Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in my opening remarks, I was remiss in not mentioning the tremendous work of the distinguished chairman and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee. They have done a tremendous amount of work on the intelligence aspect of this bill. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I express my high regard for the both of them and the work they have done. I also express my regard for my friend from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, who came to the Senate with me, for the work he has done on the money-laundering section of this bill. He and Senator Gramm and the Banking Committee have done yeoman's service on this, and I hope we are able to have that as part of the final bill. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the great work that has been done--also, Senator Kyl and so many others. I felt I needed to say that. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. It is agreeable.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I enjoyed the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Vermont. I compliment him for the work he has done on this bill and for the hard work, over the last 3 weeks, that he and his staff have put into this bill, as well as other members of the Judiciary Committee as a whole, and, of course, people on my side as well. Mr. President, I do not intend to take very long. I know our colleagues are tired, and I know they would like to go home. I also know that we have a distinguished colleague in the Chamber who has some amendments on which we may have to vote. Four weeks ago we were a relatively tranquil nation, but on September 11, in what amounted to a dastardly attack, an unprovoked attack of war, the World Trade Center was destroyed, along with almost 6,000 people, or maybe more. Our Pentagon was struck by a volitionary act of terrorism. As a result of the acts of heroes, one of the planes was downed in Pennsylvania, killing all aboard, including those heroes who made sure that that plane did not strike either the Capitol or the White House. I want to pay special tribute to those people who were so heroic as to give up their own lives to protect the lives of so many others. There have been so many acts of heroism and self-sacrifice--the firefighters who gave their lives, the firefighters who worked day and night, the volunteers who have gone in there, the mayor of New York City, the Governor, and so many others who deserve mention. This bill, hopefully, will help to at least rectify and redeem some of the problems, problems that have existed ever since September 11. We did not seek this war; it was thrust upon us. It was an unprovoked attack by people who claim that they represent a religious point of view when, in fact, what they represent is a complete distortion of the religion of Islam. Islamic people do not believe in murder, murdering innocent civilians. The Koran does not teach that. They do not believe in suicide. The Koran does not teach that. This is not a war against Islam; this is a war against terrorism and people who have so little regard for human life that they would do something against innocent civilians that was unthinkable before September 11. Therefore, we live in a dangerous and difficult world today. It is a different world. And we are going to have to wake up and do the things we have to do to protect our citizenry and, of course, to protect the rest of the world to the extent this great Nation can, with the help of other nations, a number of which have become supportive of our efforts. We are very grateful to them. But a lot of people do not realize we have terror cells in this country--that has been in the media even--and there are people in this country who are dedicated to the overthrow of America. There are people who are dedicated to terrorism right here within our Nation. And some of these people who have participated in this matter may very well be people who were rightfully in our Nation--or at least we thought were rightfully in our Nation. The responsibility of redeeming and rectifying this situation is the responsibility of the Congress, the Justice Department, the FBI, the INS, and the Border Patrol. It is our job to provide the tools, and for them to first identify and then eradicate terrorist activity within our borders. And our President has taken the extraordinary step of saying we are going to go after terrorists worldwide and those who harbor them. I agree with the President. I think it is time to do it. It is time to hit them where it hurts. It is time to let them know we are not going to put up with this type of activity. A few weeks ago, the Justice Department sent up its legislative proposal. It was a good legislative proposal. They had a lot of ideas in there that literally we have been trying to get through for years. When we passed the 1996 antiterrorism, effective death penalty act, a number of us tried to get some of these provisions in at that time, but we were unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, some very sincere. The fact is, a lot of the provisions we have in the bill are not brand new; a lot of them have been requested for years. And had they been in play, who knows but we might have been able to interdict these terrorists and have stopped what happened and have stopped the loss of civil liberties for approximately 6,000 or more people. In the past several weeks, after the Justice Department sent up its bill, Senator Leahy and I, Justice Department officials, White House officials, staff members from both of our staffs, and staff members from other members of the committee have worked day and night to come up with this particular bill. I congratulate my partner and my colleague, Senator Leahy, for his hard work on this bill, and his staffers' for the work they have done on this bill, and, of course, my own staffers, and, of course, those others I have named. This has been a very difficult bill to put forward because there are all kinds of cross-pressures, all kinds of ideas, all kinds of different thoughts, all kinds of differing philosophies. We believe, with all kinds of deliberation and work, we have been able to put together a bill that really makes sense, that will give the Justice Department the tools it needs to be able to work and stamp out terrorist activity within our country. At least we want to give them the very best tools we possibly can. We have tried to accommodate the concerns of Senators on both sides of the aisle. We have worked very hard to do so. We cannot accommodate everybody's concerns. As Senator Leahy has said, this is not a perfect bill. Nothing ever seems to be perfect around here. But this is as good a bill as can be put together, in a bipartisan way, in this area in the history of the Senate. I really feel good about it, that we have done this type of a job. As I say, a lot of these provisions have been requested by the Justice Department and both Democrat and Republican White Houses for years. We took into consideration civil liberties throughout our discussions on this bill. I think we got it just right. We are protective of civil liberties while at the same time giving the tools to the law enforcement agencies to be able to do their jobs in this country. I might mention that this bill encourages information sharing, that would be absolutely prohibited under current law, among various agencies of Government, information sharing that should have been allowed a long time ago, at least in my view. It updates the laws with regard to electronic surveillance and brings those laws into the digital age, and brings them into an effective way so that we can, in a modernized way, protect our society, at least to the extent we can, from these types of terrorist activities. Of course, little things, such as pen registers, trap-and-trace authority--we have been able to resolve these problems after years of problems. I would like to make a few comments regarding the process for this legislation. Although we have considered this in a more expedited manner than other legislation, my colleagues can be assured that this bill has received thorough consideration. First, the fact is that the bulk of these proposals have been requested by the Department of Justice for years, and have languished in Congress for years because we have been unable to muster the collective political will to enact them into law. No one can say whether these tools could have prevented the attacks of September 11. But, as the Attorney General has said, it is certain that without these tools, we did not stop the vicious acts of last month. I say to my colleagues, Mr. President, that if these tools could help us now to track down the perpetrators--if they will help us in our continued pursuit of terrorist activities within our national borders then we should not hesitate any further to pass these reforms into law. As long as these reforms are consistent with our--Constitution and they are--it is difficult to see why anyone would oppose their passage. Furthermore, I would like to clearly dispel the myth that the reforms in this legislation somehow abridge the Constitutional freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding American citizens. Some press reports have portrayed this issue as a choice between individual liberties on the one hand, and on the other hand, enhanced powers for our law enforcement institutions. This is a false dichotomy. We should all take comfort that the reforms in this bill are primarily directed at allowing law enforcement agents to work smarter and more efficiently--in no case do they curtail the precious civil liberties protected by our Constitution. I want to assure my colleagues that we worked very hard over the past several weeks to ensure that this legislation upholds all of the constitutional freedoms our citizens cherish. It does. Mr. President, I will submit for the Record my extended remarks describing this legislation, but I would like to take a minute to explain briefly a few of the most important provisions of this critical legislation. First, the legislation encourages information-sharing between various arms of the federal government. I believe most of our citizens would be shocked to learn that, even if certain government agents had prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks, under many circumstances they would have been prohibited by law from sharing that information with the appropriate intelligence or national security authorities. This legislation makes sure that, in the future, such information flows freely within the Federal government, so that it will be received by those responsible for protecting against terrorist attacks. By making these reforms, we are rejecting the outdated Cold War paradigm that has prevented cooperation between our intelligence community and our law enforcement agents. Current law does not adequately allow for such cooperation, artificially hampering our government's ability to identify and prevent acts of terrorism against our citizens. In this new war, terrorists are a hybrid between domestic criminals and international agents. We must lower the barriers that discourage our law enforcement and intelligence agencies from working together to stop these terrorists. These hybrid criminals call for new, hybrid tools. Second, this bill updates the laws relating to electronic surveillance. Electronic surveillance, conducted under the supervision of a federal judge, is one of the most powerful tools at the disposal of our law enforcement community. It is simply a disgrace that we have not acted to modernize the laws currently on the books which govern such surveillance, laws that were enacted before the fax machine came into common usage, and well before the advent of cellular telephones, e-mail, and instant messaging. The Department of Justice has asked us for years to update these laws to reflect the new technologies, but there has always been a call to go slow, to seek more information, to order further studies. This is no hypothetical problem. We now know that e-mail, cellular telephones, and the Internet have been principal tools used by the terrorists to coordinate their atrocious activities. We need to pursue all solid investigatory leads that exist right now that our law enforcement agents would be unable to pursue because they must continue to work within these outdated laws. It is high time that we update our laws so that our law enforcement agencies can deal with the world as it is, rather than the world as it existed 20 years ago. A good example of way we our handicapping our law enforcement agencies relates to devices called ``pen registers.'' Pen registers may be employed by the FBI, after obtaining a court order, to determine what telephone numbers are being dialed from a particular telephone. These devices are essential investigatory tools, which allow law enforcement agents to determine who is speaking to whom, within a criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court has held, in Smith v. Maryland, that the information obtained by pen register devices is not information that is subject to any constitutional protection. Unlike the content of your telephone conversation once your call is connected, the numbers you dial into your telephone are not private. Because you have no reasonable expectation that such numbers will be kept private, they are not protected under the Constitution. The Smith holding was cited with approval by the Supreme Court just earlier this year. The legislation under consideration today would make clear what the Federal courts have already ruled--that Federal judges may grant pen register authority to the FBI to cover, not just telephones, but other more modern modes of communication such as e-mail or instant messaging. Let me make clear that the bill does not allow law enforcement to receive the content of the communication, but they can receive the addressing information to identify the computer or computers a suspect is using to further his criminal activity. Importantly, reform of the pen register law does not allow--as has sometimes been misreported in the press--for law enforcement agents to view the content of any e-mail messages--not even the subject line of e-mails. In addition, this legislation we are considering today makes it explicit that content can not be collected through such pen register orders. This legislation also allows judges to enter pen register orders with nationwide scope. Nationwide jurisdiction for pen register orders makes common sense. It helps law enforcement agents efficiently identify communications facilities throughout the country, which greatly enhances the ability of law enforcement to identify quickly other members of a criminal organization, such as a terrorist cell. Moreover, this legislation provides our intelligence community with the same authority to use pen register devices, under the auspices of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that our law enforcement agents have when investigating criminal offenses. It simply makes sense to provide law enforcement with the same tools to catch terrorists that they already possess in connection with other criminal investigations, such as drug crimes or illegal gambling. In addition to the pen register statute, this legislation updates other aspects of our wiretapping statutes. It is amazing that law enforcement agents do not currently have authority to seek wiretapping authority from a Federal judge when investigating a terrorist offense. This legislation fixes that problem. Moving on, I note that much has been made of the complex immigration provisions of this bill. I know Senators Specter, Kohl and Kennedy had questions about earlier provisions, particularly the detention provision for suspected alien terrorists. I want to assure my colleagues that we have worked hard to address your concerns, and the concerns of the public. As with the other immigration provisions of this bill, we have made painstaking efforts to achieve this workable compromise. Let me address some of the specific concerns. In response to the concern that the INS might detain a suspected terrorist indefinitely, the Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, and I worked out a compromise that limits the provision. It provides that the alien must be charged with an immigration or criminal violation within seven days after the commencement of detention or be released. In addition, contrary to what has been alleged, the certification itself is subject to judicial review. The Attorney General's power to detain a suspected terrorist under this bill is, then, not unfettered. Moreover, Senator Leahy and I have also worked diligently to craft necessary language that provides for the deportation of those aliens who are representatives of organizations that endorse terrorist activity, those who use a position of prominence to endorse terrorist activity or persuade others to support terrorist activity, or those who provide material support to terrorist organizations. If we are to fight terrorism, we can not allow those who support terrorists to remain in our country. Also, I should note that we have worked hard to provide the State Department and the INS the tools they need to ensure that no applicant for admission who is a terrorist is able to secure entry into the United States through legal channels. Finally, the bill gives law enforcement agencies powerful tools to attack the financial infrastructure of terrorism giving our Government the ability to choke off the financing that these dangerous terrorist organizations need to survive. It criminalizes the practice of harboring terrorists, and puts teeth in the laws against providing material support to terrorists and terrorist organizations. It gives the President expanded authority to freeze the assets of terrorists and terrorist organizations, and provides for the eventual seizure of such assets. These tools are vital to our ability to effectively wage the war against terrorism, and ultimately to win it. There have been few, if any, times in our nation's great history where an event has brought home to so many of our citizens, so quickly, and in such a graphic fashion, a sense of our vulnerability to unexpected attack. I believe we all took some comfort when President Bush promised us that our law enforcement institutions would have the tools necessary to protect us from the danger that we are only just beginning to perceive. The Attorney General has told us what tools he needs. We have taken the time to review the problems with our current laws, and to reflect on their solutions. The time to act is now. Let us please move forward expeditiously, and give those who are in the business of protecting us the tools that they need to do the job. Mr. President, I think most people understand this is an important bill. All of us understand it needs to be done. All of us understand that these are tools our law enforcement people deserve and need to have. And, frankly, it is a bill that I think can make a real difference with regard to the interdiction of future acts of terrorism in our society. Nobody can guarantee, when you have people willing to commit suicide in the perpetration of these awful acts, at all times that we can absolutely protect our Nation. But this bill will provide the tools whereby we might be able--and in most cases should be able--to resolve even those types of problems. So with that, I am happy to yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preservation Act. Originally introduced in the House by Representative James Hansen of Utah, this legislation is vital in guaranteeing the preservation of one of our Nation's most intact and rate pre-Jurassic paleontological discoveries. I applaud Chairman Hansen for his leadership on this issue. In February 2000, Sheldon Johnson of St. George, UT began development preparations on his land when he uncovered one of the world's most significant collections of dinosaur tracks, traildraggings, and skin imprints in the surrounding rock. The site has attracted thousands of visitors and the interest of some of the world's top paleontologists. This valuable resource is now in jeopardy. The fragile sandstone in which the impressions have been made is in jeopardy due to the heat and wind typical of the southern Utah climate. We must act quickly if these footprints from our past are to be preserved. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to purchase the land where the footprints and traildraggings are found and convey the property to the city of St. George, UT, which will work with the property owners and the county to preserve and protect the area and resources in question. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to protect our national treasure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Virgin River Dinosaur Footprint Preservation Act. Originally introduced in the House by Representative James Hansen of Utah, this legislation is vital in guaranteeing the preservation of one of our Nation's most intact and rate pre-Jurassic paleontological discoveries. I applaud Chairman Hansen for his leadership on this issue. In February 2000, Sheldon Johnson of St. George, UT began development preparations on his land when he uncovered one of the world's most significant collections of dinosaur tracks, traildraggings, and skin imprints in the surrounding rock. The site has attracted thousands of visitors and the interest of some of the world's top paleontologists. This valuable resource is now in jeopardy. The fragile sandstone in which the impressions have been made is in jeopardy due to the heat and wind typical of the southern Utah climate. We must act quickly if these footprints from our past are to be preserved. This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to purchase the land where the footprints and traildraggings are found and convey the property to the city of St. George, UT, which will work with the property owners and the county to preserve and protect the area and resources in question. I urge my colleagues to support this effort to protect our national treasure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to express my support for this bill. On balance, I believe it will greatly benefit our national defense and our country. Importantly, we have taken steps to increase pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform and reverse the neglect of our Armed Forces over the past decade. For this alone, the legislation is an important priority. Let me take a moment to highlight a few of the bill's other provisions that have special significance. First is the amendment I supported concerning the waiver authority for the 50/50 rule which governs outsourcing of maintenance depot work. The amendment moves waiver authority to the Secretary of Defense from the service secretaries. It also requires the Secretary to explain how he will meet the requirements if he requests a waiver. This is vitally important in order to maintain our depot infrastructure which is a crucial national asset. Also of great interest to our veterans is a provision in the bill that addresses the concurrent receipt problem. For too long, we have penalized our disabled military retirees by forcing them to give up their retirement in order to receive disability pay. Senator Reid's amendment fixes this by allowing our military retirees to receive both their retirement pay and their disability pay. The sacrifice of disabled veterans should not be diminished by this unfair penalty, and I am happy to have cosponsored Senator Reid's amendment which rectifies this inequity. I am also pleased that S. 1438 includes another provision which would address a gross inequity in the law. Currently, a retirement-eligible service member who dies in the line of duty is not considered vested in the military retirement program. The bill we are passing today will allow for the posthumous retirement of the member and thus provide additional benefits to the surviving spouse and children. The bill also includes an additional $5 million for consequence management training involving weapons of mass destruction. This will make use of the unique training capabilities that exist at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. I think we will all agree this is very timely given the terrorist threats our nation is facing. I am committed to ensuring adequate resources are available to train units, civil support teams and other teams and individuals in combating terrorism. To that end, I support the bill's provision to require the Secretary of Defense to report back on the capabilities of defense installations, such as Fort Leonard Wood and Dugway Proving Ground, to train first responders. Along with the positive aspects of the bill, there are still provisions with which I disagree. First and foremost of these is the authorization for a round of base closures in 2003. This is simply not the moment to spend inordinate amounts of time and federal tax dollars preparing for base closings. The Nation's military bases and the military establishment need to be focused on the war effort. I hope that this unwise language will be dropped by the conferees. Additionally, I oppose the provision concerning the Federal Prison Industries. Any change to Federal Prison Industries should be part of a comprehensive overhaul rather than piecemeal changes in an unrelated bill. The ability to put prisoners to work greatly contributes to their rehabilitation. Without a market for the goods, an important tool is eliminated. Again, I am hopeful this provision will be dropped in conference. I was very disappointed, that the bill did not include the Service Members Protection Act. By prohibiting the Government from cooperating in any way with the International Criminal Court, this legislation would protect our service members from unjust and arbitrary prosecutions for carrying out policies of the United States Government. I will continue to work with Senator Helms, the author of the legislation, to secure its passage. Before closing, I also want to discuss Senator Domenici's amendment to make spending for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund mandatory. I am heartened the amendment will be included in the bill we are about to pass. I strongly support this amendment and commend Senator Domenici on a job well done. Over the past months, Senator Domenici and I have worked together to make needed improvements to the RECA program. We have been joined in this effort by Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senators Bingaman, Reid, Campbell, Wellstone and Johnson. I feel safe in speaking for all of us when I express the shock and outrage we felt upon learning that the RECA trust fund was empty and that our constituents were receiving IOUs for the compensation they deserved. We vowed to our constituents that we would work day and night to ensure that funding for RECA would be guaranteed, and when this amendment is enacted, that promise will be fulfilled for the next decade. As my colleagues are aware, earlier this year, I introduced legislation, S. 898, which includes language similar to the Domenici amendment. This language would also make spending for RECA mandatory, so that the appropriators would automatically fund the program each year. It will guarantee that all eligible individuals would receive their compensation in a timely manner. Despite all of our efforts, despite the RECA claimants' good faith, and despite the hard work of Justice Department officials administering the program, the Trust Fund became depleted in March of 2000. This situation was simply unacceptable. RECA claimants began receiving ``IOU'' letters from the Federal Government in lieu of checks until we approved this year's supplemental appropriations bill, which covered the past IOUs and all claims approved as of September 30, 2001. However, many new claims will be approved in the coming years and, therefore, it is imperative that spending for this program become mandatory. And while these mandatory funds will provide a substantial amount of money to the RECA trust fund from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2011, it is important to know that this will not completely solve our constituents' concerns, we will still need more Federal money to provide compensation to all RECA victims. Let me assure these individuals, especially my fellow Utahns, that I will continue to fight this battle until all individuals are compensated by the Federal Government. On a whole, this is a very good bill crafted by very good lawmakers. It begins to provide the Defense Department with adequate resources after 10 years of erosion. However, this is only the first installment; there is yet much to be done. I hope to work with my colleagues in the days and months ahead to ensure that we strengthen our defense posture as quickly and as effectively as possible.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of families and S. Res. 160 that dedicates October 2001 as Family History Month. The concept of designating October as Family History Month began several years ago. According to the National Genealogical Society, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia all passed ``proclamations'' in the last few years declaring October as Family History Month. Within the last month some 14,167,329 people researched their family history and 24 million people have used the Web and email to locate family or friends with whom they had lost touch. Researching ancestry is a very important component to self identity. It can lead to long- sought-after family reunions or allow for life saving medical treatments that only genetic links will allow. At present there are some 2,500 genealogical societies in the United States that represent approximately one million people. Genealogy is currently the 2nd largest hobby in the country and is very unique in that it crosses over all religions, ethnic backgrounds, and age groups. Essentially, we are all immigrants to this country. Our ancestors came from different parts of the globe and by searching for our roots, we come closer together as a human family. Researching family history has now moved into the digital age with the advent of the Internet. There has been an explosion of interest in family history online in fact genealogy internet sites are some of the most popular sites on the World Wide Web. My church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has family history information on nearly 500 million individuals on its family history Web site (www.familysearch.com). I thank the 84 members who cosponsored this important resolution and urge all my colleagues to join with me in drawing attention to our human heritage by voting for this resolution.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to urge support of the free trade agreement between the United States and Jordan. As ranking Republican member of the Trade Subcommittee of the Finance Committee, I am pleased that the Jordanian Free Trade Agreement was approved by the full committee and now is receiving floor consideration. While some would say that this agreement amounts to nothing more than a garden variety trade agreement, they would be wrong. From a strict U.S. economic perspective, it is not a major agreement. However, as King Abdullah has made clear, from the standpoint of the Jordanians, it is an important precedent for his country and for other nations in the region. This was true before the tragic events of September, and may be more true today as our country wages a campaign to reach out to moderate Arab states. Bilateral free trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries help establish a mutual understanding of the norms and expectations of trade. I think when foreign business interests enter into trading partnerships with American firms under a free trade agreement, both parties can benefit economically, and the U.S. and our trading partner will almost inevitably grow closer together due to this type of joint enterprise. I must commend Chairman Baucus and Ranking Republican Member Grassley for their work on this agreement. Anyone who has followed the debate on this agreement knows that progress was slowed by a vigorous discussion of how the ambiguous language pertaining to labor and the environment in the Jordanian agreement might, or might not, serve as a precedent in any trade promotion authority legislation adopted by Congress. It is clear that the biggest stumbling block to passage of TPA legislation is how labor and the environment are handled. As a proponent of free trade, I have serious reservations about any move that would make labor and environmental concerns central concerns of trade negotiations. While I know that there may be some in the Senate who would like, for proper but misguided motivations, to attempt to raise the standard of living in the developing world through the implementation of non-trade aspects in trade legislation. But we must not confuse trade negotiations with social engineering. Our chief goal in trade negotiations must focus on benefitting American consumers and American workers. We must remember that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If we try to impose our views on labor and environment on our trading partners, we should not be surprised if one day these trading partners complain that our food safety laws are insufficient, our air pollution levels too high, and our minimum wage too low. Even prior to the terrorist attacks two weeks ago, the economy was losing steam. It seems to me and I am sure to many other members of the Senate, that one good way to help revive and stimulate our economy is to pass trade promotion authority legislation. Fast track can help put our country back on the right path to economic recovery and growth. While it is my hope that we can work on a bi-partisan basis to pass TPA legislation before we adjourn for the year, the Jordanian agreement is not the vehicle to resolve all these issues. Today, we can accomplish a significant achievement by adopting the Jordanian agreement. On balance, this is a good agreement with a good partner, Jordan. It is not a model for how labor and environmental concerns should be addressed in trade promotion authority legislation. It is a statement to those in the MidEast and around the world that the United States is a good partner. King Abdullah and other world leaders need to know that partnering with the United States can result in tangible benefits to their citizens. I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. I must tell you that I have thought long and hard on the subject of base closings. The arguments for and against initiating another process which might lead to additional base closings have weighed heavily on my mind. I have the deepest respect for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and I know how hard he is working to find efficiencies and economies within the Department of Defense. I know he believes that a new base closing initiative is an important tool in his efforts to fix our defense infrastructure problems. However, I strongly believe that the events of September 11th changed this Nation's priorities. Now is not the time to engage in any type of activity that distracts from our national defense priorities. This is a pivotal time in our history. All our efforts and resources must be focused on fighting terrorism at home and abroad. At this time, I do not think that the time and money spent preparing for base closings will contribute to this effort. Military bases and the military establishment need to be focused on the war effort. Our military leaders and base commanders throughout the country do not need to be worrying about justifying their installations' existence. The communities around the bases do not need to be worrying about their future economic well-being. At a time when we, as a Nation, face an uncertain future, we need not take on a process that is rife with uncertainty and turmoil and which distracts from our national goals. Additionally, we do not yet know what force structure will be required to accomplish all the missions associated with this new 21st century warfare. I believe it will take some time to determine what our military should look like. Why would we start a base closure process when we have no idea what shape or size our forces will take? Equally important, we do not know which bases will be key to our efforts in building an effective homeland security network. There is great debate about how much base closings cost and how much base closings save. In a time of economic uncertainty, I do not believe it is wise to spend millions of dollars on a base closure process. I am not willing to sacrifice the readiness of our armed forces for theoretical savings.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I am grateful for this opportunity to recognize and pay tribute to Sherry Adkins, who has worked in my Salt Lake City office for 25 years as a Constituent Services Representative. Sherry is retiring after many years of hard work to fulfill her dream of moving to Alaska with her husband Bruce to spend time with her grandchildren. Sherry's life has epitomized true public service. She literally touched thousands of Utahans' lives by assisting me in helping constituents with problems ranging from Social Security issues to Veterans Administration benefits. Over the years, I have received hundreds of letters from constituents who have praised Sherry's work and expressed their gratitude to me for her assistance. Sherry has been described as ``a valuable resource,'' ``efficient,'' ``courteous,'' ``concerned for others' welfare,'' and ``trustworthy.'' Many people have been able finally to receive their Medicare benefits, resolve their tax problems, or find their missing Social Security checks, because of her commitment and concern. Sherry's life has been an example of service. She has always championed the underdog and looked for ways to help others in need. She spent many years volunteering at the Salt Lake City Odyssey House, an organization designed to help men and women overcome the tragic disease of alcoholism. In fact, she even directed the Odyssey House Choir, giving members new hope and experiences, as well as entertaining thousands of people through their music. I have always known that I could count on Sherry to get her job done, and to do it well. In fact, Sherry's work with me didn't start when I was a elected to the U.S. Senate. Sherry and I go back even further. I was privileged to have Sherry as my personal secretary for a few years while I practiced law in Utah. So, Sherry has been my longest serving staffer, and I will miss her greatly. It has always been a pleasure to work with Sherry Adkins. I am so grateful to Sherry for her efforts and the service that she has rendered to me, my office, and to all Utahans. I feel blessed to be able to call her a friend. I want to wish Sherry and her husband Bruce the very best that life has to offer in the beautiful land of Alaska. May they find peace and happiness in their retirement years doing the things that they love the most.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to speak about S. 1450, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. Let me first say that I support the intention of this bill. I want to ensure that the victims of this heinous crime receive just compensation while at the same time we provide much needed stabilization to the airline industry. That balance is a very difficult thing to achieve. I have very strong reservations about whether we accomplished that task in a fair or feasible manner here today. It is with mixed emotions that I support this bill. I hope that there is an opportunity to address these concerns down the road and to improve on what we have done here. This bill does do some good. We provide a generous administrative remedy for all victims who were physically injured or killed as a result of this attack. This will help ensure that injured people receive money and receive it faster than they otherwise would if left to pursue claims through litigation. It also provides that the Federal Government can recoup, to the extent possible, any money from the responsible parties, including the terrorists whose assets we may be able to recover in the future. We also provide the airlines with some much needed cash to cover the losses they incurred as a result of the Federal Aviation Administration's ordered shutdown of air traffic for nearly a week. However, we have not included a provision that I wanted to guarantee that once the airlines receive this cash infusion and government loan guarantees, they would not discharge their federally guaranteed debt in bankruptcy. The limitation on liability included in this bill has some productive aspects. We limit the liability of the airlines to the extent of their insurance coverage in order to allow them to keep operating. In my home state of Utah, Delta Airlines employs over 4,700 people. I don't want to see a company that employs so many people in my State go out of business. Air service is essential. However, we also must protect the liability of other defendants in potential litigation. If we do not, then we very likely will place other defendants in a worse position than if we do nothing at all. For instance, under the legal principle of joint and several liability, even if a nonairline defendant is only 10 percent liable and the airline is determined to be 90 percent liable, the nonairline defendant may be required to pay more than its share of liability because the airline's policy limits have been exceeded in the judgment. This could be an unfair outcome and is a serious concern. Do we really accomplish our goal of keeping air transportation operating if we sacrifice the other entities that contribute to a well-functioning airline industry? I am talking about the airline contractors and subcontractors as well as the companies that built the planes, the port authorities, and even those that built the World Trade Center itself. For those who seek to pursue the litigation route, I am pleased that we consolidated the causes of action in one Federal court so that there will be some consistency in the judgments awarded. However, because the pool of funds available to potential plaintiffs will be limited, we need to eliminate, or at least limit, the punitive damages that can be awarded. I do not want to deny any legitimate plaintiff just compensation. He or she should receive both economic and reasonable noneconomic damages which would include everything from lost earnings to emotional distress. However, If we do not limit outrageous jury awards of punitive damages, we run the risk of denying some plaintiffs their rightful share in an award. If one plaintiff's punitive damage award is excessive, it could very well deplete the amount of funds available to pay awards, leaving other plaintiffs out in the cold. Don't we want to ensure that all legitimate plaintiffs receive compensation? This was indeed a horrible attack on our country and I have confidence that the President will make sure that the terrorists are brought to justice. With this bill the Government attempts to provide some relief to the victims of this attack. Unfortunately, the Government cannot do everything. What pleases me most in the aftermath of this tragedy is the extent to which the communities across the country have reached out to help their neighbors. We have all heard of those heroic firemen and police officers who gave their lives trying to save the lives of others. Also, those noble passengers who sacrificed themselves rather than let the terrorist inflict even greater damage on the ground. There are many wonderful charitable organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army who responded immediately to assist victims of the terrorist attack. Donations have been pouring in from across the country to assist the victims. It warms my heart and reminds me of the Thousand Points of Light that President Bush's father often referenced regarding the generous nature of our communities. Because of all of this, I am confident our country will come out of this tragedy stronger.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Eluid Pete Suazo, a distinguished Utah State Senator whose untimely death in August has had a tremendous impact--not only on his family and close friends, but also on the entire state of Utah. At the time of his death, Senator Suazo represented Salt Lake City's multi-cultural west side, and he also served as the Assistant minority whip. Pete was heralded for his unfailing determination and advocacy for his constituents. Indeed, his integrity and absolute dedication won Senator Suazo respect from his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. As the only Hispanic member of the Utah Legislature, Pete felt a strong sense of responsibility to honor and help Utah's growing Hispanic and minority populations. He was a top leader of the Hispanic community, who was also able to cross Utah's ethnic and political lines to effect policies benefitting the entire community. I remember how Pete's wife, Alicia, fondly recalled the day her husband decided to run for office. He passionately stated, ``The Chicano boy is going to be a senator, not in New Mexico, but in Utah where the work is going to be doubly hard and the victory glorious.'' This optimism showed in Pete's face, for he was always smiling. Pete fought for the underdog and the less privileged. For those who sought his advice and assistance, he always had a helping hand and a listening ear. He worked tirelessly to improve the lives of the youth in his neighborhood. He organized graffiti removal teams, baseball and soccer leagues, summer work programs, and provided so many other opportunities to strengthen the characters of countless young men and women. Over the past few years, Pete helped reinvigorate amateur boxing in Utah and participated as a referee to ensure safety in the sport. The Senator undertook these and many other volunteer efforts to help the less fortunate, always giving hope to those who needed it so much. Senator Suazo's work ethic was extraordinary and was developed at a very young age. He took great pride in whatever he was doing--from selling popcorn at a charity carnival in his youth to serving as a leading state senator. Throughout his life, he used his tremendous energy and his capacity for hard work to champion the causes in which he so fervently believed. While serving in the Utah legislature, Senator Suazo was not afraid of the tough battles. In recent years, his work to adopt a more pro- active and stronger hate crimes law defined Pete Suazo's leadership and determination. He never gave up, and through his efforts this issue rose to the forefront of the legislature's attention. Mr. President, Utah has lost a true hero. Senator Pete Suazo was a man with great integrity, strong personal conviction, and a humble heart. His life was an example of dedicated public service and utmost love for his community and fellow man. I hope my colleagues will join me in sending our heartfelt thoughts and prayers to the Suazo family-- his wife, Alicia, and their children Travis, Abel, Emilio and Julio, his parents Pat and Lily, his siblings Kathy, Becky, Georgia, Anna, Ellie and Andy--and also to the many, many friends and neighbors of Pete who will deeply miss him. My hope is that future generations of Utahns will have the desire to follow in this good man's footsteps, and continue his legacy of work for the people of Utah. In so many instances Pete did not only dream the impossible dream, he strove for and attained it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am not sure we know the exact amount, but what justification is there for these heroic law enforcement people who are doing the people's business to have to pay for their own liability insurance in case they get sued by a voracious trial lawyer who would-- --

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. It adds terrorism to Title III. In addition, it upgrades wiretap laws to include computer terrorism, cyberterrorism, even right down to illegal hacking.

Mr. HATCH. Because those offenses are not currently covered in Title III, and we need to correct that defect or we cannot resolve these problems with regard to terrorism.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct, but keep in mind, our current laws are antiquated laws based upon telephones, where now we are in the area of cyberterrorism, and we must upgrade the laws to take care of that.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to sit down soon because I know we are ready to vote soon. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee suggested that a prosecutor could get a wiretap for anything they wanted under our amendment. With all due respect, under Title III, a prosecutor must still go to a judge, just as he or she would when investigating wire fraud or interstate transport of stolen property. If this amendment is passed, the only change would be that a prosecutor could get wiretapping authority with respect to a terrorism or cyberterrorism offense. Is terrorism or cyberterrorism as important as that? Will a judge apply a different standard in issuing authority for those wiretaps? You and I know a Federal judge will not do that. I think the answer is obvious. Why should we dither when we know that these tools will help? The FBI are the Justice Department strongly support for these important reforms. Let us adopt them now, and fight these problems now. We are not altering the Constitution or taking away the people's rights. We are helping to give the tools to our law enforcement community to stop terrorism. We are helping law enforcement help us to be safe and to investigate the crimes like those committed this week. There is a lot more I could say. I understand we are ready to vote. I wanted to set the record clear.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? I ask unanimous consent that Senator Helms be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. HATCH. It takes care of those criminal activities, mail fraud, wire fraud, and the interstate transportation of stolen property, however the Federal terrorism statutes are not currently included in Title III. As a result, Federal investigators are often hampered in the use of this powerful tool when investigating terrorist incidents. We have to remedy that, and we should not let a day go by without remedying it. We should not let some of the petty aspects of this body stand in the way, not passing this type of legislation right now when it is really needed, on the day that, for the first time in my 25 years, a vote was interrupted by a bomb threat and we all had to move outside. It is time to start fixing these laws. We can play around with commissions. We can play around with task forces. We can do a lot of other things, but I would like to fix it now. At this juncture of our history it is essential that we give our law enforcement authorities every possible tool to search out and bring to justice those individuals who have brought such indiscriminate death into our backyard. However, we must also be careful that in our quest for vengeance we do not trample those very liberties which separate us as a society from those who want to destroy us. We are fortunate that we already have in Title III a legislative scheme that balances these conflicting interests. We must not be hesitant to bring this very important tool--the wiretapping statute--to bear on the terrorists who threaten our national security. That is one of the things this amendment will do, and in my opinion one of the most important things that this amendment will do. But it is not all this amendment will do. Second, cybercrime is one of the fastest growing areas of criminal activities. Terrorists, criminals, and hostile governments are using computers as tools to perpetrate crimes, and are targeting computer networks to perpetrate acts of terror that, until this week, would have been unimaginable on American soil. Millions of dollars are lost annually as a direct result of this criminal behavior, and it is no longer a fantasy that thousands of lives could be lost in future terrorist incidents. The FBI is devoting an increasing share of its resources to combat cybercrime. It is up to us as lawmakers to ensure that, in additional to adequate resources, the FBI has the proper tools at its disposal to meet this new challenge. Title III allows the Department of Justice to go to a Federal judge and get authority to intercept oral or electronic conversations in connection with the investigation of criminal activity. The law lists a number of crimes deemed by Congress as serious enough to warrant allowing the FBI to intercept communications. Because cybercrime is a relatively recent development, the Federal cybercrime statute is not currently included in Title III. As a result, Federal investigators could not use this powerful tool when investigating cybercrime offenses. Tuesday's despicable attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon must serve as a wake-up call that we are vulnerable to attack in ways we have never imagined. A computer-based attack on our criminal justice infrastructure remains a very real possibility. I urge all my colleagues to agree to this amendment to provide our law enforcement authorities with the tools they need to effectively combat this growing menace to the security of our society. There are other important tools this amendment will provide, tools that those investigating the terrorist acts committed earlier this week will be able to use to prevent terrorist acts in the future. We put up with an awful lot of mistaken arguments around here throughout all these years that made it very difficult to put human intelligence to work in the interests of the protection of our people, and it is inexcusable, under these circumstances, to allow that to continue. As you know, in some cases, when dealing with human intelligence assets, sometimes you have to deal with unsavory characters because they are the only ones who can get inside and help us know the motivations of some of the people who are about to do terrorist acts. It is pretty pathetic that we cannot get our law enforcement people the ability to get wiretap authority against terrorists because they are not included in title III, unless there is some underlying criminal reason for doing so. We have to stop that. If we wait any longer, it seems to me, it is a big, big mistake, with the way people are afraid in this country, with what happened this week, and with the threats that continue to surround us throughout the world. I have a lot more to say on this, but I think, if I can, I would like to yield the floor to my colleague from Arizona, if he cares to take the floor, and he can talk about further aspects of this bill.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of talk here. But we are talking about giving the tools to law enforcement that it needs to stop further terrorist acts in our society. You want the authority? I will tell you what the authority is right now. We don't need a lot of facts and statistics. This publication I hold in my hand is ``Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism,'' the report of the National Commission on Terrorism. By the way, every one of these principles in this amendment, the Justice Department wants, and wants badly, so that they can do their job to protect American citizens. This National Commission on Terrorism says, just to go back to the original point: By recent statute, a Federal agency must reimburse up to one-half of the cost of personal liability insurance to law enforcement officers and managers or supervisors. Here is their recommendation, and it is not a bunch of obfuscation; it is pretty darn straight: Recommendation: Congress should amend the statute to mandate full reimbursement of the cost of personal liability insurance for Federal Bureau of Investigation special agents and Central Intelligence Agency officers in the field who are combating terrorism. As I understand it, CIA officers do have this. So it is not something that hasn't been considered or discussed by the top echelons of people who are knowledgeable about terrorism. To get back to the provisions that we are considering, a lot of people in this country don't realize that you cannot tap the lines of the terrorists without some predicate reason for doing so. They are not in Title III of our code. This corrects that. It doesn't give law enforcement agents carte blanche to go out and do wiretaps. You still have to go to a judge. You still have to get the requisite authority. You have to present persuasive evidence to a judge to obtain wire- tapping authority. But this is a tool that absolutely has to be had now, not a month or two from now. Let me go just a little bit further. This statute does not change the standard for trap and trace. It only adds emergency authority for the U.S. attorney. All trap and trace applications are approved by a Federal judge. You have to make your case before a federal judge. It isn't some wild-eyed breach of personal privacy. It gives us some tools to go get the terrorists. Local sheriffs cannot apply for trap and trace under these new provisions. Only U.S. attorneys can. I get a little tired of that type of talk. I have heard the suggestion that anybody can go in, and anytime some local sheriff wants to, he can tap a computer. That is unmitigated bull. Let's talk about the computer situation. Currently, a judge's order applies only in the jurisdiction where it is issued. Typically, hackers go from computer to computer, leaving a trail that law enforcement has to follow. Investigators must go from jurisdiction to jurisdiction obtaining a trap and trace in every jurisdiction in order to follow a hacker's trail. Let's put it terms of a terrorist who happens to go in all 50 States. That means that, in order to investigate, law enforcement has to go in every State in the Union to a Federal judge and get authority to do what ought to be done overnight in front of a single federal judge. Under the amendment we are proposing, it can be done overnight by going to a single federal judge. These are the kinds of things that bother me. This is what this amendment will do.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct.

Mr. HATCH. Right.