Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. In his report, the Chief Justice stressed the urgent need to fill vacancies promptly, particularly in light of the threats facing our Nation at present. He noted that although the structure and scope of the judiciary have changed dramatically since its creation in 1789, [O]ne thing has not changed: The Federal courts have functioned through wars, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks. During times such as these, the role of the courts becomes even more important in order to enforce the rule of law. To continue functioning effectively and efficiently, however, the courts must be appropriately staffed. This means that necessary judgeships must be created and judicial vacancies must be timely filled with well-qualified candidates. In light of the September 11 attacks, I share the Chief Justice's concern about the potential impact of the vacancies on the Federal judiciary and our Nation's ability to fight the war on terrorism. Federal judges are instrumental in combating terrorism by presiding over hearings and trials and by imposing just sentences. What is more, they play a crucial role in protecting civil liberties by ensuring that our law enforcement officials abide by the letter and the spirit of the law. In addition to their integral function in the criminal justice system, Federal judges preside over and decide civil cases that impact everyday business relationships. Federal judges are tasked with preserving the rights of employers and workers alike. They also provide the certainty of dispute resolution necessary for future business and employment decisions. But when there is a shortage of Federal judges, criminal matters must understandably take precedence due to speedy trial concerns and other concerns. The unintended consequence is that the American workers and their employers are left hanging in limbo when their cases are not being heard in a timely manner. Today, we have 99 judicial vacancies. This is a far cry from the appropriately staffed judiciary of which Chief Justice Rehnquist spoke. When the Chief Justice addressed the vacancy crisis in the 1997 year- end report, there were 82 empty seats on the Federal bench, nearly 20 fewer than the present situation. Commenting on the 1997 statistic, the Washington Post, in January 1998, in an editorial remarked: The problem of judicial vacancies is getting out of hand. Nearly 10 percent of the 846 seats on the Federal bench are now empty. One key Democratic Senator called these figures ``pretty frightening,'' and said, ``If this continues, it becomes a constitutional crisis.'' There are now 99 vacancies, or 17 more than when the editorial and the statements by the Democratic Senator were made. If 82 vacancies was a serious crisis in 1997, what do we have now with 99 vacancies? We in the Senate have an opportunity to address this situation. We can make a real difference in the administration of justice in this country simply by fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent. In fact, Chief Justice Rehnquist specifically urged the Senate ``to act with reasonable promptness and to vote each nominee up or down.'' He continued: The Senate is not, of course, obliged to confirm any particular nominee, but it ought to act on each nominee and to do so within a reasonable time. I could not agree more with the Chief Justice. This is precisely what I tried to accomplish as Judiciary Committee chairman while abiding by our customs and rules of the Senate. But now some of President Bush's judicial nominees have been waiting more than 8 months for a hearing. All but a handful of them have had their blue slips returned. Their FBI background investigations are completed, and their ABA ratings are submitted. At a time when our national security is at stake, we have a duty to follow the Chief Justice's admonition and act promptly on these nominees. As we embark on the second session of this Congress, we in the Senate have the perfect opportunity to do just this. I sincerely hope we accomplish this goal. I will continue to cooperate with our Democratic chairman, and I hope the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle is cooled so we can confirm as many as possible of the highly qualified nominees pending before us. A realistic yardstick of our success will be how President Bush's second year in office will compare to President Clinton's second year in office. In 1994, the second year of President Clinton's first term, the Senate confirmed 100 judicial nominees. I was an integral part of that. I worked very hard to get them confirmed. I had to override people on my side of the aisle and convince some of them that the nominees should be confirmed. As a result of this work, there were only 63 vacancies in the Federal judiciary when the Senate adjourned on December 1, 1994. I am confident the Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve or even hopefully exceed the goal of confirming 100 judges in 2002, particularly the many circuit court nominees who are pending to fill emergency vacancies in the appellate courts around this country. I have been gratified this morning to hear the comments of the distinguished Senator from Vermont that he wants to do that; that he wants to do the best he can, and that he believes we can. I think we are off to a good start. There are two district court nominees awaiting a vote by the Senate after today. Our first confirmation hearing was held yesterday. We have to keep up the pace of hearings and confirmation votes so we do not fall further behind in filling the vacancies that plague our Federal judiciary. I look forward to working with our Democratic colleagues to accomplish this goal. Having said that, let me make this clear. We have had a total confirmed since the distinguished chairman took over in the middle of last year of 30 judges. That means 6 circuit court nominees and 24 U.S. district court nominees. I commend my colleague. I think it is certainly a decent start. On the other hand, we have currently pending 23 circuit court nominations--23. Most of them have well qualified ratings by the ABA. I do not think anybody can make a case that they are not qualified to serve. Just to mention four: John Roberts was one of those nominees submitted by the first President Bush who was left hanging without Senate action back in 1992. Roberts is considered one of the top five appellate lawyers in the country. He is not an ideologue. He is probably more conservative than most of the Clinton nominees were, but the fact is he is a tremendously effective advocate and an excellent nominee for the court. He should not be held up any longer. He went through that back in 1992. Why does he have to go through it again, especially for 8 months? Miguel Estrada--I am pleased to hear the distinguished Senator from Vermont indicate that he will have a hearing. Miguel Estrada is one of the brightest people in law. He came from Honduras and attended Columbia University as an undergraduate. He graduated with honors and then went on to Harvard Law School and graduated with honors there. He is considered one of the brightest people in law today, and, of course, he is a very successful attorney. He is a Hispanic nominee that I think our colleagues should be pleased that the President has sent to the Senate. Jeffrey Sutton is one of the best appellate lawyers in the country. He has argued a number of cases in the Supreme Court, including in the last few weeks. He is also a decent human being. He has very good ratings from the ABA. He is a person we ought to put on the Circuit Court of Appeals. I am pleased the distinguished Senator from Vermont mentioned one of my State's nominees, Michael McConnell. Michael McConnell is considered one of the greatest constitutional experts in the country. I do not think you can categorize him in any particular political pigeonhole. This is a fair and circumspect man who is going to do a tremendous job on the bench. I asked one of the leading deans of a law school in the country, a very liberal Democrat, what he thought of Michael McConnell. By the way, McConnell was tenured at the University of Chicago before moving to Utah to raise his family. He moved to the University of Utah where he has been a pillar of good teaching ever since. When I asked the liberal dean, ``What do you think of Michael McConnell?'' he said these words: Senator, I've met two legal geniuses in my lifetime, and Michael McConnell is one of them. And he is. He is a great nominee. There are other excellent nominees I would like to mention, but I do not have enough time today. We have 23 circuit court nominees pending. Many of them have been nominated to seats declared to be judicial emergencies by the Administrative Office of the Courts. Again, there are 23 U.S. circuit court judges pending, and 36 U.S. district court judges, for a total of 60 who are awaiting action. I am gratified by my colleague from Vermont's expression that he wants to move these nominees through the Senate process. It means a lot to me, and I compliment him for his comments today. With regard to some of the statistics, we certainly disagree, and we can both make our cases with regard to that. I did want to make some of these points because, to me, it is very important that we make the record clear. Mr. President, I am also pleased today we have confirmed two excellent judicial nominations. These two nominees are Marcia Krieger and James Mahan. They were unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was gratified to see that done on December 13, and I expect the unanimous vote they received today tells everybody the Bush administration is doing a good job on these judgeship nominees. Our vote today on these two nominees, along with the nominations hearing Chairman Leahy held yesterday, in my opinion, is a step in the right direction. It is a good beginning to this session. I think it is important to start our work early because we have a lot of work to do. As I said before, there are presently 99 vacancies in the Federal judiciary, which represents a vacancy rate of almost 12 percent, one of the highest in history. As Alberto Gonzalez, counsel to President Bush, says in today's Wall Street Journal: The Federal courts desperately need reinforcements. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of Judge Gonzalez' article be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I don't want to take this time to engage in statistical judo on judicial nominees. I personally have appreciated our chairman and the work he did last year. We are friends, and I intend to work very closely with him. Hopefully we can put through a lot of judges this year, as we did for President Clinton in his second year. Mr. President, the record is clear. Here are the true facts, the numbers for the first years and for the current session. I gave an extensive speech at the end of last year, and it shows where we stand today and what we did to establish a near record with 377 Clinton judges. That is five fewer than for President Reagan, the all-time champion of confirmed judges. I can say, categorically, there would have been at least three more than what President Reagan had, had it not been for holds on the Democrat side of the Chamber. So the all-time champion would have been William Jefferson Clinton as President. The Democrats, not the Republicans, stopped the approximately eight or nine additional Clinton nominees who otherwise would have been confirmed. Sometimes it was for petty reasons that holds were put on. But the fact is that holds came from the other side. One thing we did not do is apply any litmus test. Today, some special interest groups are urging the Democrats to apply one. Had we Republicans applied an abortion litmus test to President Clinton's nominees, perhaps fewer than a dozen judges would have gone through. If the Senate were to get into the litmus test game, we would certainly hurt this body and this country a great deal. Everyone knows that when we elect a President, we are choosing the person who has the power to pick the judges in this country. As long as the President's nominees are qualified, the Senate ought to approve the President's judges. There were a variety of reasons that prevented several of President Clinton's nominees from getting confirmed, including some who lacked the support of their home State Senators. But the overall record makes clear that we were fair. As my colleague, Senator Leahy, said, our job was not to simply rubberstamp President Clinton's judges. The current President does not expect a rubber stamp either. So, mere numbers and statistics--as my distinguished chairman, the Senator from Vermont, listed--do not give the full picture because they do not explain the reasons in particular cases. And our current President has been more deliberative, more cooperative in his selection, evaluation, and nomination of judges than any other President while I have been serving in the Senate. I have to be honest, I am concerned about the tone I have heard today. But I still remain cautiously optimistic that the Senate will do the right thing with regard to judges, and I keep hope alive that this bitter tone on judicial nominees will subsist. I think we are above that. At the outset of the second session of the 107th Congress, we have an opportunity in the Senate to make a real difference in the administration of justice in this country. This opportunity is the chance to halt the vacancy crisis that presently plagues the Federal courts. A new congressional session provides many opportunities to make changes and allocate our time to those matters most pressing. Our Nation is facing many great challenges, ranging from threats of terrorism at home and abroad to the struggling economy. We have a lot of work to do. One of the most pressing matters we must address this session is the vacancy crisis in the Federal court system. I was interested in some of the statistics my colleague from Vermont gave. In 1992, the Democrats controlled the Senate and therefore the Senate Judiciary Committee. On election day 1992, when William Jefferson Clinton was elected President of the United States, there were 97 vacancies and 54 of President Bush's nominees left hanging without a vote. (Some of those 54 neglected nominees have now been renominated by the current President Bush.) Of the 54, there were about 6 who were nominated so late in the session that there wasn't really an opportunity on the part of Senator Biden or the committee to confirm them. So, really, 48 were left hanging without a vote. By contrast, when George W. Bush was elected President, there were 67 vacancies--30 fewer than eight years earlier when the Democrats controlled the Senate Judiciary Committee. And for those 67 vacancies, there were 41 nominees left hanging. In other words, the Republicans left 13 fewer nominees than the Democrats did. But, of the 41, 9 were nominated so late in that session that there was no chance any Judiciary Committee chairman could have gotten them through. So, in essence, there were 32 nominees that did not get voted on at the end of the Clinton Administration. The fact is that 32, contrasted with the 48 that the Democrats left hanging when they controlled the Senate, is a pretty good record. It was the best we could do given the individual circumstances presented. A couple were held up because of home State Senators. I could not solve that problem. Neither could Senator Leahy. There were some who were held up because of further investigation that had to be made and questions that had arisen. Some were held up because of other matters in the FBI reports or problems that existed that we could not solve before election day. On January 1 of this year, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist released his 2001 year-end report on the Federal judiciary. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. This week, the White House submitted 24 new judicial nominations to the Senate. They are really doing a good job in this White House, and I know it has been difficult for them. Since we already had 38 nominees still pending from last session, and we confirmed 2 today, we now have a total of 60 nominees awaiting action from the Judiciary Committee. Yesterday's hearing and today's votes make me optimistic we will vote on all of our nominees as expeditiously as possible this year, and I am counting on our chairman to help get that done. It certainly is possible to confirm all 60 this year, in addition to the other nominations we will receive later. In 1994, the second year of President Clinton's first term, as I mentioned earlier, the Senate confirmed 100 judicial nominees. I am confident Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve or even hopefully exceed this number in 2002, particularly with regard to the many circuit court nominees pending to fill emergency vacancies in appellate courts around this country. To do this, we have to keep up the pace of hearings and confirmation votes so we do not fall further behind in filling the vacancies that plague our Federal judiciary. As Chief Justice Rehnquist noted, and as I have stated, in his 2001 year-end report: To continue functioning effectively and efficiently . . . the courts must be appropriately staffed. This means that necessary judgeships must be created and judicial vacancies must be timely filled with well-qualified candidates. So I sincerely hope we will accomplish this goal. I look forward to cooperating with my chairman, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, and all of our other Democrat colleagues, and I hope the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle is cooled so we can confirm as many as possible of the highly qualified nominees pending before us. Today's nominees are good examples of the kind of highly qualified nominees President Bush has submitted to the Senate. Chief Bankruptcy Judge Marcia Krieger, who has been nominated to the District Court in the District of Columbia, attended Lewis & Clark College, from which she graduated after 3 years summa cum laude, and earned her law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law. She has experience as a lawyer and as a specialist in bankruptcy. She has served as a bankruptcy court judge since 1994. Judge James Mahan, who has been nominated to the District Court for the District of Nevada, achieved a great reputation as a lawyer in Las Vegas for 17 years, primarily focusing on business and commercial litigation. In the process, he earned an AV rating from the Martindale- Hubbell legal directory, high praise from his peers. I have held that rating from the earliest day it could be given to me, and I understand what goes into getting an AV rating. It is very important because it is a secret ballot by your peers, some of whom may not like you but nevertheless acknowledge you are of the highest legal ability and legal ethics. And he has that rating. In February 1999, he was named a judge on the Clark County District Court. Since taking the bench, Judge Mahan has heard civil and criminal matters and trials involving a 3,000 case docket. Both Judge Krieger and Judge Mahan have already established themselves as capable jurists. After today, they will be able to share their expertise in the Federal system, and I am confident they will bring honor and dignity to the Federal district court bench. I am very pleased our colleagues have unanimously confirmed both of them. Again, I thank my good friend and distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the work he has done up to now, and hopefully we can do better in the future. I appreciate being able to work with him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not object--I would like to be given time immediately following the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to introduce companion measures to two House bills that would end the barring of the spouses of `E' and `L' nonimmigrant visa holders from work authorization while they are in the United States. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2277 and H.R. 2278 with broad bipartisan support earlier this year and the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the House versions of both bills by unanimous consent earlier today. The companion to H.R. 2277 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize the husbands and wives of treaty traders or treaty investors working in the United States, or E visa holders, to work themselves. The companion to H.R. 2278 is very similar, granting employment authorization to the spouses of intracompany transfers, or L visa holders. This measure would also allow individuals to apply for L visas after six months, rather than one year, of employment with the company with which they are working in the United States. I believe that both of these bills are very reasonable and deserve the support of the Senate. Both pieces of legislation would end practices that deserve change as they currently stand. It is not right to force one spouse in a family to forgo employment simply because the other is working in the United States. Granting employment authorization to the spouses of E and L visa recipients makes it easier for foreign countries and multinational companies to persuade highly qualified employees, who are used to having both spouses actively employed, to relocate to the United States. The time requirement for L visa applicants also warrants change. Current law requires that an L visa not be granted unless the applicant has been employed for at least 1 year with the employer in question. In many situations, this is too restrictive. This requirement inhibits firms who wish to hire individuals with specialized skills to meet the needs of clients in the United States. A shorter prior employment period would allow companies to meet the needs of their clients in a more timely manner. I thank the House of Representatives and especially Congressman Gekas, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, for their hard work on these bills. Given the work between the House and Senate on these bills, I feel comfortable urging my colleagues to give these issues all due attention and support these measures.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the legislation that my good friend from the State of Alabama, Senator Sessions, has introduced today. That legislation, the ``Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2001,'' addresses the disparity between sentences handed down to those who traffic in power cocaine and those who traffic in crack cocaine. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I hope that we can promptly act on it when we return next year. This legislation provides a balanced and measured solution to the disparity problem without undermining our efforts to pursue relentlessly those who make their living peddling these poisons. At the same time that we reduce the crack-powder sentence ratio from 100 to 1 to 20 to 1 and reduce sentences for girlfriends and children who play truly minimal roles in drug crimes, we increase sentences for those who play leadership roles in trafficking organizations. The bill also increases sentences for those who use firearms or violence in carrying out their drug crimes. As a former federal prosecutor, United States Attorney, and Attorney General of Alabama, Senator Sessions is uniquely qualified to lead the Senate on this issue. Since at least 1998, he has done just that. Both in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate, Senator Sessions has worked tirelessly to bring about a more just sentencing structure for cocaine offenses. This legislation represents the right approach, and it deserves the support of all of my colleagues.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand to introduce a companion bill to H.R. 3030, the House bill that would extend a pilot program for employment eligibility verification of non-citizens. This bill would extend the program, set to expire this year, for two more years. This basic pilot program, available to employers in California, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Texas, was authorized in 1996, and has proved to be an incredibly effective resource since them. The program allows participating employers to electronically access certain government databases in order to verify the employment authorization of non-citizens. Electronic confirmation of this information provides a critical tool for employers to ensure that they are not hiring unauthorized aliens. This program allows employers to protect themselves from the employer sanction provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, while providing meaningful deterrence to would-be employers who lack appropriate authorization from the INS. During this time of increased national security, we can all appreciate any tool that will facilitate enforcement of our immigration laws. After communication between the House and the Senate on this issue, and the favorable report from the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, I have little doubt that my colleagues in the Senate will recognize the useful nature of the Pilot Program and support its extension.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to introduce companion measures to two House bills that would end the barring of the spouses of `E' and `L' nonimmigrant visa holders from work authorization while they are in the United States. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2277 and H.R. 2278 with broad bipartisan support earlier this year and the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the House versions of both bills by unanimous consent earlier today. The companion to H.R. 2277 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to authorize the husbands and wives of treaty traders or treaty investors working in the United States, or E visa holders, to work themselves. The companion to H.R. 2278 is very similar, granting employment authorization to the spouses of intracompany transfers, or L visa holders. This measure would also allow individuals to apply for L visas after six months, rather than one year, of employment with the company with which they are working in the United States. I believe that both of these bills are very reasonable and deserve the support of the Senate. Both pieces of legislation would end practices that deserve change as they currently stand. It is not right to force one spouse in a family to forgo employment simply because the other is working in the United States. Granting employment authorization to the spouses of E and L visa recipients makes it easier for foreign countries and multinational companies to persuade highly qualified employees, who are used to having both spouses actively employed, to relocate to the United States. The time requirement for L visa applicants also warrants change. Current law requires that an L visa not be granted unless the applicant has been employed for at least 1 year with the employer in question. In many situations, this is too restrictive. This requirement inhibits firms who wish to hire individuals with specialized skills to meet the needs of clients in the United States. A shorter prior employment period would allow companies to meet the needs of their clients in a more timely manner. I thank the House of Representatives and especially Congressman Gekas, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, for their hard work on these bills. Given the work between the House and Senate on these bills, I feel comfortable urging my colleagues to give these issues all due attention and support these measures.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the legislation that my good friend from the State of Alabama, Senator Sessions, has introduced today. That legislation, the ``Drug Sentencing Reform Act of 2001,'' addresses the disparity between sentences handed down to those who traffic in power cocaine and those who traffic in crack cocaine. I am proud to cosponsor this bill, and I hope that we can promptly act on it when we return next year. This legislation provides a balanced and measured solution to the disparity problem without undermining our efforts to pursue relentlessly those who make their living peddling these poisons. At the same time that we reduce the crack-powder sentence ratio from 100 to 1 to 20 to 1 and reduce sentences for girlfriends and children who play truly minimal roles in drug crimes, we increase sentences for those who play leadership roles in trafficking organizations. The bill also increases sentences for those who use firearms or violence in carrying out their drug crimes. As a former federal prosecutor, United States Attorney, and Attorney General of Alabama, Senator Sessions is uniquely qualified to lead the Senate on this issue. Since at least 1998, he has done just that. Both in the Judiciary Committee and on the floor of the Senate, Senator Sessions has worked tirelessly to bring about a more just sentencing structure for cocaine offenses. This legislation represents the right approach, and it deserves the support of all of my colleagues.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to bring to the attention of this great body the words of Rachel Bennett. Rachel is a 13-year old constituent who has written ``Whispers of Liberty,'' a moving poem about the events of September 11. These terrorist attacks had a profoundly sobering effect on most of the world. As Americans we were forcefully reminded of the ideals and principles which unite us as a nation. I have read and heard many explain the significance and aftermath of September 11, but few have done so as well as Rachel. She poignantly reminds us of the dreams that were shattered by the terrorists, while at the same time she reminds us of the values and ideas that have rallied Americans to help one another deal with these tragedies. I would like to read this poem for the record: Whispers of Liberty (By Rachel Bennett) How could a moment So change everything? A speechless nation Cried out in despair In unison as one. How could in a moment So many lives be put out, Like a field of flowers Closing in the mid of summer Never to bloom again? And in that moment, How many chances Of being a grandfather, A husband, a mother Of knowing the joys Of life and love Be gone? Like a candle Doused with tears of despair, Our nation wept For the twin brothers Who know lie in a Silent reverie As two lions Suddenly tamed A ghastly graveyard Of pride and greatness. Yet buried within The solid and proud Red, white, and blue Of American pride. A stoic symbol Of freedom and unity In a world Of stricken terror. Its red, the blood of The innocent whose Lives were stolen from them; Its white, Purity and strength; And its blue, the melancholy tears Of sadness. These bands of red And white Bring us together As one. A single Voice declaring freedom And a fearless life For all the world. Strength resonating From the richness Of the colors Bind us together In a single dance Of peace and A single whispered word-- Liberty.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I also request that my colleagues support the inclusion of provisions to establish an animal terrorism incident clearinghouse.

Mr. HATCH. Before Congress passes a final anti-bioterrorism law, I believe there are several important issues that must be addressed. Because there will not be an opportunity to address these matters before the Senate passes anti-bioterrorism legislation, I strongly believe that the House-Senate conference committee should: (1) permit the approval of priority countermeasures solely based on data from animal studies; (2) clarify the Health and Human Service Secretary's role and authority in distribution, and use of, priority countermeasures and other medical responses to bioterrorist attacks; and (3) provide additional enforcement provisions with respect to prohibiting the unlawful shipment, transportation, and possession of biological agents and toxins. These issues have not been sufficiently addressed in the legislation before us. We must all recognize that this language the Senate is about to adopt has not been the subject of any congressional committee mark- up. While the extraordinary situation confronting our nation regarding biological attacks requires expeditious action, we also must ensure that there is flexibility in the conference committee to guarantee that novel and, frankly, evolving issues, concerning bioterrorism are adequately addressed. This is what happened during the House-Senate conference of the U.S.A. Patriot Act and, with diligence, we can duplicate that success again.

Mr. HATCH. I understand that there are efforts currently underway to pass this legislation by unanimous consent before the Senate adjourns for the year, and I strongly support those efforts. Because we are trying to clear this measure under a tight time frame, I also understand that there will not be an opportunity to make modifications to the text of the legislation prior to final Senate passage.

Mr. HATCH. I would like to commend my colleagues, Senators First, Kennedy, and Gregg for their work in crafting the bipartisan Bioterrorism Preparedness Act. The Act takes a significant step forward in providing the necessary tools to combat future acts of bioterrorism.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleagues for their comments. I look forward to working with them during the conference to ensure that this important legislation is passed by Congress so that our nation can be better prepared to meet the threat of bioterrorism and public health emergencies.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is becoming increasingly clear that American technological supremacy will be an invaluable asset in our efforts to combat international terrorism and protect our citizens from further attack. The technological advantages we now enjoy--in weapons, in communications infrastructure, and in detection systems--must be both aggressively pursued and zealously guarded. For example, the recent anthrax attacks in this country highlight the need for the prompt deployment of effective technology to track the origins of the dangerous biochemical substances that threaten our security. This lack of important information hampers our ability to track down, capture, and punish terrorists and their supporters. The technology to accomplish this goal exists, and can be quickly and inexpensively modified to law enforcement and public safety requirements. However, the government needs to make this a priority. Although we have long held concern for the impact of hazardous materials on the public, the terrorist attack of September 11 and subsequent attacks require a heightened response. The weaponization of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (``CBRN'') materials demands an accounting of these high-risk materials, particularly as they accumulate at seemingly innocent locations. Tracking CBRN materials is an important step in anticipating and preventing their misuse and thereby thwarting terrorist activity. We currently have the capability for sophisticated materials management that connects people, places, processes, and products in a manner critical to security. The federal and local governments should work to put in service high-risk material tracking systems that provide the basis for powerful, instantaneous decision making. The government control centers can observe the global position of hazardous materials provided by producers and users in all our allied nations. In less accessible locations, the information could be collected through satellite technology. Such a hazardous materials management system should: provide for data collection and for authorization at customs operations and border controls; use sophisticated bar code and embedded chip data transmitting devices; employ handheld capabilities to manage field operations and material logistics; have multi-language capability and global reach; integrate with e-solutions and Defense Department Enterprise Resource Planning systems; and make use of data mining and knowledge management principles. Our Nation should immediately move to identify and track the movement or accumulation of CBRN materials. We must monitor CBRN materials at all global locations, including where they are produced, transported, used, staged and/or stored. And we must track, consolidate and analyze the CBRN material movements as the basis for a legitimate solution to the threats posed to Americans and our citizens abroad. At the same time that we use technology to better protect Americans, we must make certain that our technological infrastructure is protected from attack. To that end, critical infrastructure should undergo automated electronic testing of their internal and external network assets on a frequent and recurring basis. This testing should include written or electronic reports detailing the methods of testing used and the results of all tests performed, so that trend-line analysis of network security posture can be conducted. The Policy on Critical Infrastructure Protection: Presidential Decision Directive 63 (``PDD-63'') provided a starting point for addressing cyber risks against our Nation. This directive identified the critical sectors of our economy and assigned lead agencies to coordinate sector cyber security efforts. This directive presents the vision that ``the United States will take all necessary measures to eliminate swiftly any significant vulnerability to both physical and cyber attacks on our critical infrastructures, including especially our cyber systems.'' I believe that we can prepare a defense for our critical infrastructure much like we prepared for problems associated with the year 2000 computer bug. First, we need, as the President recently appointed, an executive agent for cyberspace security, who has the power necessary to cause mandatory private and public interaction and coordination. Second, we must consider empowering and funding each PDD- 63 lead agency to establish quantitative baselines of the external and internal network security posture of their portion of critical industries. This can be done through automated electronic testing. Third, we must identify vulnerable critical systems within the critical infrastructures and secure them to the extent possible through software updates, patches, and other correcting configuration issues. Fourth, we should mandate continued automated electronic reassessment of systems, especially after upgrades or patches are applied. This will provide quantitative views of security over time. We must also enforce electronic documentation of reassessments and hold businesses and vendors accountable for failure to adhere to security mandates. Finally, we must expand our domestic partnerships to global public/ private partnerships, including both coalition governments and multinational corporations. I would also think that the broadening of mandates in these partnerships should consider standards for layered security, penetration testing, and demonstrate a commitment to the development and installation of wireless equivalency protocols. We must make use of every tool at our disposal in our fight against terrorism. We must take advantage of American ingenuity and our technological supremacy as we work to rid the world of terrorism. In addition, it is critical that we protect our critical technological infrastructure from those who would use our technology against us.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight with respect to a good deal of misinformation which has been circulating about Federal support for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. In fact, earlier today, one of our colleagues took the floor to condemn the funding Congress has provided for the 2002 Olympics. I listened carefully to his remarks. I have to say that if his understanding of the situation were true, I could understand how he feels. Unfortunately, however, I believe he and others have relied on incomplete and distorted press accounts which are, simply, a disservice to the Olympic spirit that a majority of Americans have raced to embrace. Most of these distortions seem to have originated with an article in the December 10, 2001 edition of Sports Illustrated. The article, ironically entitled ``Snow Job,'' is in fact a snow job itself. The thrust of the criticisms to which I refer appears to be an incorrect assumption that, in seeking support for the Olympic Games, the State of Utah is somehow attempting to enrich itself unfairly at the expense of American taxpayers. Nonsense. Poppycock. Malarky. What those who race to criticize our Olympic games fail to consider is that these are the world's Olympic Games, a time-honored tradition which our nation is so fortunate to be hosting in February. I find these slams against the Olympic Games particularly discouraging given the fact that tomorrow the Olympic torch will arrive on Capitol Hill. And I cannot fail to note that it was this very body, only days ago, that unanimously authorized the torch to be carried to our Capitol, and some are here today questioning our support for that effort. Enthusiasm has been building across the country as the torch makes its way from Athens to Atlanta, and now from Atlanta to Washington to Salt Lake. Hundreds of thousands of spectators have been lining the streets, cheering on the torch-bearers as they carry the Olympic flame throughout the country. We have all been so heartened to see citizens from all walks of life passing the torch, honoring everyday heroes. The message of the Salt Lake 2002 Olympic Torch Relay is ``Light the Fire Within.'' The flame symbolizes the spirit and passion of individuals who inspire others. The young people who make great sacrifices to become Olympic champions are certainly heroes. The flame celebrates not only the Olympians, but people of all walks of life who have inspired others. While the Torch Relay is only a part of the Olympics, it is symbolic of the fire and passion for excellence that the games are all about. it is ironic that a publication which has staked its reputation on America's passion for athleticism now just weeks before the opening ceremony seeks to diminish the glory of the games by sensationalizing an issue that has been scrutinized and laid to rest months ago. It is also personally discouraging to me that one of our colleagues would seize this one article, one story among a vast sea of positive journalism on the Olympics, as a populist club in a years-long crusade to curb unwise and unneeded Federal spending. Good motive. Wrong target. Those of our colleagues who are interested in a fair and balanced analysis of Olympic spending should consult the November, 2001 General Accounting Office, GAO, report, ``Olympic Games Costs to Plan and Stage the Games in the United States.'' And if you have any problem getting a copy of the report, let me know and I'll send it right over. The GAO study debunks many of the criticisms and draws an accurate picture which should put into proper perspective many of the misconceptions that are circulating. As any fair-minded reader can glean from the extensive GAO analysis, the Sports Illustrated article compares apples to oranges when calculating the costs of the various Olympic planning events that have taken place in this country. For example, critics of Olympic spending often compare transportation improvements in Utah to those in Lake Placid, a small rural community. The article also fails to take into consideration the passage of time and the changing scope of the Olympics as the international communities' participation in the Olympics has grown. Most disappointing, the article to fails to demonstrate an understanding of federal funding of state highway projects and the costs associated with highway projects already in the planning stages for federal funding. Earlier, our colleague decried that the Olympic Games will cost about $1.5 billion. Wrong again. Actually, it is over that amount. But as the GAO report makes perfectly clear, Federal support only accounts for 18 percent of that total. In truth, as the GAO analysis makes clear, the total projected cost, both public and private, of staging the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, excluding additional security requirements resulting from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, is $1.9 billion. Of this total, GAO estimates that $342 million will be provided by the federal government, 18 percent. GAO also documents that the State of Utah will provide $150 million. That is eight percent, or almost half the Federal amount provided by the 50 States for this international effort. Local governments alone are providing four percent, or $75 million. And the Salt Lake Organizing Committee has raised the vast majority of the funding, $1.3 billion. That is 70 percent. This represents the hard work of hundreds of people who have spent weeks and months raising private donations. This is a true public-private partnership, which shows America at its best. So why are we not racing to praise this effort, rather than condemn it? The GAO report levels the playing field by making more accurate funding comparisons with previous Olympic Games held in the United States. Rather than using a dollar to dollar comparison, a distorted calculation, the GAO report uses a percentage comparison, a better gauge to assess the true costs to the Federal government. For the edification of my colleagues, I would like to point out that a second report will be published shortly that compares the 2002 Winter Salt Lake Winter Olympics with Olympic games in other countries. This report will be even more enlightening with regard to total cost growth for the Olympic games and to the extent other governments have subsidized the Olympics. The GAO report indicates that while the total costs for staging the U.S. Olympic games, particularly the winter games, have grown, the percentage of federal participation has remained fairly constant taking into consideration increasing security requirements due to the bomb incident in Atlanta and events since September 11, 2001. In fact, the Sports Illustrated article attempts to throw a negative spin on security spending for the Olympics by stating that ``Surprisingly, all but $40 million of the $240 million in security spending was approved before September 11.'' Authors of the article fail to appreciate that a great majority of the security money was dedicated before September 11 because the intelligence community had knowledge of the growing terrorist threat in the world. After September 11, the fact that security required little revision is testimony to the thoroughness in Olympic security planning and preparation. For any of my colleagues who still remain unconvinced, I urge you to review the GAO report and obtain a true picture of federal support for the Olympic Games. I also want to address specifically the issue of federal funding for an area that has received the most attention in the press and elsewhere, yet is perhaps the least understood. This concerns federal funding for Utah transportation projects over the last five years. It has been a popular parlor game to criticize funding for Olympic transportation costs. Many naysayers have rushed to judgment incorrect judgment I might add assuming that any construction project underway in Utah must be a direct result of the Olympic Games and that the funding must be coming from sources outside Utah. Nothing could be further from the truth. The indiscriminate and arbitrary inclusion of all transportation costs in federal funding figures for the 2002 Olympics have dramatically skewed the numbers to incorrectly support the allegation that Utah has gotten more than its fair share of Federal transportation dollars because of the Olympics. In fact, the Sports Illustrated article is particularly guilty of this erroneous assumption. The article's $1.5 billion price tag for the Salt Lake Olympics includes well over $800 million in transportation projects that were not designed specifically for the Olympics. Let me address the three largest projects that have attracted considerable attention and set the record straight. First, let me address the North/South Light Rail in Salt Lake City. Since 1983, the Utah Transit Authority has planed a light rail system to handle the increased traffic in and around Salt Lake City on a daily basis. The system design calls for two connected light rail lines one running north and south from downtown Salt Lake City south to Sandy City, and a second east/west line connecting downtown with Salt Lake International Airport and the University of Utah. The system is designed to be built in phases with the first phase winning approval by the Federal Transit Administration, FTA, through a rigorous competitive process, in 1996. Under this process, FTA is required to rank proposed projects according to a number of objective criteria and to select those projects that are ranked highest. The criteria address such areas as ridership, mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operational efficiencies, and cost effectiveness. It is important to remember that the project must meet the FTA criteria before it is ever considered for federal funding and must compete with other projects. The first phase of the program, the North/South line, was found worthy and funded by both Federal and state transportation monies. This action was completely independent of the Olympics. The North/South line was completed in December 1999 at a total project cost of $312.5 million, of which $241.3 million was paid by the federal government. The State of Utah paid $61.2 million which represents 20 percent of the bill. This is in keeping with the traditional split for state transportation projects, the state can fund as little as 20 percent and the federal as much as 80 percent of the project costs. It is important to note that this light rail project benefits all Salt Lake City citizens. Not only does it help the poor who are unable to afford cars but it also draws commuters out of cars thus helping the environment. Everyone benefits from greater mobility and better air quality. From the opening of the line in 1999, ridership has far exceeded expectations and it has continued to rise. Again, this project was not built or funded as an Olympic project--it was approved by the Administration and Congress based on a detailed analysis of the merits of the project itself and the long-term transportation needs of the Salt Lake Valley. The University Connector Light Rail is the second phase of the light rail program. It will run from downtown Salt Lake City to the University of Utah. In 2000, the Administration and Congress approved a full funding grant agreement, allowing the Utah Transit Authority to begin construction. The tremendous success of the North/South light rail line was a key factor in the decision by Congress and the Administration to approve construction. Like the first phase, this phase was approved by FTA pursuant to a rigorous evaluation process. However, once the project was deemed to qualify under the normal Federal guidelines, the Administration did choose to accelerate it based on a possibility that it could be completed before the Olympics. Nevertheless, everyone, including the Congress, recognized that there was a possibility that the segment would not be completed in time for the Olympic Games and, therefore, the agreement included provisions allowing for the temporary halt of construction with resumption following the Games. Fortunately, UTA is on schedule to complete the project and therefore the extension will be operating during the Olympics. However, it is important to note that this project was never deemed necessary for the Olympic Games by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee; in fact, operations on the line will be suspended for opening and closing ceremonies at Rice-Eccles Olympic Stadium, which is served by the University Connector. The cost of the project will be $118.5 million with $84.0 million federally funded. Without a doubt, the most misunderstood of all the Utah transportation projects is the I-15 reconstruction. This $1.59 billion project has been characterized as an Olympic project funded by the Federal government. Not true. It must be remembered that Utah is a crossroads of the West and the I-15 interstate highway is critical to regional shipping and other transportation needs. It benefits everyone in the region, including those in California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Idaho. The project was planned long before the Games, in the mid-1980s in fact. The I-15 improvements address additional capacity needs resulting from normal growth in the Salt Lake Valley and correct some deplorable infrastructure problems such as cracks in roadbeds and crumbling bridges. Critics also fail to recognize that the I-15 project has been a bargain for the Federal government by any analysis. The Federal taxpayer is only funding $210 million out of a $1.59 billion project. While the Federal government has authorized another $243 million in spending for this project in Utah for advance construction authority, these additional Federal funds may not be used. Based on current projections, the most the Federal government may contribute is 25-30 percent of the project cost well below the customary 80 percent Federal share. Instead of criticizing our State, we should be applauded. Some here today might ask, ``Why did Utah pick up the lion's share of the I-15 reconstruction?'' Utah, though a relatively small state, is seriously committed to transportation improvements as demonstrated by the dedication of state funds for transportation projects. The Utah State Legislature, during the 1997 session, established an aggressive state funding program. The program, known as the Centennial Highway Fund, CHF, will provide for over $3 billion for transportation improvements across the entire state over a ten year period. The I-15 reconstruction project is the premier project funded under the CHF program. Clearly, the annual allocation of about $200 million per year in federal highway funds is insufficient to address all of the transportation needs of the state. I want to point out that these three transportation projects, rather than a grab of federal money based on some loose association with the Olympics, are in fact long-planned and well thought-out projects to benefit the local community. The light rail system has been nationally noted as a shining example of urban/suburban Smart Growth. And interestingly, all three projects were considered and planned as a Joint Transportation Corridor which was one of the first in the country submitted for an environmental impact assessment. Today such joint corridors are common, but the Utah projects were first among this trend. Finally, I take great exception with the Sports Illustrated article's sensational innuendos about some Utah businessmen. Did these businessmen benefit from road improvements due to the Olympic venues held on or near their property? Undoubtedly. However, we must remember that these are businessmen who have invested in property and infrastructure over the course of many years. They have taken risks by investing in the growth of the community. As a result, many others have benefitted from their efforts. When federal money is spent on any state transportation project, the citizens of that state benefit. Some are richer; some are poorer than others. The Sports Illustrated article holds the rest of the United States to one standard and Utah to another. I do not consider this responsible journalism. In closing, I want to express to my colleagues and the American people my appreciation for their overwhelming support of the Olympic Games. The Salt Lake Games promise to be a fantastic family event, one that I hope that the whole nation will enjoy. We should not let populist politics in Washington douse the Olympic flame in Utah. Procurement of Smokeless Nitrocellulose

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to address the issue of wireless spectrum and the importance of its availability and utilization in a struggling economy. On November 28, 2001, the Administration forwarded proposed legislation to Congress to codify a proposed settlement in the NextWave wireless spectrum bankruptcy litigation. We needed to pass this legislation before December 31st in order to avoid nullifying the agreement. Unfortunately, it appears we will not be able to address this settlement before the end of the year because members of this body have expressed their intention to block its consideration on the floor. It is not certain that a similar settlement can be arranged next year-- which leaves a significant financial return to the U.S. Treasury in doubt and denies viable industry actors access to essential wireless spectrum which could be a vital tool in jumpstarting the economy. This is not the first time I have voiced my concerns about the NextWave spectrum controversy. In a letter to then Chairman Kennard of the Federal Communications Commission in October of 2000, I warned him that a premature re-auction of the NextWave licenses would be imprudent while litigation was still pending in the D.C. Circuit. The legal questions went directly to the possessory interests of the spectrum and the validity of the FCC's action to automatically cancel NextWave's licenses upon filing for bankruptcy. The FCC ignored my warning and, in so doing, created untold practical problems and a myriad of legal liability issues. On June 22 of this year, the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of NextWave, holding that the FCC violated Section 525 of the Bankruptcy Code. This order essentially nullified Auction 35 in which the FCC preemptively re-auctioned the spectrum licensed to NextWave. Presently, both sides have filed for certiorari with the Supreme Court to ask for the final disposition of this case. However, there is no certainty that the Supreme Court will agree to review the case, or if it does, when or to whom it will ultimately award the licensing rights to the spectrum. In fact, given the D.C. Circuit's opinion and legal reasoning, there is a substantial likelihood that the FCC will not prevail, which may be why they were able to reach the settlement of this issue. After extensive negotiations, the interested parties, including the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the FCC, reached a comprehensive Settlement Agreement to govern the disposition of the licenses in question and provide for their release into the marketplace and financial return to the Treasury. This proposal is a chance to bring closure to litigation that has dragged on, and which, in all likelihood, could result in a net loss to the government if it were to continue. We have an opportunity to finalize this settlement, return money to the Treasury and release valuable spectrum for commercial use--something that is essential to help this struggling economy. The current litigation has been prolonged unnecessarily. To continue it now, in my view would be a mistake, and the American taxpayer could be the loser. I certainly hope that the American taxpayer ultimately is not the victim of Congressional inaction.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues today for the passage of the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. This legislation contains a host of provisions that are critical to law enforcement and to our efforts to combat illegal drug use. Let me take a moment to discuss some of them in more detail. This provision establishes operating authority for the Department of Justice and expressly authorizes some practices that have developed at the Department of Justice on an ad hoc basis. Pursuant to the legislation, DOJ activities may be carried out through any means in the reasonable discretion of the Attorney General, including by sending or receiving details of personnel to or from other branches of the Government and through contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with non-Federal parties. The legislation ensures accountability by directing the Attorney General to provide annually to the House and Senate Judiciary and Appropriations Committees: (1) a report detailing every grant, cooperative agreement, or programmatic services contract that was made, entered into, awarded, or extended in the immediately preceding fiscal year by or on behalf of the Office of Justice Programs; and (2) a report identifying and reviewing every grant, agreement, or contract that was closed out or otherwise ended in the immediately preceding fiscal year. The bill also enhances oversight over the FBI by requiring the Inspector General of DOJ to appoint a Deputy Inspector General for the FBI who shall be responsible for supervising independent oversight of FBI programs and operations until September 30, 2004, and submitting to Congress a plan for FBI oversight. The legislation also assists our ongoing war against terrorism. It establishes in the U.S. Treasury a Counterterrorism Fund to reimburse DOJ for certain counter-terrorism activities and Federal departments or agencies for the cost of detaining accused terrorists in foreign countries. The bill enhances the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans by directing the Attorney General and the FBI Director to report on their use the DCS 1000, or ``Carnivore'' surveillance system. The report will include the number of times the system was used for surveillance during the preceding year, the persons who approved its use, the criteria applied to requests for its use, and any information gathered or accessed that was not authorized by the court to be gathered or accessed. Many concerns have been raised about the use of this system, and it is my hope that the reporting requirement will provide policymakers with valuable information and encourage Department to use the system responsibly. The bill amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to establish within the Department of Justice a Violence Against Women Office. With this amendment, the Director of the Office currently--Diane Stuart--will: (1) serve as special counsel to the Attorney General on the subject of violence against women; (2) maintain a liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal and State governments on related matters; (3) provide information to the Federal, State and local governments and the general public on related matters; (4) upon request, serve as the DOJ representative on domestic task forces, committees, or commissions addressing related policies or issues and as the U.S. Government representative on human rights and economic justice matters related to violence against women in international forums; (5) carry out DOJ functions under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and other DOJ functions on related matters; and (6) provide technical assistance, coordination, and support to other elements of DOJ and to other Federal, State, and tribal agencies in efforts to develop policy and to enforce Federal laws relating to violence against women. The legislation authorizes Department of Justice grants to establish 4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs across the country before January 1, 2007. As my colleagues know, for years these clubs have steered thousands of our young people away from lives of drugs and crime. I am pleased that we are able to expand this excellent program to serve other needy young people. The legislation also contains S. 304, the ``Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001,'' which I authored with Chairman Leahy and a bipartisan group of Senators in an effort to shore up our national commitment to the demand reduction component of our national drug control strategy. Each year, drug abuse exacts an enormous toll on our nation. I am increasingly alarmed that the drug epidemic in America continues to worsen, with more of our youth experimenting with and becoming addicted to illegal drugs. According to recent national surveys, youth drug use, particularly use of so-called ``club drugs,'' such as Ecstasy and GHB, tragically is again on the rise. Over the past two years, use of ecstasy among 12th graders increased dramatically. Hearings I held last year in Utah highlighted the extent the drug problem pervades not just our major cities, but our entire country. This dangerous trend is not going to reverse course unless we attack the drug abuse problem from all angles. I agree fully with President Bush that while we must remain steadfast in our commitment to enforcing our criminal laws against drug trafficking and use, the time has come to invest in demand reduction programs that have been proven effective. Only through such a balanced approach can we fully remove the scourge of drugs from our society. The provisions of this bill provide tools that will make a difference in the fight against drug abuse. It has broad, bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, as well as the support of numerous distinguished law enforcement groups, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Sheriff's Association. Several mainstream prevention and treatment organizations have also voiced their support for the bill, including the Phoenix House, the National Crime Prevention Council, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. This title is similar to S. 1315, the Judicial Improvement and Integrity Act of 2001, which I introduced with Senator Leahy to protect witnesses who provide information on criminal activity to law enforcement officials by increasing maximum sentences and other improvements to the criminal code. The legislation contains provisions from the Professional Standards for Government Attorneys Act of 2001 that will allow Government attorneys, for the purpose of conducting terrorism investigations, to provide legal advice, authorization, concurrence, direction, or supervision on conducting covert activities and to participate in such activities, even though such activities may require the use of deceit or misrepresentation. The Senators from the State of Oregon, Gordon Smith and Ron Wyden, deserve the appreciation of the federal prosecutors in their state for insisting that this provision be included in this legislation. Finally, the bill includes Senator Graham's Ecstasy Prevention Act of 2001. The Ecstasy Prevention Act requires the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to give priority in the award of grants to communities that have taken measures to combat club drug use, including passing ordinances restricting ``rave clubs,'' increasing law enforcement on ecstasy, and seizing lands under nuisance abatement laws to prevent the abuse of ecstasy. It requires the Office of National Drug Control Policy to use High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area funds to combat trafficking in ecstasy, and ensures that drug prevention media campaigns include efforts at preventing ecstasy abuse. These provisions are extremely important to address the rising threat of ecstasy use among the young people in our society. Mr. President, not surprisingly, this comprehensive legislation has broad support not only from my colleagues, but also from law enforcement, community groups, and treatment organizations. This is truly bipartisan legislation that we all agree will do a great deal of good. I again want to thank my colleagues for passing this legislation today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand to introduce a companion bill to H.R. 3030, the House bill that would extend a pilot program for employment eligibility verification of non-citizens. This bill would extend the program, set to expire this year, for two more years. This basic pilot program, available to employers in California, Florida, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Texas, was authorized in 1996, and has proved to be an incredibly effective resource since them. The program allows participating employers to electronically access certain government databases in order to verify the employment authorization of non-citizens. Electronic confirmation of this information provides a critical tool for employers to ensure that they are not hiring unauthorized aliens. This program allows employers to protect themselves from the employer sanction provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, while providing meaningful deterrence to would-be employers who lack appropriate authorization from the INS. During this time of increased national security, we can all appreciate any tool that will facilitate enforcement of our immigration laws. After communication between the House and the Senate on this issue, and the favorable report from the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning, I have little doubt that my colleagues in the Senate will recognize the useful nature of the Pilot Program and support its extension.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand some of my colleagues were on the floor today trying to make some points about judges, and I would like to set the record straight because I think they protest too much. There is just far too much protesting and far too much misinformation being given out about judges by some in this body. Having been intimately involved in trying to get as many judges through as I could over the last 7 years, I have to say I find some of the comments that were made were a little unctuous and perhaps to some people who have been involved and have worked so hard to do a good job a little bit irritating and maybe offensive. As Congress nears the end of its current session, we are beginning to see the end result of the systematic and calculated effort by some Senate Democrats to confirm the absolute minimum number of President Bush's judicial nominees they believe will be acceptable to the American public. Some of the Senate Democrats want us to believe they have done everything that can be expected because they have confirmed as many judges during President Bush's first year in office as were confirmed in President Clinton's first year 8 years ago. What they are not telling the public is the Senate has purposefully ignored more judicial nominees than in any other President's first year in office in recent history. Thirty-two of President Bush's nominees have been prohibited from even having a hearing, the first step in the Senate's constitutionally- required process of advice and consent. Some Senate Democrats want to use an inaccurate measure of performance focused on the end result of 8 years ago rather than exposing the percentage of their work they left uncompleted this year. The percentage is a much more appropriate gauge for the simple reason our current President Bush sent many more judicial nominations to the Senate than the previous President did in his first year. So let us look at the percentages. The Senate has exercised its advice and consent duty on only 21 percent of President Bush's circuit nominees this year. The other 79 percent of our work remains unfinished. This is despite the fact that President Bush sent his first batch of 11 circuit nominations to the Senate on May 9 of this year, which gave the Judiciary Committee plenty of time to act on them. Even so, only 3 of those 11 have been confirmed. A significant number of those have the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association. Even so, only three, as I say, have been confirmed. President Clinton, on the other hand, did not send his first circuit nominations to the Senate until August 1993, but still saw 60 percent of his circuit court nominees confirmed before the Senate adjourned in November of 1993. The Senate's record on overall judicial nominations is not much better than our record on circuit nominees. Since some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so fond of comparing their record to the first year of the Clinton and first Bush administrations, let us see how they stack up. President Clinton had nominated 32 judges by October 31 of his first year in office. Eighty-eight percent of those, or 28 nominees, were confirmed by the time Congress went out of session in 1993. The first President Bush had nominated 18 judges by October 31, 1989, of which 89 percent, 16 nominees, were confirmed by the time Congress recessed at the end of that year. In contrast, as of today, the current President Bush has nominated 66 judges and only 27 have been confirmed, a mere 41 percent. (I hope that tomorrow we will confirm the five who are presently on the Senate calendar.) The importance of this percentage is that the Senate has done only 41 percent of its job this year. In other words, nearly 60 percent of judicial nominees are somewhere in the Senate's black hole. We will conclude our work by leaving nearly 100 vacancies in the judicial branch, which means more than 11 percent of all Federal courtrooms in this country are presided over by an empty chair. Some of my Democratic colleagues recently asserted the present vacancy crisis is the result of Republican inaction on judicial nominees during the Clinton administration. Incredibly, some have asserted that the vacancy rate increased 60 percent under Republican control of the Senate. That is a wild exaggeration. The truth is that, during the 6 years when I was chairman of the judiciary committee, the vacancy rate was never above 8 percent at the end of any session of Congress. In December 1995, there were 63 vacancies in the Federal courts, which is a vacancy rate of 7.4 percent. In December 1996, after Congress had been out of session for nearly 2 months during which it could not immediately fill any vacancies, there were 75 openings in the Federal judiciary. December 1997, 81 vacancies; December 1998, only 54 vacancies; December 1999, 68 vacancies, and last year, only 67 vacancies. All tolled, the average number of vacancies under my chairmanship in the month of December is 68--a vacancy rate of 8 percent. Contrast this to 2001: We are about to adjourn with nearly 100 vacancies, a rate of over 11 percent. This year will indeed go down in history as a black hole--and a black mark--for the failure to confirm judicial nominees. Of course, trying to shift the blame for this present vacancy crisis ignores the end result of how Republicans treated President Clinton's judicial nominees. During the Clinton Administration, the Senate confirmed 377 judicial nominees. This number is only 5 short of the all-time record of 382 judges confirmed during the Reagan administration. And keep in mind, for 6 years of the Reagan administration the Senate was controlled by the President's party. But for 6 of President Clinton's 8 years, the Senate was controlled by Republicans. So the Republican--controlled Senate confirmed essentially the same number of judges for Clinton as it did for Reagan. We have not heard a single Democratic Senator acknowledge this fact because it proves that the Republicans treated Democratic nominees fairly. The fact is, contrary to the assertion that Republicans held up President Clinton's judicial nominees, the Republicans who controlled the Senate during 6 years of the Clinton administration put a near record number of judges on the bench. What is more, those 377 confirmed judges represent nearly 80 percent of all of President Clinton's judicial nominees. As for the pace of moving nominees, it is worth noting that 20 Clinton judicial nominees received a hearing within 2 weeks of their nomination. Thirty-four Clinton judicial nominees received a hearing within 3 weeks of their nomination, and 66 received a hearing within a month of their nomination. In contrast to the Republican Senate, the present Democratic- controlled Senate has only contributed to the vacancy crisis. In the first 4 months of Democratic control this year, only six Federal judges were confirmed. At several hearings, the Judiciary Committee considered only one or two judges at a time. The Senate has been behind the curve ever since, and the Federal judiciary continues to suffer for it. The number of judicial emergencies has increased by 17 in the last year. Now I must pause a moment to talk about the Tenth Circuit since it encompasses my home state of Utah. Several of my Democratic colleagues remarked that the present leadership held the first hearing for a Tenth Circuit nominee since 1995. The implication, of course, is that the Republican-controlled Senate failed to approve Clinton nominees for the Tenth Circuit. A closer examination of the facts reveals that there were no Tenth Circuit nominees for most of the 6 years the Democrats cite. After the confirmation of three Tenth Circuit Clinton nominees in 1995, there was not another Tenth Circuit nominee until 1999, and that nomination was subsequently withdrawn. The next Clinton Tenth Circuit nominee was not nominated until just before August recess in 2000, which left the Senate little time to act on the nomination given the dynamics of last year's election. So the suggestion that the Republicans deliberately failed to act on Clinton nominees for the Tenth Circuit for 6 years is inaccurate at best and downright misleading at worst. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Judiciary Committee's present leadership. We have an eminently well qualified candidate from Utah for the 10th Circuit, Michael McConnell, who has been awaiting a hearing for more than 7 months. He received the highest rating given by the American Bar Association and is considered one of the true legal intellects in the country today. Not long ago, I talked with one of the leading law deans in the country. He is a very liberal Democrat. I asked him about Michael McConnell. He knows him intimately. He said: I have met two absolute legal geniuses in my lifetime and Michael McConnell is one of them. In addition, both Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado and Terrence O'Brien of Wyoming are awaiting hearings on their nominations to the Tenth Circuit. So, despite the recent confirmation of one Tenth Circuit nominee, there is still substantial work left undone in the Tenth Circuit. The Senate's constitutional obligation to provide President Bush advice and consent on his judicial nominations is not a game, as some of my Democratic colleagues seem to believe. This is not football, or baseball, or basketball, where the whole point is to beat the other team. Neither the Senate nor the American public scores a victory when some Senate Democrats execute a deliberate strategy of ignoring more than half of President Bush's picks for the Federal Judiciary. Any excuse for not moving a nominee that hinges on his or her supposed ideology is just that--an excuse. If we start imposing an ideological litmus test, then we will not get people of substance to sit on the Federal benches in this country. If we start denying hearings to nominees simply because they are personally pro-abortion or pro-life, it would be a tremendous mistake. We should confirm the President's nominees where we can. Sometimes there are reasons why we cannot. I understand that. I have been there. I have had people on both sides of this floor mad at me, and I was doing everything I could to support President Clinton's nominees through the Senate process. I don't expect the current Judiciary Committee chairman to have an easy time, either. He is a friend. But the fact of the matter is, I don't think the job is getting done. There are myriad reasons why political ideology has not been, and is not, an appropriate measure of judicial qualifications. A nominee's personal opinions are largely irrelevant so long as a nominee can set those opinions aside and follow the law fairly and impartially as a judge. I am very concerned that the statements made today by some of my Democratic colleagues indicate a renewed intention to subject judicial nominees to a political litmus test, instead of focusing on their intellectual capacity, integrity, temperament, health, and willingness to follow precedent. Despite the unfortunate decisions made this year, I believe there is some room for hope in 2002. The same results-oriented strategy that led the Judiciary Committee this year to match President Clinton's first year, should lead the committee to equal his second year, as well. During President Clinton's second year in office, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees. The American people should join me in expecting Senate Democrats to do the same for President Bush. In fact, I think we should take this year's systematic and calculated performance as a pledge that the Senate will confirm at least 100 of President Bush's judicial nominees in 2002. Mr. President, there is another fact that I think ought to be brought up. That is, when the first President Bush left office, there were around 67 vacancies and 54 nominations pending that were never acted upon. But on election day of 2000, only about 42 Clinton nominees were left pending, several of whom were sent here so late in the year that there was no way the Judiciary Committee could have processed them. I tried to do my best as Judiciary Committee chairman, and I don't think anybody on the other side has a right to complain. Admittedly, there were a few judges that we just couldn't get through, but it wasn't for lack of trying. There are some Senators in each party who may not want to see many of the other party's judges get through, and they make it tough. But those Members are very much in the minority. I think most Members in both parties would like to see a better job done. Now, I have great hope we will do a better job next year. It is an absolute disgrace to allow 79 percent of President Bush's circuit court nominees to languish. In particular, I will mention three of them. Michael McConnell is one of the greatest minds in the field of law today. He has all kinds of Democrat support, but one or more single- issue special interest groups are mouthing off against him. He has wide bipartisan support and everybody that knows him knows he would make a great circuit court of appeals judge. I would like to see him on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals because I think he would help that court a great deal. Another one is Miguel Estrada. Here is one of the leading minorities in the country today, an immigrant who graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School. But the Senate leadership has been sitting on his nomination for 7 months, preventing him from having a hearing. He received the American Bar Association's highest rating, which some Democrats have touted as the gold standard for nominees, but still cannot get the time of day from the Judiciary Committee. John Roberts is another excellent nominee. He is considered one of the greatest appellate lawyers in the country today. My friends on the other side left him languishing as a nominee of the first President Bush, back in 1992. Here he is, languishing for another 7 months, not even being given a chance to have a vote up or down. Now let me just say a few words about two executive branch nominees who also have been mistreated. One is Eugene Scalia, the nominee for Solicitor of Labor. Listening to his critics, you might think the plan is to turn OSHA over to Eugene Scalia, who disagrees with the efficacy of some of the rules on ergonomics. But he will have nothing to do with that. And besides, both Houses rejected those rules by a majority vote. The Solicitor of Labor basically has no power other than to issue legal opinions, and Scalia is one of the brightest young legal minds in the country today. I suggested last week that Mr. Scalia's nomination is being stopped for two reasons--at least these are the ones that keep cropping up. And I hope these are not the true reasons why any Senator would stop an executive branch nominee. I would be tremendously disappointed at our Senate if they were the true reasons. The first is that he is a pro-life Catholic. This is not a persuasive argument for voting against Eugene Scalia's nomination. It is offensive to me if anyone in this body would actually vote against someone for that reason. The fact that he is a pro-life Catholic has nothing to do with whether or not he can do a good job as Solicitor of Labor. Everybody knows he is an excellent lawyer. He has said he will abide by the law, whatever it is. Whether he agrees or disagrees with it, he will enforce the law. What more can you ask of a nominee? And he is the President's choice for this position. He deserves to have a vote. If people feel so strongly against him that they want to vote him down, let them vote against him. But at least let this man, and the President, have a vote on this nomination. The second reason that Eugene Scalia's nomination is being stopped, is that some may hold it against him that his father happens to be Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope nobody in this body would hold it against a son, the fact that they might disagree with the father. I do not have to speak in favor of Antonin Scalia. He is one of the greatest men in this country. He is a strong, morally upright, decent, honorable, intellectually sound, brilliant jurist-- just the type we ought to have in the Federal courts. The fact that he may be more conservative than some in this body is irrelevant. But even if there were some good reason to criticize Justice Scalia, there is no basis at all for using such a criticism against his son, who is a decent, honorable, intelligent, intellectual, brilliant young attorney who deserves the opportunity to serve his Government, and who has already said that as Solicitor of Labor he will abide by the law whether he agrees with it or not. Knowing how honorable he is, I know he will do exactly that. The second executive branch nomination I want to mention is Joseph Schmitz for Inspector General of the Department of Defense. I happen to know a lot about him; he is one of the brightest people I have ever met. He is not even getting a committee vote. At least Mr. Scalia got a vote in committee--he received a majority vote in his favor in the HELP Committee. But Mr. Schmitz isn't even getting a vote in committee. That is no way to treat a nominee, or the President who nominated him. Frankly, these jobs--solicitor and inspector general--are not politically sensitive positions. And both of these men I know personally to be honest, decent, honorable men. They deserve votes in this body. If they lose, then I can live with that result. I do not believe they will lose. The purposeful delay on all of these nominations bother me a great deal, and I hope we do something about it. If we can't do anything before the end of the current session, then I hope we will do it shortly after we get back. I will continue to do my very best to work as closely as I can with Senator Leahy. We are friends, and I respect him. I want to support him in every way. But some of the comments I have heard in this Chamber today are nothing more than a distortion of the facts, a distortion of the numbers, and a distortion of the record. I personally resent it. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Members can see why I am concerned. I have always tried to judge nominations without bias or self-interest. I am concerned, however, that the Senate is not demonstrating similar fairness to the President and this nominee. But these partisan remarks, extraneous to Mr. Scalia's qualifications, are bound to arise when the Democratic leadership refuses to allow Mr. Scalia and his qualifications to be openly debated in the light of day. If you do not like Mr. Scalia for any reason at all, including the fact that he is a pro-life Catholic, or the fact that he is Justice Scalia's son, then vote against him and show your bigotry that way. But the fact is, he ought to have a vote. The President ought to have a vote. Even if Members do not like Mr. Scalia, he is the President's choice. He ought to have a vote. I have to say the allegation by some that it is because he is a pro- life Catholic bothers me. As a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I have known much bigotry due to my faith, and especially because I am a pro-life member of my faith. As we all know, mine is the only denomination that had mobs go against it, with a pogrom ordered against it within the United States of America. I find bias against a person because of his or her religious beliefs particularly repugnant. I worry about that type of thing. I know people in the Congress who will not vote for anybody who is pro-life. I believe there are some people who will not vote for anybody because they are pro-choice. I think that is abysmal. I think the President, whomever he or she may be, should be given tremendous support with regard to the nominees they send up here--unless there is some legitimate reason for rejecting the nominee. That is another matter. I have also heard it is because Mr. Scalia may have a differing opinion on ergonomics. My gosh, ergonomics could not get through the Congress because a majority happened to be against the ergonomics proposal. It seems very bad to hold it against Mr. Scalia because he may differ with a minority in the Congress. There is no apparent reason for some of these things, and in my years on the Judiciary Committee I have learned a thing or two about judging the qualifications of lawyers who serve in our Government. It is clear that Eugene Scalia is highly qualified to hold the position for which the President has nominated him. Mr. Scalia has a distinguished career in private practice and has been an influential writer and laborer in employment law. He has been strongly supported by lawyers to whose views my Democratic colleagues and I normally give great weight--William Coleman, former Secretary of Transportation and a great civil rights leader, a dear friend to most all in this body; Professor Cass Sunstein, one of the two or three leading advisers to my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, not known for conservative politics, but liberal politics, a very good guy; and Professor William Robinson, the chair of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers who describes how Mr. Scalia taught on a volunteer basis at the UDC law school when that predominantly minority institution had financial difficulties and could not afford to pay a full faculty. This person gives his time voluntarily in a primarily minority institution, a law school, and does not ask for a cent and does it out of the goodness of his heart. That ought to be given some consideration around here. This is hard to believe, but Mr. Scalia was nominated more than 7 months ago. Seven months ago! He was reported favorably out of committee and has been waiting for a floor vote for 6 weeks. Still a vote has not been scheduled. Why not? Well, it saddens me, but it is becoming ever more believable that Mr. Scalia is being treated this way for reasons beyond his qualifications, whatever they may be, and I hope they are not the two I have mentioned. Whether because of the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision or otherwise, they want to punish Eugene Scalia for his association with his father's opinions, and I surely hope it is not because he is pro-life and a devoted member of the Catholic faith. The President of the United States is working hard for the American people. The least we can do in the Senate is to confirm his qualified nominees to serve in his administration unless there is something gravely wrong with their records. We owe this to the President. We owe it to the American people. We need to let President Bush staff up his administration so he has the people he needs to get the job done. Every time we play partisan games with a Presidential nomination, we make the President's job that much harder and we fail to discharge our constitutional duty. We prevent the President and his top people at the White House from focusing on the war effort, getting the economy moving, and a host of other things the American people care about. The Labor Department has front line responsibilities for worker safety and economic security. It has been working hard to help employers deal with the anthrax threat, and it has been helping employees laid off by the economic downturn. We are not helping the Labor Department, we are hurting it, and we are hurting American workers if we do not allow a vote so the Department can have its top lawyer in place. Some have said the reason he is not getting a vote in the Senate is that the unions do not want him. I have to say there are times when people on our side have not wanted what the unions want, and there are people on the other side who have not wanted what the unions want. The ergonomics rule was the perfect illustration. The resolution of that issue should not be held against anybody. People ought to have a right within the framework and the mainstream of the law to think what they want. I have to admit, I am sure the AFL-CIO, as much as I respect it, as much as I respect its leadership--having been one of the few Senators who have actually held a union card--I went through an informal apprenticeship, became a journeyman in the AFL-CIO, I understand there are irritations with some of President Bush's nominations, but no less than there were with President Clinton's nominations. They were put through, or at least they were allowed a vote. Mr. Scalia is one of the finest people I know yet he is not even given the consideration of a vote. Back in July, five former Solicitors of Labor urged us to move quickly on this nomination. Both of President Clinton's Labor Solicitors joined that letter. We not only have the ones I have mentioned, who are strong Democrats, but the two Clinton Solicitors of Labor who said Mr. Scalia deserves a vote and should be supported. The five Solicitors said it was harming the Department of Labor and the workers whom the Department serves the longer we delay this decision. So I say let us have a vote on this highly qualified nominee before we adjourn. Last but not least, and changing the subject, I praise the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, for the movement we have had in the last month on Federal district court judges. Admittedly, they are people who have Democrat support, or have both Democrat and Republican support. They are people who are slam dunks, unanimous consent type of people, but I think virtually everyone President Bush has nominated to the judiciary is a slam dunk, unanimous consent supported individual. What is bothering me is we have an inordinate number of circuit court of appeals judge nominations that are not being brought up. At our last confirmation hearing for district court nominees, a point was made that those nominees had been pending for less than 60 days since receipt of their American Bar Association ratings. If this is the standard, then the committee is falling woefully behind, especially on circuit court of appeals nominations. There are 8 circuit court nominees who have been languishing for 157 days or more since receiving their ABA ratings. In fact, some of them have been pending for more than 180 days since being rated by the ABA and nearly 220 days since their nomination. I agree with the suggestion that 2 months should be the standard limit to review nominees. We should apply this standard or better to the circuit court nominees President Bush sent to the Senate nearly 220 days ago. These are not just nominees, these are some of the finest lawyers ever nominated to the circuit courts of appeals, and I will mention two of them. John Roberts, who was left hanging at the end of the first Bush administration, who is considered one of the two best appellate lawyers in the country, and who is not known as a partisan Republican, he was left hanging then, and now he has been left hanging for almost 220 days. I have heard so many complaints during other Republican administrations of not enough women and minorities being nominated, but now we have one of the leading minority lawyers in the country, Miguel Estrada, and he cannot even get a hearing. He has argued 14 cases before the Supreme Court; Roberts, many more. Most lawyers never argue a case before the Supreme Court. Estrada is respected by the courts of this country. He is one of the brightest lawyers in this country today. What really moves me, even more than that, is this is a young man who came from a country of abject poverty, graduated with honors from Columbia University, then was at the top of his class at Harvard Law School, became a law clerk and, of course, has had a distinguished legal career. There is not one thing any reasonable person would find against him. And he is Hispanic. We are trying to do what is right. I do not understand it. If we do not get these judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in other circuits as well, we are going to be very directly harmed in this country. The people will suffer. We have to quit playing games with this. I have to admit there were times when during the Clinton administration I wished that I, as chairman of the committee, could have done better. There were some people on our side who I think acted irresponsibly, as there are people on the other side today acting irresponsibly. People of good will, those of us who really believe a President's nominees ought to be given their votes, these people ought to prevail in this body, and we ought to start establishing a system that works with regard to judicial nominations. Lest anybody think President Clinton was mistreated, the all-time confirmation champion was Ronald Reagan with 382 Federal court judges who were confirmed. By the way, President Reagan had 6 years of his own party in control of the Senate. President Clinton had 5 fewer than Reagan, 377, and would have had 3 more than Reagan had it not been for Democrat holds on the other side. Frankly, even President Clinton told me he thought we did a good job. Were there some exceptions? Sure. There always are. There have been for my whole 25 years in the Senate. Somebody has a hold or somebody does not like somebody for some stupid reason or another. But the fact of the matter is that President Clinton was well treated. When we finished, there were 67 vacancies. President Clinton once said that 63 vacancies, when Senator Biden was the chairman on the Democrat side, was a full judiciary. Today we have almost 100 vacancies, and we have to do something about it, but we are not doing it with regard to these circuit court of appeals judges and I sure want to get that going. I hope our distinguished chairman and others on the committee will help this President get done the nominations he has so carefully, I think, selected. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I rise to join many of our colleagues to express my frustration with the leadership for failing to permit a floor vote on the nomination of Eugene Scalia to be the Solicitor General of the Labor Department. I was mystified as to what reasons there could possibly be to hold up the President's choice, his pick, for this vital position at a time when it is of national urgency for the Labor Department to have its team in place. I have heard it said in the press it is because Scalia is the son of Justice Antonin Scalia and that this is some sort of payback for the Bush v. Gore decision. I personally find that hard to believe. Such a motive would be far below the dignity of the Senate. The notion that this Chamber would in effect punish a Supreme Court Justice or his family for a decision, any decision, would be abhorrent to anyone who loves this institution or the Constitution. I also find it hard to believe because the Senate confirmed Ted Olsen, who litigated the Bush v. Gore case, although some did try to stop his confirmation despite his unquestionable qualifications. We also confirmed Janet Rehnquist, the daughter of the Chief Justice, to be inspector general of the Department of Human Services. But that is what is being said to the public. We wonder why the public is so cynical about the Congress. I, personally, do not believe that is the reason Mr. Scalia is being held up. But I have also heard, and this reason is very troubling to me, that it is because Eugene Scalia is a devout, pro-life Catholic. He is being targeted by radical fringe elements because his name has symbolic value. I only hope this is not true. If that is true, this is also troubling because it shows that an appearance has been created that there is an ulterior partisan motive. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed by Marianne Means, who wrote, ``Two Scalias In Our Government Are Too Many.''