Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``the Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act of 2003.'' This bill would reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act as well as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act enables public and private entities to establish and operate centers for runaway and homeless youth. These centers--which provide, among other things, shelter, counseling, drug and sexual abuse education and treatment for youth-- serve as alternatives for youths who are in the child welfare or juvenile justice systems. These alternatives have proven successful in keeping children off of our streets and from returning to our juvenile justice system. The Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act amends the original Act in the following ways: 1. It includes testing youth for sexually transmitted diseases; 2. It allows an exception to the 20 person maximum capacity to comply with States laws which may allow higher capacities; 3. It allows youths to go to maternity group homes, adds the homes to the list of eligible groups; 4. It increases the maximum amount of time a youth may spend in a home; 5. It requires the centers/groups to inform school districts of the status of youths, and it requires the centers/groups to inform youths of post-secondary education and training opportunities; and 6. It authorizes the Act through fiscal year 2008. In addition, the Act reauthorizes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children through Fiscal Year 2008. The Center is a critical component of our Nation's battle against child pornography and child exploitation. It is absolutely dedicated to eradicating these evils, and its members work tirelessly towards this end. The Center deserves more than just kind words for these heroic efforts; federal funding is necessary for it to continue this good work. Indeed, Congress has tasked the Center with many missions, including maintaining the cyber- tipline that receives reports of online child pornography, which the Center forwards to appropriate law enforcement officials and the new pilot program to study the feasibility of instituting a national background check for volunteers who work with children. In these, as well as many other areas, the Center forms a valuable partnership with both Federal and State law enforcement officials and prosecutors in redressing a host of crimes against children. I urge my colleagues to support this Act and these important programs.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce ``the Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act of 2003.'' This bill would reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act as well as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Runaway and Homeless Youth Act enables public and private entities to establish and operate centers for runaway and homeless youth. These centers--which provide, among other things, shelter, counseling, drug and sexual abuse education and treatment for youth-- serve as alternatives for youths who are in the child welfare or juvenile justice systems. These alternatives have proven successful in keeping children off of our streets and from returning to our juvenile justice system. The Runaway, Homeless and Missing Children Protection Act amends the original Act in the following ways: 1. It includes testing youth for sexually transmitted diseases; 2. It allows an exception to the 20 person maximum capacity to comply with States laws which may allow higher capacities; 3. It allows youths to go to maternity group homes, adds the homes to the list of eligible groups; 4. It increases the maximum amount of time a youth may spend in a home; 5. It requires the centers/groups to inform school districts of the status of youths, and it requires the centers/groups to inform youths of post-secondary education and training opportunities; and 6. It authorizes the Act through fiscal year 2008. In addition, the Act reauthorizes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children through Fiscal Year 2008. The Center is a critical component of our Nation's battle against child pornography and child exploitation. It is absolutely dedicated to eradicating these evils, and its members work tirelessly towards this end. The Center deserves more than just kind words for these heroic efforts; federal funding is necessary for it to continue this good work. Indeed, Congress has tasked the Center with many missions, including maintaining the cyber- tipline that receives reports of online child pornography, which the Center forwards to appropriate law enforcement officials and the new pilot program to study the feasibility of instituting a national background check for volunteers who work with children. In these, as well as many other areas, the Center forms a valuable partnership with both Federal and State law enforcement officials and prosecutors in redressing a host of crimes against children. I urge my colleagues to support this Act and these important programs.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 50th anniversary of the American Political Science Association's congressional fellowship program. It is the oldest program on Capitol Hill designed to place professionals from a variety of backgrounds in Congress for 1 year. Since its modest beginning in 1953, APSA's congressional fellowship program has grown into the established and respected program that it is today. The intent of the program is to immerse professionals in the legislative process of the U.S. Congress. These midcareer professionals are chosen by way of a careful selection process, go through a congressional orientation program, and participate in biweekly education seminars throughout their fellowships. These individuals come from academia, journalism, foreign countries, the health care field, and Federal Government. Each year, the selected fellows serve on congressional staffs and acquire ``hands on'' experience while gaining insight into the legislative process, politics, and public service. This unique opportunity enhances APSA fellows' knowledge of, and scholarship on, Congress and policy-making, which can only help improve public understanding of our Government. In turn, our constituents benefit by the expertise the fellows bring to Congress. More than 1,800 individuals have participated in the program since its inception; today the average annual class consists of 40 to 45 fellows. I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that the Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellowship program became affiliated with APSA in 1974. This prestigious fellowship program, which is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is administered by the Institute of Medicine, enables midcareer health care professionals to experience the intersection of policy and politics first hand. It is an invaluable interaction from which we all benefit; my office benefits from the expertise these professionals bring to Congress, while the fellows return to their professions and their communities with a better understanding of the policy process. Over the years, I have been pleased to host a number of APSA and RWJ fellows who have provided unique insights and capabilities and have helped me in making important differences in the lives of Utahns in areas such as health care, tax, economic, and natural resource policy. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to share in this program, and I commend APSA for initiating the program 50 years ago. I hope it will continue for many years to come.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an important measure that Senators Graham, Schumer, Cornyn, and I have introduced entitled The Military Family Hoax Prevention Act. As our country concludes major combat activities in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we all stand tall with pride over the dedication, courage, and valor displayed by the men and women of our Armed Forces. We all are grateful to the men and women of the U.S. military who selflessly serve our country. They have answered the call of our Commander in Chief to go abroad and defend the freedoms and values we cherish here at home. While carrying out their mission, they have acted admirably during the liberation of an enslaved nation, and continue to serve our country honorably. These men and women deserve our profound gratitude. As we watch the soldiers returning home from deployment, some from extended tours of duty, I am reminded of the personal sacrifice these men and women make while they are gone. These men and women leave behind family and friends who undoubtedly worry constantly about their loved ones on deployment. In many instances, family members are not able to know of the day-to-day safety of their loved ones during deployment. This feeling of helplessness was aptly described by the brother of Jessica Lynch upon her return to West Virginia when he discussed her family's desire to learn any bit of information following her capture. It has come to my attention that during Operation Iraqi Freedom some military families received cruel hoaxes concerning their deployed family members in Iraq. On three separate occasions that I am aware of, families of service men and women here in the United States received telephone calls from sick pranksters telling them that their family members serving in Iraq had either been killed in battle or taken prisoner of war. You can imagine the devastation and agony of the families who received these malicious telephone calls. These families were forced into a desperate scramble to learn information about the fate of their loved ones. These hoaxes require the military to dedicate resources to provide information to military family members. Let me talk briefly about one specific hoax and the potentially devastating consequences that can flow from it. A family in Arizona received a telephone call that a family member had been killed in Iraq. After contacting the military, the family was told that only the military notifies families in these instances, and that they do so in person, not over the telephone. The military told the family that they had no information that their family member, the soldier, was killed and that they would try to learn more. The military discovered that this telephone call was a cruel hoax and arranged for the soldier to call home from a satellite telephone to reassure his family. Unfortunately, the soldier later wrote to his family and told them that another soldier who was transporting a satellite telephone to him so that he could call home had been killed while trying to deliver the telephone. This type of action cannot go unpunished. The current false impersonation statute does not punish someone who falsely impersonates a military employee engaging in this type of conduct. This legislation the Military Family Hoax Prevention Act, would remedy this loophole in the current law. It would prohibit those who derive some perverted pleasure terrorizing family members who intensely wait for word from abroad from their military family members.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to an important measure that Senators Graham, Schumer, Cornyn, and I have introduced entitled The Military Family Hoax Prevention Act. As our country concludes major combat activities in Operation Iraqi Freedom, we all stand tall with pride over the dedication, courage, and valor displayed by the men and women of our Armed Forces. We all are grateful to the men and women of the U.S. military who selflessly serve our country. They have answered the call of our Commander in Chief to go abroad and defend the freedoms and values we cherish here at home. While carrying out their mission, they have acted admirably during the liberation of an enslaved nation, and continue to serve our country honorably. These men and women deserve our profound gratitude. As we watch the soldiers returning home from deployment, some from extended tours of duty, I am reminded of the personal sacrifice these men and women make while they are gone. These men and women leave behind family and friends who undoubtedly worry constantly about their loved ones on deployment. In many instances, family members are not able to know of the day-to-day safety of their loved ones during deployment. This feeling of helplessness was aptly described by the brother of Jessica Lynch upon her return to West Virginia when he discussed her family's desire to learn any bit of information following her capture. It has come to my attention that during Operation Iraqi Freedom some military families received cruel hoaxes concerning their deployed family members in Iraq. On three separate occasions that I am aware of, families of service men and women here in the United States received telephone calls from sick pranksters telling them that their family members serving in Iraq had either been killed in battle or taken prisoner of war. You can imagine the devastation and agony of the families who received these malicious telephone calls. These families were forced into a desperate scramble to learn information about the fate of their loved ones. These hoaxes require the military to dedicate resources to provide information to military family members. Let me talk briefly about one specific hoax and the potentially devastating consequences that can flow from it. A family in Arizona received a telephone call that a family member had been killed in Iraq. After contacting the military, the family was told that only the military notifies families in these instances, and that they do so in person, not over the telephone. The military told the family that they had no information that their family member, the soldier, was killed and that they would try to learn more. The military discovered that this telephone call was a cruel hoax and arranged for the soldier to call home from a satellite telephone to reassure his family. Unfortunately, the soldier later wrote to his family and told them that another soldier who was transporting a satellite telephone to him so that he could call home had been killed while trying to deliver the telephone. This type of action cannot go unpunished. The current false impersonation statute does not punish someone who falsely impersonates a military employee engaging in this type of conduct. This legislation the Military Family Hoax Prevention Act, would remedy this loophole in the current law. It would prohibit those who derive some perverted pleasure terrorizing family members who intensely wait for word from abroad from their military family members.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues in the House of Representatives for passing S. 1280, the PROTECT Act of 2003 Technical Amendment. This bill is directed to that portion of the PROTECT Act authorizing a pilot program to study the feasibility of instituting a national background check for volunteers who work with children. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children will provide their expertise by evaluating criminal records of volunteers provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine if the volunteers are fit to interact and work with children. When authorizing the pilot program, Congress immunized the National Center for its operation of the child abuse cyber-tip line but neglected to extend it to their activities connected to their operation of the background check pilot program. In order for the Center to fully implement the pilot program, this bill immunizes the Center for decisions it makes based on the criminal records provided to them in any one of the following instances: 1. a decision that the records indicate that a volunteer is not fit to work with children; 2. a decision that an individual is fit to serve as a volunteer based on the government providing incomplete or inaccurate criminal history records; or, 3. a decision that an individual is fit to serve as a volunteer where the Center is provided no criminal history records. Chairman Sensenbrenner, Senator Biden, and I have been the principal authors of this bill. We all agree that this is the proper interpretation of this technical amendment. I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner in the House of Representatives for moving this time- sensitive bill through the House of Representatives so quickly.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today, entitled the Resolution of Claims of American POWs of the Japanese Act of 2003, is important because it recognizes the struggle to compensate American POWs once held and forced into slave labor for private Japanese companies during World War II. For those of my colleagues who aren't aware of what our valiant soldiers endured, please let me enlighten you. On April 9, 1942, Allied forces in the Philippines were forced to surrender Bataan to the Japanese. Ten thousand to 12,000 American soldiers were forced to march some 60 miles in broiling heat. We have all heard of this deadly trek, known as the Bataan Death March. What most people do not realize is, after a lengthy internment under horrific conditions, thousands of these POWs were shipped to Japan in the holds of freighters known as ``Hell Ships.'' Once in Japan, many of these POWs were forced into slave labor for private Japanese steel mills and other private companies until the end of the war. During the war, over 27,465 Americans were captured and interned by the Japanese; tragically, only 16,000 made it home. Let me tell you about some of these brave men. At our Judiciary Committee hearing a few years ago, we heard from some of these remarkable veterans who put a human face on this tragic part of history. They are all heroes. I remember so well Mr. Bigelow, who, during his internment lost his leg from a mining accident and the lack of proper medical treatment. At a height of 6 feet, 4 inches, Mr. Bigelow weighed less than 100 pounds at the time of his release. Tragically, he died last week--- without ever receiving the recognition that he deserved, recognition that we as a body can give him. Mr. President, how many more have to die before we finally pay them the tribute they deserve? At our hearing, we heard how the POWs stuck together and helped each other make it through each day and endured frequent beatings for doing so. We heard how Mr. Tenney and others kept their spirits up by entertaining their buddies and trading with Japanese guards for a few meager supplies. We heard how brave men like Terrence Kirk built a makeshift camera out of a stolen x-ray plate to document the condition of dying POWs so they would not be forgotten. Let me say to the veterans who have shared their stories with me--and I know some of these men personally thank you. All of them are heroes for their bravery on the battlefields and in the prison camps. They are heroes for the innumerable displays of compassion and love for their fellow man. They are heroes for their perseverance through circumstances most of us can barely imagine. They are living testaments to the indomitable human spirit that is the fabric of this great nation, the United States of America. Everyone here living in freedom owes them a tremendous debt of gratitude. Unfortunately, global political and security needs of the time often overshadowed their legitimate claims for justice and they were once again asked to sacrifice for their country. Following the end of the war, for example, our government allegedly instructed many of the POWs not to discuss their experiences and treatment. Some were even asked to sign non-disclosure agreements. Consequently, many Americans remain unaware of the atrocities that took place and the suffering our POWs endured. Just ask the school children of today. Most know little about the Bataan Death March and nothing about the fact that our soldiers were shipped to Japan and sold as slave labor. That is inexcusable. We must recognize their sacrifice, and the amendment I offer today supports that effort. Through the years, various efforts have been made to offer some compensation for the POWs held in Japan. Under the War Claims Act, our government has made meager payments of a dollar a day for missed meals and $1.50 per day for lost wages. Clearly this is inadequate. Following the passage of a California statute extending the statute of limitations for World War II claims until 2010 and the recent litigation involving victims of Holocaust, the former POWs in Japan have attempted through the courts to seek compensation from the private companies which profited from their labor. What role has our government played in this quest? In the Holocaust litigation, the U.S. played a facilitating role in discussions between the German companies and the victims. The Justice Department also declined to file a statement of interest in the litigation--even when requested by the court. The efforts of the administration were entirely appropriate and the settlement was an invaluable step toward moving forward from the past. Here, in contrast, there has been little effort by our government, through the State Department or otherwise, to help these POWs with their claims. In fact, quite the opposite has been true. In response to a request from the court, the Justice Department actually filed a statement of interest which was very damaging to the claims of the POWs--stating in essence that their claims were barred by the 1951 Treaty of Peace with Japan and the War Claims Act. Personally, I don't think the government had the authority to waive these claims. Unbelievably, the Justice Department continues to argue in these court cases on behalf of the Japanese companies and against our POWs. This contrasting treatment raises the legitimate questions of whether this administration has a consistent policy governing whether and how to weigh in during these World War II-era cases? From a moral perspective, the claims of those forced into labor by private German companies and private Japanese companies appear to be of similar merit, yet they have spurred different responses from the administration. Why? I have asked this question to the State Department, and have not received a satisfactory response. What can the United States of America--the country these men sacrificed for--do to resolve this matter in a fair and appropriate manner? With the help of Senator Feinstein, in 2000, we moved through the Judiciary Committee S. 1902, the Japanese Records Disclosure Act. This bill set up a commission to declassify thousands of Japanese Imperial Army records held by the U.S. government after appropriate screening for sensitive information such as that pertaining to national security. That bill, however, was not enough. We need to do more. The Senate attempted to fulfill our government's responsibility to these men by including a provision in S. 2549, the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense authorization bill. This legislation would have allowed payments of a $20,000 gratuity to POWs from Bataan and Corregidor who were forced into labor. But unfortunately, the provision was stripped in conference, due in large part, I believe, to pressure from the previous Administration. We also passed S. Con. Res. 158, a resolution at the end of the 106th Congress which stated the moral force of the claims of the POWs and expressed the sense of the Congress that the United States government should use its best efforts to ``facilitate a dialogue'' to discuss a resolution to the claims. But this has received a less than satisfactory response from the administration. We must ask ourselves--can Congress do more? Can the executive branch do more? I think so. We must. And it is for that reason that I am offering the Resolution of Claims of American POWs of the Japanese Act of 2003. This legislation would show these POWs that we have not forgotten them and that we will not let them be victimized by the Japanese companies a second time. My amendment would authorize the payment of compensation to former prisoners of war for forced labor for Japanese companies during World War II. Those surviving POWs who are still living--and there are not many--would receive $10,000. This is a mere fraction of what they truly deserve, and I intend to seek additional amounts next year to fulfill our obligation to our heroes. Mr. President, this legislation is essential. Congress is the last recourse for these POWs. Instead of helping, our government has let them down. And so, if we do not stand up for them, who will? I urge my colleagues to join with me in this effort to do what we can to show these brave POWs that their country has not forgotten them; it is the least we can do.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of Allyson K. Duncan, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Ms. Duncan is truly an impressive woman and has the enthusiastic support of both North Carolina senators, along with a unanimous ``Well Qualified'' ABA rating. She graduated first in her class at Hampton University, a historically black college. She then attended Duke University Law School and was appointed an Earl Warren Legal Scholar, a scholarship awarded to black law students demonstrating leadership and an interest in the public interest. Upon graduation, our nominee clerked for the Honorable Julia Cooper Mack on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, before beginning her tenure at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1978. Ms. Duncan held several positions at the EEOC, starting as an appellate attorney, serving as the assistant to the Chairman, and ultimately becoming acting legal counsel. Ms. Duncan left the EEOC for a teaching post at North Carolina Central University School of Law, another historically black college, where she taught property, employment discrimination, labor law, and appellate advocacy. Our outstanding nominee is also a pioneer. After leaving her teaching post in 1990, she became the first black woman to be appointed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals as an associate judge. She served in that capacity for one year, after which she hit another milestone. Ms. Duncan was then appointed commissioner of the North Carolina Utilities Commission--another first for a black woman. As commissioner, she was responsible for telecommunications, natural gas and water regulations. She served as commissioner until she entered private practice with the law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton, where she is currently a partner. Her area of concentration is energy-related issues, but she also handles regulatory matters involving rate making, and mergers and acquisitions. I am proud to add that if confirmed, Ms. Duncan will hit a third milestone: that of being the first black woman to sit on the Fourth Circuit Court Appeals. A circuit, I would like to note, that has a 24 percent black population--the highest black population for all of the circuit courts. Allyson Duncan has a fine background, which will serve her well as a circuit court judge. She will be a terrific addition to the Court, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Judge Louise Wood Flanagan to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Judge Flanagan currently serves as a Federal magistrate judge. After earning her law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1988, she served as law clerk for Judge Malcolm Howard on the very court to which she has been nominated. In 1990, she joined the North Carolina law firm of Ward and Smith, where she handled complex commercial litigation and litigated approximately 300 cases in state, federal, and bankruptcy court. Throughout her career, Judge Flanagan, has consistently demonstrated the strong legal intellect, integrity, and judicial temperament required of a U.S. District Court Judge. In 1995, Judge Flanagan was appointed to be a Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. In this position she handles both criminal and civil matters and has earned a reputation of fairness, honesty, and keen intellect. She will make an excellent addition to the Federal bench. I commend President Bush for nominating her and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations bill. First, I would like to congratulate Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye on an appropriations bill that has widespread, bipartisan support. It is never an easy job to bring this bill to the floor and, as usual, they have done an excellent job. One of the most important aspects of this bill is the commitment that the Senate is making to improve the lives of the service men and women who protect us every day. The bill provides a well-earned, average military pay raise of 4.15 percent and funds an increase in the basic allowance for housing to reduce our service members' average out-of-pocket expenses from 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent. That being said, one of the most important aspects of this bill is its commitment to transformation. Now, we have heard this word being used during the last few years in conversations relating to defense matters. So what does it mean? Simply put, ``transformation'' is about changing the way our Nation's military operates, through the utilization and development of innovative tactics based upon new technologies and, of course, our most important resource--the hard work and training of our service members. Transformation could be seen in the recent conflict in Iraq. Here, instead of a long, sustained air campaign, our forces were able to achieve a tactical surprise using precision weapons that destroyed our adversaries' ability to react to our initiatives. As I have mentioned before, transformation could also be seen during war when information was gathered from a variety of sensors, whether on the ground or in the air, and that information was transmitted very quickly to commanders who could then exploit the weakness of our enemy. It was a remarkable operation and it reflects the high level of competence and expertise of our Nation's service men and women. The appropriations bill continues this revolution by funding such programs as the development and procurement of such new systems as the DD(X) destroyer, the littoral combat ship, C-17 air transport, V-22 tilt-rotor and the Army's future combat system. I am particularly pleased that the Appropriations Committee has recommended funding for the procurement of 22 F/A-22 Raptors. This program lies at the heart of transformation. The F/A-22's supercruise engines allow for extended supersonic flight. This is a magnitude longer than its afterburning predecessors such as the F-15. The aircraft's stealth characteristics will allow it to penetrate even the most advanced air defense systems while internally carrying GPS- guided munitions. This will allow the F/A-22 to clear the skies of enemy aircraft while nearly simultaneously attacking both fixed and mobile targets, such as surface-to-air missile sites. I hope that the authorizing committee will join the Appropriations Committee in recommending the procurement of 22 of these vital aircraft. I would also like to highlight a program that I support, the Full Spectrum Active Close-in Layered Shield, or ``FCLAS'', which is a revolutionary new technology promising to enhance dramatically the survivability of existing and future mechanized and wheeled combat vehicles without the normally accompanying weight gain. FCLAS has the potential to save many American lives and it is an important step for the committee to fund this system. FCLAS works by using radar to detect an incoming kinetic energy weapon, antitank missile or rocket-propelled grenade. Once the incoming object is identified, FCLAS fires an explosive projectile to destroy the threat at a safe distance from the vehicle. Such a system is currently under development in Russia, Canada and France. However, those systems, unlike FCLAS, have a fatal flaw. Their radar systems are placed in a prominent position and can be easily disabled with a single rifle shot. In contrast, each FCLAS defensive explosive projectile has an individual radar system. FCLAS is placed around the protected vehicle in a device similar to a smoke grenade launcher. That means if the radar is damaged in one projectile the rest of the vehicle's active protection is unaffected. It also provides the same level of protection from every side and angle of the vehicle. The system is remarkably light and has drawn considerable interest by those designing the Army's Objective Force. Currently, officials at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Research Center are testing FCLAS and by all accounts they are very pleased with the system's initial results. The Marine Corps and Special Operations Command have also expressed strong interest in adapting this system for use in both land vehicles, such as the advanced amphibious assault vehicle and even aircraft. In closing, again, let me express my commendations to the chairman, the ranking Democratic member, all of the members of the committee, and their capable staffs, for their work on this bill. It will be of great service in the support of our Nation's service men and women.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Magistrate Judge Lonny R. Suko to be a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Washington. Judge Suko has been part of the Washington legal community for over three decades. After graduating from law school in 1968, Judge Suko clerked for the Honorable Charles L. Powell in the Eastern District of Washington. In 1969, he joined the Lyon Law Offices, where he served as associate, partner, and shareholder. As an attorney, Judge Suko litigated primarily civil matters. In 1971, Judge Suko was appointed part-time United States magistrate judge, a position he held while practicing law full time until 1991 when the position was discontinued. In 1995, Judge Suko ascended to the bench once again when he was appointed as a full-time Federal Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court Eastern District of Washington. As a magistrate judge, Judge Suko presides over both criminal and civil matters. Judge Suko has been rated unanimously well qualified by the American Bar Association, and enjoys bipartisan support. I am confident Judge Suko will make an excellent Federal judge. I commend President Bush for nominating him and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. Most importantly, this bill goes a long way toward restoring the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans who reside in the District of Columbia to possess firearms. It is no secret that the District of Columbia, our great Nation's Capital, suffers from the most startling violent crime rates in the country. It has the highest, the absolute highest, murder rate per capita in the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and despite the most stringent gun control laws in the country, in 8 out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002, Washington DC had the highest murder rate in the country. In fact, the results are in for 2002, and unfortunately they continue to paint a grim picture. The District of Columbia has again reclaimed its rather unenviable title as the ``Murder Capital of the United States''. It is time, to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators. All to often, we read in the paper about yet another vicious murder carried out against an innocent District of Columbia resident. Try to imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself. We must act now to stop the carnage and put law-abiding citizens in a position to exercise their right to self defense. It is time to tell the citizens of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment of the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their fellow Americans in the rest of the country. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would do exactly that. Let me take a moment to highlight what this legislation would do. This bill would: 1. permit law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and rifles in their homes and businesses; 2. repeal the registration requirements for firearms and ammunition; 3. eliminate criminal penalties for possession and carrying of firearms in their homes and businesses; and 4. correct an erroneous provision which wrongly treats some firearms as if they were machineguns. Over the years, I have heard over and over again from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that the way you reduce violent, gun-related crime is by prohibiting the possession of firearms. Even if law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, my liberal friends argue, it is a small price to pay for safety and security. Well, I want to take this opportunity to dispel these unfounded myths. These myths, I might add, are exposed as such by situations like we have today in the District of Columbia. I have said it before, but I will say it again, excessive regulation and the systematic erosion of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment do not deter violent, gun-toting criminals. Enacting and vigorously enforcing stiff penalties for those that commit crimes with guns deters violent crime. Not only is this the proven and effective approach to reducing gun violence, it also preserves the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding men and women to own and possess firearms. In fact, I recently held a hearing that examined the Administration's gun crime reduction initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. This initiative has been incredibly successful. It takes the precise approach that I have advocated--strict and vigorous enforcement of crimes committed with guns. It says to criminals, ``If you use a gun during the commission of a crime, you will do very serious and very hard time.'' And it does so, without trampling on the rights of law-abiding American men and women. Today, unfortunately but not surprisingly, the state of affairs in the District of Columbia has highlighted exactly what those of us who care deeply about the Second Amendment of the Constitution have always feared: murderous criminals possess firearms and are free to prey upon law-abiding citizens; and law-abiding citizens--precisely because they are law-abiding citizens--may not possess a firearm in their homes to protect themselves and their families. The prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia is as ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional; it is high-time we rectify this wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. Most importantly, this bill goes a long way toward restoring the constitutionally guaranteed right of Americans who reside in the District of Columbia to possess firearms. It is no secret that the District of Columbia, our great Nation's Capital, suffers from the most startling violent crime rates in the country. It has the highest, the absolute highest, murder rate per capita in the country. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and despite the most stringent gun control laws in the country, in 8 out of the 9 years between 1994 and 2002, Washington DC had the highest murder rate in the country. In fact, the results are in for 2002, and unfortunately they continue to paint a grim picture. The District of Columbia has again reclaimed its rather unenviable title as the ``Murder Capital of the United States''. It is time, to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and to defend their families against murderous predators. All to often, we read in the paper about yet another vicious murder carried out against an innocent District of Columbia resident. Try to imagine the horror that the victim felt when he faced a gun-toting criminal and could not legally reach for a firearm to protect himself. We must act now to stop the carnage and put law-abiding citizens in a position to exercise their right to self defense. It is time to tell the citizens of the District of Columbia that the Second Amendment of the Constitution applies to them, and not only to their fellow Americans in the rest of the country. The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would do exactly that. Let me take a moment to highlight what this legislation would do. This bill would: 1. permit law-abiding citizens to possess handguns and rifles in their homes and businesses; 2. repeal the registration requirements for firearms and ammunition; 3. eliminate criminal penalties for possession and carrying of firearms in their homes and businesses; and 4. correct an erroneous provision which wrongly treats some firearms as if they were machineguns. Over the years, I have heard over and over again from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that the way you reduce violent, gun-related crime is by prohibiting the possession of firearms. Even if law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms, my liberal friends argue, it is a small price to pay for safety and security. Well, I want to take this opportunity to dispel these unfounded myths. These myths, I might add, are exposed as such by situations like we have today in the District of Columbia. I have said it before, but I will say it again, excessive regulation and the systematic erosion of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment do not deter violent, gun-toting criminals. Enacting and vigorously enforcing stiff penalties for those that commit crimes with guns deters violent crime. Not only is this the proven and effective approach to reducing gun violence, it also preserves the constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding men and women to own and possess firearms. In fact, I recently held a hearing that examined the Administration's gun crime reduction initiative, Project Safe Neighborhoods. This initiative has been incredibly successful. It takes the precise approach that I have advocated--strict and vigorous enforcement of crimes committed with guns. It says to criminals, ``If you use a gun during the commission of a crime, you will do very serious and very hard time.'' And it does so, without trampling on the rights of law-abiding American men and women. Today, unfortunately but not surprisingly, the state of affairs in the District of Columbia has highlighted exactly what those of us who care deeply about the Second Amendment of the Constitution have always feared: murderous criminals possess firearms and are free to prey upon law-abiding citizens; and law-abiding citizens--precisely because they are law-abiding citizens--may not possess a firearm in their homes to protect themselves and their families. The prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia is as ineffective and deplorable as it is unconstitutional; it is high-time we rectify this wrong. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Samuel Der-Yeghiayan to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Der-Yeghiayan has contributed much to the legal community over his 25 year career, particularly in the area of immigration law. Upon graduation from Franklin Pierce Law Center, Judge Der-Yeghiayan joined the U.S. Department of Justice as a trial attorney with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. After spending several years as a trial attorney, he was appointed District Counsel for the INS in Chicago, IL. In 2000, he became an immigration judge with the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review, the position in which he currently serves. Over the course of his career, Judge Der-Yeghiayan has represented the Government in deportation, exclusion, and other immigration-related hearings. He has handled issues relating to constitutional, labor, criminal, and administrative law arising from the enforcement of immigration laws. As a judge, he has presided over court proceedings and trials related to removal, deportation, exclusion, and asylum cases. He has also done a substantial amount of pro bono work educating congressional staff, State attorneys, bar associations, and law enforcement agents on immigration issues. In addition, as a judge, he provides training to pro bono immigration attorneys. I have every confidence that he will make an excellent Federal judge. I commend President Bush for nominating him, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his nomination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Equal Opportunity to Govern'' Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to permit any person who has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years to be eligible for the Office of President. The Constitution, in its current form, prohibits a person who is not a native born citizen of the United States from becoming President. The purpose of the native born citizen requirement has long passed, and it is time for us--the elected representatives of this Nation or immigrants--to remove this impediment. While there was scant debate on this provision during the Constitutional Convention, it is apparent that the decision to include the natural born citizen requirement in our Constitution was driven largely by the concern that a European monarch, such as King George III's second son, the Duke of York, might be imported to rule the United States. This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un- American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars other critical members of government, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, or the President's most trusted cabinet officials. Ours is a Nation of immigrants. The history of the United States is replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born outside of Her borders. These include former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; current Cabinet members Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez; as well as Jennifer Granholm, the Governor of Michigan and bring young star of the Democratic party. As our Constitution reads today, none of these well-qualified, patriotic United States citizens could be a lawful candidate for President. Perhaps most disturbing is that the scores of foreign-born men and women who have risked their lives defending the freedoms and liberties of this great nation who remain ineligible for the Office of President. More than 700 recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor--our Nation's highest decoration for valor--have been immigrants. But no matter how great their sacrifice, leadership, or love for this country, they remain ineligible to be a candidate for President. This amendment would remove this unfounded inequity. Today I ask the members of this body if we desire to continue to invite these brave men and women to defend this Nation's liberty, to protect Her flag, to be willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice, and yet deny them the opportunity to strive for the ultimate American dream--to become our President? I respectfully submit that we should not. My proposal to amend the Constitution is not one I take lightly. As our founding fathers envisioned, our Constitution has stood the test of time. It has remained largely intact for more than 200 years due to the careful, deliberative, and principled approach of the framers. This is truly an extraordinary achievement. On a few appropriate occasions, however, we have generated the will to surmount the cumbersome, but no doubt necessary, hurdles to amend the Constitution. I believe the time has now come to address the antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires our President to be a natural born citizen. It has long outlived its original purpose. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Equal Opportunity to Govern'' Amendment, which would amend the Constitution to permit any person who has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years to be eligible for the Office of President. The Constitution, in its current form, prohibits a person who is not a native born citizen of the United States from becoming President. The purpose of the native born citizen requirement has long passed, and it is time for us--the elected representatives of this Nation or immigrants--to remove this impediment. While there was scant debate on this provision during the Constitutional Convention, it is apparent that the decision to include the natural born citizen requirement in our Constitution was driven largely by the concern that a European monarch, such as King George III's second son, the Duke of York, might be imported to rule the United States. This restriction has become an anachronism that is decidedly un- American. Consistent with our democratic form of government, our citizens should have every opportunity to choose their leaders free of unreasonable limitations. Indeed, no similar restriction bars other critical members of government, including the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, or the President's most trusted cabinet officials. Ours is a Nation of immigrants. The history of the United States is replete with scores of great and patriotic Americans whose dedication to this country is beyond reproach, but who happen to have been born outside of Her borders. These include former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright; current Cabinet members Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Mel Martinez; as well as Jennifer Granholm, the Governor of Michigan and bring young star of the Democratic party. As our Constitution reads today, none of these well-qualified, patriotic United States citizens could be a lawful candidate for President. Perhaps most disturbing is that the scores of foreign-born men and women who have risked their lives defending the freedoms and liberties of this great nation who remain ineligible for the Office of President. More than 700 recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor--our Nation's highest decoration for valor--have been immigrants. But no matter how great their sacrifice, leadership, or love for this country, they remain ineligible to be a candidate for President. This amendment would remove this unfounded inequity. Today I ask the members of this body if we desire to continue to invite these brave men and women to defend this Nation's liberty, to protect Her flag, to be willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice, and yet deny them the opportunity to strive for the ultimate American dream--to become our President? I respectfully submit that we should not. My proposal to amend the Constitution is not one I take lightly. As our founding fathers envisioned, our Constitution has stood the test of time. It has remained largely intact for more than 200 years due to the careful, deliberative, and principled approach of the framers. This is truly an extraordinary achievement. On a few appropriate occasions, however, we have generated the will to surmount the cumbersome, but no doubt necessary, hurdles to amend the Constitution. I believe the time has now come to address the antiquated provision of the Constitution that requires our President to be a natural born citizen. It has long outlived its original purpose. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of Victor Wolski, one of the four nominees for the Court of Federal Claims who have been awaiting votes on their nominations by the full Senate since March. When Mr. Wolski was first nominated to the Court of Claims in September 2002, he joined three other well-qualified nominees to the same court who had been pending even longer. Charles Lettow had been nominated a month earlier, in August 2002, while Susan Braden and Mary Ellen Coster Williams had been nominated, respectively, in May and June 2001. None of them received a hearing in the 107th Congress. So I am pleased that we have at last reached an agreement for an up- or-down vote on the nominations of Mr. Wolski and the other Court of Claims nominees. But getting to this point was not simple. We had to file a motion to invoke cloture on Mr. Wolski's nomination. Now, I am pleased that our Democratic colleagues agreed to vitiate this motion. But the fact still remains that we were almost forced to resort to a cloture vote simply to secure an up-or-down vote on Mr. Wolski's nomination. Mr. Wolski would have been the first Court of Claims nominee in the history of the Senate to be forced through a cloture vote. This would have been a historic but sad precedent that we came dangerously close to setting. As I said, I am pleased that we did not go down this path and that we are proceeding to an up-or-down vote on Mr. Wolski's nomination. Mr. Wolski will make a fine addition to the Court of Claims. His nomination has bipartisan support, having been reported favorably to the full Senate by all 10 Judiciary Committee Republicans and Senator Feinstein. He is an accomplished trial attorney who has represented clients on both sides of the issues, including a number of clients on what many consider to be the so-called liberal side. For example, Mr. Wolski has represented a group of municipal governments challenging a commercial development that would have caused environmental, traffic, and other urban sprawl problems. He presently represents a class of Medicare beneficiaries who are suing the tobacco industry to try to recover reimbursement to the Medicare system. And he represents the State of Nevada, Clark County, and the City of Las Vegas in their opposition to the location of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Clearly, this is not the work of an ideologue but the work of an accomplished lawyer who recognizes his duty to represent his clients' interests to the best of his ability. Mr. Wolski's breadth and depth of experience will be a true asset to the Court of Claims. After graduating from the University of Virginia Law School, Mr. Wolski clerked for Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He has a fine record in public service, including 5 years as a litigator with a public interest law firm. During his tenure there, he represented clients in cases presenting significant issues of constitutional and property rights law. He continued his public service by serving as General Counsel and Chief Tax Advisor in the Congress with the Joint Economic Committee for Senator Connie Mack. As the first person to attend college in his family, Victor Wolski feels it is important to give back to the community and felt a strong commitment towards the public sector. This commitment is quite evident in his professional background. In 2000, Mr. Wolski transitioned from the public sector to private practice, joining the prominent Washington, DC, law firm Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal. He now practices with its successor firm, Cooper & Kirk. He has a reputation for being a thoughtful and hard-working legal professional who will be a stellar addition to the Court of Federal Claims, and I commend President Bush for nominating him. Mr. President, we find ourselves at an important point. We have two eminent and well-qualified circuit court nominees, Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen, currently being blocked by a minority of Senators from an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. History will show that this minority group of Senators was not asking for a full and open debate. They were not asking for meaningful deliberation on these well- qualified nominees. Rather, this minority group of Senators was committed to subverting precedent and reworking the meaning of advice and consent. I think we can agree that the confirmation process is broken. I certainly hope we can find a constructive way to restore the process, but recent talk does not lead me to be overly optimistic--not when we hear injudicious talk about plans for three, four, or more planned filibusters. I hope that is not the kind of history we want to write. Instead, I hope that my colleagues will see today's up-or-down vote on Mr. Wolski's nomination as an opportunity to put a stop to the obstruction and delay by giving all the rest of our nominees the courtesy of a simple vote on their nominations. That is all we ask.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I feel compelled to take a moment to respond to remarks of my colleague from New York on the nomination of Mr. Wolski and the status of the Court of Federal Claims. My colleague from New York has stated that we should not fill the judgeships that Congress itself created. This eleventh- hour attack on the court of claims and Mr. Wolski is simply a thinly veiled effort to stall action on more of President Bush's judicial nominees. Let's give the President a break and be honest. I would like to respond to allegations that Mr. Wolski is not qualified to serve on the court of claims. These allegations are simply unfounded. I agree with my colleague that, in print, Mr. Wolski's statement in his 1999 National Journal profile raised questions about how he would view his role as a judge. But Mr. Wolski was indeed thoroughly questioned about this statement at his hearing. His response to those questions has convinced me that this statement should not be any bar whatsoever to his confirmation. Mr. Wolski testified at his hearing that he understands that the role of a judge is not political. He understands that the role of a judge--especially a trial court judge--is to follow the law and not to consider personal beliefs or positions argued as an advocate in determining how to rule. Mr. Wolski explained during his hearing that this statement was meant to reflect that his decision to work for our former colleague, Senator Connie Mack, was consistent with his commitment to public service. Mr. Wolski emphatically stated on several occasions throughout his hearing that his statement was meant to clarify the point that he has been not motivated by the money throughout his career, and he does not consider himself an ideologue. Mr. Wolski has also been criticized about some of the clients that he has represented. It is important to remember that the clients Mr. Wolski has represented have been on both sides of the issues. He has represented property owners in takings cases, but he has also represented municipal and State governments. For example, he is presently a member of the litigation team representing the State of Nevada, Clark County, and the city of Las Vegas in their opposition to the location of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. He represented a group of municipal governments challenging a commercial development that would have caused environmental, traffic, and other urban sprawl problems. So plainly, Mr. Wolski has represented a broad range of clients, including some whom a die-hard conservative ideologue would not represent. Instead, Mr. Wolski's clients indicate to me that he has done his best to act as an advocate on behalf of his clients' positions, regardless of his personal beliefs, just as every good lawyer should do. I know that some of my colleagues have expressed concern about Mr. Wolski's brief in the case of Cargill v. United States. The first thing that I want to point out is the obvious: Mr. Wolski was acting in this case as a lawyer on behalf of his employer and had to perform his duties as assigned to him. In this case, his job was to submit an amicus brief. Second, it is important to note that Mr. Wolski was not challenging Congress's ability to protect migratory birds in general. Rather, his argument specifically addressed the scope of the Clean Water Act, which does not incorporate findings about migratory birds. Mr. Wolski clearly testified that he believes that the Clean Water Act is constitutional. Finally, in regard to Mr. Wolski's comments in the San Francisco Examiner, I agree that they were a bit passionate, but Mr. Wolski's hearing testimony reflects that he has matured in the 11 years since he penned that letter. In fact, Mr. Wolski testified that he wrote that letter before he worked as a congressional staffer. He testified that had he worked on the Hill before he wrote that letter, he probably wouldn't have written it at all. So I believe that this letter can easily be chalked up to youthful indiscretion, and nothing more. I have every reason to believe that, as a judge, he will act consistently with his past practice by following the law regardless of his personal beliefs. Now, I would also like to take a moment to respond to some of the allegations regarding the Court of Claims. It is clear that the Court of Claims is a necessity, especially with the current backlog of cases in our Federal district courts. The Court of Claims and the district courts have overlapping jurisdiction. This allows the Court of Claims to ease the heavy caseload in the district courts. As such, the Court of Claims is a mainstay of the system. A letter to the editor in the Washington Post on April 9, 2003, from the president of the Court of Claims bar association made the point well. He said that the docket of the court ``consists of more than 4,000 cases. Opinions by the judges are recognized as well-written and well-considered and reflecting of the complexity of the caseload. Those practicing before the Court know that its judges are busy.'' This letter, drafted by a lawyer who actually practices before the court, took direct issue with the Post's recommendation to abolish the court, saying it ``missed the central point.'' The editorial by Professor Schooner in the Washington Post on March 23, 2003, suggesting that the current cases pending before the Court of Claims can be easily divided among the district courts is troubling to me. Eliminating the Court of Claims would add nearly 5,000 additional cases to the district courts at a time when they are unable to keep up with the pace of cases being filed. Professor Schooner's academic analysis also fails to take account of the considerable work and learning that district judges do in order to handle complex patent, antitrust, environmental or civil rights cases. I must admit that I was surprised to learn how inaccurate the statistics of my colleague from New York were after I did some research regarding the caseloads of the Federal district courts and the Court of Claims. These misleading numbers allege that the district court judges have an average caseload of 355 cases per judge, whereas Court of Claims judges would have an average caseload of 19 cases if the four pending nominees were confirmed. After reviewing statistics from both the Federal courts' legislative affairs office and the Court of Claims, however, it is clear that Senator Schumer's figures are erroneous. If we take the current caseload of the Court of Claims and suppose that the court was at its fully authorized number of 16 judges, the average caseload per judge would be 309. This is in sharp contrast to the 19 my colleagues would have us believe and not much less than the average caseload per district judge. This campaign against Mr. Wolski and the Court of Claims is just the newest tactic in an organized effort to prevent President Bush's well- qualified judicial nominees from being confirmed and it must stop. It is obvious to me that the criticism of the court's necessity is borne more of political opportunity than any serious merit. We shouldn't be in the business of creating more rationales for delay. The lack of any functional problem in litigation between sovereign and citizen, or problem with the court structure, makes the solution of elimination of the Court of Claims a solution in search of a problem.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Susan Braden, who has been nominated to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Ms. Braden has the breadth of experience and accomplishment we look for in a Federal judge, and I commend President Bush for nominating her. After graduating from law school, Ms. Braden served for 7 years as a trial attorney, and then as a senior trial attorney, for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division. She then worked at the Federal Trade Commission for 5 years as a senior attorney advisor and senior counsel to Chairman David Clanton and Chairman James Miller III. In this capacity, she assumed responsibility for special policy and legislative projects, such as drafting a potential set of guidelines concerning interlocking directorates and issues concerning enforcement of the antitrust laws to professionals. Ms. Braden has worked in the private sector for the past 18 years, where she has focused on antitrust law, complex civil litigation, international trade matters for industrial clients, and computer software litigation. Her experience will serve her well on the bench. I am confident that she will execute her duties on the bench with integrity, intelligence, and fairness. I ask my colleagues to join me in my unqualified support for her nomination. nomination of mary ellen coster williams

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to express my full support for the confirmation of Charles F. Lettow, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Mr. Lettow is an excellent selection to join the Court of Federal Claims. He has a strong academic background and more than 30 years of litigation experience in constitutional and administrative law matters. A graduate of Stanford Law School, Mr. Lettow clerked for both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court before taking a position in 1970 as Counsel to the Council on Environmental Quality, which was established by Congress a year earlier. His responsibilities included drafting legislation and Executive orders and working to negotiate bilateral agreements. In 1973 Mr. Lettow joined the firm of Cleary Gottlieb as a litigation associate, became a partner three years alter, and has remained with the firm since that time, focusing on Federal litigation and environmental cases. Cases he has handled over his career have presented often difficult questions of constitutional and administrative law, and he has handled them with expertise. Mr. Lettow has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court three times and in the U.S. Courts of Appeals in more than 40 cases, as well as litigated in numerous Federal district courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. I cannot imagine someone who is better prepared to sit on the Court of Federal Claims. I urge my colleagues to vote for his confirmation.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am pleased today to speak in support of Mary Ellen Coster Williams, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Judge Williams has served with distinction on both sides of the bench. Upon her graduation from Duke University Law School in 1977, she worked in private practice with Fulbright & Jaworski and with Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis. Judge Williams then left private practice in 1983 to work in the Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office in Washington, DC. She returned to private practice in 1987 as a partner with Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler. During her 8 years in private practice and 3\1/2\ years as an Assistant United States Attorney, Judge Williams gained valuable experience handling matters involving Government contracts, employment law, torts, and commercial litigation. Since 1989, she has served as an administrative judge on the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals. Judge Williams was named a Life Fellow by the American Bar Association and is currently the vice chair of the ABA Section on Public Contract Law. She also has been active in the District of Columbia Bar Association. Since 1997, she has served on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims Advisory Council, so she has much more than simply a passing familiarity with the court to which she has been nominated. With her wealth of experience and dedication, Judge Williams is well equipped to serve on the Court of Federal Claims. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination. Nomination of Charles F. Lettow

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the confirmation of David G. Campbell to serve as a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. David Campbell is an extremely well-qualified nominee with a significant amount of litigation experience, and he will make an excellent addition to the federal bench. He received his undergraduate degree magna cum laude, as well as his law degree, from the University of Utah--which, in my view, is a reliable and persuasive indication of his excellent judgment. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Campbell clerked for Ninth Circuit Judge Clifford Wallace, and for then Associate Justice William Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court. He joined the Phoenix law firm of Meyer, Hendricks, Victor, Osborn & Maledon in 1982 and became a partner there in 1986. Since 1995, Mr. Campbell has been a partner at its successor firm, Osborn Maledon, where he practices in the area of general civil litigation. The American Bar Association bestowed on Mr. Campbell its highest rating of unanimously well qualified in recognition of his outstanding legal skills and reputation. In addition to his distinguished legal career, Mr. Campbell has been a great asset to his community and has donated many hours of pro bono service and volunteer time to help individuals and families in need in his community. His volunteer service has included building homes for the homeless in Mexico, providing Christmas supplies to crises nurseries, and providing back to school clothing for disadvantaged children. He was also named Professor of the Year in 1991 by the J. Rueben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University for his service as a visiting civil procedure professor. I am confident that David Campbell will be a model jurist, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting his confirmation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to speak about the medical liability and medical crisis threatening our great Nation. Over the years, I have pressed for legislation to protect our health care delivery system from the ravages of an out-of-control medical liability system. Many times we have come close to enacting legislation, and a giant opportunity stands before us today. I hope we do not let it slip through our fingers once more. I remember as a young lawyer in the early days of my practice in Pittsburgh, PA, the law basically was, if you met the standard of practice in the community, there was no case because everybody knew that medical science is not an exact science. Once they adopted the doctrine of informed consent in its various forms, it meant that every case goes to the jury, regardless; every case that has a bad result, even though the doctor did everything in his or her power to effectuate a decent result. And we have had this medical liability catastrophe upon our hands ever since. I can remember as a defense lawyer, my advice to some doctors was that they needed to do everything they possibly could to make sure there was absolutely no way they overlooked anything with regard to any person's complaint. If a person came in to them with a common cold, they could no longer say: Take two aspirin every 6 hours, drink all the liquids you can, and in 7 days you will be better. Or: Don't do anything and in 7 days you will be better. No, they have to give vascular and respiratory examinations, blood tests, et cetera. As a result, what used to be a $5 bill in those days, or at most $15 or $20, is far more today. Of course, I believe unnecessary defensive medicine such as that has driven our country to its knees from a medical liability standpoint. Today, defensive medicine increases health care costs by $60 to $108 billion per year according to the Department of Health and Human Services report of last year. As I have noted previously, out-of-control medical liability litigation is needlessly increasing the cost and decreasing the quality of health care for every American. It is preventing patients from accessing high-quality health care or, in some cases, any care at all because doctors are being driven out of practice. I was pleased that President Bush announced his desire to address medical liability legislation reform last summer when he spoke of the need for reform in his State of the Union Address and when he called on us to pass meaningful medical liability reform legislation in this Congress. I am pleased that our majority leader, Dr. Frist, has brought the Patients First Act forward to be debated today. Our colleagues, Senator Ensign from Nevada, who introduced this bill, and Senator McConnell from Kentucky, deserve special recognition and thanks for their work on this bill as well. Of course, this was not the first time we have addressed this issue. As many of us will recall, we passed medical litigation relief language with the Commonsense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act in 1995. Unfortunately, it was stripped from that bill in conference. I am sorely disappointed that in the ensuing 8 years we have not addressed this problem. As a result, the problem has continued to fester like an infection that will not heal. Worse yet, this infection is spreading to all parts of our country. This map which has been utilized throughout this debate, and I think properly so, with data supplied by the American Medical Association, shows the States that currently are experiencing a medical liability crisis and those that are showing signs of a developing crisis. The 19 red States are crisis States. Nineteen of the 50 States are crisis States. The 26 yellow States are showing problem signs. Only 5 States are currently OK. The red ones are in crisis. The yellow ones are about to be in crisis. The white States are currently OK generally because they have passed medical liability litigation reform legislation like S. 11. To contrast this for my colleagues, I must note that on a map with last year's data, only 12 States were in crisis. In March, it was up to 18. Now it is 19. The problem is growing and it reaches from coast to coast. There are very unfortunate consequences to this crisis--doctors forced to quit practicing, trauma centers closing, babies being born by the roadside, and, yes, people dying. These are all due to out-of- control litigation and soaring medical liability insurance premiums. The crisis is particularly acute in the farming and ranching communities of rural America where obstetricians and family practitioners, some of whom have been delivering babies for 25 years, are quitting their obstetrical practice. As a result, there is an increased shortage of obstetricians in the rural west, including in my home State of Utah. Studies by both the Utah Medical Association and the Utah chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists underscore the problem. According to the Utah Medical Association: 50.5 percent of family practitioners in Utah have already given up obstetrical services or never practiced obstetrics. Of the remaining 49.5 percent who still deliver babies, 32.7 percent say they plan to stop providing OB services within the next decade. Most plan to stop within the next five years. The Utah study examined the causes of the crisis also: Professional liability concerns were given as the chief contributing factor in the decision to discontinue obstetrical services. Such concerns include the cost of liability insurance premiums, the hassles and costs involved in defending against obstetrical lawsuits and a general fear of being sued in today's litigious environment. Although many blame out-of-control litigation, others believe that the downturn in the economy caused the crisis. In an attempt to identify the cause, in February Senator Gregg and I held a joint hearing of the HELP and Judiciary Committees. We heard from a lawyer who believes the downturn in the economy and problems with State insurance regulations are responsible. But, in addition, we heard from the Texas State insurance commissioner and from the president of Physician Insurance Association of America, representing provider-owned or operated insurance companies that provide insurance for the majority of American doctors. One reason they do is not because the insurance companies are so awful. It is because the insurance companies will not handle this type of coverage any more. The reason they will not is because of the exposures they are facing. So they have turned now to provider-owner and operated insurance companies. These gentlemen face this crisis and its consequences every day. Their data and their studies, as well as those from the Department of Health and Human Services, show that increasingly frequent frivolous lawsuits and skyrocketing awards are responsible for rapidly rising premiums. Have the recent downturns in the economy and the stock market affected medical liability premiums? Possibly. But this does not appear to be a major cause of the current crisis. Look at this chart. This is a chart showing how insurance companies that offer medical liability coverage allocate their assets. As this chart shows, between 1997 and the year 2001, insurance companies invested conservatively, primarily in bonds--that is corporate in red, Government in green, which is the middle line, and municipal bonds in purple. A minority of funds, only about 10 percent, happens to be invested in equities, which is shown in the yellow. This conservative investment strategy minimizes the effect that changes in the stock market have on insurance premiums. In fact, there is good evidence that increasing medical liability awards are responsible for increasing premium costs. This pie chart with data from the Physicians Insurance Association of America shows the outcome of medical liability cases. The area in the orange, almost 68 percent of the pie, represents medical liability cases that were dropped or dismissed. In other words, a vast majority of cases are frivolous to begin with. In those cases, the plaintiff received no award because no harm was found. Yet these frivolous lawsuits cost money, an average of at least $25,000 per case, and those costs increase the costs of medical liability insurance. This next chart shows the growth in median--that is the blue line and the average in red--medical liability claim payments between 1989 and the year 2001. Prior to 1995, median and average claim payments increased readily, as we can see. But the rate of growth for both increased dramatically after 1995. Finally, this next chart shows the growth in million dollar ``mega verdicts'' claim payments equal to or greater than $1 million between 1985 and 2001. In 1985, less than 1 percent of all awards exceeded $1 million. In 2001, over 8 percent of awards were $1 million or higher. The data is very clear. A high percentage of medical liability claims are frivolous. Average and median claim payments are increasing rapidly and the percentage of mega awards, those greater than $1 million, increased dramatically as shown on this particular chart. It seems clear to me that out-of-control medical liability litigation is driving the increase in premiums, not the economy and not a problem with the insurance industry which some would try to make it. It is not just the doctors but all Americans who are paying the price. This is a national problem and one that requires a national solution. In my letter of March 12 to Budget Committee Chairman Nickles and Ranking Democrat Conrad, I emphasized the important implications of medical liability litigation on the Federal budget. In that letter, I wrote: The Federal Government pays directly for health care for members of the armed forces, veterans, and patients served in the Indian Health Service. The Federal Government provides reimbursement for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. According to the Department of Health and Human Services' March 3, 2003, report . . . the Federal Government spends $33.7 billion-$56.2 billion per year for malpractice coverage and the costs of defensive medicine. That is $33.7 billion to $56.2 billion a year just for malpractice coverage in these areas of Federal Government medicine. That report states: reasonable limits on noneconomic damages would reduce the amount of taxpayers' money the Federal Government spends by $28.1 billion to $50.6 billion per year. Now I continued to write: In my view, Federal legislation that would decrease costly frivolous medical liability lawsuits and limit awards for noneconomic damages is necessary, not only to ensure patient access to health care, but to curb increasing Federal health care costs. Because of the substantial and important budgetary implications, particularly to the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, we request that the budget resolution include language calling for medical liability legislation reform. I am pleased to report the budget resolution we passed in the Senate recognized the tremendous impact of medical liability costs. The budget resolution included $11.3 billion in savings over 10 years as a result of medical liability reform based on CBO calculation. The Medicare Program alone would save $7.9 billion while Medicaid would save $2.9 billion. The remaining savings would occur in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and the Department of Defense. What if we had that money to help with the poor? It would certainly do a lot of good, more good than is being done by spending it on medical liability. But it is not only the Federal Government that is affected. Medical liability litigation directly and dramatically increases health care costs for all Americans. What is more, skyrocketing medical litigation costs increase health care costs indirectly by changing the way doctors practice medicine. In an effort to avoid frivolous suits, doctors often feel compelled to perform diagnostic tests that are costly and unnecessary. This defensive medicine is wasteful. Unfortunately, for doctors, it has become a necessity. I hate to admit it, but I am partly responsible for that myself because, knowing that many doctors are going to be sued unnecessarily and improperly, I advised them to do what they can to protect themselves. Consequently, this defensive medicine is leading to a lot of unnecessary defensive medicine. And they have to do it or they face unnecessary litigation. According to a recent Harris poll, fear of being sued has led 79 percent of doctors to order more tests than are medically needed; 74 percent refer patients to specialists more often than necessary; 51 percent recommend invasive procedures that they thought were unnecessary; 41 percent prescribe more medications, including antibiotics, that they did not think were necessary. Defensive medicine increases health care costs. But the real problem inherent in the current medical liability system and the resulting process of defensive medicine is that it also puts Americans at risk. Every test and every treatment poses a risk to the patient. Every unnecessary test, procedure, potentially puts a patient in harm's way. According to the Harris poll, 76 percent of the physicians are concerned that malpractice litigation has hurt their ability to provide quality care for their patients. That brings us to the main question. What can we do to address this crisis today? The answer is, plenty. There are excellent examples of what works. The March 2003 Department of Health and Human Services report describes how reasonable reforms in some States have reduced health care costs and improved access to, and the quality of, care. According to this report, over the last 2 years the States with limits of $250,000 or $300,000 on noneconomic damages premiums have increased an average of 18 percent compared to 45 percent in States without such limits. In 1975, California enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, MICRA. Again, I will refer to this chart. This graph shows that MICRA slowed the rate of increase in medical liability premiums dramatically, and it did so without affecting negatively the quality of health care received by the State's residents. The red on the chart is States that have gone up 573 percent from 1976 to the year 2000. In California they have increased by only 182 percent. As a result of MICRA, California has saved billions of dollars in health care costs, and Federal taxpayers have saved billions of dollars in the Medicare and Medicaid Programs. The March 2003 report goes on to state: A leading study estimates that reasonable limits on non- economic damages such as California has had in effect for 25 years, can reduce health care costs by 5-9% without ``substantial effects on mortality or medical complications.'' With national health care expenditures currently estimated to be $1.4 trillion if this reform were adopted nationally, it would save $70-$126 billion in health care costs per year. Now, in our joint HELP and Judiciary Committee hearings in February, we heard from those who believe insurance reform is a cure for this crisis. These individuals believe the Federal Government rather than the States should regulate insurance. Those who advocate Federal insurance regulation apparently believe the States and the State insurance commissioners are not able to accomplish this alone. They suggest that insurance companies are colluding to increase premiums. In all honesty, some of them are getting out of the business because of the risks and exposure they face. There has been little, if any, evidence during or after our hearing to support these allegations. In fact, we heard that the State insurance commissioners monitor and regulate insurance business practices very closely. The State laws are based on the National Association of Insurance Commissioners model rating laws that include the following language: No insurer or advisory organization shall attempt to monopolize or combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize an insurance market or engage in a boycott . . . of an insurance market. And: No insurer . . . shall make any arrangements with any other insurer . . . which has the purpose or effect of unreasonably restraining trade or lessening competition in the business of insurance. Moreover, insurance companies are precluded from increasing premiums to make up for past losses. It seems to me insurance reforms that some have proposed not only miss the mark badly, they would do nothing to address the cause of the crisis and would prevent State insurance commissioners from performing their jobs. I have to say I came away from the hearing convinced, and I remain convinced, that out-of-control medical litigation is the major cause of the crisis and we have to do something to stop it. The current medical litigation system represents and resembles a lottery more than a justice system. This system harms patients in many ways. All Americans deserve the access to care, the cost savings, and the legal protections that States such as California provide their residents. This problem has reached crisis proportions, and it is high time we end it. The task before us is to design a system that protects both the patient and the provider. S. 11, the Patient First Act of 2003, which I am proud to cosponsor, includes provisions that have been shown to work that are fair to all concerned. So S. 11 would encourage speedy resolution of claims by providing a reasonable statute of limitations. The bill provides for unlimited awards for economic damages, and it limits awards for noneconomic damages to $250,000. Moreover, S. 11 does not preempt State limits on awards for damages, noneconomic or otherwise, even if the State limits are higher than those imposed by S. 11. The Patient First Act limits attorney's fees, thereby reducing the costs of medical liability litigation and channeling award money to where it belongs, the injured patient. Normally I am against that, limiting the attorney fees, but in this particular case we have to do something. Women are going to be without obstetricians. Many people are going to be without surgeons and many will be without specialists. Young people are not going to go into the profession. Young outstanding geniuses who would make great doctors do not want to go into the profession. In addition, S. 11 provides for evidence of collateral source payments to be introduced in any health care lawsuit. Juries would be made aware of existing health insurance or other sources that compensate individuals for injuries. No longer would Americans compensate an individual twice for the same injury. While there is much to commend S. 11, one provision we should consider adding is the carefully crafted catastrophic exception to the limit on awards for noneconomic damages. A carefully worded catastrophic exception can provide that individuals who have particularly severe injuries as a result of extremely egregious acts of negligence receive an award for noneconomic damages that would be greater than the limit. Nine States have included such a provision in their statutes. Having said that, I must say that S. 11 is a very good bill and I believe that it will accomplish our primary goal of ensuring that Americans have access to health care. What I like most about the ``Patients First Act'' is that it is true to its name. The bill puts the patient first. Not the doctor. Certainly not the lawyer. You see, it is the patient who is threatened the most by the medical liability litigation crisis. It is the patient who eventually pays for the increased health care costs and it is the patient that suffers most when he or she cannot access needed care. The medical liability litigation crisis threatens the economic health of our country and the personal health of every American. It is like a festering wound, spreading like an infection throughout the country. It is time that we cured this infection by treating it with a proven remedy. S. 11, the Patients First Act of 2003 is the proven remedy Americans need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this very important legislation. Madam President, I began these remarks by stating that, as someone who had experience in this field, I have witnessed an unfortunate transition; a transition from the days when the standard of practice in the community was the rule in most communities, which seemed to me to be a fair rule, to a rule of the doctrine of informed consent, which means the doctor has to so inform the patient that the patient knows all of the risks involved. Well, the patient would have to go to medical school to know all of the risks and it would take so much of the doctor's time to advise a patient of those risks that none of us could afford it. There are always risks in surgery and there are always risks in a number of clinical procedures. Consequently, because no doctor can ever really meet those standards, every one of those cases go to trial. In this country, jurors don't realize by giving outrageous awards that are not justified in these medical liability cases, they are basically spreading that cost to everybody in society. If we do not act, babies will not be delivered with the utmost care in the future. Americans will not have access to trauma care. Americans will not have access to the top surgeons. And if we do not act, unnecessary and costly defensive medicine will continue. I have to say, I have witnessed the increased use of costly CAT scans and MRIs in cases where patients could very easily have been treated at a very low cost in comparison. You can go right on down the line in almost everything else. It is getting so that young people in this country cannot afford to have children because it costs so much, and it is all driven by this medical liability situation. I think that is pathetic. I think it is pathetic for anybody to stand on the floor and say this is not a problem of tremendous concern and, literally, say that it is the insurer's fault. That just is not the case. In all honesty, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the problem is. I hate to say it, being a lawyer and having been a trial lawyer. The problem is caused by many in our profession who are bringing these frivolous suits. I have to tell you that I have seen lawyers bring frivolous medical liability suits for one reason and that is because it costs between $50,000 and $100,000 to defend those suits. Many of these insurance companies, rather than take the risk of a runaway jury or a forum shopping situation, even within in a state, will pay the defense costs to get out of the case even though the case has no merit. Settling 20 of these frivolous cases per year, makes a pretty good living for an attorney, just forcing the insurance companies to pay defense costs because the insurance company doesn't want to take the risk of a runaway jury verdict in a runaway community. I think what jurors need to know is that in many respects, by allowing outrageous verdicts in some of these cases where there has been no negligence, they are basically running this system right into the ground. That is what has happened. As I say, I would have a catastrophic provision in this bill if I could, that basically would take care of particularly egregious, gross negligence type cases. There are reasons for bringing litigation from time to time. There are good reasons to weed out those doctors who should not be in the operating room, those doctors who really are incompetent, those doctors who do not do what is right. But those are the exceptions, not the rule. We are finding that far too many good doctors are leaving the profession because they cannot stand this intolerable situation anymore. The country cannot stand it, either. With that, I yield the floor.