Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Let me finish this one last question. You don't know a single case in the last 40 years? I will tell you that for me, I think Buckley v. Valeo. But all I am trying to say is, Isn't it true that in the last 40 years, not in all jurisprudence.

Mr. HATCH. On the next page, 40 years.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, just a few remarks. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is very concerned about this court and how judges function on it, as am I. It is a very important court. In fact, next to the Supreme Court, it is the next most important court in the country--no question about it--because the decisions they make affect almost every American in many instances. In terms of straightforward application of the law, the DC Circuit is one of the best functioning courts in the country. Recent years have seen DC circuit judges agreeing in the overwhelming majority of cases, including ones of great political significance, even when Republicans outnumbered Democrats six to four. I might also add that the DC Circuit is in the midst of a vacancy crisis unseen in recent memory. Only eight of the court's 12 authorized judgeships currently are filled. In the past 2 years, two of the court's judges have taken senior status. The DC Circuit has not been down to eight active judges since 1980. It is a crisis situation because it is extremely important. The vacancy crisis is substantially interfering with the DC Circuit's ability to decide cases in a timely fashion. As a result, litigants find themselves waiting longer and longer for the court to resolve their disputes. Because so many DC Circuit Court cases involve constitutional and administrative law, this means that the validity of challenged government policies is likely to remain in legal limbo. In the 2001-2002 term, the court had to cancel several scheduled days of oral argument. As a result, cases that would have been heard in 2001-2002 will not be heard until September of 2002 at the earliest. For the 2002-2003 term, the court will be able to hear cases on just 96 days and will be able to schedule just 336 cases. Because of the limited number of sitting days, the court's oral argument calendar is already nearly full through March of 2003. The vacancy crisis is also interfering with the operation of the court's emergency panel which hears emergency cases and various motions. Because only seven judges are now available for emergency panels, each one has to serve 6 weeks of overtime emergency duty on top of the 16 weeks he or she ordinarily serves throughout the year. The court often has been forced to constitute emergency panels with fewer than the usual complement of three judges. The chief judge of the DC Circuit, at a recent circuit conference said: If the court does not have additional judges soon, our ability to manage our workload in a timely fashion will be seriously compromised. He further explained that: . . . it is clear that the Senate's inaction is coming to jeopardize the administration of justice in this Circuit. That is important stuff. It is really important that we put Miguel Estrada on the court. We have had some comments about a few Latino groups that are known for liberal politics and have been opposed to Miguel Estrada. Let me list a few groups that support him. The following groups are just some that have announced support for him: League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, the Nation's oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization; U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Hispanic National Bar Association; Hispanic Association of Corporate Responsibility; Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans; MANA, a national Latina organization; Cuban American National Council; U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce; Hispanic Business Roundtable; The Latino Coalition; National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses; Mexican American Grocers Association; Phoenix Construction Services; Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City; HEBC, Hispanic Engineers Business Corporation; Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces; Casa Del Sinaloense; Republican National Hispanic Assembly; Hispanic Engineers Business Corporation; Hispanic Contractors of America; Charo, Community Development Corporation; Cuban American National Foundation. The League of United Latin American Citizens is the oldest Hispanic civil rights organization. Established in 1927, it has more than 700 councils and more than 120,000 individual members. The U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was established in 1979, with a network of more than 200 local chambers across the country, and it advocates on behalf of the 1.8 million Hispanic-owned businesses in the country. The Hispanics National Bar Association was established in 1972 and has more than 25,000 members, consisting of lawyers and judges. MANA, a national Latino organization, was established in 1974 to give a voice to the more than 20 million Hispanic women of all backgrounds and professions across the U.S. The AAMA, Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans, with over 30 years of service to the community, has been ranked the ninth largest Hispanic nonprofit in the country, providing education, employment and training, health care, and related services to more than 30,000 people annually. The Cuban American National Council has served the Cuban American community of Florida for the past 23 years, through education, housing, health and human services, and employment and training. I just thought the record needed to show that Miguel Estrada has tremendous support among Hispanic people. Now, things we've heard in the debate against Miguel have been some of the saddest things I have ever witnessed. It is akin to the lioness eating her cubs--Democratic Latino community leaders turning on one of their own because he doesn't fit their definition of ``Latino.'' Among their concerns is he is a recent immigrant, he hasn't lived in this country long enough to understand the plight of Hispanic Americans, he wasn't poor enough, his family was middle class and he attended private schools, he speaks English too well, he speaks Spanish too well--these are comments made by some of the liberal Latino groups. He is not from Mexico or Puerto Rico, he is from Honduras; he didn't do the right kind of pro bono work; he sought to protect victims of crime, not criminals. Jeepers. His critics would have you believe that to be Hispanic you have to be poor, attend only inner city schools, work for the public defenders office, and never aspire to work for the Department of Justice, or to clerk for the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't think the vast majority of Hispanic people think that way. I think they are proud of Miguel Estrada, and they ought to be because he is a man who has really made something of his life, and he is still a very young man. Miguel Estrada is the American dream incarnate. I think this should be celebrated by all Americans, but certainly by Hispanic Americans, and especially Hispanic mothers and fathers who dream of a bright future for their children. Tell those mothers and fathers that in order to be considered Hispanic, your children have to remain poor, forgo a quality education, and give up their dreams of succeeding in the legal profession. That is pure bunk and everybody knows it. But these are some of the arguments that have been made against Miguel Estrada. Lest anybody think I am just saying these things because I am supporting Miguel Estrada, I have spent most of my Senate career working very closely with the Hispanic community in the United States, getting to know the issues and addressing the community's concerns through legislation. In fact, in 1986, I started the U.S. Senate Republican Conference Task Force on Hispanic Affairs to ensure that the Hispanic community had a strong voice in the Senate. Over my lifetime, I have grown to love the Hispanic culture, their people, and their history. I believe their values and culture have infused and invigorated the American dream. The Latinos I have come to know over the past 26-plus years tell me it is all about heart. It is the ``corazon.'' Frankly, I have come to feel like I personally have a Latino heart beating in my breast. That is how important this community is to me. That is how close I feel to my Hispanic brothers and sisters. I have the credentials to make that case. I happen to know Miguel Estrada. He, too, has ``corazon.'' The Hispanic community leaders I respect and admire have dedicated themselves to ensuring that people such as Miguel have the very opportunity Miguel has used to his advantage. They want Hispanics to succeed. They are not trying to force all Latinos into cookie cutter shapes. They want Hispanics to be as free to find their own way as American citizens. Organizations such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest Hispanic civil rights organization in the country, and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce have existed for decades. Their mission has been to ensure that the downtrodden, the poor, the recent immigrant, and his heirs have an opportunity to succeed absent discrimination. Hector Flores, president of LULAC, and George Herrera, the Hispanic Chamber's President, work hard to get more Hispanic kids into Columbia and Harvard, more Latino youth to clerk in at the U.S. Supreme Court, to work at the Department of Justice, and to become partners of a prestigious law firm. Miguel Estrada deserves credit, rather than this constant worry that he might be too conservative, or he might be too conservative than some of these liberal groups would like. I have a lot more to say, but I will yield the floor at this point.

Mr. HATCH. I cannot let that go. If they are saying because he lacks judicial experience he should not be on the court--which is what it appears to me they are saying--they are just condemning almost every nonjudge Hispanic to never have a chance to be a Federal district or circuit court of appeals judge. That is ridiculous. Every Democrat President I have served with--President Carter and President Clinton-- have appointed a wide variety of people who never served on the bench but who are highly qualified and are doing a good job as judges now. It may be helpful to have some judicial experience, but not having judicial experience does not mean you cannot serve. If that were the case, some of the greatest judges in the history of the world would never have had a chance. But if you interpret what they say, that means that any Hispanic who has not had judicial experience really should not be supported. That is ridiculous. That is caving in to the liberal special interest groups in this town with which they continually spend time, and is to the detriment of the Hispanic community. I say that as a chairman of the Republican senatorial Hispanic task force who has worked for the last 13 years to try to solve these problems. I don't take second seat to anyone with regard to my love for the Hispanic community or my work on their behalf.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. We have had enough debate. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators Grassley and Kohl, S. 274, the ``Class Action Fairness Act of 2003.'' Over the past decade, it has become clear that abuses of the class action system have reached epidemic levels. In recent years, it has become equally clear that the ultimate victims of this epidemic are poorly-represented class members and individual consumers throughout the Nation. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 represents a modest, measured effort to remedy the plague of abuses, inconsistencies, and inefficiencies that infest our current system of class action litigation. It is essential that we address the abuses that are running rampant in our current class action litigation system. Frequently, plaintiff class members are not adequately informed of their rights or of the terms and practical implications of a proposed settlement. Too often judges approve settlements that primarily benefit the class counsel, rather than the class members. There are numerous examples of settlements where class members receive little or nothing, while attorneys receive millions of dollars in fees. Multiple class action suits asserting the same claims on behalf of the same plaintiffs are routinely filed in different State courts, causing judicial inefficiencies and encouraging collusive settlement behavior. And State courts are more frequently certifying national classes leading to rulings that infringe upon or conflict with the established laws and policies of other states. Despite the mountains of evidence demonstrating the drastically increasing harms caused by class action abuses, I am sure that some will attempt to deny the existence of any problem at all. Others will try to confuse the issue with spurious claims that proposed reforms would somehow disadvantage victims with legitimate claims or further worsen class action abuses. Others may even contend that past legislative reforms have contributed to recent financial debacles and that the proposed reforms will encourage more. Such claims are nothing more than red herrings intended to divert the debate from the real issues. In this regard let me emphasize a few points regarding S. 274. First, this bill does not seek to eliminate State court class action litigation. Class action suits brought in State courts have proven in many contexts to be an effective and desirable tool for protecting civil and consumer rights. Nor do the reforms we will discuss today in any way diminish the rights or practical ability of victims to band together to pursue their claims against large corporations. In fact, we have included several consumer protection provisions in our legislation that I feel strongly will substantially improve plaintiffs' chances of achieving a fair result in any settlement proposal. There are three key components to S. 274. First, the bill implements consumer protections against abusive settlements by: No. 1. requiring simplified notices that explain to class members the terms of proposed class action settlements and their rights with respect to the proposed settlement in ``plain English''; No. 2. enhancing judicial scrutiny of coupon settlements; No. 3. providing a standard for judicial approval of settlements that would result in a net monetary loss to plaintiffs; No. 4. prohibiting ``bounties'' to class representatives; and No. 5. prohibiting settlements that favor class members based upon geographic proximity to the courthouse. Second, the bill requires that notice of class action settlements be sent to appropriate State and Federal authorities to provide them with sufficient information to determine whether the settlement is in the best interest of the citizens they represent. Finally, the bill amends the diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction statute to allow large interstate class actions to be adjudicated in Federal court by granting jurisdiction in class actions where there is ``minimal diversity'' and the aggregate amount in controversy among all class members exceeds $2 million. Although some critics have argued that this amendment to diversity jurisdiction somehow violates the principles of federalism or is inconsistent with the Constitution, I fully agree with Mr. Walter Dellinger, former Solicitor General, who testified at our Judiciary Committee hearing last fall, that it is ``difficult to understand any objection to the goal of bringing to the federal court cases of genuine national importance that fall clearly within the jurisdiction conferred on those courts by Article III of the Constitution.'' Last, I would like to express my appreciation to the many individuals who have shared with me the details of their experiences with class action litigation. In particular, I am grateful to those victims of various abuses of the current system who have come forward and told their stories in the hope that something positive might come out of their terrible experiences. Among those who have come forward is Irene Taylor of Tyler, TX, who was bilked out of approximately $20,000 in a telemarketing scam that defrauded senior citizens out of more than $200 million. In a class action brought in Madison County, IL, the attorneys purportedly representing Mrs. Taylor negotiated a proposed settlement which will exclude her from any recovery whatsoever. Martha Preston of Baraboo, WI, provides another excellent example. Ms. Preston was involved in the famous BancBoston case, brought in Alabama State court, which involved the bank's failure to post interest to mortgage escrow accounts in a prompt manner. Although Ms. Preston did receive a settlement of about $4, approximately $95 was deducted from her account to help pay the class counsel's legal fees of $8.5 million. Notably, Ms. Preston testified before my committee 5 years ago asking us to stop these abusive class action lawsuits, but it appears that, at least thus far, her plea has not been heard. I urge my colleagues to support this modest effort to reform the abuses in the current system, abuses that are actually hurting those the system is supposed to help.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, along with my colleagues Senators Grassley and Kohl, S. 274, the ``Class Action Fairness Act of 2003.'' Over the past decade, it has become clear that abuses of the class action system have reached epidemic levels. In recent years, it has become equally clear that the ultimate victims of this epidemic are poorly-represented class members and individual consumers throughout the Nation. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2003 represents a modest, measured effort to remedy the plague of abuses, inconsistencies, and inefficiencies that infest our current system of class action litigation. It is essential that we address the abuses that are running rampant in our current class action litigation system. Frequently, plaintiff class members are not adequately informed of their rights or of the terms and practical implications of a proposed settlement. Too often judges approve settlements that primarily benefit the class counsel, rather than the class members. There are numerous examples of settlements where class members receive little or nothing, while attorneys receive millions of dollars in fees. Multiple class action suits asserting the same claims on behalf of the same plaintiffs are routinely filed in different State courts, causing judicial inefficiencies and encouraging collusive settlement behavior. And State courts are more frequently certifying national classes leading to rulings that infringe upon or conflict with the established laws and policies of other states. Despite the mountains of evidence demonstrating the drastically increasing harms caused by class action abuses, I am sure that some will attempt to deny the existence of any problem at all. Others will try to confuse the issue with spurious claims that proposed reforms would somehow disadvantage victims with legitimate claims or further worsen class action abuses. Others may even contend that past legislative reforms have contributed to recent financial debacles and that the proposed reforms will encourage more. Such claims are nothing more than red herrings intended to divert the debate from the real issues. In this regard let me emphasize a few points regarding S. 274. First, this bill does not seek to eliminate State court class action litigation. Class action suits brought in State courts have proven in many contexts to be an effective and desirable tool for protecting civil and consumer rights. Nor do the reforms we will discuss today in any way diminish the rights or practical ability of victims to band together to pursue their claims against large corporations. In fact, we have included several consumer protection provisions in our legislation that I feel strongly will substantially improve plaintiffs' chances of achieving a fair result in any settlement proposal. There are three key components to S. 274. First, the bill implements consumer protections against abusive settlements by: No. 1. requiring simplified notices that explain to class members the terms of proposed class action settlements and their rights with respect to the proposed settlement in ``plain English''; No. 2. enhancing judicial scrutiny of coupon settlements; No. 3. providing a standard for judicial approval of settlements that would result in a net monetary loss to plaintiffs; No. 4. prohibiting ``bounties'' to class representatives; and No. 5. prohibiting settlements that favor class members based upon geographic proximity to the courthouse. Second, the bill requires that notice of class action settlements be sent to appropriate State and Federal authorities to provide them with sufficient information to determine whether the settlement is in the best interest of the citizens they represent. Finally, the bill amends the diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction statute to allow large interstate class actions to be adjudicated in Federal court by granting jurisdiction in class actions where there is ``minimal diversity'' and the aggregate amount in controversy among all class members exceeds $2 million. Although some critics have argued that this amendment to diversity jurisdiction somehow violates the principles of federalism or is inconsistent with the Constitution, I fully agree with Mr. Walter Dellinger, former Solicitor General, who testified at our Judiciary Committee hearing last fall, that it is ``difficult to understand any objection to the goal of bringing to the federal court cases of genuine national importance that fall clearly within the jurisdiction conferred on those courts by Article III of the Constitution.'' Last, I would like to express my appreciation to the many individuals who have shared with me the details of their experiences with class action litigation. In particular, I am grateful to those victims of various abuses of the current system who have come forward and told their stories in the hope that something positive might come out of their terrible experiences. Among those who have come forward is Irene Taylor of Tyler, TX, who was bilked out of approximately $20,000 in a telemarketing scam that defrauded senior citizens out of more than $200 million. In a class action brought in Madison County, IL, the attorneys purportedly representing Mrs. Taylor negotiated a proposed settlement which will exclude her from any recovery whatsoever. Martha Preston of Baraboo, WI, provides another excellent example. Ms. Preston was involved in the famous BancBoston case, brought in Alabama State court, which involved the bank's failure to post interest to mortgage escrow accounts in a prompt manner. Although Ms. Preston did receive a settlement of about $4, approximately $95 was deducted from her account to help pay the class counsel's legal fees of $8.5 million. Notably, Ms. Preston testified before my committee 5 years ago asking us to stop these abusive class action lawsuits, but it appears that, at least thus far, her plea has not been heard. I urge my colleagues to support this modest effort to reform the abuses in the current system, abuses that are actually hurting those the system is supposed to help.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay special tribute to a wonderful Utah doctor, F. Marian Bishop, Ph.D., M.S.P.H, who has dedicated her life to the practice of family medicine. Her shining example of service and dedication to the health and well being of people across America is truly extraordinary. Dr. Bishop was recently named the recipient of the John G. Walsh Award by the American Academy of Family Physicians, AFP, because of her dedicated, long-term commitment to furthering the development of family practice. This award is one of the highest honors presented by the Academy. In addition, Dr. Bishop has also received the United States Public Health Service Director's Award from the National Health Service Corps in 1990; the 2001 Women Who Make A Difference Award from the International Women's Forum; and in 2000 the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine, STFM, Foundation created the F. Marian Bishop Scholars program to benefit future students. Dr. Bishop is currently a professor and chairman emeritus of the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of Utah. The knowledge and enthusiasm she has shared with countless students have been felt by many and have helped provide the impetus for many future family practitioners. Dr. Bishop is a tireless advocate for the development of family practice and has served in many positions to further promote this wonderful field of medicine. She has assumed leadership positions for the Department of Health and Human Services in several areas including: peer review; Area Health Education Centers; title VII health professions; and the External Advisory Panel for Primary Care. She was instrumental in developing the Committee for the Departments of Family Medicine Grant Reviews and chaired the National Advisory Council on Health Professions Education. She is currently serving as the vice president for the Council on Graduate Medical Education for the Health Resources and Services Administration. She has also served in many capacities in Utah State government including as: a member of the Utah Task Force on Rural Health Policy Development, chairwoman of the Rural Medical Financial Assistance Committee, and a member of the Preventive Health Care Services Technical Advisory Group for the Utah Health Policy Commission. I am also particularly grateful for the service Dr. Bishop has given me as a member of my Utah Women's Advisory Committee. She has been a valuable asset on this committee providing me with input and excellent ideas concerning women's health issues. Dr. Bishop can also add author to her long list of accomplishments. She has published several important articles in such prestigious publications as: the British Journal of Medical Education, the Journal of Practical Nursing, the Journal of Community Health, and the Textbook of Family Practice. She is currently serving as the chairwoman for the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Sadly, Dr. Bishop is now battling her own personal health crisis. I sincerely hope she is able to draw upon the strength and courage she imparted to the many people she touched throughout her medical and teaching career to ease her own pain and suffering. The service she has so unselfishly given to students, patients, and the medical community is exemplary and the contributions she made to the field of family practice will be felt for years to come. I am grateful for the opportunity today to honor this wonderful doctor, mother, and woman.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Hawaii for allowing me to proceed ahead of him. I certainly appreciate his kindness. I rise today to salute the seven astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia who lost their lives as they endeavored to conquer the vast unknown of space. I would like to take a moment to praise the work of Commander Rick Husband, Pilot William McCool, Mission Specialist Kalpana Chawla, Mission Specialist David Brown, Mission Specialist Michael Anderson, Mission Specialist Laurel Clark, and Payload Specialist Ilan Ramon. These great heroes will always be remembered for their willingness to carry the hopes and aspirations of a country with them into space, even though they made the ultimate sacrifice for their efforts. I know the months and years ahead will be filled with debate over many issues surrounding this tragedy. Certainly, we will hear questions asked about the ongoing funding of NASA and the safety concerns surrounding such adventurous exploration. The Nation will need answers to these questions. Hearings should be held. Investigations should be conducted. But in the final analysis, let us not forget how valuable the space program is to our country and to the American spirit. I would like to ask my colleagues, administration officials, and NASA to proceed with their investigations in a prudent manner and return our astronauts to space as soon as possible. I would like to see a renewed focus for NASA, a focus that would rival President Kennedy's challenge to be the first Nation to send a man to the moon. This can only be done by pressing forward with bold new space initiatives and not by prolonged critiquing and endless investigations. Just the mention of the word ``space'' conveys so many special meanings to each of us. Thoughts of heroes such as Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong come immediately to mind. In many ways, our Nation is defined by the adventurous space program which has been a part of our national heritage for over 40 years. Terms such as courage, bravery, and pioneer are not afforded to those who take no risk and who sit on the sidelines and watch. No, those terms are reserved for people and nations willing to take risks in order to learn and advance the knowledge of all mankind. As President Reagan said, in the face of the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger, ``The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave.'' The seven astronauts who piloted the Space Shuttle Columbia heard that call and will forever be remembered for their bravery. No American relishes the loss of life and the sacrifice of those courageous astronauts. But every American is thankful for the willingness of these astronauts to press forward--even when the risks are so great--in order to provide more knowledge and nurture a new generation of scientists who are inspired to look at the universe differently every time astronauts venture into the darkness of space. The space program is so vitally important to our Nation's science education. Every year, bright, energetic, wide-eyed students enter the Nation's school systems and are motivated by the new scientific findings in our universe. They grow to love science, a love that will stay with them throughout their lives and continue to propel our Nation's scientific discoveries into the future. We cannot let that love die. It is our duty to push the envelope, to explore the outer reaches of our universe. Innovation and determination shape our scientific future and the space program is such a crucial part of that. My home State of Utah has long been actively engaged in America's space program. Our own Richfield, UT native, former Senator, and my friend, Astronaut Jake Garn, left Cape Canaveral on the Space Shuttle Discovery in April 1985 and return to earth over 6 days later after having orbited the earth 110 times. As well, ATK, a leading-edge aerospace company based in Utah provides state-of-the-art solid rocket motors which makes the idea of people being able to fly through space a reality. Utah's contribution to the success of our Nation's space program goes on and on, but let it suffice to say, that the entire State of Utah mourns for the loss of these brave astronauts. We pray for their families and those they have left behind. Now is not the time to take a huge step backward in our space program and send the message to the next generation of Americans that when things get hard or when plans go wrong, we should give up . . . give up and let our dreams and aspirations fall victim to a task that appears hopelessly difficult. No, now is not that time. Now is the time when we need to stare adversity in the face. Learn from past mistakes. Refocus our vision on what we can accomplish by working together toward a unified goal. Now is the time to raise a new generation of heroes and teach them how to overcome difficult circumstances. Yes, America will continue its space program. We will be more than mere spectators of the universe. We will be active participants and we will train a new generation of explorers who will build on the foundation laid by these great astronauts abroad the Space Shuttle Columbia. Who knows what this new generation may discover? With the rapid pace of technological advances and the courage to conquer the unknown, it is sure to be something great. Elaine and I send our very strongest condolences to the families of the astronauts who have lost their lives in the service of their country. We will pray for those families and pray that somehow they will be comforted in this hour of need. I personally know what it is like to lose a member of the family while serving our country. My older brother was killed in the Second World War at the Ploesti oil raid that helped to knock out Hitler's oil supply. It was a very difficult thing for our family, and it still is. In the last month, I have been reading the letters he wrote to my mother and I have gotten to know him better than I ever thought I would--as a person who gave his life for us and did it willingly so that we might be free. These astronauts have given their lives for us and they have given them willingly, helping us to be free, to have a better society, to explore in this day and age, much like Lewis and Clark did in their day and age, the outreaches of the universe and help us to gain scientifically every step of the way. I am grateful to them and their families and I pray for them. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise along with senators Campbell, Leahy, and others to introduce the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003''. This bill, which permits qualified current and retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction, will help protect the American public, our Nation's officers, and their families. I would note that this bill has the overwhelming support of the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement associations. This legislation allows qualified law enforcement officers and retired officers to carry, with appropriate identification, a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce regardless of State or local laws. Importantly, this legislation does not supersede any State law that permits private persons to prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government properties, installations, buildings, bases or parks. Additionally, this bill clearly defines what is meant by ``qualified law enforcement officer'' and ``qualified retired, or former, law enforcement officer'' to ensure that those individuals permitted to carry concealed firearms are highly trained professionals. Such legislation not only will provide law enforcement officers with a legal means to protect themselves and their families when they travel interstate, it will also enhance the security of the American public. By enabling qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry firearms, even if off-duty, more trained law enforcement officers will be on the street to enforce the law and to respond to crises. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the passage of this important piece of legislation to provide that extra layer of protection to current and retired law enforcement officers, their families, and the public.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to address the serious matter of pay inequity in the Federal judiciary. As things stand now, nearly every Federal employee will receive a cost of living adjustment during 2003--every employee, that is, except Federal judges. This is because of a legislative prescription that requires Congress to authorize raises in the salaries of Federal judges. Although this COLA of roughly 3 percent may seem small and inconsequential, it makes a significant difference in light of the fact that Federal judges earn far less than many, if not most, of their counterparts in the private sector. In his 2002 year-end report, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist highlighted his concern that salaries of Federal judges have not kept pace with those of lawyers in private firms and in business. He observed, ``Inadequate compensation seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life tenure. That low salaries might force judges to return to the private sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial performance--instead of serving for life, those judges would serve the terms their finances would allow, and they would worry about what awaits them when they return to the private sector.'' The Chief Rustic lamented, ``Unless the 108th Congress acts, judges will not even receive the cost-of-living adjustment that nearly every other Federal employee will receive during 2003.'' He concluded by urging Congress and the President to ``take up this issue early in the new year.'' Today, Mr. President, the Senate is passing a bill that will allow Federal judges to receive the COLA that other Federal employees are already slated to receive this year. Although the larger issue of minimizing the gap between Federal judicial salaries and private sector salaries still remains, this small step will resolve the salary inequity between Federal judges and other Federal employees. I thank my colleagues for joining Senator Leahy and me in supporting this bipartisan measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise along with senators Campbell, Leahy, and others to introduce the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003''. This bill, which permits qualified current and retired law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction, will help protect the American public, our Nation's officers, and their families. I would note that this bill has the overwhelming support of the Fraternal Order of Police and other law enforcement associations. This legislation allows qualified law enforcement officers and retired officers to carry, with appropriate identification, a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce regardless of State or local laws. Importantly, this legislation does not supersede any State law that permits private persons to prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government properties, installations, buildings, bases or parks. Additionally, this bill clearly defines what is meant by ``qualified law enforcement officer'' and ``qualified retired, or former, law enforcement officer'' to ensure that those individuals permitted to carry concealed firearms are highly trained professionals. Such legislation not only will provide law enforcement officers with a legal means to protect themselves and their families when they travel interstate, it will also enhance the security of the American public. By enabling qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry firearms, even if off-duty, more trained law enforcement officers will be on the street to enforce the law and to respond to crises. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the passage of this important piece of legislation to provide that extra layer of protection to current and retired law enforcement officers, their families, and the public.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I compliment our distinguished Senator from Texas for the excellent remarks she has made about really what is going on right now and what the President is trying to do. I, for one, want to help the President. I want to help him to help this economy. So I rise today in support of President Bush's growth and jobs plan, and I would like to take a few minutes today to tell you why I believe this is the right prescription for America at this time. I know from talking to people in my own home State of Utah, and across the country, that our current economy is not meeting its full potential. This is crystal clear. The nationwide unemployment rate stands at 6 percent. And while that is better than usual after a recession, it is still far too high. Thousands of people in Utah and millions of people across the country are out there looking for work. Yes, most of them are finding jobs eventually, but jobs are far too scarce still. As long as there are people who want to work but cannot get work, we have a problem in our country. The President's plan starts off by speeding up the tax reductions this body has already passed by a significant margin. This is just plain common sense. A big part of the tax cut we passed in 2001 was designed to be phased in over the following 10 years, with rate cuts, marriage penalty relief, and child tax credits increasing every few years. But since our economy is below its potential right now, then right now is the time to make the full amount of these tax cuts effective. Doing so would put money in people's pockets immediately. The IRS would change their withholding tables immediately after the accelerated tax cuts become law, so more money would show up immediately in workers' paychecks. The President's plan to speed up the tax cuts now, right when we need them, will have an immediate, visible impact on practically every American taxpayer. A key part of the President's plan is to accelerate marriage penalty relief and speed up the $1,000-per-child tax credit. Phasing in these family-friendly tax provisions slowly might have made some political sense 2 years ago, but today, when young families are wondering whether Mom and Dad will have a job next week, cutting the tax man's share of the pie will be a big help. Waiting 3 to 5 years for family tax relief makes no sense in the middle of a slow economic recovery. Let's do it now. Let's provide a tremendous boost to millions of American families. As to some of the media reports that the President's plan unfairly benefits the wealthiest people in the country and does little or nothing for low- or middle-income taxpayers, let me set the record straight. According to the Treasury Department, a married couple with two children and an annual income of $40,000 would see their taxes decline, under the President's plan, by $1,133--from $1,178 to $45--in 2003. In other words, under today's taxes, they would pay $1,178. That would be reduced $1,133 to where they have a tax bill of $45. That is for people who make $40,000 a year. For this family, there is not much more tax relief that can be given. Under the Bush plan, 92 million taxpayers would receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,083 in the year 2003 and thereafter. Forty-six million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716. Thirty-four million families with children would benefit from an average tax benefit of $1,473. Six million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of $1,384. Twenty-three million small business owners would receive tax cuts averaging $2,042. Talk about helping the middle class. In my home State of Utah, over 646,000 taxpayers would get tax relief from the President's package. That is important to me. That is important to almost 650,000 people in the State of Utah. Under our ultra-progressive income tax, the top 50 percent of income earners--those who made $27,682 in the year 2000 or more--that upper 50 percent, from $27,000 and up, paid over 96 percent of all the income taxes paid in this Nation. Therefore, those who are paying most of the income taxes are naturally going to get much of the benefit of a tax cut. In fact, it is almost impossible to cut any tax without making the people who pay that tax better off. Projections prepared by the Treasury Department show that 40 percent of the President's proposed tax cut would go to people with income over $200,000 per year. But it is important to note that this same group is paying 44.8 percent--almost 45 percent--of the total income tax. If we enact the President's plan, people making over $200,000 a year will end up paying even a larger fraction of the Nation's income tax bill, 45.4 percent. On the other hand, people making less than $50,000 would pay less of the total share than they do now. Further, the President's plan contains an important provision to increase the incentive for small business investment. I might have made this provision even stronger than the President chose to make it. But even as it stands, the increase to $75,000 per year of business expensing will be a boon to companies struggling to grow. It will increase the demand for business equipment and software, sectors that have been hit especially hard in this downturn. This proposal can help to revive business spending and create new jobs in industries that make machines, computers, and software. I would like to debunk one particular false notion that is making the rounds here on Capitol Hill and in the media; the idea that lower income people spend all of their tax cut but the middle and higher income people will just save them. It turns out that how much you earn does not have a night-and-day impact on the people's decision to spend. A recent study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research concluded--and I quote-- Low-income households are not more likely to spend the rebate. In fact, as this chart shows, it looks as though families with lower incomes actually tended to spend a smaller fraction of their rebate. I will just point to this chart now. The modest income earners spent little of their rebates. Americans who earned up to $50,000 per year spent less than 20 percent of their 2001 tax rebate. But Americans who earned more than $50,000 a year spent over 25 percent of their rebate checks. It would appear to me rebates are not the way to go if we want to stimulate the economy. Yet that is what our colleagues on the other side seem to think is the gold standard to help get the economy going. I would now like to address the part of the President's package that has drawn the most attention, the plan to end the double taxation of dividends. Ending the double taxation of dividends will make stocks more valuable, it will make businesses more financially sound, and it will make it harder for a few wrongdoers to hide their corporate shenanigans. Why do America's corporations load up on debt financing despite the fact that the higher debt levels increase the risk of bankruptcy? I will tell you why. Because our Nation's tax laws have always given them massive financial incentives to do just exactly that. The reason is simple. When a corporation pays interest to bondholders, that payment is taxed only once. That is at the bondholder level. But, in contrast, when it pays dividends to stockholders, that payment is taxed twice--to both the corporation and the shareholder. President Bush's economic growth plan contains a proposal to end this absurd incentive and, by doing so, his plan will strengthen the foundations of our economy and help ensure growth and new jobs for years to come. This chart--``How the Double Taxation of Dividends Harms Our Nation''--shows that bankruptcies go up, corporate accountability goes down, and investment in capital formation also goes down. And that is where jobs are thrown to the wind. Our Tax Code's harsh and unfair treatment of dividend payments harms the foundation of our economy in those three ways. It increases the number of bankruptcies, it weakens corporate accountability, and it slows the formation of capital. By loading up on tax-deductible bonds and bank loans rather than issuing new shares of stock, corporations increase their chance of going bankrupt. Our Tax Code should not encourage this behavior. When corporations load up on debt, they commit too much of their cash flow to making interest payments, and the danger of bankruptcy becomes all too real. Once we change this policy, businesses will find they have people lined up out the door to buy stocks that pay dividends. When companies hear of the clamor for dividend-paying stocks, they will have a much stronger incentive to pay for new projects and new factories by issuing new shares of stock rather than running to the bank or the bond market for a loan. And then, if times get tough, businesses will not be as likely to declare bankruptcy and head to Federal court for a painful reorganization, as we are seeing today. Instead, many companies will be able to cut their dividend to shareholders, and continue business more or less as usual. This is not speculation on my part. Just open up any textbook on corporate finance--books that are on the shelves of many an MBA--and you will see it yourself in black and white: Business managers are taught to weigh the benefits of tax-favored debt finance against the increased risk of bankruptcy. They even have a name for it. They call it the Trade-off Theory of Capital Structure. And it is caused by the double taxation of dividends. Our Tax Code's inequitable treatment of equity also weakens corporate accountability. Dividend payments are cash-on-the-barrelhead evidence that a company is profitable. While not a perfect measure by any means, it can be an important signal that a firm is solvent. As they say on Wall Street, ``Profit is an opinion, but cash is a fact.'' The Wall Street Journal reported recently that only about 30 percent of S&P 500 corporations pay any dividends at all. A crucial reason for this dividend drought is our Tax Code, which requires corporations to pay 35 cents in taxes for every dollar in profit and then, on top of that, requires taxpayers who get those profits in the form of dividends to pay personal income tax. The total government take, when state taxes are added, can exceed 70 percent. So what is the incentive to pay dividends--something we ought to be encouraging, rather than destroying. Finally, our inequitable treatment of equity slows innovation and the formation of capital. The double taxation of dividend income cuts the flow of equity funding to all but the most promising investments. Good ideas go unexplored and promising investments go unfunded because they cannot guarantee enough after-tax profit to investors. I believe it is important for Congress to eliminate the double taxation of dividends. It is important for our country and the stability of our business community. That is why I support President Bush's plan. By making shares a more attractive investment, his plan will boost demand for stocks and push up their value. By reducing the long-run risk of bankruptcy and encouraging companies to take on promising projects, it will be good for employees. And most importantly, ending the double taxation of dividends will make American corporations stronger, much more accountable, than they are today and more innovative in the years to come. I am proud to be able to support the President's growth and jobs package, and I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, to pass out a bill that give tax cuts to America's families, that gives small businesses an opportunity to grow, and that end the double taxation of dividends to strengthen both our stock market and the financial foundations of American business. This is an economic agenda that addresses the needs of today as well as the challenges of the future. The American people deserve no less. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am very appreciative to the Senator from Alabama and the other Appropriations Committee members for this, and I know it will be very helpful to the effort. However, I understand the House appropriation for this same project currently stands at $1 million which would really help the city of Provo get this project underway. I am also very appreciative for the Appropriations Committee's vigilance in keeping the budget to an absolute minimum and restraining superfluous spending. I only ask that the good Senator from Alabama try to work in conference to recede to the House number.

Mr. HATCH. Would the distinguished Chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, yield for a question?

Mr. HATCH. My office was recently visited by the mayor of Provo, in my home State of Utah. He reiterated to me the importance of erecting a control tower to handle an unusually large volume of air traffic coming into and out of the airport. My colleagues may not be aware of this, but Provo's airport currently does not have a tower--even though it is the second most used airport in the state, providing a much needed training ground for new pilots and a landing area for corporate jets that keeps them out of the Salt Lake City International Airport traffic flow. It is my understanding there are 143,000 operations at this airport per year. I share the concern of Mayor Lewis Billings and the citizens of Provo that this type of airport traffic with no control tower is very unsafe and, in the past, has led to a crash and a number of near misses.

Mr. HATCH. My office was recently visited by the mayor of Provo in my home state of Utah. He reiterated to me the importance of erecting a control tower to handle an unusually large volume of air traffic coming into and out of the airport. My colleagues may not be aware of this, but Provo's airport currently does not have a tower--even though it is the second most used airport in the state, providing a much needed training ground for new pilots and a landing area for corporate jets that keeps them out of the Salt Lake City International Airport traffic flow. It is my understanding that there are 143,000 operations at this airport per year. I share the concern of Mayor Lewis Billings and the citizens of Provo that this type of airport traffic with no control tower is very unsafe and, in the past, has led to a crash and a number of near misses.

Mr. HATCH. I am very appreciative to the Senator from Alabama and the other Appropriations Committee members for this and I know it will be very helpful to the effort. However, I understand the House appropriation for this same project currently stands at $1 million which would really help the City of Provo get this project underway. I am also very appreciative for the Appropriations Committee's vigilance in keeping the budget to an absolute minimum and restraining superfluous spending. I only ask that the good Senator from Alabama try to work in conference to recede to the House number.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Subcommittee, my good friend, the Senator from Alabama, yield for a question?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Maine. I sure appreciate the work that she has done on this issue. She deserves a lot of credit. This has been a big week for her with all of the things she has been able to accomplish. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of the confirmation of my colleague and friend, Tom Ridge, to serve as this Nation's first Secretary of Homeland Security. I commend my fellow Senators for moving this nomination with the speed that it deserves. Senators Collins and Lieberman have done an excellent job. I am very appreciative of that. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, and now the confirmation of Tom Ridge to head that agency, the President finally has a unified department specifically devoted to fighting terrorism. Tom Ridge will begin his tenure as Secretary with an enormous task: implementing the new Department that Congress has created just months ago. This is the most comprehensive reorganization that our Federal Government has undergone in over 50 years. Because I know Tom Ridge, I know that he is up to the task. I view his confirmation as critical to the success of the new Department's mission. After successfully implementing the reorganization of nearly 200,000 Federal employees, Secretary Ridge's work will just have begun. As the first Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge will face the awesome challenges and responsibilities of safeguarding our borders and enhancing our Nation's ability to respond to future terrorist attacks. He must do so while ensuring that our cherished individual civil liberties are protected. He will be responsible for collecting intelligence from a number of different sources, fusing it into a single coherent picture, and then ensuring that it is acted upon appropriately. While all of us hope and pray that our Nation will not be attacked by terrorists again, we must remain ever vigilant to that real threat. The department's goals and efforts are of paramount importance to all our constituents, including those in my home state of Utah and, of course, the entire Nation. Tom Ridge is the right man for this challenge. He was a wonderful Governor of Pennsylvania. He certainly has been a heroic figure throughout the lives of many people. Less than 1 month after the terrorist attacks on our country, Governor Ridge was sworn in as the Director of the White House Office of Homeland Security. He has worked there with an unwavering dedication to protect our homeland. I commend Governor Ridge on his efforts to improve our Nation's security and his dedication and courage in tackling these most difficult issues in these times of crisis. Tom has accomplished much. While there is much more to do to ensure the safety of our great Nation, I am comforted by his demonstrated track record of leadership and success. Tom Ridge and the President have been a steady beacon of hope for all Americans, and I want to thank them for all their accomplishments. By confirming Tom Ridge, we are taking a big step forward in helping to defend our Nation from terrorism. I am confident that Secretary Ridge will work vigorously to secure our Nation and protect Americans--and to protect all of us in ways that really have to be undertaken. I am proud to support Secretary Ridge's nomination and look forward to working with him on homeland defense and security issues in the future. I look forward to working with my colleague from Maine and others on the other side in the future on these very important issues. This agency is so big that it crosses over a whole raft of communities. I again want to pay tribute to the distinguished chairman of the committee and her ranking member for having done such a good job in bringing this nomination forward at this particular time. I reserve the remainder of my time for the chairman. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in strong support of S. 121, the National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003. Specifically, I congratulate and thank my colleagues who have worked so hard toward the passage of this needed legislation: Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Dianne Feinstein. Both of them are deserving of the credit for this bill. I am very proud to align myself with both of them. Senator Hutchison has been a great leader in this area, and I am very much appreciative of her. Also, Senator Leahy and others have worked hard on this bill. The horrific kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart in my home State of Utah is illustrative of a terrifying wave of recent child abductions that has swept our Nation. Clearly, there is a tremendous need for legislation to help communities fight these terrible crimes. Without question, when it comes to child abductions, time is of the essence. We are all too aware that child abductors prey on the youngest, most innocent and vulnerable members of our society--often for the purpose of committing other serious violent crimes against them. Too often, it is only a matter of hours before a kidnapper abuses, assaults or kills the child victim. According to figures released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, almost 75 percent of the murders that occur following child abductions happen within the first 3 hours. AMBER Alert systems are critical to successful search and recovery efforts because they enable law enforcement authorities to galvanize entire communities to assist in the safe recovery of child victims. We recently witnessed the success of the AMBER Alert system in California where the system was used to broadcast the disappearance of Nichole Timmons. After she was recognized, Nichole was safely recovered in the neighboring State of Nevada. In another recent California case, the AMBER Alert system was used to broadcast the disappearances of Tamera Brooks and Jaqueline Marris. Just hours after their abduction, and minutes before their possible murder, the two young women were found. My home State of Utah recently adopted a statewide alert program aimed at preventing child abduction called the Rachel Alert. The program was named after young Rachel Runyan who was kidnapped from behind her home in Sunset, UT, and later found murdered. I know that law enforcement agencies are working closely with broadcasters and the public to develop AMBER Alert systems across our country. Despite these efforts, however, I believe a National AMBER Alert Coordinator in the Department of Justice is needed to assist States in developing effective alert plans that can be coordinated nationwide. Fortunately, we already have the technology in place to do just that--the Emergency Broadcast System. For years, broadcasters have been cooperating with Government officials and reaching Americans across our country by issuing emergency alerts on our televisions and radios. We have all experienced an interruption in regular programming so that a news breaking announcement can be made. With the addition of a National AMBER Alert Coordinator and continued cooperation between law enforcement officials and broadcasters, we can create an effective national AMBER Alert system. Just now, I walked into the Senate Chamber with Ed Smart, who, as the country knows, has joined with his wife and family to launch one of the most brave, concerted, and vigilant efforts ever known to locate their precious daughter, Elizabeth. On many occasions, Ed and Lois Smart have educated me about the need for enhanced efforts to combat child abduction, such as the National AMBER Alert Network Act. This measure is overwhelmingly supported by the Smart family and all the parents who have firsthand experience with the uncertainty, pain, and trauma that exist while waiting for news about an abducted child. We have no greater resource than our children, and we need to see to it that we do all we can to protect them from predators of all types. So let us pass this legislation for Elizabeth Smart and Rachel Runyon and, indeed, for all children in our Nation. Madam President, I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished Senator from Texas, who deserves so much credit for being on top of this bill and bringing it to the Senate.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield back whatever time we have, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President: I rise to comment on amendment No. 32, which would restore $500 million in funding for the Department of Justice's Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, the Byrne Grant Program. There is no question we all agree on the importance of maintaining adequate funding for the Byrne Grant Program. The Byrne Grant Program does much to enhance State and local law enforcement, providing critical grants which are needed to fight violent and drug-related crime. In the last year alone, over $4 million was awarded to State and local law enforcement agencies in Utah to fight violent and drug- related crime. As many of my colleagues, I was extremely disturbed to learn the resolution we have before us today contains absolutely no funding for the Byrne Grant Program. Obviously, it is not in the interest of supporting local law enforcement for that situation to stand. Let me discuss another consideration. Appropriation have worked very to craft a bill that is fiscally responsible, that will balance the need for spending against restraint, and that will help us restore a balanced budget which is so vital to our country's economic security. The amendment we have before us, offered by my good friend and colleague, Senator Harkin, proposes to add $500 million to the bottom line of this bill, without an offsetting reduction which will keep the resolution within the total funding level acceptable to the President. Thus, its passage would vastly exceed the carefully crafted Federal discretionary spending level agreed to by President Bush and congressional appropriators last year and jeopardize the legislation we must pass to ensure continued funding for virtually all of the Government except the Department of Defense. I am relieved to hear our chairmen, Senator Stevens and Senator Gregg, provide assurances that if the Harkin amendment were not adopted, they will restore the funds in the conference committee with the House of Representatives. Based on those assurances, I will cast my vote to table the Harkin amendment. Before I close, I wanted to also express my concerns about a provision in H.J. Res 2 which dramatically restructures the section 8 Housing Choice Voucher renewal calculation. The resolution states that contracts will be renewed based upon levels used in previous years to calculate future housing payments and administrative fees. This formula could result in a severe undercounting of the number of families likely to be served by vouchers in the upcoming year. Housing Authorities are facing an ever-increasing series of challenges, including increases in low-income and disabled eligibles and rising rental costs in many areas. Many of Utah's agencies who have received new voucher awards within the last six to 12 months are projecting they will have inadequate funding to meet their needs. As I read the resolution, any additional funding needed to support increased costs will be a limited amount that is located within a central fund allocated by the Secretary. This could force Housing Authorities to reduce staff, resulting in lost administrative fees, and a reduction in the percentage of vouchers being used. It is my hope that the conferees will be able to rectify this problem that could serve to undermine the successfulness of the Section 8 program.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for the Medicare provisions contained in H.J. Res. 2. These provisions would prevent unwise reductions in physician payments from taking effect by freezing Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors at the 2002 level. They would also provide much-needed, increased funding for rural hospitals. Enacting these important provisions has been at the top of my agenda, and I am pleased that the committee was able to include them in the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. After extensive conversations with constituents throughout Utah, it became obvious to me that Congress must act to support Medicare providers and patients by ensuring that payments are made more fair. In 2002, physicians' Medicare reimbursements were reduced by approximately 5 percent. And, on March 1, 2003, Medicare reimbursement rates for physicians are scheduled to be reduced by another 4.4 percent. The provisions in H.J. Res. 2 that I strongly support will protect physicians across the country by preventing the 4.4 percent cut in physician Medicare payment from going into effect in March. It is apparent to me that Medicare constraints have made it more and more difficult for hard-working physicians to provide the level of patient care that they and their patients expect. Physicians in Utah with whom I have consulted over the past year have showed me the lasting, negative impact that the 2003 reductions would have on patient care. In addition, I have been dismayed to learn from several physicians that these unwarranted reductions would cause them to think twice about remaining in the Medicare Program. In fact, as representatives of the Utah Medical Association have pointed out to me, Medicare's flawed reimbursement system has made it increasingly difficult for Utah physicians to accept new Medicare patients, putting many seniors who seek care in a quandary. This is not fair to the physicians, and it is not fair to the patients. While the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS, reports that Medicare physician participation rate was 89.3 percent in January 2002, figures from Utah portray a dramatically different picture. In a recent survey conducted by the Utah Medical Association, the Medicare participation rate among physicians was significantly lower. The UMA found that only 77 percent of Utah's primary care physicians participated in the Medicare Program. I am hopeful that once Utah physicians see that we in Congress are listening and serious about supporting them, other doctors will consider participating in the Medicare Program once again. I am also pleased that this legislation contains a provision which will provide additional funding for rural hospitals, something that is desperately needed in my home state of Utah. More specifically, the hospital provision contained in H.J. Res. 2 would raise the inpatient base rate upon which payments are calculated for hospitals in rural and small urban areas to the same rate as that in large urban areas for 6 months. This provision will provide both patients and hospitals in my state with necessary and welcomed relief. Many of us who worked last year to enact needed changes such as this have been dismayed that, despite our best efforts, Congress could not find a collective way to rectify these problems that are doing so much to hurt patient care throughout Utah. It is high time we take this action. I urge my colleagues to support these two important provisions because both will provide Medicare patients with access to quality and affordable health care across the country. Let's do the right thing and pass this legislation as quickly as possible, this issue is much too important to both Medicare beneficiaries and providers. Medicare providers, and most importantly, the beneficiaries they serve, are depending on us to get the job done.