Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with profound honor and reverence that I, together with my friend and colleague, Senator Feinstein, introduce a bipartisan constitutional amendment to permit Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. The American flag serves as a symbol of our great Nation. The flag represents, in a way nothing else can, the common bond shared by an otherwise diverse people. As a sponsor and long-time supporter of the proposed constitutional amendment to protect the American flag, I am very pleased, but not surprised, by the way Americans have been waving the flag as a symbol of solidarity following the September 11 attacks of 2001. The emotion that Americans feel when they see the stars and stripes confirms my view that the flag is much more than a piece of cloth--it is a unifying force that represents the common core ideals all Americans share. Whatever our differences of party, race, religion, or socio-economic status, the flag reminds us that we are very much one people, united in a shared destiny, bonded in a common faith in our nation. More than a decade ago, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reminded us of the significance of our unique emblem when he wrote: A country's flag is a symbol of more than nationhood and national unity. It also signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the special history that has animated the growth and power of those ideas. . . . So it is with the American flag. It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of a nation that transformed 13 fledgling colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. Throughout our history, the flag has captured the hearts and minds of all types of people--ranging from school teachers to union workers, traffic cops, grandmothers, and combat veterans. In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln called our young men to put their lives on the line to preserve the Union. When Union troops were beaten and demoralized, General Ulysses Grant ordered a detachment of men to make an early morning attack on Lookout Mountain in Tennessee. When the fog lifted from Lookout Mountain, the rest of the Union troops saw the American flag flying and cheered with a newfound courage. This courage eventually led to a nation of free men--not half-free and half-slave. In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt called on all Americans to fight the aggression of the Axis powers. After suffering numerous early defeats, the free world watched in awe as five Marines and one sailor raised the American flag on Iwo Jima. Their undaunted, courageous act, for which three of the six men died, inspired the Allied troops to attain victory over fascism. In 1990, President Bush called on our young men and women to go to the Mideast for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. After an unprovoked attack by the terrorist dictator Saddam Hussein on the Kingdom of Kuwait, American troops, wearing arm patches with the American flag on their shoulders, led the way to victory. General Norman Schwarzkopf addressed a joint session of Congress describing the American men and women who fought for the ideals symbolized by the American flag: [W]e were Protestants and Catholics and Jews and Moslems and Buddhists, and many other religions, fighting for a common and just cause. Because that's what your military is. And we were black and white and yellow and brown and red. And we noticed that when our blood was shed in the desert, it didn't separate by race. It flowed together. General Schwarzkopf then thanked the American people for their support, stating: The prophets of doom, the naysayers, the protesters and the flag-burners all said that you wouldn't stick by us, but we knew better. We knew you'd never let us down. By golly, you didn't. The pages of our history show that when this country has called our young men and women to serve under the American flag from Lookout Mountain to Iwo Jima to Kuwait, they have given their blood and lives. The crosses at Arlington, the Iwo Jima memorial, and the Vietnam Memorial honor those sacrifices. But there were those who did not. In 1984, Greg Johnson led a group of radicals in a protest march in which he doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire as his fellow protestors chanted: ``America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.'' Sadly, the radical extremists, most of whom have given nothing, suffered nothing, and who respect nothing, would rather burn and spit on the American flag than honor it. Contrast this image with the deeds of Roy Benavidez, an Army Sergeant from Texas, who led a helicopter extraction force to rescue a reconnaissance team in Vietnam. Despite being wounded in the leg, face, back, head, and abdomen by small arms fire, grenades, and hand-to-hand combat with vicious North Vietnamese soldiers, Benavidez held off the enemy and carried several wounded to the helicopters, until finally collapsing from a loss of blood. Benavidez earned the Medal of Honor. When Benavidez was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, the honor guard placed an American flag on his coffin and then folded it and gave it to his widow. The purpose of Roy Benavidez' heroic sacrifice--and the purpose of the American people's ratification of the First Amendment--was not to protect the right of radicals like Greg Johnson to burn and spit on the American flag. The American people have long distinguished between the First Amendment right to speak and write one's political opinions and the disrespectful, and often violent, physical destruction of the flag. For many years, the people's elected representatives in Congress and 49 state legislatures passed statutes prohibiting the physical desecration of the flag. Our founding fathers, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Justice Hugo Black believed these laws to be completely consistent with the First Amendment's protection of the spoken and written word and not disrespectful, extremist conduct. In 1989, however, the Supreme Court abandoned the history and intent of the First Amendment to embrace a philosophy that made no distinction between oral and written speech about the flag and extremist, disrespectful destruction of the flag. In Texas v. Johnson, five members of the Court, for the first time ever, struck down a flag protection statute. The majority argued that the First Amendment had somehow changed and now prevented a state from protecting the American flag from radical, disrespectful, and violent actions. When Congress responded with a federal flag protection statute, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Eichman, used its new and changed interpretation of the First Amendment to strike it down by another five-to-four vote. Under this new interpretation of the First Amendment, it is assumed that the people, their elected legislators, and the courts can no longer distinguish between expressions concerning the flag that are more akin to spoken and written expression and expressions that constitute the disrespectful physical desecration of the flag. Because of this assumed inability to make such distinctions, it is argued that all of our freedoms to speak and write political ideas are wholly dependent on Greg Johnson's newly created ``right'' to burn and spit on the American flag. This ill-advised and radical philosophy fails because its basic premise--that laws and judges cannot distinguish between political expression and disrespectful physical desecration--is so obviously false. It is precisely this distinction that laws and judges did in fact make for over 200 years. Just as judges have distinguished which laws and actions comply with the constitutional command to provide ``equal protection of the laws'' and ``due process of law,'' so too have judges been able to distinguish between free expression and disrespectful destruction. Certainly, extremist conduct such as smashing in the doors of the State Department may be a way of expressing one's dissatisfaction with the nation's foreign policy objectives. And one may even consider such behavior speech. Laws, however, can be enacted preventing such actions in large part because there are peaceful alternatives that can be equally powerful. After all, right here in the United States Senate, we prohibit speeches or demonstrations of any kind, even the silent display of signs or banners, in the public galleries. Moreover, it was not this radical philosophy of protecting disrespectful destruction that the people elevated to the status of constitutional law. Such an extremist philosophy was never ratified. Such a philosophy is not found in the original and historic intent of the First Amendment. Thus, in this Senator's view, the Supreme Court erred in Texas v. Johnson and in United States v. Eichman. Since Johnson and Eichman, constitutional scholars have opined that an attempt by Congress to protect the flag with another statute would fail in light of the new interpretation currently embraced by the Supreme Court. Thus, an amendment is the only legal means to protect the flag. This amendment affects only the most radical forms of conduct and will leave untouched the current constitutional protections for Americans to speak their sentiments in a rally, to write their sentiments to their newspaper, and to vote their sentiments at the ballot box. The amendment simply restores the traditional and historic power of the people's elected representatives to prohibit the radical and extremist physical desecration of the flag. Restoring legal protection to the American flag will not place us on a slippery slope to limit other freedoms. No other symbol of our bi- partisan national ideals has flown over the battlefields, cemeteries, football fields, and school yards of America. No other symbol has lifted the hearts of ordinary men and women seeking liberty around the world. No other symbol has been paid for with so much blood of our countrymen. The American people have paid for their flag, and it is our duty to let them protect it. This amendment offers Senators, from both sides of the aisle, the opportunity to stand united for the protection of the sacred symbol of our nation. Restoring legal protection to the American flag is not, nor should it be, a partisan issue. More than 40 Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have already joined with Senator Feinstein and myself as original cosponsors of this amendment. I am pleased that this amendment has the unqualified support of our distinguished colleagues: Senators Ted Stevens; Zell Miller; John McCain; John B. Breaux; Larry E. Craig; John E. Ensign; Richard G. Lugar; Blanche Lincoln; Max Baucus; Christopher S. Bond; Trent Lott; Ernest F. Hollings; Mark Dayton; Jeff Sessions; E. Benjamin Nelson; James M. Inhofe; Jim Bunning; Wayne Allard; Susan M. Collins; Michael D. Crapo; Michael DeWine; Bill Frist; Charles E. Grassley; Chuck Hagel; Kay Bailey Hutchinson; Pat Roberts; John W. Warner; George Allen; Sam Brownback; Conrad R. Burns; Pete V. Domenici; Judd Gregg; Rick Santorum; Richard C. Shelby; Olympia J. Snowe; Lindsey Graham; John Cornyn; James Talent; Lamar Alexander; Ben Nighthorse Campbell. Polls have shown that 80 percent of the American people want the opportunity to vote to protect their flag. Numerous organizations from the American Legion to the Women's War Veterans to the African-American Women's clergy all support the flag protection amendment. All 50 State legislatures have passed resolutions calling for constitutional protection for the flag. I am, therefore, proud to rise today to introduce a constitutional amendment that would restore to the people's elected representatives the right to protect our unique national symbol, the American flag, from acts of physical desecration. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the proposed amendment be printed in the Record. I am very honored to be a cosponsor with my dear friend from California, Senator Feinstein. I appreciate the effort and unwavering support she has put forth in this battle. I am proud and privileged to be able to work with her. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity today to pay tribute to a wonderful woman who has worked by my side for 26 years, Norma Holmgren. Norma has been my Northern Utah Area Director since the day I took office and is now retiring to enjoy the many wonderful things life has to offer. Norma has done an absolutely tremendous job in serving thousands of Utahns who needed assistance, direction, or just a listening ear. Norma has worked on many important issues affecting our state including health care, private property rights, business expansion, and civic and community affairs. She has been a vital liaison between my office and the leadership of Hill Air Force Base, one of the State's largest employers, and is well respected and admired by the military officers and personnel on the base. Throughout her years of service, she has always conducted herself with professionalism and concern for the people she is serving. Norma has always played a vital role in many northern Utah communities serving on various boards and commissions, including the Garland Civic and Home Arts Club and the Box Elder County Fair. She was recognized for her dedication to improving the lives of young people when she was named the 1990 Weber County Youth Community Connection Woman of the Year, a recognition I know she treasures. Norma has also been a driving force in many of Utah's premier women's organizations, including the National and State Federation of Women's Clubs and the Utah Womens' Legislative Council. In both of these organizations, Norma assumed numerous leadership positions helping to implement policy that directly affected the health and well-being of Utah women. Norma's love and loyalty for the Republican philosophy has been evident in the many years she has served promoting the ideals and values of the Republican party. She has literally donated thousands of hours to the party, candidates, and campaigns who share her commitment to republican principles. She has served as the President of the Box Elder County Republican Women's Club and in many positions within the Box Elder County Republican Party. I am confident that her service to the Republican party will continue for many years to come. In addition to the service she has rendered in the community and office, Norma is a loving mother to her son, Randy, and a loving grandmother. In fact, her granddaughter Emily will be joining us on the floor of the Senate as a page next fall. Norma takes great pride in her family and is grateful for the love that they share. She has a keen interest in and love for antiques and has made her home truly a treasure. She has welcomed many people into her home over the years to share with them the history of the antique pieces she has found and lovingly displays. I am grateful for the service that Norma Holmgren has given to me, to her community, and to the state. She has been by my side from day one and has always been a vital component of my Senate organization. I will miss her tremendously but know that life holds many wonderful things for her to savor and enjoy. Norma Holmgren is a dedicated public servant, loving mother and grandmother, and fervently patriotic American. I want to wish her the very best in retirement and pray for her continued good health, success, and happiness.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to join my colleagues from Montana in introducing the Broadband Expensing Act. If enacted, this legislation would bring economic growth to rural America, and it would help bring community benefits to rural and underserved areas of the Nation, including many in my home State of Utah. I think it is striking that most Americans still rely on very outdated telecommunications infrastructure, the same copper wire we have used for decades, for their connection to one of the most important communications innovations in history, the Internet. This is true in my home State of Utah, where the telecommunications infrastructure has not kept pace with the growing number of high-tech firms, manufacturing companies, and very sophisticated workers. Our major metropolitan areas, of course, have access to high-speed Internet services. But the connections to most homes and many businesses have not been upgraded, meaning that data signals hit a bottleneck there and slow down dramatically. Consequently, many wonderful Internet applications, such as video conferencing, large file sharing, telemedicine, and distance learning, are ineffective or unavailable. And this is certainly true outside the metropolitan areas of Utah, in the rural communities that are found all over the State. One way to help overcome this situation is to offer a financial incentive to encourage broadband providers to extend their networks to underserved areas of the Nation. That is what this legislation would do. It would help broadband providers reduce the cost of new infrastructure. But it is important to note that they will only receive the benefit of this incentive if they actually build new infrastructure and actually provide broadband service. No new broadband network, no tax benefit. That is eminently fair and reasonable, and it is good tax and public policy. This is a two-tiered tax incentive. Companies that bring new ``current generation broadband'' to rural and underserved areas would be able to expense, or write-off, half of their investment immediately. Companies that bring new ``next generation broadband'' to those rural or underserved areas, or to other residential areas, would get to write off immediately 100 percent of their investment. What is ``current generation'' broadband? It is essentially cable modem, digital subscriber line, DSL, or wireless broadband service, and is generally five to ten times faster than a dial-up connection. Current generation broadband brings photo images to a computer screen very quickly, and allows the use of simple video applications. ``Next generation'' broadband, on the other hand, is hundreds of times faster than dial-up and allows television-quality images to flow from one computer to another. In many rural areas of the Nation, dial-up service is all that is available. Current generation broadband is available in many urban and suburban communities, but still generally unavailable in rural areas. And next-generation broadband is only in its infant stages, available to fewer than 100,000 homes in the United States. This legislation is well crafted to meet the broadband needs of the Nation. It would help spur current generation broadband deployment in areas of the Nation still relying on dial-up, but it would not provide tax incentives to areas that already have a broadband connection. And it would help spur the deployment of next generation broadband everywhere, since that level of service is available to very few people in the country today. I look forward to taking a leading role in helping move this bill through the Finance Committee and the Senate. I am confident that this legislation will make an important contribution to the construction of a 21st century telecommunications network that will serve the Nation well.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a critically important piece of legislation, the PROTECT Act of 2003. As its name makes clear, this bill will help to protect our children from the horrors of child pornography. Disgusting as child pornography is, the growth of technology and the rise of the internet have flooded our Nation with it. This is one area where we cannot afford to simply look the other way. Child pornography is routinely used by perverts and pedophiles not only to whet their sick desires, but also to lure our defenseless children into unspeakable acts of sexual exploitation. In sum, child pornography is a root from which more evils grow. It creates a measurable harm to children in our society. On this record, we must act. I am proud to have Senator Leahy as the leading co-sponsor of the PROTECT Act. We jointly introduced an earlier version of this bill last year in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. That decision greatly weakened the laws pertaining to child pornography and left some gaping holes in our Nation's ability to effectively prosecute child pornography offenses. We must now act quickly to repair our child pornography laws to provide for effective law enforcement in a manner that accords with the Court's ruling. The PROTECT Act strikes a necessary balance between the First Amendment and our Nation's critically important interest in protecting children. This Act does many things to aid the prosecution of child PROTECT Act, and I highlight some of its most significant provisions here. First, the Act plugs the loophole that exists today where child pornographers can escape prosecution by claiming that their sexually explicit material did not actually involve real children. Technology has advanced so far that even experts often cannot say with absolute certainty that an image is real or a ``virtual'' computer creation. For this reason, the Act permits a prosecution to proceed when the child pornography includes persons who appear virtually indistinguishable from actual minors. And even when this occurs, the accused is afforded a complete affirmative defense by showing that the child pornography did not involve a minor. Second, the Act prohibits the pandering or solicitation of anything represented to be obscene child pornography. The Supreme Court has ruled that this type of conduct does not constitute protected speech. Congress, moreover, should severely punish those who would try to profit or satisfy their depraved desires by dealing in such filth. Third, the Act prohibits any depictions of minors, or apparent minors, in actual, not simulated, acts of bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, when such depictions lack literary, artistic, political or scientific value. This type of hardcore sexually explicit material merits our highest form of disdain and disgust and is something that our society ought to try hard to eradicate. Nor does the First Amendment bar us from banning the depictions of children actually engaging in the most explicit and disturbing forms of sexual activity. Fourth, the Act beefs up existing record keeping requirements for those who chose to produce sexually explicit materials. These record keeping requirements are unobjectionable since they do not ban anything. Rather, the Act simply requires such producers to keep records confirming that no actual minors were involved in the making of the sexually explicit materials. In light of the difficulty experts face in determining an actor's true age and identity just by viewing the material itself, increasing the criminal penalties for failing to maintain these records are vital to ensuring that only adults appear in such productions. Finally, the Act creates a new civil action for those aggrieved by the depraved acts of those who violate our child pornography laws. This is one area of the law where society as a whole can benefit from more vigorous enforcement, both on the criminal and civil fronts. I was disappointed that the PROTECT Act did not pass into law last year, although it unanimously cleared the Senate in the final days of the 107th Congress. As incoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, passing this important bill will be one of my very top priorities. I remain open to hearing suggestions from all interested parties on how to improve the bill or make it even tougher against child pornographers. I strongly urge my colleagues to work with me and join with me in promptly passing this important legislation. 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 a critically important piece of legislation, the PROTECT Act of 2003. As its name makes clear, this bill will help to protect our children from the horrors of child pornography. Disgusting as child pornography is, the growth of technology and the rise of the internet have flooded our Nation with it. This is one area where we cannot afford to simply look the other way. Child pornography is routinely used by perverts and pedophiles not only to whet their sick desires, but also to lure our defenseless children into unspeakable acts of sexual exploitation. In sum, child pornography is a root from which more evils grow. It creates a measurable harm to children in our society. On this record, we must act. I am proud to have Senator Leahy as the leading co-sponsor of the PROTECT Act. We jointly introduced an earlier version of this bill last year in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. That decision greatly weakened the laws pertaining to child pornography and left some gaping holes in our Nation's ability to effectively prosecute child pornography offenses. We must now act quickly to repair our child pornography laws to provide for effective law enforcement in a manner that accords with the Court's ruling. The PROTECT Act strikes a necessary balance between the First Amendment and our Nation's critically important interest in protecting children. This Act does many things to aid the prosecution of child PROTECT Act, and I highlight some of its most significant provisions here. First, the Act plugs the loophole that exists today where child pornographers can escape prosecution by claiming that their sexually explicit material did not actually involve real children. Technology has advanced so far that even experts often cannot say with absolute certainty that an image is real or a ``virtual'' computer creation. For this reason, the Act permits a prosecution to proceed when the child pornography includes persons who appear virtually indistinguishable from actual minors. And even when this occurs, the accused is afforded a complete affirmative defense by showing that the child pornography did not involve a minor. Second, the Act prohibits the pandering or solicitation of anything represented to be obscene child pornography. The Supreme Court has ruled that this type of conduct does not constitute protected speech. Congress, moreover, should severely punish those who would try to profit or satisfy their depraved desires by dealing in such filth. Third, the Act prohibits any depictions of minors, or apparent minors, in actual, not simulated, acts of bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, when such depictions lack literary, artistic, political or scientific value. This type of hardcore sexually explicit material merits our highest form of disdain and disgust and is something that our society ought to try hard to eradicate. Nor does the First Amendment bar us from banning the depictions of children actually engaging in the most explicit and disturbing forms of sexual activity. Fourth, the Act beefs up existing record keeping requirements for those who chose to produce sexually explicit materials. These record keeping requirements are unobjectionable since they do not ban anything. Rather, the Act simply requires such producers to keep records confirming that no actual minors were involved in the making of the sexually explicit materials. In light of the difficulty experts face in determining an actor's true age and identity just by viewing the material itself, increasing the criminal penalties for failing to maintain these records are vital to ensuring that only adults appear in such productions. Finally, the Act creates a new civil action for those aggrieved by the depraved acts of those who violate our child pornography laws. This is one area of the law where society as a whole can benefit from more vigorous enforcement, both on the criminal and civil fronts. I was disappointed that the PROTECT Act did not pass into law last year, although it unanimously cleared the Senate in the final days of the 107th Congress. As incoming Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, passing this important bill will be one of my very top priorities. I remain open to hearing suggestions from all interested parties on how to improve the bill or make it even tougher against child pornographers. I strongly urge my colleagues to work with me and join with me in promptly passing this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the President has wasted no time in delivering his judicial nominations left behind in the last Congress. The President's judicial nominees have proven to be superb and among the best I have seen in all my years of service in this body. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I expect that my colleagues on both sides are eager to do the people's business and move as promptly as President Bush to fill judicial vacancies. Of course, I realize that the distortions have begun. The usual special interest lobbies, pursuing their political and economic interests, have already been busy painting a very scary picture with the usual shrillness and tired old tactics. The President of the United States has nominated men and women who, whatever their personal politics or views, are constitutionalists who are committed to enforcing the law as the people's elected representatives have adopted, and who will interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it as if they were in the room with the founding fathers-- Constitutionalists, not Republican or Democrat, not liberal or conservative, who will approach their roles in a common sense manner. But today, I rise to right one particular wrong. A recent report by People for the American Way, with, oddly enough, a remarkably biblical title, paints President Bush's nomination as an Armageddon. In reading the report, one would well think the President is choosing judges from the ranks of the Raelians. But they especially go out of their way to malign the thousands of honest, smart and hard-working lawyers and law students who are members of the Federalist Society as if these fine men and women wear the mark of the devil. Mr. President, I am a member of the Federalist Society and I am proud of it. Last year, the Federalist Society celebrated its 20th anniversary, and we are all proud of that. Of course, the childish games played against the Federalist Society are not new. Over the past 2 years, members of the Federalist Society have been much maligned by some even in this body. The Federalist Society has even been presented as an ``evil cabal'' of conservative lawyers. Its members have been subjected to questions which remind one of the McCarthy hearings of the early 1950s. Detractors have painted a picture which is surreal, twisted and untrue. The truth is that liberal orthodoxies reign rampant and often unchecked in a majority of this country's law schools and in the legal profession, and that the left is shocked that an association of honest, non-partisan, constitutionalist lawyers would exist, much less include the notable legal minds it does. During the mid-1990s, Professor James Lindgren of Northwestern University Law School conducted a survey of law school professors and came to the following conclusion. At the faculties of the top 100 law schools 80 percent of law professors were Democrats or leaned left and only 13 percent were Republicans or leaned right. These liberal professors promulgate their ideology in and outside the classroom. Mr. President, anyone associated with America's campuses or law schools knows that non-liberal views are regularly stifled and those espousing those views are often publicly shunned and ridiculed. It was this environment of hostility to freedom of expression and the exchange of ideas in universities that set the stage for the formation of the Federalist Society. And given my Democrat colleagues' reaction to the Society, it appears to be fighting against narrow-mindedness still. In 1982, the Federalist Society was organized, not to foster any political agenda, but to encourage debate and public discourse on social and legal issues. Over the past 20 years, the Federalist Society has accomplished just that. It has served to open the channels of discourse and debate in may of America's law schools. The Federalist Society espouses no official dogma. Its members share acceptance of three universal ideas: One, that government's essential purpose is the preservation of freedom; Two, that our Constitution embraces and requires separation of governmental powers; and, three that judges should interpret the law, not write it. Tell me if you disagree with any of these ideas. Most Americans do not, but it seems like some in this town do. For the vast majority of Americans, these are not controversial issues. Rather, they are basic constitutional assertions that are essential to the survival of our republic. They are truths that have united Americans for more than two centuries. Recently we have seen the emergence of some groups that seek to undermine the third of these ideas--that judges should not write laws. These groups have attempted to use the judiciary to circumvent the democratic process and impose their minority views on the American people. This judicial activism is a nefarious practice that seeks to undermine the principle of democratic rule. It results in an unelected oligarchy--government by small elite. Judicial activism imposes the will of a small group of politicized lawyers upon the American people and undermines the work of the people's representatives. Indeed, if the radical left, the abortion on demand lobby, and some predatory businessmen who happen to hold law degrees and call themselves trial lawyers are successful; if we appoint judges that are committed to writing the law and Constitution and not interpreting it only, then all of us can just go home. We can resign ourselves to live under the oligarchic rule of lawyers--or should I say judges. I happen to know a few lawyers, and please trust me when I say, this is not a good idea. Not surprisingly in an association of lawyers, the truth is that beyond acceptance of the Federalist Society's three key ideas: freedom, separation of powers, and that judges should not write laws, it is challenging, if not impossible, to find consensus among Federalist Society members. Its members hold a wide array of differing views. They are so diverse that it is impossible to describe a Federalist Society philosophy. The assertion that members are ideological carbon copies of each other is at the very least ludicrous. The Society revels in open, thoughtful, and rigorous debate on all issues. It rests on the premise that public policy and social issues should not be accepted as part of a party line but, rather, warrant much thought and dialog. Any organization that sponsors debate on issues of public importance, as opposed to self-serving indoctrination, is healthy for us all and it is good for this body as well. Now, how does the Federalist Society accomplish its goal? Not by lobbying Congress, writing amicus briefs, or issuing press releases. And, no, it does not threaten members with withdrawal of support in campaigns or running negative smear ads, which some of the special interest groups that smear this President's good judges engage in. The Federalist Society seeks only to sponsor fair, serious, and open debate about the need to enhance individual freedom and the role of the courts in saying what the law is rather than what it should be. The Society believes that debate is the best way to ensure that legal principles that have not been the subject of sufficient attention for the past several decades receive a fair hearing. The Federalist Society's commitment to fair and open debate can be seen by a small sampling of some participants in its meetings and symposiums. I venture to say the Federalist Society's meetings and symposiums are among the most well attended and among the most widely attended and among the most diversely attended and among the best symposiums held by anybody in the judicial field. But those participants who have participated--maybe we should look at some of them. They have included scores of liberals such as Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, Michael Dukakis, Barney Frank, Abner Mikva, Alan Dershowitz, Laurence Tribe, Steve Shapiro, Christopher Hitchins, and Ralph Nader, to name a few. I would like to include for the Record a list of 60 participants in Federalist Society events that demonstrates the remarkable diversity of thought of Federalist Society events. One of them is Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU, who many of us know, respect, and have worked with, and who has participated in Federalist Society functions regularly and constantly since its founding, and who attended the recent 20th anniversary dinner. The ACLU's president has praised the Society's fundamental principle of individual liberty, its high-profile on law school campuses, and its intellectual diversity, noting that there is frequently strenuous disagreement among members about the role of the courts. Ms. Strossen has said that she cannot draw any firm conclusion about a potential judicial nominee's views based on the fact that he is a Federalist Society member. It seems to me that an organization that includes such a wide array of opinion serves this Nation well and does not deserve the vilification it gets from the usual suspects here in Washington. There are many notable conservatives that also affiliate with the Federalist Society. But as the members of the Senate demonstrate, even amongst those that are often labeled ``conservatives'' there is much disagreement on most social and political issues. Some, unfortunately, often portray the Federalist Society as a tightly knit, well-organized coalition of conservative lawyers who are united by their right-wing ideology. This is far from true. Allow me to illustrate further. Three years ago the Washington Monthly published an article entitled ``The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming American Law,'' which cited a 1999 decision by a panel of the D.C. Circuit's Court of Appeals as the ``network's most far-reaching victory in recent years.''. The decision overturned some of the EPA's clean-air standards on the grounds that it was unconstitutional for Congress to delegate legislative authority to the executive branch. C. Boyden Gray, a former White House Counsel for the first President Bush and a member of the Federalist Society's Board of Visitors, filed an amicus brief making the winning argument. However, this is not the smoking gun case that opponents of the Federalist Society would have us believe it to be to prove that it is part of the vast right wing conservative conspiracy. First, the case was overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, a frequent participant in Federalist Society activities who was the faculty advisor to the organization when he taught at the University of Chicago. Second, the Washington Monthly piece also attacked Boyden Gray as a water carrier for the Federalist Society for advancing Microsoft's effort against antitrust enforcement. Of course, Mr. Gray serves on the Society's Board of Visitors with Robert Bork, who has been Microsoft's chief intellectual adversary. They are on opposite sides. There is not quite the vast right wing conspiracy hobgoblin some of the special interest groups in this town would have the American people and members of this body believe in. Indeed, I urge my colleagues to be extra careful when and look at the record before they attack this fine organization or its members. A close examination of the Federalist Society reveals not a tight- knit organization that demands ideological unity, but an association of lawyers, much like the early bar associations that first appeared in this country in the late 19th century, made up of individuals from across the political spectrum who are committed to the principles of freedom and the rule of law according to the Constitution. As a co-chairman myself, I am not surprised that the President has sought out its members to appoint for position on the bench and in the government. I applaud his foresight and wisdom. I am proud that its members are solid constitutionalists, whether they are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. Mr. President, contrast that with People for the American Way, which has waged every obnoxious rotten fight against President Bush's nominations that has been waged in the last year. This is a very well- heeled organization. It is totally ideological. If you disagree with their far left liberal viewpoints, then they vilify you and try to impugn your motives. That is not what I call fairness in the debates that we should have around this body. Yet it is amazing to me how some in this body seem to be absolutely in tune, or should I say marching to the drumbeat of People for the American Way. I started off by mentioning criticisms by the People for the American Way of the Federalist Society, and I have to say, if you add it all up, this is a well-heeled, very liberal organization that is as partisan, combative, obnoxious in many ways, and false in its arguments and accusations as any organization I have seen in this country. In almost every case where there has been any type of conservative of stature nominated to the courts, they have come in and completely done their best to deliver body blows to that nominee. It all seems to come down to basically one issue, and that is, if they suspect that a nominee is pro-life, then that is just an absolute no-no to them. It isn't just that. They have taken other nominees nominated by this President and others in the past, have taken their records and, in my opinion, have distorted in many ways their record. I don't think People for the American Way should be in a position to criticize the Federalist Society which primarily conducts the best symposia in law in America today. That is a fact. I will never forget; I was invited to the University of Chicago by the Federalist Society members--150 members at that time--to speak at the law school at the behest of the Federalist Society. I figured there would be 100 or 150 people there. They had this one hall rented. They had to take me in the back way because of the protesters out front. Although I was willing to go through the protesters, they were afraid some of them were violent. We went inside the hall, and they were absolutely jampacked, people hanging from the rafters. Almost all of those who disagreed with the Federalist Society principles--in other words, principles that were not the left-wing principles--had a heavy piece of parchment paper. As I went to speak, they would stand up and rattle that paper. And that sound was deafening. You could not be heard. I have to say that what was going to be about a 20-minute speech turned out to be 145 minutes, or 2 hours by the time I could complete it. I have to say I enjoyed the experience. But it was disconcerting that people at a major university--these were not people from the law school, in my opinion. And I am not sure they were even students at the university, many of them--would try to stop discourse from a U.S. Senator or anybody else, for that matter, who came there in good faith to deliver points of view that certainly I felt were worthy of consideration in this field of law. I have to say there was one young lady three or four rows down who kept yelling epitaphs at me throughout my remarks. I tried to humor her, and I tried to go along and be reasonably thoughtful and kind to her. But, finally, I could tell she was getting on the nerves of almost everybody because she was really out of line and loud. I kind of enjoyed the confrontation to a degree. But it was getting old. Finally, after about an hour and 15 minutes, I looked at her, and, I said, I finally figured it out. You could not possibly be a member of this great law school, because, No. 1, you are so rude. I said, No. 2, you are so stupid. Of course, even at that point, even those who were there to oppose me and to rattle their parchment so I couldn't be heard started to cheer and applaud. I was able to end my remarks, which I felt were remarkably good for anybody in the field of law, whether they were from the left or the right or the center. I think in the end they were good for everybody there. That is what is going on in the debate on judges today. We have some of these well-heeled left-wing groups that don't care what the facts are and distort anybody's life by coming in and utilizing their economic swat because they have all kinds of left-wing money behind them to malign and to slander and sometimes libel very good nominees. I know a number of people in People from the American Way, and I have respect for some of them, but I have to tell you I hope they will elevate their discourse so that we will have true debates and not distortions and slander and libel and complete ignorance of what people stand for and what their records are. I think we are getting down to where we are getting very close in this country to where single litmus tests are going to determine whether we can have judges. And we are getting to the point where the great jurists of the future might not arise because we might have to go to the lowest common denominator. Having said all of that, I look forward to working with every group in this coming year. Hopefully, we can get a greater sense of discourse and a greater sense of responsibility, and that when we raise objections we hope they will be legitimate and honorable objections rather than objections geared to trying to smear somebody because of their disagreement. I think it is time we elevate the discourse around judges in this country, and I hope this year we can prove we can do that. But, in any event, my hopes have not been fulfilled today. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 60 diverse participants who have participated in Federalist Society events at this point.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I can proceed as in morning business.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on this first day of the 108th Congress, 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 three percent may seem small and inconsequential, it makes a significant difference in light of the fact that Federal judges earn far less than many, it not most, of their counterparts in the private sector. In this 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 Justice 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, Senator Leahy and I are introducing 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 urge my colleagues to join Senator Leahy and me in supporting this bipartisan measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about S. 1497, the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve Act and its companion measure in the House, H.R. 2385. This bill would convey certain property to the city of St. George, Utah, in order to provide for the protection and preservation of certain rare paleontological resources on that property. This legislation would provide vital protections to one of our nation's most recent, and most intact pre-Jurassic paleontological discoveries. In February 2000, Sheldon Johnson of St. George, UT, began development preparations on his land when he uncovered one of the world's most significant collections of dinosaur tracks, tail draggings, and skin imprints in the surrounding rock. Without any advertising, the site has attracted many tens of thousands of visitors and the interest of some of the world's top paleontologists. This was a fantastic discovery that has added important new insights into the Jurassic period. However, now that these prints have been uncovered, the fragile sandstone in which the impressions have been made is in jeopardy due to the heat and wind typical of the southern Utah climate. We must act quickly if these footprints from our past are to be preserved. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to purchase the land where the footprints and tail draggings are found and convey the property to the city of St. George. The city will work together with the property owners and Washington County to preserve and protect the area and the resources found there. We owe a debt of gratitude to Sheldon and LaVerna Johnson who made this discovery on their land and have dedicated thousands of hours of their personal time and much of their own money to trying to preserve this site. They have done all they can to protect it, while at the same time opening up their land for visitors and scientists to view the new findings free of costs. They have given so much to this cause, but they cannot keep it up indefinitely. They desperately hope that the Government will step up and help carry the burden of managing this precious resource, and with passage of this legislation tonight we will provide them with the relief they deserve. I thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for their assistance in seeing this measure passed by Congress and sent to the President. I also thank Representative James Hansen, my good friend and the sponsor of the companion measure in the House for all he has done to make this legislation possible.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, it has long been obvious that homeland security was the most critical issue facing our nation today. I am pleased and proud to speak today on the compromise that this body has struck to approve of this measure through landmark legislation. We are finally in a position to give the President the tools he needs to fight the war against terrorism with every resource that this great nation can muster. Our country will be safer because of the enormous hard work and patriotism shared by members on both sides of the aisle. The final bipartisan compromise is something that we can all be proud of. It incorporates a crucial compromise on labor rights. I always have believed that the President must be given the ability to hire and retain the very best people to do the work of keeping our country safe. While the final version of the bill gives the President sufficient flexibility to effectively manage the employees in the new Department of Homeland Security, it also provides sufficient procedures to protect the rights of workers. This strikes, in my view, an appropriate balance. I also am pleased to note that the bill maximizes the new Department's ability to take advantage of the tremendous resources and expertise of America's private sector. It is perfectly clear that America's businesses will play a vital role in enhancing our nation's security. Private businesses, after all, own and operate most of our infrastructure, and provide most of the cutting edge technologies that will support our nation's defense efforts. The bill helps the private sector help our nation by crafting some reasonable protections from frivolous tort litigation, and such a measure will ultimately save lives. This legislation incorporates my proposal to stiffen the criminal penalties for cyberterrorism and to provide law enforcement agencies with new tools to use in emergency situations involving immediate threats to our national security interests. The cyberterrorism section of the bill also provides statutory authorization for the Office of Science and Technology located within the National Institute of Justice of the Department of Justice. The bill strikes language, contained in earlier versions, that would have provided OST to be ``independent of the National Institute of Justice.'' Accordingly, I understand subtitle D to place operational authority over OST--as authorized by the bill-- in the NIJ Director in the same manner and to the same extent that the NIJ Director currently exercises over OST--as it currently exists--and that the NIJ Director's authority over grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for science and technology research and development, and the publications that disseminate the results of that research and development remain unchanged by this bill. Furthermore, I wish to make clear that I do not understand the administrative language in the bill that provides that certain publications decisions ``shall rest solely'' with the Director of the Office to affect the bill's overarching--and controlling--provision that expressly places the new Office ``under the general authority of the Assistant Attorney General.'' The bill likewise incorporates a drastic reorganization of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, abolishing the INS as it currently exists and separating the enforcement and service responsibilities within the new Department. This new structure recognizes the importance of both functions, allows for coordination, and confers appropriate funding and management to both enforcement and services. This top-to-bottom reorganization of INS is something that numerous members of the Judiciary Committee have worked tirelessly with me to do and to do right. The Homeland Security Bill also includes a valuable provision that will significantly reduce the availability of explosives to certain prohibited persons, including terrorists and felons. Senator Kohl and I have worked hard on this provision, which will improve law enforcement's ability to track explosives purchases and help prevent the criminal use and accidental misuse of explosives materials. I want to conclude by taking a moment to discuss the ban on the TIPS program that was inserted in the final version of the Homeland Security Bill. Let me make clear that none of us wants an Orwellian version of Big Brother watching over us at all times. I made my own concerns on this issue very clear to Attorney General Ashcroft during an oversight hearing a few months ago, as did other members of the Judiciary Committee. I was concerned, for example, that the Department would keep a historical database of such information, but the Attorney General assured the Committee that this would not occur. Since then, I have been gratified to learn that the Attorney General has taken our concerns to heart, implementing fundamental changes to the program that are designed to protect our privacies in a balanced manner. In fact, the Department of Justice now has committed to not include within the TIPS program any workers, such as postal or utility workers, whose work puts them in contact with homes and private property. I think all of us can agree that some type of voluntary reporting program that permits but does not require concerned citizens to report information is appropriate. This is, of course, exactly what drives the highly successful results obtained by the popular TV program, ``America's Most Wanted.'' In fact, John Walsh, the host of that program, has publicly endorsed the concept of a TIPS program. Moreover, I fully support the Amber Alert Program, which was created in 1996 after a 9-year-old girl, Amber Hagerman, was kidnapped and murdered in Texas. This program is a voluntary partnership between law-enforcement and broadcasters to create a voluntary reporting program in child- abduction cases. The Amber Alert system recently led to the rescue of two teenage girls who were abducted in California; an anonymous tip from a motorist who responded to the program ultimately led to the girls' safe return. I am so convinced of this program's effectiveness that I recently co-sponsored legislation to create a national Amber Alert system. In sum, we need to structure the TIPS program in a way that is responsible and effective. We do not want big government to enlist millions of Americans to snoop into the daily affairs of ordinary citizens. But, just as importantly, we need to provide an avenue for citizens to voluntarily alert law enforcement when they see things that cause them concern. It very well may be the case that the next 9/11 is averted because an accountant out walking his dog sees something unusual in his neighborhood park. We need to let that person know who he can call to report that information. As the Chairman-designate of the Judiciary Committee, I think that we will need to consider what type of voluntary reporting system would be acceptable to meet the real concerns posed by terrorist activity when we return for the 108th Congress. We have debated this measure for many days now. I am delighted that we have finally--and successfully--come to the end of the road. By passing this legislation, we are taking a big step forward in helping to defend our nation from terrorism. I support the final compromise version of the Homeland Security Bill and hope that all of my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about S. 1497, the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve Act and its companion measure in the House, H.R. 2385. This bill would convey certain property to the city of St. George, Utah, in order to provide for the protection and preservation of certain rare paleontological resources on that property. This legislation would provide vital protections to one of our nation's most recent, and most intact pre-Jurassic paleontological discoveries. In February 2000, Sheldon Johnson of St. George, UT, began development preparations on his land when he uncovered one of the world's most significant collections of dinosaur tracks, tail draggings, and skin imprints in the surrounding rock. Without any advertising, the site has attracted many tens of thousands of visitors and the interest of some of the world's top paleontologists. This was a fantastic discovery that has added important new insights into the Jurassic period. However, now that these prints have been uncovered, the fragile sandstone in which the impressions have been made is in jeopardy due to the heat and wind typical of the southern Utah climate. We must act quickly if these footprints from our past are to be preserved. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to purchase the land where the footprints and tail draggings are found and convey the property to the city of St. George. The city will work together with the property owners and Washington County to preserve and protect the area and the resources found there. We owe a debt of gratitude to Sheldon and LaVerna Johnson who made this discovery on their land and have dedicated thousands of hours of their personal time and much of their own money to trying to preserve this site. They have done all they can to protect it, while at the same time opening up their land for visitors and scientists to view the new findings free of costs. They have given so much to this cause, but they cannot keep it up indefinitely. They desperately hope that the Government will step up and help carry the burden of managing this precious resource, and with passage of this legislation tonight we will provide them with the relief they deserve. I thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for their assistance in seeing this measure passed by Congress and sent to the President. I also thank Representative James Hansen, my good friend and the sponsor of the companion measure in the House for all he has done to make this legislation possible.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on final passage of H.R. 3210, the conference report to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. Most of us agree that something needs to be done in this area. This legislation is important to our economy and the many jobs and construction projects that have been in limbo due to the uncertainty following the tragic events of September 11th. My constituents have come to me on multiple occasions, imploring that the Senate act on this issue. They are genuinely concerned about the negative impact lack of coverage has had on their businesses and their employees. Without insurance, our economic growth is in jeopardy, businesses will fail and jobs will be lost. For that reason, I will support final passage. However, I am concerned that we have not addressed the issue in a prudent and responsible manner that provides the appropriate stability to our economy without exposing our taxpayers to an unreasonable financial burden. In this legislation, we have failed to provide elements that are necessary to the businesses that are themselves the victims of the terrorist attacks, those very same businesses that provide the thousands of jobs in this country that we are seeking to preserve. Moreover, I have concerns about implementing a program such as this without ensuring that the hardworking taxpayers in this county are not forced to pick up the tab for the overzealous and unrestrained trial bar. With the type of litigation that would likely result from massive losses, even just from one attack, it defies common sense that some would oppose implementing principles of litigation management to ensure that all victims get treated fairly and jury awards, based more on emotion rather than actual legal culpability, do not dry up the resources of defendant businesses, which in turn hurts victims, employees and taxpayers. In a letter dated June 10, 2000, from the Treasury Department and signed by not only the Secretary of the Treasury, but the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Economic Council and the Director of Economic Advisers really underscores the serious ramifications to our economy that have resulted from a lack of coverage for terrorist acts and supports Congressional action in this area. But it also emphasizes that we must do so in a responsible manner. One important issue for the availability of terrorism insurance is the risk of unfair or excessive litigation against American companies following an attack. Many for- profit and charitable companies have been unable to obtain affordable and adequate insurance, in part because of the risk that they will be unfairly sued for the acts of international terrorists . . . It makes little economic sense to pass a terrorism insurance bill that leaves our economy exposed to such inappropriate and needless legal uncertainty. [emphasis added] In seeking to provide stability to our economy we must not act irresponsibly. The conference report on H.R. 3210, while providing a necessary backstop to our economy, includes some weaknesses that concern me. While I believe this measure is necessary and should be enacted as soon as possible, I sincerely hope this body will address my concerns in the next Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, it has long been obvious that homeland security was the most critical issue facing our nation today. I am pleased and proud to speak today on the compromise that this body has struck to approve of this measure through landmark legislation. We are finally in a position to give the President the tools he needs to fight the war against terrorism with every resource that this great nation can muster. Our country will be safer because of the enormous hard work and patriotism shared by members on both sides of the aisle. The final bipartisan compromise is something that we can all be proud of. It incorporates a crucial compromise on labor rights. I always have believed that the President must be given the ability to hire and retain the very best people to do the work of keeping our country safe. While the final version of the bill gives the President sufficient flexibility to effectively manage the employees in the new Department of Homeland Security, it also provides sufficient procedures to protect the rights of workers. This strikes, in my view, an appropriate balance. I also am pleased to note that the bill maximizes the new Department's ability to take advantage of the tremendous resources and expertise of America's private sector. It is perfectly clear that America's businesses will play a vital role in enhancing our nation's security. Private businesses, after all, own and operate most of our infrastructure, and provide most of the cutting edge technologies that will support our nation's defense efforts. The bill helps the private sector help our nation by crafting some reasonable protections from frivolous tort litigation, and such a measure will ultimately save lives. This legislation incorporates my proposal to stiffen the criminal penalties for cyberterrorism and to provide law enforcement agencies with new tools to use in emergency situations involving immediate threats to our national security interests. The cyberterrorism section of the bill also provides statutory authorization for the Office of Science and Technology located within the National Institute of Justice of the Department of Justice. The bill strikes language, contained in earlier versions, that would have provided OST to be ``independent of the National Institute of Justice.'' Accordingly, I understand subtitle D to place operational authority over OST--as authorized by the bill-- in the NIJ Director in the same manner and to the same extent that the NIJ Director currently exercises over OST--as it currently exists--and that the NIJ Director's authority over grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for science and technology research and development, and the publications that disseminate the results of that research and development remain unchanged by this bill. Furthermore, I wish to make clear that I do not understand the administrative language in the bill that provides that certain publications decisions ``shall rest solely'' with the Director of the Office to affect the bill's overarching--and controlling--provision that expressly places the new Office ``under the general authority of the Assistant Attorney General.'' The bill likewise incorporates a drastic reorganization of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, abolishing the INS as it currently exists and separating the enforcement and service responsibilities within the new Department. This new structure recognizes the importance of both functions, allows for coordination, and confers appropriate funding and management to both enforcement and services. This top-to-bottom reorganization of INS is something that numerous members of the Judiciary Committee have worked tirelessly with me to do and to do right. The Homeland Security Bill also includes a valuable provision that will significantly reduce the availability of explosives to certain prohibited persons, including terrorists and felons. Senator Kohl and I have worked hard on this provision, which will improve law enforcement's ability to track explosives purchases and help prevent the criminal use and accidental misuse of explosives materials. I want to conclude by taking a moment to discuss the ban on the TIPS program that was inserted in the final version of the Homeland Security Bill. Let me make clear that none of us wants an Orwellian version of Big Brother watching over us at all times. I made my own concerns on this issue very clear to Attorney General Ashcroft during an oversight hearing a few months ago, as did other members of the Judiciary Committee. I was concerned, for example, that the Department would keep a historical database of such information, but the Attorney General assured the Committee that this would not occur. Since then, I have been gratified to learn that the Attorney General has taken our concerns to heart, implementing fundamental changes to the program that are designed to protect our privacies in a balanced manner. In fact, the Department of Justice now has committed to not include within the TIPS program any workers, such as postal or utility workers, whose work puts them in contact with homes and private property. I think all of us can agree that some type of voluntary reporting program that permits but does not require concerned citizens to report information is appropriate. This is, of course, exactly what drives the highly successful results obtained by the popular TV program, ``America's Most Wanted.'' In fact, John Walsh, the host of that program, has publicly endorsed the concept of a TIPS program. Moreover, I fully support the Amber Alert Program, which was created in 1996 after a 9-year-old girl, Amber Hagerman, was kidnapped and murdered in Texas. This program is a voluntary partnership between law-enforcement and broadcasters to create a voluntary reporting program in child- abduction cases. The Amber Alert system recently led to the rescue of two teenage girls who were abducted in California; an anonymous tip from a motorist who responded to the program ultimately led to the girls' safe return. I am so convinced of this program's effectiveness that I recently co-sponsored legislation to create a national Amber Alert system. In sum, we need to structure the TIPS program in a way that is responsible and effective. We do not want big government to enlist millions of Americans to snoop into the daily affairs of ordinary citizens. But, just as importantly, we need to provide an avenue for citizens to voluntarily alert law enforcement when they see things that cause them concern. It very well may be the case that the next 9/11 is averted because an accountant out walking his dog sees something unusual in his neighborhood park. We need to let that person know who he can call to report that information. As the Chairman-designate of the Judiciary Committee, I think that we will need to consider what type of voluntary reporting system would be acceptable to meet the real concerns posed by terrorist activity when we return for the 108th Congress. We have debated this measure for many days now. I am delighted that we have finally--and successfully--come to the end of the road. By passing this legislation, we are taking a big step forward in helping to defend our nation from terrorism. I support the final compromise version of the Homeland Security Bill and hope that all of my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about S. 1497, the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preserve Act and its companion measure in the House, H.R. 2385. This bill would convey certain property to the city of St. George, Utah, in order to provide for the protection and preservation of certain rare paleontological resources on that property. This legislation would provide vital protections to one of our nation's most recent, and most intact pre-Jurassic paleontological discoveries. In February 2000, Sheldon Johnson of St. George, UT, began development preparations on his land when he uncovered one of the world's most significant collections of dinosaur tracks, tail draggings, and skin imprints in the surrounding rock. Without any advertising, the site has attracted many tens of thousands of visitors and the interest of some of the world's top paleontologists. This was a fantastic discovery that has added important new insights into the Jurassic period. However, now that these prints have been uncovered, the fragile sandstone in which the impressions have been made is in jeopardy due to the heat and wind typical of the southern Utah climate. We must act quickly if these footprints from our past are to be preserved. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to purchase the land where the footprints and tail draggings are found and convey the property to the city of St. George. The city will work together with the property owners and Washington County to preserve and protect the area and the resources found there. We owe a debt of gratitude to Sheldon and LaVerna Johnson who made this discovery on their land and have dedicated thousands of hours of their personal time and much of their own money to trying to preserve this site. They have done all they can to protect it, while at the same time opening up their land for visitors and scientists to view the new findings free of costs. They have given so much to this cause, but they cannot keep it up indefinitely. They desperately hope that the Government will step up and help carry the burden of managing this precious resource, and with passage of this legislation tonight we will provide them with the relief they deserve. I thank Senators Bingaman and Murkowski, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for their assistance in seeing this measure passed by Congress and sent to the President. I also thank Representative James Hansen, my good friend and the sponsor of the companion measure in the House for all he has done to make this legislation possible.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are so proud of our senior Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Judge Dennis Shedd and to congratulate the President on getting his 100th judicial nominee confirmed. Yesterday, I made much more detailed remarks in Judge's Shedd's favor. I am also glad for Senator Strom Thurmond. He is much loved in the Senate, he is much loved in South Carolina and throughout this country, and I know that he wanted to see his former Chief Counsel confirmed before the end of his long career in the Senate. In the recent election, as far as I see it, the President took three issues to the American people: his Iraq policy, Homeland Security and his judicial nominees. The election showed that Americans trust this President including in his selection of judicial nominees. The election indicated that voters rejected obstruction in the Senate, including on judicial nominees, and voters especially rejected the distortions of reputations that they read and heard about in hundreds of news stories, scores of editorials, and dozens of op-eds . . . and that they saw on TV. Voters sent us a clear message, it seems to me, that we should end the obstruction and maltreatment of judicial nominees. We need to evaluate judges or potential judges as unbiased umpires who call the balls and the strikes as they are, not as they alone see them and not as they want them to be. We must end the practice of projecting ideology to see if an umpire is pro-bat or pro-ball, pro-batter or pro- pitcher. Our job is to determine the character and temperament of a nominee to the judiciary. Period. This is true of the trial bench, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court. Again, I express my great satisfaction that the Judiciary Committee has favorably recommended the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd of South Carolina for a vote of the full Senate. When Judge Shedd was nominated to the federal trial bench, Chairman Biden had this to say to him: ``I have worked with you for so long that I believe I am fully qualified to make an independent judgment about your working habits, your integrity, your honesty, and your temperament. On all these scores, I have found you to be beyond reproach.'' This is high praise, indeed, and from a colleague from the other side of the aisle for whom we all have the greatest respect. Judge Sheed has strong bipartisan support in his home state as well, and not only from Senators Thurmond and Hollings. He is also strongly supported by Dick Harpootlian, South Carolina State Chairman of the Democratic Party, and himself a trial lawyer. Dennis Shedd has served as a federal jurist for more than a decade following nearly twenty years of public service and legal practice. While serving the Judiciary Committee, Judge Shedd worked, among many other matters, on the extension of the Voting Rights Act, RICO reform, the Ethics in Post-Employment Act, and the 1984 and 1986 crime bills. As Senator Biden put it: ``His hard work and intelligence helped the Congress find areas of agreement and reach compromises.'' Judge Shedd will add diversity to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The last five Fourth Circuit confirmations have all been Democrats. When Judge Shedd joins the other members of the Fourth Circuit, he will not only have unmatched legislative experience, he will also have the longest trial bench experience on the Fourth Circuit. The American people should be grateful that President Bush has nominated Dennis Shedd to serve this country further. He has already served for nearly 25 years. Judge Dennis Shedd has heard more than 5,000 civil cases, reviewed more than 1,400 reports and recommendations of magistrates, and has had before him nearly 1000 criminal defendants. He has been reversed fewer than 40 times, less than one percent. In employment cases, he has only twice been reversed in his decisions. Remarkbly, in criminal cases, Judge Shedd has never been reversed on any ruling considered before or during trial, or on the taking of guilty pleas. Now, detractors have made much of the fact that he has a relative few decisions that he has chosen to publish. But, in fact, he falls in the middle of the average for published opinions in the Fourth Circuit. One Carter appointee has published all of 7 cases, one Clinton appointee has published only 3, and another Carter appointee has published 51, only one more than Judge Shedd, despite being on the court for 10 years longer. Notably, on cases involving the Voting Rights Acts, Judge Shedd has ruled for plaintiffs in each instance, an Act, I might add that he worked to extend in the Senate. From his service in the Senate to his role on the South Carolina Advisory Committee of the United States Civil Rights Commission, Judge Shedd has been a leader on civil rights. He led efforts to appoint the first African American woman ever to serve as a magistrate judge in South Carolina and has sought the Selection Committee to conduct outreach to women and people of color in filling such positions. He pushed for an African American woman to be Chief of Pretrial Services. He has actively recruited persons of color to be his law clerks. And because of Judge Shedd's work in an award-winning drug program that aims to reverse stereotypes among 4,000 to 5,000 school children, he was chosen as the United Way's School Volunteer of the Year. This record stands in contrast to the distortions we have heard about Judge Shedd's sensitivity on civil rights. The Judiciary Committee received a very touching letter from one of Judge Shedd's former law clerks, Thomas Jones and I placed in the record yesterday. Now this young man,--this young lawyer happens to be a person of color--an African American. He says: It is apparent to me that the allegations regarding Judge Shedd's alleged biases have been propagated by individuals without the benefit of any real, meaningful interaction with Judge Shedd . . . I trust the allegations are given the short shrift they are due. I would like to read from a letter I received from Niger Innis who has inherited his father's mantle and is the national spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality. We all know his father, of course, Roy Innis, who was a great leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960's together with Dr. King. I received this letter even while I was on the floor of the Senate yesterday. Mr. Innis writes: This is an open letter in the interest of justice. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) enthusiastically endorses Judge Dennis Shedd for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite a Democratic filibuster against Judge Shedd, it is the strong opinion of CORE that Judge Shedd is a more than worthy candidate for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He goes on: Judge Shedd's character has been under attack without merit and without fair scrutiny of his service to the American legal system. Prior to serving the bench, Judge Shedd served faithfully from 1988-1990 as Chairman of the South Carolina Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A fair and honest review of Judge Shedd's unpublished opinions would show that he has sided numerous times with plaintiffs in cases of race, gender and disability rights without falter or hesitation. In each case, his decisions have allowed employment discrimination lawsuits to go forward in the interest of fairness and truth. Judge Shedd has shown his commitment to employment rights for minorities and women, particularly within the court. . . We hope that you would join CORE in our support of Judge Dennis Shedd and urge Senate Democrats to end the unfair smear against his name. Let Judge Shedd have his day on the Senate floor. Another letter I received while I was on the floor yesterday came from Phyllis Berry Myers, President of the Centre for New Black Leadership; another great name in the African American community. Ms. Myers writes: The Senate can restore itself, at least a modicum, a sense of fair play, honor, and trust in its own policies and procedures, a commitment to guarding the civil rights of all, as well as advancing the rule of law by swiftly confirming Judge Shedd. And at 2:32 pm yesterday, while I was on the floor, we also received a letter from the former Chairman of the NAACP of South Carolina. The Rev Dr. Luonne Abram Rouse writes: Dennis Shedd is an outstanding American citizen, and a friend of high integrity and godliness. The United States of America will benefit greatly from his service in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Honorable Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina introduced me to Dennis in 1983. Putting history behind, we came together in the 80s, while I served as president of a local NAACP chapter in South Carolina. We established a friendship and respectful sharing that has been mutually beneficial for our work in America and beyond. Since that time, I have found Dennis Shedd to be the type of person that I trust I trust to weigh the issues with dignity and legal focus. . . Reverend Rouse wrote a remarkable letter and ends this way: In conclusion, my wife and I have two daughters; our hopes and dreams for the future are in time. I believe Dennis will represent equality and justice for women and all ethnicities in America with devotion to oath he has taken. I do not believe that he will forsake the law with favoritism for economic giants or big business. I sincerely view Dennis as one who will grant persons of every socioeconomic level the same psycho-social respect within the law. Therefore, I strongly favor the nomination of Dennis Shedd to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, because Dennis stands firm on his convictions, but is open to intelligent and informed opinions of law. He is open to change, but I do not expect him to change just for political correctness. He will, however, hear the ethical and moral points. I support him because of his listening ear and desire for justice. But these are not unique letters. We have received letters from the people who know Judge Shedd. They are the ones that matter. I want to take a moment to read a few excerpts from some of the letters we've received in support of Judge Shedd. Keep in mind that the letters are from lawyers who know Judge Shedd, who have practiced before him, and who are in the best position to assess his qualifications for the appellate bench. The first letter is from J. Preston Strom, Jr. Mr. Strom writes: I write to support Judge Shedd's confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As a former United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina appointed by President Clinton, my office had daily dealings with Judge Shedd. Judge Shedd is a fair and efficient jurist who even-handedly applied substantive and procedural rules. On occasions when my office disagreed with Judge Shedd's rulings, I found that he always provided well-reasoned analyses for his decisions. Further, when the rules provided for discretion in sentencing for cooperation with federal agents in the prosecution of crime, Judge Shedd deliberated and provided substantial sentence reductions when warranted. Following my tenure as United States Attorney, I have practiced before Judge Shedd representing criminal defendants and civil plaintiffs. In my criminal defense practice, I have represented many African-Americans before Judge Shedd, and found Judge Shedd to be fair and consistent to each of my clients, regardless of race. As a member of the Board of Governors of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association and a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, I appreciate a judge who pushes civil cases towards resolution and does not permit parties to engage in unwarranted delay tactics. Judge Shedd is such a judge. Here is another letter. This one is from attorney Garry Wooten. He writes: I have practiced law for over twenty years in Columbia. I handle primarily personal injury and criminal cases . . . I have appeared before Judge Shedd in a certain number of cases. Some cases have been won and some were lost. In one case, my client was African-American. That case involved a lawsuit in which the Federal Government fought to deny my client life insurance benefits after the death of his wife. Judge Shedd ruled favorably and properly for my client on the law. My client received a verdict for the full amount of the benefits. During the trial, Judge Shedd was fair, extremely knowledgeable on the law, and showed absolute integrity. I am confident that Judge Shedd will be fair to all and show complete integrity if confirmed for a position on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Another letter, this one from Jonathan Harvey, states: I am the current treasurer of the South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a member of its board as well as past representative to its Board of Directors from the Fifth Judicial Circuit. . . . I have had many opportunities to appear in front of Judge Shedd. I have left each proceeding convinced that my clients irrespective of social status, creed, gender, or race were treated fairly and with a proper application of the law. I trust this letter will enable you to inform your colleagues that there exists a significant history of Judge Shedd exercising his discretion objectively and fairly toward those parties who have appeared before him. In another letter, lawyer John Simmons writes: In all of my litigation before Judge Shedd, I have found him to be fair and impartial. He possesses the highest integrity and intellect and always treats the attorneys and litigants with the utmost respect. In one particular civil matter, I represented an individual non-party who was alleged to have donated blood contaminated with the HIV virus. Judge Shedd handled this sensitive and difficult matter with patience and care, protecting my client's identity while affording all litigants their adequate discovery rights. I was extremely impressed with the thoughtful diligence Judge Shedd pursued in ensuring my client's confidentiality while balancing the rights of the parties. Finally, here is a letter from Howard Hammer. Mr. Hammer writes: I have been a practicing South Carolina attorney for over thirty (30) years. My practice primarily involves representation of plaintiffs in civil litigation, including representation of numerous individuals in employment disputes. . . . I have found Judge Shedd to be firm, just and deliberate in all my dealings with him. He is a man of highest integrity and I would respectfully urge your support of his confirmation. I could go on and on reading testimonials from lawyers in South Carolina who have regularly appeared before Judge Shedd and who strongly support his confirmation on the Fourth Circuit. Yesterday I entered other letters into the record. Mr. President, Dennis Shedd is well qualified to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I think so and the American Bar Association, hardly a bastion of conservative politics, has said so as well. In supporting his confirmation I for one express my gratitude on behalf of the American people for an entire life in public service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for the confirmation of Judge Shedd be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to speak on final passage of H.R. 3210, the conference report to the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. Most of us agree that something needs to be done in this area. This legislation is important to our economy and the many jobs and construction projects that have been in limbo due to the uncertainty following the tragic events of September 11th. My constituents have come to me on multiple occasions, imploring that the Senate act on this issue. They are genuinely concerned about the negative impact lack of coverage has had on their businesses and their employees. Without insurance, our economic growth is in jeopardy, businesses will fail and jobs will be lost. For that reason, I will support final passage. However, I am concerned that we have not addressed the issue in a prudent and responsible manner that provides the appropriate stability to our economy without exposing our taxpayers to an unreasonable financial burden. In this legislation, we have failed to provide elements that are necessary to the businesses that are themselves the victims of the terrorist attacks, those very same businesses that provide the thousands of jobs in this country that we are seeking to preserve. Moreover, I have concerns about implementing a program such as this without ensuring that the hardworking taxpayers in this county are not forced to pick up the tab for the overzealous and unrestrained trial bar. With the type of litigation that would likely result from massive losses, even just from one attack, it defies common sense that some would oppose implementing principles of litigation management to ensure that all victims get treated fairly and jury awards, based more on emotion rather than actual legal culpability, do not dry up the resources of defendant businesses, which in turn hurts victims, employees and taxpayers. In a letter dated June 10, 2000, from the Treasury Department and signed by not only the Secretary of the Treasury, but the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the National Economic Council and the Director of Economic Advisers really underscores the serious ramifications to our economy that have resulted from a lack of coverage for terrorist acts and supports Congressional action in this area. But it also emphasizes that we must do so in a responsible manner. One important issue for the availability of terrorism insurance is the risk of unfair or excessive litigation against American companies following an attack. Many for- profit and charitable companies have been unable to obtain affordable and adequate insurance, in part because of the risk that they will be unfairly sued for the acts of international terrorists . . . It makes little economic sense to pass a terrorism insurance bill that leaves our economy exposed to such inappropriate and needless legal uncertainty. [emphasis added] In seeking to provide stability to our economy we must not act irresponsibly. The conference report on H.R. 3210, while providing a necessary backstop to our economy, includes some weaknesses that concern me. While I believe this measure is necessary and should be enacted as soon as possible, I sincerely hope this body will address my concerns in the next Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are so proud of our senior Senator from South Carolina. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the confirmation of Judge Dennis Shedd and to congratulate the President on getting his 100th judicial nominee confirmed. Yesterday, I made much more detailed remarks in Judge's Shedd's favor. I am also glad for Senator Strom Thurmond. He is much loved in the Senate, he is much loved in South Carolina and throughout this country, and I know that he wanted to see his former Chief Counsel confirmed before the end of his long career in the Senate. In the recent election, as far as I see it, the President took three issues to the American people: his Iraq policy, Homeland Security and his judicial nominees. The election showed that Americans trust this President including in his selection of judicial nominees. The election indicated that voters rejected obstruction in the Senate, including on judicial nominees, and voters especially rejected the distortions of reputations that they read and heard about in hundreds of news stories, scores of editorials, and dozens of op-eds . . . and that they saw on TV. Voters sent us a clear message, it seems to me, that we should end the obstruction and maltreatment of judicial nominees. We need to evaluate judges or potential judges as unbiased umpires who call the balls and the strikes as they are, not as they alone see them and not as they want them to be. We must end the practice of projecting ideology to see if an umpire is pro-bat or pro-ball, pro-batter or pro- pitcher. Our job is to determine the character and temperament of a nominee to the judiciary. Period. This is true of the trial bench, the appellate court, and the Supreme Court. Again, I express my great satisfaction that the Judiciary Committee has favorably recommended the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd of South Carolina for a vote of the full Senate. When Judge Shedd was nominated to the federal trial bench, Chairman Biden had this to say to him: ``I have worked with you for so long that I believe I am fully qualified to make an independent judgment about your working habits, your integrity, your honesty, and your temperament. On all these scores, I have found you to be beyond reproach.'' This is high praise, indeed, and from a colleague from the other side of the aisle for whom we all have the greatest respect. Judge Sheed has strong bipartisan support in his home state as well, and not only from Senators Thurmond and Hollings. He is also strongly supported by Dick Harpootlian, South Carolina State Chairman of the Democratic Party, and himself a trial lawyer. Dennis Shedd has served as a federal jurist for more than a decade following nearly twenty years of public service and legal practice. While serving the Judiciary Committee, Judge Shedd worked, among many other matters, on the extension of the Voting Rights Act, RICO reform, the Ethics in Post-Employment Act, and the 1984 and 1986 crime bills. As Senator Biden put it: ``His hard work and intelligence helped the Congress find areas of agreement and reach compromises.'' Judge Shedd will add diversity to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The last five Fourth Circuit confirmations have all been Democrats. When Judge Shedd joins the other members of the Fourth Circuit, he will not only have unmatched legislative experience, he will also have the longest trial bench experience on the Fourth Circuit. The American people should be grateful that President Bush has nominated Dennis Shedd to serve this country further. He has already served for nearly 25 years. Judge Dennis Shedd has heard more than 5,000 civil cases, reviewed more than 1,400 reports and recommendations of magistrates, and has had before him nearly 1000 criminal defendants. He has been reversed fewer than 40 times, less than one percent. In employment cases, he has only twice been reversed in his decisions. Remarkbly, in criminal cases, Judge Shedd has never been reversed on any ruling considered before or during trial, or on the taking of guilty pleas. Now, detractors have made much of the fact that he has a relative few decisions that he has chosen to publish. But, in fact, he falls in the middle of the average for published opinions in the Fourth Circuit. One Carter appointee has published all of 7 cases, one Clinton appointee has published only 3, and another Carter appointee has published 51, only one more than Judge Shedd, despite being on the court for 10 years longer. Notably, on cases involving the Voting Rights Acts, Judge Shedd has ruled for plaintiffs in each instance, an Act, I might add that he worked to extend in the Senate. From his service in the Senate to his role on the South Carolina Advisory Committee of the United States Civil Rights Commission, Judge Shedd has been a leader on civil rights. He led efforts to appoint the first African American woman ever to serve as a magistrate judge in South Carolina and has sought the Selection Committee to conduct outreach to women and people of color in filling such positions. He pushed for an African American woman to be Chief of Pretrial Services. He has actively recruited persons of color to be his law clerks. And because of Judge Shedd's work in an award-winning drug program that aims to reverse stereotypes among 4,000 to 5,000 school children, he was chosen as the United Way's School Volunteer of the Year. This record stands in contrast to the distortions we have heard about Judge Shedd's sensitivity on civil rights. The Judiciary Committee received a very touching letter from one of Judge Shedd's former law clerks, Thomas Jones and I placed in the record yesterday. Now this young man,--this young lawyer happens to be a person of color--an African American. He says: It is apparent to me that the allegations regarding Judge Shedd's alleged biases have been propagated by individuals without the benefit of any real, meaningful interaction with Judge Shedd . . . I trust the allegations are given the short shrift they are due. I would like to read from a letter I received from Niger Innis who has inherited his father's mantle and is the national spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality. We all know his father, of course, Roy Innis, who was a great leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960's together with Dr. King. I received this letter even while I was on the floor of the Senate yesterday. Mr. Innis writes: This is an open letter in the interest of justice. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) enthusiastically endorses Judge Dennis Shedd for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Despite a Democratic filibuster against Judge Shedd, it is the strong opinion of CORE that Judge Shedd is a more than worthy candidate for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He goes on: Judge Shedd's character has been under attack without merit and without fair scrutiny of his service to the American legal system. Prior to serving the bench, Judge Shedd served faithfully from 1988-1990 as Chairman of the South Carolina Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. A fair and honest review of Judge Shedd's unpublished opinions would show that he has sided numerous times with plaintiffs in cases of race, gender and disability rights without falter or hesitation. In each case, his decisions have allowed employment discrimination lawsuits to go forward in the interest of fairness and truth. Judge Shedd has shown his commitment to employment rights for minorities and women, particularly within the court. . . We hope that you would join CORE in our support of Judge Dennis Shedd and urge Senate Democrats to end the unfair smear against his name. Let Judge Shedd have his day on the Senate floor. Another letter I received while I was on the floor yesterday came from Phyllis Berry Myers, President of the Centre for New Black Leadership; another great name in the African American community. Ms. Myers writes: The Senate can restore itself, at least a modicum, a sense of fair play, honor, and trust in its own policies and procedures, a commitment to guarding the civil rights of all, as well as advancing the rule of law by swiftly confirming Judge Shedd. And at 2:32 pm yesterday, while I was on the floor, we also received a letter from the former Chairman of the NAACP of South Carolina. The Rev Dr. Luonne Abram Rouse writes: Dennis Shedd is an outstanding American citizen, and a friend of high integrity and godliness. The United States of America will benefit greatly from his service in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Honorable Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina introduced me to Dennis in 1983. Putting history behind, we came together in the 80s, while I served as president of a local NAACP chapter in South Carolina. We established a friendship and respectful sharing that has been mutually beneficial for our work in America and beyond. Since that time, I have found Dennis Shedd to be the type of person that I trust I trust to weigh the issues with dignity and legal focus. . . Reverend Rouse wrote a remarkable letter and ends this way: In conclusion, my wife and I have two daughters; our hopes and dreams for the future are in time. I believe Dennis will represent equality and justice for women and all ethnicities in America with devotion to oath he has taken. I do not believe that he will forsake the law with favoritism for economic giants or big business. I sincerely view Dennis as one who will grant persons of every socioeconomic level the same psycho-social respect within the law. Therefore, I strongly favor the nomination of Dennis Shedd to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, because Dennis stands firm on his convictions, but is open to intelligent and informed opinions of law. He is open to change, but I do not expect him to change just for political correctness. He will, however, hear the ethical and moral points. I support him because of his listening ear and desire for justice. But these are not unique letters. We have received letters from the people who know Judge Shedd. They are the ones that matter. I want to take a moment to read a few excerpts from some of the letters we've received in support of Judge Shedd. Keep in mind that the letters are from lawyers who know Judge Shedd, who have practiced before him, and who are in the best position to assess his qualifications for the appellate bench. The first letter is from J. Preston Strom, Jr. Mr. Strom writes: I write to support Judge Shedd's confirmation to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As a former United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina appointed by President Clinton, my office had daily dealings with Judge Shedd. Judge Shedd is a fair and efficient jurist who even-handedly applied substantive and procedural rules. On occasions when my office disagreed with Judge Shedd's rulings, I found that he always provided well-reasoned analyses for his decisions. Further, when the rules provided for discretion in sentencing for cooperation with federal agents in the prosecution of crime, Judge Shedd deliberated and provided substantial sentence reductions when warranted. Following my tenure as United States Attorney, I have practiced before Judge Shedd representing criminal defendants and civil plaintiffs. In my criminal defense practice, I have represented many African-Americans before Judge Shedd, and found Judge Shedd to be fair and consistent to each of my clients, regardless of race. As a member of the Board of Governors of the South Carolina Trial Lawyers Association and a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, I appreciate a judge who pushes civil cases towards resolution and does not permit parties to engage in unwarranted delay tactics. Judge Shedd is such a judge. Here is another letter. This one is from attorney Garry Wooten. He writes: I have practiced law for over twenty years in Columbia. I handle primarily personal injury and criminal cases . . . I have appeared before Judge Shedd in a certain number of cases. Some cases have been won and some were lost. In one case, my client was African-American. That case involved a lawsuit in which the Federal Government fought to deny my client life insurance benefits after the death of his wife. Judge Shedd ruled favorably and properly for my client on the law. My client received a verdict for the full amount of the benefits. During the trial, Judge Shedd was fair, extremely knowledgeable on the law, and showed absolute integrity. I am confident that Judge Shedd will be fair to all and show complete integrity if confirmed for a position on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Another letter, this one from Jonathan Harvey, states: I am the current treasurer of the South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and a member of its board as well as past representative to its Board of Directors from the Fifth Judicial Circuit. . . . I have had many opportunities to appear in front of Judge Shedd. I have left each proceeding convinced that my clients irrespective of social status, creed, gender, or race were treated fairly and with a proper application of the law. I trust this letter will enable you to inform your colleagues that there exists a significant history of Judge Shedd exercising his discretion objectively and fairly toward those parties who have appeared before him. In another letter, lawyer John Simmons writes: In all of my litigation before Judge Shedd, I have found him to be fair and impartial. He possesses the highest integrity and intellect and always treats the attorneys and litigants with the utmost respect. In one particular civil matter, I represented an individual non-party who was alleged to have donated blood contaminated with the HIV virus. Judge Shedd handled this sensitive and difficult matter with patience and care, protecting my client's identity while affording all litigants their adequate discovery rights. I was extremely impressed with the thoughtful diligence Judge Shedd pursued in ensuring my client's confidentiality while balancing the rights of the parties. Finally, here is a letter from Howard Hammer. Mr. Hammer writes: I have been a practicing South Carolina attorney for over thirty (30) years. My practice primarily involves representation of plaintiffs in civil litigation, including representation of numerous individuals in employment disputes. . . . I have found Judge Shedd to be firm, just and deliberate in all my dealings with him. He is a man of highest integrity and I would respectfully urge your support of his confirmation. I could go on and on reading testimonials from lawyers in South Carolina who have regularly appeared before Judge Shedd and who strongly support his confirmation on the Fourth Circuit. Yesterday I entered other letters into the record. Mr. President, Dennis Shedd is well qualified to serve on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I think so and the American Bar Association, hardly a bastion of conservative politics, has said so as well. In supporting his confirmation I for one express my gratitude on behalf of the American people for an entire life in public service. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support for the confirmation of Judge Shedd be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the past several decades, serving one of the United States Senate's most legendary figures--Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina--has been Robert J. Short. I rise today to pay tribute to the man we in the Senate fondly know as ``Duke Short.'' Duke is to be commended for his fine work and years of dedication to our Country. When I first arrived in Washington, DC., in January of 1977, Senator Thurmond was my senior on the Senate Judiciary Committee. As I settled in to my new role on the Judiciary Committee, I came to know and respect Duke, a bright and eager individual who was working at the time as Chief Investigator on the Committee. Duke had first come to work in the Senate in 1974, and until 1976, he served as a Senior Investigator on the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security. From 1976-1989, he was the Chief Investigator on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He has served as Chief of Staff and Administrative Assistant to President Pro Tempore Emeritus Senator Strom Thurmond since 1989. Throughout the course of Duke's work in the Senate, he has assisted in the confirmations of literally hundreds of district and circuit court nominees, and of every sitting Supreme Court Justice. He played a key role in assisting the Judiciary Committee in its inquiry in the 1960's into motorcycle gang violence, as well as many other important matters. He has developed a remarkable wealth of knowledge about the Senate as an institution, and is widely respected by Senators past and present on both sides of the aisle. Duke has been recognized throughout his distinguished career with many prestigious awards, too numerable to mention here, but most recently including a Reserve Officers Association Appreciation Award in 2000, an FBI Director's Appreciation Award and the Order of the Palmetto--the State of South Carolina's highest award, in 2001. This year, Duke received the ACA's Third Annual Patients' Champion Award. Duke's career has been characterized by service to our great Country, not only in his work for the Senate for nearly thirty years, but in his earlier service in the U.S. Army with the 82nd Airborne Division, and as a special agent in the Intelligence Division of the Department of the Treasury. Duke Short has served Senator Thurmond, South Carolinians, and his country well, with the spirit and endless dedication of a true patriot. We will sorely miss him in the United States Senate and wish him all the best in his retirement. Tribute to Strom Thurmond

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been listening to this recitation of various cases involving Judge Shedd, and I have to say I certainly have a different viewpoint. Let me go through those cases in approximately the order that the distinguished Senator from Vermont listed them. My colleague referred to Shults v. Denny's Restaurant. This was an Americans with Disability Act and slander case where Judge Shedd sua sponte considered summary judgment and ordered the plaintiff to file a memorandum in opposition to the court's sua sponte motion for summary judgment. This action by Judge Shedd was again based on jurisdictional defenses raised in the defendant's answer: Failure to file within the 2-year statute of limitations and failure to exhaust the administrative Equal Employment Opportunity Commission review. In the order, requesting the plaintiff to file a memorandum, Judge Shedd wrote: Although the express language of rule 56 provides only for the parties to move for summary judgment, Federal district judges possess the inherent power to raise, sua sponte, an issue for possible resolution by summary judgment. Therefore, Judge Shedd had the right to bring this motion under the Rules of Civil Procedure. My colleague refers to Lowery v. Seamless Sensations. This was a title VII case in which the defendant raised the defense that the plaintiff failed to timely file both a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and the lawsuit. Both are jurisdictional prerequisites to any Federal court action. Since that defense called into question the court's subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Shedd expedited consideration of those defenses. Remember, it would serve no purpose for the court to proceed on the merits where the court had no jurisdiction. In order to expedite consideration of the issues, Judge Shedd ordered the defendant to file a motion to dismiss based on those defenses. Judge Shedd further ordered that motion should be filed in his court instead of the magistrate court assigned to the case. Ultimately, the defendant was granted summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case. Therefore, the case survived the above- discussed motion to dismiss, evidencing that although he raised the issue, Judge Shedd fairly evaluated the merits of the case. In another matter, my colleague makes a special mention of Coker v. Wal-Mart. Let's look at this case to see where again my colleague gets it wrong. In this case, the defendant removed the case from State to Federal court. Judge Shedd sua sponte questioned whether removal was appropriate, as it appears the motion for removal had been filed outside the 30-day time limitation established in 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b). Doubting whether he had the authority to remand the case sua sponte, Judge Shedd stated he would permit the defendant to file a brief addressing whether removal was timely and whether the court had authority to remand. Rather than assisting the defense, Judge Shedd raised the issue of remand, and held the defendant to the proper burden of showing that removal was proper. He aided the plaintiff, who had apparently failed to raise the issue, this is exactly the opposite of what the distinguished Senator from Vermont has said. Judge Shedd had a duty to raise the removal issue, a purely jurisdictional matter, and he gave the defendant the opportunity to challenge his sua sponte action, which is what a good judge would do. My colleague also refers to Gilmore v. Ford Motor Company, a product liability case. In that case, Judge Shedd sanctioned the plaintiff for failure to prosecute the action by dismissing the case. He made that determination after he properly evaluated each of the factors established by the Fourth Circuit in Ballard v. Carson. Indeed, my colleague in the Senate worries more about this case than did the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to respond to this motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute after earlier failing to respond to the defendant's motion to compel discovery. Notably, my colleague did refer to Simmons v. Coastal Contractors, Inc., a discrimination and retaliation employment case in which both parties represented themselves pro se. Judge Shedd sua sponte brought the petitioners before the court and ordered the plaintiff to cure specific deficiencies in his complaint or face dismissal. This decision was an attempt to aid the plaintiff in properly drafting his complaint. My colleague refers to Tessman v. Island Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, a title VII case, where Judge Shedd sua sponte challenged the court's subject matter jurisdiction, given the plaintiff's apparent failure to allege that she had first presented her claim to the EEOC and received a right-to-sue letter. He ordered the action dismissed unless the plaintiff could show cause why that action should not be taken by the court. This is a wholly appropriate approach and probably the only approach that could have been taken by any good judge. My colleague refers to Smith v. Beck, a 1983 gender discrimination case in which several women alleged discrimination when they were not admitted, without male escorts to a nightclub featuring nude female dancers. Judge Shedd sua sponte questioned whether the plaintiffs' allegation sufficed to establish the defendant private club's actions were under color of State law. Based on his conclusion that merely operating an establishment that has a State liquor license does not transform a club into a State actor, Judge Shedd dismissed the case. In other words, he analyzed the law, as he should. In short, my colleague has suggested that Judge Shedd ``assists the defense.'' That is so highly misleading a charge it is hard to take it seriously. But I suppose I must since it has been raised. The truth is that a judge's discretion in assisting either side to get their case right is fairly wide, but within bounds that Judge Shedd has not crossed. The Supreme Court of the United States has written: [D]istrict courts are widely acknowledged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that: It is a fundamental precept that Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, constrained to exercise only the authority confirmed by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by Federal statute. A primary incident of that precept is our duty to inquire, sua sponte, whether a valid basis for jurisdiction exists, and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears. The truth is that in each of the cases in which Judge Shedd acted sua sponte, he provided the proper notice and opportunity to respond to the plaintiff. Perhaps my colleague will be less troubled than he appears to be when he learns that none of the cases he refers to where Judge Shedd supposedly assisted the defense were reversed on appeal. Not one. It seems it would be best to leave the litigation of cases to the parties, lawyers, and judge involved rather than second-guess them on the floor of the Senate. I, for one, am getting a little tired of some of our colleagues on the other side acting as if every plaintiff's case has to be won no matter what the facts and the law support. Actually, some of those cases have to be lost because they are not good cases. Now let's just be honest about it. Cases are decided by judges and jurors--judges in nonjury cases and juries in jury cases. I have seen a lot of cases where plaintiffs have not won because they should not have won. To criticize judicial nominees for ruling against plaintiffs is nonsensical because every judge should decide against plaintiffs when they are wrong. It does not take brains to figure that out. But I guess for some on the other side, unless the plaintiff wins there is an injustice. My colleague criticizes Judge Shedd's ruling in Condon v. Reno with the aim of characterizing his judicial ideology in the process. I was shocked to learn by one of Judge Shedd's detractors that he is a ``sympathetic participant in [a] judicial campaign to disempower Congress,'' and that he is a judge who ``resort[s] to outdated and reactionary views of federal power.'' I am sure this came as a surprise to Judge Shedd as well. Condon v. Reno concerned the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. Judge Shedd held in Condon that the Act violated the Tenth Amendment in that it improperly commanded states to implement federal policy. The 4th Circuit affirmed Judge Shedd's ruling, while the Supreme Court ultimately reversed it. But this was clearly a difficult call to make; in fact, the lower federal courts that addressed the issue split evenly before the Supreme Court ruling, eight finding the Act constitutional and eight finding it unconstitutional. Those finding the Act unconstitutional together with Judge Shedd included Judge Barbara Crabb, Chief Judge of the Western District of Wisconsin, a Carter appointee, and Judge John Gobold of the 11th Circuit, a Johnson appointee. Several Democrat Governors across the nation, including Democrats Jim Hunt of North Carolina, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Don Siegelman of Alabama permitted their respective State Attorneys General to sign onto an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to find the Act unconstitutional. In addition, the Democrat Attorney General of Wisconsin also signed the amicus brief. So, reasonable minds can differ on these matters. It seems to me that either the vast right wing campaign to ``disempower'' Congress is either much larger than previously supposed, or that this was a case in which thoughtful, and respected judges could, and indeed did, disagree. Of course, my colleagues ignore another federalism case of Judge Shedd's United States v. Brown. That case involved the Gun Free School Zones Act. The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the Act on federalism grounds. Judge Shedd allowed the prosecutor to prove facts at trial that the Act was a valid exercise of Congressional power. The Supreme Court later invalidated the Gun Free Zones Act in United States v. Lopez. Unlike the Condon v. Reno, Judge Shedd upheld the exercise of federal power, yet not surprisingly, his critics point us to the Condon case but not to the Brown case. That is amazing to me. My colleague again comments on Judge Shedd's ruling in Crosby v. South Carolina Department of Health. Interestingly he did not raise the same objections to Judge Roger Gregory who ruled to uphold Judge Shedd's ruling when he was before us last year. One wonders why? Judge Shedd is criticized for adopting a magistrate report striking down as unconstitutional part of the Family Medical Leave Act after a state agency cited 11th amendment sovereign immunity against an employee lawsuit. Of course, the fact that eight of nine Circuit Courts have agreed with his ruling seems not to concern my colleagues, including the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits. In fact, numerous Democrat-appointed judges agreed with Judge Shedd, including Carter appointees Amalya Kearse of the First Circuit, Richard Arnold of the Eighth, and Robert Anderson of the Eleventh; and Clinton nominees Sandra Lynch and Kermit Lipez of The First Circuit, Theodore McKee of the Fourth, Kermit Bye of the Eighth, Jose Cabranes of the Second Circuit, and Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit. Those are able, distinguished judges. It should not come as any surprise that the Ninth Circuit is the only Circuit Court which has ruled the other way. One would think from this near universal agreement that Judge Shedd's ruling in Crosby would seem reasonable one, one well within the judicial mainstream, no matter how we look at it. And yet he is criticized for it here on the floor. In the area of Criminal Justice, my colleague makes special mention of the Quattlebaum murder case. Let's look at that case to see where my colleague gets it all wrong. In that case, officers took into custody a murder suspect, Mr. Quattlebaum. During police questioning of Quattlebaum, which Quattlebaum was informed was being videotaped, the deputy sheriff left the room. Soon after the deputy sheriff left the room, he went to the room where the videotaping was being done and noticed that an attorney was now in the room with Quattlebaum, despite the fact that no one was to have access to that room other than law enforcement. The deputy sheriff immediately consulted with superiors and legal advisors as to what to do about the running videotape, but the damage--i.e., recording an attorney-client conversation--had already been done. In response to the videotaping, prosecutors indicted the deputy sheriff for a civil rights violation. Mr. Quattlebaum's attorney, on the other hand, about whom my colleague appears concerned, ended up being indicted for perjury based on his grand jury testimony that he had not released the protected videotape to the media, and spent 4 months in prison. The deputy sheriff pled guilty to charges based on the videotaping of the attorney-client conversations. My colleague has expressed concern that the deputy sheriff who conducted the improper videotaping was not more heavily penalized by comparison to the defendant's attorney who perjured himself after releasing the protected tape to the media. That concern is easily assuaged. The sentencing range in the guidelines for the offense to which the deputy sheriff pled guilty was zero to six months imprisonment, one year of supervised release, and a fine of $1,000 to $10,000. The Government moved for a downward departure of the zero to six months jail time for the police officer based on his assistance in the prosecution of related matters. As Judge Shedd acknowledged during the sentencing hearing, in order to depart downward, he had to issue a sentence that was less than the minimum in the guidelines range, i.e., since less than zero time in prison is not possible, Judge Shedd, in accepting the downward departure request had to impose a fine that was less than $1,000 and could not impose any jail time on Mr. Grice. Judge Shedd's sentencing decisions were controlled by the crimes charged and the related sentencing guidelines enacted by Congress. Judge Shedd's sentence of a fine without jail time was mandated by the guidelines once the government's request for downward departure was accepted. My colleague's concern for the trail lawyer who served 4 months for perjury, after releasing a privileged videotape to the media, is not altogether clear to me, especially since that unethical conduct caused a convicted murderer to escape his sentence. The concern is also strange given that my colleague expressed the opposite concern with regard to Judge Charles Pickering for questioning the inequitable result of mandatory sentencing guidelines. Look, let me just bring this to an end by reading a letter of one of the attorneys involved in that case. This is a letter to me by E. Bart Daniel, attorney at law in Charleston, SC. It is regarding the nomination of Dennis W. Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dear Senator Hatch: I have been a practicing attorney in South Carolina for over 22 years. During my career, I have served as an Assistant State Attorney General, an Assistant U.S. Attorney, a United States Attorney under the previous President Bush and an active federal trial attorney. My practice over the years has developed into primarily a ``white collar'' criminal defense practice. I have appeared many times in court before Judge Shedd and found him to be courteous and fair. He has exhibited great integrity and a strong character while on the bench. One of the most difficult cases in which I appeared before Judge Shedd was in United States v. John Earl Duncan (3:99- 638-001). Mr. Duncan was a practicing attorney who was convicted of perjury. Judge Shedd sentenced him to four months in a federal penitentiary and four months in a community confinement center (halfway house). He fined him $33,386.92. Judge Shedd's decision was a difficult one, but fair. As his counsel, we recognized that Judge Shedd would be compelled to sentence Mr. Duncan to an active term of incarceration since he was a practicing attorney who had been convicted of lying to a federal grand jury. During the sentencing phase of the Duncan case, Judge Shedd was courteous and patient and listened intently to the many people who spoke on our client's behalf including my co- counsel Dale L. DuTremble and me. I know of no judge more qualified for the position than Judge Shedd. If you have any questions or I can be of any further support, please do not hesitate to call. That ought to put that to bed. In all honesty, the charges against Judge Shedd that have been raised are shameful; absolutely shameful. It makes you wonder. Why? Why are we putting a really fine Federal district court judge who served almost 13 years on the bench with a distinguished record through this type of bitter and I think shameless set of accusations? We had originally agreed with the Democrat leadership to confirm Judge Shedd late last week along with other judicial nominees by unanimous consent, but instead, base politics appears to have intervened. I am hopeful we can get this done tomorrow. According to an article by Byron York in National Review Online on Friday afternoon, it is clear what happened. He writes that, after the Shedd vote in the Judiciary Committee on Thursday, the usual left-wing groups, including, he writes, People for the American Way, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice, and the National Abortion Rights Action League, all urged Democrat Senators ``to continue the fight against Dennis Shedd in the full Senate.'' He quotes one leader as warning that, ``controversy will follow these nominations to the Senate floor.'' Here we are about to engage in the longest debate on a Senate nominee on the Senate floor this year. The special interest groups said jump, and so today we will jump high, and I guess tomorrow as well. I am not complaining entirely. I am grateful to the distinguished chairman. I know it is a tough job to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I hope this is not his fault. I am not shy of any debate on the President's superbly qualified judicial nominees. But I do fear that, once again the American people will roll their eyes that, when we have as much to do in the Senate that is still undone, the leadership would think that a divisive and lengthy debate on a judicial nominee is a good idea. But I understand why it is happening. I am not a newcomer here. It appears to be happening because of the Louisiana Senate election. It has been rumored and reported that the Northern liberals who hold the money strings and the liberal special interest groups here in Washington who claim to represent African American interests--have said that the money won't flow and folks won't help get out the vote in Louisiana unless Judge Dennis Shedd, Senator Thurmond's former counsel gets slowed down yet again. (Mr. ROCKEFELLER assumed the Chair.)

Mr. HATCH. Now, look, most of us who have served on the Judiciary Committee for a number of years have known Judge Dennis Shedd. He was chief of staff to Senator Thurmond when he was chairman of the committee, and his chief counsel when he was not chairman. I have known him for most of my time in the Senate. He is one of the finest people I have ever known. He is also one of the better Federal district court judges in the country. Judge Shedd is a decent man. I resent his being dragged through this process for months, as he has been. Senator Thurmond's last request has gotten slowed down again. Now, I am grateful we are going to have a vote on him tomorrow, up or down. I surely hope my colleagues will look at his record, and not look at the distortions of his record, and will vote for him and will support Senator Thurmond and those of us who know him, and know him well. I think some have trouble getting the message. The message I got from the recent election is perhaps different than what my colleagues across the aisle received. As far as I see it, the President took three issues to the American people: his Iraq policy, homeland security, and his judicial nominees. Of course, he had other issues, but those were the three primary issues. The election showed that Americans trust this President, including in his selection of judicial nominees. The election indicated voters rejected the obstruction in the Senate we experienced this last year, including on judicial nominees. Voters especially rejected the shrillness and the distortions of reputations they read and heard about in hundreds of news stories, scores of editorials, and dozens of op- eds, and those they saw on TV. Voters sent us a clear message, it seems to me, that we should end the obstruction and maltreatment of judicial nominees, and yet here we are about to engage in hours of debate that will largely see the race card played, and the role of judges--and one judge, in particular--distorted and mischaracterized. Today, at the behest of the so-called Washington civil rights lobby, now a wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiffs' trial lawyers, my friends on the other side will spend a business day describing an experienced judge as biased, as pro this and anti that, and now I am afraid some of my Democratic colleagues can no longer evaluate judges as unbiased umpires who call the balls and strikes as they are, not as they alone see them, and not as they want them to be. Now, it is silly to suggest an umpire is pro bat or pro ball or pro batter or pro pitcher, but, of course, trial lawyers, and those who shill for them, have an interest in exactly such scorekeeping. To say all plaintiffs have to win all cases is just nuts, but yet that is what we have been getting lately. But even this is not what bothers me the most about the debate that has been scheduled today. I am reminded of what my friend Senator Kennedy said in 1982 about those who opposed extending the Voting Rights Act. Senator Kennedy lamented in 1982 that ``there are those among us who would open old wounds . . . [and] refight old battles.'' Mr. President, they say the more things change, the more they stay the same--well, almost the same. Now, with that regret expressed, I wish to express my great satisfaction that the Judiciary Committee has favorably recommended the nomination of Judge Dennis Shedd of South Carolina for a vote of the full Senate. Mr. President, Senators feel very strongly about their staffs. Our legal counsels make uncounted sacrifices to work for us and for the American people. We are surrounded by very talented lawyers who forego larger salaries for the sake of public service. Sometimes they put their personal opinions aside to advocate ours. We Senators take it very personally when they are nominated and given the opportunity for yet higher public service. It has been the tradition of the Judiciary Committee to give great courtesy to former staffers. I certainly take it very personally, and know Senator Thurmond does, too, that we have not done so in the case of Dennis Shedd, who has served with distinction for the last 12 years as a Federal district court judge in South Carolina. When Judge Shedd was nominated to the Federal trial bench, Chairman Biden had this to say to him: I have worked with you for so long that I believe I am fully qualified to make an independent judgment about your working habits, your integrity, your honesty, and your temperament. On all these scores, I have found you to be beyond reproach. Now, this is high praise indeed from a colleague on the other side of the aisle for whom we all have the greatest respect. Judge Shedd has strong bipartisan support in his home State as well, and not only from Senator Thurmond and Senator Hollings--a Republican and a Democrat--he is also strongly supported by Dick Harpootlian, South Carolina State chairman of the Democratic Party, and himself a trial lawyer. Let me just say that again. Judge Shedd is not only supported by my distinguished Democrat colleague, Senator Hollings, but also by the Democratic Party chairman in South Carolina. This suggests a reality far from the slogans and distortions launched against President Bush's nominees, and in particular Judge Shedd. First, it has been suggested that Judge Shedd will add to what liberals and plaintiffs' trial lawyers perceive as conservative appeals court--or at least on the issues that profit them. But contrary to the divisiveness card that his detractors are playing, Judge Shedd will add diversity to that Court. Mr. President, Dennis Shedd has served as a federal jurist for more than a decade following nearly twenty years of public service and legal practice. While serving the Judiciary Committee, Judge Shedd worked, among many other matters, on the extension of the Voting Rights Act, RICO reform, the Ethics in Post-Employment Act, and the 1984 and 1986 crime bills. As Senator Biden put it: ``His hard work and intelligence helped the Congress find areas of agreement and reach compromises.'' That leads me to address a few issues that have been raised by his detractors. Mr. President, the last five Fourth Circuit confirmations have all been Democrats. What seems to me more important to focus on--and what the American people want us to focus on--is that when Judge Shedd joins the other members of the Fourth Circuit, he will not only have unmatched legislative experience, he will also have the longest trial bench experience on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Interestingly, by way of disproving some of my colleagues' diversity- mania, the last Democrat confirmed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Gregory, has affirmed Judge Shedd's rulings in 11 appeals. Notably, Judge Gregory agreed with Judge Shedd's ruling in the Crosby case, which found that the Family and Medical Leave Act was improperly adopted by Congress, a case which the liberal groups seem worked up about when it comes to Shedd but not when it came to Judge Gregory. No one asked Judge Gregory about his ruling in Crosby when he was before the Judiciary Committee last year. But may Democrat colleagues drilled Judge Shedd on it. Talk about discrimination. Mr. President, Judge Dennis Shedd has heard more than 5,000 civil cases, reviewed more than 1,400 reports and recommendations of magistrates, and has had before him nearly 1,000 criminal defendants. Judge Shedd's record demonstrates that he is a mainstream judge with a law reversal rate. In the more than 5,000 cases Judge Shedd has handled during his 12 years on the bench, he has been reversed fewer than 40 times--less than 1 percent. Detractors have made much of the fact that he has relatively few decisions he has chosen to publish. But, in fact, he falls in the middle of the average for published opinions in the Fourth Circuit. One Carter appointee has published all of 7 cases, one Clinton appointee has published only 3, and another Carter appointee has published 51, only one more than Judge Shedd, despite being on the court for 10 years longer. Judge Shedd is known for his fairness, for his total preparation, and for showing no personal bias in his courtroom. This is not just my opinion; this reflects the opinions of lawyers who practice before him. Judge Shedd is well-respected by members of the bench and bar in South Carolina. According to the Alamanc of the Federal Judiciary, attorneys said that Judge Shedd has outstanding legal skills and an excellent judicial temperament. Here are a few comments from South Carolina lawyers: ``You are not going to find a better judge on the bench or one that works harder,'' ``He's the best federal judge we've got.'' ``He gets an A all around.'' ``It's a great experience trying cases before him.'' ``He is polite and businesslike.'' Let me take a moment also to address one of the more ludicrous attempts to discredit Judge Shedd that has been raised: that when he was confirmed to the District Court bench he had little experience in the practice of law. I have to say that to ignore the remarkable experience Dennis Shedd had in legislation practice crafting historic laws while serving the Judiciary Committee is some chutzpah. To raise an objection like that almost 13 years after the fact is just plain silly. But it goes to show what we have to put up with in the obstruction and distortions of this past year. Let's be clear, when Judge Shedd joins the other members of the Fourth Circuit, he will not only have unmatched legislative experience, he will also have the longest trial bench experience on the Fourth Circuit. He will also add some diversity to that court. The last five Fourth Circuit confirmations have all been Democrats. I have to say that the most misleading criticism raised about Judge Shedd involves his employment cases. Downright deceptive is that Judge Shedd's detractors, the outside liberal groups, have now taken to grouping and describing employment cases as civil rights cases. They want us to believe that every quarrel between an employee and her employer rises to a Rosa Parks significance. No doubt every plaintiff's trial lawyer would like to think of themselves as a Thurgood Marshall. But this deception is unfortunate and a disservice to the cause of civil rights that I have longed championed in this Chamber. Cloaking every small, perhaps even frivolous, employment case with the mantle of the civil rights movement, Washington's professional nominee detractors have been particularly misleading on Judge Shedd's employment cases. They have misleadingly pointed out that the Judge seldom grants summary judgment in employment cases in favor of the employee. Of course, they fail to point out that few judges do. Any good lawyer knows that. Summary judgment is a judgment without a jury, and every good lawyer knows that employment cases are inherently fact-laden and go to trial by a jury or more often they settle. Or in many cases, the employee fails to state a claim and the case has to be dismissed. Of course, Judge Shed's detractors could have noticed that he has only twice been reversed in his decisions in employment cases. But of course, they did not notice that. They might have pointed out that in one of the appeals that he was invited to hear for the Fourth Circuit, he reversed a summary judgment and remanded for trial a political discrimination case against a worker who was a Democrat. But they did not do that either. Judge Shedd's detractors have also made irresponsible claims as to the Judge's criminal case record. In fact, in criminal cases, Judge Shedd has strongly defended citizens due process rights from violation by the state. He has frequently chastised law enforcement for errors in search warrants an the questionable use of seized property. In fact, he has sanctioned the State for discovery problems. He is known for aggressively informing defendants and witnesses of their fifth amendment rights. Remarkably, Judge Shedd has never been reversed on any ruling considered before or during trial, or on the taking of guilty pleas. His detractors have somehow failed to note this. The cases that come before a judge are often difficult. Judge Shedd has not been exempted. In one prisoner's case, Judge Shedd allowed a detainee to engage in a hunger strike and ruled against government's attempt to force feed him. Although some would seek to question Judge Shedd's respect for privacy in criminal cases, into cases he protected HIV blood donor's confidentiality. In another case, he ordered special accommodations to an HIV positive defendant to ensure his continued clinical treatment. These are not the rulings of a judge who is insensitive to prisoners and criminals, but this is the record of a judge who works hard to get the work of law enforcement right. Of course, no smear campaign against a Bush judicial nominee, paid for plaintiffs' trial lawyers, and carried out by their left-wing lobbyists, is complete without the suggestion that the nominee is foe of environmental rights. Of course, in their paint-by-the-numbers attack, Judge Shedd's detractors have ignored the wetlands protection case where he handed down tough sanctions against a violator and ordered expensive wetlands restoration. The left-wing detractors skipped over Judge Shedd's decision in favor of National Campaign to Save the Environment. They missed his ruling to grant standing to a plaintiff challenging a road construction project on its environmental impact. They missed his ruling in favor of a woman protesting possible waste dumping in her community. The well-paid, left-wing lobbyists who have turned attacking President Bush's judicial nominees into a small cottage industry see only what they want to see and not what the truth would show them. The most breathtaking charge against Judge Shedd was first made by the NAACP that Judge Shedd has--``a deep and abiding hostility to civil rights.'' I must admit that was outraged by this when I first read it, and I still am. It is a distortion far beyond the pale of decency, and I call on my colleagues once again to repudiate such rabid practices. In part, I am outraged because there are some who would profile Judge Shedd as merely a white male from the South and start from there to give him a certain treatment. If Judge Shedd's record working for civil rights legislation on the Judiciary Committee were not enough of an accomplishment for one lifetime for any man or woman, the truth is that in each of the cases that have come before Judge Shedd involving the Voting Rights Act of 1965, plaintiffs have won their claims. In the Dooley case, a one person/one vote case, Judge Shedd gave the plaintiff a clear and strong decision. In another political rights case, he ruled to protect the plaintiff's right to make door-to-door political solicitations. Of course, Mr. President, you know a lot about a judge by how they conduct their courtroom. As you know, I have been a strong advocate for the protection of religious practices in the public square. It says a lot about Judge Shedd, especially in these times, that he has allowed religious headdress in his courtroom. Judge Shedd also led efforts to appoint the first African American woman ever to serve as a magistrate judge in South Carolina and has sought the Selection Committee to conduct outreach to women and people of color in filling such positions. He pushed for an African American woman to be chief of pretrial services. He has actively recruited persons of color to be his law clerks. And because of Judge Shedd's work in an award-winning drug program that aims to reverse stereotypes amount 4,000 to 5,000 school children, he was chosen as the United Way's School Volunteer of the Year. The Judiciary Committee received a very touching letter from one of Judge Shedd's former law clerks, Thomas Jones, that we have blown up here. Perhaps the Presiding Officer will be able to read it from the chair. The letter says: Dear Senator Leahy: My name is Thomas W. Jones, Jr. I am an African American attorney currently practicing as a litigation associate in Baltimore, MD. Upon my graduation from the University of Maryland School of Law, I had the distinct pleasure of serving as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Dennis W. Shedd on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. During my 18 months of working with Judge Shedd, I never encountered a hint of bias, in any form or fashion, regarding any aspect of Judge Shedd's jurisprudence or daily activities. It is apparent to me that the allegations regarding Judge Shedd's alleged biases have been propagated by individuals without the benefit of any real, meaningful interaction with Judge Shedd, his friends or family members. I trust the accusations of bias levied against Judge Shedd will be given the short shrift they are due, and trust further that this honorable committee will act favorably upon the pending nomination of Judge Shedd for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Thank you for your attention regarding this matter. Respectfully, Thomas W. Jones, Jr. That was written on June 25 of this year to Senator Leahy. I will read another letter into the Record as well. This is a letter from Phyllis Berry Myers, President and CFO of the Center for New Black Leadership. I believe we received it today. It reads as follows: Dear Senator Hatch: The Centre for New York Leadership (CNBL) believes the Senate's judicial nomination system is broken and needs repairing. We have watched with great trepidation as the Senate's role of ``advise and consent'' for Presidential nominations, especially judicial nominations, has become increasingly, ``search and destroy,'' ``slander and defame.'' It is a wonder that reasonable, decent people agree to go through the confirmation process at all. The confirmation process has become particularly brutal if the nominee is labeled ``conservative.'' Traditional civil rights groups mass to castigate and intimidate, as they do now, attempting to thwart the confirmation of Judge Dennis W. Shedd to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Once again, we are witnessing the new depth to which public discourse and debate has sunk when fabrications, statements taken out of context, misinformation and disinformation can pass as serious political deliberation and debate. The vitally needed discussion about continued civil rights progress in a 21st Century world gets lost in the cacophony. Our nation and true civil rights advocates are poorer because of this. The Senate can restore to itself, at least a modicum, a sense of fair play, honor, and trust in its own policies and procedures, a commitment to guarding the civil rights of all, as well as advancing the rule of law by swiftly confirming Judge Shedd. Sincerely, Phyllis Berry Myers, President & CEO. Of course, the liberal groups starkly ignore Judge Shedd's ruling in the Vanderhoff case. In that case, Judge Shedd dismissed the claim of a fired employee who repeatedly displayed the Confederate flag on his toolbox in violation of company policy. Judge Shedd rejected the plaintiff's contention that he was dismissed because of his national origin as a ``Confederate Southern American.'' Perhaps my colleagues have sympathy for that plaintiff, too. After all, the plaintiff was represented by a trial lawyer in this employment case--or as they would like us to see it, a civil rights case--even though it was brought on behalf of a true racist. I looked at a letter that the NAACP sent to the Judiciary Committee, a letter all the other copycat groups have repeated. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record so everybody can see how fake the Washington NAACP has become when they carry the plaintiffs' trial lawyers' water.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.