Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am grateful to my colleague. I ask for simple courtesy from the other side. Give us an up-or-down vote on Dennis Shedd. Everybody who is on the Judiciary Committee knows this man, and I think most others in the Senate know this man and know what a good person he is. But everybody knows Senator Thurmond, that he is an honest, decent man, and he deserves this kind of courtesy, especially at the end of the longest, most distinguished career in the Senate. I thank my dear colleague from West Virginia.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. I appreciate it. I listened to these remarks, and I am outraged. I know they were not written by any staffer for Senator Reid, and they are not accurate. I think we have had very disdainful treatment of one of the most prestigious and important Senators in the history of this body. Let's think about it. Yesterday, Chairman Leahy denied a vote on Dennis Shedd, President Bush's nominee for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the nominee from South Carolina. This action was outrageous because yesterday may very well have been the last markup Senator Thurmond, the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who cares very deeply about Judge Shedd's nomination, was able to attend. The committee rules are very clear. They allow an agenda item held over from 1 week, which Judge Shedd was held over, to be brought up on the next agenda. He was held over on September 19 on that markup agenda by the Democrats. Yesterday, Chairman Leahy, in violation of committee rules, removed Judge Shedd from the agenda. This is not right. To my knowledge, that is the first time that has ever happened. It may have happened before, but I do not remember it. What makes this even more unusual and has our Members outraged is that we operate in the Senate under a presumption that a Senator's word is as good as gold. Chairman Leahy assured several Republican Senators--our leader, Senator Thurmond, Senator Grassley, Senator Brownback, and myself--that Judge Shedd would get a vote. He promised that to me, and all of these others. It is fair to say the entire Republican caucus expected a vote yesterday on Judge Shedd. There is no doubt about Judge Shedd's qualifications. He has strong bipartisan support. One of his most ardent supporters from South Carolina is none other than my dear friend and colleague, Senator Fritz Hollings. The people of South Carolina support him. The ABA, long held to be the gold standard by the Democrats, gave him a well-qualified rating. So it is not Judge Shedd's qualifications that are standing in the way. Simply put, there is no good reason that Judge Shedd did not get a vote at yesterday's markup. In accordance with the rules, I moved to have a vote. The chairman ruled it out of order. It was a 9-to-9 vote, not sustaining his position but basically not allowing the vote. The real reason Judge Shedd was not on the agenda was there are liberal special interest groups in this city that seem to have lock- stock control over the Judiciary Committee. When I was chairman, I never ceded control to any of these outside groups. In fact, I told them to get lost. I have to say I paid a big price for it, too. It is atrocious that ceding of control is happening now. With regard to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and those nominees cited by the distinguished Senator from Nevada, they did not have home State senatorial support. We cannot do much about that when there is not home State senatorial support, which has always been a courtesy that has been extended. Think about it. Judge Shedd has been waiting for almost 18 months. Now all of a sudden, at the last minute, we come up with all of these lame excuses to not give him a vote. All we were asking for was a vote in accordance with the rules of the Senate--a vote in the Judiciary Committee and then a vote on the floor--for a man who used to be chief of staff of the Judiciary Committee, who was sponsored by one of the most dignified and important Senators in the history of this body. Just one committee vote and a floor vote. If they want to vote him down, they can do that, but Senator Thurmond deserved the benefit of the doubt. He deserved the privilege of having a vote on his nominee, especially since this nominee has waited for almost 18 months. He was peppered with all kinds of questions. He answered them. He did everything he possibly could. He has a wonderful reputation. He had it when he was on the committee. What is more, every member of that committee who sat when he was here knows it. Now this is wrong. It is wrong to treat a senior Senator like this. It is wrong to treat a distinguished Federal district court judge like this. It is wrong to break the rules. It is wrong to break them with impunity. And I think it is wrong to treat the President's nominees this way. To make a long story short, virtually everything that was said yesterday and even today was not very accurate. I would ask that this body reconsider, that my friends on the other side----

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from West Virginia to allow me 5 minutes to respond.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks, especially his kind remarks with regard to me. I share a mutual affection for him because, as a leader in the House on health care, he did so many good things. We are so happy to have him in the Senate where he has continued his work on health care. I am very grateful to him. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the remarks of my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. Last week, we were all dismayed to learn the Census Bureau figures indicate the number of uninsured in our country has risen from 39.8 million in 2000 to 41.2 million in 2001. Of even greater concern is the fact that most of the newly uninsured previously had employer-based coverage. Obviously, this is a trend in the wrong direction despite years of efforts here in Washington to improve our country's health care delivery system. Clearly, we must take another approach. In a nutshell, the legislation that Senator Wyden and I are introducing today will stimulate fruitful discussion and debate on how we can really effect improvements to our nation's health care system-- improvements that can be accepted at all levels, from communities on up to the Federal government. We have worked on this bill for several months and are proud to have reached bipartisan consensus. Bipartisanship, it seems, is a rare occurrence these days. But, in our opinion, the only way to resolve our country's health crisis is to put politics aside and work together toward common goals. The Health Care That Works for All Americans Act of 2002 reflects our common goals on how to resolve this country's health care woes. We accomplish these important goals by fostering candid discussions-- in every corner of our country--through which the public can have an earnest discussion about our current health care system. These discussions will lead to recommendations on how to improve health care coverage which will help guide the Congress as it moves forward in this area. It is our hope that, in the end, this legislation will provide Americans with the proper tools to access high quality, affordable health care coverage. Basically, our legislation envisions three steps: public meetings; recommendations to Congress; and congressional action. We see this an as interactive process, which will help all of us be more informed consumers and which can produce real changes for the public. At this point, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss each of these steps in more detail. The first step of this bill is to stimulate community gatherings at which individuals from all walks of life can provide their viewpoints on which health benefits they believe should be covered. Obviously, a necessary component of that discussion will be how the benefits can be paid for, and by whom. Strange as it may seem, our government has never actually asked the American people what they want from our health care system. These community meetings would pose questions to individuals such as, ``What type of health coverage do you want how much are you willing to pay?'' In addition, debate would focus on the financial responsibilities of the government, businesses, and individual citizens. I believe these issues must be discussed at the beginning of a new debate on health coverage, because the public's response is essential to building a nationwide consensus for creating a new health care system. It is critical to receive feedback from those who use the health care system on a daily, weekly or even annual basis. Our plan is to hear from everyone who has had first-hand experience with the health care system. We want to hear what people like and dislike about the current system and their proposals for change. And, we also hope to hear from those who do not use health services and the reasons why they have not sought health care coverage. We hope to stimulate a provocative discussion based on key questions. Is health care too expensive? Too complicated? Or is it just not available to certain segments of our society? The Wyden-Hatch legislation creates a Citizens' Health Care Working Group which would be charged with posing these tough questions and overseeing this crucial debate on how to improve upon our current health care system. The Citizens' Health Care Working Group will be comprised of individuals who have a deep interest in health care: patients; providers, community leaders; and key state and federal officials. The Working Group will coordinate nationwide community meetings and facilitate the public in expressing their views on the complex and often difficult choices concerning health care coverage. To achieve this objective, our bill directs the Working Group to produce a ``Health Care Report to the American People.'' This report will be used as a guidebook designed to describe the cost and availability of health choices available to Americans across the country--taking into account geographic differences. Since this issue has been visited over and over again without noticeable results, we believe that it is time to have an honest dialogue about sensitive health care issues with the public so that individual citizens will have a better idea of what choices members of Congress and key health officials are facing when health care issues are being debated. We envision asking citizens about a whole range of services and procedures, a ``bottom-up'' review of the health care system, if you will. We hope these community discussions will look at current coverage issues, such as whether Medicaid should provide better coverage for transplants, recognizing that these are very expensive, labor-intensive procedures that may use scarce resources that might have been used elsewhere. Another area we hope might be explored is how to improve coverage of long-term care services, and how this should be paid. These choices--economic, moral, legal and social--will be difficult ones, but the purpose of our legislation is this--to start discussing these vital issues with those on whom there will be the greatest impact--the American people. We cannot afford to put off these discussions any longer. In the past, health reform debates have not included the voice of the people who actually need to live with these decisions. The Wyden-Hatch legislation will ensure that those Americans who depend on quality, affordable health care are at the forefront of the discussion before the special interests weigh in with their objectives. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, given the failures of the past, isn't it time that we approach this problem by listening to citizens' viewpoints on health care coverage? The second step of this legislation is to direct the Working Group to take the ideas offered by the public and translate these comments into recommendations for our elected officials, specifically Members of Congress and the President. The Working Group will have substantial awareness of our citizens' preferences because of their involvement in the public meetings across the country. After the meetings are completed, the Working Group will highlight the issues raised by the public and provide them to members of Congress and the President for evaluation. The third step of this legislation involves drafting these recommendations into legislation which will eventually be voted upon by both the House and the Senate. Never before has Congress voted on a health care proposal built on a foundation created by the public making difficult heath care choices. If enacted, the Wyden-Hatch bill will provide for just such a vote. Senator Wyden and I both know there will be many questions about this proposal, but, in my opinion, the most important question is ``Why now?'' The answer is simple--the American people cannot afford to wait any longer. The number of uninsured Americans, which had been declining for the past couple of years, is now increasing. In addition, the costs of gridlock are simply too great--on human, social, economic and moral grounds. Congress is on the verge of completing another session without significant progress on major health care reforms. Once again, we have not passed prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Once again, we have not addressed the issue of the uninsured. Once again, we have not approved legislation that includes patient protections. And the reason for this inaction is partisan politics--no one is willing to compromise so we end up doing nothing and the American public suffers. In my opinion, something must be done to address these important issues, sooner rather than later. One issue that must be addressed is the overwhelming cost of health care. Every time I go home to Utah, I hear complaints from my constituents about escalating health care premiums and the price of prescription drugs. People are having a difficult time paying for their health insurance premiums, their physicians' visits and their medicines. We were all disturbed last year to hear about a recent Towers Perrin survey indicating that the cost of health benefit plans at large companies is expected to rise an average of 15 percent--15 percent!--in 2003. Some businesses, especially smaller employers, are worried that they will no longer be able to provide health insurance coverage to their employees. Utah physicians complain to me about the inadequate Medicare reimbursement rates and are threatening to leave the state. In fact, many of the federal health programs have complicated and over-bearing regulations that are confusing to participating providers. For example, is it necessary to have a book of Medicaid regulations thicker than the Black's Law Dictionary? While our health care system provides the highest quality services in the world and is the most technologically advanced, America's health system has fundamental flaws. The purpose of this legislation is to build on the positive components of our current system and improve the flaws. We believe that the best way to improve the current system is to listen to public input and implement their ideas and suggestions. We must get past playing the blame game. All of the powerful special interests are going to have to accept some reforms they have rejected in the past if America is to have a health care system that works for all. I believe this is what we will hear from the American people if they are given the chance to drive the debate on health reform as envisioned by this legislation. Unfortunately, there never has been a system to gather that public input until now. Mr. President, I am proud to be the lead Republican sponsor of the Health Care that Works for All Americans Act of 2002. I urge my colleagues to work with us so this legislation will be enacted into law in a timely manner. The American people cannot afford to wait any longer. I praise my colleague again for his leadership in so many areas, but especially the area of health care. He is sincere. He is dedicated. He is smart. He works hard on these issues. I am proud to work with him on this issue, and hope we can be successful in passing this bill and getting this very worthwhile effort started.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks, especially his kind remarks with regard to me. I share a mutual affection for him because, as a leader in the House on health care, he did so many good things. We are so happy to have him in the Senate where he has continued his work on health care. I am very grateful to him. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the remarks of my good friend and colleague, the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. Last week, we were all dismayed to learn the Census Bureau figures indicate the number of uninsured in our country has risen from 39.8 million in 2000 to 41.2 million in 2001. Of even greater concern is the fact that most of the newly uninsured previously had employer-based coverage. Obviously, this is a trend in the wrong direction despite years of efforts here in Washington to improve our country's health care delivery system. Clearly, we must take another approach. In a nutshell, the legislation that Senator Wyden and I are introducing today will stimulate fruitful discussion and debate on how we can really effect improvements to our nation's health care system-- improvements that can be accepted at all levels, from communities on up to the Federal government. We have worked on this bill for several months and are proud to have reached bipartisan consensus. Bipartisanship, it seems, is a rare occurrence these days. But, in our opinion, the only way to resolve our country's health crisis is to put politics aside and work together toward common goals. The Health Care That Works for All Americans Act of 2002 reflects our common goals on how to resolve this country's health care woes. We accomplish these important goals by fostering candid discussions-- in every corner of our country--through which the public can have an earnest discussion about our current health care system. These discussions will lead to recommendations on how to improve health care coverage which will help guide the Congress as it moves forward in this area. It is our hope that, in the end, this legislation will provide Americans with the proper tools to access high quality, affordable health care coverage. Basically, our legislation envisions three steps: public meetings; recommendations to Congress; and congressional action. We see this an as interactive process, which will help all of us be more informed consumers and which can produce real changes for the public. At this point, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss each of these steps in more detail. The first step of this bill is to stimulate community gatherings at which individuals from all walks of life can provide their viewpoints on which health benefits they believe should be covered. Obviously, a necessary component of that discussion will be how the benefits can be paid for, and by whom. Strange as it may seem, our government has never actually asked the American people what they want from our health care system. These community meetings would pose questions to individuals such as, ``What type of health coverage do you want how much are you willing to pay?'' In addition, debate would focus on the financial responsibilities of the government, businesses, and individual citizens. I believe these issues must be discussed at the beginning of a new debate on health coverage, because the public's response is essential to building a nationwide consensus for creating a new health care system. It is critical to receive feedback from those who use the health care system on a daily, weekly or even annual basis. Our plan is to hear from everyone who has had first-hand experience with the health care system. We want to hear what people like and dislike about the current system and their proposals for change. And, we also hope to hear from those who do not use health services and the reasons why they have not sought health care coverage. We hope to stimulate a provocative discussion based on key questions. Is health care too expensive? Too complicated? Or is it just not available to certain segments of our society? The Wyden-Hatch legislation creates a Citizens' Health Care Working Group which would be charged with posing these tough questions and overseeing this crucial debate on how to improve upon our current health care system. The Citizens' Health Care Working Group will be comprised of individuals who have a deep interest in health care: patients; providers, community leaders; and key state and federal officials. The Working Group will coordinate nationwide community meetings and facilitate the public in expressing their views on the complex and often difficult choices concerning health care coverage. To achieve this objective, our bill directs the Working Group to produce a ``Health Care Report to the American People.'' This report will be used as a guidebook designed to describe the cost and availability of health choices available to Americans across the country--taking into account geographic differences. Since this issue has been visited over and over again without noticeable results, we believe that it is time to have an honest dialogue about sensitive health care issues with the public so that individual citizens will have a better idea of what choices members of Congress and key health officials are facing when health care issues are being debated. We envision asking citizens about a whole range of services and procedures, a ``bottom-up'' review of the health care system, if you will. We hope these community discussions will look at current coverage issues, such as whether Medicaid should provide better coverage for transplants, recognizing that these are very expensive, labor-intensive procedures that may use scarce resources that might have been used elsewhere. Another area we hope might be explored is how to improve coverage of long-term care services, and how this should be paid. These choices--economic, moral, legal and social--will be difficult ones, but the purpose of our legislation is this--to start discussing these vital issues with those on whom there will be the greatest impact--the American people. We cannot afford to put off these discussions any longer. In the past, health reform debates have not included the voice of the people who actually need to live with these decisions. The Wyden-Hatch legislation will ensure that those Americans who depend on quality, affordable health care are at the forefront of the discussion before the special interests weigh in with their objectives. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues, given the failures of the past, isn't it time that we approach this problem by listening to citizens' viewpoints on health care coverage? The second step of this legislation is to direct the Working Group to take the ideas offered by the public and translate these comments into recommendations for our elected officials, specifically Members of Congress and the President. The Working Group will have substantial awareness of our citizens' preferences because of their involvement in the public meetings across the country. After the meetings are completed, the Working Group will highlight the issues raised by the public and provide them to members of Congress and the President for evaluation. The third step of this legislation involves drafting these recommendations into legislation which will eventually be voted upon by both the House and the Senate. Never before has Congress voted on a health care proposal built on a foundation created by the public making difficult heath care choices. If enacted, the Wyden-Hatch bill will provide for just such a vote. Senator Wyden and I both know there will be many questions about this proposal, but, in my opinion, the most important question is ``Why now?'' The answer is simple--the American people cannot afford to wait any longer. The number of uninsured Americans, which had been declining for the past couple of years, is now increasing. In addition, the costs of gridlock are simply too great--on human, social, economic and moral grounds. Congress is on the verge of completing another session without significant progress on major health care reforms. Once again, we have not passed prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. Once again, we have not addressed the issue of the uninsured. Once again, we have not approved legislation that includes patient protections. And the reason for this inaction is partisan politics--no one is willing to compromise so we end up doing nothing and the American public suffers. In my opinion, something must be done to address these important issues, sooner rather than later. One issue that must be addressed is the overwhelming cost of health care. Every time I go home to Utah, I hear complaints from my constituents about escalating health care premiums and the price of prescription drugs. People are having a difficult time paying for their health insurance premiums, their physicians' visits and their medicines. We were all disturbed last year to hear about a recent Towers Perrin survey indicating that the cost of health benefit plans at large companies is expected to rise an average of 15 percent--15 percent!--in 2003. Some businesses, especially smaller employers, are worried that they will no longer be able to provide health insurance coverage to their employees. Utah physicians complain to me about the inadequate Medicare reimbursement rates and are threatening to leave the state. In fact, many of the federal health programs have complicated and over-bearing regulations that are confusing to participating providers. For example, is it necessary to have a book of Medicaid regulations thicker than the Black's Law Dictionary? While our health care system provides the highest quality services in the world and is the most technologically advanced, America's health system has fundamental flaws. The purpose of this legislation is to build on the positive components of our current system and improve the flaws. We believe that the best way to improve the current system is to listen to public input and implement their ideas and suggestions. We must get past playing the blame game. All of the powerful special interests are going to have to accept some reforms they have rejected in the past if America is to have a health care system that works for all. I believe this is what we will hear from the American people if they are given the chance to drive the debate on health reform as envisioned by this legislation. Unfortunately, there never has been a system to gather that public input until now. Mr. President, I am proud to be the lead Republican sponsor of the Health Care that Works for All Americans Act of 2002. I urge my colleagues to work with us so this legislation will be enacted into law in a timely manner. The American people cannot afford to wait any longer. I praise my colleague again for his leadership in so many areas, but especially the area of health care. He is sincere. He is dedicated. He is smart. He works hard on these issues. I am proud to work with him on this issue, and hope we can be successful in passing this bill and getting this very worthwhile effort started.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I understand that this provision is intended to allow the administration to assess current treatment, prevention, education and research programs. The conference report directs the President to conduct the study. The President's logical choice to conduct this study would be Drug Czar John Walters, the President's point person on the drug issue, wouldn't you agree?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to praise my two learned, worthy colleagues who have done so much through the years to make sure our country is free and many areas of the world are free as well. I want to associate myself with their remarks. I was particularly impressed with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Alaska, whom we all revere and respect, and, I might add, particularly with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Virginia. I was very aware of the Abyssinia problem--now we call it Ethiopia. I think his point is well taken. I would just like to associate myself with the remarks of both of my dear colleagues. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to use such time as I need.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this week, as we know, we debate the most serious topic Congress can ever face, whether we will authorize the President to use force to address a looming threat to our national security. Right here and now I wish to say I will support this President, should he determine we need to deploy the military of the United States to force Iraq into compliance with the resolutions of the international community requiring it--transparently and permanently--to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction. If this requires the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, as I believe it will, I will support this President's policy of regime change, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me. It may be early in our Senate debate on this resolution, but we have been discussing our policy options for years. The President and his advisers have regularly consulted with us, with our allies, with the international community, and with the American public. As a result, I believe this administration will act with a coalition of willing nations, fully within the boundaries of international law, with the support of this Congress, and with the support and prayers of the American people. I am honored to have served the people of Utah for 26 years. Utahans are a patriotic people. Almost all, Republicans and Democrats, will support the President of the United States when he makes his final determination the vital interests of this country are at risk and we must take military action to protect those vital interests. Tonight the President will make that case before the American people, and we will all listen intently to his words. As a Senator who represents the interests of Utah but also the interests of our country, I know a decision on the use of force is the most serious consideration I can make because the costs may be measured by the ultimate sacrifice of good Americans. I make this decision with the deepest of study and prayer, and I offer my prayers to support any President who must make such a final decision. President Bush has acted conscientiously and openly in determining his administration's policy toward Iraq. I do not understand criticisms of this administration as being secretive, unilateral, militaristic, and uncooperative. From my perspective, none of these adjectives represent an objective reality. President Bush has warned us of the threat from Saddam Hussein's Iraq since he stepped into the national spotlight during the Presidential campaign. I was there. He has been expressing what most observers, expert analysts, and honest brokers have long recognized. Iraq has broken all of its pledges to cooperate with the international community and disarm; Iraq has refused to allow international inspectors since 1998; Iraq has never completely accounted for materials used for weapons of mass destruction, specifically biological and chemical weapons, since its defeat in 1991; Iraq has violated every U.N. resolution passed since 1991; Iraq has repeatedly fired on U.S. and allied aircraft patrolling the northern and southern ``no-fly'' zones; Saddam Hussein has continued to threaten his neighbors and has never ceased his hostile rhetoric toward the United States; And, Iraq has never proven to the international community that it has abandoned its pursuit of nuclear weapons. In fact, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I can tell you Iraq has never really abandoned that. Charges that the President has been unilateralist are completely unfounded. The pace of diplomatic activity conducted by administration officials in the capitals of our friends and allies, as well as in Geneva and in New York, is as active as any administration's diplomacy in modern times. Every day there is another respectful consultation, as the President's Secretaries of State and Defense, and the National Security Adviser's team, have repeatedly demonstrated. The President's speech before the United Nations 1 day and 1 year after September 11 was the most eloquent and forceful presentation of a U.S. President before that body. His appeal was ethical and it was logical. He stood before the body of the international community and he said: The United States stands with you behind the resolutions that are the core reason for this body's existence. If this body is to mean anything, the President logically implored, then this body must stand behind the resolutions that Iraq is flaunting today. Never before has a President made such a dramatic and persuasive appeal before the U.N. Never before has the U.N. been confronted with such a clear choice: Stand by what you say . . . . . . or stand aside in irrelevance. The President has consulted with every Member of Congress, and with most of us many times. His representatives have dutifully and constructively testified before numerous of our committees, and they have always been available for more discussions when needed. While the Constitution gives the foreign policy-making prerogative to the executive branch, I have always thought it sound judgment that a President voluntarily seek support and authorization from the U.S. Congress. Clearly, that is what this President has done with numerous consultations over the past weeks, including discussions that have culminated in this resolutions we will debate this week. This administration has respectfully included the public in this most serious of deliberations. Virtually all of these presentations, testimonies, and speeches have been done in the public eye. While a few congressional briefings have had to be conducted in closed settings due to the necessary review of classified materials, the arguments and most of the evidence for the determination of this administration's policy on Iraq have been there for the public to judge. The President's speech tonight will crystalize for the American people the important decision before us. In the past 2 weeks, there have been a few partisan eruptions. I believe we should never shirk from debate, and I believe that the matters of war and peace must be thoroughly debated as long as we recognize that, in the world of human affairs, there is no perfect wisdom, particularly of how the future will unfold. But let us not presume there are limits to good faith. There is not a single Democrat or Republican who glibly supports a decision that may have the consequence of shedding blood. And there is no Democrat or Republican who would ever seek to jeopardize the national security of this country by refusing to engage a threat that is looming. The decision to go to war cannot, must not, ever be a function of politics. In 1996, I warned that Osama bin Laden was a threat to this country. Bin Laden's activities had been of concern to a few prior to this. But, in that year, a number of interviews and articles with this man led me to conclude that he had large and evil intentions. I believed that he would distinguish himself from other terrorists by taking his grievances out of his homeland and his region and that some day--at a time we could not predetermine--he would be a threat to this country. I cannot raise this point with any pride. I warned about bin Laden, and many good people in the intelligence and law enforcement agencies began to respond to this growing threat. For reasons the historians will someday study, based in part on the inquiries we have already begun, we did not stop bin Laden. And he brought the terrorism war home to us. Two years later after I first warned about bin Laden, he attacked two U.S. embassies in the same morning, destroying buildings, and killing American diplomats and their families, as well as hundreds of Africans in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. A few days later, the President addressed the Nation, telling us he had responded to the Africa attacks by bin Laden with cruise missiles against Sudan and Afghanistan. While some raced to criticize him for ``wagging the dog'' trying to distance himself from the unfolding drama of his personal troubles I personally spoke out and approved of the President's initiative. I was in Salt Lake at the time. Because I had raised bin Laden so many times and had become thoroughly involved in trying to help the President with some of his problems, they interviewed me there, and I said at that time that he did the right thing, but I also said he should follow up and not just do it once. We were attacked and the U.S. had to respond, because if we did not respond, our passivity would invite further attacks. I also urged the President not to let that be a single set of strikes. I knew that any response we made short of eliminating the threat of bin Laden would embolden bin Laden. Since the days after September 11, I have often thought of those key moments in the late 1990s. I do so not to cast blame. The lives lost in New York, at the Pentagon, and in that Pennsylvania countryside will always be a reminder of how we failed to anticipate, failed to respond, failed to eliminate a threat we knew was out there. But let these not be lessons lost. The lives lost in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and in our campaign in Afghanistan demonstrate that if we are not prepared to engage an enemy before he strikes us then we must accept that we will pay a cost for pursuing him afterward. To me and to many Utahns and citizens throughout the Nation, the lesson of September 11 is: do not wait for your enemy to attack-- especially when he has access to weapons of mass destruction. If you have evidence of your enemy's capabilities and with Saddam Hussein we do and if you have evidence of his enmity and with Saddam Hussein we do--then do not err on the side of wishful thinking. With enemies with the destructive capabilities of Saddam Hussein, we must be hard-headed. The administration has argued that Saddam's Iraq poses a threat, a threat that must be eliminated. If we cannot eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction through coercive, thorough and comprehensive inspections backed by the threat of force supported by the international community--then the U.S. must seek to build our own coalition of willing nations to disarm Iraq by force and allow for a regime that will replace Saddam and return Iraq to the community of nations. I believe the President should continue to work with the international community to seek ways to disarm Iraq short of military intervention. Military force should never be our first course of action. But I will not support a resolution that conditions our authorization on actions by the United Nations. Such a move would set a precedent over sovereign decisions conducted by this country to defend its national interests. Supporting such language would, in my opinion, infringe upon the constitutional prerogative that resides with the President to conduct and manage the Nation's foreign policy. Congress must resist attempts to micromanage a war effort. The resolution we debate today is an authorization. But, the timing and modalities of action need to be--and must be controlled by the administration, with consultation wherever possible, so long as that consultation does not hamper the war effort. Traditional geopolitics requires us to think about national security in categories of our interests. Our vital interests are defined as the security of our homeland and our way of life; we must defend them at any costs, and we must be willing to defend them alone, if necessary. There are areas of vital national interest to this country, that if they were threatened or succumbed to hostile control, would jeopardize our homeland or our way of life. They are: the Western Hemisphere; Japan; Europe; and the Persian Gulf. Saddam Hussein continues to threaten the stability of the Persian Gulf. From this perspective, I believe that the frightening capabilities of Saddam's chemical and biological weapons pose a threat to the region, and to the stability of the Gulf, and therefore to our vital national interests. In addition, nontraditional geopolitics recognizes that international phenomena other than nation states must be considered when assessing the national security of the United States. Terrorism is the number one non-traditional threat to the U.S. today. This may seem obvious after September 11. It was not obvious enough before September 11. The American people know that we are at war with al-Qaida. The American people recognize that never again can we be complacent about threats to this country and our interests. And the American people understand that this war on al-Qaida cannot be used as an excuse to ignore other grave threats, such as the threat that Iraq continues to pose. We should not assume that Saddam Hussein will politely stand in line behind al-Qaida. With the questions remaining about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, with too many suggestions of Iraq's ties with terrorists, and with no question about Iraq's animosity to the United States, and other countries as well, including many in the Middle East, should the United States consider an option of doing nothing, or too little, as we did with al-Qaida before September 11? Perhaps, as a result of the diplomatic pressure building on Saddam Hussein in recent days, his regime will comply with a forceful and comprehensive international inspection regime. However, we should not for a single moment forget Saddam's history of obfuscation and delay. His record of noncompliance is 100 percent. Any inspection regime which we agree to support must complete the actions required in all Security Council resolutions, including the ones being drafted now, that would demand compliance with inspections or face the use of force. Some have suggested that a war on Iraq would be the beginning of a radical doctrine of preemption--that we are now setting a precedent for unilateral military action against regimes that we find odious. The idea of ``preemption'' is as old as Grotius, the father of international law, who wrote in the 17th century. U.S. policymakers have never foresworn the option of preemption, and have never seen the U.N. Charter as restricting the use of preemption in the event of a threat to our national security. There are many examples of this thinking in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Recall that U.S. nuclear doctrine never adopted a no-first-use policy. Nor is the policy decision we are facing today opening up a new, militaristic, and unilateral approach to dealing with other countries with which we have conflicts. Some have suggested that, if we authorize the use of force against Iraq, we are automatically implying that we support the use of force against the other two countries in the ``axis of evil'' termed by the President. Today, the administration is using diplomacy to control the ongoing confrontation on the Korean Peninsula. And while Iran remains a geopolitical threat, as it continues to fund terrorists operating in the Middle East, and is extending its influence in Afghanistan, the political foment within Iran is also providing a challenge to that Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship, as more and more Iranians seek to overthrow their corrupt and repressive tyranny. Despite some leftist revisionist histories, America has always been reluctant to use force overseas. As a democracy, we are imbued with values of caution and respect for human rights, reluctance and a desire to let other nations choose their own paths. But the world changed for us on September 11, 2001. The American people are patient, but we should never let that patience be used against us. As the President has said, if we are to wait until we have definite proof that Iraq intends to use weapons of mass destruction against us, then it may be too late. For too long, we were hesitant to attack al-Qaida, presuming that they would never dare to attack us in the heart of our financial center, at the core of our defense establishment, in the openness of our commercial airways. We were wrong. Can we accept the consequences of being wrong with Saddam Hussein's Iraq? If this Congress authorizes the use of force, and if the President concludes that force is the only option in removing Saddam Hussein from power and disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, then I believe that every member of this body will fully support our President and our Armed Forces. Iraq has been in a dangerous geopolitical limbo since Saddam Hussein was ejected from Kuwait in 1991, and then left to oppress his people over the ensuing decade. If the United States must act to remove Saddam Hussein, we must be committed to help reconstruct Iraq. This will take sustained policy focus. The U.S. will, once again, pay for a large portion of the costs of war. We would expect our allies to pay for a large portion of the reconstruction. U.S. policy must commit to the long-term stability of Iraq. We must work with the various Iraqi ethnic groups to build their own vision of a tolerant, educated, modern Iraq. Many of the Iraqi people have a history of valuing education, modernity and multiethnic society. We must commit to staying in Iraq until the basic institutions that will provide long-term stability are built. A stable, tolerant, modern Iraq may transform the Arab Middle East. Other traditional states will have to explain to their own peoples why they hesitate to grant democratic rights and privileges, basic human rights, and respect for women, if an Iraqi government were to arise from the repression of Saddam to blossom as an example of tolerance and modernity. If we commit to the liberation of the Iraqi people, and we assist them in rising out of decades of Saddam Hussein's depredations, the whole world will be able to see that the Arab world is not predestined to tyranny, radical regimes, anti-Western hatred, willful ignorance. I believe that this is President Bush's vision. The President understands that the use of force against Saddam Hussein--if it comes to this--will be the beginning of the end--not just of that dictator's brutal reign, but also of nearly a century of Arab despotism. I pray that Saddam Hussein capitulates to the international community and allows unfettered and comprehensive inspections, and that he removes himself from power or is removed by some brave Iraqi. But if we are not so fortunate, I pray Godspeed for our men and women in the military when they, once again, go beyond our shores to protect those of us within them. Mr. President, I again thank our very fine leader on our side and others on the other side for their efforts in this regard, for the support they have for this country, for our President, and for doing what is right. I personally respect the distinguished Senator from Virginia very much. I have watched him through the years work with both sides, trying to bring people together and to accomplish the best things for our country. I personally express my respect for him here today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I do. Our intelligence shows that the Iraqi people know they are repressed, that there are many of them who wish things would change, but there is such repression that they are afraid to strike out, afraid to speak out, or afraid to react in ways other than the way the current leadership in Iraq wants them to react. This is a very important country. It has tremendous resources, resources that are fully capable of helping that country to resuscitate itself, to reconstruct. Those resources are being ripped off of the Iraqi people right now by Saddam Hussein and others around him. They are being spent on matters that really do not benefit the country of Iraq, and they are being spent on matters that do not uplift the aspirations and hopes of the people in Iraq. As we all know, there is no question that if we could get rid of this repressive regime, Iraq could become a real player in the Middle East and help everybody in the world to understand that Islam is not a religion of destruction. It is not a religion of warfare in particular. It is a very good religion with tremendous ethics and responsible approaches towards life and towards living in the world community. Nor do I agree with some of our critics in the evangelical movement in this country who have been outspoken in their criticism of Islam, blaming the radical elements of Islam, who are not the majority, for many of the things that are going on, that are reprehensible, including the Osama bin Laden group, al-Qaida, and so many other terrorist groups. The Senator is absolutely right. We believe, and our intelligence shows, that Iraq could become a major player in world affairs, a major construct for good, if it had different leadership and if the people had the privilege of democratic principles. I thank my colleague because he has been pointing out all day, as he has served here, very important nuances upon which every one of us should take more time to reflect.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I regret that a family emergency in Utah kept me from the Senate yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to proceed on S.J. Res. 45, the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The President and his administration have been actively consulting with the Congress on the language of this resolution over the past days and weeks. Our committees have heard many testimonies from the administration and other experts. And, for many years now, we have been apprised of the threat of Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime. It is time for the Congress to come together, to hold a public debate, and to vote on a critical request made by this Administration. This administration has worked closely, and will continue to work closely, with our allies and the United Nations. The challenge posed to the U.N. by President Bush in his historic speech before the General Assembly last month demonstrated the dedication that the U.S. wishes to keep the U.N. relevant, while plainly stating that our national interest cannot and will not be subjugated to Saddam's willful deceptions and manipulations before that body. The world is looking to the United States to see our resolve. It is time for the world to see the American Congress debate whether we will support our Administration. I believe that we will show the world that this Congress, and the American people, overwhelmingly supports our President. It is not preordained the resolve we will show the world will lead to war. I believe that the resolve we show will demonstrate the U.S. will unite to confront the dangers that lie ahead.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Social Health Maintenance Organization Demonstration Project is due to expire in the next year. I have been a strong supporter of extending the SHMO demonstration project, because these plans help keep seniors independent and out of nursing homes. SHMOs provide beneficiaries with expanded Medicare benefits, including prescription drugs, care coordination and community-based services. While many of us are working toward making this a permanent program, it has now become clear that we will not be able to accomplish this goal this year because of budget constraints. Therefore, I offer as the next best solution extending the SHMO demonstration project for five more years. This way, SHMOs will continue to operate, and, those beneficiaries who receive their Medicare coverage through SHMOs will continue to receive important services and benefits.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since Utah is the home of many medical device and pharmaceutical companies, I have taken a special interest in legislation affecting the development of cutting-edge technologies and the ability of patients to have access to these innovative products. Three years ago, I authored legislation to ensure that Medicare patients have prompt and appropriate access to the abundant benefits of medical breakthrough products. Prior to the enactment of that law, these innovative technologies were not being properly reimbursed by the Medicare program or, in some cases, were not even being reimbursed by Medicare at all. As a result, patient care suffered. And, while the 1999 law was a giant step in the right direction, many problems continue to exist regarding the methodology that Medicare has used in developing its hospital outpatient reimbursement payments for these new devices and medicines. I have been working throughout the year with all parties who have a stake in improving the hospital outpatient prospective payment system methodology for new medical devices, drugs, biologicals, and other technologies. I have listened to the arguments from both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and the industry and recognize that there are problems with this methodology from all perspectives. And while, in my opinion, a legislative solution would be ideal, so far, we have been unable to draft legislation that would be acceptable to both CMS and industry representatives. Therefore, I now believe that authorizing a comprehensive study through the Department of Health and Human Services is the appropriate next step toward defining the flaws within the current system and developing consensus on how to address them. For this reason, I now advocate that CMS undertake such a study, and also provide recommendations to Congress on how to improve Medicare reimbursement for these products. This matter is a serious one which needs to be reviewed and analyzed by HHS so that a more equitable reimbursement system may be created. We all agree that Medicare beneficiaries deserve access to most innovative medical technologies. In my opinion, this HHS study will help us accomplish two very important goals, fair and equitable Medicare reimbursement for innovative technology and therapies and, most important, beneficiary access to these cutting-edge products.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since Utah is the home of many medical device and pharmaceutical companies, I have taken a special interest in legislation affecting the development of cutting-edge technologies and the ability of patients to have access to these innovative products. Three years ago, I authored legislation to ensure that Medicare patients have prompt and appropriate access to the abundant benefits of medical breakthrough products. Prior to the enactment of that law, these innovative technologies were not being properly reimbursed by the Medicare program or, in some cases, were not even being reimbursed by Medicare at all. As a result, patient care suffered. And, while the 1999 law was a giant step in the right direction, many problems continue to exist regarding the methodology that Medicare has used in developing its hospital outpatient reimbursement payments for these new devices and medicines. I have been working throughout the year with all parties who have a stake in improving the hospital outpatient prospective payment system methodology for new medical devices, drugs, biologicals, and other technologies. I have listened to the arguments from both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and the industry and recognize that there are problems with this methodology from all perspectives. And while, in my opinion, a legislative solution would be ideal, so far, we have been unable to draft legislation that would be acceptable to both CMS and industry representatives. Therefore, I now believe that authorizing a comprehensive study through the Department of Health and Human Services is the appropriate next step toward defining the flaws within the current system and developing consensus on how to address them. For this reason, I now advocate that CMS undertake such a study, and also provide recommendations to Congress on how to improve Medicare reimbursement for these products. This matter is a serious one which needs to be reviewed and analyzed by HHS so that a more equitable reimbursement system may be created. We all agree that Medicare beneficiaries deserve access to most innovative medical technologies. In my opinion, this HHS study will help us accomplish two very important goals, fair and equitable Medicare reimbursement for innovative technology and therapies and, most important, beneficiary access to these cutting-edge products.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Social Health Maintenance Organization Demonstration Project is due to expire in the next year. I have been a strong supporter of extending the SHMO demonstration project, because these plans help keep seniors independent and out of nursing homes. SHMOs provide beneficiaries with expanded Medicare benefits, including prescription drugs, care coordination and community-based services. While many of us are working toward making this a permanent program, it has now become clear that we will not be able to accomplish this goal this year because of budget constraints. Therefore, I offer as the next best solution extending the SHMO demonstration project for five more years. This way, SHMOs will continue to operate, and, those beneficiaries who receive their Medicare coverage through SHMOs will continue to receive important services and benefits.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. The Conference Report is now before the Senate. The title of the Conference Report--``The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act''--is appropriately named--the bill is a forward- looking measure which will strengthen the Justice Department and our judicial system as we face the new challenges of the 21st century. More specifically, the bill provides the Justice Department with the necessary tools and resources: to detect and prevent future terrorist attacks; to reduce drug abuse and prevent drug-related crimes; to enhance our country's ability to compete in international markets by improving our intellectual property and antitrust laws; and to address the growing needs of our at-risk youth by offering meaningful alternatives to the temptations of crime. The House last week passed the Conference Report by a vote of 400-4. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Before I address the substance of the Conference Report, I want to take a moment to thank my distinguished colleagues, Chairman Leahy, and House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner, and Ranking Member Conyers, for all of their hard work, commitment and determination on this important matter. Senator Leahy and I have been working together for years to enact a Department of Justice reauthorization bill, and I am pleased that we are finally able to bring the matter to the Senate for its consideration. The Department of Justice's main duty is to provide justice to all Americans, certainly of central importance to our national life. It has the primary responsibility for the enforcement of our Nation's laws. Through its divisions and agencies including the FBI and DEA, it investigates and prosecutes violations of federal criminal laws, protects the civil rights of our citizens, enforces the antitrust laws, and represents every department and agency of the United States government in litigation. Increasingly, its mission is international as well, protecting the interests of the United States and its people from growing threats of trans-national crime and international terrorism. Additionally, among the Department's key duties is providing much needed assistance and advice to state and local law enforcement agencies. It has been over two decades since Congress reauthorized the Justice Department. If enacted, H.R. 2215 will be a significant step in Congress's efforts to reassert its rightful role in overseeing the operation of the Justice Department. By instituting a regular reauthorization procedure for the Justice Department, Congress will be able to ensure that the Justice Department has all the necessary tools to carry out its critical functions. Let me be clear that I am not advocating that we micro-manage the Department of Justice. I have full confidence in Attorney General Ashcroft and the thousands of employees who competently manage the Department daily. However, we cannot continue to neglect our responsibility to exercise responsible oversight of the Justice Department which so profoundly affects the lives of all Americans. The tragic events of September 11th have underscored the need for Congress to work closely with the Justice Department. Last year, we worked with the Justice Department to ensure swift passage of the PATRIOT Act, which has strengthened America's security by providing law enforcement with the necessary tools to fight the war against terrorism. We will continue to provide the Justice Department with the legislative tools and resources needed to win this war against terrorism. The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization includes a number of important provisions which I will briefly highlight. Most significantly, the bill fully authorizes the Justice Department and its major components for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. Among these authorizations are funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to protect against terrorism and cyber-crime, the Drug Enforcement Administration to combat the trafficking of illegal drugs, and the Immigration and Nationalization Service to enforce our country's immigration laws. The bill also adds 94 new Assistant United States Attorneys to implement the President's Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative which is aimed at reducing gun violence in our communities. With respect to congressional oversight, the conference report strengthens the authority of the Department's Inspector General in order to address internal issues within the Justice Department. It specifically expands the Inspector General's authority to include responsibility for investigating the FBI. In order to establish a baseline from which to focus future oversight of the Justice Department, the bill requires the Department to submit to Congress reports detailing the operation of the Office of Justice Programs and all of the Justice Department's litigation activities. The conference report enacts many of the provisions of the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001, S. 304, which I introduced in the Senate with Senators Leahy and Biden more than 18 months ago, and which has received wide bipartisan support. This legislation marks a watershed event in the national effort to combat drug addiction, and makes a significant, sustained commitment to providing federal resources for reducing the demand for illicit drugs. Investing in proven prevention and treatment programs can help reduce the wreckage and the unwarranted burden of drug abuse on society. Specifically, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention and Treatment provisions: No. 1, increase drug treatment grants for prisoners and residential aftercare programs; No. 2, require a study and review of drug-testing technologies and all federal drug and substance abuse treatment and prevention programs in order to recommend necessary reforms to these programs; No. 3, expand drug abuse and addiction research; No. 4, expand the Drug Courts program; No. 5, provide post- incarceration vocational and remedial educational opportunities for federal inmates; and No. 6, provide grants to states to establish demonstration projects to promote successful reentry of criminal offenders. While ensuring effective drug treatment and prevention programs, the conference report includes a broad set of measures designed to protect our youth. Specifically, the bill supports the creation and expansion of Boys and Girls Clubs in our communities, enhances juvenile criminal accountability, and provides states with block grants to address juvenile crime. In addition to our nation's youth, the bill strengthens our criminal justice system by increasing penalties for those who tamper or threaten federal witnesses, or those criminals who harm Federal judges and law enforcement personnel. In addition to our Nation's youth, the bill provides increased attention to crimes against women by establishing a Violence Against Women Office within the Justice Department, which will be headed by a presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed Director. The Director, in part, will serve as a special counsel to the Attorney General on issues related to violence against women, provide information to the President, the Congress, State and local governments, and the general public, and maintain a liaison with the judicial branches of federal and State governments. The conference report addresses the operation of our federal judiciary by enacting long-needed judicial improvements and reforms to judicial disciplinary procedures. It also creates judgeships in various districts where there is a chronic shortage of federal judges to handle existing caseloads, particularly in our border States such as Texas, New Mexico, California, Nevada, Florida and Alabama. We need to do more here, and add judges in other districts where caseloads are high, and I am hopeful we will be able to do that next Congress. The bill also promotes America's economic security by enhancing our competitiveness in the world economy. Specifically, the bill makes some needed changes to our antitrust laws, and creates a commission to review our antitrust laws to determine what reforms, if any, are needed to ensure the effective operation of our free markets in our ``new'' high-tech economy. The conference report enacts critical amendments to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 2000, S. 898, which I introduced in order to clarify the eligibility standards and to ensure appropriate compensation under the program. In addition, the bill enacts ``The Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Act,'' S. 1140, which I introduced, was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and which received bipartisan support. This bill restricts the use of mandatory arbitration provisions in motor vehicle franchise contracts. Further, the bill includes several important provisions to reform intellectual property law. First, the bill directs the Justice Department to increase its enforcement of intellectual property laws. Second, aside from enforcement, the bill enacts the Technology, Education and Copyright Harmonization Act (TEACH Act, S. 487, which I introduced and has received bipartisan support. This Act enhances our country's education system by revising federal copyright law to extend the exemption from infringement liability for instructional broadcasting to digital distance learning. Third, the Conference Report enacts several important reforms of our patent and trademark system which I supported, including: authorization of the Patent and Trademark Office for fiscal years 2003 to 2008; revision of the filing and processing procedures for patent and trademark applications; and enactment of the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, S. 407, which ensures international protection of United States trademarks. Finally, the conference report refines INS administrative procedures in two specific areas in order to reduce INS processing delays. First, the bill extends H-1B status for alien workers who wish to continue working beyond the authorized 6-year period. Second, the bill includes provisions for removal of conditional basis of permanent resident status applicable to certain alien entrepreneurs. The conference report is a long-awaited and much-needed measure which will ensure that Congress provides the required oversight--and support of--the Justice Department as it continues its critical role of enforcing our country's laws, protecting our country from terrorist attacks, enhancing our competitiveness in the world economy, and making our communities safer. Working together in a spirit of bipartisanship, the bill provides the necessary framework to ensure that Congress and the Administration will be able to identify solutions to the challenges faced by federal law enforcement, and to ensure the efficient operation of the Justice Department and each of its components. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the tireless work of the dedicated Staff members on both sides of the aisle whose work around the clock made this legislation possible. First, on my staff, I want to specifically commend my former staff member Leah Belaire, who recently joined the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia as an Assistant United States Attorney. She along with my counsels, Mike Volkov, Wan Kim, Shawn Bentley, Patti DeLoatche, Rebecca Seidel, Bruce Artim, Dustin Pead, and my Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Makan Delrahim, all poured their hearts into this legislation. On Chairman Leahy's staff, I want to thank Tim Lynch and Ed Pagano, as well as Chairman Leahy's able General Counsel, Beryl Howell, and Chief Counsel and Staff Director, Bruce Cohan. On Chairman Sensenbrenner's staff, I want to commend Will Moschella, Steve Pinkos and Phil Kiko, for their hard work and dedication. On Congressman Conyer's staff, I want to thank Perry Apelbaum, Sam Garg, and Ted Kalo for their commitment to this legislation. Mr. President, this is an important piece of legislation that deserves our full support. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my sincere pleasure to rise in support of the nomination of Lawrence Block to the United States Court of Federal Claims. Larry hardly needs an introduction, since he has served on the staff of the Judiciary Committee for the past eight years. Those of us who have worked with him know that he is an incredibly talented lawyer whose broad legal experience spans private practice, all three branches of the Federal Government, and academia. Larry earned a B.A. degree from New York University magna cum laude before earning his law degree from The John Marshall Law School in 1981. He began his legal career as a clerk for the Honorable Roger J. Miner, who at the time was a U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of New York and who now sits on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. After his clerkship, Larry worked as an associate in the high- powered New York office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, where his practice included constitutional claims pertaining to Commerce Clause and commercial speech issues, as well as litigation involving financial services, mergers and acquisitions, securities, labor law, and administrative law. After several years in private practice, Larry returned to public service, and served with distinction in the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations. From 1986 to 1990, he worked in the U.S. Department of Justice, first in the Commercial Litigation Branch, then as Senior Attorney-Advisor in the Office of Legal Policy and Policy Development. From 1990 to 1994, Larry served as Acting General Counsel for Legal Policy and Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Legal Policy at the U.S. Department of Energy, where he spearheaded a number of complex legal projects. Despite his demanding workload, he found time to teach as an adjunct professor at George Mason University School of Law. In 1994, I was able to persuade Larry to leave the executive branch to come work for me. I have first-hand knowledge of his legal talents, and have nothing but respect for his abilities, especially in light of the significant health-related obstacles that he has overcome. Several years ago, Larry suffered a debilitating stroke during heart surgery. Although his prognosis was grim, Larry defied the odds by making a full recovery. He is now in excellent health. I know that Larry is proud of having overcome this temporary setback, and I have no doubt that he will take to the federal bench the same perseverance that aided his recovery. During his tenure on my staff, Larry has amply demonstrated his keen legal mind. But, just as importantly, he has shown repeatedly his fairness and willingness to listen to all sides of an issue before exercising his judgment. This is why he is a staffer admired and respected on both sides of the aisle. I will miss Larry's sage advice and counsel, but our loss will be the gain of the Court of Claims, where I am confident that Larry will serve as an impartial judge who will follow precedent to achieve uniformity and consistency in the law. I wish him all the best.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, It is always a sad day in the U.S. Senate when we prepare to bid good-bye to a dear friend and fellow Senator. But when you have been here as long as I have, and you are saying good- bye to a gentleman who was here when I arrived, and whom I first considered a senior Senator and now can also call a friend, it is particularly bittersweet. Many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently already about the senior senator from North Carolina, my friend Jesse Helms. I would like to associate myself with these remarks of tribute and respect. If we spent the rest of the year praising Jesse, we would still not do justice to this man. So I would like to take a moment here to comment on the leadership Jesse Helms assumed in his pivotal role as ranking member and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Oh, the wags worried, Mr. President, when the Republicans retook the Senate in 1994. What would this mean for the country that Jesse Helms would chair the committee that conducts the oversight over this nation's foreign policies and institutions of diplomacy? There was one cartoon I found particularly amusing: There was Jesse, scowling at his desk, on which sat a globe cut in half, with only the United States showing. The Jesse they portrayed was an isolationist, but the Jesse we know is merely an unabashed defender of the U.S. national interest. In this very chamber, Jesse has often argued that the State Department has lost the perspective of advancing our interests. Foreign aid, the good senator from North Carolina is famous for saying, ``went down rat holes.'' Jesse sees foreign policy from the perspective of preserving and advancing the national interest. Call it ``parochial,'' if you will, but Jesse is a traditional conservative: the sovereignty of the nation state was at the core of the international system, and if order is to prevail, it would remain at the core. And no sovereignty was more jealously protected than the sovereign of this country under our Constitution. Of course, you can't be a traditional conservative without recognizing the virtues of freedom and the threats of tyranny. You can't believe in the United States and ignore that the world presents-- and continues to present threats to these freedoms emanating from all forms of tyranny. And Jesse has fought against them all. There is no stauncher anti-communist than Jesse Helms, and I admire him for this. Whether it is Latin American communism under the Castro dictatorship or Sandinista state, or the Soviet managers of the Gulags internal and external, Jesse has stood up to them and has outlived most of them. No man stands for freedom against communism more steadfastly than Jesse Helms. To do so was the fundamental attribute, in my opinion, of a conscientious internationalist. The foes of Jesse Helms know that he is relentless. His friends know that he devoted. Small democracies around the world and I think of Israel and Taiwan have in Jesse Helms a stalwart defender. Jesse's internationalism, doubted by many, has transformed the world. Let me give you but a few brief examples: After years of frustration in Washington, Jesse could no longer tolerate the waste and ideological neglect emanating from the United Nations. Building on policies of restricting funding to that body that began in this Senate in the 1980s, Jesse drafted legislation setting targets of reform and reduced U.S. contributions that most people believed the U.N. would never comply with. Jesse was anti-U.N., many charged, and wanted the U.S. to withdraw from that body into further isolationism. This was nonsense, of course, Jesse, who was parodied as an anachronistic reactionary, is in fact an internationalist visionary. He knew that the American public would soon cease to tolerate inequitable funding requests for a broken international bureaucracy. He knew that the way to irrelevancy for the U.N. was the path it was on. Jesse cut another path, in landmark legislation that gained, ultimately the vast majority of the support of members on both sides of this aisle, to demand that the U.N. reform its bureaucracy and reinvigorate its relationship with the U.S. and the U.S. Congress. The U.N. heard the message and responded. And it is a better organization for it. The fact that President Bush was able to address that body two weeks ago from a position of mutual respect, and that we will be able to work constructively with that body in the coming difficult months ahead, has a great deal to do with the foresight of Jesse Helms. In recent years, Jesse has promoted the American Servicemembers Protection Act, which I have been proud to cosponsor, to defend U.S. military from prosecution of an ill-focused United Nations International Criminal Court. Not a popular cause among the multilateralists, abroad and in our own government, but Jesse Helms has always been about doing what's right for America, not what's popular. This legislation was recently signed into law. And guess what, Mr. President. The European Union, the professional advocate of all things multilateral, is coming around to recognizing that the U.S. must have as a component of bilateral relations formally exclusions our servicemen who sacrifice so much for their country and should be accountable only to their country's laws and commander-in-chief. Once again, Jesse Helms eschewed the conventional wisdom, saw over the horizon, and strengthened America's position in the world. And my friend Jesse Helms knows that, when America's position in the world is strengthened, the security of the world is advanced. This is the kind of internationalism that I admire. Most people are not focusing now, among the debate over Iraq, on the fact that NATO is engaging in another expansion, bringing in seven nations of central and eastern Europe into this military organization of democracies. The alliance will be stronger for this, and U.S. national security will be more secure. This is the second enlargement after the end of the Cold War. The first was completed in 1999, when Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic became members. In 1998, this body, where we must ratify any North Atlantic Treaty amendments, had a historic debate on whether to allow these members. Jesse Helms shepherded that debate, and U.S. national security interests were advanced. All of us know that there is so much to Jesse Helms that we cannot do him justice in our remarks of appreciation. Constituents, colleagues, foreign friends--all of these know this of this man. A few years ago, I had a meeting with an impressive songwriter named Bono, who came to my office seeking support for debt reduction in the poorest countries of the world. I was impressed with Bono and his work, and I was impressed that he wanted to work within the system, respecting economics while advocating compassion. He had my support. As he left his office, I asked where he was going. Bono told me, ``I'm going to meet Senator Helms.'' That will be interesting, I thought to myself. As is now well-known, Bono and Jesse hit it off. And today Jesse Helms is a leader in supporting the U.S. contribution to fighting that terrible pandemic in Africa. Many have tried to define Jesse Helms by what he opposed. I will remember him for what he supported: Freedom, human rights, and strong and independent America, free to spread its good in the world. I thank my good friend for his years of service, for his friendship to me, for his impeccable courtesy in debates whether we agreed or not. We will never see the likes of a Senator Helms again.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I personally want to express my regard for the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and his excellent remarks today. I think he covered the problems quite well. I personally appreciate the friendship we have together and the great leadership he provides in the Senate. I think he did a very good job. I agree with him. Mr. President, every Member of this body, and every citizen in this country, knows that the most critical issue facing our Nation today is the task of securing our homeland and protecting our country from further terrorist attacks. The enormousness of this task cannot be overstated; and its implementation is equal measures vexing and daunting. But we must rise to the challenge. And we must do so together. No less than the lives of our citizens and the security of our nation hangs in the balance. With regard to this, I pay my compliments to the distinguished Senator from Georgia who gave a speech this morning that was really very good. Senator Miller, it seems to me, has made a real effort to bridge the gap between Democrats and Republicans on the floor and otherwise. His remarks were just absolutely right on the money. I personally express my regards for his remarks and express my love and affection for him as a Senator. He is a good man, and we ought to listen to him. I speak today out of a spirit of bipartisanship. I am proud of the way that Congress has come together on issues of national security since the horrific attacks of September 11. In the wake of these tragic events, members of the Judiciary Committee and Congress worked tirelessly to provide the Attorney General with the tools necessary to fight terrorism worldwide and protect our country. Specifically, we passed the PATRIOT Act, a critical set of reforms needed to unleash our government's ability to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, by an near-unanimous vote of 99- 1. It is my hope that enough of that robust bipartisan spirit remains today as we consider the landmark legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security. As we have just passed the anniversary of the terrorist attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans, such a sentiment is not just sorely welcome; it is also fundamental and necessary and appropriate. Today, we face a significant new type of military threat, one far different than post-World War II communism. We face today the danger of numerous, well-financed, well-trained and completely ruthless terrorist groups who will stop at nothing to cross our borders and attack our institutions, infrastructures, people and freedoms with all types of weapons. They engage in unconventional warfare and are bound by no rules. I speak not of just al-Qaida but many other terrorist groups. The creation of the new Homeland Security Department is a massive task precisely because the terrorist threat is so pressing and pernicious. The proposal to create a new Homeland Security Department is the next logical and necessary step in our country's war against terrorism. In my view, there are several components that are critical to ensuring its success. One of these involves our intelligence practices. In the aftermath of September 11, it is abundantly clear that we must improve the gathering, sharing, and analyzing of information within and among our Federal, State and local agencies. Our nation clearly needs to have a centralized office that is responsible for reviewing all of the terrorism-related information that collected by any agency, be it the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or one of the others. The Homeland Security Department is a critical step to ensuring that intelligence information is comprehensively collected, analyzed and disseminated. We must be sure not to handcuff the new Department's ability to do its job in this area. In particular, we must take pains to ensure that we do not unnecessarily limit the use of this intelligence within the new Department. The stakes are simply too high to place artificial constraints on this important function. Another critical area involves managerial flexibility. The new Department of Homeland Security must be given the ability to hire and retain the very best people to do the work of keeping our country safe. We need to give the Secretary of Homeland Security such fundamental management powers as the ability to remove poor performers and reward exemplary employees with merit-based pay raises. Believe it or not, under our antiquated system of Federal employment rules, it can take five months to hire a new employee and 18 months to fire a terrible worker. Most Federal employees also get annual pay raises based on how long they have worked for the government, not how well they do their jobs. The vast majority of ordinary Americans don't have such outdated rules in their workplaces. There is absolutely no sound reason to move such inefficiencies to the new Department of Homeland Security. That is the current law. The bill before us even expands that. Let me be clear: I am convinced that the vast majority of Federal workers do an outstanding job for our country. That is why I am not concerned with giving the Department of Homeland Security more managerial flexibility. Indeed, because most Federal workers do great work, they have nothing to fear and everything to gain from an improved system that allows their work to be rewarded through merit-based bonuses and raises. Only poor workers need be concerned, and they should be. Frankly, there is no place for underperforming or incompetent workers in the agency charged with protecting our safety. The new Department has the Herculean task of preventing terrorist attacks and keeping our country safe. I cannot imagine any reason why we would handicap it by imposing a system of rules that protect bad Federal workers at the expense of good ones and, more importantly, at the expense of our nation's safety. That is what the amendment to the bill by Senator Gramm and Senator Miller changes. The need for flexibility, in my view, must run through every corner of the Department of Homeland Security. The very nature of our enemy is quick and deliberate action; terrorists are quick to change their members, associations, plans, training bases, and destructive methods. Terrorists, moreover, come in many different shapes, colors and ideological bents. We must equip our security forces with the ability to be similarly adaptable. The Department simply must have the ability to adapt itself to a constantly changing enemy threat. We will fail our task miserably if all we end up doing is reorganizing dozens of inflexible agencies into a new titular Department of Homeland Security. If the Secretary of Homeland Security is required to keep intact within the Department each of the individual agency's personnel, components, budgets and rules, then we don't have a new department--just a hodgepodge of independent agencies. We will have created just another layer of bureaucracy. That cannot be our goal. That cannot constitute effective governance. For this reason, I think it is absolutely essential that we give the Secretary of Homeland Security the ability to move personnel, assets and money to best meet the rapidly shifting terrain of terrorist threats. We all recognize that the war against terrorism cannot be won simply by reorganizing existing government agencies into a Department of Homeland Security. That Department must be equipped with the tools to complete its task. Moreover, it is essential that we tap into the resources and expertise of America's private sector. The new Department must enlist the aid and expertise of America's businesses to enhance our nation's security, and I am committed to making sure that the new Department is able to receive the uninhibited advice and counsel of our business leaders. It is private businesses which own and operate most of our infrastructure--our telecommunications, energy and financial systems. Our government cannot effectively fight this war against terrorism without their support. We must arm our agencies with the best technologies available, and our private sector is a critical player in this process, as it has been in our national defense and military. Our war against terrorism would be hopeless without the active innovation and support of private industries. We must also recognize that the private sector cannot realistically step up to help wage our fight against terrorism without some reasonable protection from frivolous tort litigation. Congress must act and must do so quickly and carefully without political gamesmanship. Our task is too important; we cannot afford to sacrifice our country's safety in the process. The threat of terrorist attacks on our homeland, as well as abroad, is here to stay. Our response to this threat requires a singleness of focus. All of us in Government have a duty to do all we can to protect the American people from future terrorist attacks. I have spent considerable time considering the tools that the new Department of Homeland Security simply must have to create an effective system of protecting our borders from terrorism. Having done so, I have reluctantly concluded that I cannot support Senator Lieberman's proposal, which simply cobbles together dozens of disparate agencies without any mechanism for adapting their personnel and missions to meet the challenge of the new Department. On the other hand, I find myself in great agreement with the central proposals of the Gramm-Miller bill. It is a bipartisan measure. And, as all bipartisan bills, it represents a series of compromises. But, I am convinced, the compromises will not, in my view, detract from the core ability of the Department to do its job and protect American lives. Critically, the Gramm-Miller bill provides enough flexibility for the President and the Secretary of Homeland Security to respond to an ever-changing, multi-headed threat. The task of guarding against terrorism is immense; the risk of failure is enormous. We simply cannot be bound by partisan interest groups in this time of war and crisis. Let us join together to pass the bipartisan Gramm-Miller bill so that we can feel certain that we have done all we possibly could to protect the mothers, fathers and children for whom each of us work. The same considerations that compel me to support the Gramm-Miller bill cause me to oppose the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment. While this amendment is a slight improvement from the Lieberman substitute, it still ties the President's hands much too much. Like the Lieberman substitute, the proposal cuts back on the President's existing authority to decertify the union affiliation for workers in the new Department in the interests of national security. This would be a step back under any circumstances; it certainly is not a forward-thinking way of creating a successful new Department of Homeland Security. Moreover, the amendment allows the unions to arbitrate any attempt by the President to loosen the civil service rules governing promotions and dismissals. I think I need to be entirely candid on this issue: how many members of this body would feel good about these rules if it took us 5 months to hire a staffer and 18 months to fire an incompetent one? How many of us would stand up and support such a system if it affected the way we do business? There is not one of us who would do that. And that is what we will get if we have the underlying bill. In all honesty, I think it is time to bring this matter to a close. I personally have seen how the majority has loaded up the tree with a bunch of Democrat amendments in an attempt to prevent a vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment. We intend to have a vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment, and the sooner the better. It may be that the majority will win on that amendment; it may be that they won't. But that is the nature of the process around here. We can't keep playing parliamentary games with homeland security. That is what is going on around here. That is the reason I have come to the floor. I don't come to the floor that often to raise Cain. And I am not raising Cain here, I am just speaking frankly. I think it is time for us to get about voting on these two different aspects of the bill. We ought to vote on the Gramm-Miller bill. There will have to be a vote on it. We ought to vote on the underlying bill, if that is the case--the Lieberman bill. I am not objecting to that. I don't think our side is objecting, nor is our side filibustering. We just want to be treated in a decent, honorable fashion; that is, give us a vote on the Gramm-Miller amendment, or the Gramm-Miller substitute, to put it in better terms. I get a little tired of politics around here, especially now that we are dealing with homeland security. That is what the President was criticizing. I hate to say this, but I saw the remarks of the distinguished majority leader earlier. It was on all three cable networks, as far as I could tell. Those remarks implied that the President was politicizing Democrats. That is not the case. The President did say we are muddling around here. He didn't say it in those terms. I will put it in these terms--muddling around with this homeland security bill instead of voting up or down and getting the job done. That is what we need to do. We don't need to have any distortions of what the President said or what Vice President Cheney said. That is what I think, unfortunately--I am sure it was sincere and well intentioned--was a distortion, but it is still a distortion. I think it is time we get rid of those types of attempts to have political games at the expense of a bill of this importance. That is what the President is driven by. After seeing all the weeks that we have been on this bill, I think the President is justified in his criticism. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in honor of my good friend--and legend--the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. From the moment Strom Thurmond set foot in this Chamber in 1954, he has been setting records. He was the only person ever elected to the Senate on a write-in-vote. He set the record for the longest speech on the Senate floor, clocked at an astounding 24 hours and 18 minutes. He is the longest serving Senator in the history of the Senate. As he approaches his 100th birthday, he is also the oldest serving Senator. Many of my colleagues will recall the momentous occasion in September of 1998 when he cast his 15,000th vote in the Senate. With these and so many other accomplishments over the years, he has appropriately been referred to as ``an institution within an institution.'' In 1902, the year Strom Thurmond was born, life expectancy was 51 years--and today it is 77 years. Strom continues to prove that, by any measure, he is anything but average. He has seen so much in his life. To provide some context, let me point out that, since his birth, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska and Hawaii gained statehood, and 11 amendments were added to the Constitution. The technological advancements he has witnessed, from the automobile to the airplane to the Internet, literally span a century of progress. Conveniences we have come to take for granted today were not always part of Strom Thurmond's world. Perhaps this explains why, during Judiciary Committee hearings, he has been heard asking witnesses who were too far away from the microphone to ``please speak into the machine.'' The story of his remarkable political career truly could fill several volumes. It began with a win in 1928 for the Edgefield County Superintendent of Schools. Eighteen years later, he was Governor of South Carolina. Strom was even a Presidential candidate in 1948, running on the ``Dixiecrat'' ticket against Democrat Harry Truman. I must admit, Mr. President, that he has come a long way in his political career, given that he originally came to the Senate as a Democrat. I am happy to say that wisdom came within a few short years when Strom saw the light and joined the Republican Party. When I first arrived in the Senate in January of 1977, he was my mentor. As my senior on the Judiciary Committee, it was Strom Thurmond who helped me find my way and learn how the committee functioned. He has not only been a respected colleague, but a personal friend, ever since. During his tenure as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Strom Thurmond left an indelible mark on the committee and the laws that came through it. He became known and respected for many fine qualities and positions--his devotion to the Constitution, his toughness on crime, his sense of fairness. He is also famous for his incredible grip. Many of us in this Chamber have experienced Strom Thurmond holding our arm tightly as he explains a viewpoint and asks for our support. I might add that this can be a very effective approach. Strom is also known to have a kind word or greeting for everyone who comes his way, and for being extremely good to his staff. Despite his power and influence, he has never forgotten the importance of small acts of kindness. For example, whenever he eats in the Senate Dining Room, he grabs two fistfuls of candy. When he returns to the floor of the Senate, he hands the candy out to the Senate Pages. Unfortunately, it is usually melted into a kaleidoscope of sugar by then! I have a feeling that the Pages prefer it when Strom takes them out for ice cream. Strom Thurmond is truly a legend--someone to whom the people of South Carolina owe an enormous debt of gratitude for all his years of service. Clearly, the people of South Carolina recognize the sacrifices he has made and are grateful for all he has done for them. In fact, you cannot mention the name Strom Thurmond in South Carolina without the audience bursting into spontaneous applause. He truly is an American political icon. Abraham Lincoln once said that ``The better part of one's life consists of friendships.'' With a friend like Strom Thurmond, this sentiment couldn't be more true. I am a great admirer of Strom Thurmond, and I am proud to call him my friend. Mr. President, one final note about Strom Thurmond: He is a great patriot. I am grateful for his work with me over the years in support of a constitutional flag amendment. A decorated veteran of World War II who fought at Normandy on D-day, Strom Thurmond loves this country. Let me close by saying that this country loves him, too.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss briefly my vote on the September 11 Commission. I joined in the amendment proposed by my good friends from Connecticut and Arizona because it is the right thing to do. Sitting as I do on both the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, it has become clear to me over the past year that many different causes contributed to the horrific terrorist attacks on September 11. I have become convinced that we need to take a hard look at how this tragedy happened in order to better understand how we might avoid a similar tragedy in the future. Hindsight is, indeed, 20-20, and we may be able to profit from a detached and objective analysis of mistakes that may have been made in the days and months before that attack. We need to learn from our mistakes. The stakes are simply too high to bury them. While I believe that a September 11 Commission should be appointed, I also think that the administration should have some voice in its makeup. The amendment establishes a 10-member commission with all of the 10 members appointed by the majority and minority leaders of Congress. It is fitting that Congress play a large role in defining the membership of this Commission, but it is striking to me that the Administration has no voice at all. Just as this Commission was approved by strong bipartisan support, so too should its task be apolitical. In this spirit, I would call upon my colleagues to think seriously about providing the administration with some role in defining the Commission.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on behalf of the listed Senators, a joint statement of myself, Senator Thurmond, Senator Kyl, Senator DeWine, Senator Sessions, and Senator McConnell regarding the Committee on the Judiciary, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am very pleased that the Senate has taken up the nomination of Judge Reena Raggi to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She is a truly exceptional nominee with wide and well deserved bipartisan support. We first became aware of Judge Raggi's outstanding credentials fifteen years ago, when the Senate confirmed to her nomination as a district judge for the Eastern District of New York. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Wellesley College and went on to graduate cum laude from Harvard Law School. She clerked for Judge Thomas E. Fairchild, then Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, before working as an associate at the law firm of Cahill, Gordon & Reindel. She then entered public service in Brooklyn, New York as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She quickly rose through the ranks of the U.S. Attorney's Office, first to become head of the Narcotics Unit, then Chief of Special Prosecutions, which is in charge of prosecuting public corruption. In 1986, the Eastern District Board of Judges appointed here interim United States Attorney pending the Senate confirmation of a presidential nominee. A year later, Judge Raggi was nominated and confirmed as a district court judge. That was 15 years ago. Today, I am proud to say that Judge Raggi has continued to serve as a jurist of the highest level of excellence. In fact, for the first 7 years of her tenure as a district judge, she was the least reversed judge in the Second Circuit. Judge Raggi has presided over some of the most famous and infamous cases to be tried in New York's Federal court. Recently, she was the judge in the civil rights prosecution of former New York City police officer Charles Schwartz for the sexual battery of Abner Louima. We are all sadly familiar with the facts of Mr. Louima's case: While in police custody, officers savagely beat him in the bathroom of a New York City precinct house. This case was ramanded to Judge Raggi's court by the Second Circuit for retrial following the death of the original trial court judge. The retrial resulted in a perjury conviction against Mr. Schwartz. Judge Raggi also presided over the trial of Thomas ``Tommy Karate'' Pitera, the first Federal death penalty case in New York in three decades. Beginning in 1993, Judge Raggi presided over a series of cases stemming from the alien smuggling scandal of the ``Golden Venture,'' a freighter that ran aground in Rockaway, NY. Almost 300 illegal aliens transported in deplorable conditions had to swim for shore, and 10 of the passengers died escaping the ship. The judge in 1994 rejected plea bargains reached by the government with seven of the Golden Venture defendants, finding that sentences of between 12 to 30 months in prison did not ``adequately do justice'' because the terms did not reflect the seriousness of the crimes. Judge Raggi also played a significant role in the war against terrorism. In 1998, she oversaw the trial of Palestinian terrorist Gazi Abu Mezer, who was convicted of plotting a subway bombing aimed at Jews. The judge sentenced Mr. Mezer to life in prison. All of this hard work and dedication to the law is reflected in Judge Raggi's ABA rating of unanimously ``Well Qualified.'' This rating, of course, is the highest that the ABA awards. Her excellence has been reflected by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' invitation to have her sit by designation on many of its panels. Clearly, Judge Raggi represents the very best in our Nation's judges and will be an outstanding addition to the Second Circuit. I look forward to voting in favor of her nomination and hearing of her accomplishments in the future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we all agree that one of the many important tasks of the new Department of Homeland Security will be protecting our country's computer infrastructure from cyber attacks. Computer technology is at the heart of our country's economy and has improved every aspect of our lives. Terrorists and others who wish to harm our country recognize that cyber attacks on our vital computer and related technological systems can have a devastating impact on our country, our economy and the lives of our people. The threat of cyber attacks, be it from foreign and/or domestic actors, is not new, but we all understand that the risks today are even greater. The threat of a devastating cyber attack is real and the potential for harm is great. A recent study found that cyber attacks on the Internet were projected to increase this year by as much as 65 percent. Just last year, two Russian hackers infiltrated American banks and businesses, stole private data, including credit card numbers, and extorted those companies by threatening to destroy their computers or release their customers' private information. Since September 11, there has been growing concern about the risk to our country of a serious cyber attack, particularly one against our infrastructure which could have devastating consequences. Late last fall the FBI traced a suspicious pattern of surveillance against Silicon Valley computers originating from the Middle East and South Asia involving emergency telephone systems, electrical generation and transmission, water storage and distribution, nuclear power plants and gas facilities in the bay area. Recently, it was reported that energy companies have suffered a significant increase in cyber attacks--up 77 percent this year--which have raised concern that the country's power system may be within the cross hairs of cyber terrorists. Given the vital role that computer and related technologies play in our country's economy and infrastructure, it is not difficult to imagine an assault on a computer system which might cause death or serious bodily injury. For example, a hacker who infiltrates a hospital database to erase records may thereby cause a patient to be deprived of necessary medication or treatment. As another example, consider the possibility of a cyber attack on a natural gas distribution pipeline that opens safety valves and releases fuel or gas. Attacks on sophisticated control systems, such as those involving natural gas, oil, electric power and water, which typically use automated supervisory control and data acquisition systems, would have a far-reaching effect. We have acted before when necessary to protect our country and our economy from cyberterrorists. The Patriot Act included several important provisions to improve our nation's cyber security in response to the increasing threats to our country. The amendment I am offering today continues that work. The amendment I am offering today is noncontroversial, and was passed by the House, on July 15, 2002. The House bill, H.R. 3482, was sponsored by Representative Lamar Smith from Texas, and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 385 to 3. We need to act in the same bipartisan manner and pass this amendment. The amendment will strengthen our criminal laws and provide greater flexibility to communications providers and law enforcement when necessary to prevent and protect against devastating cyber attacks. Specifically, the amendment would increase the criminal penalty in section 1030 of title 18 of the United States Code for a cyber attack to a maximum of 20 years imprisonment where such an attack causes serious bodily injury, and life imprisonment where such an attack causes death. Currently, section 1030 provides a maximum punishment of only 10 years imprisonment for a cyber attack which results in serious bodily injury or death. The amendment directs the Sentencing Commission to review the Federal sentencing guidelines for cyber crimes to reflect the significant harm caused by such crimes and the need for deterrence. Such a review was not included in the Patriot Act, and is clearly necessary in light of the changes to the federal computer crime statutes contained in the act as well as in this amendment. Such a review based on the factors included in this amendment should give judges greater latitude to increase a defendant's sentence to better account for the seriousness of the cyber attack. The amendment also includes provisions to give communications providers and law enforcement greater flexibility when dealing with emergency situations where there is a risk of serious bodily injury or death. Specifically, the amendment creates a ``good faith'' exception to allow communications providers to disclose communications to a governmental entity--e.g. hospital, law enforcement--in an emergency situation involving danger of death or serious bodily harm. The amendment also expands the list of ``emergency'' situations where law enforcement may obtain pen register and trap and trace information to include ongoing attacks on a protected computer and when necessary to protect national security interest. In order to address privacy concerns, the amendment includes increased penalties for illegal interceptions of cellular telephone calls and intrusions of stored communications. Finally, the bill establishes the Office of Science and Technology as an independent office under the general authority of the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs. This modification will help OJP to focus the necessary resources on the development of technology and hard science research. This measure will enhance OST's ability to assist state and local law enforcement in developing new cutting-edge technologies, such as computer forensics, firearms and ballistics technology, and crime mapping. Law enforcement is increasingly relying on new and innovative technologies, and we need to make sure that they have all of the tools available to fight terrorists and other criminals. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join in support of my amendment. Once again, we need to demonstrate to our country that working together, in a bipartisan fashion, we can accomplish great things, and we can protect our country from the dangers of potentially devastating cyber attacks. Mr. President, I pay special tribute to Senator Schumer from New York, who is a cosponsor, and tell him how much I appreciate the work of him and all the others who are cosponsors of this particular amendment.

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