Judiciary Committee. And I appreciate her kind remarks about me. Mr. President, let me make something clear. I keep hearing that we are going to vote on judges. Well, I certainly wish that were the case. What we are talking about is a cloture vote tomorrow, and one on Friday. It is not unusual at all, in fact it is a matter of course, for the Senate to double track various items in the interests of the body to keep on top of matters. The two trade bills are extremely important for this country, with two of our greatest allies and supporters, Chile and Singapore. It needs to be done. There is no reason to have hours of debate on it. There are some hard feelings about it, and so forth, but it can be done. We could have debated this in the hour before the cloture vote, which is what the rule calls for. If we invoke cloture, there will be ample opportunity to devote time to the total debate on General Pryor. But now let me just make another point or two. The distinguished Senator from California is very upset at him because he actually took up to the Supreme Court an issue on the Violence Against Women Act. She takes great umbrage at that. Unfortunately, he won. So to indicate that he may be outside the mainstream or somebody who should not be supported because he wins in front of the Supreme Court--and almost everything they criticize, as far as Supreme Court matters are concerned, he has won on, until this last term when he lost on a couple of issues. And in every case he followed what he believed the law was regardless of his own personal beliefs. By the way, I am one of the coauthors in the Congress of the Violence Against Women Act. So to criticize him for something that the Supreme Court agrees with him on gives an indication who is outside the mainstream. It isn't General Pryor. And there is case after case after case where he wins that has been criticized by our colleagues over there as though somehow or other he has been off the charts when it comes to the law. He has been on the charts. I admit, he has lost some, too. But I don't know of anybody who has taken multiple cases to the Supreme Court who has won everything. I know a few who have had pretty good records--and he has one of the better records as an attorney general in this country. My Democratic colleagues assert, in laundry list format, that General Pryor is basically against everything they are for. He is ``out of the mainstream.'' We hear that over and over again. Pryor is against civil rights, disability rights, minorities and women themselves, the environment--the whole thing, presumably, and of course--abortion rights. I am paraphrasing just one Democratic Senator's statement during the markup on July 23, 2003, but it is a fair representation of the types of assertions against General Pryor that are designed not to debate his fitness for the Federal bench but, rather, to strangle debate before it begins. To paint this excellent nominee as so ``extreme'' as to be not worth discussing. By the way, we did not bring this debate up tonight. I did not want to stand here tonight and answer these so-called allegations. My friends on the other side did. They are the ones who interrupted the Energy bill, which is being slow-walked. And we all understand that--as almost everything has been this year. These are what you call obstructionist tactics. And that is what is going on here. For them to come out here on the Senate floor and act like, well, we are interrupting the energy debate--it is almost more than I can take. This energy debate is very important. It should be over. And I would be happy to end it right now, have the cloture vote tomorrow. I will even give up the hour before cloture, if they want to, to keep working on the Energy bill. But, no, that is not what they are doing. This is all a slow-walk to try to make this Congress look as if it isn't a good one, even though, in spite of these slow-walks, we have done bill after bill after bill, some of them extremely important pieces of legislation. Let me provide you with a succinct but very different, and much more realistic picture of General Pryor. General Pryor has been criticized as insensitive to the rights of the disabled because he argued in the Garrett case that the Americans with Disabilities Act could not, under section 5 of the 14th amendment, validly abrogate States' 11th amendment immunity and authorize money damage suits against States in Federal court. But the Supreme Court agreed with General Pryor. He is being criticized by others on the Senate floor for cases that he has won in the Supreme Court. He has also been criticized as insensitive to age-based discrimination because he and a bipartisan group of 23 other State attorneys general--23 other bipartisan State attorneys general--argued in the Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents case that the provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that allowed money damage suits against States in Federal courts was invalid under the 11th amendment, something that they should have argued because it is an important issue. But, again, the Supreme Court agreed with General Pryor. He is being criticized for winning cases in the Supreme Court as though he is the one who is out of the mainstream. I don't think it takes any brains to realize who is out of the mainstream. It is not General Pryor. And we have heard criticism that he is insensitive to women's rights because he argued in the case of U.S. v. Morrison that neither the commerce clause nor the 14th amendment provided Congress with the authority to enact one civil remedies provision of the Violence Against Women Act. But the Supreme Court agreed with him again. Further, General Pryor has been criticized as anti-environment because of his argument in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County that the Army Corps of Engineers did not have the authority, under the Federal Clean Water Act, to exercise Federal jurisdiction over entirely intrastate bodies of water--in this case, an abandoned gravel pit. He was arguing for his State, which is what attorneys general are obligated to do. He even urged the Court not to reach the issue of whether the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate entirely intrastate bodies of water. The Court did not reach the Commerce Clause issue and again agreed with General Pryor's statutory interpretation argument. So I guess those who oppose Pryor are saying when the Supreme Court agrees with you that an environmental statute should be interpreted in accordance with its actual language, rather than expanded through bureaucratic fiat, that makes you extreme and anti-environment, especially when you win the case in front of the Supreme Court. Talk about turning the world upside down. General Pryor has even been criticized as insensitive to civil rights concerns because of his argument in Alexander v. Sandoval that there is no private right of action under title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act to challenge Alabama's policy of issuing drivers' licenses only to English speakers--a policy that I understand is no longer in effect. Once again, the Supreme Court agreed with his argument, holding that Congress, not Federal courts, should create causes of action to enforce Federal laws. That proposition should not be controversial, nor should supporting it be held against General Pryor, who again won in the Supreme Court. Finally, let me just give one more example. The Supreme Court, including Justice Souter, agreed with General Pryor's argument in the Scheidler v. NOW case that Federal antiracketeering laws could not properly be applied to pro-life protest groups who admittedly had not engaged in any activities covered by those laws with respect to the targets of their protests. So while General Pryor may have criticized Justice Souter, they do not always disagree when it comes down to interpreting the law. Let me say this. A nominee is not an extremist--or should I put the word ``extremist'' in quotes because it seems to be a special word that is used so often by our colleagues--a nominee is not an extremist when the positions he has taken have been consistently supported by Supreme Court majorities. We know who the extremists are, and it isn't General Pryor. We will hear more about these cases, and I'm not saying Bill Pryor has won all of these arguments at the Supreme Court. Not even the best lawyers can win them all, and he did lose a couple in this last session. But to say that Bill Pryor is ``out of the mainstream,'' when he has been such a successful advocate for his State in the Nation's highest Court, is plainly wrong. Anybody who makes that argument should think twice before they make that type of argument. We are in the middle of a slow walk here, trying to make the Senate look bad--not by Republicans but by the other side. Frankly, to complain about double-tracking important things like a circuit court of appeals judgeship, the third branch of Government in our society, I think is hitting a little bit below the belt. It is certainly not unusual for cloture votes on judgeship nominees when the other side is filibustering for the first time in history Federal judicial nominees. I made the mistake of saying the Fortas nomination was the only filibuster up until now. I was wrong. I was corrected by none other than former Senator Robert Griffin who led the fight against Fortas. He said: We weren't filibustering, and they knew it. They knew we had the votes to beat them up and down and they are the ones who called for the cloture vote, which they barely won. They only had 45 votes, and there were 12 who weren't there, many of whom were going to vote against Fortas for justifiable reasons. So these filibusters going on now are the only ones we've ever had in the Senate. My colleagues on the other side are fond of saying: There have been 140 Bush judges confirmed by us and only two have been filibustered. That is two too many. Constitutionally, that is two too many. One is one too many. I have to admit there were a few on our side during the Clinton years who wanted to filibuster some of those judges. I personally stopped them with the help of the leadership and others who thought it through that we should not be filibustering judges. It is the wrong thing to do. It should not be done, but it is being done here.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will just wait for a few more minutes, I want to make a point on Rule 4. For the life of me, I can't understand how anybody reading the Judiciary Committee's Rule 4 would interpret it any differently than the way I did. I was surprised to see my comments during the Bill Lan Lee nomination used against me. What happened there was, I was Chairman. We had the votes to stop the nomination. The Democrats didn't want us to stop the nomination because it would have been embarrassing and might have made it more difficult for them to recess-appoint Lee, who I would have supported for any other job in Government but not that one. Because I knew he would get there and he would use the power of the civil rights office to bring litigation against communities, municipalities who would have to give in rather than spend millions of dollars in defense fees and accept full scale racial quotas. My fears were confirmed. Because they recess-appointed him and he did bring that kind of litigation. But with the Lee nomination, the Democrats started a filibuster of their own nominee. There was no reason for them to make any arguments. I would have given them a vote up or down right there. They started the filibuster. I, in graciousness, agreed not to have a vote. I have to admit I myself was in error by making some of the statements I did because I didn't realize the importance of this, nor had I even looked at Rule 4. But let's look at this Rule. It says: ``The chairman shall entertain. . . .'' That means this is a rule that forces the chairman to entertain a nondebatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote. It is a way of forcing the chairman to give a vote that you could not otherwise give if the chairman decided not to do it. ``The chairman shall entertain a nondebatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote if there is objection to bringing the matter to a vote without further debate''--a rollcall vote, in other words. If the chairman refuses, they can then demand a rollcall vote of the committee to be taken. It is nondebatable. It has to happen. And ``debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with 10 votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.'' Anybody with brains can read that and say: That is a rule that forces a recalcitrant chairman to have to call a vote. But any competent person reading that can also conclude, as have I, having consulted with the two Parliamentarians beforehand, that a chairman cannot be foreclosed from his right to call a vote. Because if that were the rule, that means the minority would always control whether there would ever be a vote on a judge. That can't possibly be the rule, though that is what Democrats now are trying to say it is, with regard to the Committee's vote on General Pryor. We are all well aware by now that Democrats invoked the Judiciary Committee's rule 4 to try to block a committee vote on General Pryor's nomination. Their interpretation of this rule was and is simply incorrect, and let me explain why. Rule 4, entitled ``Bringing a Matter to a Vote,'' was clearly intended to serve as a tool by which a determined majority of the committee could force a recalcitrant chairman to bring a matter to vote. In fact, the rule provides, ``The Chairman shall entertain a non- debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote.'' On July 23, there was no motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote. In fact, there was an objection to voting, which I overruled. Thus, on its face, rule 4 was inapplicable to the Pryor nomination. If we followed the interpretation that Democratic members of the committee urged, it would mean that the committee minority would essentially control the committee's agenda. Essentially, the committee's chairman, on behalf of the majority, could not bring any nomination or piece of legislation to a vote without the affirmative vote of at least one member of the minority. So the chairman would have no right to call for a vote--the minority could restrict that right at their discretion. No chairman would suffer such limitations on his power. The limitation that exists in rule 4 as properly interpreted is entirely reasonable: that all members of the committee's majority, plus one minority member, can force the committee to have a vote over the objection of the chairman--who, in that case, clearly would not be representing his committee's majority. Rule 4 does not, as Democrats, would currently, expediently, have it allow the minority to prevent a vote. Rule 4 does not authorize filibusters in the Judiciary Committee. Despite claims to the contrary, there has been no inconsistency in the interpretation of this rule. During the Clinton administration, in an effort to prevent the defeat in committee of a controversial Justice Department nominee and spare both committee Democrats and the administration considerable embarrassment, I chose not to exercise the inherent power that I and all committee chairmen have to bring a matter to a vote. President Clinton ultimately made a recess appointment of the nominee. In retrospect, my graciousness to the other side, and my reliance on rule 4 to accomplish this was admittedly not the best course of action. I nevertheless believe that I had the power to bring that matter to a vote, and that I used the discretion of the chairman to decide not to do so. In short, there was no violation of committee rules or process in bringing the Pryor nomination to a vote on July 23, and any argument to the contrary was merely a last-ditch effort to prevent the full Senate from considering it. Unfortunately, that effort continues, in a manner equally offensive to the ultimate rules that govern the Senate, the U.S. Constitution. The fact is, this was the fifth markup that General Pryor was on, having had his confirmation hearing on June 11. And there were continual Democratic efforts to try and thwart these markups every time. I went along with a number of those efforts just out of graciousness. But on July 23 everybody knew we were going to vote because at the prior markup they invoked the two-hour rule, the Democrats did, so that we couldn't possibly, during the time the Senate was in session, vote on Mr. Pryor. I said: Well, then we will meet after the Senate goes out, which would get around the two-hour rule. That meant about 9 o'clock at night that night, the Thursday before we finally voted. Everybody knew I had the votes. Everybody knew I was going to go ahead. We gave them all day to resolve any problems they had in this so-called ``investigation'' which is as phony as any investigation I have ever seen. By the time we got ready, nobody told me about this, but by the time we got ready for the vote or for the Senate to go out of session and for us to meet--and we worked all day to make sure we would have a quorum--I was informed that there was a personal exigency that existed, a legitimate personal exigency, that was known about earlier in the day, and I agreed to not continue the markup. I put it over then until the next Wednesday, a full week, and said: Get the staffs together, interview the four witnesses you want to, interview General Pryor in the process, but next Wednesday we are going to vote. There have been comments that our staff stalled that. That is not true. I believe the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts tried to make that point. That is not true. As a matter of fact, the Democrats' staff refused to interview or ask questions of Mr. Pryor who could have easily answered them all, and would have, and in fact already had answered all of these questions at his hearing and in writing. It was a phony ``gotcha'' type of a situation which Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are putting nominees through. Let me talk about the religious problem. I am getting a little tired of this. The outside groups have been outrageous with the smears they have brought upon Republican judicial nominees. If you made one mistake in your life or what they perceive to be a mistake, you are going to be smeared because of it. That perceived mistake is going to be enough for these groups to try to ruin your whole career. The tactics used against Judge Kuhl are a perfect illustration. Her whole career she has had the support of Democratic and Republican judges and everybody else in California who really counts, it seems to me, as far as judges are concerned. They found one thing they can beat into the ground, they think. I don't think even that is valid. I think we can rebut that case. And yet they are going to stop this brilliant woman who has a well-qualified rating, their gold standard, from the American Bar Association. What is particularly offensive is what the outside groups have done against some of our nominees because of religious beliefs. By the way, throughout the extensive, lengthy, one-of-a-kind hearing on Judge Pryor, there were consistent questions about his deeply held beliefs. This has caused a lot of people to become very upset.

Mr. HATCH. I am sorry. I am happy to yield for a question without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. At least in one instance over and over it was on the issue of abortion. Several Democrats asked questions about that.

Mr. HATCH. I think there are all kinds of examples. Let me go through a few, if I can. Hopefully, this will be helpful in what the good Senator has asked for. General Pryor's record speaks with far more authority and with much greater eloquence than the fulminations against him. His record of enforcing the Supreme Court dictates on abortion is unquestioned. He has enforced them all. Despite criticizing them all as a traditional pro-life, Catholic conservative, he has criticized abortion but he has upheld the law. Although he has been attacked for his federalism arguments before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court sided with him in most of those cases. Arguing that Congress does not have the power that it has assumed through certain legislative acts is not activist or radical. It is principled, entirely consistent with our constitutional separation of powers, and it is General Pryor's duty as State attorney general. In all the federalism cases he has argued, he advocated that only certain portions of Federal laws were unconstitutional. In all cases, remedies remained available for aggrieved parties or the Federal Government. I cited some of these cases earlier. Let me give another illustration. His critics have also attempted to portray him as an official without the respect for the separation of church and State. Again, it is simply beyond dispute that his record proves his repeated ability to enforce the law regardless of his strong personal religious beliefs. In an effort to defeat challenges to school prayer and the display of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Supreme Court, both the government that appointed General Pryor and Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore urged General Pryor to argue that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the States. General Pryor refused, even though his personal beliefs were different, and he argued the case on much narrower grounds despite his own deeply held Catholic faith and personal support for both of those issues. General Pryor has always been attacked for his statements urging modification or repeal of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. However, despite General Pryor's well-documented concerns about section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, he has vigorously enforced all provisions of the act. He successfully defended before the Supreme Court several majority-minority voting districts approved under section 5 from a challenge by a group of white Alabama voters. He feels deeply about these issues. He also issued an opinion that the use of stickers to replace one candidate's name for another on a ballot requires preclearance under section 5. Again, General Pryor enforced the law despite its conflicts with his beliefs. Despite the distortions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods we have heard about him from the usual leftist inside-the-Beltway interest groups, General Pryor is a diligent, honorable, faithful man whose loyalties as a public servant have been to the law and its impartial administration. He has told us under oath he will continue to follow the law, just as he has demonstrated in his distinguished career in Alabama. We should be proud to give his nomination an up-or-down vote. Throughout his hearing, it was one question after another on abortion--one question after another--and he made it clear that as much as he thinks that the outcome of the case of Roe v. Wade is an abomination, because it has resulted in the death of millions of unborn children--and he was very straightforward about it, very honest about it, and was complimented by my colleagues for his honesty, yet they will not accept his honesty on this topic--he said he would enforce Roe v. Wade, which is the law.

Mr. HATCH. That is exactly right. He took a lot of flack for it and he believed the way they did, but he also made it clear that that is the law and that he was going to follow it. He followed it as an elected political official. Now, if he can follow the law impartially as an elected political official, imagine the honor he would bring to the bench, where it's his job to be impartial. He did not have to do it as an elected political official, although I would not have respected him had he not, but as a judge, I think we have more than ample evidence that this man would follow the law regardless of his personal beliefs. Yet he has been smeared by the outside groups on his personal beliefs. It is just that simple.

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I do agree with that. The Senator knows Bill Pryor better than anybody. He worked for the distinguished Senator when he was attorney general. I am absolutely amazed at how many Democrats and people of diversity and others in Alabama are supportive of him. The people who knew him best are the people who support him. The people of Alabama know him best. Yet we are going to second-guess that, for political reasons?

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. This is the first time I have seen this letter. To him, this is a very important issue. The views he expresses are drawn from what he's heard at the hearing and the markup. Reasonable people can draw these conclusions from the markup, from the debate. It is coming down to where abortion is the be-all and end-all issue to my colleagues on the other side. Sure, they cannot vote against everyone. I don't know how many of these people are pro-life or pro- choice. I never ask anyone that. The fact is, I can see why people are drawing this conclusion. I will give a few other reasons they are drawing that conclusion before we are through here tonight.

Mr. HATCH. I have no doubt, to answer the Senator's question, if we continue down this pathway we are going to devolve to where people with strongly held religious beliefs are not going to be able to serve in this country. That is what it comes down to. I have no doubt that if we continue to violate the Constitution by allowing filibusters against-- under our advise and consent mandate in the Constitution, we are going to wind up with a mess on our hands that we will not be able to repair. So we have to get out of this. I call on our colleagues on the other side to get real here.