Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. How about 2 minutes of leader's time? Would you be gracious enough for that?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, during the last 2 weeks of February, the world watched the 2002 Winter Olympic Games held in our home State of Utah. The success of these games and the achievement of the competing athletes have been recognized as high points in the long Olympic tradition. We are all proud of the spectacular athletic accomplishments of the participation and support of this outstanding event. Today I rise, as a Senator from the great State of Utah, to call attention to and express support for the Salt Lake 2002 Paralympic Games which concluded with the closing ceremony this past Saturday. As meaningful and significant as the 2002 Winter Olympic Games have been, the Paralympic Winter Games, perhaps, elevate that significance, for paralympic athletes must not only excel in athletic skill and prowess, but must also accommodate a disabling condition. During the 10 days of the Salt Lake 2002 Paralympic Winter Games, world-class athletes brought together their minds, their bodies, their spirits, and their determination to pursue the highest level of performance and commitment. I especially want to recognize the fantastic achievements of our athletes from Utah. Steve Cook showed incredible speed and skill earning four silver medals in cross country skiing events--the 5K, the 10K, as an anchor on the relay, and the biathlon. No less exceptional was Muffy Davis who was awarded three silver medals in alpine skiing. Her performances were stellar. Lacey Heward excelled in both the Super G and the Giant Slalom, winning bronze medals in both events. Also winning two bronze medals was Christopher Waddell in the Giant Slalom and downhill skiing event. Christopher also captured a silver medal in alpine skiing. Monte Meier, through strength and courage won a silver medal in alpine skiing. Our alpine skiing is exceptional in Utah. Stephani Victor earned a bronze in the downhill skiing through her great diligence and prowess. No less outstanding is the participation of Daniel Metivier and Keith Barney, who also gave their all in these games. The stellar achievement of our Utah athletes has been magnificent. I am so proud of their excellence. While it is fitting that the U.S. Senate express recognition and praise to these outstanding athletes, I cannot forget to applaud their dedicated coaches, trainers, and families. These individuals provide the needed unconditional support for the athletes. Though they stand in the background, they are no less deserving of Olympic glory. I compliment the U.S. Olympic Committee, which is designated as the National Paralympic Organization. Under the direction of President Sandy Baldwin and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Ward, the U.S. Olympic Committee has offered their incredible support for these games. I also pay tribute to the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, SLOC, for taking the challenge to improve on the success of the Utah Winter Olympics by organizing and carrying out the 2002 Paralympic Winter Games. Nancy Gonsalves, who has been at the head of this venture for the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, is to be commended. My colleagues might be interested to learn that this was the first time the Paralympic Winter Games have been held in the United States. It was also the first time a local organizing committee assumed the responsibility for the organization, acquiring of sponsors, and staging of the games. The contributions of the sponsors, the volunteers, and SLOC were essential to the success of the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Paralympic Games. The commitment of the people in Salt Lake City and the great state of Utah deserve our appreciation and recognition. In addition, I wish to give special recognition to the national media for the attention they gave to the Paralympic Winter Games. The purpose of the 2002 Paralympic Winter Games, the events, and the individual stories of the athletes were covered more extensively by the national and international media than in any previous Paralympic games. This coverage suggests that we, as a society, not only recognize outstanding physical performance requiring concentration, dedication, and discipline, but, in addition, we recognize the challenges that must be accommodated by people with disabilities. These Paralympic Games proved that there is no limit to what an individual can accomplish. The Salt Lake 2002 Paralympic Winter Games enriched the lives of thousands of people with disabilities and their families. Even more important, they enriched the lives of those of us fortunate enough to live free of disability. I wish to commend the dedication and commitment of the athletes, their families, their trainers, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, and the citizens of the great State of Utah.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the vote will still be at 5:50 because Senators have commitments. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Robert Randall Crane to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas. I have had the pleasure of reviewing Mr. Crane's distinguished legal career, and I have come to the conclusion that he is a fine lawyer who will add a great deal to the federal bench in Texas. Randy Crane is a native Texan who graduated with honors from the University of Texas School of Law when he was only 22 years old. He clerked for the McAllen, Texas, firm of Atlas & Hall during the summers of 1986 and 1987, joined the firm as a full-time associate in 1988, and became a partner in 1994. During his fourteen-year legal career, Mr. Crane has handled primarily civil cases, including commercial litigation, personal injury matters, and toxic torts. He has also gained valuable experience in several criminal cases, including a large federal drug conspiracy case. Mr. Crane currently serves as a Director of the Texas-Mexico Bar Association, which seeks to promote cross-border dialogue of common legal issues, resolution of cross-border legal issues, education about United States and Mexico legal systems, and attorney networking for answering questions about the two legal systems. I have every confidence that Randy Crane will serve with distinction on the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas. Mr. President, I must take a moment to respond to some of the comments made by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, regarding the pace of judicial confirmations. The Senator has made much of comparing the pace of confirmations under Republican and Democratic control of the Judiciary Committee. This has involved comparing 9 months to 12 months, 9 months to 9 months, 3 months to 3 months, and so on. Of course, anyone knows that you can manipulate statistics to achieve the result you want. I find the bottom line numbers to tell a more compelling story. And the bottom line is that we have 94 vacancies in the Federal judiciary today--the exact same number as we did at the end of last session, and only slightly fewer than we did when the Democrats took control of the Senate in June of last year. The bottom line numbers are even more compelling when you look at the number of circuit court vacancies. When Senate Democrats took over the Judiciary Committee in June of last year, there were 31 circuit court vacancies, and there remain 31 circuit court vacancies today. This does not represent progress--it represents stagnation. In contrast, at the end of 1995, which was the Republicans' first year of control of the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton administration, there were only 13 circuit vacancies. In fact, during President Clinton's first term, circuit court vacancies never exceeded 21 at the end of any year--including 1996, a presidential election year, when the pace of confirmations has traditionally slowed. Moreover, there were only 2 circuit nominees left pending in committee at the end of President Clinton's first year in office. In contrast, 23 of President Bush's circuit nominees were left hanging in committee at the end of last year. Last Thursday, Senator Lott introduced a resolution calling for the confirmation of each of the circuit court judges nominated by President Bush on May 9 of last year. We are coming up on the one-year anniversary of those nominations, and yet only 3 of the 11 nominees have had hearings and confirmation votes. All of these nominees have received qualified or well-qualified ratings from the American Bar Association. This is problematic because it is no secret that there is a vacancy crisis in the federal circuit courts, and that we are making no progress in addressing it. A total of 22 circuit nominations are pending in the Judiciary Committee. But we have confirmed only one circuit judge this year, and only seven since President Bush took office. In light of the vacancy crisis, we cannot afford to let only 10 Senators defeat a circuit nominee. This is a question of process, not of seeking favorable treatment. For all these reasons, it is imperative to support Senator Lott's resolution to get hearings and votes for our longest pending circuit nominees. Given the vacancy crisis in our circuit courts, I cannot imagine anyone voting against it.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.

Mr. HATCH. I will say a few words before the vote. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed for a few minutes.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I think that is wrong. Being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints myself, the only church in the history of this Nation that had an extermination order out against it by the Governor of Missouri at the time, I fully understand terrible religious prejudice. So I decry anybody on the right, or anybody supporting Judge Pickering, calling Senator Leahy or any other Democrat or any other Member of this body, to criticize their religious perspective or view. But it certainly was wrong to criticize Judge Pickering's religion and his religious perspective. He is a religious, righteous man, the type of person you would want to have on the bench. And thank goodness he still will be on the bench in the district court, but he won't be able to lend his expertise and talents to the circuit court of appeals. I join with the concern expressed by my colleagues here and in the House, including Democrats. The fact that an impression has been created that the Senate Judiciary Committee would impose any test, whether a religious test or an abortion litmus test, concerns me greatly. Republicans refused to establish an abortion litmus test in either direction when we controlled this committee. We confirmed 377 of President Clinton's judicial nominees without imposing such a test. Maybe this has something to do with the make up of the Judiciary Committee: all the members on one side of the aisle share a single view, but on the Republican side, both views are welcomed. I might also add, I believe that underlying these attacks on conservative judicial nominees is the issue of abortion. If we had chosen to use that as a litmus test issue, President Clinton would have had very few judges confirmed. If that is going to be the rule, then that is a very bad thing and bad precedent to start. I was told by some of the outside groups that they do not believe anybody should serve on any court in this land who is not pro-abortion. That is an extreme view. Hopefully that view will never have that much influence on this body, but, unfortunately, I think it does have an influence. I will not ever agree that the Judiciary Committee or the Senate should exercise its advice and consent responsibility in a way that makes an absolutely lock-step demand that nominees think in a particular way on any single issue. Of course, as long as the Democrats are in the majority, I cannot stop them from doing so. But I can promise this: a decision to impose a litmus test will offend everyone in this country who understands and appreciates the rule of law, the independent judiciary, and the great tradition of debate and acceptance of diversity that have made our country the strong democracy it is today. Although some Senators on this committee prize diversity as a standard for the confirmation process. It concerns me that some people's definition of diversity includes only those with diverse skin color or ethnicity, and then only if they agree with their liberal views. Take Miguel Angel Estrada, who the President nominated 310 days ago, almost a year, Mr. President. Mr. Estrada, an immigrant from Honduras with a distinguished career, would be the first Hispanic on the prestigious Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and yet I read on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today that Democrats are gearing up to do to him what they did to Judge Pickering. He may be a minority, but he is the wrong kind of a minority, apparently, in the eyes of some of these people. I think that is awful. Clarence Thomas was a minority, but he was the wrong kind of a minority in the eyes of some of these people. That is awful. Diversity appears not to include intellectual diversity--diversity of personal viewpoints or religious conviction, that have nothing to do with ability to follow the law. Some of my Democrat colleagues have openly sought to introduce ideology into the judicial confirmation process, something which I repudiate. I am now concerned that the abortion litmus test would have the same effect as a religious test. Indeed, most people who are pro-choice hold their position as a matter of ideology. Some even allow their chosen ideology to trump the tenets of their religion. They do so in good conscience no doubt, and I respect that. But the great majority of people who are pro-life come to their positions as a result of their religious convictions. We view unborn life as sacred. We believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence that we are ``endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights'' and that among these is ``life.'' Many Americans hold this view as a religious tenet, but this view does not affect their ability to interpret the law and precedent, just as skin color does not. In effect, what is ideology to my Democrat friends is a matter of religious conviction to a large portion of the American people. When one Senator asked Judge Pickering about Roe versus Wade, Judge Pickering's response was unequivocally that he viewed it as the law of the land and would follow it as a judge, without regard to his private views. Surely, this should be enough. Otherwise, this will mean that no judges with private pro-life views, who derive these views from religious conviction, will ever again be confirmed in a Democrat-led Senate. To impose an abortion litmus test on private views--call it ideological if you want to--is to exclude from our judiciary a large number of people of religious conviction, who are perfectly prepared to follow the law. I fear this is the door this Democrat-led Senate could be opening. I can understand why people would believe that a religious test is being imposed. Certainly, as a former president of the Mississippi Southern Baptist Convention, Judge Pickering's nomination makes concern over a religious test understandable. The recorded attacks of the extreme left, special interest groups based on Judge Pickering's religious views are repugnant, and I do hope that my Democrat colleagues will indeed repudiate such tactics. Judge Pickering's record on the bench shows that he, in good faith, does understand the difference between the law and private views, and that he has followed the law regardless of personal beliefs. Judge Pickering has never had an abortion case during his 11 years on the bench, but he has ruled on cases in which the issue of sexual privacy was involved. Conveniently, opponents ignore Judge Pickering's record on gay issues. It is not surprising that Log Cabin Republicans, the largest, national gay Republican organization, recently issued a press release calling on this Committee to approve the nomination of Judge Pickering and to send it to the floor of the U.S. Senate. Let me quote from the release. According to Rich Tafel, the executive director of Log Cabin Republicans: Judge Pickering reiterated to me his strong belief that all Americans should be treated equally under the law, including gay and lesbian Americans, and his record as a federal judge clearly demonstrates it. They go on to say: Among several cases he has heard, two key cases from 1991 and 1994 demonstrated Pickering has followed the principle of equality under the law for gay Americans going back over a decade. In 1991, Pickering sharply rebuked an attorney who tried to use a plaintiff's homosexuality in a fraud trial. ``Homosexuals are as much entitled to be protected from fraud as any other human beings,'' Pickering instructed the jury. ``The fact that the alleged victims in this case are homosexuals shall not affect your verdict in any way whatsoever.'' In 1994, an anti-gay citizens group in the town of Ovett, Mississippi launched a crusade of intimidation and threats to drive out Camp Sister Spirit, a lesbian community being built by a lesbian couple. When the group took Camp Sister Spirit to court, Judge Pickering threw their case out. They go on: His civil rights record is long and distinguished. In 1967, Judge Pickering testified for the prosecution in a criminal hate-murder case against Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard Sam Bowers in the death of an African American civil rights worker. When Jones County, Mississippi schools were racially integrated in the 1970's, Judge Pickering and his wife kept their children in the public school system when other white families removed their children. He was a featured speaker at Mississippi NAACP meetings as far back as 1976, when he was chairman of the Mississippi GOP. In 1981, he defended an African American man who was falsely accused of robbing a white girl at knife point, forcing the case to a second trial after a hung jury and an eventual acquittal. In 1988, he convened and chaired a bipartisan, biracial committee to promote better race relations in Jones County, Mississippi. And then remarkably Tafel says: The judge who threw out the anti-Camp Sister Spirit case and rebuked homophobia from the bench in the Deep South over ten years ago deserves a promotion, not a rebuke. That is what Tafel said. I fear that the Judiciary Committee was not as fair to Judge Pickering's record. I am greatly disappointed and profoundly concerned for our country. What is now occurring is far beyond the mere tug-of-war politics that unfortunately surrounds Senate judicial confirmation since Robert Bork. My Democrat colleagues are out to effect a fundamental change in our constitutional system. 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, my Democrat colleagues are out to guarantee that our judges are in fact biased. And certainly no person who holds certain religious convictions need apply. In the America that the Senate Democrats would reshape, citizens will have to worry about the personal politics of the judge to whom they come for justice under the law. 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. What my Democrat colleagues are pursuing is an end to the independence of our judiciary with unforeseeable, unintended consequences to the strength of the Republic. Today is the Ides of March. I would call on my Senate colleagues to ``Beware.'' The fight they started with Judge Pickering is one that others may end. I hope, however, to quote Shakespeare further, that they have not crossed the Rubicon, that the die is not cast. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deepest-felt disappointment in the decision of the Judiciary Committee yesterday against the nomination of Judge Charles Pickering, a jurist of the highest character and proven dedication to public service. Mr. President, I will not repeat my defense of Judge Pickering's record, which I addressed here yesterday. There are particular reasons why I am disappointed and saddened. First, certainly, is the unfairness with which the Judiciary Committee treated Judge Pickering's record. I feel awful for Judge Pickering and his family for the way that the special interest groups and the liberal activists have distorted his record. It has come to the point that men and women who put themselves up for public service and the Senate confirmation process are heroes, willing to sacrifice their good name and peace of mind. I also feel terribly for the people of Mississippi, and about what this decision says to them after the long distance they have traveled to correct past wrongs. I feel terribly for the African Americans from Mississippi who stood by Judge Pickering, at risk to their own reputations. Opponents have made much of the meager 26 reversals that Judge Pickering has had, an attempt to open old and painful wounds by using the all-too familiar race card and suggesting that Judge Pickering has a poor record in civil rights cases. They claim that Judge has a poor record on voting rights. In fact, he has had only four voting rights cases--only four--and he has been appealed on the merits in none of them. My staff has counted almost 200 decisions, and there may be more, in which Judge Pickering has applied the various civil rights laws of the United States with neither an appeal nor a reversal. Opponents sought desperately to find aggrieved litigants with an ax to grind. They have found almost none. That is amazing for somebody who is in the Federal and State courts for much of a legal career. The African American parties who were involved in one of the four voting rights cases have even written to support the confirmation of Judge Pickering--the same judge who ruled against them. Many of my colleagues are lawyers. They know full well, as did these African American parties who support Judge Pickering that just ruling one way or another in a case does not mean you are against the underlying law. With this, does it mean that every judge who has overturned a drug sentence is pro-drugs? Obviously not. We all know better than that. The judge's record is clear and distinguished. But I venture to say that the opponents of Judge Pickering are not interested in accentuating the positive record, to say the least. It is not politically expedient to do so. Take the case of little Jeffrey Hill. His parents believed that their son was entitled to receive a free appropriate education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Jeffrey's parents sued and stood alone against the State of Mississippi. Judge Pickering, as he has done in cases involving homosexuals, African-Americans and others, appropriately found that the law in that case required Mississippi to educate handicapped children. Judge Pickering gave little Jeffrey Hill his day in court. He ruled on the law. Yesterday Senators on the Judiciary Committee received a letter from three dozen members of the House of Representatives, including the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hyde. House Members asked that the Judiciary Committee repudiate extreme liberal, left-of-mainstream special interest groups that have raised Judge Pickering's religious views as an issue, going so far as to attack Judge Pickering for a speech he gave on the Bible when he was president of the Mississippi Southern Baptist Convention. I ask unanimous consent that the House letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to support the confirmation of David C. Bury to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Arizona. I have had the pleasure of reviewing Mr. Bury'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 Arizona. David Bury was born and raised in Tulsa, OK. After graduating from Oklahoma State University in 1964, he attended the University of Arizona College of Law, earning his Juris Doctorate in 1967. Mr. Bury has been a trial lawyer in private practice for over 34 years, and he has experience in almost every area of civil trial practice--primarily in the area of insurance defense. His clients have included private citizens, large corporation, lawyers, doctors, insurance companies, Pima County, and the State of Arizona. Mr. Bury has defended medical and legal malpractice cases, products liability and construction site cases, governmental entities in false arrest cases, assault and battery cases, United States Code section 1983 actions, and road design and construction cases. He has defended school teachers and school districts. Additionally, he has represented individuals in personal injury and employment cases. Mr. Bury is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and an Advocate in the American Board of Trial Advocates. He is also listed in the ``Best Lawyers in America.'' He has served as a lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, on the Commission on Trial Court Appointments for Pima County, and on the disciplinary committee for the State Bar of Arizona. In addition, Mr. Bury often serves as an arbitrator and has been a guest lecturer for legal and medical organizations throughout his career. I have every confidence that David Bury will serve with distinction on the Federal District Court for the District of Arizona. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if that is treating a person good, I would hate to see one who is treated badly, is all I can say. I am going to talk a little about Judge Pickering before I am through. I have been hearing comments about how badly the Clinton nominees were treated. Lately, I have heard Democrats suggesting that their treatment for Bush nominees is payback for how I treated Clinton nominees when I was chairman. I want to take a moment to defend my record on Clinton nominees. I first want to state that President Clinton got 377 Federal judges confirmed during the time I was either ranking member or chairman of the Judiciary Committee. That is a number which is only 5 short of the all-time record that Ronald Reagan had of 382. President Clinton would have had 3 more than Reagan--385--had it not been for Democrat holds and objections on this floor. Keep in mind President Reagan had 6 years of a favorable Republican Senate. President Clinton had 6 years of the opposition party Senate, where I was chairman, and he still got that many judges through. By the way, to talk in terms of the 2 or 3 people I have been hearing about all day who did not get hearings, think of the 54 who were left hanging when Bush I left office--54 Republicans. Terry Boyle, who has been renominated by President George W. Bush, has been sitting in committee since May 9. John Roberts, about whom I had a conversation with one of the Justices--and he said John Roberts is one of the two greatest appellate lawyers appearing before the Supreme Court today-- has been sitting there since May 9. Both were first nominated by President George H.W. Bush, and were 2 of the 54 nominees that the Democrats left hanging at the end of his Administration. I admit 6 nominees were put up so late that, literally, nobody could have gotten them through. So say 48 were left hanging. Compare that to when President Clinton left office. By the way, when Bush I left office, there were 97 vacancies, and 54 were left hanging--but we can reduce it to 48 because of the 6 who were probably nominated too late. When President Clinton left office, there were 67 vacancies--30 less than when the Democrats held the committee, when George Bush the first was President. There were 41 nominees left hanging when Clinton left office. Of the 41, there were 9 put up so late that it was a wash; in other words, it was just to make it look good. They could not have gotten through no matter who tried. In essence, there were 32 nominees left hanging at the end of the Clinton Administration versus 48 who were left hanging at the end of the first Bush Administration. Of those 48 left hanging, I can match the Senator from Illinois and every other Democrat person for person, and much more, with decent, honorable, wonderful people who just didn't make it through. But you haven't heard us come to the floor every day, or in the Judiciary Committee every day, talking about how badly they were treated, even though they were treated badly. People like John Roberts, one of the greatest appellate lawyers in the history of the country. Think of that--382 for Reagan, the all-time champion, with the opposition party in the minority for 6 of those years, and 377 for Clinton, with the opposition party in the majority for 6 of those years. Comparing the number confirmed to the number nominated, President Clinton enjoyed an 85 percent confirmation rate on the individuals he nominated. There were only 68 article III Judicial nominees who were nominated by President Clinton, in all of his 8 years, who did not get confirmed. Of those, 3 were left at the end of the 103rd Congress, when the Democrats controlled the Senate. That leaves 65. Of those, 12 were withdrawn by the President, leaving 53. Nine were nominated too late for the Congress and committee to act on them or they were lacking paperwork. That leaves 44. Now, 17 of those lacked home State support, which was often the result of a lack of consultation with home State Senators. There was no way to confirm them without ignoring the senatorial courtesy that we afford to home State Senators in the nomination process. That left 27. One nominee was defeated on the floor, which leaves only 26 remaining nominees. Of these, some had other reasons for not moving that I simply cannot comment on because of the security of the committee. So in all 6 years I chaired the committee, while President Clinton was in office, we are really only talking about 26 nominees who were left hanging. During the first Bush administration, when the Democrats controlled the committee, 59 nominees were not confirmed. I don't know the reasons for all of those. There probably were some. But if you look at those 59 nominees and subtract the 1 who was withdrawn, that leaves 58 Bush I nominees who weren't confirmed over the course of 4 years. If you take the 65 Clinton nominees who were not confirmed over my 6 years, and take away the 12 who were withdrawn, that leaves 53. So at the end of the day, even subtracting only the withdrawn nominees, there were only 53 Clinton nominees the Senate didn't act on in the 6 years I was chairman, while the Democrats allowed 58 nominations to perish in the committee in only 4 year's time. Do not tell me they were abused. That is part of the process. Some of these people we do not have time to get through. There are reasons why they cannot get through--for a number of them, for instance, there is not support of home State Senators. Of those 41 nominees left at the end of the 106th Congress, 1 was eventually confirmed in the 107th Congress. Twelve lacked home State support or had incomplete paperwork. That leaves only 20 nominees who did not go forward at the end of the Clinton administration. There were 41 Clinton nominees left in committee at the end of the 106th Congress when Clinton left office. When Bush left office, there were 54 nominees left in committee, as I said. So the argument that this all began because the Republicans were unfair to Clinton nominees is simply untrue. We were not. I was more fair to Clinton in confirming nominees than the Democrats were to President George H.W. Bush. I also heard the allegation that Republican inaction during the Clinton Presidency is to blame for the current vacancy crisis. This is untrue. There were only 67 vacancies at the end of the 106th Congress. Today there are nearly 30 more vacancies; 96 after almost a year. Madam President, 11.2 percent of the Federal judiciary is vacant. At the end of my tenure as chairman during the Clinton Presidency, that rate was only 7.9 percent. We are in the middle of a circuit court vacancy crisis, and the Senate is doing virtually nothing whatsoever to address it. There were 31 vacancies in the Federal courts of appeals when President Bush sent us his first 11 circuit nominees on May 9 last year, and there are 31--the exact same number--today. We are making no real progress. Eight of President Bush's first 11 nominees have not even been scheduled for hearings, including John Roberts and Terry Boyle (both of whom were on the nomination schedule of the first President Bush but who did not get a hearing back then). This time around, they have been pending for 309 days as of today. All of these nominees received qualified or well-qualified ratings from the American Bar Association. A total of 22 circuit court nominations are now pending for those 31 vacancies, but we have confirmed only 1 circuit judge this year and only 7 since President Bush took office. The Sixth Circuit is half-staffed, with 8 of its 16 seats vacant. That is a crisis. They cannot function appropriately. This crisis exists despite the fact we have seven Sixth Circuit nominees pending motionless before the Judiciary Committee right now. Although the Michigan Senators are blocking 3 of those nominees by not returning blue slips, the other 4 are completely ready to go. All have complete paperwork, good ratings by the ABA, and most importantly, the support of both home State Senators. The DC Circuit is two-thirds staffed with 4 of its 12 seats sitting vacant. This is despite the fact that President Bush nominated Miquel Estrada and John Roberts, who have not yet been given a hearing and whose nominations have not seen the light of day since they were nominated better than 300 days ago. There is simply no explanation for this situation other than stall tactics. The Senate Democrats are trying to create an illusion of movement by creating great media attention concerning a small handful of nominees in order to make it look like progress. Some try to blame the Republicans for the circuit court vacancy crisis. That is complete bunk. Look at the record. Some have suggested that 45 percent of President Clinton's circuit court nominees were not confirmed during his Presidency. That number is a bit of Enron-ization. It is inflated by double counting individuals who were nominated more than once. For example, by their numbers, Marsha Berzon, who was nominated in the 105th Congress and confirmed in the 106th Congress, would count as 2 nominations and only 1 confirmation. If you remove the double counting and count by individuals, without counting withdrawn nominees, President Clinton nominated 86 individuals for the circuit courts and only 21 were not confirmed. That is 24 percent as opposed to 45 percent. Of those 21 nominees who were not confirmed, 9 lacked home State support, one had incomplete paperwork, and another was nominated after the August recess in 2000. That leaves 10 circuit court nominees who did not receive action, some of which had issues I cannot discuss publicly. As I said, there are currently 31 circuit court vacancies. During President Clinton's first term, when Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee, circuit court vacancies never exceeded 21 at the end of any year. There were only 2 circuit court nominees left pending in committee at the end of President Clinton's first year in office. In contrast, 23 of President Bush's circuit court nominees were pending in committee at the end of last year. At the end of President Clinton's second year in office, the Senate had confirmed 19 circuit judges, and there were only 15 circuit court vacancies. In contrast, today, in President Bush's second year, the Senate has confirmed only one circuit court nominee, and there are 22 pending, and 17 of those are considered emergency positions. At the end of 1995, my first year as chairman, there were only 13 circuit court vacancies left at the end of the year. At the end of 1996, the end of President Clinton's first term and in a Presidential election year, there were 21 vacancies, only 1 higher than the number the Democrats left at the end of 1993 when they controlled the Senate and Clinton was President. Taking numbers by the end of each Congress, a Republican-controlled Senate has never--never--left as many circuit court vacancies as currently exist today. At the end of the 104th Congress, the number was 18. At the end of the 105th Congress, that number was 14, and even at the end of the 106th Congress, a Presidential election year, that number was only 25. Today there are 31 vacancies in the circuit courts. Despite all the talk, and lack of action, the unmistakable fact is that there is a circuit court vacancy crisis of 31 vacancies, which is far higher than the Republicans ever let reach, and the current Senate leadership is doing nothing about it. Actually, I should correct myself. They are doing something about it. They are making it grow even larger. They have acted with a deliberate lack of speed, and that is something the American people do not deserve. Having said this to set the record straight, there are always a few nominations that have a difficult time whether the Republicans or Democrats are in control. I have to admit, I wish I could have gotten a few more through when I was the committee chairman, but everybody who knows, who really watched the process, knew that I pushed people through, against the wishes of a significant number of outside people. I told a number of the conservative groups to get lost because they were basically distorting the judicial process. Having said all that, let me talk about Charles Pickering because I am disappointed in what happened today. The real problem that many of the interest groups have with Charles Pickering is he does not think as they do. These groups want to impose an ideological litmus test on judicial nominees. They will mount a campaign against any nominee who does not agree with their position on abortion, civil rights, and a host of other issues, and they will try to label anyone who disagrees with them as an extremist who is out of the mainstream. But the key here is that a nominees's personal or political opinion on such issues is irrelevant when it comes to the confirmation process. The real question is whether the nominee can follow the law, and Judge Pickering has certainly proved that he can. Judge Pickering has demonstrated an ability to follow the law. This is reflected in his low reversal rate of a half percent during his decade-plus tenure as a district court judge. Although I have heard some of my colleagues complain about his 26 reversals, let's put this in context. Judge Pickering in his nearly 12 years on the Federal bench handled 4,000 to 4,500 cases. In all of those cases, he has been reversed only 26 times. This is a record to be proud of, not a reason to vote against him. I suspect many of my colleagues' misperceptions about Judge Pickering's record as a district judge stem from the gross distortion of that record by the liberal special interest groups. For example, one often-cited area of concern is Judge Pickering's record on Voting Rights Act cases, but the bottom line is that Judge Pickering has decided a total of three of those cases on the merits: Fairley, Bryant, and Morgan. None of these cases was appealed, a step that one can reasonably expect a party to take if it is dissatisfied with the court's ruling. Moreover, the plaintiffs in the Fairley case, including Ken Fairley, former head of the Forrest County NAACP, have written letters in support of Judge Pickering's nomination. Judge Pickering's qualifications are also reflected in his ABA rating, which some members of the committee have referred to as the ``gold standard'' in evaluating judicial nominees. The ABA, of course, rated Judge Pickering well qualified for the Fifth Circuit. I also find it ironic that many of the complaints Judge Pickering's opponents have lodged against him pertain to events that occurred before he became a Federal district court judge, a position for which he was unanimously confirmed by both this committee and the full Senate. The way liberal special interest groups are working and have worked to change the ground rules on judicial confirmations is evident in the nomination of Charles Pickering for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. This is a gentleman who had overwhelming support in his home State of Mississippi from Democrats and Republicans alike, from the Democrat attorney general of the State, and from prominent members of the African-American community. Those who know Judge Pickering well know he has worked to improve race relations in Mississippi. For example, he testified against the Imperial Wizard of the KKK for firebombing a civil rights activist in Mississippi in 1967, at great risk to both himself and his family. He hired the first African-American Republican political worker in Mississippi in 1976; represented a black man falsely accused of robbing a 16-year-old white girl in 1981 and won the case for him; chaired a race relations committee for Jones County, Mississippi, in 1988; served on the board of the Institute of Racial Reconciliation at the University of Mississippi since 1999; and worked with at-risk African- American youth in Laurel, Mississippi, in 2000. I have to say I was pleased that my colleagues on the other side said they do not believe he is a racist and they do not believe that such a case can be made, and they were disappointed that some tried to make it. I say, in addition, Judge Pickering has compiled an impressive record as a Federal district court judge. During his more than 11 years on the bench, he has disposed of an estimated 4,000 to 4,500 cases, but he has been reversed only 26 times. This means his reversal rate is roughly one-half of 1 percentage point and is lower than the average reversal rate for Federal district court judges in this country. Despite this impressive career, Judge Pickering had become the target of a smear campaign instigated and perpetrated by liberal Washington interest groups and lobbyists with their own political agenda, some of whom called him, in essence, a racist. These groups painted a caricature of a man that bears little resemblance to reality, all in the name of attempting to change the ground rules for the judicial confirmation process and impose their political litmus test for all of President Bush's judicial nominees. We are now seeing the same thing starting with another circuit court of appeals nominee, D. Brooks Smith, with the same type of approaches they have used against Judge Pickering. We had a number of Senators say they voted against Judge Pickering because of his 26 reversals, some of which they considered questionable in the areas of voting rights, in the area of civil rights, in the area of prisoners' rights, and in the area of employment rights. We blew those arguments away today because we cited nearly every case about which they are complaining. They claim Judge Pickering did not follow settled law, and we showed that there was not settled law in many of those cases. We did not hear those cases really argued today from the principal people who argued them before. They could not. So what did we hear an argument on? The Swan case. Now what was the Swan case? The Swan case the case of a cross burning on the lawn of an African-American family. I might mention that is a vicious, rotten, lousy thing for anybody to do. Of the three boys who did it, one of them was a vicious racist who had shot into the house with a gun. Because two of them cooperated, the Justice Department prosecutors gave them basically a giveaway, easy sentence. The third was absolutely drunk at the time. He had not shot into the home, he had not issued any racist comments, but he was with them. He did not think he did anything wrong. He contested the case, lost, and under the mandatory minimum he had to be sentenced to 7 years. The judge did not think that was right, that the other two really were as or more culpable, and when he looked and found out that this young man had never made a racist comment and he was drunk at the time, he thought it was a tremendous injustice. So what he did was he complained to one of his friends, Frank Hunger, who was with the Justice Department at the time, but not at the Civil Rights Division at the Civil Division. Swan still got a sentence of 27 months, a fairly long time when his two co-defendants got only home confinement and probation. Because he talked to Frank Hunger, who was with the Civil Division, not the Civil Rights Division, we had efforts to paint that as a tremendous violation of ethics. Hardly. Hunger does not even remember the conversation and is one of the strongest supporters of Judge Pickering, a Democrat from the Clinton Administration Justice Department. He is very disappointed with what happened to Judge Pickering's nomination. There are other things I would like to say, but I know my colleague would like to speak. I will close with this: I am sorely disappointed with the vote on Judge Pickering's nomination. I am sorely disappointed with the way these outside groups tried to paint Mississippi as the old South, prejudiced, rotten, acting in ways that fly in the face of civil rights, when there have been so many strides made, part of them made because of the efforts of Judge Charles Pickering. I do not understand this type of thing. In each case in which a nominee was stopped in Committee, I have wondered why they were stopped. I do not live in Mississippi, but I feel for the people of Mississippi because this action today, it seems to me, is a condemnation of a State that does not deserve it, and a condemnation of a Federal judge who went through the Senate the first time unanimously, who has served well for nearly 12 solid years, and who now has a reputation besmirched because of what I consider to be phony allegations which should never have been accepted. I am disappointed. But unfortunately, that is the way it is around here. I hope we do not have to put up with much more of this in the future. I notice my colleagues want to speak, so I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. The vote is at 11, is that right?

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to support the confirmation of Ralph R. Beistline to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Alaska. I have had the pleasure of reviewing Judge Beistline's distinguished legal career, and I have come to the opinion that he is a fine jurist who will add a great deal to the Federal bench in Alaska. Judge Beistline began his legal career as the first law clerk for the Superior Court in Fairbanks, where he not only completed legal research and wrote opinions for three judges, but also held hearings in probate and uncontested divorce cases. Following his clerkship, he maintained a litigation practice for 17 years. He left the practice of law to become a State trial court judge, and he has earned a stellar reputation for fairness and hard work among lawyers and judges in his community. I have every confidence that Judge Beistline will serve with distinction on the Federal district court for the district of Alaska. We are in the middle of a circuit court vacancy crisis, and the Senate is doing nothing whatsoever to address it. There were 31 vacancies in the Federal courts of appeals when President Bush sent us his first 11 circuit nominees on May 9, 2001, and there are 31 today. We are making no progress. Eight of President Bush's first 11 nominees have not even been scheduled for hearings, despite having been pending for 307 days as of today. All of these nominees received qualified or well-qualified ratings from the American Bar Association. A total of 22 circuit nominations are now pending for those 31 vacancies. But we have confirmed only 1 circuit judge this year, and only 7 since President Bush took office. The sixth circuit is half-staffed, with 8 of its 16 seats vacant. This crisis exists today despite the fact that we have 7 Sixth Circuit nominees pending motionless before the Judiciary Committee right now. Although the Michigan senators are blocking 3 of those nominees by not returning blue slips, the other 4 are completely ready to go, all have complete paperwork, good ratings by the ABA, and most importantly, the support of both home State senators. The D.C. Circuit is two-thirds staffed, with 4 of its 12 seats sitting vacant. This is despite the fact that President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada and John Roberts, who have not yet been given a hearing and whose nominations have not seen the light of day since they were nominated 307 days ago. There is simply no explanation for this situation other than stall tactics. The Senate Democrats are trying to create an illusion of movement by creating great media attention concerning a small handful of nominees in order to make it look like progress. Some try to blame the Republicans for the circuit court vacancy crisis, but that is complete bunk. Just look at the record: Some have suggested that 45 percent of President Clinton's circuit court nominees were not confirmed during his presidency. That number is a bit of an Enron-ization. It is inflated by double counting individuals that were nominated more than once. For example, by their numbers, Marsha Berzon--who was nominated in the 105th Congress, but not confirmed until the 106th--would count as two nominations and only one confirmation. If you remove the double counting and count by individuals, only 23 were not confirmed--that's 27 percent, as opposed to 45 percent. And of those 23 nominees who did not move, 4 were withdrawn, 8 lacked home State support, 1 had incomplete paperwork and another was nominated after the August recess in 2000. That leaves 9 circuit court nominees that did not receive action some of which had issues that I cannot discuss publicly. Now, as I said, there are currently 31 circuit court vacancies. During President Clinton's first term, circuit court vacancies never exceeded 21 at the end of any year. There were only 2 circuit court nominees left pending in committee at the end of President Clinton's first year in office. In contrast, 23 of President Bush's circuit court nominees were pending in committee at the end of last year. At the end of President Clinton's second year in office, the Senate had confirmed 19 circuit judges and there were only 15 circuit court vacancies. In contrast, today in President Bush's second year, the Senate has confirmed 1 and there are 22 pending. At the end of 1995, my first year as chairman, there were only 13 circuit vacancies left at the end of the year. At the end of 1996, the end of President Clinton's first term and in a Presidential election year, there were 21 vacancies--only 1 higher than the number the Democrats left at the end of 1993 when they controlled the Senate and Clinton was President. Taking numbers by the end of each Congress, a Republican controlled Senate has never left as many circuit vacancies as currently exist today. At the end of the 104th Congress, the number was 18, at the end of the 105th Congress, that number was 14, and even at the end of the 106th Congress, a Presidential election year, that number was only 25. Today there are 31 vacancies in the circuit courts. Despite all the talk--and lack of action--the unmistakable fact is that there is a circuit court vacancy crisis of 31 vacancies, which is far higher than the Republicans ever let it reach, and the current Senate leadership is doing nothing about it. Actually, I should correct myself, they are doing something about it: They are making it grow even larger. They have acted with a deliberate lack of speed, and that is something the American people do not deserve. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Since they are not here, I ask unanimous consent that I might be able to speak.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: Are we on the Beistline nominee?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, being considered by the Senate today, contains an important provision to extend the general net operating loss (``NOL'') carryback provision to 5 years (from 2 years) for NOLs arising in taxable years ending in 2001 and 2002. The Joint Committee on Taxation's Technical Explanation of the Act contains a footnote indicating that the NOL provision ``does not affect the terms and conditions that the Internal Revenue Service may impose on a taxpayer seeking approval for a change in its annual accounting period.'' I want to clarify with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, that this footnote was not intended to limit the Internal Revenue Service's authority to alter or modify the terms and conditions that may have been imposed on taxpayers that had already received permission to change accounting periods, particularly under circumstances where the events of September 11, 2001, have resulted in unanticipated and severe hardships, and the waiver or modification would not result in the planning activity that the NOL Condition was intended to prevent. Specifically, I want to clarify that the IRS has authority to permit an NOL incurred in a short taxable year to be carried back notwithstanding that the taxpayer may have agreed as a condition to securing the change to carry over the NOL only to future years.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to all the men and women in the State of Utah and this nation whose hard work and diligence made the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics the best in the history of the Games. I want to pay special tribute to the efforts of my Utah partner, Senator Bob Bennett. We owe him a great deal of gratitude for his leadership and guidance to ensure that the 2002 Winter Olympic Games had the resources and manpower necessary to be successful. The 2002 Olympics proved that we as a nation can conduct national events where the need for security is balanced with the spirit of the event. In this new age, where terrorism is a constant threat, securing the Olympics was a joint effort. It involved private citizens, Utah businesses, and federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The result was a security operation that provided a blueprint for the future. The 2002 Winter Games were a showcase of American determination, resiliency, creativity, and resourcefulness. The challenge of planning for and executing an event of this magnitude was daunting even prior to the tragedy of September 11th. Following the September 11th tragedy, however, the security of the Winter Olympics became the subject of intense scrutiny in this country and throughout the International Olympic community. Frequently asked questions included: Can the United States still produce a first-rate event given the new security environment? Should the Games be cancelled? Should the Games be scaled back? Would the event become an armed camp? There was never a question, however, among the organizers and planners of the Games as to whether the Olympics would go forward. They rolled up their sleeves and set out, determined to ensure that these Games were the best and safest Games ever. Law enforcement officials were confident that they already had an excellent security plan in place. Federal, state, local and private agencies developed and strengthened partnerships so the spirit of the Olympic Games could thrive. The nation and, indeed, the entire international Olympic community were blessed that people of courage and conviction were already in place and prepared to carry out their tasks. I would like to take a moment to thank these wonderful men and women for what they did. I am very proud of all of them. First, I want to thank all the strong, brave, and gifted Olympic athletes who participated in the Winter Games. I am especially proud of the United States' athletes who performed so magnificently and brought home 34 medals--more than double the bronze, silver and gold the United States brought home from the 1998 Nagano Winter Games. This was 28 more than were won in the 1988 Winter Games in Calgary. I also want to thank Utah Governor Mike Leavitt and Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, U.S. Attorney Paul Warner, Assistant U.S. Attorney Dave Schwendiman, as well as, the many other local city and county officials, and their staffs, who hosted the Games and marshaled the resources which made the Olympics such a success. They represent the great character of the people of Utah. Utahns work very hard to preserve the beautiful natural backdrop that the world admired and enjoyed so much throughout the Games. They also worked very hard to build the modern, state-of-the-art infrastructure that made the Games possible. It was Utahns who provided the indomitable pioneer spirit which inspired the Games to reach new heights. Without the tens of thousand of Utah volunteers, the Games would not have been possible at all, let alone the unqualified success they turned out to be. But this is only part of the success story. The 2002 Winter Olympic Games were possible because of well-conceived and well-executed partnerships among Federal, state, local, and private organizations. Not enough can be said about the way private enterprises partnered with government at all levels. Mitt Romney, President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, and Fraser Bullock, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operations Officer, are great Americans and heroes of the 2002 Olympic Games. Their collective business acumen, indomitable spirit, and eye for beauty and passion brought about a splendid production from start to finish--that was enjoyed immensely by the whole world. I want to personally thank the entire Salt Lake City Organizing Committee for 17 days of magic! For many years, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee Board of Trustees was the backbone of planning the Games. These dedicated men and women provided critical guidance and support in developing the overall architecture and operations for the Games. We all owe a great deal of thanks to the able leadership of Frank Joklik, who was also the former CEO and President of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee, as well as former Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Under the direction and care of Bob Garff, current Chairman of the Board of Trustees, the Board has been second to none in keeping the Games on track over the years. We are very proud of every member who has ever served on the Board of Trustees. The current Board of Trustees have every right to be proud of their accomplishments. We salute: Mr. Spence Eccles, Mr. James Beardall, Ms. Sandy Baldwin, Ms. Teresa Beck, Mr. J. Dwight Bell, Mayor Lewis K. Billings, Mr. Luke Bodensteiner, Mr. Kenneth Bullock, Ms. Camille Cain, Mr. Joseph A. Cannon, Mr. Don Cash, Mr. Keith Christensen, Mr. Forrest Cuch, Ms. Kathaleen K. Cutone, Ms. Anita Defrantz, Ms. Maria Dennis, Mr. Randy Dryer, Mr. James L. Easton, Mr. Ed Eyestone, Mr. Rocky Fluhart, Ms. Maria J. Garciaz, Mr. George Garwood, Mr. Paul George, Ms. Rachel Mayer Godino, Ms. Joan Guetschow, Mr. Jim Holland, Mr. Tom Hori, Mr. William Hybl, Mr. Nolan Karras, Mr. Karlos Kirby, Mr. Don J. Leonard, Ms. Hilary Lindh, Dr. Bernard Machen, Mr. Bill Malone, Mr. Larry Mankin, Mr. Al Mansell, Mr. Henry Marsh, Mr. Jim Morris, Ms. Carol Mushett, Mayor Brad Olch, Ms. Grethe B. Peterson, Ms. Margaret Peterson, Mr. Dave Pimm, Mr. John Price, Mr. Early Reese, Mr. Chris Robinson, Mr. Mike P. Schlappi, Dr. Gerald R. Sherratt, Mr. Bill Shiebler, Mr. William J. Stapleton, Mr. Marty R. Stephens, Mr. Gordon Strachan, Ms. Picabo Street, Mr. James R. Swartz, Ms. Lillian Taylor, Ms. Diana Thomas, Mr. Richard Velez, Mr. Lloyd Ward, Ms. Ann Wechsler, Mr. Winston A. Wilkinson, Mr. Marion Willey, Mr. C.J Young, Mr. Ed T. Eynon, Mr. Kelly J. Flint, Mr. Grant C. Thomas, Mr. Brett Hopkins, Mr. James S. Jardine, and Mr. Lane Beattie. I want to give special thanks not only to the current board but to past board members who have also given so much to these Olympics. They include: Verl Tophan, Earl Holding, Alan Layton, Scott Nelson, Tom Welch, Dave Johnson, Fred Ball, Jack Gallivan, former Utah Governors Calvin Rampton and Norm Bangerter, former Salt Lake City Mayor, Dee Dee Corradini, Palmer DePaulis, Jake Garn and many others. The members of the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command, known as USOPSC also deserve special recognition. I am especially proud of its Commander Robert Flowers, Vice Commander Rick Dinse, and Executive Director David Tubbs. This 20-member interagency and intergovernmental body developed and implemented all the public safety and security measures for the Games. I also want to express my appreciation to Earl Morris and former USOPSC member Craig Dearden for their tireless efforts. This unique cooperation between the public sector and the private sector, between federal agencies and state agencies should get an Olympic gold medal. Within the UOPSC structure, all these organizations focused on the task of making the Games safe and enjoyable while leaving organizational biases and petty preferences at the doorstep. I believe that this approach is the blueprint for all future National Special Security Events and the UOPSC structure may even be a model for other states as they continue to implement their plans to combat terrorism. When the Olympics were designated a National Special Security Event, three federal agencies were primarily responsible for creating the security network for the Games. They were: the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, FBI Special Agent in Charge Don Johnson, Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill, Secret Service Director Brian Stafford, Secret Service Olympic Coordinator Mark Camillo, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson. I also want to take this opportunity to recognize other critically important members of the Olympic Games partnership. These are the men and women, many of whom are unsung heroes, who ensured the safety, security, and welfare of the Games participants and spectators. Among these are: the active duty and reserve military personnel who stood in the cold for hours inspecting cars and manning security checkpoints; the military pilots who flew a lonely vigil over Utah venues; and those uniformed personnel who manned cold, remote radar sites. The legions of personnel from every level of federal, state, and local law enforcement who worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week vigilantly watching, inspecting, and protecting the Games also need special recognition. I think about the fire and emergency medical personnel who, like their law enforcement brothers and sisters, were on duty around the clock, planning for the worst while praying for the best. Finally, let us not forget the private non-profit organizations such as the American Red Cross and the AmeriCorps who cared for those that might have been forgotten in the excitement of the Games. We also need to acknowledge the other everyday heroes whose stories often did not make the press. It is amazing that in a state as sparsely populated as Utah, there were well over 60,000 applicants for the 30,000 volunteer positions. And we all have to pay special tribute to the inspirational performances by The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, for their presence at so many events lifted our spirits and touched our hearts. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints provided the security for these events, as well as, security at Temple Square. The Church's efforts were lauded by local and federal law enforcement officials alike. I would like to spend a few minutes discussing the preparation and execution of security for the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games. There is a great story here. I hope the lessons learned in Utah from the efforts of the many men and women in the security community will help others charged with protecting their communities. The most important lesson learned, and one which I can not emphasize enough, is that security success depends on the open and willing cooperation among agencies at all levels of government and in the private sector. If I had to point to a one thing that spelled the difference between success and failure for the Olympic Games, I would have to say that is was the open lines of communications among all law enforcement agencies, fire and emergency medical services, hospitals and universities, and private and non-profit organizations at all levels. More than 60 federal, local, and state law enforcement agencies contributed to the public safety of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Let me tell in detail why this experience in Salt Lake City is so unique. In August 1999, the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City was designated as a National Special Security Event. Once this designation was made, the Secret Service became the lead federal agency for designing, coordinating and implementing security at the event. With responsibility for protecting over 2,300 athletes from 77 nations, scores of foreign officials and dignitaries, and over one million spectators, the Secret Service's Major Events Division collaborated with dozens of other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and public safety officials to design a multi-faceted and comprehensive security plan. They worked for nearly 16 months to establish a safe and protected environment at an assortment of venues in the Salt Lake City area. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, ushered in a new era of heightened security, with even more emphasis on precaution and prevention. After the terrorist attacks, efforts intensified to enhance existing security plans designed and tailored to the requirements of each of the many individual venues at the Winter Olympics. In the end, the 2002 Winter Olympics were a rousing success story for not only the United States athletes, who established a new record for American success at the Winter Games with 34 medals, but also for the thousands of athletes and hundreds of thousands of spectators who were able to compete and attend events in the safest and most secure environment possible. The 2002 Winter Olympics represented the largest coordinated security effort in our Nation's history. While most security plans for a sporting event may typically include a large stadium and the surrounding area, the Secret Service was responsible for coordinating security at 15 different venues consisting of: the Delta Center, Medals Plaza, Main Media Center, Rice-Eccles Olympic Stadium, Olympic Village, Ice Sheet at Ogden, IOC Hotel, Snow Basin Resort, Park City Mountain Resort, Deer Valley resort, Utah Olympic Park, Soldier's Hollow, Peaks Ice Arena, E-Center Ice Arena, and Ice Oval at Kearns. There also were special security requirements implemented at the Salt Lake International Airport and Salt Lake City's downtown Washington Square. Compounding the difficulty of securing such a large and diverse number of venues was the sprawling geographical coverage of the Winter Games. The zone of security stretched for 900 square miles, from Provo to Ogden, providing numerous operational and logistical challenges for the Secret Service. The security plan was designed and developed to provide the most secure environment for athletes, spectators, and protected venues. There was an airspace security plan to restrict certain aircraft from approaching any protected venue. There was a cyberspace security plan to ensure that no electronic intrusions could disrupt communications and operations. In addition, there was a physical security plan, including remote poststanders, magnetometers, state-of-the-art security cameras, chain-link fences, and electronic sensors. Notwithstanding all of the technology and electronic monitoring, the foundation of any security plan is the law enforcement personnel implementing it. At the Winter Olympics, over 10,000 federal, state and local law enforcement and public safety officers stood watch around the clock, working in a collective and collaborative effort toward one single goal: to prevent any incidents that could cause harm to athletes or spectators, or create significant disruptions of the Games themselves. The result of this comprehensive and sweeping security plan was secure surroundings that allowed athletes and spectators alike to enjoy the atmosphere of this international gathering without having to navigate any overly burdensome or time-consuming security checkpoints. While there were occasional evacuations or disturbances, none of these matters were deemed serious, and there were only a handful of minor arrests during the course of the 17 days of the Games. Although at the close of the Olympics, there were no medals for the Secret Service and its partners in law enforcement and the military, the thousands of men and women who participated in the execution of perhaps the most sophisticated and successful security plan in the Secret Service's 137-year history deserve recognition and gratitude for their tireless efforts and dedication to their critical jobs. In sum, the Salt Lake City Olympics provided the opportunity to develop and execute a plan to protect a 900 square mile part of this country. I urge that we capture the lessons learned from this experience and incorporate these lesson into our national security planning process. Following the great traditions of this country, the success of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was not due to any one individual, but to all who participated. From the spectators at the venues who showed patience, to the athletes who demonstrated the power of sport, to the organizers and protectors who gave us outstanding Games, and finally to the American people, including this Congress, who overwhelmingly supported the Games, we proved to the World that the events of September 11 will not deter this great Nation. Finally, I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff who worked tirelessly with me on the Olympics: Kristine Iverson, Patricia Knight, Roslyn Trojan, Christopher Campbell, Scott Simpson, Melanie Bowen, Heather Barney, and Christopher Rosche. I also owe a special thanks to Brandon Burgon who made sure I was always where I was supposed to be, and that I was on time. I appreciate everything they did, and am very proud of them.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, from our previous conversation, I understand that the Senator requests that I withdraw this amendment. Let me just say that I am reluctant to withdraw this amendment. I am very concerned that without a concrete assurance in the bill, our states will be saddled with requirements that are clearly out of their financial reach. I hear what my friend, Senator Dodd, is saying and I would like to believe that there will be adequate funding for all of the provisions in S. 565. On the other hand I have received countless entreaties from local governments who are, simply put, skeptical that the federal government will provide them with adequate funding. Without that funding, obviously, an unfunded mandates. That is what I would like to avoid. That being said, Senator Dodd does raise a good point when he reminds us that many of the cosponsors of the Election Reform Act serve on the Appropriations Committee. On the other side, one of the great fears of those who I represent with this amendment is that future congresses will not share the same commitment. It is my hope and I'm sure the hope of all of the cosponsors of this amendment that the appropriators will endeavor to fund fully all of the provisions within the bill. I accept the assurances of my colleague address this concern more fully in conference. To that end, I'm willing to work with my colleague on this issue and modify my amendment. I am sending the modification to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. I urge my colleagues to remember your commitment to your State--no more unfunded mandates. I urge an affirmative vote on this important amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Bilingual.

Mr. HATCH. Why don't I make a very short set of remarks, and then you can set it aside, and we can decide what to do later. Is that OK?

Mr. HATCH. Let me leave it, you can set it aside, and then we will work on it.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I offer an amendment to a provision of the Voting Rights Act that I introduced and we adopted in 1992. That law required the States to provide for election materials in Spanish, Asian languages, as well as Native American languages. I am proud of that law. I am well aware of the excitement that new citizens, often senior citizens, experience on the day they first leave their home to vote as American citizens for the very first time, sometimes accompanied by their English-speaking children and grandchildren. Imagine that, Madam President. But that excitement turns to terrible anxiety when they find that they cannot understand English language instructions that we English- speakers take for granted. Out 1992 amendment changed that for millions of our newest Americans of Hispanic and Asian descent, as well as the descendants of our first Americans. The law has worked, and so today I offer an amendment to make permanent the requirement of these bilingual facilities, and I urge my colleagues to join me. Similarly, my amendment also makes permanent provisions of the Voting Rights Act that have withstood the test of almost 30 years of periodic extensions. Rather than extend these civil rights protections repeatedly, I think we should make them permanent. That is all I have to say. I would be happy to have it set aside. We can debate this issue later as necessary.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, believe it or not, one of the reasons I wanted to run for the Senate 26 years ago was to get the modern-day face of liberalism, Senator Ted Kennedy, out of office. (Laughter). As the past 26 years have amply indicated, I have failed. And I have come to appreciate that the country is better for it. In many ways, Senator Kennedy stands for all that my party and my state reject so vehemently: An unabashed reliance on government as the problem-solver of first resort; A belief that the Federal coffers can, and must, support those in need, regardless of private, State and local resources; And, indeed a devotion to extending the Federal arm across this great Nation--whenever, whatever--the concept of Federalism aside. I know full well what President Bush means when he says the fellas at the coffee shop in Crawford find it hard to believe that Senator Kennedy has some points in his favor. But I have grown to understand, and appreciate, my Massachusetts colleague, for the tremendous passion and dedication he brings to the job. I have come to respect his tremendous love for our great country and its people. I have come to admire his patriotism and his devotion to national service, that great tradition which is the hallmark of the Kennedy clan. And I have grown to recognize that despite our differences on almost every issue, working together, we could find a common ground--that space in the middle from which great legislation is born. Some of my most revered accomplishments are Hatch-Kennedy or Kennedy- Hatch collaborations. It is a mark of Ted's greatness that he does not care who gets the credit, as long as the job gets done. Starting with our first bill together, the Women in Science legislation in 1978, Senator Kennedy and I have worked together to enact legislation that is helping virtually millions of people in this nation. I am thinking also of all the critical bills we have enacted together: The first AIDS research bill; The first AIDS services bill, the Ryan White Care Act; and, the orphan drug bill, and home health care. You could go on and on. I am thinking of the Child Health Insurance Program, or ``CHIP,'' which now is providing health care to almost five million children who didn't have it just a few short years ago--children of the working poor who worked hard but didn't have enough money to pay for health insurance for their kids. It could not have happened but for Ted Kennedy. And I am also thinking of the many bills we worked on so diligently, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the downwinders legislation that helps so many Utahns in the inner-mountain West, and which Senator Kennedy helped make possible, and the Job Training Partnership Act. Of course, I am also thinking of the religious liberties bills we have put through together, each of us motivated by our strong faith and love of the Lord. But let me hasten to add that sometimes it is just not possible for us to find middle ground. For every bill we have promoted together, for every issue on which we have found a common ground, there is another issue on which we have fought tooth and nail. Indeed, at times, we have both won and lost. Many times, my side carried. I am thinking back to our earliest fight over labor law reform when I first came to the Congress. I am thinking of the battles we had over minimum wage increases and, with due deference to the Senator from New York, over the Clintons' Health Security Act. But to be fair, many times Senator Kennedy's side carried the day. There are numerous provisions in Federal employment law, in health care policy, and despite the fact that he is not on the Finance Committee, sometimes even in the Tax Code, that are directly attributable to Senator Kennedy's skills and persistence. It is no secret that many, if not most, of my constituents in Utah disagree with Senator Kennedy on almost every issue. I will never forget a letter I got from one of my constituents many, many years ago. From a senior citizen in Southern Utah, a very conservative part of the state. She said, Senator Hatch, when we heard you might run for office, we supported you. When you actually ran for office, we voted for you. And when we heard you were friends with Senator Kennedy, we prayed for you! (Laughter). Many of my constituents question how I can be such close friends with a man whose principles vary in so many ways from those of most Utahans. This is what I tell them. In my opinion--and I think I am an authority on this subject--Ted Kennedy is one of the most effective, if not the most effective, legislators in this country. He never quits until he gets the job done. And I, for one, admire that. When he is with you, there is no more solid ally. And when he is against you, there is no more fierce opponent. We all have to recognize that despite Senator Kennedy's position on any particular issue, he is a patriot in every sense of the word. Ted Kennedy, in the fine Kennedy tradition, is truly motivated by public service, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for that. And what I did not understand in 1976, but what I know so well now, is that Ted Kennedy is willing to come to the middle to get the job done. It is hard for him, sometimes difficult, but he is willing to do it. His spirit of bipartisanship is just what the Nation expects during this turbulent time. I just wish I could get him to do it more. It is no secret that Ted and I are close friends, even though I am a conservative, he is a liberal; I am a westerner, he is an easterner; I am a physical fitness fanatic, he is--well, never mind. As I was saying, it is no secret that Ted and I are close friends. I value the time I have spent with Ted and his wonderful wife Vicki, whose birthday I understand is today. I wish her a happy birthday and the best, and all of the Kennedy family who have treated me so well over the years. For the past 26 years, we have laughed together, we have cried together, we have sung together, and we have prayed together. We have fought and we have made up. But above all, we respect each other's abilities. In that trust and alliance, good legislation can be made, legislation that benefits our constituents today and in the future. And that is what we have been sent here to do. Madam President, last year, Senator Kennedy sent my polling numbers to the basement when he came over and hugged me in the Senate Chamber. Today, I am going to return the favor and offer my dear friend and colleague my best wishes on his 70th birthday. I have done the math, Ted. If you can get that cloning bill through, there is a great possibility that you can still be middle aged when you reach the age of 140. He is my dear friend. I care a great deal for him, and we will be friends for eternity. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his long service in the Senate. May I inquire, are we prepared to go back on the bill?