Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I apologize for my laryngitis. I have had it for about 2 weeks. Professor Cassell's educational achievements, Department of Justice experience, and successes in trial are just a warm-up, in my opinion, for an even more important chapter of his career. In 1992, Cassell and his wife, Trish, returned to the West after he accepted a teaching position at the University of Utah College of Law. It was there that he unleashed his intellect and tremendous work ethic for the benefit of his students, the faculty, the citizens of Utah, and the Nation's victims of crime. Professor Cassell quickly became one of the students' favorite teachers. He has always prepared well for his classes, he uses relevant real-world examples from his career as a prosecutor, and he teaches with an approachable demeanor--and even a sense of humor. These are some of the qualities that led, in 1997, to Professor Cassell's being one of the youngest law professors ever to receive the Faculty Achievement Award for Teaching Excellence--the ``teacher of the year'' award. Three years later in 2000, Cassell became one of the youngest chaired faculty members at the University of Utah when he was awarded the James I. Farr Professorship of Law. As a scholar, Professor Cassell has become a national expert on criminal procedure and evidence. His scholarship includes over 25 law review articles, which have been published in such prestigious journals as the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the UCLA Law Review, the Brigham Young University Law Review, and the Utah Law Review. He has also made presentations at law schools around the country, including Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, Northwestern, and UCLA. He has shared his knowledge and expertise with Congress, testifying numerous times before congressional committees on issues pertaining to criminal justice, including testimony on victims' rights, capital punishment, Miranda, and criminal cases in the United States Supreme Court. Unlike many scholars, however, Professor Cassell has also put his intellect to practical use in his community. For example, Professor Cassell has been actively involved in fighting domestic violence and sexual assault in Utah. He has served as the chair of the Legislative Committee of the Utah Council on Victims of Crime as well as a member on the Utah Supreme Court's Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure. Professor Cassell has donated an extraordinary amount of time advocating on behalf of his fellow Utahns in court. In fact, he has done as much or more pro bono legal work as anyone I can remember ever appearing before the Judiciary Committee. He has represented dozens and dozens of crime victims, all without charge. Let me give just one example--a case that came to my attention because of the moving letter I received from the victim's mother. It is the case called State v. Casey, in which Cassell argued on behalf of a 12-year-old Utah boy who had been victimized by sexual assault. When the boy was denied his right to speak in opposition to a plea bargain reducing the charge from a first-degree aggravated felony to a misdemeanor, Cassell had the case certified to the Utah Supreme Court as one involving an issue of ``exceptional importance'' and argued the issue on the boy's behalf. The boy's mother wrote me a letter about Cassell's work in that case, saying that Cassell: . . . was the first attorney who listened to us with interest and understanding. She explained that: Paul worked long and late hours on our case . . . at no financial gain for himself. Because of Cassell's work, she said her family: . . . can now start to move forward with our lives, putting the tragic past behind us. It is not only Utahns who can say such things about Paul Cassell, because in addition to his work in our home State, Cassell has worked free of charge on behalf of crime victims all across the country. For example, in 1996, Cassell undertook to represent 89 victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. They had been ordered not to watch court proceedings in the case if they were going to provide so-called impact testimony at the death-penalty phase of Timothy McVeigh's trail. This order appeared to contravene the requirements of the victims bill of rights, a Federal statute passed by Congress to guarantee crime victims the right to attend court proceedings. Cassell appealed to the tenth circuit, which rejected the petition on the grounds that crime victims lacked standing to present their claims to a appellate court. Cassell's petition for rehearing in the case was supported by 49 Members of Congress--of both political parties--as well as the United States Department of Justice, all six State Attorneys General in the tenth circuit, and some of the leading crime victims' groups in the country, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the National Crime Victims Constitutional Amendment Network. When the petition for rehearing was denied, Cassell helped crime victims come to Congress to obtain remedial legislation. Congress passed the Victims' Rights Clarification Act of 1997 by a margin of 418 to 19 in the House and unanimously here in the Senate. That would not have happened but for Professor Cassell. When President Clinton signed the act into law, he endorsed Cassell's position, explaining ``when someone is a victim, he or she should be at the center of the criminal justice process, not on the outside looking in.'' Again, all of that work was done by Professor Cassell without any compensation. Those victims would not have has any voice at all in the criminal justice system if it weren't for the selfless sacrifice and dedication of Professor Cassell. In sum, Mr. President, Professor Cassell's record demonstrates everything that this body should hope for in a judicial nominee: unquestioned competence; a track record of hard work; a personal dedication to justice; and a commitment to public service. To that, I would like to add my personal opinion. I know Paul Cassell, and I know him to be not only an extraordinary lawyer and an extraordinary scholar, but also one of the most decent, honest, honorable, and fairminded people I have ever know. He is going to be an absolutely great judge, and an excellent addition to the Utah District Court bench. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation. I thank the Chair and reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Violence Against Women Office, Washington, DC, March 18, 2002. Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Leahy: I am writing to express my strong personal support for the appointment of Professor Paul Cassell to the Federal District Court of Utah. I believe, based on my pass association with Professor Cassell, that he will make an excellent judge. Professor Cassell and I have worked together for over five years as co-members of the Utah Council on Victims of Crime and I have come to respect his integrity, great knowledge of the law, and ability to assist others in the comprehension of the often complex issues at hand. Often in my work as State Coordinator for the Utah Governor's Cabinet Council on Domestic Violence, Professor Cassell was of invaluable assistance in analyzing legislation as it was being proposed and many times provided an expert opinion on existing federal and state statutes. Issues of confidentiality, victim notification and courtroom video taping became more understandable as he worked to provide a solid, legal foundation for others to follow. It is my belief that Professor Cassell is exactly the right kind of balanced individual that will make him an exceptional Federal District Court Judge. Respectfully, Diane M. Stuart, Director.

Mr. HATCH. Whatever the distinguished chairman prefers. I thank the chairman.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a Senate companion to H.R. 1840, a bill to extend the eligibility for refugee status of immigrants who are the unmarried children of qualified Vietnamese nationals. This bill would extend the authority to process such individuals through fiscal year 2003, as it was set to expire earlier this year. The House and Senate have been in communication regarding this bill for some time, and given that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the House version of this bill by unanimous consent this morning, I have little doubt that the entire Senate will extend their support. This is a very important piece of legislation and one that will provide crucial relief to a small, yet deserving group of people, the children of those Vietnamese nationals who were placed in internment camps by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and are now in the United States as refugees. We simply cannot expect the sons and daughters of these Vietnamese nationals to be forgotten. It is our duty to support the sacrifices that these families made for freedom and democracy and I find it most appropriate that we prevent further persecution by welcoming their children. I want to commend Congressman Tom Davis on his introduction of this legislation in the House. I urge my Senate colleagues' support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a Senate companion to H.R. 1840, a bill to extend the eligibility for refugee status of immigrants who are the unmarried children of qualified Vietnamese nationals. This bill would extend the authority to process such individuals through fiscal year 2003, as it was set to expire earlier this year. The House and Senate have been in communication regarding this bill for some time, and given that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the House version of this bill by unanimous consent this morning, I have little doubt that the entire Senate will extend their support. This is a very important piece of legislation and one that will provide crucial relief to a small, yet deserving group of people, the children of those Vietnamese nationals who were placed in internment camps by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and are now in the United States as refugees. We simply cannot expect the sons and daughters of these Vietnamese nationals to be forgotten. It is our duty to support the sacrifices that these families made for freedom and democracy and I find it most appropriate that we prevent further persecution by welcoming their children. I want to commend Congressman Tom Davis on his introduction of this legislation in the House. I urge my Senate colleagues' support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one of the finest attorneys in the country, Norman Johnson, one of the great attorneys and leaders from my home state of Utah, died last Saturday. The loss of Norm is a personal loss to me. He has been one of my best friends. Norm was not only a fine lawyer, a fine businessman, a fine husband and father, a fine Christian, and a wonderful friend. Norm was a partner in one of Utah's most prestigious law firms. He was one of the most informed authorities in the field of securities law and nationally recognized both before and after appointment as one of the five commissioners on the United States Security and Exchange Commission. As S.E.C. Commissioner, Norm held one of the most prestigious and high-level positions in the Federal Government. Norm served well and was highly respected. I know. I watched his service and was so proud of him. Norm loved his wife Carol and his children, all of whom are beautiful and exemplary in their own lives. I'm sure they are very grieved at his death. He was so proud of them. Norm was one of the most soft-spoken people I ever knew. He was kind, generous to a fault, and a friend to all. We lived in the same neighborhood in Salt Lake City, when I was Bishop of the Salt Lake Mt. Olympus 10th Ward. We became instant friends and our friendship has endured over thirty years. Norm courageously battled esophageal cancer for a lengthy time. I remember visiting him in the hospital many times. He beat one of the worst of all cancers and then went on to his exceptional government service. I never heard him complain and he bore his difficulties with grace and humor, but the suffering took its toll. I loved Norm as a brother and have always and will always be a friend of his family. His funeral is today and I deeply regret that, because of pressing Senate business and an important meeting with the President of the United States at the White House, I have not been able to attend. My beloved wife, Elaine, will be in attendance. She left for Utah this morning. As usual, Elaine will represent me well.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise along with Senator Leahy and others to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002. This bill, which exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from certain local and State prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms, will help protect the American public, our Nation's officers and their families. Over the past several Congresses, Senator Campbell has been a leader in this area. As a former deputy sheriff in Sacramento County, California, he has a first-hand understanding of the challenges law enforcement officers face as they cross state lines. Last March, he introduced a similar bill, S. 442, the Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2001, which I co-sponsored. I will continue to support S. 442 as we seek to enact such legislation during this Congress. Like S. 442, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 permits qualified law enforcement officers and retired officers to carry, with the appropriate identification, a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce regardless of State or local laws. However, like S. 442, this bill does not supersede any State law that permits private persons to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed weapons on their properties, or prohibits or restricts the possession of firearms on any State or local government properties, installations, buildings, bases or parks. Additionally, both bills clearly define what is meant by ``qualified law enforcement officer'' and ``qualified retired [or former] law enforcement officer'' to ensure that those individuals permitted to carry concealed firearms are highly trained professionals. Such legislation not only will provide law enforcement officers with a legal means to protect themselves and their families when they travel interstate, it will also provide added security to the American public. By enabling qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry firearms while off-duty, retired or outside their own jurisdictions, more trained law enforcement officers will be on our streets to enforce the law and to respond to crises. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues in both Houses to ensure that this legislation is enacted into law. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise along with Senator Leahy and others to introduce the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002. This bill, which exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from certain local and State prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms, will help protect the American public, our Nation's officers and their families. Over the past several Congresses, Senator Campbell has been a leader in this area. As a former deputy sheriff in Sacramento County, California, he has a first-hand understanding of the challenges law enforcement officers face as they cross state lines. Last March, he introduced a similar bill, S. 442, the Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2001, which I co-sponsored. I will continue to support S. 442 as we seek to enact such legislation during this Congress. Like S. 442, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 permits qualified law enforcement officers and retired officers to carry, with the appropriate identification, a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce regardless of State or local laws. However, like S. 442, this bill does not supersede any State law that permits private persons to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed weapons on their properties, or prohibits or restricts the possession of firearms on any State or local government properties, installations, buildings, bases or parks. Additionally, both bills clearly define what is meant by ``qualified law enforcement officer'' and ``qualified retired [or former] law enforcement officer'' to ensure that those individuals permitted to carry concealed firearms are highly trained professionals. Such legislation not only will provide law enforcement officers with a legal means to protect themselves and their families when they travel interstate, it will also provide added security to the American public. By enabling qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry firearms while off-duty, retired or outside their own jurisdictions, more trained law enforcement officers will be on our streets to enforce the law and to respond to crises. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis with my colleagues in both Houses to ensure that this legislation is enacted into law. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I compliment both my colleagues to whom I have been listening, Senator McCain from Arizona, a leader on this floor and of course a friend for whom I have tremendous respect, and his Democratic counterpart, Senator Lieberman, a dear, dear friend, someone with whom I have passed legislation where he has made a great deal of difference and who has spoken eloquently and reasonably and in a way that should advance the cause of peace in this world. I also rise to address this amendment. I am joined with a large number of colleagues as cosponsors to do so. This amendment is a reiteration of what Congress has overwhelmingly stated through the years, that this body stands in solidarity with Israel. Israel is a front-line state against terrorism. What they do is very important with regard to the battle against terrorism because it takes necessary steps--to provide and bring about security to its people from these suicide bombers by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas. We have all watched with growing alarm the explosion of suicidal violence that wracked Israel in the last couple of months. I am greatly relieved that, for the time being, those suicide attacks have ceased. But what has happened in the interim to lead to this cessation of suicide bombings? Was it a newfound political will in the offices of the Palestinian Authority that declared unambiguously that terrorism would no longer be promoted or tolerated from the territories over which the PA holds power? Was it a statement by Chairman Arafat, in Arabic, denouncing suicidal murderers as nihilistic and counter productive to any cause of peace? Was it a deployment of Yasser Arafat's multiple security services to disrupt, capture and imprison the perpetrators of terrorism against Israeli citizens? No, we all know that the cessation of suicide bombings, at least for the time being, was not the result of political will on the part of the leaders of the Palestinian Authority. It was the result of a military deployment by the government Israel, a deployment by the Israeli Defense Forces that was costly, controversial, and . . . for the moment . . . successful. What nation do we believe could exempt itself from the right of self- defense? Isn't such an exemption fundamentally against the natural state of nationhood? Have we ever expected any nation let alone a long- standing friend and ally to exempt itself from its right of self- defense? Of course not. Yet Israel has faced a great deal of criticism for its action in the last month. Certainly Israel is not above criticism--any more than it is exempt from the right of self-defense. But I, for one, cannot criticize its right to self-defense, its need to act in its self- defense, and its responsibility to use its professional military to destroy the terrorist infrastructure that is still dedicated to the military defeat of the only country in the Middle East that fully shares our western values. You're never going to see criticism of that type coming from this Senator. I recognize that there are long-standing, unresolved political issues between Israel and the Palestinians. I recognize that many Palestinians now have generations of being uprooted, frustrated and impoverished from which to feed a legitimate sense of injustice. I also recognize, Mr. President, that there have been many Israelis, in their government, in their elites, but, more important, throughout their society, who have desired, sought and worked for a peaceful solution between the two peoples. I was amazed myself with the offer Prime Minister Barak made to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians. It went way beyond anything most people I talked with thought that Israel should do. It should have been snapped up by Yasser Arafat, and certainly it should become at least a basis for trying to resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I have my doubts if Yasser Arafat can be a partner for peace. His duplicity is well-known; he talks peace in English on the White House lawn and before some aid agencies. He speaks jihad in Arabic before young Palestinian crowds and in the courts of Arab leaders. The man who, nearly 20 years ago, could not address the United Nations, a body dedicated to the resolution of conflicts without violence, without the symbol of a pistol holster on his hip, clearly today continues to believe that there is a legitimate role for terrorism. The reason there have been no suicide bombings in Israel in the last few days is not because Yasser Arafat has preached the renunciation of terror. It is because the IDF went after the terrorists that Arafat's Palestinian Authority harbors. It is an old lesson that we dare forget at our own peril: Tolerate terrorism and it will grow and multiply, feeding every angry and hateful cause. Negotiate with terrorism and you will legitimize it, creating incentives for more terrorism and the promoting the deadly illusion that terrorism is some form of legitimate political expression. We all recognize that the IDF actions of the past month do not guarantee that suicide bombings will cease, and I say this with a sense of reality and deep regret. I even recognize that those absolutely dedicated to terrorism have most likely not been dissuaded from their nihilistic path. I also know that perhaps some of those living in despair in the Palestinian territories may have been made more desperate, and that their desperation may be used by the cynical manipulators behind the suicide attacks. I long for the day when all the peoples of the Middle East are freed from regimes that harbor hatred rather than promote growth, that plan for war rather than development, that delude their peoples while denying them a future of prosperity. I strongly support the Administration's efforts to help find a just political solution to this conflict, and to begin talking, at this early stage but generations too late, about economic development that will give the Palestinians outlets to channel their work toward building secure and prosperous futures for their families and future generations. I empathize with the Palestinians who have unemployment rates well in excess of 50 percent. No wonder there is unrest and discord over there. I support, even, calls for immediate reconstruction assistance to the Palestinian territories, to be channeled, I would hasten to add, by legitimate non-governmental organizations, and not by the Palestinian Authority. I encourage the Administration's efforts to bring the so-called moderate Arab nations into this effort. Those nations will not only have to dedicate their diplomatic efforts toward encouraging the leaders of the Palestinian Authority to accepting a political solution. Those countries will not only have to dedicate substantial funds for promoting economic development that channels the energies of the Palestinians into productive and peaceful endeavors. But if those countries are to succeed in their diplomacy and with their assistance, they will have to stop encouraging anti-Semitic and anti-American hatred in their own societies. I certainly wish the Administration the best of luck in this very difficult endeavor. We will need to see a political solution before we seen economic development, Mr. President. But to have a political solution, there must be political will, on both sides, to reach an settlement. A political solution cannot be begun under a wave of terrorist attacks. I don't see how anybody can criticize Israel under the circumstances. Terrorism requires a military response. We are finding that is so true. While I have always believed this country should support Israel in its effort to seek peace, I strongly believe that we must remain equally dedicated to Israel's right to self-defense. For this reason, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, and I urge the unanimous support of my colleagues with a vote for it. Madam President, I have been talking about Israel and terrorism and what we have to do about it. But now I want to shift for a minute and talk about the extreme dissatisfaction registered by Senator Grassley, the ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee, Senator Phil Gramm, and others on our side of the aisle in regard to the trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance--the Andean Trade Preferences Act and trade promotion authority. Trade creates jobs both at home and abroad. Trade can also help promote political stability in many regions of the world. It is in our national interest to foster free trade. Let us look at the facts. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers live outside our borders. Based on that fact alone, the United States would be foolish not to pursue a vigorous trade agenda. But let me go on. Exports accounted for about 30 percent of U.S. economic growth over the last decade, representing one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy. Almost 97 percent of exporters are small or medium-sized companies and, as my colleagues are aware, small businessmen are the engines of job growth. In fact, almost 10 percent of all U.S. jobs--an estimated 12 million workers--now depend on America's ability to export to the rest of the world. Export-related jobs typically pay 13 percent to 18 percent more than the average U.S. wage. And there are many reasons to believe that the best is yet to come in this dynamic sector. Economists predict that there could be a 33 percent reduction in worldwide tariffs on agricultural and industrial products in the next WTO trade round. This action alone could inject an additional $177.3 billion into the American economy in the next 10 years. That is a lot of money. I strongly support Congressional passage of Trade Promotion Authority legislation this year. I was the one who made the motion and got it passed out of the Senate Finance Committee upon which I sit. TPA will provide a measure of certainty to our trading partners that any agreement reached with USTR will receive timely Congressional consideration and will not die a slow death by amendment. Look, the Finance Committee passed the trade promotion authority legislation by a wide, bipartisan 18 to 3 vote back in December. I agree with Senator Gramm that if we had an up/down vote of this bi- partisan bill permitted by the Majority Leader, it would probably pass with over 70 votes. I believe it would pass by an over whelming majority of 70 or more votes. The majority leader knows this. We all know this. Instead, the bill that was laid down last night was a thumb in the eye of bi-partisanship. It is bad for America. It should not and will not be adopted by the Senate this week, next week, this month, next month, this year, or next year. Members of the Finance Committee know that all last year, I took the position that Congress must pass both trade promotion authority legislation and trade adjustment assistance legislation. If both bills do not pass, neither will pass. That is the truth of the matter. That is the political reality. It is also true that there is little we can do in Congress to help the prosperity of American families--and help the prosperity of nations around the world--other than TPA. We need trade promotion authority to open up new markets for American goods. We also need trade adjustment assistance to provide retraining and other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to the effects of international trade. Let me acknowledge that there are some in my caucus who are leery of TAA because they are justifiably concerned about expanding yet another federal entitlement program. In my state of Utah, we have felt the effects of the dumping of imported steel by the closing of the Geneva Steel production facilities, and the loss of almost 2,000 jobs. I commend the action the President took on steel. I support TAA to help displaced workers, but it must have reasonable limits. The TAA bill that was before the Finance Committee last fall was already too big. I was going to say, the TAA bill that was reported by the Finance Committee, but I am not sure that is an accurate statement. Anyone present that day will tell you that the vote on the bill appeared to take place in violation of Senate rules--specifically, the rule against conducting Committee meetings for more than two hours after the full Senate was in session was invoked. The gavel went down after time had expired. Let us face it. Unlike the bipartisan trade promotion authority legislation, this TAA bill has had a strange partisan bent to it from start to finish. Last night a bad TAA bill got worse. While I remain hopeful that we can do what we should do, and pass both TPA and TAA. I want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to know that there is little sentiment on our side for passing TPA at any cost. That is what Senator Grassley and Senator Gramm said earlier today, and I agree with them. Let us get this process back on track. I think if we can do that we will find that a strong consensus can develop on trade issues--both on TPA and TAA. I am mindful that there will be those on both sides of the aisle that will remain inalterably opposed to either trade promotion authority or trade adjustment assistance. For the good of the American people, we cannot afford to let that occur. I have a lot of faith in Senator Grassley. He is a good man. He is a hard worker. I have trust in the fact that Senator Baucus wants to do the right thing. He is a good man. He works hard on the Finance Committee. I hope they get the chance to help bring us together. My fear is that the bill that was laid down last night may put the Senate on a glide path to disaster. Just as there appeared to be a narrowing of the issues of the health care aspects of the TAA bill, a host of new issues were suddenly put on the table for the first time. As I read it, the Majority Leader's bill includes measures that were not included in any of the bills that were reported by the Finance Committee. It is my understanding that never in any of the negotiating meetings has the issue of wage insurance been raised--but it then suddenly appears in the majority leader's bill. I do not want to see these important talks over this legislation stall, but my colleagues on the other side must be willing to come to the table with reasonable proposals. I believe that there is a way that my Republicans and Democratic Colleagues can come together and pass both TPA and TAA. Frankly the measures that we are discussing today were all reported by the Committee separately as free-standing bills. Let me be clear. I would like to see the Senate take up and pass the Andean Trade Preference Act, Trade Promotion Authority, and Trade Adjustment Assistance this year. Perhaps we would be better off by taking them up one at a time. As I recall, we didn't approve an omnibus trade bill in the Finance Committee. It appears to many that the bill laid down last night was hastily- crafted with apparently a partisan purpose in mind. Just let me give you one example. I ask my colleagues to turn to page 23 of the bill distributed last night. This section is entitled ``Action by the Secretary'' and deals with appeals of the TAA certification process. Now turn to page 41 of the bill. You will see this entire section repeated verbatim. One of the reasons for careful consideration of legislation by the Committees of jurisdiction is to avoid these types of embarrassing drafting errors that occur when complex laws are rewritten in the dead of night outside the regular order. As the ranking Republican member on the International Trade Subcommittee and as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I can tell the Senate that international trade has long been one of the most important foreign policy tools of the United States. The Bush administration--led by Commerce Secretary Don Evans and our United States Trade Representative Bob Zoellick--has helped launch a new round of international trade talks. We all have an interest in making the next World Trade Organization ministerial succeed. In order to make the next ministerial a success, it is important that the United States signal to the world that we will continue to make trade a very high priority. We can do this best by passing TPA. I will say again that I recognize, in all likelihood, the Senate will need to act on Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation if there is a chance of passing the TPA bill. So be it. I am for both TPA and TAA. But let me be clear, I am not for a loaded up TAA bill with unrealistic health care provisions. On a related issue, I am deeply disappointed by the health care provisions of the Daschle substitute. As someone who has worked very much in a bipartisan way during my 26 years in the Senate on all health care issues, this has become a partisan issue. It shouldn't be. I am a strong advocate of getting Trade Promotion Authority for the President--but Senator Daschle's amendment includes health care provisions that are just unacceptable to me and other members of the Senate Finance Committee. Let me take a minute to highlight some of the more egregious health provisions in the Daschle substitute. The Daschle amendment has a 73 percent advanceable, refundable tax credit that may be used for COBRA coverage or other pooled insurance coverage. S. 1209, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act that was rammed through the Finance Committee required the Treasury Secretary to create a program that would pay 75 percent of the COBRA subsidies. These subsidies could only be used for COBRA benefits. What Senator Daschle is promoting is only a slight improvement over what was included in S. 1209--hardly a compromise, in my opinion. Subsidizing health insurance by 73 percent is just too high. It is my understanding that the discussion between Senators Grassley and Baucus were much more constructive on this issue and now the majority leader's substitute goes in the direction away from a reasonable compromise. The Daschle substitute also allocates $200 million for National Emergency Grants to States in order to provide assistance and support services to eligible workers. This grant money could be used to pay for health care coverage; however, States may also use this money to provide benefits through the Medicaid program or my CHIP program we passed a few years ago. Both the Medicaid and Child Health Insurance programs are programs for the low-income; however, the way I understand the Daschle substitute, anyone would be eligible to participate in these programs no matter how wealthy. While this is an improvement over the TAA legislation approved by the Finance Committee, which essentially gave States the option to offer Medicaid coverage to uninsured workers, it is still unacceptable. In fact, during the Finance Committee's consideration of S. 1209, I expressed my strong opposition to the Medicaid expansions included in S. 1209. Those of us who are familiar with the history of the Medicaid program know that State options usually end up becoming permanent fixtures of the Medicare program. While the Daschle substitute doesn't include the blatant Medicaid expansions of S. 1209, I believe it is a backdoor way of expanding both the Medicaid and CHIP programs. And if I had to make a prediction, chances are that these ``temporary'' provisions--I will put ``temporary'' in quotes--will end up becoming permanent. It is as if we are not even listening to our State Governors. They keep telling us that the States' budgets are in financial disarray. My State can't even afford to cover children eligible for the CHIP program--3,000 more children than the 27,000 who are currently covered. I believe that the Daschle provisions on Medicaid and CHIP could have very serious financial impacts on both the State and Federal budgets, especially when both are experiencing budget shortfalls. What is most troubling to me is that the Daschle substitute provides the uninsured far more generous health benefits than those who have existing health coverage. I don't understand why any Member of the U.S. Congress would want to promote a provision that actually acts to encourage individuals to remain unemployed because they can get better health coverage. By offering such generous health benefits, this bill encourages people to remain unemployed. Is this the American way? Is this the way to fulfill the American dream? Is this what we in the Congress want--more uninsured Americans? I hope not. In my opinion, this bill contains an unintended incentive that promotes joblessness. And even more disturbing, the drafting of this partisan bill may send a very clear message--take it or leave it. Is there room for bipartisan discussions here? Can we work together? These are the areas we ought to work together on to bring a consensus about. Can we work out our differences? Can we find a fair compromise? I sure hope so. But, I have my doubts about it because of the way that this debate has started. And that is just not acceptable for the American people. Senator Grassley does have the right idea--there are health care provisions that can be included in TAA in order to get trade promotion authority approved by the Senate. I, for one, would be willing to support tax credits for the purchase of COBRA, pooled insurance, or individual insurance, so long as the individual has a choice of coverage, not a take-it-or-leave it requirement set right here in Washington. In addition, I believe it makes sense to provide funds to States in order to create and operate insurance pooling arrangements. I also support providing funds for National Emergency Grants so States can subsidize health insurance for TAA eligibles. In my view, we are not that far apart that we cannot come together. I think we can if we just have some good-faith effort here on the floor and behind the scenes. I only hope that we do not let this opportunity to pass both trade promotion authority and provide reasonable health insurance subsidies to uninsured Americans slip away. I am committed to working with my Senate colleagues, for as long as it takes, to get this job done. So, I urge my colleagues: let's quit the partisan bickering, let's roll up our sleeves, and let's get the job done. In closing, I urge passage of both the trade promotion authority legislation and the trade adjustment assistance bill. But let's make sure these bills are bills we can live with, bills that are bipartisan in nature, bills where we have worked out the kinks and the difficulties, bills that are not a partisan benefit to one side or the other, bills that will do the best for our individual citizens in this country who need this help. I hope we can get this job done before Memorial Day. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in support of the confirmation of Mr. Michael Baylson to the District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania. Mr. Baylson is another fine example of the qualified attorneys President Bush has named to the federal bench, and I am convinced based on his record that he will make an outstanding addition to an already prestigious court. Mr. Baylson earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. He then graduated from the University's Law School. After working as a volunteer for the public defender in Philadelphia, he joined the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. My colleagues will remember that my friend the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, was the Philadelphia District Attorney at this time. Mr. Baylson was quickly promoted to supervise that office's Narcotics Unit and then it Homicide Unit. Mr. Baylson worked in private practice at the law firm of Duane Morris and Heckscher. Then, in 1988, he returned to public service as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There, he became well-known for his aggressive drug prosecutions. Mr. Baylson also was a pioneer in developing the Violent Traffickers Project, a program that uses a different strategy than the traditional tactic of arresting smaller dealers and then ``flipping'' them in order to convict the leaders of a drug conspiracy. After leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Baylson returned to Duane Morris and Heckscher as a partner and has specialized in antitrust, federal securities, RICO and white collar crime matters. Clearly, Mr. Baylson is a very talented attorney with a great deal of experience. I have no doubt that he is an excellent choice to be a judge on the District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania. nomination of Judge Cynthia M. Rufe Madam President, I rise in support of the confirmation of Judge Cynthia Rufe to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Rufe's nomination is yet another example of President Bush's effort to enhance our excellent and diverse federal judiciary. Judge Rufe has had a distinguished legal career. She is an outstanding Pennsylvania state judge who will only add to the distinguished federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Rufe graduated with a B.A. in Political Science and Education from Adelphi University in 1970. After receiving her teacher's certificate from Bloomsburg University in 1972 and teaching high school social studies, Judge Rufe graduated from SUNY-Buffalo Law School in 1977. After law school, and mindful of each attorney's responsibility to ``serve the disadvantaged,'' she joined the Bucks County Public Defenders Office. In this role, her case-load ran the gamut from misdemeanors to homicides. At the Public Defender's Office, Judge Rufe developed an expertise in representing abused and neglected children. As a result of that expertise, she created and led the Public Defender's Juvenile Division. Later, Judge Rufe rose to the level of Deputy Public Defender. In this position, she was responsible for managing the office's trial caseload. In 1982, she left the Defender's Office to begin a private practice. Judge Rufe concentrated on litigation, especially criminal and juvenile law. Over the years, the Judge Rufe's practice expanded to include cases on employment, discrimination, personal injury, defamation, contracts, adoptions, estates and family law. But, during this period, she never forgot about her community, and she served as Solicitor of the Bucks County Children and Youth Social Services Agency. In 1994, Judge Rufe re-entered public life when she was elected to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. For the last eight years, she has developed a well-earned reputation for hard work and fairness. It is a pleasure and a privilege to support Judge Rufe's nomination to the federal bench. judicial confirmations Madam President, I would like to respond briefly to some comments made earlier today on the topic of judicial confirmations. I had no intention of bringing up this topic today, but now I find myself with no choice but to set the record straight. I want to make one observation and then two simple points. Madam President, my observation is this: The American people want this Senate to help--rather than hinder--President Bush. And that is true of every President. Everyone understands that we are living at a time of great national importance. Our government is being put to a test. President Bush is performing extraordinarily well, and he is leading our country and our military in the right direction to achieve prosperity and security for all Americans. The American people support President Bush and his administration, and they correctly believe that the Senate should do the same. But the people who follow the Judiciary Committee's record on reviewing and approving President Bush's judicial nominations are frustrated--for good reason--with the way in which this body has treated President Bush. They know that President Bush gave great care and attention to finding nominees who are extremely well-qualified, highly talented legal thinkers who hold mainstream American values. There is not an ideologue among them. To the contrary, President Bush's picks for the judiciary are all principled and fair people, from a variety of backgrounds and experiences, who are committed to following precedent, applying the law as it exists, and standing firm against judicial activism. President Bush should not be forced to divert any more of his time and attention away from the war on terrorism and his many domestic priorities in order to persuade this body to do what is right for the American people. Now, Mr. President, I would like to make two points that directly respond to the comments made earlier today. Madam President, the current Senate leadership is not doing a better job this Congress than the Senate has done under other Presidents. I listened as my colleague explained that, if looked at through the right looking glass, or examined in the right subsection of the right time period of the right session of the right Congress, then the current numbers are pretty impressive. The most important measure of performance should be how we are handling the most important courts: the Circuit Court of Appeals. Let's compare the treatment of President Bush's first 11 circuit court nominees to the first 11 of previous presidents. President Reagan, the first President Bush and President Clinton all enjoyed a 100 percent confirmation rate on their first 11 circuit court nominees, and all were confirmed well within a year. President Reagan's first 11 were confirmed in an average of 39 days, the first President Bush's first 11 averaged 88 days, and President Clinton's first 11--only 115 days. The longest any of these individuals were held up in committee was 202 days. In stark contrast to previous Presidents, 8 of President Bush's first 11 nominations--made on May 9, 2001, almost a year ago--are still pending in committee without so much as a hearing! That's nearly 365 days, and only 3 of the President's first 11 nominees are confirmed. Is this what the Democratic leadership considers a record-breaking pace? It may be record-breaking, all right, but not the record they're talking about. They are confirming with the velocity of molasses. Now I heard my colleague suggest that some of the first 11 nominees may have been superseded out of courtesy to Republican Senators who requested some later-nominated judges to move first. Well, I know how difficult it is to chair the committee, and such requests do come in. But I would suggest to my friend that he do what I did for President Clinton: consider more than one circuit nominee per hearing. That's what we did, under Republican leadership, no fewer than 10 times. Why not two at a time? Of course, the pace of confirming a President's first 11 nominees is not the only measure by which the current leadership is falling short. My colleague suggested that kudos should be awarded for bringing the circuit court vacancy rate down to 29. Well, it was never that high at the end of any Congress when Republicans controlled the Senate. And I certainly don't recall that, during my chairmanship, any of our circuit courts were facing the kind of crisis that is going on today in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court is operating at half-staff despite the fact that president Bush has nominated seven highly qualified people to serve on that court. The fact is that, at the close of the 106th Congress, when I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee, there were only 67 vacancies in the federal judiciary. In the space of one Democratic-controlled congressional session last year, that number shot up to nearly 100, where it remains today. Under Republican leadership, the Senate confirmed essentially the same number of judges for President Clinton-- 377--as it did for President Reagan--382--which proves bipartisan fairness--especially when you consider that President Reagan had six years of his party controlling the Senate, and President Clinton had only two. So how did we go from 67 vacancies at the end of the Clinton administration to nearly 100 today? There can be only one answer: The current pace of hearings and confirmations is simply not keeping up with the increase in vacancies. We are moving so slowly that we are barely keeping up with natural attrition. President Bush nominated 66 highly qualified individuals to fill judicial vacancies last year. But in the first 4 months of Democratic control of the Senate last year, only 6 Federal judges were confirmed. At several hearings, the Judiciary Committee considered only one or two judges at a time. The committee voted on only 6 of 29 circuit court nominees in 2001, a rate of 21 percent, leaving 23 of them without any action at all. This leads to my second point, which is that the current situation has nothing whatsoever to do with ideology. I was surprised to hear my friend, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, address earlier today the question of introducing ideology into the judicial confirmation process. Some of my Democrat colleagues have made no bones about the fact that this is exactly what they are seeking to do. In July, they have even held hearings expressly on how to justify it. We saw what happened to Judge Charles Pickering. What is now occurring is far beyond the mere tug-of-war politics that unfortunately surrounds Senate judicial confirmation since Robert Bork. Some of my colleagues are out to effect a fundamental change in our constitutional system, as they were instructed to do by noted liberal law professors at a retreat early last year. Rather than seeking to determine the judiciousness of a nominee and whether a nominee will be able to rule on the law or the Constitution without personal bias, they want to guarantee that our judges all think in the same way, a way that is much further to the left of mainstream than most of President Bush's nominees. In the judiciary that some would create, citizens will have to worry about the personal politics of the judge to whom they come for justice under the law. I strongly object to that result. The legitimacy of our courts, and especially the Supreme Court, comes from much more than black robes and a high bench. It comes from the people's belief that judges and justices will apply a judicial philosophy without regard to personal politics or bias. In conclusion, Madam President, it is time for this Senate to examine the real situation in the Judiciary Committee, rather than listen to more inventive ways of spinning it. We have lots of work to do. There are 90 vacancies in the federal judiciary--a vacancy rate of more than 10.5 percent--and we have 50 nominees pending, including 4 nominees for the Court of Federal Claims. Nineteen of the pending nominees are for circuit court positions, yet the Senate has confirmed only nine circuit judges this Congress. This is despite a crisis of 29 vacancies pending in the circuit courts nationwide--virtually the same number of vacancies pending when the Democrats took control of the Senate in June of last year. Madam President, the American people are disappointed in this process. They want the Senate to help--not hinder--President Bush. I urge my friends across the aisle to focus on this situation, to step up the pace of hearings and votes, and to do what's right for the country. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I rise to support the nomination of Joan Ericksen Lancaster to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Minnesota. I have had the pleasure of reviewing Justice Lancaster's distinguished legal career, and I have concluded as did President Bush, that she is a fine jurist who will add a great deal to the federal bench in Minnesota. Justice Lancaster's record of service in private practice and for the government is exemplary of the quality of judges the President has nominated. Following her graduation from the University of Minnesota Law School, Justice Lancaster worked as an Assistant City Attorney, trying approximately 12 jury and 40 court trials. From 1983 to 1993, Justice Lancaster served as an Assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Minnesota, representing the federal government in medical malpractice, tort, and insurance matters, and later prosecuting Federal crimes. Justice Lancaster then worked for several years as a partner with the Minneapolis firm of Leonard, Street & Deinard. In 1995, Justice Lancaster was named as a District Court Judge in the 4th Judicial District in Minnesota, where she was assigned to family and juvenile cases. She also presided over adult civil and criminal matters. Since 1998, she has served as an Associate Justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court. Justice Lancaster is liaison to the Court's Juvenile Delinquency Rules Committee and has served as chair of the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Juvenile Justice Services. She has also served on a statewide task force devoted to addressing the problem of fetal alcohol syndrome. I have every confidence that Justice Joan Lancaster will serve with distinction on the federal district court for the District of Minnesota.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of John Walter to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California. It should be noted that in 1992 Mr. Walter was nominated to the same position by the first President Bush, but regrettably, he was not given a hearing by the Democratic Senate. Still, as was the case 10 years ago, I have every confidence that John Walter will serve with distinction on the Federal District Court for the Central District of California. After reviewing Mr. Walter's distinguished legal career, I have no doubt that he will be an asset to the Federal bench. Mr. Walter's solid experience in private practice and government service deserves attention here. Upon graduation from Loyola University of Los Angeles School of Law in 1969, Mr. Walter joined the Los Angeles, CA, firm of Kindel & Anderson as a civil litigation associate. Mr. Walter later served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division's Fraud and Special prosecutions Unit, where he prosecuted numerous Federal criminal cases, including the then-largest bank burglary in the United States. He returned to Kindel & Anderson in 1972 and remained there as a civil litigator until 1976. Since that time, Mr. Walter has been a partner at the Los Angeles firm of Walter, Finestone & Richter. Mr. Walter exemplifies an attorney who gives back to the community. As a member of the Federal Indigent Defense Panel, Mr. Walter has represented more than 75 indigent defendants charged with federal crimes in Federal court and devoted thousands of pro bono hours to these cases. He has served as a judge pro tempore in the Santa Monica Municipal Court and as an arbitrator for the L.A. Superior Court Judicial Arbitration Program. He provides approximately 75 to 100 hours a year in the latter position. I am very proud of this nominee, and I know he will make a great judge.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to support the nomination of Percy Anderson to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California. It should be noted that the first President Bush nominated Mr. Anderson to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 1992, but regrettably, the Democratic Senate did not hold a hearing for him. After reviewing Mr. Anderson's distinguished legal career, I can tell you that he is a fine jurist who will add a great deal to the Federal bench in California. Following graduation from UCLA School of Law in 1975, Percy Anderson served as a Directing Attorney and Staff Attorney with San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, representing indigent clients in civil matters. In addition, he helped less experienced lawyers with trial preparation and courtroom presentation in matters before the Superior and Municipal Court in Los Angeles. He then acted as a consultant for the Legal Services Corporation in the District of Columbia, before taking a position as an Assistant U.S. Attorney of the Criminal Division in Los Angeles. For the next 6 years, he served as First Assistant Division Chief, supervising other attorneys and managing criminal division affairs in the absence of the Division Chief. He joined the Bryan Cave law firm in 1985, specializing in white collar criminal defense and aviation litigation, particularly products liability. In 1996, Mr. Anderson became a partner with the Los Angeles firm of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. He focuses his practice on trial and appellate litigation in the areas of commercial matters, intellectual property, products liability, false claims, and white collar criminal defense work. Mr. Anderson has home State support and my support. He will make an excellent Federal judge in California.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to support the confirmation of William C. Griesbach to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Wisconsin. I have had the pleasure of reviewing Mr. Griesbach's distinguished legal career, and I have come to the opinion that he is a fine lawyer who will add a great deal to the Federal bench in Wisconsin. Judge Griesbach is a Wisconsin native and attended both college and law school in the area. He graduated from Marquette University in 1976 and from Marquette University Law School in 1979. After graduation from law school, Judge Griesbach served as a law clerk to the Honorable Bruce F. Beilfuss, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He then worked for 2 years as a staff attorney for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit before joining a Green Bay law firm where he spent 5 years as an attorney handling primarily civil cases, including personal injury, insurance, commercial and employment litigation. In 1987, he returned to public service as an Assistant District Attorney in Brown County until 1995 when he was appointed to the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Brown County, the position in which he currently serves. His docket has included the full range of cases appearing before a State trial court, including criminal, civil, juvenile and domestic matters. In 1998, he was ranked highest among local circuit judges in several categories, including temperament, fairness, and judicial scholarship. Judge Griesbach has also made substantial contributions to the community, serving as a board member for Wisconsin Family Ties, a non-profit organization that provides information and support to families with children that have mental, emotional and behavioral disorders; as a board member of the Family Violence Center in Green Bay; and as a board member of Legal Services of Northeast Wisconsin, a nonprofit organization that provides legal services for the poor. I have every confidence that William Griesbach will serve with distinction on the Federal district court for the District of Wisconsin.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona, for three reasons. First, the Finance Committee passed these tax incentive provisions through by a wide margin. Second, we have solved the problems that arose during the Arizona experience. Third, this is probably the most important environmental bill that will go through our Congress this year, and maybe in a long time, because it provides for incentives for alternative fuels, alternative vehicles, and alternative fuel stations. It is about time we start approaching these problems in an intelligent way that will take us away from being so dependent upon foreign oil. The provisions the Senator from Arizona's amendment would strike will do more toward that end than anything I know and in the end will save us money. The provisions that this amendment would strike are almost identical to the provisions in the bipartisan CLEAR ACT, which stands for Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technology, which I introduced last year along with Senators Jeffords, Rockefeller, Chafee, Kerry, Collins, Gordon Smith, Crapo, and Lieberman. The CLEAR ACT is the product of a carefully crafted, delicately balanced, and politically unusual alliance between auto manufacturers, truck engine manufacturers, environmental groups, fuel suppliers, and other stakeholders. I might add that these provisions, which provide strong incentives for energy conservation, are an integral part of the President's energy plan. The CLEAR ACT provisions create a fair and balanced playing field for all the advanced technologies and alternative fuel vehicles that offer the promise of both clean air and less dependency on foreign fuel. Transportation accounts for about two-thirds of the oil consumption in the United States, and we are 97 percent dependent on oil for our transportation needs. When we consider the role transportation plays in our economy and our way of life, it is hard to believe that we rely on foreign sources for more than one-half of our oil supply. If our Nation is going to have a strategy for energy security, that strategy must begin with transportation fuels. The Kyl amendment would take away our best opportunity to provide a balanced approach to achieve this strategy. Advances in alternative fuels and new vehicle technologies have been significant in recent years. However, three basic obstacles stand in the way of a broad shift toward their adoption. These are the higher cost of the vehicles, the higher cost of alternative fuels, and the lack of an infrastructure of alternative fueling stations. The CLEAR ACT provisions that this amendment would strike would lower the barriers that stand in the way of widespread consumer acceptance of these advanced technology and alternative fuel vehicles by providing tax credits to consumers who purchase hybrid electric, fuel cell, battery electric, and dedicated alternative fuel vehicles. They also would provide incentives for the purchase of alternative fuels and the development of an alternative fuel infrastructure. Without imposing any new mandates, the CLEAR ACT provisions in this energy bill focus on the very best emerging technologies to help our citizens to enjoy the health benefits of cleaner air sooner, to help our communities to enjoy the economic benefits of attaining clean air standards sooner, and to help us reduce our consumption of foreign oil sooner than would otherwise be possible. With the clear benefits of these provisions to less dependency on foreign oil and to cleaner air, which I might add come at a very reasonable cost in terms of revenue loss to the Treasury, it is hard to see why anyone in this body would want to strike them. Moreover, the tax credits the CLEAR ACT offers are performance based, which is to say that they are based on the principle that every dollar of tax expenditure should produce substantive air quality and energy security benefits. The greater the benefits a particular vehicle achieves, the larger the tax incentive for purchasing it. While I do not want to assume I know the motivations of the Senator from Arizona for offering this amendment, part of it might be based on an unfortunate experience in his home State. Not long ago, a well- intentioned program to promote alternative fuel vehicles by the Arizona legislature experienced extreme cost overruns and failed to provide the promised energy and environmental benefits. I want to assure the Members of this body that we have studied the Arizona experience, we have identified the inherent weaknesses of that model, and we have been careful to avoid each one of them in this legislation. With the CLEAR ACT provisions, until a new advanced vehicle is purchased, until new infrastructure has been installed, or until alternative fuel is placed in the tank of a dedicated alternative fuel vehicle, there will be no cost to the Treasury. And when a cost is incurred, it will be a small cost relative to the resulting environmental benefits and energy savings. To me it is inconceivable that this Senate would pass an energy policy bill without addressing the issue of how to increase the public's adoption of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles. Although gasoline vehicles are 90 percent cleaner today than 30 years ago, the significant increase in the total number of vehicles on the road and the miles traveled per year by each vehicle means that little progress has been made in reducing the contribution of motor vehicle emissions to air pollution. Similarly, despite improvements in fuel economy compared to 30 years ago, more petroleum than ever is used in motor vehicles and U.S. dependence on imported oil is at a record high and increasing. Alternative fuel vehicles and advanced technology vehicles, such as hybrids and fuel cells, significantly reduce the use of gasoline and diesel and have dramatically reduced emissions. Each dedicated natural gas vehicle displaces 100 percent of the gasoline or diesel that otherwise would be used in that vehicle. Conventional gasoline and diesel motor vehicle technology has come about as far as it can in terms of fuel economy and emissions. The further gains that are needed to allow the United States to achieve energy security and clean air require nonpetroleum vehicles and hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. The nation simply cannot achieve its goals in these areas with these conventional vehicles. Striking these provisions would be a big mistake, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kyl amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. As I understand it, this amendment would strike the portions of the energy tax provisions that would provide tax incentives for the purchase of alternative fuels and advanced technology vehicles such as hybrid electric and fuel cell automobiles. The provisions that this amendment would strike are almost identical to the provisions in the bipartisan CLEAR ACT, which stands for Clean Efficient Automobiles Resulting from Advanced Car Technology, which I introduced last year along with Senators Jeffords, Rockefeller, Chafee, Kerry, Collins, Gordon Smith, Crapo, and Lieberman. The CLEAR ACT is the product of a carefully crafted, delicately balanced, and politically unusual alliance between auto manufacturers, truck engine manufacturers, environmental groups, fuel suppliers, and other stakeholders. I might add that these provisions, which provide strong incentives for energy conservation, are an integral part of the President's energy plan. The CLEAR ACT provisions create a fair and balanced playing field for all the advanced technologies and alternative fuel vehicles that offer the promise of both clean air and less dependency on foreign fuel. Transportation accounts for about two-thirds of the oil consumption in the United States, and we are 97 percent dependent on oil for our transportation needs. When we consider the role transportation plays in our economy and our way of life, it is hard to believe that we rely on foreign sources for more than one-half of our oil supply. If our nation is going to have a strategy for energy security, that strategy must begin with transportation fuels. The Kyl amendment would take away our best opportunity to provide a balanced approach to achieve this strategy. Advances in alternative fuels and new vehicle technologies have been significant in recent years. However, three basic obstacles stand in the way of a broad shift toward their adoption. These are the higher cost of the vehicles, the higher cost of alternative fuels, and the lack of an infrastructure of alternative fueling stations. The CLEAR ACT provisions that this amendment would strike would lower the barriers that stand in the way of widespread consumer acceptance of these advanced technology and alternative fuel vehicles by providing tax credits to consumers who purchase hybrid electric, fuel cell, battery electric, and dedicated alternative fuel vehicles. They would also provide incentives for the purchase of alternative fuels and the development of an alternative fuel infrastructure. Without imposing any new mandates, the CLEAR ACT provisions in this energy bill focus on the very best emerging technologies to help our citizens to enjoy the health benefits of cleaner air sooner, to help our communities to enjoy the economic benefits of attaining clean air standards sooner, and to help us reduce our consumption of foreign oil sooner than would otherwise be possible. With the clear benefits of these provisions to less dependency on foreign oil and to cleaner air, which I might add come at a very reasonable cost in terms of revenue loss to the Treasury, it is hard to see why anyone in this body would want to strike them. Moreover, the tax credits the CLEAR ACT offers are performance based, which is to say that they are based on the principle that every dollar of tax expenditure should produce substantive air quality and energy security benefits. The greater the benefits a particular vehicle achieves, the larger the tax incentive for purchasing it. While I do not want to assume I know the motivations of the Senator from Arizona for offering this amendment, part of it might be based on an unfortunate experience in his home state. Not long ago, a well- intentioned program to promote alternative fuel vehicles by the Arizona legislature experienced extreme cost overruns and failed to provide the promised energy and environmental benefits. I want to assure the members of this body that we have studied the Arizona experience, we have identified the inherent weaknesses of that model, and we have been careful to avoid each one of them in this legislation. With the CLEAR ACT provisions, until a new advanced vehicle is purchased, until new infrastructure has been installed, or until alternative fuel is placed in the tank of a dedicated alternative fuel vehicle, there will be no cost to the Treasury. And when a cost is incurred, it will be a small cost relative to the resulting environmental benefits and energy savings. To me it is inconceivable that this Senate would pass an energy policy bill without addressing the issue of how to increase the public's adoption of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles. Although gasoline vehicles are 90 percent cleaner today than thirty years ago, the significant increase in the total number of vehicles on the road and the miles traveled per year by each vehicle means that little progress has been made in reducing the contribution of motor vehicle emissions to air pollution. Similarly, despite improvements in fuel economy compared to thirty years ago, more petroleum than ever is used in motor vehicles and U.S. dependence on imported oil is at a record high and increasing. Alternative fuel vehicles and advanced technology vehicles, such as hybrids and fuel cells, significantly reduce the use of gasoline and diesel and have dramatically reduced emissions. Each dedicated natural gas vehicle displaces 100 percent of the gasoline or diesel that otherwise would be used in that vehicle. Conventional gasoline and diesel motor vehicle technology has come about as far as it can in terms of fuel economy and emissions. The further gains that are needed to allow the U.S. to achieve energy security and clean air require nonpetroleum vehicles and hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. The nation simply cannot achieve its goals in these areas with these conventional vehicles. Striking these provisions would be a big mistake, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kyl amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. HATCH. It is my understanding that such test procedures do exist and could provide an alternative way to measure maximum available power.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, that is my understanding. Our purpose in authorizing an ``equivalent test'' is not to push manufacturers to one particular hybrid design by virtue of our prescribing the standard 10 second pulse power test. Rather, we want to provide flexibility in the methodology of measuring the hybrid performance of the vehicle and providing increased incentives for those vehicles that utilize the optimum combination of power from the two power sources.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise to submit a resolution designating the 30th day of April 2002 as ``Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.'' Nations throughout the world, and especially within Latin America, celebrate Dia de los Ninos on the 30th of April, in recognition and celebration of their country's future, their children. Many American Hispanic families continue the tradition of honoring their children on this day by celebrating Dia de los Ninos in their homes. The designation of a day to honor the children of the Nation will help affirm for the people of the United States the significance of family, education, and community. This special recognition of children will provide them with an opportunity to reflect on their future, articulate their dreams and aspirations, and find comfort and security in the support of their family members and communities. This resolution calls on the American people to join with all children, families, organizations, communities, churches, cities, and States across the Nation to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting America's youth by endorsing the resolution designating April 30, 2002 Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the confirmation of Mr. Jeffrey Howard to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Howard's record is impressive. He will make a valuable contribution to an already prestigious First Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Howard graduated summa cum laude from Plymouth State College. While attending Georgetown University Law Center, he became Editor of that institution's American Criminal Law Review. After law school, Mr. Howard began an illustrious period of service in the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office. There he quickly moved through the ranks to head that office's Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division. Upon successful completion of this assignment, he was promoted to Associate Attorney General in charge of the division of Legal Counsel. He eventually became Deputy Attorney General, in essence, the second in command in this office. Mr. Howard was then nominated and confirmed as U.S. Attorney for the District of New Hampshire. During his tenure in that office, he became Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Justice Department. Here his responsibilities included advising Attorney General Barr and supervising the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture. Mr. Howard then returned to New Hampshire and was appointed that State's attorney general. He wrote and implemented one of the Nation's first effective comprehensive statewide interdisciplinary protocols to combat domestic violence. Clearly, Mr. Howard is a leader in the areas of fighting for consumers that were the victims of fraud and the rights of abused women. The people of New Hampshire can be proud of this nominee; Jeffrey Howard has been a servant of New Hampshire's people. President Bush has done right by the people of New Hampshire and of New England with this nomination. Mr. Howard is a good example of the kind of high-quality judicial nominees selected by President Bush. Mr. President, I am proud to say that Jeffrey Howard has my support and I believe he will be an outstanding addition to the first circuit.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise in support of the confirmation of Judge Legrome Davis to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Davis' nomination is yet another example of President Bush's bipartisan approach to judicial nominations. This is the second time, Judge Roger Gregory being the first, that this administration has renominated a candidate who was originally nominated by the previous adminstraiton. It is a rarity for a new adminstration to renominate a previous administration's judicial nominees, especially when the two administrations are of different parties. Clearly, the President is leading by example when he calls upon the Senate to rise above petty partisanship and provide fair hearings and prompt votes to every judicial nominee regardless of what party controls the White House or the Senate. I have had the pleasure of reviewing Judge Davis' distinguished legal career, and I have come to the conclusion that he is a fine Pennsylvania State judge who will only add to the distinguished Federal bench in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge Davis graduated from Princeton University and Rutgers-Camden School of Law. After graduation, he joined the Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia as an Assistant District Attorney in the Law and Trial Divisions. Eventually, he rose to become Assistant Chief of Narcotics and then Chief of the Rape Unit. One of the many examples of his fine character revolves around a defendant's rape conviction before Judge Davis led the D.A.'s Rape Unit. Upon examination of new evidence, it became clear that the alleged victim, in the case, suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and had hallucinated the criminal episode. The investigation that freed the defendant was conducted by Davis. His record of rulings before the appellate courts is equally as impressive. Judge Davis has filed approximately 150 cases, of which only 3 were overturned on appeal--and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reinstated his decision in one of those cases. Judge Davis has been a champion in reforming the Philadelphia court system. He helped author and was an early proponent of Philadelphia's differentiated case management system. This system, which groups defendants with similar case dispositions into one of four ``tracks,'' has resulted in a 47 percent reduction in the Felony-Waiver Unit's pending inventory. I am very pleased that we will confirm Judge Davis today.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to respond to some comments made yesterday on the topic of judicial confirmations. I had no intention of bringing up this topic today, but now I find myself with no choice but to again set the record straight with respect to the comments my colleague made earlier yesterday. First, I would like to put my remarks in context. I began this Session of the 107th Congress by praising the way that Chairman Leahy and the Senate's Democratic leader had begun to handle judicial nominations. One of the reasons I did so was that I had detected the possibility that the Judiciary Committee may be headed in a new direction as we began a new Session. I sensed a chance that, after more than eight months of Democratic control, the leaders might stop steering their course by staring at the rear-view mirror, and would begin to look forward through the windshield at the work ahead. I thought that they might begin to sense the American people's frustration at the Senate's stonewalling of President Bush's priorities--especially his selections for the judiciary. Obviously, now that we are in the eleventh month of Democratic control, my optimism has become tarnished not only by the continuing extremely slow pace of confirmations and the blatant mistreatment of Judge Pickering, but also by the kind of comments we heard this morning that actually attempt to persuade the American people that the Senate's record is acceptable. I want to correct a couple distortions of the record and explain what is really going on in the Judiciary Committee. My colleague began his comments with the assertion that the Democrats have only been in charge of the Judiciary Committee since the end of July rather than the beginning of June-- which somehow adds up to 9 months. This particular exercise in make believe is apparently very important for some of my colleagues to repeat over and over. But the fact is--as everyone in the Senate knows--that Democrats took charge of the Senate on June 5, not at the end of July. Considering that it is now the middle of April, we are now in the eleventh month of Democratic control. Why is this important? Playing make-believe that the month of June didn't exist last year helps some of my colleagues explain away the fact that they failed to hold any confirmation hearings during that entire month. There is no basis for the underlying assertion that the lack of an organizational resolution prevented the Judiciary Committee from doing so. It certainly didn't stop 9 other Senate Committees from holding 16 confirmation hearings for 44 nominees during that same month. And it did not prevent the Judiciary Committee from holding five hearings in three weeks on a variety of issues other than pending nominations. Of course, the month-of-June distortion is simply part of the larger charade of pretending that the current judicial vacancy crisis has less to do with the last 11 months of foot dragging than with the Committee's work between the years 1994 and 2000. The fact is that, at the close of the 106th Congress, there were only 67 vacancies in the federal judiciary. In the space of one Democratic-controlled congressional session last year, that number shot up to nearly 100, where it remains today. The broader picture shows that the Senate confirmed essentially the same number of judges for President Clinton (377) as it did for President Reagan (382), which proves bipartisan fairness--especially when you consider that both Presidents has six years of Republican control in the Senate. So, how did we go from 67 vacancies at the end of the Clinton Administration to nearly 100 today? There can be only one answer: The current pace of hearings and confirmations is simply not keeping up with the increase in vacancies. We are moving so slowly that we are making no forward progress. President Bush nominated 66 highly qualified individuals to fill judicial vacancies last year. But in the first four months of Democratic control of the Senate last year, only 6 federal judges were confirmed. At several hearings, the Judiciary Committee considered only one or two judges at a time. The Committee voted on only 6 of 29 circuit court nominees in 2001, a rate of 21%, leaving 23 of them without any action at all. In fact, eight of the first eleven judges that President Bush nominated on May 9 of last year still have not had a hearing--despite being pending for 344 days as of today. It is time for this Senate to examine the real situation in the Judiciary Committee, rather than listen to more inventive ways of distorting it. We have lots of work to do. There are 96 vacancies in the Federal judiciary--a vacancy rate of more than 11.2 percent--and we have 53 nominees pending--plus 4 nominees for the Court of Federal Claims. Twenty of the pending nominees are for circuit court positions, yet the Senate has confirmed only 2 circuit judges this session. This is despite a crisis of 30 vacancies pending in the circuit courts nationwide--virtually the same number of vacancies pending when the Democrats took control of the Senate in June of last year. These numbers beg the question: If the Judiciary Committee is not making any progress on the judicial vacancy crisis, What is happening in the Judiciary Committee? What is the Committee doing in lieu of confirming President Bush's nominees? Well, the judicial confirmation process appears to be falling into the hands of some extreme-left special-interest groups whose political purposes are served by launching invidious attacks on the good people President Bush has nominated to serve as judges. We all know too well what happened to Judge Pickering, who was a decent, honorable man who is clearly qualified to be a judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. So I won't recount that very unfortunate situation. But I would like to warn everyone that the stoves of the special interest groups are readying to boil up an attack on Judge Brooks Smith of Pennsylvania who had a hearing nearly two months ago but still has had no vote in the Judiciary Committee. If you are waiting to hear that some profound issue has been raised about a complicated or important legal issue, I am sorry to disappoint you. The fact is that Judge Smith has a very distinguished record as a Federal judge for nearly 14 years, and no one has questioned his ability or competence. So what is the great issue that may well be endangering his nomination--you might ask? Well, believe it or not, some are trying to make hay out of the fact that Judge Smith used to be a member of a small family-oriented fishing club--like hundreds that exist from Vermont to Wisconsin to North Carolina to Utah, that happens to limit membership to men. Let me note at the outset that Judge Smith's nomination is supported by the Women's Bar Association of Western Pennsylvania and the local Domestic Violence Board in Pennsylvania. The people who know him best are the ones who support him the most. It is also important to recognize that the Judiciary Committee, in 1990, and the Judicial Conference, in 1992, each made clear that Judges or nominees can belong to single-gender clubs so long as the club exhibits certain attributes of privacy first articulated by Justice William Brennan for the Supreme Court in Roberts v. Jaycees. In Roberts, Justice Brennan--the great liberal patriarch of American jurisprudence--first articulated the right of intimate association in furtherance of the Freedom of Association recognized by the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama as an extension of First Amendment speech. Such intimate association, Justice Brennan said, must be protected ``as a fundamental element of personal liberty,'' and ``choices to enter into and maintain certain intimate human relationships must be secured against undue intrusion . . . because of the role of such relationships in safeguarding the individual freedom central to our constitutional scheme.'' The Court went on to describe the attributes of such intimate associations as ``relative smallness . . . a high degree of selectivity in decisions to begin and maintain the affiliation, and seclusion from others in critical aspects of the relationship.'' I should note that the club that Judge Smith belonged to has only 115 members. I for one, stand by the American people's Freedom of Association as defined by the Supreme Court. As Justice Thurgood Marshall pointed out, the ability to associate as we see fit is part of what makes this country great, and a freedom we honor. And I hope we can all recognize that Judges, or people who might want to be Judges someday, should be just as free as anyone else to exercise that right. There is no point to turning the nomination of Judge Smith into a referendum on the Freedom of Association. And there is certainly no sympathy among the American electorate to turn yet another of President Bush's judicial nominees into a mere single-issue caricature when Judge Smith has an outstanding record of service to our country. I am very concerned that any further delay of Judge Smith's confirmation will lead to even more cynicism about the Senate in the minds of the American people. The voters who have watched the Judiciary Committee during the past eleven months already know that the vacancy crisis is not tit for tat or mere payback for anything that happened in the past. The voters know that the Democratic leadership has plunged into truly uncharted territory, holding up an absolutely unprecedented percentage of President Bush's nominees and, in the process, allowing leftist special interest groups to smear decent and accomplished public servants in order to serve highly partisan political aims. There is no better way to understand the extreme partisanship of these powerful leftist groups than to look at the irony in their call for ``diversity'' on the circuit courts of appeal. I of course agree with having a diverse judiciary, but I do not believe that these groups mean what they say. Let's look at judicial diversity. Right now, over 50 percent of the active federal judges in America were appointed by President Clinton. The best way to ensure diversity on the bench is for the Senate to confirm more Bush nominees who will enforce existing law and leave lawmaking to the people's elected representatives, including the President's nominees from Minority groups. But I fear that nominees like Miguel Estrada, whom the President has nominated to be the first Hispanic to sit on the second most prestigious court in the land, are not getting a fair shake because out-of-the-mainstream liberal groups show increasing intolerance to Hispanics and African-Americans who don't subscribe to the left-of- mainstream ideology. The intolerance is not because of race, but because many liberals will not give the time of day to any minority or woman who have become accomplished in any field other than liberal activism. I fear that the Liberals are seriously thinking about shutting the door to our Courts of Appeal to any Hispanic, African- American or woman who does not toe the line of the radical, left-of center special interest groups. That would be a great tragedy for our country. I would be an end to the very diversity that is the strength of America and its judicial system. We cannot allow outside groups to impede progress. In fact, what we need is to approve more circuit judges at a faster pace to address the vacancy crisis in the federal appellate courts. The Sixth Circuit is presently functioning at a 50 percent capacity. Eight of that court's 16 seats are vacant. President Bush has nominated 7 well qualified individuals to fill the vacancies on that court. Two of those nominees, Deborah Cook and Jeffrey Sutton, have been pending since May 9 of last year--344 days of inaction. They have languished in Committee without so much as a hearing while the Sixth Circuit functions at 50 percent capacity. Another appellate court that is in trouble is the D.C. Circuit, which is missing one-third of its judges: It has only 8 of its 12 seats filled. President Bush nominated two exceedingly well qualified individuals to fill seats on the D.C. Circuit on May 9 of last year. Those individuals, Miguel Estrada and John Roberts, are among the most well respected appellate lawyers in the country. Yet the Judiciary Committee has not granted them a hearing, much less a vote. Part of the problem is a decision by the Committee not to consider more than one circuit judge per hearing. In fact, the Committee has not moved more that one circuit judge per hearing during the entire time the Democrats have had control of the Senate. When I was Chairman, I had 10 hearings with more than one circuit nominee on the agenda. If we are going to get serious about filling circuit vacancies, then I encourage my Democratic colleagues to move more than one circuit nominee per hearing. The bottom line of all this is that America is facing a real crisis facing its federal judiciary, especially the circuit courts of appeals, due to the nearly 100 vacancies that plague it. The Judiciary Committee has decided not to make any progress toward remedying this situation. Instead, it is pouring its energy into creative accounting and make believe. But the American people are sick of the charades and are disgusted by the personal destruction for partisan purposes. They want the Senate to help--not hinder--President Bush. I urge my friends across the aisle to focus on this situation, to step up the pace of hearings and votes, to resist the powerful leftists who are the enemies of the independent judiciary, and to do what's right for the country.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I supported the nomination of Lance Africk to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I have had the pleasure of reviewing Judge Africk's distinguished legal career, and I have concluded that he is a fine jurist who will add a great deal to the Federal bench in Louisiana. Judge Lance Africk has an impressive record in the private and public sectors. Upon graduation from the University of North Carolina School of Law in 1975, Judge Africk clerked for the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal before joining the New Orleans firm of Normann & Normann as a civil attorney. In 1977, he moved to the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office in New Orleans and became director of the Career Criminal Bureau, where he prosecuted criminal cases. From late 1980 to mid-1982, Judge Africk worked in private practice, representing plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury cases and serving as corporate counsel. In August 1982, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Orleans as an assistant U.S. attorney and served with distinction as chief of the Criminal Division until 1990. As a State and Federal prosecutor, Judge Africk became an expert in drug and public corruption matters. During his legal career, he tried to judgment or verdict approximately 40 cases. Since 1990, Judge Africk has served as U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, bearing responsibility for often complex civil and criminal matters assigned from the U.S. District Court. I have every confidence that Lance Africk will serve with distinction on the Federal district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of the Senate's confirmation of Terrence O'Brien to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. I am glad that today we have voted on Terrence O'Brien to serve the people of the West in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. I am proud to say that Judge O'Brien began his career of public service in the United States Army, rising to the rank of Captain. I might also point out that Judge O'Brien was first appointed to the Wyoming State bench by a Democrat Governor, once again showing that, despite what Senator Democrats and their special interest groups would have the American people think, President Bush is nominating diverse and non-partisan men and women who reflect all the American people, not just some. I am proud of this nomination. The President has done right by the states that make up the Tenth Circuit, including my state of Utah. Terrence O'Brien comes to this nomination after a distinguished 20 years of public service as a State district judge in Wyoming. In that capacity, he has heard approximately 13,000 cases and has also managed to find time to serve on task forces and commissions to help develop the practices and laws of Wyoming in areas which are of great interest to me, including the use of drug courts, child support, judicial ethics, and split sentencing. A majority of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee has rated Judge O'Brien ``well qualified.'' He is a distinguished former State court judge with decades of legal experience. He sat for 20 years on the District Court for the Sixth Judicial District in Campbell County, WY, and on occasion by designation to the Wyoming Supreme Court. First appointed by merit selection to the State bench in 1980 by Democrat Governor Edward Herschler (D), he was retained by the voters in 1982 and every 6 years thereafter until his retirement in 2000. Judge O'Brien is not just a distinguished jurist. He is the kind of civic leader we like in my part of the country. He has been an active in local civic and philanthropic affairs, having served on the Wyoming Community College Commission, the Campbell County Corrections Board, the Board of Directors of the United Way of Campbell County, and the Board of Directors of the Campbell County Health Care Foundation. This nominee is just one of the several excellent jurists nominated by President Bush, and I am pleased that we have confirmed him today.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to speak on a subject that is very important to the American public--the importance of free trade and how free markets can help the United States and the worldwide economy. By working together to create and foster a free market atmosphere, we can help all nations that actively promote and participate in international trade to improve the economic futures of their citizens. This is good economic policy and good international relations. As the ranking Republican member on the International Trade Subcommittee and as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I can tell you that international trade has long been one of the most important foreign policy tools of the United States. Trade was a key component of our post-World War II international political and economic strategy. For more than 50 years, international trade contributed to stability and economic growth throughout the world. It helped lift the nations of Europe and Asia out of the ruins of World War II. And it helped millions of Americans experience unprecedented prosperity here at home. A large part of the reason that the Berlin Wall fell was the difference in economic performance and promise between a centralized command and central economy and free markets. International trade can play a similar role at the beginning of the 21st century. But, the United States must lead the way. I am pleased that the administration, led by President Bush, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and our United States Trade Representative Bob Zoellick, has helped launch a new round of international trade talks. We all have an interest in making the next World Trade Organization ministerial succeed. I believe that success can only be enhanced if the Congress passes legislation on Trade Promotion Authority. In my view, the prospects of favorable progress in the next ministerial will increase if the United States signals to the world that--even while we undertake an unprecedented military mission against terrorism--we will continue to give our trade agenda a very high priority. Although there are some members of Congress who might think otherwise, I believe that the new round of trade negotiation is clearly in our national interest. Trade creates jobs--both at home and abroad. Trade can also help promote political stability in many regions of the world. It is in our national interest to foster free trade. Let's look at the facts. Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers live outside our borders. Based on that fact alone, the United States would be foolish not to pursue a vigorous trade agenda. But let me go on. Exports accounted for about 30 percent of U.S. economic growth over the last decade, representing one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy. Almost 97 percent of exporters are small or medium-sized companies and, as my colleagues are aware, small businessmen are the engine of job growth. In fact, almost 10 percent of all U.S. jobs--an estimated 12 million workers--now depend on America's ability to export to the rest of the world. Export-related jobs typically pay 13 percent to 18 percent more than the average U.S. wage. There are many reasons to believe that the best is yet to come in this dynamic sector. Economists predict that there could be a 33 percent reduction in worldwide tariffs on agricultural and industrial products in the next WTO trade round. This action alone could inject an additional $177.3 billion into the American economy in the next 10 years. I strongly support congressional passage for Trade Promotion Authority legislation this year. TPA will provide a measure of certainty to our trading partners that any agreement reached with USTR will receive timely congressional consideration and will not die a slow death by amendment. As part of granting this fast track authority, Congress naturally will expect extensive consultation and notification procedures. Success in passing TPA will require a close partnership between the executive and legislative branches of our government. The Constitution grants Congress the authority to promote international commerce. However, the Constitution also gives the President the responsibility to conduct foreign policy. Thus, the very nature of our Constitution requires a partnership between the executive and legislative branches of Government in matters of international trade negotiations. That is what the trade promotion authority bill is all about--a partnership between the executive and legislative branches of government to enable U.S. consumers, workers and firms to be effectively represented at the negotiating table. And, I might add, farmers as well. In my opinion, TPA is an essential tool for sound trade expansion policy, a tool we have been without since its expiration in 1994. For over a decade, the United States has too often sat on the sidelines while other nations around the world continued to form trade partnerships and lucrative market alliances. The lack of fast track has put the United States at a disadvantage during trade negotiations. As we come out of the economic slowdown, U.S. efforts to expand trade alliances around the world can help accelerate the economic recovery we are all hoping for. TPA can help put wind back into the sails of U.S. trade policy. Without Trade Promotion Authority, the United States is not the only loser. Since trade agreements must be mutually advantageous, workers in countries that were not able to complete agreements with the United States are also injured. Global economic growth is a tide that will lift many boats. Trade can be a win-win situation. There will always be criticisms that one side bested the other in any negotiation. Sometimes you come out a little ahead. Sometimes not. One thing is clear: If there is no trade agreement--both sides will lose out on opportunities for their citizens. Last year, the United States exported more than $780 billion in goods and services to more than 200 foreign markets. In fact, exports provided more than one-quarter of all economic growth in America. Jobs can be created in agriculture, high technology, manufacturing, financial services and other industries. We know this to be true. Free trade is not just a matter of economics. It is a fundamental aspect of American foreign policy. Through trade our values are reflected abroad and citizens of developing nations have the opportunity to teach us about their culture and we can all discuss shared values. As President Bush stated in his address on trade issues on April 4: Fearful people build walls around America. Confident people make sure there are no walls. . . . I am confident. I'm confident in America products, I'm confident in American entrepreneurs, I'm confident in the American worker, I'm confident in the American know-how, I'm confident in America's farmers, I'm confident in America's ranchers. We need to be a trading nation. I could not agree more with the President. Market-opening trade pacts with developing nations not only present an opportunity for the United States to increase American sales of U.S. goods and services abroad, they also can serve as a catalyst to bring stability and prosperity to economically stagnant nations of the world. America's engagement in world affairs and trade can project to our strengths and values. Vigorous efforts to forge free trade alliances between the United States and developing countries will help to foster respect for the rule of law, competition and free-market principles in the developing world. As Majority Leader Daschle noted in a floor speech on March 21 in support of Trade Promotion Authority legislation: Expanding trade also offers national security and foreign policy benefits because trade opens more than new markets. When it is done correctly, it opens the way for democratic reforms. It also increases understanding and interdependence among nations, and raises the cost of conflict. I think that Senator Daschle makes a compelling point. We need to keep up strong, international economic leadership and help more nations become prosperous. Trade can help us create new jobs, both at home and abroad, and help change the conditions that breed poverty and instability overseas. TPA is also good for Utah. The fact is that TPA can help bring new jobs into Salt Lake City and across my State. Here are the facts: trade has benefitted my home State of Utah. For example Utah's manufacturers produced and exported $2.52 billion worth of manufactured items to 164 countries around the world. In fact, an estimated 61,400 Utah jobs are trade dependent and one in every six manufacturing jobs in Utah-- approximately 20,300 jobs--are tied to exports. Furthermore, the bulk of international trade and export in Utah benefits small and medium sized companies. About 80 percent of Utah's 1,894 companies that export are small and medium sized businesses. Our record is good, but we can do even better. TPA is good for America. The passage of TPA improves the quality of life for American consumers by providing a greater choice of goods at better prices. Past agreements have benefitted the typical family of four an estimated $1,300 to $2,000 a year. Future agreements stand to save Americans thousands more every year. TPA also builds on previous market-opening successes such as the North American Free Trade Agreement that generates $1.2 million a minute in trade for American exporters. While we have important foreign policy goals that can be advanced through a rigorous program with respect to international trade, let us not forget Tip O'Neill's famous observation: ``All politics is local.'' So, for both economic and foreign affairs considerations, I am hopeful that before our work is completed this fall, we will have taken up the bill that the Finance Committee approved--by the overwhelming margin of 18-3 I might add--and send it forward to the President for his signature. The Finance Committee has done its work. I want to commend Chairman Baucus and ranking Republican member Grassley for leading the way for this bipartisan achievement. I also want to recognize the efforts of Senators Bob Graham and Frank Murkowski for their important contribution to achieving this consensus. I urge the majority leader and Republican leader to act in a way that will advance American interests abroad by bringing the TPA bill up for debate and action. I recognize that the reality is that the Senate will in all likelihood also act favorably on Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation--TAA--or the TPA bill will stall. So be it. I am for both TPA and TAA in any order, tied or untied. But let me be clear, I am not for a loaded up TAA bill with health care provisions. Let's get the job done for the American people. My constituents from firms like Geneva Steel need assistance to cushion their loss of jobs lost through trade. But in addition to TAA, we need TPA to open new markets for the workers of Utah and others throughout the United States. Now is the time for the Senate to take up and pass Trade Promotion Authority. Now is the time. The longer we wait to come together on fast track authority-- authority that will undoubtedly provide billions of dollars to our economy through increased trade--means the longer that American families will have to endure a less than optimal economy. As the President noted ``Every day we go by without the authority is another day we are missing opportunities to help our economy, to help our workers, to help our country, to relate to our friends around the world.'' President Bush is right on target. In closing, I urge passage of the Trade Promotion Authority legislation. It is my hope that the majority leader will give us a date certain when the Senate will have the opportunity to act on this important legislation. I hope that we pass TPA before Memorial Day.