Floor Statements

Mr. President, yesterday, President Bush fulfilled his constitutional duty and nominated John Roberts to fill the vacancy left by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States. The spotlight is now on the Senate of the United States of America. The President has done his duty, and now we need to do ours.

Let me first pay tribute to Justice O'Connor who has been a real trailblazer in her own right. The first woman on the Supreme Court, a thoughtful and dedicated jurist, she has ably served on the highest Court for the past nearly 24 years. Her announced retirement creates the first vacancy in nearly 11 years. This has been the longest period with the same set of Justices in more than 175 years.

Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says that the President alone nominates, but he appoints only with the advice and consent of the Senate. One of the best shorthand ways of understanding the Senate's role is that by deciding whether to consent to the nomination, we give the President advice about whether to appoint the person he has nominated. Traditionally, we have done so by means of an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

I commend the President and his team of senior advisers for broadly soliciting the views of Senators and other interested parties. The President and his staff spoke with more than two-thirds of the Members of this body, over 70 Senators, an absolutely unprecedented level of interaction.

For some, though, it appears that even extensive consultation with all 100 Senators would not be enough if they did not like the President's nominee. On the other hand, if they did like the nominee, I suppose they would declare a 5-minute chat with a Senate staffer to have been a consultative triumph.

No President need consult at all with any Senator or with anyone else for that matter. The President does so because, in his judgment, it will help him fulfill his constitutional responsibility. President Bush has done that and has nominated John Roberts to be the 109th individual to serve on the Supreme Court in American history. The ball is now in our court.

Judge Roberts has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ever since we confirmed him on May 8, 2003, without even a rollcall vote, I might add, one of the few people who have ever been confirmed by unanimous consent on the floor of the Senate.

Judge Roberts was so easily confirmed because he is so eminently qualified. He graduated summa cum laude from Harvard Law School and served as managing editor of the Harvard Law Review--no small achievement. In other words, No. 1 in his class. He clerked for Judge Henry Friendly, one of the alltime great judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and then for Chief Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court, one of the alltime great Justices on the Supreme Court.

Judge Roberts served as Special Assistant to the Attorney General, Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush. And before his judicial appointment, he was head of the appellate practice group at the distinguished law firm, internationally recognized, of Hogan & Hartson.

He has been widely acknowledged as one of the most accomplished appellate attorneys in America, having argued nearly 40 cases before the Supreme Court on a wide range of issues from antitrust and the first amendment to Indian law, bankruptcy, and labor law.

Not surprisingly, the American Bar Association unanimously gave Judge Roberts its highest well-qualified rating for his appeals court appointment. This has been the Democrats' gold standard for evaluating judicial nominees, and he has met every aspect of that standard.

The question now is how we should evaluate Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court and what standards we should apply. There is more confusion about that than there should be. Yet I believe, like so many other endeavors, ending in the right place requires starting in the right place.

An effective process for hiring or selecting someone to fill a position, any position, must start with an accurate description of that position. I am reminded of a 1998 article by Judge Harry Edwards appointed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I was in this body at the time. He was that court's chief judge from 1994 to 2001 and a colleague of Judge Roberts. Judge Edwards warned that giving the public a distorted view of what judges do is bad for both the judiciary and the rule of law.

The debate about judicial selection is a debate about what judges do, about their proper place in our system of representative government. Getting the judicial job description right is necessary for a legitimate and effective selection process. It defines the qualifications for the job. It identifies the criteria we should apply. It guides the questions that may properly be asked and answered and the conclusions that should be reached.

Judges take law that they did not make and cannot change, determine what it means, and apply it to the facts of a legal dispute. That is what judges do. That judicial job description applies across the board. It does not depend on the parties or the issues before the court. It does not depend on the law that is involved in a particular case. And it certainly does not depend on which side wins or should win.

I believe we must help our fellow citizens better understand what judges do so they can better evaluate what we will be doing in the weeks ahead as we consider this nomination now before us.

Without in any way trivializing the work of judges, I want to use a practical example because I believe it can be simple without being simplistic.

Judges are like umpires or referees. They are neutral officials who take rules they did not make and cannot change and apply those rules to a contest between two parties or multiple parties.

How would we evaluate the performance of an umpire or referee? Would we say he or she did a good job as long as our favorite team won the game? If we were hiring an umpire or referee, would we grill him or her about which side he or she were likely to favor in the upcoming matches? Of course not.

Desirable results neither justify an umpire or referee twisting the rules during the game nor are automatic proof that the umpire or referee is fair and impartial. Umpires and referees must be fair and impartial from beginning to end during the contest before them. They do not pick the winner before the game starts, nor do they manipulate the process along the way to produce the winner they want.

In the same way, we must not evaluate judges solely by whether we like their decisions or whether their decisions favor a particular political agenda. The political ends do not justify the judicial means.

This is a very important point, something we must keep in clear focus throughout the weeks ahead. That is why I wanted to raise it now at the beginning of the confirmation process.

One thing that is becoming increasingly clear is not everyone who says

judges must interpret but not make the law means the same thing. Some who use that language still determine whether that standard is met the same old way by whether a judge's decisions meet a litmus test.

Once again, an umpire or referee is not there to pick the winner. He or she is there to fairly and impartially apply the rules.

Similarly, judges are not there to pick the winner. They are there to fairly and impartially apply the law.

I emphasize this because it is at the heart of this entire debate over judicial selection, and I will be returning to it throughout this process.

We may like or dislike a judge's decision, but that is not the point. His or her decisions may be consistent with certain political interests, but that is not the point. That is not what judges do. It is not their role in our system of representative government.

Rather, if the people do not like what the faithful and impartial application of the law produces, then they and their elected representatives can change the law.

That is our rule in our system of representative Government. Expecting judges to do our job--our legislative job--undermines the judicial branch and demeans the legislative branch. Simply put, judges must be evaluated not by the results they reach but by the process they follow to reach those results. That is what judges do.

Mark my words, we will hear in the days and weeks ahead this group or that Senator demanding to know whether the nominee now before us would produce the results they want or that they like. They want to know whether the nominee will rule this way on this issue and that way on this other issue. Some may try to cloak their mission, perhaps using terms their focus groups say will go down more smoothly with the public. But we all know what is going on. They want to know which side the umpire or referee will favor. They want to know that their team will have an upper hand even before that team takes the field.

In recent days, we have heard speeches by Senators and seen letters by interest groups and law professors with lists of questions to ask this nominee. Most of those questions are geared in one way or another to finding out how this nominee would likely rule; that is, the results this nominee would likely deliver on certain issues.

Past nominees, including virtually every current member of the Supreme Court, have resisted such intrusive attempts to extract either commitments or previews of future rulings. In that way, judicial nominees sometimes appear to have a deeper commitment to judicial independence than some Senators.

I expect Judge Roberts will take a judicious approach to answering questions, mindful of both the judicial position he already occupies and the one to which he has been nominated.

Last night, the head of one of the leftwing groups primed to attack Judge Roberts was on one of the cable talk shows as the news about the nomination circulated. It took him about 15 seconds to say the words, ``serious problems,'' regarding this superbly qualified nominee.

Within minutes of the President's announcement last night, other groups had already proclaimed the nominee an unacceptable extremist.

That kind of knee-jerk, results-oriented standard is wrong, whether such calls come from the left or the right.

As Judge Edwards reminded us, misrepresenting what judges do harms both the judiciary and the rule of law.

Judges take law they did not make and cannot change, determine what that law means, and apply it to settle legal disputes. That is what judges do.

In the days and weeks ahead, let us keep that job description in mind and set about determining whether the nominee now before us can do that job.

Judge Roberts twice came before the Judiciary Committee. As a matter of fact, he had to wait 14 years to finally be confirmed by the Senate. He was nominated by George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush 1, and then renominated by Bush 2, George W. Bush. But I remember him when he came before the committee. We had two hearings for him. I remember him as an intelligent, fair-minded, and thoughtful person, and so does everybody else who knows him.

While I, of course, must withhold final judgment on Judge Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court until after the confirmation hearing, my initial reaction is President Bush appears to have submitted to the Senate a well-qualified nominee with the kind of intellect, integrity, and independence that is required for a Supreme Court Justice.

We must apply the right standard as we evaluate this nominee.

Having said all of that, I understand Senators are saying they can ask any question they want, and I have said Senators on the Judiciary Committee can ask any question they want, no matter how stupid the question may be. And we have all asked stupid questions from time to time, I am sure. At least most of us have. But the judge does not have to answer those questions. In fact, under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, judges should not be opining or answering questions about issues that may possibly come before them in the future.

I would like this body to remember some past nominations, and I will cite with particularity the nomination of Antonin Scalia to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. I remember time after time Senators asking him questions about how he might rule in the future on various issues, including Roe v. Wade. He refused to answer those questions because he thought those issues might come before him as a Justice on the Supreme Court and, frankly, wanted to abide by the Canons of Judicial Ethics. He was not overly pressured. The Judiciary Committee treated him with respect. He passed through the Senate 100 to zip and, of course, has become one of the leading conservative jurists in the history of the Court. But he did not have to answer questions that asked for specific conclusions in areas that likely would come before the Court, and that is almost anything. In this day and age, there is so much litigation almost anything could come before the Court.

The second illustration is the Ruth Bader Ginsburg illustration. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when she came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, refused to answer questions with regard to matters that might come before her if she would be confirmed as a Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Our side did not overly press her to answer those questions. We did not scream and shout about, She has to answer my questions or I am not going to vote for her. We did not make demands on her that were inappropriate. We did not have outside groups giving us questions to ask that are outrageous and formed for the purpose of trying to scuttle the nomination. She took that position, and we honored her in taking that position.

If I recall it correctly, she passed through the Senate I believe 96 to 3. We knew that she was a social liberal. We conservatives who are pro-life knew she was pro-abortion. We knew that she differed with our side on many issues. We also knew that she was qualified, and we knew she deserved a vote up or down out of respect for the position, out of respect for the U.S. Supreme Court, and out of respect for her. She received her vote up or down, and there was not a lot of screaming and shouting about it, nor were there threats made, nor were there threats that we might someday filibuster her if she did not agree with the results we wanted her to rule on in advance.

That is what is going on, and it has been going on ever since the Rehnquist nomination for Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has only gone on on one side, and that is the Democrat side, in a series of very embarrassing Supreme Court nomination proceedings, starting with Justice Rehnquist. Why, some even violated the law and put out some of his medical records that were highly confidential.

When Bob Bork came up, it was unmitigated the way they treated him. Even Justice Souter was mistreated because they thought he might possibly be pro-life. Justice Kennedy was not as mistreated as the others, but they were very concerned because they thought he might be pro-life. In fact, even Justice O'Connor when she came to the floor had her critics on both sides because they were afraid she might be one way or the other on Roe v. Wade. The fact is, we now know where Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter are on these issues, but we

did not know at the time, nor do we know where to-be Justice Roberts is on these issues as well. Nobody has asked him those questions and nobody should because those questions are all hot-button issues that may come before the Supreme Court.

If there has ever been anybody qualified to go on the Supreme Court, one would have to say John Roberts meets every requisite standard to be confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court. This is a brilliant man. This is an honest man with a sense of humor. This is a leading appellate advocate. He has held responsible positions in Government. He has risen to the top of the legal profession. He has the highest recommendation of the American Bar Association for the circuit court of appeals seat. He is one of the great legal thinkers of America. How he will rule on various issues I, frankly, do not know. I believe him to be conservative. The President said he would appoint only conservatives, which is his right. That is what one gets when they vote for President.

If I have ever seen anybody who deserves being on the Court more than John Roberts, I have to think pretty hard. John Roberts is a fine man. I hope he will be treated with great respect and deference, and I hope these very partisan, very nasty groups from the left and maybe even the right pack up their tents and go home because they do not belong in this process the way they are acting, though in a free country they can act that way, and I would fight for their right to do so. We should not be influenced by that type of inappropriate, prejudgmental approach to Supreme Court nominees.

I believe John Roberts will become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, I hope expeditiously, certainly before the first Monday in October so that the Court can have a full complement. I believe the Senate will overwhelmingly support him, and I hope that is the case. If it is not, then we are going to have to reexamine the way things go around here.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Dr. Lester Crawford for the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering Dr. Crawford's nomination and urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

I want to stress that tonight's vote is extremely important--not only for the FDA--but for all Americans.

FDA needs a permanent Commissioner--in fact, the agency has not had a Commissioner since May 2004.

The FDA needs someone to lead on important matters where the agency has oversight--such as drug safety, food safety, approval for drugs and medical devices, and counteracting biological attacks.

Dr. Crawford is that man.

Since Dr. Crawford has been the Acting Commissioner of the FDA, he has had many accomplishments of considerable note.

Under his leadership, the FDA has undergone the most significant consolidation of FDA expertise in history with the physical facility moves to the Harvey Wiley building--the FDA's Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition near University of Maryland--and the White Oak campus.

As a result of Dr. Crawford's personal intervention and involvement, the most at-risk Americans were able to receive a safe and effective flu vaccine last year during the shortage crisis.

Dr. Crawford steered the FDA through one of the most difficult times in its history with the various drug safety issues of last year resulting in the creation of a new Drug Safety Oversight Board and Drug Watch internet page for consumers. This is a landmark milestone in drug safety and a paradigm shift for the FDA to one of openness and transparency.

Dr. Crawford has led the FDA on a series of important decisions that have transformed the regulation of food in the United States.

Under his leadership, the FDA fully implemented the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 a law that helps make our food supply safe on a daily basis. We have much more work to do and I am pleased to say you are helping to lead in that regard, Mr. President, and I am very appreciative of that.

Dr. Crawford implemented a risk management plan for the shell eggs industry that reduces dramatically the probability of salmonella.

Dr. Crawford is personally responsible for the complete overhaul and reform of good manufacturing practices for drugs, foods, and dietary supplements. When all of these major regulations are fully implemented, Dr. Crawford will be successful in creating the best quality control system in the world for regulating these consumer products.

Most recently, he assured me that the agency's final action on dietary supplement GMPs will be forthcoming in the near future. I welcomed his decision and the finality he has promised to this long overdue process.

Dr. Crawford has overseen user fee programs for both medical devices and veterinary drugs.

Dr. Crawford has led the agency in the development of the ``critical path'' that promotes a plan for bringing novel discoveries to market through the FDA system to fight such diseases as cancer.

I am convinced that Dr. Crawford is the best person for the job and the sooner we get him confirmed, the better.

On a personal note, I have known Dr. Crawford for many years.

He is a man of integrity.

He is a strong leader.

He is accessible.

He is someone who understands both science and public policy.

I believe that Dr. Crawford has all the qualities necessary to be the best Commissioner the FDA has ever had.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Dr. Crawford today, a vote so long overdue.

I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished chairman.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

Isn't it true we passed the FDA revitalization bill back in 1989 to create this central campus where we could have the best state-of-the-art equipment? We had 48 different locations where FDA was located all over the greater Washington area; is that true?

We have treated the FDA like a wicked stepsister instead of giving it the money it needs. It handles more than 25 percent of all consumer products in America, right?

No matter who is FDA Commissioner, under those circumstances it is very difficult to get a handle on everything that needs to be addressed by the FDA.

Will the Senator yield also for just a moment? We introduced the bioshield II, the Lieberman-Hatch bill that has gone a long way to resolving this matter, and I intend to work with the Senator from North Carolina and the distinguished chairman and ranking member to see if we can bring this to a conclusion that works.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of Dr. Lester Crawford for the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

I am pleased that the Senate is finally considering Dr. Crawford's nomination and urge my colleagues to support his nomination.

I want to stress that tonight's vote is extremely important--not only for the FDA--but for all Americans.

FDA needs a permanent Commissioner--in fact, the agency has not had a Commissioner since May 2004.

The FDA needs someone to lead on important matters where the agency has oversight--such as drug safety, food safety, approval for drugs and medical devices, and counteracting biological attacks.

Dr. Crawford is that man.

Since Dr. Crawford has been the Acting Commissioner of the FDA, he has had many accomplishments of considerable note.

Under his leadership, the FDA has undergone the most significant consolidation of FDA expertise in history with the physical facility moves to the Harvey Wiley building--the FDA's Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition near University of Maryland--and the White Oak campus.

As a result of Dr. Crawford's personal intervention and involvement, the most at-risk Americans were able to receive a safe and effective flu vaccine last year during the shortage crisis.

Dr. Crawford steered the FDA through one of the most difficult times in its history with the various drug safety issues of last year resulting in the creation of a new Drug Safety Oversight Board and Drug Watch internet page for consumers. This is a landmark milestone in drug safety and a paradigm shift for the FDA to one of openness and transparency.

Dr. Crawford has led the FDA on a series of important decisions that have transformed the regulation of food in the United States.

Under his leadership, the FDA fully implemented the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 a law that helps make our food supply safe on a daily basis. We have much more work to do and I am pleased to say you are helping to lead in that regard, Mr. President, and I am very appreciative of that.

Dr. Crawford implemented a risk management plan for the shell eggs industry that reduces dramatically the probability of salmonella.

Dr. Crawford is personally responsible for the complete overhaul and reform of good manufacturing practices for drugs, foods, and dietary supplements. When all of these major regulations are fully implemented, Dr. Crawford will be successful in creating the best quality control system in the world for regulating these consumer products.

Most recently, he assured me that the agency's final action on dietary supplement GMPs will be forthcoming in the near future. I welcomed his decision and the finality he has promised to this long overdue process.

Dr. Crawford has overseen user fee programs for both medical devices and veterinary drugs.

Dr. Crawford has led the agency in the development of the ``critical path'' that promotes a plan for bringing novel discoveries to market through the FDA system to fight such diseases as cancer.

I am convinced that Dr. Crawford is the best person for the job and the sooner we get him confirmed, the better.

On a personal note, I have known Dr. Crawford for many years.

He is a man of integrity.

He is a strong leader.

He is accessible.

He is someone who understands both science and public policy.

I believe that Dr. Crawford has all the qualities necessary to be the best Commissioner the FDA has ever had.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Dr. Crawford today, a vote so long overdue.

I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished chairman.

Will the Senator yield on that point?

Isn't it true we passed the FDA revitalization bill back in 1989 to create this central campus where we could have the best state-of-the-art equipment? We had 48 different locations where FDA was located all over the greater Washington area; is that true?

We have treated the FDA like a wicked stepsister instead of giving it the money it needs. It handles more than 25 percent of all consumer products in America, right?

No matter who is FDA Commissioner, under those circumstances it is very difficult to get a handle on everything that needs to be addressed by the FDA.

Will the Senator yield also for just a moment? We introduced the bioshield II, the Lieberman-Hatch bill that has gone a long way to resolving this matter, and I intend to work with the Senator from North Carolina and the distinguished chairman and ranking member to see if we can bring this to a conclusion that works.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1414, a bill that authorizes a study necessary for establishing the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area in the Four Corners region of the States of Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. I am joined by Senators Bennett, Bingaman, Domenici, and Allard as cosponsors of this bill.

The Four Corners region in the Southwestern United States contains many of the most stunning and well-preserved archaeological sites in our country. It also offers monuments, museums, and other attractions which draw visitors from all over the world. The rare archaeology of this part of the world combined with an awesome natural setting makes this a region like no other. With this bill we hope to lay the groundwork to give this region the attention that it so richly deserves.

Six years ago, Congress voted to support a partnership among these four States and the Federal Government in order to construct an Interpretive Center at the intersection of the Four Corners. This Center has recently opened and now provides a wonderful physical locus for travel in the region. Visitors to this spot can stop, rest, learn about the area, and purchase goods produced by the local Tribes.

The designation of the surrounding region as a National Heritage Area would complement this experience at the Center and is the logical next step. Designation as a National Heritage Area would provide geographic and interpretive coherence to the region's remarkable landscape and the amazing cultural sites dispersed within it. Designation as a National Heritage Area would give visitors to this area an experience that integrates land, people, and history in a meaningful way.

The Four Corners region is also home to the Navaho, Hopi, and Ute Indian Tribes, whose ancestors contributed to this remarkable heritage. Ancestral Puebloan Indians lived here from about A.D. 1 to 1300 and left many of the distinctive sites and structures that are visible today. The Navaho and Ute are descendants of these early peoples. The history of this area stretches even further back in time, to the Paleo- Indian era of at least 10,000 years ago. Remains from this era provide a glimpse into a way of life very different from today. The area also features sites that chronicle the more recent history of the region's native peoples, and of the immigrants who came to this area as our country expanded to the West.

This bill provides for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the suitability and feasibility study in cooperation with the Four Corners Heritage Council. This Council is a critical partner in the study, and is prepared to take the lead in this task. The Council consists of members from all four States in the Four Corners area. These members are appointed by the governor of each State and include representatives from the private sector, local communities, and the Tribes. We are fortunate to have such a well-established entity with a good track record of accomplishments to take on the study task.

The bill follows the new guidelines for National Heritage Areas recently passed by this body and was crafted in consultation with the National Park Service and the Four Corners Heritage Council. Once passed, this bill should move easily through the process to completion. Final designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would link many of the cultural and recreational sites in the region for the benefit of local communities and visitors to the area. Designation of the area would not impose restrictions on private property or require acquisition of additional land.

S. 1414 is the first step in the national heritage area designation process. Designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would give these remarkable historic treasures the national prominence they deserve, and would provide a structure for the State and local communities to promote heritage tourism and economic development. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1414, a bill that authorizes a study necessary for establishing the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area in the Four Corners region of the States of Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, and Arizona. I am joined by Senators Bennett, Bingaman, Domenici, and Allard as cosponsors of this bill.

The Four Corners region in the Southwestern United States contains many of the most stunning and well-preserved archaeological sites in our country. It also offers monuments, museums, and other attractions which draw visitors from all over the world. The rare archaeology of this part of the world combined with an awesome natural setting makes this a region like no other. With this bill we hope to lay the groundwork to give this region the attention that it so richly deserves.

Six years ago, Congress voted to support a partnership among these four States and the Federal Government in order to construct an Interpretive Center at the intersection of the Four Corners. This Center has recently opened and now provides a wonderful physical locus for travel in the region. Visitors to this spot can stop, rest, learn about the area, and purchase goods produced by the local Tribes.

The designation of the surrounding region as a National Heritage Area would complement this experience at the Center and is the logical next step. Designation as a National Heritage Area would provide geographic and interpretive coherence to the region's remarkable landscape and the amazing cultural sites dispersed within it. Designation as a National Heritage Area would give visitors to this area an experience that integrates land, people, and history in a meaningful way.

The Four Corners region is also home to the Navaho, Hopi, and Ute Indian Tribes, whose ancestors contributed to this remarkable heritage. Ancestral Puebloan Indians lived here from about A.D. 1 to 1300 and left many of the distinctive sites and structures that are visible today. The Navaho and Ute are descendants of these early peoples. The history of this area stretches even further back in time, to the Paleo- Indian era of at least 10,000 years ago. Remains from this era provide a glimpse into a way of life very different from today. The area also features sites that chronicle the more recent history of the region's native peoples, and of the immigrants who came to this area as our country expanded to the West.

This bill provides for the Secretary of the Interior to conduct the suitability and feasibility study in cooperation with the Four Corners Heritage Council. This Council is a critical partner in the study, and is prepared to take the lead in this task. The Council consists of members from all four States in the Four Corners area. These members are appointed by the governor of each State and include representatives from the private sector, local communities, and the Tribes. We are fortunate to have such a well-established entity with a good track record of accomplishments to take on the study task.

The bill follows the new guidelines for National Heritage Areas recently passed by this body and was crafted in consultation with the National Park Service and the Four Corners Heritage Council. Once passed, this bill should move easily through the process to completion. Final designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would link many of the cultural and recreational sites in the region for the benefit of local communities and visitors to the area. Designation of the area would not impose restrictions on private property or require acquisition of additional land.

S. 1414 is the first step in the national heritage area designation process. Designation of this area as the Trail of the Ancients National Heritage Area would give these remarkable historic treasures the national prominence they deserve, and would provide a structure for the State and local communities to promote heritage tourism and economic development. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Would the gentleman from New Hampshire yield for a question?

As the chairman knows, one of the greatest roles entrusted to the hardworking employees of the Department of Homeland Security is to protect our Nation's borders and curb the growing tide of illegal immigration in this country. I thank my friend and colleague from New Hampshire for doing his best to address this great need with increased funding for, and greater attention to, this problem. As I travel around the State of Utah, there is not a single place I go where I do not have citizens come up to me and ask me to do something about the illegal immigration problems in their area. They are upset that our country continues to be unable to enforce our immigration laws and I do not blame them. I feel the same frustration.

For example, Mayor Toni Turk of Blanding recently informed me that his police department has made several arrests of illegal aliens and seized nearly 7 kilos of cocaine in the process. It would seem drug smugglers--most of whom are in the country illegally--are taking advantage of the de minimis level of immigration enforcement in remote areas of southeastern Utah. Incidents such as this one formed the basis of my request for the creation of an ICE/CBP office in Blanding, UT and I am grateful to the chairman for addressing my request in his committee report.

I have heard it said many times that the objective of illegal immigrants coming through the southern border of the country is to get as far north as possible as fast as he or she can. This comes from the either perceived or real concern that immigration enforcement is much tougher in the southern portion of the U.S. than it is in the northern portion. For a State located directly above some of the most porous borders in the country, this is a real concern. U.S. Interstate 70 and U.S. Interstate 15 in Utah have become large conduits for the smuggling of illegal immigrants and illegal substances as these foreigners flee from the southern states as fast as possible in order to get north where they believe enforcement is less stringent.

With two major arteries for illegal immigration running through the southern portion of Utah, citizens in that beautiful area have grown tired of the strain and difficulties presented by the flood of illegal immigrants.

Is the distinguished Senator aware of the significant immigration- related problems facing Utah, especially in the southern portion of the state including St. George and Blanding, UT.

I thank the Chairman for recognizing what so many people do not; namely, that immigration problems are not limited to the border States.

One of the greatest concerns we Utahns have with the immigration enforcement in our State is the fact that the field office director overseeing Utah is located in San Francisco, CA. I hope my colleague will agree with me that having the oversight for a major illegal immigration artery located over 650 miles away from the area is disconcerting.

The immigration problems facing San Francisco are very different from the problems facing St. George, Blanding, Richfield, Cedar City, Provo, and Salt Lake and that is precisely why I would like to see a new field officer director located in Utah. It is my hope that the chairman will work with me to remedy these issues.

GREGG. I thank the Senator for his comments. I am pleased to say that we have included significant increases in immigration funding in this bill. It is my desire to see those funds spent in the most crucial areas of concern to this Nation and I believe they will help us make significant progress in the fight against illegal immigration.

While the issue of establishing new field office directors is properly that of the Secretary of Homeland Security, I will work with my colleague from Utah to address the issues troubling his State as I have done with all of my colleagues. I recognize that Utah faces certain unique challenges and I am confident they can be addressed.

I thank my colleague from Utah for his support in our efforts to secure the homeland, and I appreciate his bringing the problems facing southern Utah to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise to speak of the Controlled Substances Export Reform Act of 2005. This bill would make a minor, but long overdue, change to the Controlled Substances Act to reflect the reality of commerce in the 21st Century and to protect high-paying American jobs, while maintaining strong safeguards on exports.

Before I discuss this bill, I want to thank Senator Biden for working with me on this important legislation. Senator Biden has long been recognized as a national leader on drug-related measures, and we have a history of working together on a bipartisan basis to enact sensible reforms in this area, as evidenced by the recent enactment of our steroid precursor bill. I respect his thoughtful collaboration, and I thank him for his work on this proposal.

I would also like to thank Chairman Specter for his critical work on this legislation. We would not be able to move this important bill without his efforts. Furthermore, I would like to thank the majority leader for moving this legislation during the last Congress. We were able to pass the measure last fall, and I hope that we may do so again in the near future.

This Hatch-Biden bill has been my priority for a number of years. The need for this legislation was first brought to my attention by a number of Utah companies, who had experienced significant difficulties in exporting their pharmaceutical products.

Under current law, there are two differing regulatory schemes governing export of U.S.-manufactured pharmaceutical products. One system, adopted by the Congress 10 years ago, governs products regulated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The other, which we are today proposing to harmonize with the food and drug law, governs pharmaceuticals with abuse potential regulated under the Controlled Substances Act. In sum, our proposed legislation amends the Controlled Substances Act to allow greater opportunities for U.S. manufacturers to send their products abroad, still retaining full Drug Enforcement Administration authority over those exports.

At present, U.S. pharmaceutical manufacturers are permitted to export most controlled substances only to the immediate country where the products will be consumed. Shipments to centralized sites for further distribution across national boundaries are prohibited, even though this same system is allowed under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for products which are not controlled substances. The current system for export of controlled substances should be contrasted with the freedom of pharmaceutical manufacturers throughout the rest of the world to readily move approved medical products among and between international drug control treaty countries without limitation or restriction.

The unique prohibitions imposed on domestic manufacturers disadvantage U.S. businesses by requiring smaller, more frequent and costly shipments to each country of use without any demonstrable benefit to public health or safety. By imposing significant logistical challenges and financial burdens on U.S. companies, the law creates a strong incentive for domestic pharmaceutical manufacturers to move production operations overseas, threatening high-wage American jobs.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 permits U.S. manufacturers of Schedule I and II substances and Schedule III and IV narcotics to export their products from U.S. manufacturing sites only to the receiving country where the drug will be used. The law prohibits export of these products if the drugs are to be distributed outside the country to which they are initially sent. The effect of this restriction is to prevent American businesses from using cost- effective, centralized foreign distribution facilities. In addition, under the current regime, unexpected cross-border demands or surges in patient needs cannot be met. Likewise, complex and time-sensitive export licensing procedures prevent the shipment of pharmaceuticals on a real time basis.

European drug manufacturers face no such constraints. They are able to freely move their exported products from one nation to another while complying with host country laws. This is entirely consistent with the scheme of regulation imposed by international drug control treaties. Only the United States imposes the additional limitation of prohibiting the further transfer of controlled substances. Thus, while a French or British company can ship its products to a central warehouse in Germany for subsequent distribution across the European Union, an American company must incur the added costs of shipping its products separately to each individual country.

S. 1395, the Controlled Substances Export Reform Act, would correct this imbalance and permit the highly-regulated transshipment of exported pharmaceuticals placing American businesses on an equal footing with the

rest of the world. Importantly, however, DEA's authority to control U.S. exports would not be diminished.

The legislation authorizes the Attorney General, or his designee, the DEA, to permit the re-export of Schedule I and II substances and Schedule III and IV narcotics to countries that are parties to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and the Convention on Psychotropic Substances under tightly controlled circumstances: First, each country is required to have an established system of controls deemed adequate by the DEA. Next, only permit or license holders in those countries may receive regulated products. Third, re-exports are limited to one single cross-border transfer. Then the DEA must be satisfied by substantial evidence that the exported substance will be used to meet an actual medical, scientific or other legitimate need, and that the second country of receipt will hold or issue appropriate import licenses or permits. Fifth, in addition, the exporter must notify the DEA in writing within 30 days of a re-export. And finally, an export permit must have been issued by the DEA.

These safeguards are rigorous but fair, and represent a much-needed modernization of the law. The current restrictions on U.S. exports of controlled substances have remained essentially unchanged for more than 30 years. In that time, the global economy has changed dramatically. For those among us who express concerns about the outsourcing of American jobs and the competitiveness of U.S. companies, this modest change represents an opportunity to address such problems head-on.

The Controlled Substance Act's limitation on U.S. pharmaceutical exports imposes unique, unnecessary, and significant logistical and financial burdens on American businesses. The effect of this outdated policy is to create a strong incentive for domestic pharmaceutical companies to move production overseas, threatening American jobs and eliminating DEA jurisdiction over the manufacture and shipment of their products. The Controlled Substances Export Reform Act removes this unwarranted barrier to U.S. manufacturers' use of cost-effective distribution techniques while retaining full DEA control of U.S. exports and re-exports. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to join Senator Biden and myself in support of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next Senator to be recognized be Senator Cornyn for 10 minutes from our time, and then Senator Kerry for 15 minutes from Senator Baucus's time, and then Senator Vitter for 10 minutes from Senator Grassley's time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Vitter be recognized for his 10 minutes, and then we will go immediately to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin on the Democratic side be the next speaker for 20 minutes, that he be followed by Senator Lautenberg for 10 minutes, and then Senator Voinovich will immediately follow Senator Lautenberg for at least 20 minutes.

Over the years, I have been a strong advocate for free trade. Free trade is important. I know of no other endeavor that affords us the opportunity to forge closer links between nations while simultaneously improving the lives of millions.

The vast majority of economists agree that free trade is in every nation's long-term best interests. Diplomats also know that it is far easier to reach a compromise between nations whose economies are mutually reliant. That being said, there are certain aspects of free trade that cause me concern. We need to be ever vigilant to ensure our approach to free trade does

not relinquish our sovereign rights as a nation.

Over the last few years, I have heard from many Utahns who are concerned that the U.S. is relinquishing sovereignty to other countries through our trade agreements. Let me make clear that we absolutely cannot give up our right to govern within our own borders. We have laws for a reason and they represent the ideals and values we hold dear in our society.

Constituents contact me on a constant basis to underscore their frustration with the gradual loss of sovereignty the U.S. is experiencing in international arenas. Local lawmakers from across the country are reaching out to us and asking for our help in ensuring their local laws and authority remain intact as we enter into international trade agreements. Indeed, recently, the Utah State Legislature passed a resolution which echoes these concerns.

The issue of maintaining sovereignty was highlighted by a recent World Trade Organization, WTO, dispute resolution body ruling on Internet gambling. The ruling stated that the United States cannot block other countries from offering Internet gambling to U.S. residents, even if they live in States such as Utah where gambling is illegal.

This is outrageous.

We absolutely cannot enter into agreements where our laws are overturned by outsiders. It is important for my colleagues to be aware, however, that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has interpreted the language in the WTO decision stating that gaming laws are ``necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order'' to mean that ``WTO members are entitled to maintain restrictions on internet gaming . . . and U.S. restrictions on internet gambling can stand.''

I am aware that many in Utah are concerned that CAFTA could usurp our State's right to regulate gambling. That is a concern I shared as well. However, many of us were reassured by the statements made by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative that CAFTA does not jeopardize any existing State laws, including Utah's antigambling laws.

We will have to stay on top of this, though. I do not intend to let any international agreement affect the laws our great State has enacted that represent the predominant moral views of our citizens.

Other concerns with CAFTA regarding ``investor-state provisions that will allow corporations to challenge public interest policies at the state and local level'' have also been raised. Once again, however, the Office of the United States Trade Representative has clearly stated that ``nothing in CAFTA, or any other free trade agreement or bilateral investment treaty, interferes with a state or local government's right to regulate. An investor cannot enjoin regulatory action through arbitration, nor can arbitral tribunals.'' This statement, in black and white, will ensure that Internet gambling is not--and will not--become legal in the State of Utah without the consent of its citizens. There can be no ``end-run'' around the USTR's interpretation of the Internet gambling decision.

Although our CAFTA trade negotiators have done much to protect our sovereignty, it is obvious that we must remain vigilant and ensure that the sovereignty of not only our Nation, but also our States, is maintained. I will work to maintain this sovereign right of the people.

Mr. President, I have become convinced that many of these problems and concerns with U.S. trade agreements could be alleviated if we improved the amount and quality of consultation occurring between States and the Federal Government with respect to trade agreements. Simply put, we need to provide greater opportunities for substantive consultation to occur.

This problem was the topic of a recent letter signed by 28 States attorneys general, including Utah, requesting greater consultation between the U.S. Trade Representative and the States on issues affecting States rights.

I believe we need to take action on this immediately and ensure that we provide greater access to and consultation with our States and citizens. We clearly are seeing how big of an impact these trade agreements are having in every State and city in America.

We need to give the States a direct conduit for their input.

Negotiators need to have this information in order to ensure we are representing the interests and beliefs of our constituents.

Mr. President, these concerns have weighed heavily upon my mind. At the same time, I am encouraged by the many positive results CAFTA will have for our State, our country, and for Utah's farmers and industries. According to the Department of Commerce, between 2000 and 2004, Utah's exports to CAFTA nations increased by 58 percent. This includes such product areas as plastics, electronics, and instrumentation.

In plastic products, Utah industries sold $18.6 million in goods in 2004. In electronic and instrumentation products, Utah businesses sold $5.6 million worth of goods in 2004. The elimination of tariffs will make these products even more competitive in this developing market.

We have reason for our optimism. While our experience with the Chilean Free Trade Agreement provides no guarantees, it is illustrative. In the first year of the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement, Utah's exports to Chile grew by 152 percent.

I am also pleased that CAFTA will level the playing field so that American goods and products can have better access to Central American markets. As part of our long-standing effort to support democracies in the region, the United States has afforded unilateral preferences to Central American goods under the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of Preferences. CAFTA eliminates these preferences while simultaneously strengthening our commercial ties by making the trading relationship permanent. All of this will be accomplished while American products will have greater opportunities for export in the region.

One example of the positive attributes of CAFTA can be found in the agreements effect on the hard-pressed textile and yarn producing industries. Our nation, through the use of modern equipment and greatly improved efficiency, continues to be competitive in this area. Where we have lost ground is in the labor-intensive apparel construction industry.

CAFTA provides an opportunity to help rectify this setback. Under current agreements, 56 percent of all textile products that are imported from CAFTA nations to the United States contain U.S. yarns or fabrics. When CAFTA is enacted, we can only expect these numbers to increase. This stands in marked contrast to apparel imported from Pacific Rim, and in particular China, where less than 1 percent of all of apparel imports contain U.S. yarns and fabrics. Therefore, I believe, that in the case of CAFTA, the pros do outweigh the cons.

But, I will end on this note of caution. I will watch implementation of this agreement carefully. We need to have recognition of the fact that States are partners in these agreements. There must be greater opportunities afforded to the States to be consulted on free-trade agreements.

Likewise, we must remain vigilant that our Nation's and respective States' sovereignty is maintained.

On balance, Mr. President, any reasoned analysis indicates that CAFTA will benefit our Nation and our State. It is for this reason that I will cast my vote in support of the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce ``The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005.'' I am grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed and Ensign have joined me as sponsors of this important, bipartisan bill. All five sponsors of this bill have been working on this legislation for the past few months. We have met with organizations that are deeply interested in participating in this new program and heard their input. We talked to other Senators, including members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, who have a deep commitment to getting this legislation signed into law by the President. This bill was a group effort and I commend the sponsors of this bill on a job well done.

I am pleased that this legislation will be considered by the Senate HELP Committee on Wednesday; we are hopeful it will then be passed by the Senate in the near future. HELP Chairman Enzi and Ranking Democrat Kennedy and their staffs have been very supportive of our efforts in getting this bill through the Senate in a timely manner. I greatly appreciate their willingness to work with all of us on this important issue.

As many of my colleagues know, I introduced a bill earlier this year S. 681, the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005. I have introduced that legislation during the past three Congresses. The bill I have introduced with my colleagues today is a much improved version of my original cord blood legislation, primarily because it reflects a compromise between the key stakeholder groups that are deeply interested in providing federal funding to establish cord blood banks for public use. This legislation creates an easily accessible network of adult stem cell transplant material for the treatment of patients and supports the research into the uses of such cells.

One of the biggest changes in this bill is the establishment of a three year demonstration project for the collection and storage of cord blood units for a family in which a child has been diagnosed with a condition that will benefit from a cord blood transplant at no cost to the family. When we were meeting with individuals interested in this legislation, we were told by scientific experts that the most successful cord blood transplants come from a sibling's cord blood. Once a cord blood unit is put in a public cord blood bank, there is no guarantee that a family will be able to get that specific cord blood unit back if it is needed. Therefore, we believed that it was necessary to create this demonstration project so that families would have immediate access to its cord blood units. It is important to emphasize that the only families that may participate in this demonstration project are those that have a sick child or parent.

In addition, this legislation includes language calling for single point of access. The purpose of a single point of access is to provide health care providers with the ability to search for bone marrow donors and cord blood units through a single electronic point of access. Today, doctors have to search several places in order to find available cord blood units and bone marrow donors. A single point of access improves this process dramatically for both doctor and patient by making the search process much more efficient.

There is strong, bipartisan interest throughout the Congress for using adult stem cells to treat a wide variety of medical conditions. Our bill not only reauthorizes the National Marrow Donor Program, but it also creates a national network of public cord blood banks. Together, these two programs for umbilical cord blood and adult bone marrow will provide us with a widely-accepted source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplant and research.

For several decades, thousands of Americans have received and been saved by bone marrow transplants. But thousands more die for lack of an appropriate donor. The good news is that research now suggests that the blood and stem cells from human placenta and umbilical cords may in some cases provide an alternative to bone marrow transplantation. For some patients, particularly those for whom a bone marrow match cannot be found, transplantation of these cells may be a life-saving therapy. Cord blood stem cells are readily available, and they require less- stringent matching from donors to recipients, thus decreasing the difficulty of finding a fully matched donor.

Cord blood transplantation has been used successfully to treat leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and certain metabolic diseases. However, the number of available cord blood stem cell units in the United States is insufficient to meet the need. The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 will establish an inventory of 150,000 new cord blood stem cell units that reflects the diversity of the United States' population. In conjunction with the five million potential bone marrow donors registered through the National Marrow Donor Program, this cord blood network will enable 95 percent of Americans to receive an appropriately matched transplant.

The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 also incorporates recommendations from the Institute of Medicine's recent report on cord blood. The Institute provided Congress with guidelines and recommendations to enhance the structure, function, and utility of the program. As a result, I am confident that this Nation's system for obtaining adult stem cells for transplantation purposes will improve dramatically, and that many more of our citizens will have access to the life-saving therapies they offer. Through transplants of this nature, we can finally cure previously incurable diseases such as sickle cell anemia. It is my hope that this legislation will help us ensure that children with this and other illnesses will be able to achieve their full potential, unhindered by poor health.

My goal, which I share with the other sponsors of this bill, is to create the best possible system to provide patients, clinicians, and families with access to these life-saving treatments. I believe the current bill does this by ensuring that the number of bone marrow donors and cord blood units available for transplant and research increases in the coming years.

The integrated system will include not only the international bone marrow donor registry, but also a network of qualified cord blood banks which will collect, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells. In addition, the system will educate and recruit donors, facilitate the rapid matching of donors and recipients, and quickly make such cells available to transplant centers for stem cell transplantation.

The establishment of a national infrastructure for transplant material will help save the lives of thousands of critically ill Americans. We must be sure that our Nation can meet the needs of patients and physicians by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood in this country. My primary goal is to ensure that the amount of transplant material available for patient care and research increases in the coming years. The only way that goal may be accomplished is through strong federal support. I look forward to working with my colleagues on doing everything possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood transplantation in this country. This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce ``The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005.'' I am grateful that Senators Dodd, Burr, Reed and Ensign have joined me as sponsors of this important, bipartisan bill. All five sponsors of this bill have been working on this legislation for the past few months. We have met with organizations that are deeply interested in participating in this new program and heard their input. We talked to other Senators, including members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, who have a deep commitment to getting this legislation signed into law by the President. This bill was a group effort and I commend the sponsors of this bill on a job well done.

I am pleased that this legislation will be considered by the Senate HELP Committee on Wednesday; we are hopeful it will then be passed by the Senate in the near future. HELP Chairman Enzi and Ranking Democrat Kennedy and their staffs have been very supportive of our efforts in getting this bill through the Senate in a timely manner. I greatly appreciate their willingness to work with all of us on this important issue.

As many of my colleagues know, I introduced a bill earlier this year S. 681, the Cord Blood Stem Cell Act of 2005. I have introduced that legislation during the past three Congresses. The bill I have introduced with my colleagues today is a much improved version of my original cord blood legislation, primarily because it reflects a compromise between the key stakeholder groups that are deeply interested in providing federal funding to establish cord blood banks for public use. This legislation creates an easily accessible network of adult stem cell transplant material for the treatment of patients and supports the research into the uses of such cells.

One of the biggest changes in this bill is the establishment of a three year demonstration project for the collection and storage of cord blood units for a family in which a child has been diagnosed with a condition that will benefit from a cord blood transplant at no cost to the family. When we were meeting with individuals interested in this legislation, we were told by scientific experts that the most successful cord blood transplants come from a sibling's cord blood. Once a cord blood unit is put in a public cord blood bank, there is no guarantee that a family will be able to get that specific cord blood unit back if it is needed. Therefore, we believed that it was necessary to create this demonstration project so that families would have immediate access to its cord blood units. It is important to emphasize that the only families that may participate in this demonstration project are those that have a sick child or parent.

In addition, this legislation includes language calling for single point of access. The purpose of a single point of access is to provide health care providers with the ability to search for bone marrow donors and cord blood units through a single electronic point of access. Today, doctors have to search several places in order to find available cord blood units and bone marrow donors. A single point of access improves this process dramatically for both doctor and patient by making the search process much more efficient.

There is strong, bipartisan interest throughout the Congress for using adult stem cells to treat a wide variety of medical conditions. Our bill not only reauthorizes the National Marrow Donor Program, but it also creates a national network of public cord blood banks. Together, these two programs for umbilical cord blood and adult bone marrow will provide us with a widely-accepted source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplant and research.

For several decades, thousands of Americans have received and been saved by bone marrow transplants. But thousands more die for lack of an appropriate donor. The good news is that research now suggests that the blood and stem cells from human placenta and umbilical cords may in some cases provide an alternative to bone marrow transplantation. For some patients, particularly those for whom a bone marrow match cannot be found, transplantation of these cells may be a life-saving therapy. Cord blood stem cells are readily available, and they require less- stringent matching from donors to recipients, thus decreasing the difficulty of finding a fully matched donor.

Cord blood transplantation has been used successfully to treat leukemia, lymphoma, immunodeficiency diseases, sickle cell anemia, and certain metabolic diseases. However, the number of available cord blood stem cell units in the United States is insufficient to meet the need. The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 will establish an inventory of 150,000 new cord blood stem cell units that reflects the diversity of the United States' population. In conjunction with the five million potential bone marrow donors registered through the National Marrow Donor Program, this cord blood network will enable 95 percent of Americans to receive an appropriately matched transplant.

The Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005 also incorporates recommendations from the Institute of Medicine's recent report on cord blood. The Institute provided Congress with guidelines and recommendations to enhance the structure, function, and utility of the program. As a result, I am confident that this Nation's system for obtaining adult stem cells for transplantation purposes will improve dramatically, and that many more of our citizens will have access to the life-saving therapies they offer. Through transplants of this nature, we can finally cure previously incurable diseases such as sickle cell anemia. It is my hope that this legislation will help us ensure that children with this and other illnesses will be able to achieve their full potential, unhindered by poor health.

My goal, which I share with the other sponsors of this bill, is to create the best possible system to provide patients, clinicians, and families with access to these life-saving treatments. I believe the current bill does this by ensuring that the number of bone marrow donors and cord blood units available for transplant and research increases in the coming years.

The integrated system will include not only the international bone marrow donor registry, but also a network of qualified cord blood banks which will collect, test, and preserve cord blood stem cells. In addition, the system will educate and recruit donors, facilitate the rapid matching of donors and recipients, and quickly make such cells available to transplant centers for stem cell transplantation.

The establishment of a national infrastructure for transplant material will help save the lives of thousands of critically ill Americans. We must be sure that our Nation can meet the needs of patients and physicians by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood in this country. My primary goal is to ensure that the amount of transplant material available for patient care and research increases in the coming years. The only way that goal may be accomplished is through strong federal support. I look forward to working with my colleagues on doing everything possible to provide transplant patients with the best possible options by ensuring a strong future for bone marrow and cord blood transplantation in this country. This is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on behalf of the people of Utah, I thank the managers of this Omnibus Energy bill for their leadership in producing a comprehensive and broadly supported proposal.

If the American people think bipartisanship is dead in Congress, they should look at this bill and how it is being managed on the floor these past 2 weeks.

On behalf of the people of Utah, I want to thank the managers of this Omnibus Energy bill for their leadership in producing such a comprehensive and broadly supported proposal.

If the American people think that bipartisanship is dead in Congress, they should take a look at this bill, and how it is being managed on the floor these 2 weeks.

I must commend the leadership of Chairmen Domenici and Grassley, and their Democratic counterparts, Senators Bingaman and Baucus as the Senate considers this critically important piece of legislation.

In addition, I want to thank Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus for working so closely with me on the energy tax incentive package, now part of the Omnibus Energy bill.

In particular, this bill includes a number of provisions of great importance to Utahns, provisions I authored. These include my CLEAR Act, which promotes alternatives in the transportation sector, my Gas Price Reduction through Increased Refinery Capacity Act, and my proposal to improve the treatment of geothermal powerplants. All were included in the energy package.

I am also grateful to the leaders of the Energy Committee, Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman, for agreeing to include the major provisions of another bill of keen interest to Utahns, my bill, the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Promotion Act, S.1111, which was cosponsored by Senators Bennett and Allard.

Our bill would promote development of the largest untapped resource of hydrocarbons in the world. There is more recoverable oil in the oil shale and oil sands of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming than in the entire Middle East.

The chairman and his staff have done yeomen's work to successfully strike a compromise on S. 1111 that is agreeable to all sides and that can be accepted into this bill. I thank both leaders for that effort.

And finally, I thank them for including my bill, S. 53, in the Energy bill. S. 53 would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue separately, for the same area, a lease for tar sands and a lease for oil and gas, thus freeing up a new resource of natural gas in our Nation.

Now, I would like to turn to the Hatch-Bennett amendment on high level nuclear waste, which we filed in an effort to bring some focus to our Nation's policy for handling spent nuclear fuel.

In my hand is an article from yesterday's Washington Post.

The headline reads, ``Bush Calls for More Nuclear Power Plants.'' And the article begins: ``President Bush called today for a new wave of nuclear power plant construction as he promoted an energy policy that he wants to see enacted in a bill now making its way through Congress.''

The President is calling for a robust nuclear power strategy, and his reasons are clear: nuclear power is clean and safe, and there is an abundant supply of cheap uranium in Northern America.

But my question is, ``What are we going to do with all the waste?''

We cannot have a nuclear power strategy until we know what to do with all the spent nuclear fuel.

And what is becoming quickly apparent to me and to the people of Utah is that we do not have a coherent national nuclear waste policy. Until we do, we are putting the cart before of the horse.

For years, I have supported sending this high level nuclear waste to the desert of Nevada.

To be honest, it has never been an easy vote for me, because it was against the wishes of my friends and colleagues from that State. However, it

has been our national policy for more than two decades to build a site at Yucca Mountain, a safe, remote location, where spent fuel could be taken over by the Federal Government and buried deep beneath the desert.

Even though Utah does not use or produce nuclear power, I have recognized the need to have a nuclear power program in the U.S. that relies on a plan to safely handle our waste. In other words, we need a strong nuclear waste program.

Here is a picture of the desert area where Yucca Mountain actually is. You can see it is desolate and out in the middle of nowhere.

Unfortunately, a few nuclear power utilities are attempting to hijack our Nation's nuclear waste strategy by joining forces to build an away- from-reactor, aboveground storage site for one-half of our Nation's high level nuclear waste on a tiny Indian reservation in Tooele, UT.

Even more unfortunate is that the only tribe they could con into taking this waste was the Skull Valley Band of the Goshutes, whose small reservation just happens to sit on one of the most dangerous sites you could imagine for storing high level nuclear waste.

The Skull Valley reservation is directly adjacent to the Air Force's Utah Test and Training Range and Dugway Proving Grounds where live ordnance is used.

Here is an illustration of an F-l6 that flies regularly in this area.

This location proposed for the aboveground storage of half of our nuclear waste sits directly under the flight path of 7,000 low altitude F-16 flights every year.

Even if this area were truly remote from all civilization, which it is not, its location alone should disqualify it for the storage of even one cask of high level nuclear waste. But that's the problem with allowing private intrests to establish our nuclear waste strategy, economics can get in the way of reason and safety.

Mr. President, 80 percent of Utah's population sits within 50 miles of the Skull Valley reservation.

Represented on this picture are the type of communities we have near that place.

As a crow flies, Skull Valley is less than 15 miles away from Tooele City, one of the fastest growing cities in Utah, which is becoming a major suburb of Salt lake City.

Skull Valley is only about 30 miles from the Salt Lake City International Airport. And let us not forget that many of the families of the Skull Valley Band live right on the reservation, and half, if not more, of them are against this. These families face, by far, the greatest risk.

When this group of utilities, known as Private Fuel Storage, or PFS, applied for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Commission's three judge Atomic Licensing Board ruled that the threat of a crash from an F-16 was too great to allow a license for the proposed facility. Not letting science get in its way, PFS came back later after two of the three judges were replaced with new ones, this time making a different pitch even though all the facts remained the same.

As a result, the two new judges ruled, in a two-to-one decision, that the risk of a crash from an F-16 was low enough to allow the license.

One has to wonder who in the world would allow the license for a small tribe in this area with this type of danger. The trustee I don't think could possibly do that. Nevertheless, they ignored the prior commission and went ahead and did it.

However, Judge Peter Lam, the senior member of the panel, and its only nuclear engineer, gave a very strong dissent. I would like to quote from Judge Lam's dissent:

The proposed PFS facility does not currently have a

demonstrated adequate safety margin against accidental

aircraft crashes. . . . This lack of an adequate safety

margin is a direct manifestation of the fundamentally

difficult situation of the proposed PFS site: 4,000 spent

fuel storage casks sitting in the flight corridor of some

7,000 F-16 flights a year.

Judge Lam also cited the inadequacy of the new methodology used to determine that the site would be safe.

He writes:

In this current proceeding, the Applicant has performed an

extensive probability analysis and a structural analysis to

rehabilitate its license application. As explained below, the

Applicant's probability and structural analyses both suffer

from major uncertainties. These uncertainties fundamentally

undermine the validity of the analyses.

Mr. President, with 7,000 F-16 flights every year, one can imagine that emergency landings are not uncommon at the training range, and I am unhappy to report that crash landings are not rare, either.

In the last 20 years, there have been 70 F-16 crashes at the Utah Test and Training Range, and a number of these crashes have occurred well outside the boundaries of the training range.

I have found it baffling that the Final EIS for the Skull Valley plan does not require PFS to have any on-site means to handle damaged or breached casks. Rather, the NRC staff concluded the risk of a cask breach is so minimal that they did not have to consider such a scenario in their EIS. I find this conclusion dubious and dangerous in light of the facts relating to F-16 overflights.

In his dissent, Judge Lam refers to the threat of accidental aircraft accidents. He doesn't even go into the possibility of terrorists. Since the events of September 11, we have learned that one of our Nation's most serious threats may come in the form of deliberate suicide air attacks. It would seem inconceivable that a Government entity would consider giving their endorsement of the PFS plan without thoroughly taking into account the added terrorist threat our Nation now faces.

Yet the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has refused to reopen the Environmental Impact Statement to consider this new threat, even though post-9-11 studies have been completed at all other facilities licensed by the NRC.

It is apparent they just want to dump this stuff somewhere. I have to say, if this continues, I am certainly going to do some reconsidering myself.

I found this especially troubling since the NRC has never granted a license for the storage of more than about 60 casks, but the Skull Valley site will hold up to 4,000 casks of this waste.

I want my colleagues to understand that not only is the size of the PFS proposal a gigantic precedent, but issuing itself a license for a private away-from-reactor storage site has never been done and runs counter to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act which clearly limits the NRC to license storage sites only at Federal facilities or onsite at nuclear powerplants.

Former Secretary of Energy Abraham stated publicly he shares our interpretation. In a letter to members of the Utah congressional delegation, Secretary Abraham issued a policy statement that barred any DOE reimbursement funds from being used in relation to the Skull Valley site. This would include industry members who would lease space at the site. He said:

Because the PFS/Goshute facility in Utah would be

constructed and operated outside the scope of the [Nuclear

Waste Policy] Act, the Department will not fund or otherwise

provide financial assistance for PFS, nor can we monitor the

safety precautions the private facility may install.

My amendment is compatible with the policy outlined by Secretary Abraham in his letter. It would ban the transportation of high level nuclear waste to private away-from-reactor waste sites and calls for a study to the feasibility of storing spent fuel either at Department of Energy facilities or of the Department taking possession of the spent fuel onsite at nuclear reactors.

My amendment calls also for a study of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for future use.

Let me state the obvious for the record. The PFS plan is vehemently opposed by the entire Utah congressional delegation, Gov. Jon Huntsman, former Gov. Michael Leavitt, and an overwhelming majority of Utahans. In fact, virtually everybody in Utah. A large portion of the 70-member Goshute Band is strongly opposed to the proposal. We believe a majority of them are, but there is some indication of fraud in their elections out there.

Furthermore, the leader of the band, Leon Bear, has pleaded guilty to a Federal indictment. It is notable that every other tribal government in Utah has come out flatly against it. How could any trustee for the Indians allow something like that to be?

Utahns are well aware of the points I have made today. Because of the risks we face associated with the PFS proposal, we know better than any that our Nation's nuclear waste policy is broken. It was with good reason that our Nation's nuclear waste strategy has been built around the expectation that the Federal Government, namely the Department of Energy, would take possession of spent nuclear fuel rods. What better example do we need than the PFS plan to see why private industry should not be allowed to develop and implement our Nation's nuclear waste strategy.

Think about it. PFS is a shell corporation. If anything went wrong, Utah is going to eat it. That is all there is to it. It is ridiculous.

I understand why our colleagues from Nevada oppose the Yucca Mountain site. I am getting more and more understanding of that as I go along. But if they are concerned about waste at Yucca Mountain, they should be exponentially more concerned over the PFS site which is so flawed as to be inherently dangerous, extremely dangerous.

In closing, let me drive home one point. Our President has called for a dramatic increase in our Nation's capacity to generate nuclear power. As Congress considers that proposal, I ask, Should any increase we might authorize rest on a nuclear waste policy established by the Federal Government or should that policymaking rest with a couple of private companies that are driven by profit?

Do we want the Federal Government to take possession of our high level nuclear waste or is our national waste policy to allow private companies to control the transport, storage, and security of this waste? And with shell corporations at that. If that is to be our policy, then I need to inform our colleagues that our Nation's nuclear power strategy is a house built on sand.

Let me summarize my remarks. We Utahns are adamantly opposed to the storage of spent nuclear fuel at the Skull Valley reservation. The current site that has been selected by a consortium made up of eight utilities has several fatal flaws, including the fact that it contemplates a facility that is, one, located fewer than 50 miles from the Salt Lake Valley where 80 percent of our fellow Utahans live; two, directly under the Utah Test and Training Range where roughly 7,000 low-altitude F-16 training flights take place each year, many with live ordnance, and over a range where 70 crashes have taken place already; and three, on the small Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation where about 40 of the band's 120 total members reside--only 40. Moreover, the Skull Valley Band's leadership is in question. Leon Bear, the band's current chairman, has been accused by his colleagues of disregarding a vote of no confidence. In addition, Mr. Bear recently pleaded guilty to Federal criminal charges and is awaiting sentencing relating to his management of tribal financial resources.

I would like to know if my friend, the chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, believes that storing spent nuclear fuel on a privately run and privately owned offsite facility, such as the Skull Valley reservation in Utah, is a component of our national nuclear waste policy.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman for that clarification.

I again thank the leaders of this bill who have done such a great job in bringing both sides together to pass what will be one of the most important energy bills in the history of the world. It certainly is going to do a lot for our country if we will continue to follow this through conference and get it back for final passage. It is long overdue.

I know it has been an ordeal for Senator Domenici in particular and others as well. I pay my tribute to them for the hard work they have done.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President. I want to take a few moments to honor one of the State of Utah's finest men and an ambassador for golf throughout the world. On May 29, 2005, Mike Reid won the 66th Senior PGA tournament at Laurel Valley Golf Club in Ligonier, PA.

Mike won this event in dramatic fashion. As he strode to the 18th hole, he was three shots down to the leader, Jerry Pate. This hole was a par five that called for a long shot over water if you dared to try and hit the green in two shots. Dana Quigley was already in the clubhouse at 8 under par with Mike at 6 under par and Jerry Pate at 9 under par. Mike had to gamble and went for the green in two. He was able to stick a three iron about 20 feet below the hole and then made a dramatic eagle to go 8 under par and tie Dana Quigley. When Jerry Pate failed to make his par putt, the three men entered a sudden death playoff. Once again Mike was the only player to hit the par five green in two shots, and his tap-in birdie sealed the win in the first Senior Major event of the year.

I have had the privilege of knowing Mike Reid for many years. Mike was a two-time All American at Brigham Young University and finished his collegiate career in 1976. I came to know Mike when he started visiting Washington, DC, to play in the Kemper Open. Over the years, our friendship has continued, and Mike has been gracious enough to donate his time to the charity golf tournament I host each year for the Utah Families Foundation. He had a distinguished career on the regular PGA tour, winning the Tucson Open in 1986 and the World Series of Golf in 1987. In 1990, he won the Casio World Open in Japan.

Mike is a humble soft spoken man, a husband to his wife, Randolyn, and a father to six children, and grandfather to one grandson. When others are seeking the spotlight, Mike is content to look for the things that interest him in life. This was never more evident than during the tournament in Western Pennsylvania, when he left the course on Friday tied for the lead. In the press interviews, they asked him what he would be doing for the rest of the day. Mike informed them that he had always wanted to visit the Jimmy Stewart Museum in Indiana, PA-- and that is exactly what he did. His interest in Jimmy Stewart was two- fold: First, Mike admired him as a man who made movies that his whole family could watch and someone willing to walk away from his movie career to serve his nation during World War II; second, Jimmy Stewart shared a spot on a list of pilots receiving medals that included Mike's own father, a B-17 pilot.

Mike followed up his win at the Senior PGA by jumping right back on the leader board at the Allianz Open in Iowa the following week. At the end of the second day he had a two-stroke lead and eventually finished third. True to his form, Mike then went to Colorado to support his son, Daniel, while he played in a junior golf tournament.

The fact that Mike played in the Senior PGA Tournament says much about Mike and his family. As they looked at the schedule, they realized that the Senior PGA Championship was being played on the weekend that his oldest son, Daniel, was graduating from Orem High School, and it was his daughter Clarissa's birthday. The family talked and urged Mike to play that week. Daniel told him that he would rather caddy for his dad than walk across a stage for a minute, but Mike assured him that it was more important for him to stay home and attend his graduation. Mike then took the week off before the Senior PGA to spend with his family.

Mike is a devoted father, a quality best represented by a quote he gave to Sports Illustrated:

I can live without winning golf championships, but it would

be hard to look in the mirror if I was a crummy dad. I'm not

going to let golf own me again. This is the type of athlete

that all of us are proud to call a hero, someone that has his

life in perspective and knows the real things that surround

us each day.

I congratulate Mike Reid on his victory at the Senior PGA and I know that we will be seeing much more of Mike on the leader boards of future events.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be given equal time as the Senator from Vermont.

I ask that I be given the same amount of time that the Senator from Vermont had to speak on Mr. Griffith.

Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague not objecting, and I will limit myself to about half the time that he has taken this morning just out of courtesy to him.

I know Tom Griffith. We all know Tom Griffith. Tom Griffith was general counsel of the Senate. He served the Senate well. He did it in a nonpartisan way, even though he is a Republican. He helped all of us during the impeachment. Both sides acknowledge that he was terrific. He has all the academic and legal credentials necessary to fulfill this position. He is a person who is a consensus builder, someone who tries to get along with everybody and who, I think, will be perfect on this particular court.

So I hope everybody will vote for Tom. He is a member of our family. He served us all. As a general rule, in the past, people who have served us such as Tom Griffith has would pass this body 100 to zip. Unfortunately, we have had some very forceful partisan politics rear its ugly head in some of these judgeship issues, and from time to time it may have been on both sides, but in this particular case it has been all on one side.

I get a little tired of hearing the same arguments over and over again. The fact is, when President Bush 1 left office there were 54 holdovers with the Democrats in control of the Senate, and he only served 4 years. One could imagine how many there would have been if he served 8 years. The fact is, the all-time confirmation champion was Ronald Reagan who had 382 judges confirmed in his 8 years, but he had 6 years of a Republican Senate to help him. President Clinton got almost the same number, a total of 377, with only 2 years of his own party to help him.

As chairman of that committee, I know I did everything in my power to give the Clinton nominees an opportunity to get an up-or-down vote, and when they reached the floor I think virtually all of them got an up-or- down vote without any delays or filibusters.

The Clinton administration was treated very fairly. There were people left over at the end of his administration, and he had 8 years, no more than were left over basically when President Bush I left the Presidency.

Getting back to Tom Griffith, as most of my colleagues know, Tom served as Senate legal counsel for 4 years so many of us have had first-hand experience with him.

Because the D.C. Circuit reviews cases involving Federal statutes, regulations, and other important matter, this is a tough assignment. Many observers believe that the D.C. Circuit's jurisdiction makes it second in importance to that of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tom Griffith is up to the task of sitting on this court.

At some length yesterday, I detailed his qualifications.

Time is short today, so I will make only a few summary comments.

In order to become the exceptional lawyer that he is today, Tom Griffith had to gain an exceptional educational foundation.

He accomplished this first as an undergraduate at my alma mater, Brigham Young University. He graduated summa cum laude and was the valedictorian of the BYU College of Humanities.

Tom then attended the University of Virginia School of Law, where he was a member of the law review.

Upon graduation, Tom joined the leading Charlotte, NC, law firm of Robinson, Bradshaw, and Hinson where he was an associate specializing in commercial litigation.

In 1989, Tom moved to Washington, DC, to become an associate, and then a partner, in the firm of Wiley, Rein and Fielding--by all accounts, a highly-regarded law firm.

He began his four year stint as Senate legal counsel in 1995 and served through the very challenging impeachment trial of President Clinton that concluded in early 1999.

Upon departing from the Senate, Tom returned to Wiley, Rein and Fielding for a period of time before he went to Utah in 2000 to serve as assistant to the president and general counsel of Brigham Young University. He serves in that capacity today.

This is a bare bones sketch of a distinguished professional career. Along the way, Tom Griffith has faced many challenges and he has impressed many with his legal skills.

Here is what associate dean and professor of law, Constance Lundberg, of the J. Reuben Clark School of Law has to say about Mr. Griffith:

[Tom] is also a lawyer of unexcelled ability. He

understands the differences between law and policy and has a

deep understanding of the powers and prerogatives of each of

the three branches of government. He is immensely fair and

compassionate. The laws and Constitution of the United States

could not be in better hands.

These comments do not stand alone in academic circles. Harvard Law Professor William Stuntz has said the following about Tom:

I know a great many of talented men and women in America's

legal profession. I have taught more than three thousand

students at three top law schools, and I have friends

scattered across the country in various kinds of law practice

and in academics. I do not know anyone whom I would rather

see on the federal bench than Tom Griffith. If he is

confirmed, he will not be a good judge. He will be a great

one.

I think that both of these professors have made assessments that we would be wise to take into account.

Over the past 10 years, Tom has demonstrated his commitment not only to the legal profession but to the broader justice system. He has volunteered a great deal of time in training judges and lawyers in Eastern Europe, impressing many, including Mark Ellis, the executive director of the International Bar Association, who had this to say about Tom Griffith:

The duty of a judge is to administer justice according to

the law, without fear or favor, and without regard to the

wishes or policy of the governing majority. Tom Griffith will

fervently adhere to this principle.

We in the Senate have ample evidence that Tom Griffith will place the law over partisan politics. Tom was Senate legal counsel during the Clinton impeachment trial and won praise from those on both sides of the aisle. Yesterday, I quoted from Senator Dodd's speech in tribute to Tom on his departure from the Senate. Senator Bennett, my colleague from Utah, has already explained the constructive role that Tom played in keeping the Senate together during the impeachment trial. I agree that the reputation of the Senate was enhanced rather than degraded through that time, in part because of the steady hand and solid guidance of Tom Griffith.

Few nominees that come before the Senate are as well-known by Senators as Tom Griffith and we know that he can handle complex problems in a charged atmosphere in a manner that brings consensus.

I think that the qualities that Tom displayed as Senate legal counsel are exactly those that we need on the Federal bench.

Many agree with this assessment. For example, here is what one of our Nation's leading appellate lawyers, the Clinton administration's Solicitor General Seth Waxman, had to say about Mr. Griffith:

I have known Tom since he was Senate Legal Counsel and I

was Solicitor General, and I have the highest regard for his

integrity . . . For my part, I would stake most everything on

his word alone. Litigants would be in good hands with a

person of Tom Griffith's character as their judge.

This strong sentiment in favor of Tom Griffith's competence and character is shared, not surprisingly, by his former law partners and mentors. Fred Fielding, former White House Counsel to President Reagan and former chairman of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, has described Tom Griffith as ``a very special individual and a man possessed of the highest integrity. He is a fine professional who demands of himself the very best of his intellect and energies.''

Another law partner of Mr. Griffith, Richard Wiley, has this to say about his qualifications:

Tom is an outstanding lawyer, with keen judgment, congenial

temperament and impeccable personal integrity. He would bring

great expertise and fair-minded impartiality to the bench

and, in my judgment, would be a considerable credit to the

D.C. Circuit and the Federal Judiciary as a whole.

Tom Griffith has the education, experience, judgment, and character to make an outstanding member of the Federal judiciary. I commend President Bush for nominating an individual from Utah who has a proven track record as a lawyer and has strong bipartisan support.

In addition to this affirmative discussion of Tom Griffith's qualifications and bipartisan support, I do need to respond to the few arguments that have been raised against his nomination by some on the other side of the aisle.

First, my friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, referred to Mr. Griffith

yesterday as someone who ``admittedly practiced law illegally first in the District of Columbia and then in Utah.'' Mr. President, this statement is patently false.

Mr. Griffith has admitted no such thing because he did no such thing.

No court or administrative body, including no bar association, anywhere has ever concluded that Mr. Griffith has, in the Senator from Vermont's ill-chosen words, practiced law illegally.

Neither have they found that Mr. Griffith engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, either in the District of Columbia or in Utah.

Let me once again set this record straight with respect to both of these jurisdictions.

In 2001, Mr. Griffith discovered that his D.C. bar membership had been suspended for failing to pay his annual dues. As soon as he became aware of the problem, he rectified it. He paid his dues in full and was promptly reinstated as a bar member in good standing.

He remains a member in good standing today.

This matter involving Mr. Griffith's bar dues does involve several unfortunate mistakes. In the early 1990s, Mr. Griffith worked for a large law firm in Washington and became accustomed to the firm's practice of paying its attorneys' bar dues.

When he returned to that firm following his service as Senate legal counsel, he wrongly assumed the firm was once again paying his bar dues. He accepts full responsibility for the oversights and, as I said, is today a member in good standing.

Mr. President, the only, I repeat, the only question is whether this error was anything other than inadvertent. And Mr. Griffith has answered that question with a clear and resounding no. No one, including the Senator from Vermont, has offered a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Each year, more than 3000 lawyers in the District of Columbia alone-- and, I understand, a number of sitting judges--similarly see their law license suspended for failure to pay bar dues.

As in Mr. Griffith's situation, this is an administrative suspension, not a disciplinary suspension.

Despite the rhetoric from the Senator from Vermont, we do not have thousands and thousands of lawyers practicing illegally in the Nation's Capital.

In a letter to the Judiciary Committee dated June 14, 2004, former ABA Presidents Bill Ide and Sandy D'Alemberte wrote:

By immediately paying his dues when he became aware of the

oversight, Tom took the proper course of action. According to

D.C. bar counsel, such an oversight is entirely common and of

no major concern.

Yesterday the Senator from Vermont was trying to turn something entirely common and of no major concern into something untoward and of very grave concern. It will not work.

The story is no different with respect to the Utah chapter of this story.

Mr. Griffith graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law and practiced law in North Carolina and Washington, DC, for 15 years, including service as Senate legal counsel.

The position he accepted of general counsel of Brigham Young University was very different, in both content and location, than his previous experience. He consulted with Utah attorneys requiring Utah's requirement for in-house counsel, and he has always complied with the advice he has received in this regard.

Simply put, the advice he received was that he need not become a member of the Utah bar, so long as he worked with a bar member when engaged in legal practice activities. No one, including the Senator from Vermont, has documented that he has not met this standard.

In a letter to the Judiciary Committee dated June 28, 2004, five former presidents of the Utah bar affirmed that ``a general counsel working in the state of Utah need not be a member of the Utah bar provided that when giving legal advice to his or her employer that he or she does so in conjunction with an associated attorney who is an active member of the Utah bar.''

In a letter dated July 2, 2004, John Baldwin, executive director of the Utah bar, similarly affirmed that ``those who follow that advice are not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.''

Mr. Griffith not only complied with the letter of the advice he received, his actions are consistent with the spirit of that advice as well.

In a letter to the editor of the New York Times dated July 4, 2004, law professors and legal ethics experts Monroe Freedman of Hofstra University and Thomas Morgan of George Washington University, emphasized that the requirement of bar membership is not a rule of legal ethics. Rather, it assures the public--those to whom lawyers offer their services--that lawyers are competent.

Their letter states:

The requirement of membership in a particular bar is not in

itself a rule of ethical professional conduct, but a lawyer's

guild rule . . . designed to restrict competition . . . At

best, the requirement of a license is intended to assure that

one who holds himself out to the public as a lawyer is indeed

competent to serve as a lawyer. In that regard, there is

no question about Mr. Griffith's competence, which is the

only ethical issue that is material.

Obviously, this does not apply to an in-house counsel who does not hold himself out to the public. Brigham Young University, Mr. Griffith's employer, was well aware that he was not a bar member and was thoroughly satisfied with both his status and his service.

The unsubstantiated charge that Mr. Griffith has practiced law without a license is pure hokum. Or as I explained yesterday, in the opinion of Abner Mikva, a former Democratic Congressman, White House Counsel to President Clinton, and former Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, this charge amounts to ``a whole lot of nothing.''

Judge Mikva has it right. My friend from Vermont is simply wrong.

The other area of criticism involves Mr. Griffith's views on title IX, a statutory provision which provides equal opportunities for women in college sports. Tom has proven that he is a strong supporter of title IX and women's rights.

In fact, he was appointed to the Secretary of Education's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics by Rod Paige in part because of his outspoken support of title IX's objectives.

In response to written questions from members of the Judiciary Committee, Tom Griffith expressed his personal convictions about title IX. He wrote:

I am deeply committed to Title IX in particular and to

expanding and advancing opportunities for women in all areas

of our society. I am committed to that because it is the

right thing to do. But it is also personal for me. I am the

father of five daughters and a son. My entire adult life, I

have been an outspoken advocate for expanding opportunities

for women in part because it means more opportunities for my

daughters and a better society for my son. Those who know me

best know that about me.

Let us consider what those who know Tom Griffith say in this regard. Brian Jones, former title IX commissioner and general counsel of the Department of Education, said:

During the Commission's months of deliberation it was quite

clear that every member of the Commission--including Tom--

strongly supports Title IX and is immensely proud of the

progress brought about by its passage. . . . Tom was

consistently a member of the Commission who was not only

willing but also eager to engage every commissioner's

opinions--listening and deliberating in a thoughtful manner,

in a sincere effort to bridge disagreements and seek

consensus where possible.

Graham Spanier, president of Penn State University and another former title IX commissioner, had this to say:

During the many months that Mr. Griffith served on the

Commission charged with reviewing Title IX, I found him to be

supportive of the law that established Title IX. He was, in

fact, outspoken in his support for the law while thoughtfully

reflecting on matters of interpretation and commenting on

potential refinements to enforcement protocols. . . . During

our work, Mr. Griffith stated his belief that Title IX was

one of the great landmarks in civil rights in our Nation.

Ted Leland, former cochair of the title IX commission and director of athletics at Stanford University, affirms Tom's clear commitment to title IX:

During our numerous public meetings, I found Mr. Griffith

not only a diligent commission member, but a staunch

supporter of Title IX.

The list goes on, but because these baseless allegations linger, I want to also offer the views of Tom's colleagues at Brigham Young University. The executive director of BYU Women's Athletics, Elaine Michaelis, applauded Tom's efforts:

Tom has been very supportive of our women's athletic

program, the coaches, and the athletes. I believe that he is

committed to women and minorities and to fairness in all

aspects of the law.

B.R. Siegfried, an associate professor of English literature and Women's studies at BYU, said the following:

I am an especially fierce advocate of equality for women,

and of the civil liberties that lend themselves to the

expansion and development of women's opportunities. . . . Tom

is and has been a steadfast and enthusiastic advocate for

women. In a local context in which there is tremendous social

pressure to gloss over gender issues, he has spoken out

repeatedly in support of fairness and justice. His support

has been constant and resolute, and his words are founded on

deeds of practical service.

As a member of a commission overseeing a review of title IX's application, Tom recommended some changes. He is the kind of person to take such a role seriously; I am sure he did not consider it sufficient to fill a chair and not bring his considerable judgment, insight, and experience to bear in a constructive way.

In some respects, however, Tom's recommendations are beside the point. As the many lawyers who now serve here in the Senate, lawyers wear many different hats over the course of their careers.

When Stephen Breyer, for example, was chief counsel to my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, believe me, we did not always see eye to eye on issues. But when he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals and later to the Supreme Court, I was confident that he would be able to put politics aside, apply the law to the facts, and make fair and objective judgments.

I hope there is no partisan double-standard at work here. Tom Griffith is also a fair, reasonable, and accomplished lawyer who has served us well here in the Senate and who will properly move into a judicial role. There is no justification for treating him differently because he happens to be the nominee of a Republican President.

Now let's address Tom's supposedly radical policy views. The Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education uses a three prong test to determine an educational institution's adherence to title IX. That test requires that an institution demonstrate one of the following: that the male to female ratio of athletes is substantially proportionate to the male to female ratio of student enrollment; that the institution has a continuing practice of program expansion for members of the under-represented gender; or that the institution is fully and effectively accommodating the athletic interests and abilities of the under represented gender.

The first prong, the substantial proportionality test, has been designated by the Office of Civil Rights as a safe harbor. If an institution meets the requirements of a numeric formula, the university can avoid liability under title IX. The commission found that many institutions have transformed substantial proportionality into strict proportionality.

The problem represented by this legalese is clear. This automatic adherence to a numeric formula means that a quota system has been established. Regardless of the number of young women interested in collegiate sports, colleges and universities must offer equal numbers of athletic slots.

This is a radical revision of title IX's intention, which was to provide equal opportunity for participation in college sports, not equal results.

The perverse result of shifting from equal opportunity to equal results has been documented on numerous occasions. It has required closing down men's sports teams in swimming, wrestling, gymnastics, and baseball. In 1999, for example, Providence College cut its 78-year-old baseball program to bring it within the proportionality requirement.

In 1996, California State University at Bakersfield's wrestling program, a two-time PAC 10 champion, was eliminated to conform to the proportionality requirement. A General Accounting Office study found that from 1985-86 to 1996-97, no less than 21,000 male athletic spots disappeared, a 12-percent drop overall.

Carol Zaleski, the former president and executive director of USA Swimming, had this to say:

The unfortunate truth is that Title IX has evolved into

something never intended. The act was intended to expand

opportunity. The interpretation by the Office of Civil Rights

and the evolved enforcement has turned into a quota system.

Title IX is a good law with bad interpretation.

Tom Griffith argued that while such rigid numerical quotas may be easy to administer, they fail actually to provide women with more athletic opportunities and that using this quota went beyond the powers Congress had allocated to the Department of Education.

Tom has hardly been the only individual opposed to this quota approach. Our former colleague, Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, said:

The word quota does not appear [in Title IX] . . . What we

were really looking for was equal opportunity for young women

and for girls in the educational system.

Despite divergent views over the best application of the law, Tom Griffith wholeheartedly joined the recommendations of the commission to strengthen title IX and ensure that the test did not simply become a quota. Specifically, he joined recommendations calling for clearer guidelines for implementation of title IX and a method of ``demonstrating compliance with Title IX's participation requirement that treats each part of the [three-part] test equally.''

The question here is not whether Tom Griffith agrees with a particular policy evaluation. The real question is whether he supports women's rights and is committed to equal opportunity. The answer to that is a resounding answer is yes.

Three Associate Deans at Brigham Young University Law--Constance Lundberg, Katherine Lund and Mary Hoagland--wrote to me and had this to say about Tom Griffith:

In specific instances of which we have personal knowledge,

[Mr. Griffith] has fought for the promotion and recognition

of women, including ethnic minorities. His support has been

vigorous even when faced with substantial administrative

roadblocks. . . . In our experience, some men in similar

roles are not comfortable working with women as colleagues.

Tom, on the other hand, seeks out and respects women's

opinions. Indeed, if every person in university

administration were as evenhanded on gender issues as Tom,

Title IX and other ameliorative measures would be moot.

In both of these areas of criticism--whether he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and whether he supports equal opportunity for women--the pattern is the same. The allegations bear no relationship whatsoever to the facts, and those who know Tom Griffith best and have worked with him most strongly support his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

I do think that this nominee has been treated badly, and I hope Senators will do the right thing and allow him to take this very important position. He will be a consensus builder and will work to make sure the law is implemented as the law was intended to be.

At one time, when another person was being nominated for this position, I had those in the minority say: You ought to nominate Griffith. Some of the chief staff people said: Why not nominate Tom Griffith? These senior staff members said that Tom would be a slam dunk because everybody knows how great he is and what a good person he is.

Well, I fought to get him nominated all the way to the White House itself. Almost immediately after he was nominated, we instead hear some of these ridiculous arguments that, if not frivolous, certainly off the mark. What is important is we have a man of integrity, ability, and capacity who could fulfill this position in a way that might bring other people together. We all know it because we have seen him for four solid years right here in the Senate doing the Senate's business.

I appreciate my colleagues on the other side, and especially those who are willing to vote for Tom Griffith. I think he deserves their vote. He deserves the vote of all of us, and I hope everybody in this body will give him a fair vote today.