Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering this afternoon three extremely well-qualified nominees for important positions in the Federal judiciary. I have no doubt that they will do great service for the citizens of this country upon confirmation. The Honorable William Johnson has been nominated to be a Federal judge in the District of New Mexico. Born and raised in Roanoke, VA, Judge Johnson attended Virginia Military Institute and law school at Washington and Lee University. He began his career practicing law in Houston, TX, and then moved to Roswell, NM, where his practice included commercial litigation, bankruptcy cases, and oil and gas litigation. Since 1995, he has served as a State district judge hearing domestic relations, child support enforcement, civil, criminal, and administrative agency cases. With such wide-ranging judicial experience under his belt, Judge Johnson comes to the Federal bench ready to hit the ground running. Like Judge Johnson, the Honorable Frederick J. Martone is no stranger to the bench. Justice Martone currently serves on the Supreme Court of Arizona. Before then, he served as a judge on the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Although he has spent his professional life in Arizona, Justice Martone was educated further east: He graduated from Holy Cross College, from Notre Dame Law School, and earned an LL.M. from Harvard Law School. His demonstrated experience and judgment will make him a fine addition to the Federal district court for the District of Arizona. Clay D. Land, our nominee for the Middle District of Georgia, has had an impressive career blending private practice and public service. Upon graduating cum laude from the University of Georgia law school, Mr. Land returned to his home town of Columbus, GA, where he has maintained a successful general civil practice ever since. His legal practice has not dampened his commitment to public service, however. In 1993, he served as chairman of the Georgia Indigent Defense Council, which is responsible for oversight of the funding and implementation of the State's indigent criminal defense programs. From 1993 to 1994, he served on the Columbus City Council. And from 1995 to 2000, he served as a Georgia State senator. I want to commend President Bush on his selection of such outstanding candidates for the Federal judiciary. Each of these nominees was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee, and I expect that they will receive similar treatment from the full Senate. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their nominations.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since the topic of the Judiciary Committee's record on judicial confirmations was raised, I would like to take just a minute to make an observation. As everyone here knows, I do not like to engage in the typical statistics judo that seems to be intrinsic to this issue. But I do want everyone to understand that, despite the progress that was just mentioned, we really have a lot more work to do. 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. And our overall record is not much better: the Senate has confirmed only 37.5 percent of all judicial nominations we received from President Bush. We will conclude our work by leaving nearly 100 vacancies in the judicial branch. Now, these facts are not escaping wider attention outside the Judiciary Committee. Last week, Vice President Cheney sent a letter noting that ``vacancies on the Federal bench are occurring at a faster pace than the confirmations of new judges, and barely one in four of President Bush's nominees has received a hearing and a vote.'' The Washington Post editorialized on November 30 that the committee should hold more judicial nominations hearings, concluding that, ``[f]ailing to hold them in a timely fashion damages the judiciary, disrespects the President's power to name judges and is grossly unfair to often well- qualified nominees.'' And the Wall Street Journal observed on November 27 that there is a ``pattern of judicial obstruction that has left 108 current vacancies on the Federal bench. . . . With only days to go before the Senate adjourns for the year, only 28 percent of George W. Bush's nominees have been confirmed.'' Of course, the reason why people are taking notice is that the process of advice and consent on the President's judicial nominations is not a game. This is not football or baseball, and the goal here is not a particular set of numbers. These are nominations for very important positions in the Federal Government, and it is the Senate's constitutional obligation to review them. Despite the work that we have done, there is simply no escaping the fact that we are about to stop work for the year with a judicial vacancy rate of 11.3 percent, which I believe is unacceptable by any measure. And, by the way, there is absolutely no point in accusing the administration of not sending more nominations to us, when we have made it clear that we will not devote any effort at all to reviewing 30 of the nominations the President did send. All this being said, however, I have reason to look forward to hitting the ground running next year. The Judiciary Committee's obvious focus on confirming nearly the same number of judges as we did President Clinton's first year, reassures me. After all, during President Clinton's second year in office, the Senate confirmed 100 of his judicial nominees. I fully expect that we will do the same for President George W. Bush, in fact, I take it as a pledge that we will confirm 100 Bush nominees in 2002.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I wish to respond to remarks by my good friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, about the pace of moving judicial nominees. Now, at the outset, I should say I am pleased that we are moving the few judges we have moved to date. However, despite the confirmation of three Federal judges today, the number of vacancies in the Federal judiciary remains at nearly 100--not far from where it has hovered ever since the Democrats assumed control of the Judiciary Committee. This is no victory--the vacancy rate still stands at a staggering 11.3 percent. In 1997, Senator Leahy remarked: For the past several months I have spoken about the crisis being created by the almost 100 vacancies that are being perpetuated on the Federal courts around the country and the failure of the Senate to carry out its constitutional responsibilities to advise and consent to judicial confirmations. . . . Confirming Federal judges should not be a partisan issue. The administration of justice is not a political issue. Working together, the Senate should do our constitutionally mandated job and proceed to confirm the judges we need for the Federal system. I couldn't agree more with these sentiments. One hundred vacancies in the Federal judiciary is nothing to brag about, especially when there are 40 nominees waiting to fill these gaps. Some of these nominees have been waiting for hearings as long as seven months, and it is evident that most, if not all, of them will not get a hearing and vote this year. Maybe some of my colleagues forget that earlier in the year when we attempted to move the first of President Bush's judicial nominees, some on the other side of the aisle objected that we were moving too fast either they wanted the ABA to do an evaluation before they would allow us to move or it was a fight over the now infamous blue-slip process. I say this in response to claims that somehow it is the Republicans' fault for not confirming judges earlier this year. I am not the only one who has noticed that the Committee is making slow work of its job this year. In a November 30 editorial, the Washington Post declared that the Committee should hold more judicial confirmation hearings, concluding that ``[f]ailing to hold them in a timely fashion damages the judiciary, disrespects the president's power to name judges and is grossly unfair to often well-qualified nominees.'' As chairman of the Judiciary Committee during 6 years of the Clinton Administration, I responded to the vacancies in the Federal judiciary by holding hearings and votes on judges. As a result, 377 Clinton appointees are sitting on the Federal bench today. So, in contrast to the claims I have heard today, the present vacancy rate is not the result of any failure to confirm Clinton nominees. Instead, it is a direct result of the failure to confirm Bush nominees. What is important to note is that at the end of the 106th Congress, there were only 67 vacancies in the federal judiciary for which there was a total of 41 nominees--some of whom were not nominated until very late in the year. Today, of course, there are nearly 100 vacancies, but the Senate has confirmed only 24 judges. So I believe it's fair to say that the pace of confirmations has not kept up with attrition. I am pleased that we are taking these steps with the confirmation of three federal district judges. There are three more judicial nominees awaiting floor votes, and seven more judicial nominees awaiting a Committee vote, including one circuit judge. I urge my Democratic colleagues to act to confirm at least these nominees before the end of the session, and work with us to move the roadblocks they have erected in the confirmation process of all the other nominees, particularly those circuit court nominees who have been pending since May. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to express my enthusiastic support for the three judicial nominees the Senate is about to consider. All three are extremely well-qualified nominees who have distinguished themselves with hard work and great intellect. I think they will do great service for the citizens of our country. One of the nominees we are considering today is John Bates. Mr. Bates has compiled an impressive resume during his 25-year legal career, having masterfully handled complex litigation in both the public and private sectors. He began his career with a federal district court clerkship, then joined the highly regarded Washington, D.C. firm of Steptoe & Johnson as an associate. In 1980, he left private practice to became an Assistant United States Attorney here in D.C. He developed a specialization in handling complex civil cases, eventually rising to become chief of the office's civil division. After 15 years at the U.S. Attorney's Office and a detail to the Office of the Independent Counsel investigating Whitewater, Mr. Bates returned to the private sector in 1998, joining the D.C. firm of Miller & Chevalier as a member. Despite the demands of his legal practice, he has demonstrated a true commitment to his community through his service on the Board of Directors of the Washington Lawyers' Committee on Civil Rights and Urban Affairs. The breadth and depth of Mr. Bates's legal career will serve him well as a federal district court judge here in the District of Columbia. Another one of our district court nominees is Kurt Engelhardt, who has been nominated to be a federal district judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana. During his 15-year legal career, Mr. Engelhardt has handled a wide array of civil litigation cases, including commercial litigation, bankruptcy, and casualty and professional malpractice defense work. In 1995, the Conference of the Louisiana Court of Appeal Judges nominated Mr. Engelhardt to serve on the Judiciary Commission of Louisiana, which is the body of the Louisiana Supreme Court responsible for hearing allegations of ethical violations by state judges and making disciplinary recommendations. This appointment reflects the high esteem in which Louisiana's judges hold Mr. Engelhardt. I am confident that his demonstrated exercise of sound judgment will bring honor and fairness to the federal bench. Julie A. Robinson has been nominated for the federal bench in the District of Kansas. She graduated from the University of Kansas School of Law and then went to work as a law clerk to the Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Kansas. She must have liked that clerkship for the last six years, she has been sitting as a Bankruptcy Judge on that very same court, and also currently serves as a Judge on the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. In between, Judge Robinson gained a wealth of both criminal and civil experience as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Kansas. Judge Robinson is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation and sits on many committees as a member of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, the Kansas Bar Association, and as a past president of the Board of Governors for the University of Kansas School of Law. She is currently a Master of the Sam Crow Inn of Court. Judge Robinson's obvious skills, work ethic, and devotion to her profession make it clear that the people of Kansas will be well served with her on the District Court bench. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of these nominees prior to their votes. I encourage my colleagues to vote for their confirmation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, amidst the focus and sustained attention we have all had on the matters of the first global war of the 21st century, we do not wish to miss the 50th year anniversary of one of the most important tools developed in our foreign policy arsenal in the 20th century. I am referring to the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of Radio Free Europe, which first broadcast its full schedule of radio programming into central and eastern Europe on May 1, International Workers' Day, one of the most famous communist holidays, in 1951. Two years later, Radio Liberty began its broadcasting programs to the peoples of the Soviet Union. An era of puncturing the state-imposed silence of totalitarian regimes had begun. Today, I am happy to submit a resolution commemorating the 50 years of the ``Radios,'' as they have come to be known. I am happy to have as co-sponsors the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as Senator Kennedy and Senator Smith of Oregon. The Radios were the main component in what some would call America's propaganda efforts. Along with the Voice of America, which broadcasts about American affairs throughout the world, revealing to audiences restricted from freedom of the media the real stories of this country, the Radios were a central tool in broadcasting local news and information back into the captive countries of central and eastern Europe and Eurasia. Totalitarian communism required complete government control of every aspect of society, that is what totalitarianism is. In addition to controlling every aspect of an individual's life, totalitarianism required that all information, be it cultural, educational or informational, must also be controlled. Totalitarianism cannot function, communism cannot dominate, tyranny cannot succeed, if they must compete with independent media that promotes a free exchange of ideas and views. That was the role of the Radios. It was an understanding of this basic dynamic of totalitarian communism which led our policymakers, 50 years ago, to realize that one of the most effective, in fact, most threatening, tools we could deploy was the use of a free media. And thus was born the Radios, Radio Free Europe for broadcasting to eastern and central Europe and Radio Liberty for broadcasting into the Soviet Union's realm. When peoples' minds can grasp differing views, news not controlled by the state, then the state does not completely own them. When the state cannot own them, the state will eventually have to serve, not dominate, its citizens. It is the freedom of information, wedded to technology, originally radio, then television, now the Internet, that gave hope, that sustained resistance and that ultimately made one of the central contributions to the collapse of these regimes against which we waged a Cold War through the latter half of the 20th century. Now, 50 years after their inception, it is fitting that we pass this resolution to honor the Radios and their many contributors, editors, journalists, broadcasters and technicians, who staffed them through all of these years. It is also worthwhile, as we pause to honor this mission, to recognize that the Radios had bipartisan support throughout these years. America's foreign policy, after all, is most vibrant, most dynamic, most successful, when it operates with bipartisan support. That is why our colleagues in the House passed this concurrent resolution with 404 votes. It is also worthwhile to note that there are very valuable lessons to be learned from this successful aspect of American foreign policy, and to recognize that the supporters of the Radios have, in fact, applied these lessons to the new post-Cold War context. Yes, it has become a cliche in the past 10 years that we are in a ``post-Cold War'' era. The question that has remained largely unanswered, however, is how does the U.S. respond to this era? Some have suggested that we reached an ``end of history,'' where liberal democracy essentially triumphs around the globe. Some suggested that the end of geopolitical competition in a bipolar era would reduce America's role or obligations in the world. In response, some have suggested, more caustically and in retrospect since that dark September 11 day, that America went on holiday for the last 10 years, eschewing our vigilance against global threats and riding on a historic wave of prosperity underlined by a false assumption that economic growth eliminated all global challenges and threats. An American foreign policy expert noted, shortly after the end of the Cold War, that ``the world has changed the way it looks, but not the way it works.'' I agree. There still remain regimes that oppress their peoples; there still remain movements that see the United States as their enemy; there still remain forces that seek to destroy us. It is no coincidence that these regimes and movements depend on controlling and suppressing freedom of thought and expression wherever they hold sway. None of the countries on our terrorism list has free media. And certainly one of the most repressive regimes in recent memory was that of the now defunct and despicable Taliban regime. Our colleagues have introduced legislation promoting a ``Radio Free Afghanistan'' to assist the transition to a post-Taliban era for that nation we abandoned and neglected for the last decade. My colleague, Senator Biden, in response to the September 11 attacks, has correctly noted that there is much, much more that we can do in terms of broadcasting accurate news and information to large parts of the Arab and Islamic world. Senator Biden has a long-standing dedication to these broadcasting tools of our foreign policy. I have seen his first proposal for an enhanced international broadcasting function, and am anxious to support it. As those who have always supported the Radios know, a lot of the lessons for our future use of surrogate broadcasting comes from the lessons learned through the Radios since 1989. The Radios themselves have evolved. No longer broadcasting into closed societies, they have adapted their mission to the changed circumstances, they have become key players in these societies in transition. As a result of congressional oversight and the leadership of the Radios, the Radios have reshaped their missions to support the transition to democracy of the many nations of the former communist bloc, who are all in various stages of transition, some fully democratic, others struggling, and even others backsliding. One of the most disturbing aspects of America's temporary retreat following the end of the Cold War was the notion that, with communism defeated, these societies of the former Soviet bloc would inevitably blossom into stable democracies. This has proved contrary to history, and, as we saw in many cases during the 1990s, was contrary to fact. While communism is defeated, a stable democratic society must be developed and nurtured, often by well-meaning citizens with little experience of the societies they seek to achieve. Central in effecting this transition is a free media, and I am happy to say that the Radios are playing a key role, a role carefully calibrated to their stages of political and economic development. In societies still governed by repressive regimes, such as Belarus and Turkmenistan, the Radios continue to broadcast news that the local populations can trust and continue to puncture state-controlled media with fresh and objective analysis. In transition societies, such as Russia and Serbia, the Radios, in addition to providing useful news and analysis, provide a model of modern, professional media that these societies study and use to advance their own nascent media institutions. America does not have all of the ideas, nor all of the solutions, to the problems of the world. But our system is based on the fundamental conviction that there must be a free exchange of ideas. And history has demonstrated that we have worked best, most productively, most peacefully, with nations that share this conviction. The Radios both emulated this fundamental principle and applied it to advance our national security. Let us pause for a moment and recognize this by passing this resolution commemorating their 50th anniversary.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment introduced by my dear colleague, Senator Helms. As my friend has noted today, I have been an original cosponsor of this legislation since he first introduced this in 2000. I commend my colleague for his commitment to the policy behind this amendment, for his persistence in promoting it, and on his efforts--successful, I am happy to note--to craft a piece of legislation that has the support of the administration. I offer a little bit of background: On July 17, 1998, a United Nations conference in Rome approved a treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). 120 countries voted in favor of the treaty, seven countries--including the United States and Israel--voted against the treaty, and 21 abstained. Pursuant to the Rome Treaty, the court is intended to come into existence when 60 countries ratify the treaty. Forty-seven countries have ratified as of November 30 of this year, leaving 13 nations' ratifications necessary for the treaty to come into force. If established, the International Criminal Court will have the power to indict, prosecute, and imprison persons who, anywhere in the world, are accused by the Court of ``war crimes,'' ``crimes against humanity,'' and ``genocide.'' The court will have an independent prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution for his or her actions. Pursuant to the Rome statute, the ICC will be able to claim jurisdiction to try and imprison American citizens--including U.S. military personnel and U.S. Government officials--even if the United States has not signed or ratified the Rome Treaty. Arguing that it was necessary to prevent the exclusion of the U.S. from future negotiations about how the ICC would operate, President Clinton signed the Rome Treaty on December 31, 2000, which was the close of the period for signature. Tellingly, he said on December 31 that he would not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification and would recommend that President Bush not transmit it either, given its remaining flaws. It is reasonable to question exactly what President Clinton intended by such a deliberately ambiguous act with such clearly defined consequences for government officials and members of the U.S. military who would go overseas under future Commanders-in-Chief. The Senate has gone on record numerous times opposing the ICC. Last June, the American Service Members Protection Act of 2000 was introduced, and I was an original cosponsor. This act, now an amendment to this Defense appropriations bill, addresses our fundamental problem with the ICC: It represents, in legislation vetted and approved by the current commander-in-chief, that U.S. forces, which serve around the world in numerous peacekeeping and other roles, as well as American political leaders, must remain immune from prosecutions that could politically driven, prosecutions that could be directed more against our foreign policy than any possible violations of international law. This amendment prohibits U.S. cooperation with the court, including use of taxpayer funding or sharing of classified information. It restricts U.S. involvement in peacekeeping missions unless the U.N. specifically exempts U.S. troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. It limits U.S. aid to allies unless they also sign accords to shield U.S. troops on their soil from being turned over to the court, and it authorizes the President to take necessary action to rescue any U.S. soldiers who may be improperly handed over to that Court. The policy promoted in this amendment is not anti-U.N., and it is certainly not against U.S. involvement in the world. But it is impossible to deny that America has a unique role in the world, and a unique form of self-government. Today, it is this country that leads the world in a battle against those who would use terrorism against us and our many allies and friends. While we go forth in this war to defend our national security, there is no denying that our victories-- and we will be victorious--will be shared by those who hate terrorism as much as we do. No country has done more than the United States to prevent and punish war crimes and crimes against humanity. No country is doing more than the United States to support multilateral peacekeeping efforts. And nowhere on earth do people enjoy greater civil liberties and personal freedom than in the United States. The American people will never accept the direct assault on their country's sovereignty represented by the Rome statute. The statute's notion that Americans may be indicted, seized, tried or imprisoned pursuant to an agreement which their country has not accepted is an unprecedented affront to their national sovereignty and a threat to their individual freedoms. The Rome statute lacks procedural protections to which all Americans are entitled under the Constitution, including the right to trial by jury, protection from self- incrimination, and the right to confront and cross-examine all prosecution witnesses. This amendment, so diligently negotiated with the administration by my friend, Senator Helms, declares to all Americans that you may all rest assured that the Government will always be obliged to protect--and if necessary, to rescue-- American soldiers and civilians from criminal prosecutions staged by United Nations officials under procedures which deny them their basic, hard-won constitutional rights. My comment to the world leaders and do-gooding groups who promote the ICC is simply this: Do you favor American leadership in international humanitarian crises? If so, beware: entry into force of the Rome statute, and establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court, will jeopardize American leadership because politically-driven prosecutions are a certainty and American soldiers and public officials can expect to become political pawns. Americans will not tolerate this. As President Clinton's own Rome statute negotiator rightly observed, the notion that Americans are bound by something to which they have not consented is contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty law. Unchallenged, the ICC will inhibit the ability of the United States to use its armed forces to meet alliance obligations and participate in multinational operations, including humanitarian interventions, to save civilian lives. The policy of this amendment has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of former senior U.S. officials, including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Casper Weinberger, and James Waals. It has been said that the Rome statute is some kind of ``litmus test'' for American seriousness about war crimes and genocide. No participant in this debate who is worthy of our attention will make such an accusation, which is as offensive as it is false. From Pearl Harbor to the Adriatic Sea, American has given its blood and treasure to stop mass murderers in conflicts we didn't start. Today, America's best are fighting halfway around the world, attacking at its core a terrorist infrastructure that reaches to every part of the world. Tomorrow, we don't know yet where our brave service members will be, but we know that the fight for terrorism will not end in Afghanistan, and we know that America's finest will be risking their lives elsewhere. These brave members of our armed services are giving enough for this country, for western civilization. Let us not add to their concerns the possibility that, as they do their noble duty, they need be concerned about legal threats that do not represent the Constitution that they have sworn to protect.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Defense appropriations bill. I believe this bill provides the right balance of funding for the Department of Defense given the administration's efforts to reorganize and realign the missions and architecture of this pillar of our freedom. I am particularly heartened that President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld are working hard to revitalize the Department. I am totally in support of their efforts and feel it is important that the administration be allowed to determine the new force structure in light of our rapidly developing military posture at home and overseas. While we can not fix 10 years of neglect overnight, this bill does many things to help the Defense Department and the men and women who serve so proudly. In particular, I am very pleased that this appropriations bill fully funds an average 5 percent military pay raise. It also provides additional pay raises for military personnel in middle level ranks, thus helping the Department to retain these valuable personnel. Again, this bill addresses the needs of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines by reducing out of pocket costs for housing from 15 percent in 2001 to 11.3 percent in 2002. I am also glad that we are trying to make our troops lives more stable by asking the Department of Defense to develop a plan that reduces the number of permanent change of station moves for the military. This year's defense starts us on the right road to fixing the military's readiness, training, and depot support programs. It provides almost $10 billion increase over fiscal year 2001 funding levels for these critical programs. It also fully funds the Army Transformation initiatives which I support wholeheartedly. Additionally, this bill enhances critical defense health programs such as breast and prostate cancer research and adequately funds TRICARE for life. The fiscal year 2002 Defense bill has made a significant contribution to this Nation's intelligence-gathering capability by funding the Senior Scout Program which I have long supported. I also pleased that the President's request for missile defense is supported in this bill. We cannot ignore the threat that our Nation faces from enemies who each year grow more and more capable of reaching our Nation with nuclear missiles. However, I am very disappointed about the funding reduction of $50 million for the D-5 Life Extension Program. This reduction means that some of our submarines will carry outdated and possibly dangerous trident missile systems. In closing, I would like to recognize the exceptional efforts of U.S. Air Force Major James R. Byrne, who has served me as a legislative fellow for the past year. Jim's command of the legislative process and his ability to research complex legal questions have been exceptional. I want to recognize particularly Jim's outstanding counsel on homeland defense issues including security preparation for the Olympics. Major Jim Byrne is a true patriot, an officer, and a gentleman. I want to thank him for his dedication and hard work, and to wish him well on his new assignment as he departs the Senate for Germany. The staff and I will miss him. I have every confidence, however, that he will continue to serve our Nation with distinction.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today we are considering the nominations of three extremely well-qualified individuals for the Federal bench. Our circuit court nominee is the Honorable Harris Hartz of New Mexico, whom the President has selected to serve on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have a personal interest in the confirmation of fair, qualified judges to serve on the Tenth Circuit since it encompasses the great state of Utah. In fact, there is an eminently well-qualified nominee from Utah for the Tenth Circuit, University of Utah Law Professor Michael McConnell, who is awaiting a hearing from the Judiciary Committee. His nomination has been pending for 211 days without a hearing. There are two other nominees for the Tenth Circuit who are also awaiting hearings on their nominations: Timothy Tymkovich of Colorado, who has been waiting 195 days, and Terrence O'Brien of Wyoming, who has been waiting 126 days. Part of the holdup has unquestionably been due to lack of action by the Judiciary Committee, but the ABA must shoulder some of the blame as well. It took the ABA over 8 weeks to return its evaluation of Michael McConnell, which, incidentally, was a rating of unanimously well qualified, over 15 weeks for Timothy Tymkovich, and over 12 weeks for Terrence O'Brien. The last of these three ratings was submitted in October, so there is no excuse for any of these nominations stalling any longer. I look forward to the opportunity to consider their nominations at hearings so that the pending vacancies on the Tenth Circuit can be expediently filled. Our consideration of Judge Hartz's nomination today is a positive step in that direction. His impressive legal career began--atypically-- with a degree from Harvard College summa cum laude in physics. Later, he graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was selected as Case and Developments Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Judge Hartz's legal experience began in Albuquerque, NM, as an Assistant United States Attorney. After that, he taught for a semester at the University of Illinois College of Law, and then returned to New Mexico to work with the New Mexico Governor's Organized Crime Prevention Commission. For the following 9 years he was in private practice, primarily in civil litigation, and then he served for 11 years as a judge on the New Mexico Court of Appeals. Currently, Judge Hartz works as special counsel to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, developing a Code of Conduct and an internal system for compliance and enforcement. As you can see, he is a highly competent and hard-working person who is eminently well qualified to serve as a judge on the Tenth Circuit. In addition to Judge Hartz, we have the privilege of considering the nomination of two district court nominees. One of these nominees is Joe Heaton for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Mr. Heaton is a native Oklahoman with an outstanding record of legal experience and public service. After graduating from the University of Oklahoma College of Law--where he was Order of the Coif-- he maintained a general civil practice with an emphasis in business and commercial matters. For 8 years, Mr. Heaton served as a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, including several years as Minority Leader. Then, in 1996, Mr. Heaton began serving in his current position as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma, where he has earned a good reputation while handling a wide variety of legal matters. Our second district court nominee is Danny C. Reeves for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He began his legal career as a law clerk for then-district Judge Eugene Siler, who now sits on the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Reeves then joined the Lexington office of Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, where he rose to the rank of partner in 1988. Despite his busy legal career, he has served as a director of the Volunteer Center of the Bluegrass, the Kentucky Museum of Natural History, and the Bluegrass Youth Hockey Association. Again, Mr. President, I am pleased to see such well-qualified nominees being brought before the Senate for consideration. Each of these nominees received unanimous support from the Members of the Judiciary Committee, and I expect that they will receive similar treatment from the full Senate. I commend President Bush for nominating persons who will bring honor and dignity to the Federal bench, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their nominations. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to address an unfortunate situation that has come to my attention concerning the United States Civil Rights Commission. One might even say that it is unbelievable. There is no one in this body that has greater appreciation for the work and history of the United States Civil Rights Commission than I do, and for the need of having a body such as this that can review issues that may arise in the area of civil rights without the taint of partisanship or ideologies. It is comforting to know that there is such a body that gathers disinterested public servants of unimpeachable integrity with a passion for the great work of securing the freedoms which belong to all citizens, without discrimination. As you know, the Congress has taken a great interest in the appointment of the Commission's eight members. In fact, four of the eight are appointed by the Congress, two by the Senate and two by the House. The President appoints the other four. In each case, whether appointed by the President or by the Congress, the Commission must have an equal number of Commissioners from each party. It appears that there is a controversy brewing as to when the term of a Commissioner expires. I believe that this controversy could do severe harm to the reputation of the Civil Rights Commission and the trust that is placed in it by the American people. I hope that this is a matter that will have an immediate resolution. Apparently, one of the presidential appointees of the previous administration, Victoria Wilson, is refusing to accept the expiration of her term. Ms. Wilson claims that she was appointed for a six-year term, although it appears that President Clinton expressly appointed her for only one year to complete the unexpired term of Judge Leon Higgenbotham, who died before his term expired. It appears also that the Chairwoman of the Committee, Mary Frances Berry, has told the White House that she refuses to recognize the President's new appointee, a person, by the way, of impeccable credentials who is an attorney with a distinguished career. Chairwoman Berry has indicated that it would take federal marshals to seat the President's appointee when the Commission next meets. As if the American people did not have enough drama in their lives, we hardly need something like this to further erode the public's confidence in the Civil Rights Commission. I think many of us are already concerned with the work of the Commission in recent years. They have taken on rather partisan issues, or at very least they have prosecuted issues in what often appears to be partisan ways, and arguably injudicious ways. I will not get into these concerns, but I am afraid that the Commission is doing great harm to the trust of the American people. Rather, I would like to comment on the current situation, which is a matter of existing law. What is especially troubling is that it appears that Chairwoman Berry and Ms. Wilson are refusing to comply with the legal opinion of the White House Counsel, Judge Gonzales, as well as the independent opinion of the Justice Department. In 1994 Congress amended the provisions governing the appointment of the Civil Rights Commissioners. Congress' intent was to ensure that the terms of the Commissioners would not expire all at once. We made provision for staggered terms for the Commissioners, adopting what is universally deemed good practice in the private corporate and nonprofit arenas. Staggered terms preserve institutional memory and experience. To have staggered terms requires that an appointee named to fill an unexpired term serve for only the remainder of that term. To do otherwise would completely eviscerate the staggering that Congress intended. The argument that Ms. Wilson, and Chairman Berry, is making-- that all appointments, and Ms. Wilson's appointment in particular, are always for terms of six years--would create the untenable opportunity for mischief if Commissioners were to resign at the end of a particular administration. Commissioners could resign as a group, allowing a departing Administration to fill several seats for six year terms, and denying the incoming administration the right to name any Commissioners. This argument, not only makes no sense, but I am also afraid that this sort of confrontational approach does very real harm to the reputation of the Commission and its individual members who the American people expect to be disinterested, apolitical public servants. I invite my colleagues to urge the immediate resolution of this matter. I ask unanimous consent that Judge Gonzales' letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of all parents and grandparents, teachers, clergy, mentors, agents of law enforcement, treatment and prevention professionals, and all the others who work every day to prevent illegal drug use from destroying the lives of our young people, I rise to support the nomination of John Walters, the President's nominee to be our nation's next Drug Czar. The confirmation of this important nominee is long overdue. Mr. Walters' nomination has languished in the Senate for almost six months, but with his confirmation, the President's cabinet will finally be complete. Mr. Walters will begin his tenure as Drug Czar at a very precarious time, but I know he is the right person for this challenge. He will need to work closely with law enforcement, intelligence, and military authorities to prevent drugs from being trafficked into America from abroad and to prevent the manufacturing and sale of drugs for the purpose of funding terrorist activities. Mr. Walters is eminently qualified to carry out this task, and, as I have previously stated, I am confident that he will be a first-rate Director. After all, having served at the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Department of Education with Bill Bennett, he learned from the person widely regarded--by Republicans and Democrats alike--as the most talented and effective drug czar we have had in this country. I want to highlight once more how John Walters' career in public service has prepared him well for this office. He has worked tirelessly over the last two decades helping to formulate and improve comprehensive policies designed to keep drugs away from our children. By virtue of this experience, he truly has unparalleled knowledge and experience in all facets of drug control policy. Lest there be any doubt that Mr. Walters' past efforts were successful, let me point out that during his tenure at the Department of Education and ONDCP, drug use in America fell to its lowest level at any time in the past 25 years, and drug use by teens plunged over 50 percent. Even after leaving ONDCP in 1993, Mr. Walters has remained a vocal advocate for curbing illegal drug use. Tragically, as illegal drug use edged upward under the previous administration, his voice went unheeded. John Walters enjoys widespread support from distinguished members of the law enforcement community, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Troopers Coalition. His nomination is also supported by some of the most prominent members of the prevention and treatment communities, including the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the American Methadone Treatment Association, the Partnership for Drug Free America, National Families in Action, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. All of these organizations agree that if we are to win the war on drugs in America, we need a comprehensive policy aimed at reducing both the demand for and supply of drugs. Mr. Walters' accomplished record demonstrates that he, too, has always believed in such a comprehensive approach. As he stated before Congress in 1993, an effective anti-drug strategy must ``integrate efforts to reduce the supply of as well as the demand for illegal drugs.'' Despite this groundswell of support, ever since Mr. Walters was first mentioned almost seven months ago to be the next Drug Czar, several interested individuals and groups have attacked his nomination with a barrage of unfounded criticisms. Because these untruths helped delay his confirmation until today, I feel compelled to respond once more to some of these gross distortions. Some have charged that John Walters is hostile to drug treatment. Once again, I want to state for the record that this criticism is categorically false. He has a long, documented history of supporting drug treatment as an integral component of a balanced national drug control policy. You do not have to take my word on this. You need only look at the numbers. During Mr. Walters' tenure at ONDCP, treatment funding increased 74 percent. This compares with an increase over eight years for the Clinton Administration of a mere 17 percent. This commitment to expanding treatment explains why John Walters has such broad support from the treatment community. It is simply inconceivable that the prominent groups supporting Mr. Walters would do so if they believed he was hostile to treatment. Another recurring criticism is that Mr. Walters doesn't support a balanced drug control policy that incorporates both supply and demand reduction programs. This criticism, too, is flat wrong and again belied by his record. For example, in testimony given before this Committee in 1991, Mr. Walters, then acting Director of ONDCP, laid out a national drug control strategy that included the following guiding principles: educating our citizens about the dangers of drug use; placing more addicts in effective treatment programs; expanding the number and quality of treatment programs; reducing the supply and availability of drugs on our streets; and dismantling trafficking organizations through tough law enforcement and interdiction measures. Mr. Walters' firm support of prevention programs is equally evident. His commitment to prevention became clear during his tenure at the Department of Education during the Reagan Administration. He drafted the Department's first drug prevention guide for parents and teachers-- titled ``Schools Without Drugs,'' created the Department's first prevention advertising campaign, and implemented the Drug-Free Schools grant program. These are not the words or actions of an ideologue who is hostile to prevention and treatment, but rather, represent the firmly held beliefs of a man of conviction who has fought hard to include effective prevention and treatment programs in the fight against drug abuse. Some have also criticized Mr. Walters because he doesn't buy into the oft-repeated liberal shibboleth that too many low-level, ``non- violent'' drug offenders are being arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. I, too, plead guilty to this charge, but the facts prove we are right. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that 67.4 percent of federal defendants convicted of simple possession had prior arrest records, and 54 percent had prior convictions. Moreover, prison sentences handed down for possession offenses amount to just 1 percent of Federal prison sentences. Thus, it is patently false that a significant proportion of our federal prison population consists of individuals who have done nothing other than possess illegal drugs for their personal consumption. The drug legalization camp exaggerates the rate at which defendants are jailed solely for simple possession. This camp also wants us to view those who sell drugs as ``nonviolent offenders.'' Mr. Walters, to his credit, has had the courage to publicly refute these misleading statistics and claims. I want to join him in making one point perfectly clear. Those who sell drugs, whatever type and whatever quantity, are not, to this father and grandfather, ``nonviolent offenders.'' Not when each pill, each joint, each line, and each needle can and often does destroy a young person's life. I am committed 100 percent to expanding and improving drug abuse education, prevention, and treatment programs, and I know that John Walters is my ally in this effort. Last week, the Judiciary Committee voted out S. 304, the ``Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001,'' a bipartisan bill I drafted with Senators Leahy, Biden, DeWine, Thurmond, Feinstein, and Grassley. This legislation will dramatically increase prevention and treatment efforts, and I remain confident that it will become law this Congress. As I have stated many times, I solicited Mr. Walters' expert advice in drafting S. 304. I know, and his record clearly reflects, that he agrees with me and my colleagues that prevention and treatment must remain integral components of our national drug control strategy. We need to shore up our support for demand reduction programs if we are to reduce illegal drug use in America. This commitment is bipartisan. Our President believes in it. Our Attorney General believes in it. Our Democratic leader in the Senate believes in it. My Republican colleagues believe in it. And most importantly, John Walters believes in it. Finally, Mr. President, now that Mr. Walters is about to be confirmed, I want to urge the Senate not to let this session end without holding hearings for and acting on the deputy positions at ONDCP. Mr. Walters needs his team in place. I look forward to working with my Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues and the Administration to carry forward our fight against drug trafficking and terrorism.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors' Improvement Act. This is good, common sense legislation that will lower the program's costs and provide greatly improved benefits to thousands of Utahns and hundreds of thousands of Americans who are spending or have spent their working careers in the railroad industry. With an impressive 73 Members joining Senator Baucus and me as cosponsors of this bill, and a vote on passage of 384-to-33 in the House earlier this year, this legislation enjoys tremendous support of our colleagues in both Chambers and on both sides of the aisle. Other supporters of this bill have already spoken at length about the features of the bill, so I would like to focus my remarks today on responding to some of the criticisms made last week by a few of our colleagues who oppose this legislation. Specifically, during last week's debate on this bill, my colleague and friend, the senior Senator from Texas, spoke at length about what he refers to as the ``pilfering'' of the Railroad Retirement Account that he alleged would take place under this bill. While I agree wholeheartedly with the Senator on some of his statements, I could not disagree more with his suggestion that this legislation is some kind of underhanded attempt at wrongdoing by the retirees, workers, and employers in this industry. Let me first make clear that I agree with the Senator in his conviction that vast improvements would be made by changing the rules for the investment of Railroad Retirement assets. Because of the long- standing requirement that those assets can only be invested in Government securities, the railroad industry's retirement plan has been far less efficient than those in other industries. As a result, the rail industry's contributions to its pension plan are far higher than in other industries. This legislation would eliminate that limitation and allow the investment of assets in the stock market, as well as in Government securities. Senator Gramm has stated that this would be a good change, and I am of the same mind. I agree with him on that. I am also in full agreement with the Senator when he said that the assets of the Railroad Retirement system are the pension contributions of rail workers, retirees, and employers, as well as the earnings on those contributions. However, I am perplexed when Senator Gramm alleges that, under this bill, these contributors would be ``pilfering'' their own contributions. I also take exception to the suggestion that the use of the increased investment returns projected under this bill is inappropriate. Because Railroad Retirement account balances will be less under this legislation than they would under current law, even with greater investment returns, Senator Gramm concludes that there must be ``pilfering'' going on. This analysis is highly misleading. It assumes that the all balances projected under current law are necessary for the fiscal health of the system, and that anything less will subject the system to great peril. The reality is that, while account balances will decrease for a time under the new legislation, the Railroad Retirement Account is projected by the Railroad Retirement actuary to remain solvent for the next 75 years. Last Friday, Senator Gramm used a chart that helped tell the story that he wanted to tell. It was a very nice chart, but the chart was somewhat truncated and failed to give the full picture. Let's look at why reducing the long term build up is neither ``pilfering'' or bad business economics. As you can see, this is the trust balance that will remain strong under the Railroad Retirement program. Under current law, the Railroad Retirement Board actuary projects that the fund balance by 2074--this red line on the top--will grow to $702.8 billion as of 2074 under Employment Assumption II. Benefit obligations for that year would be approximately $15 billion. This is a ratio of trust fund reserves to benefits of almost 47 years of benefits. No wonder the industry wants to develop a more rational funding approach. Let me point you to chart No. 2. Under Employment Assumption I, the more optimistic of the two assumptions most typically used to measure the system, the point gets even more dramatic. In this case, the actuary projects that the fund balance by 2074 will grow to $1.5 trillion. That is trillion with a ``T.'' Benefit obligations under this more optimistic employment assumption would increase, of course--more workers equals more retirees. The benefit obligation grows to approximately $21 billion. Under this employment assumption, the ratio of reserves to benefits expands to more than 71 times. Again, it is no surprise why the industry is working to develop a more rationale funding approach. As you can see by the blue line, if we pass this legislation, this would be the balance under the current legislation--the balance that we would be getting under this compared to current law, which means the retirees would not be getting nearly the benefit, nor will the industry be getting nearly the benefit than they could with a more rational, meaningful approach towards a pension. Now, why would these balances be adequate but lower than now projected, if we passed this bill? Is it because of ``pilfering?'' No, it is because the bill provides for modest, judicious tax cuts and overdue improvements in retiree benefits. Under current law, the rail industry contributes three times more to Railroad Retirement than employers in other industries contribute to retirement programs. Under current law, widows of retirees have their benefits reduced by two-thirds upon the death of their spouses. Under current law, rail employees must wait 10 years to vest rather than the usual 5 or even 3 years common in other industries. This legislation would simply reduce payroll taxes on rail employers to bring its contributions more in line with other industries--although at more than 13 percent it would still be much higher than the funding levels of other industries--and make improvements in vesting, early retirement and widows' benefits. Under this bill, unnecessary, enormous surpluses that would occur under current law, indicated by the red line, would be avoided, while maintaining more than adequate reserves in the system, which would be what this bill will do while taking care of widows, among others. The industry has long been recognized as the most capital intensive component of the industrial segment of the U.S. economy, according to studies done by sources ranging from Fortune Magazine to the Department of Commerce. Under this legislation, the industry would be better able to deploy its scarce investment capital. Senator Gramm and others have repeatedly asserted that the Railroad Retirement system will run out of money if this bill is adopted and the Government will have to make up the shortfall. As I mentioned a moment ago, the Railroad Retirement actuary has reviewed this bill and found that under it, as under current law, the system is solvent over the next 75 years under both Assumption I and Assumption II. The assumptions behind this projection were accepted by the CBO which used them for its analysis. Moreover, the bill provides, for the first time, an automatic tax schedule that will raise taxes on rail employers if pension fund reserves drop below 4 years of benefits. This will require no action by Congress. Senator Gramm and his staff must have had a lot of fun calculating what tax rates might be at some point in the future to get the fund balances back to current-law levels under the bill. The reality is, however, we should not be trying to build up reserves that are between 47 and 71 times annual benefit obligation outlays. That makes no sense. But Senator Gramm declares that the industry will try to avoid higher tax rates that may even be triggered by the formula and, as a result, the Government will have to step in. In this regard, I think past history is instructive. In the past, when financial problems have arisen, Congress has chosen to raise taxes and reduce benefits, rather than to provide bailouts for this industry. Thus, even if Senator Gramm's doomsday scenario comes true, it is the plan participants who are likely to pay, not the Federal Government. The industry knows this as well. This is why the railroads want the opportunity to manage this system, along with taking on more responsibility. I also want to respond to one other misunderstanding that has arisen in this debate--that by lowering the retirement age for Railroad Retirement to age 60, the bill gives railroad workers a benefit no one else has, and that this benefit conflicts with the increase in the Social Security eligibility age. First, the earlier retirement age applies only to workers who have 30 years of service in the rail industry. Second, the normal retirement age for Tier 1, the Social Security counterpart of Railroad Retirement, is not affected by this bill. It will rise to age 67 just as the Social Security retirement age will. Third, paying the cost of Social Security for early retirees until they reach normal Social Security retirement age is a feature found in private sector pension plans. These are known as ``bridge'' plans. Like these plans, the private portion of Railroad Retirement--Tier 2--pays the entire cost of this early retirement option, just as it currently does for workers with 30 years of service at age 62. Keep in mind this is a dangerous industry in which to work. It is not uncommon for employees in the railroad industry who are working on the line to never be able to get their full 30 years in because of the dangers and the accidents that occur as a result of this industry. It is a tough industry. I used to represent railroad workers in some of these cases. What happened to some of them was horrendous. Many of them died trying to do their job. Others were mutilated. Legs were cut off, and arms were lost. Families were devastated. These things do happen. It is not comparable to most other pension- backed industries. In conclusion, you may call this an opportunity for the rail industry to invest capital in infrastructure rather than excessive account surpluses. You may call it an opportunity to improve benefits for widows and for retirees who work 30 years in work that is often arduous and dangerous. You may call it an opportunity to bring Railroad Retirement investment practices into the modern era. But don't call it ``pilfering.'' I know a lot about this industry. I know what a difficult industry it is. I know there are things that are wrong with the industry. I know there are things such as feather-bedding in this industry that have existed for a long time. But there are also a lot of loyal, decent, honorable people working in these dangerous jobs to keep America's goods and services moving across this country. I can't imagine why we would not want to help these widows who have such a drastic automatic reduction in their benefits once their husbands pass on. I think in most cases the husband is going to predecease the wife. That is part of what we are trying to do here. Like everything else, nothing is perfect around here. And this bill is not perfect. But it is a rational and reasonable attempt to allow this industry to invest in capital infrastructure so that it can keep going and so that widows and pensioners can be taken care of. This is an industry that we have to keep going. An awful lot of bulk transfers occur on our railroads in this country. We know there is going to have to be more investment as we upgrade high-speed lines and other effective approaches to transport materials, manufactured products, and other things throughout our country. This is a great industry. It is an important industry. The people who work in it deserve the best we can give them. I do not see the Government paying for the liability that could arise under the most drastic pessimistic scenarios, as have been painted by some in this Chamber: Not paying for it themselves. And I believe Congress will see that that occurs. It is up to the industry to make sure they never have to do more than what is reasonable and rational under the circumstances by making sure that this pension program is viable, that it works, and that it takes care of these people who need to be taken care of. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that Jim Byrne, a staff fellow in my office, be given privileges of the floor during the pendency of consideration of the Railroad Retirement bill, as well as the Defense Authorization bill, S. 1438, and the Defense Appropriations bill, H.R. 3338.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to urge adoption of H.J. Res. 71, which designates September 11 as ``Patriot Day.'' This resolution also calls on all Americans to observe a moment of silence to remember all those who lost their lives in the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. I am the Senate sponsor of this bill along with Senators Schumer and Specter. The events of September 11 have forever changed the lives of all Americans. We have all experienced a renewed sense of community and a sense of patriotic vigor that are the best of America. So many lives were touched by the terrorist attack--not only the thousands of heroes who lost their lives but also those they left behind. I am certain that few Americans will remain untouched by the devastation of our citizens that we saw in downtown New York, in the Pennsylvania countryside, and at our Pentagon. These terrorists killed innocent Americans from every part of the country. We were so saddened to learn that Mary Alice Wahlstrom and her daughter, Carolyn Beug, of Kaysville, Utah, were struck down by this senseless violence. Mary Alice's husband of 52 years, Norman, described Mary Alice as the ``happiest lady you'll meet.'' As one of the ``kids,'' she joined with her only daughter to help her twin 18-year old granddaughters settle in at art school on the East Coast. In this time of grief, we join Norman, her four sons, and 18 grandchildren in hoping that our love and faith will continue to sustain each of us during this tragedy. The grief all Americans feel today is barely speakable. I, for one, cannot express in words the sorrow I feel for the thousands of families profoundly shattered by the acts of war perpetrated against us on September 11th. I commend my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently at such a great moment of national tragedy. As many of my colleagues have noted, our grief is leavened by the countless stories of sacrifice and heroism. Heroes such as the policemen, firemen and emergency personnel who rushed to the buildings and entered them in a race against collapse, a race that they unfortunately lost. I hope that every American who sees a fireman or a policeman today thinks of the sacrifices that these every day individuals are prepared to make for the good of our society, for the good of ourselves, every day. There is no calamity America will withstand that will not be met with and overwhelmed by the decency, courage and selflessness of Americans coming to the aid of their own. It will be years before we can collect all of these stories and it will be impossible to measure the courage and bravery of these countless everyday heroes. As John says in the Bible, ``Greater love hath no man than this; that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' I also commend my colleagues for their unanimous support for the Administration of President George W. Bush. Americans are not partisan when we are to face a common foe, nor are their representatives. We will face this foe together, and together we will prevail. We must never forget the attack on America and the mighty resolve of the American spirit that has never shown brighter than after September 11. This resolution before us today will ensure that we will never forget the events of September 11, 2001. I commend my colleagues in the House for adopting this resolution and urge my Senate colleagues to adopt this important measure tonight. Elaine and I offer our prayers for the victims and their families, as well as the thousands of brave rescue workers, including Utah's Urban Search and Rescue team. The team consists of fire department personnel from Salt Lake City and County. Our prayers go to the member of our armed forces, the greatest defenders of freedom a nation has ever known. And our prayers go to President Bush and his Administration, who are dedicated to peace and must now respond to war. May God Bless America.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Leahy, Reid, and Bennett in the introduction of the Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002. As Senator Leahy mentioned, he and I, as leaders of the Judiciary Committee, have enjoyed a productive relationship working together to protect America's innovators, and to strengthen our intellectual property laws as well as the agencies that administer and enforce them. One of the issues we have long worked on is strengthening the ability of the United States Patent Office, ``USPTO'', to do its important work in reviewing and granting intellectual property rights to inventors seeking the patents that drive our high-tech economy or those businesses that seek to protect the trademarks that consumers rely on to find the goods and services they want. For those inventors and businesses to succeed in using those patent or trademark rights, the USPTO needs to do a quality and timely job in reviewing and granting those rights. However, over the past few years, the USPTO has been under mounting pressure on three fronts, increased filings, increased complexity in the filings, and increased difficulty retaining valuable and experienced examiners in the face of more lucrative offers in the private sector. These pressures, if unaddressed, can lead to delays for applicants of months or years, or to reduced quality and reliability of the determinations that issue from the USPTO. Indeed, the USPTO estimates that the patent pendency period could rise to 38 months by 2006. I hate to think that innovative products could sit on the shelf for more than three years awaiting government review. This is especially troubling when we realize that in many high-tech sectors the shelf life of a product is often less than half that time. Such increased waiting periods and lower quality decision-making means slower innovation, less competitiveness, higher costs, and greater risk for those seeking patents or trademarks. And, consequently, the rest of us and our economy could see slower recovery and weaker growth. Addressing these challenges will require leadership, of course, which I believe can be provided by the President's nominee to head the USPTO, former Congressman Jim Rogan. But, to be realistic, we must admit that surely it will also require resources. As many in this body know, the costs of running the USPTO are entirely paid for by fees collected from applicants, individuals and companies that seek to benefit from patent and trademark protection. However, since 1992 Congress has diverted an amount estimated at over $800 million from those fees for other government programs unrelated to the USPTO. At a time when our economy needs support, it seems doubly wrong to levy what amounts to a tax on innovation, a tax imposed by taking a portion of the fees America's innovators and businesses pay to secure protection for their economy-generating products and services and spending it on unrelated government programs. I believe that fees paid to secure patent and trademark rights should be used to process those applications faster with better reliability precisely because getting the products of American ingenuity to market faster helps grow our economy faster. That is why I am glad to join my colleagues in introducing this bill which takes the position that Congress should appropriate to the USPTO a funding level equal to the fees applicants pay. I agree with my colleagues that if fully implemented as intended, this bill can greatly assist the USPTO in issuing quality patents more quickly, which in turn can lead to more investment, job creation, and productivity for American businesses. In addition to establishing the principle that user fees collected by the USPTO should be used to serve those who pay them, the bill makes additional improvements to the way the USPTO does business, further enhancing its ability to serve American companies and inventors. Among these improvements are the requirement that the USPTO develop a user- friendly electronic system for the filing and processing of all patent and trademark applications, and that the PTO to develop a strategic plan to enhance patent and trademark quality, reduce pendency, and otherwise improve their systems and services for the benefit of applicants, examiners, and the general public. The bill also contains two sections which will clarify two provisions of current law regarding reexamination of patents to provide greater guidance to the USPTO and its customers about the scope and availability of the reexamination process. Both of these changes should help streamline and reduce the costs of post-grant patent decisions. I again want to express my appreciation to Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for this leadership, and to the other co-sponsors of this bill, Senators Reid and Bennett. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Leahy, Reid, and Bennett in the introduction of the Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002. As Senator Leahy mentioned, he and I, as leaders of the Judiciary Committee, have enjoyed a productive relationship working together to protect America's innovators, and to strengthen our intellectual property laws as well as the agencies that administer and enforce them. One of the issues we have long worked on is strengthening the ability of the United States Patent Office, ``USPTO'', to do its important work in reviewing and granting intellectual property rights to inventors seeking the patents that drive our high-tech economy or those businesses that seek to protect the trademarks that consumers rely on to find the goods and services they want. For those inventors and businesses to succeed in using those patent or trademark rights, the USPTO needs to do a quality and timely job in reviewing and granting those rights. However, over the past few years, the USPTO has been under mounting pressure on three fronts, increased filings, increased complexity in the filings, and increased difficulty retaining valuable and experienced examiners in the face of more lucrative offers in the private sector. These pressures, if unaddressed, can lead to delays for applicants of months or years, or to reduced quality and reliability of the determinations that issue from the USPTO. Indeed, the USPTO estimates that the patent pendency period could rise to 38 months by 2006. I hate to think that innovative products could sit on the shelf for more than three years awaiting government review. This is especially troubling when we realize that in many high-tech sectors the shelf life of a product is often less than half that time. Such increased waiting periods and lower quality decision-making means slower innovation, less competitiveness, higher costs, and greater risk for those seeking patents or trademarks. And, consequently, the rest of us and our economy could see slower recovery and weaker growth. Addressing these challenges will require leadership, of course, which I believe can be provided by the President's nominee to head the USPTO, former Congressman Jim Rogan. But, to be realistic, we must admit that surely it will also require resources. As many in this body know, the costs of running the USPTO are entirely paid for by fees collected from applicants, individuals and companies that seek to benefit from patent and trademark protection. However, since 1992 Congress has diverted an amount estimated at over $800 million from those fees for other government programs unrelated to the USPTO. At a time when our economy needs support, it seems doubly wrong to levy what amounts to a tax on innovation, a tax imposed by taking a portion of the fees America's innovators and businesses pay to secure protection for their economy-generating products and services and spending it on unrelated government programs. I believe that fees paid to secure patent and trademark rights should be used to process those applications faster with better reliability precisely because getting the products of American ingenuity to market faster helps grow our economy faster. That is why I am glad to join my colleagues in introducing this bill which takes the position that Congress should appropriate to the USPTO a funding level equal to the fees applicants pay. I agree with my colleagues that if fully implemented as intended, this bill can greatly assist the USPTO in issuing quality patents more quickly, which in turn can lead to more investment, job creation, and productivity for American businesses. In addition to establishing the principle that user fees collected by the USPTO should be used to serve those who pay them, the bill makes additional improvements to the way the USPTO does business, further enhancing its ability to serve American companies and inventors. Among these improvements are the requirement that the USPTO develop a user- friendly electronic system for the filing and processing of all patent and trademark applications, and that the PTO to develop a strategic plan to enhance patent and trademark quality, reduce pendency, and otherwise improve their systems and services for the benefit of applicants, examiners, and the general public. The bill also contains two sections which will clarify two provisions of current law regarding reexamination of patents to provide greater guidance to the USPTO and its customers about the scope and availability of the reexamination process. Both of these changes should help streamline and reduce the costs of post-grant patent decisions. I again want to express my appreciation to Senator Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for this leadership, and to the other co-sponsors of this bill, Senators Reid and Bennett. I look forward to working with them and my other colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.

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

Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of all parents and grandparents, teachers, clergy, mentors, law enforcement, treatment and prevention coalitions, and all the others who work every day to prevent illegal drug use from destroying the lives of our young people. Our country needs John Walters, the President's nominee for drug czar, to be confirmed. It is shameful that here we are in November, and Mr. Walters remains the President's only Cabinet member who has not been confirmed. To say that the confirmation of Mr. Walters has been obstructed is by no means an exaggeration. It has been 203 days since the President announced his choice of John Walters to be the next Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. It has been 177 days since the Senate received his nomination. It has been 50 days since Mr. Walters' hearing before the Judiciary Committee. And it has been 21 days since his nomination was voted out of the Judiciary Committee by a wide margin and sent to the Senate floor. How many more days, weeks, and months can we expect this nomination to linger before a vote is finally scheduled? In my view, we have already waited much too long. John Walters' confirmation will also add another much-needed weapon to our arsenal in the war against terrorism. Since the September 11 attacks, there has been much discussion about the nexus between drug trafficking and terrorism. We know that proceeds from the manufacturing and trafficking of opium poppy helped sustain the Taliban's control of Afghanistan. We also know that terrorist organizations routinely launder the proceeds from drug trafficking and use the funds to support and expand their operations internationally, including purchasing and trafficking illegal weapons. I am sure in the coming months and years, we will continue to learn about the clandestine connection between drugs and terrorists. The situation in Afghanistan also bodes ill for the world's supply of heroin. In 2000, over 70 percent of the world's heroin was produced in Afghanistan. Stockpiles of Afghan heroin were reportedly dumped on the market after the September 11 attacks. While officials in America and Europe are bracing for the onslaught of cheap heroin that will soon be hitting the markets in all neighborhoods across America and Europe, we have no drug czar. The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA, Asa Hutchinson, recently referred to the situation in Afghanistan as a ``rare opportunity'' for U.S. antidrug efforts to act on the successes of the military campaign and influence the future direction of heroin production in Afghanistan. While I have great confidence in the work Asa Hutchinson and the DEA are doing, the administration needs its lead drug control policy official in place to help formulate a comprehensive policy designed to reduce significantly heroin production in Afghanistan. Mr. Walters will have to work closely with law enforcement and intelligence authorities to ensure that the international component of the Nation's drug control policy is designed not only to prevent drugs from being trafficked into America but also to prevent the manufacturing and sale of drugs for the purpose of funding terrorist activities. Mr. Walters is eminently qualified to carry out this task, and I am confident that he will be a first-rate Director. He is the right person for this job. John Walters' career in public service has prepared him well for this office. He has worked tirelessly over the last 2 decades helping to formulate and improve comprehensive policies designed to keep drugs away from our children. By virtue of this experience, he truly has unparalleled knowledge and experience in all facets of drug control policy. Lest there be any doubt that Mr. Walters' past efforts were successful, let me point out that during his tenure at the Department of Education and ONDCP, drug use in America fell to its lowest level at any time in the past 25 years, and drug use by teens plunged over 50 percent. Mr. Walters has remained a vocal advocate for curbing illegal drug use. Tragically, as illegal drug use edged upward under the previous administration, his voice went unheeded. John Walters enjoys widespread support from distinguished members of the law enforcement community, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Troopers Coalition. His nomination is also supported by some of the most prominent members of the prevention and treatment communities, including the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the American Methadone Treatment Association, the Partnership for Drug Free America, National Families in Action, and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. All of these organizations agree that if we are to win the war on drugs in America, we need a comprehensive policy aimed at reducing both the demand for and supply of drugs. Mr. Walters' accomplished record demonstrates that he, too, has always believed in such a comprehensive approach. As he stated before Congress in 1993, an effective antidrug strategy must ``integrate efforts to reduce the supply of as well as the demand for illegal drugs.'' Despite this groundswell of support, ever since Mr. Walters was first mentioned almost 7 months ago to be the next drug czar, several interested individuals and groups have attacked his nomination with a barrage of unfounded criticisms. Because of these untruths, I believe his confirmation has been delayed, and I feel compelled to respond to some of these gross distortions of John Walters' record. The most common criticism I have heard is that John Walters is hostile to drug treatment. This is categorically false. He has a long, documented history of supporting drug treatment as an integral component of a balanced national drug control policy. You do not have to take my word on this. You need only look at the numbers. Keep in mind, just today, just an hour ago, we passed the Hatch-Leahy ``Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001'' out of the Judiciary Committee. The bulk of the money in that bill will go for drug treatment, education, and prevention programs. And we have done so with the advice and counsel of Mr. Walters. So that is a false accusation. But look at the numbers. During Mr. Walters' tenure at ONDCP, treatment funding increased 74 percent. Compare that with the increase over 8 years for the Clinton administration of a mere 17 percent. This commitment to expanding treatment explains why John Walters has such broad support from the treatment community. It is simply inconceivable to believe that all of the prominent groups that are supporting Mr. Walters would do so if they believed he was hostile to treatment programs. Another recurring criticism is that Mr. Walters doesn't support a balanced drug control policy that incorporates both supply and demand reduction programs. This criticism, too, is flat wrong and again belied by his record. For example, in testimony given before this committee in 1991, Mr. Walters, then acting Director of ONDCP, laid out a national drug control strategy that included the following guiding principles: educating our citizens about the dangers of drug use, placing more addicts in effective treatment programs, expanding the number and quality of treatment programs, reducing the supply and availability of drugs on our streets, and dismantling trafficking organizations through tough law enforcement and interdiction measures. Mr. Walters' support of prevention programs is equally evident. His commitment to prevention became clear during his tenure at the Department of Education during the Reagan administration. He drafted the Department's first drug prevention guide for parents and teachers entitled, ``Schools Without Drugs'' and created the Department's first prevention advertising campaign, and implemented the Drug-Free Schools grant program. These are not the words or actions of an ideologue who is hostile to prevention and treatment but, rather, represent the firmly held beliefs of a man of conviction who has fought hard to include effective prevention and treatment programs in the fight against drug abuse. Some have also charged that Mr. Walters doesn't believe the oft- repeated liberal shibboleth too many low-level, ``non-violent'' drug offenders are being arrested, prosecuted, and jailed. I, too, plead guilty, and we have the facts on our side. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, BJS, reveals that 67.4 percent of Federal defendants convicted of simple possession had prior arrest records, and 54 percent had prior convictions. Moreover, prison sentences handed down for possession offenses amount to just 1 percent of Federal prison sentences. It is flatly untrue that a significant proportion of our Federal prison population consists of individuals who have done nothing other than possess illegal drugs for their personal consumption. The simple fact is that the drug legalization camp exaggerates the rate at which defendants are jailed solely for simple possession. Mr. Walters, to his credit, has had the courage to publicly refute these misleading statistics. And to these critics I want to make one other point perfectly clear. Those who sell drugs, whatever type and whatever quantity, are not, to this father and grandfather, nonviolent offenders, not when each pill, each joint, each line, and each needle can--and often does--destroy a young person's life. Mr. Walters' critics have shamefully distorted his statements to claim that he favors jailing first-time, nonviolent offenders. I am committed 100 percent to expanding and improving drug abuse education, prevention, and treatment programs, and I know that John Walters is my ally in this effort. Earlier this year I introduced S. 304, the Drug Abuse Education, Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001, a bipartisan bill that I drafted with my good friend, Senator Leahy, Senators Biden, DeWine, Thurmond, Feinstein, and Grassley. This legislation will dramatically increase prevention and treatment efforts. In drafting the bill, I repeatedly solicited Mr. Walters' expert advice. I know, and his record clearly reflects, that he agrees with me and my colleagues that prevention and treatment must remain integral components of our national drug control policy. We just passed that bill out of the Judiciary Committee this morning. I hope it will be called up immediately and passed out of the Senate because it will make such a difference in the lives of our young people around this country. If I recall correctly, Joe Califano, the former head of HEW, Health, Education, and Welfare--now Health and Human Services--called this bill truly revolutionary and one that he could support wholeheartedly. He is not alone. We need to shore up our support for demand reduction programs if we are to reduce illegal drug use in America. This belief is bipartisan. Our President believes it. Our Attorney General believes it. Our Democratic leader in the Senate believes it. My Republican colleagues believe it. And most importantly, John Walters believes it. Since being nominated in May, Mr. Walters has made himself available to all Senators on the Judiciary Committee. He has throughly answered all questions posed to him by the Judiciary Committee, as well as questions from Senators not on the Committee. I commend the President for his selection and nomination of John Walters, and I call upon the Democratic leader to end the delay, remove all holds, and schedule a vote on Mr. Walters' nomination as early as possible, this week, if he could. At a time when we are at war, it is simply not prudent or proper to play politics with this nomination. I urge my colleagues to reject the efforts of those who have wrongfully sought to taint John Walters and to support an immediate vote on his nomination. Finally, I urge Chairman Leahy not to let this session end without holding hearings for the deputy positions at ONDCP. Mr. Walters needs his team in place. I look forward to working with my Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues and the administration to carry forward our fight against drug trafficking and terrorism. Let me make one or two final remarks. I was pleased to see the Judiciary Committee pass out the nine additional district judges, one a circuit court judge nominee and eight district court nominees, and, in addition, to pass out two other top officials in the Bush administration and, of course, a number of U.S. Attorneys. I commend our chairman for doing that. I commend him for moving forward on these judges. We have come a long way from when the criticisms reached their height. We still have a long way to go because there are still 101 vacancies in the Federal judiciary as I stand here today. Frankly, that is probably 101 too many. Be that as it may, we all know that we have to do something about them. As we prepare to recess, there is one startling fact that needs more attention. On May 9, President Bush nominated 11 outstanding attorneys to serve as Federal appellate court judges. To this date, nearly three quarters of those nominees are still pending in the Judiciary Committee without a hearing. Although all of these nominees received qualified or well-qualified ratings from the American Bar Association, only 3 of those first 11 nominees have had a hearing. At present, there are 30 vacancies in the Federal courts of appeals. Some courts, such as the DC circuit, are functioning under a dramatically reduced capacity. President Bush has responded to the vacancy crisis in the appellate courts by nominating a total of 28 top-notch men and women to these posts, a number of circuit court nominees that is unprecedented in the first years of recent administrations. Yet the Judiciary Committee has managed to move just five appeals court judges from the committee to the Senate floor for a vote. Last year at this time we had 67 vacancies in the Federal judiciary. Since Senator Leahy has become chairman, the vacancy rate has never been below 100. I am concerned that this number will only continue to grow after Congress recesses next month. I urge my colleagues on the other side to use the remaining weeks of this session to hold hearings and votes on judicial nominees to combat the alarming vacancy rate. Having said that, I am pleased that the chairman did allow nine judges to pass out today. I hope he will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion with me to pass more out. I am proud to work with Senator Leahy. I certainly want to cooperate with him in every way I possibly can. I believe the other Republicans on the committee do as well. There is a lot of criticism that goes back and forth on judges. I have to say, it is difficult to be chairman of this committee. I sympathize with Senator Leahy on some of the difficulties he has had. I know there are people on his side who would just as soon not have any Bush judges go on through, as there were occasionally on our side. It is very difficult to meet some of the objections and to overcome them and to resolve some of the political problems that arise. We have to do it. We have to stand up and work with both sides to get the Federal courts as full as we possibly can so that justice can proceed, especially in the case of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the District Court of the District of Columbia as well, so that we can handle all of the terrorist issues that will come before that particular court. Having said all of that, I hope we can move ahead with John Walters; if there are any holds, that they will be removed; and if they won't remove them, I hope the majority leader will ignore the holds, bring this up for a battle on the floor, and then have a vote up or down and let the chips fall where they may. I believe Mr. Walters will be confirmed. I believe he must be confirmed. If we don't get him confirmed, I believe the rate of youth drug use will continue to rise. Frankly, we have had enough of that. We have to get a very tough policy going again on drugs, and that should include both the supply and demand sides. I will make sure that this new administration, under John Walters, will take care of the demand side as well as the supply side. If we pass S. 304 through the Senate on which Senator Leahy and I have worked so hard, I believe it will go to the House. I believe they will pass it, and it will go a long way toward resolving some of the really serious drug problems we have among our young people. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I introduce a bill that requires a transfer of jurisdiction for development of an Armed Forces recreation facility in Park City, UT. This bill would enable the Secretary of the Interior to transfer, without reimbursement, a parcel of real property in Park City to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Air Force will use this property as the location for an Armed Forces recreation facility. I can think of no better use for this beautiful land in Utah than to support the military men and women who are serving our country. The bill I introduce today is the culmination of several months of careful coordination between the Department of Interior and the Department of Defense to make certain that the transfer is accomplished within all applicable laws, policies, and regulations. Given the tremendous challenges our nation's service members face at this time, I am proud to introduce this bill which will contribute much to the morale, recreation, and welfare of our service members. I hope that we can secure quick passage of this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a wonderful Utah woman, mother, and nationally published poet, Ms. Kathryn Kay. I also want to relate a remarkable story concerning Ms. Kay and a poem she wrote more than 60 years ago. The poem, ``Thanksgiving Prayer,'' and the story behind it could have happened today. Its message is timely, its impetus notable. ``Thanksgiving Prayer'' was part of a book of poems If the Shoe Fits, written by Kathryn Kay. The book was sold out of a little book store in the heart of Hollywood, California, where Ms. Kay was living and working at the time. The book, and its ensuing poem, were read and well-liked by many Hollywood stars, including the wife of the legendary veteran film actor, Hobart Boswarth. At that time, the Nation was about to embark on a celebration commemorating the sesquicentennial of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Mrs. Boswarth was serving as the Pacific Coast chairwoman of the celebration, and in that role was able to give the poem, ``Thanksgiving Prayer,'' to President Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt. She framed it in gold and presented it to Eleanor Roosevelt for her work in improving the cultural arts. Kathryn also officially dedicated the poem to her with ``sincere appreciation of her example, which causes women of today to build for tomorrow.'' Mrs. Boswarth also arranged for this poem to be part of the Southern California Bill of Rights Celebration. She had the poem cast on a large bronze plaque, ready to be placed on Mt. Whitney, and read at the beginning of the official week long celebration of the Bill of Rights, as proclaimed by President Roosevelt. The date for the ceremony was December 7, 1941. As history so tragically reminds us, no celebrations took place that day; America was attacked, and we were at war. The bronze plaque was melted down to make bullet casings for the war America was battling. The heartfelt words of gratitude for America would not be immortalized. Ms. Kay went on to publish many more poems, and two more books of poetry. She returned to Utah, and continued her career in live television and as a columnist for the Salt Lake Tribune. She married Lee Pratt, and raised two wonderful sons. But her love for poetry never dimmed. Kathryn Kay has been a driving force for many, many years in Utah to promote poetry, from the high school to the professional society level. She helped found the Utah State Poetry Society, and served two terms as its president. In fact, well into her late 80s, she continued to edit the society's yearly publication. Kathryn is 95 years old, still living in Utah, and still touching the lives of those around her. Perhaps her greatest tribute recently came from her son, Jim. He described his mother this way: ``She is a happy breath of sunshine, who appreciates life and makes life better for everyone she meets.'' I pay tribute to Kathryn Kay today, and in turn, share with the Nation the words penned by her so many years ago. As we all pause during the next few weeks to celebrate the holiday season in our own way, I hope that the words of this poem written during another time of conflict and war will serve to strengthen us and remind us of the blessings we share as Americans. The poem follows: Thanksgiving Prayer God ev'ry year about this time, according to routine, I've bowed my head in the accepted way and offered thanks, like some well synchronized machine. that prayed because it was the time to pray. But, God, this year is different, this year I seem to feel America's Thanksgiving is my own, that in my nation's gratitude I have a part that's real a part that until now I've never known. And, God, this year a deep humility has filled my heart, a newborn pride rings true throughout my soul because I do belong, because I have and am a part, a tiny part of one tremendous whole. I think I know the feeling of those first Americans who said, ``We must give thanks for this, our land.'' I cherish now the rights that are each woman's, ev'ry man's, the rights I've just begun to understand. This year my heart has learned what all Thanksgiving Days are for, true thankfulness at last I realize, but, God, I'm sorry that it took the tragedy of war in other lands to open up my eyes. Again I bow my head but this time deep within me stirs a mighty prayer, part of one vast design, ``God, help me make America as proud that I am hers as I am proud, and grateful she is mine!''

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I introduce a bill that requires a transfer of jurisdiction for development of an Armed Forces recreation facility in Park City, UT. This bill would enable the Secretary of the Interior to transfer, without reimbursement, a parcel of real property in Park City to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Air Force will use this property as the location for an Armed Forces recreation facility. I can think of no better use for this beautiful land in Utah than to support the military men and women who are serving our country. The bill I introduce today is the culmination of several months of careful coordination between the Department of Interior and the Department of Defense to make certain that the transfer is accomplished within all applicable laws, policies, and regulations. Given the tremendous challenges our nation's service members face at this time, I am proud to introduce this bill which will contribute much to the morale, recreation, and welfare of our service members. I hope that we can secure quick passage of this important legislation.