Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me say this up front. If cloture is invoked, that type of amendment would not be germane and would not be permitted. If cloture is not invoked, I intend to bring up the amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it seems to me we really cannot debate campaign finance reform without debating the way in which political funds are not only given to candidates but also acquired from people. Campaign contributions are usually donated voluntarily. You can get an invitation to a fundraiser or a direct mail solicitation, and you can decide whether to contribute to that candidate, cause, or party. We all consider this one of the basics of American democracy. Individuals must support it by supporting the candidates they believe in. But there are people in our country for whom this very fundamental freedom of choice is not given--members of labor unions. I may be one of the few ever in the history of Congress to actually have earned his union card and worked in the construction industry for 10 years. It is certainly no secret that unions collect dues from their members and that, in many cases, an individual has to join a union in order to be employed in a particular industry or with a particular company. So there is no effective choice about paying union dues for these people. But to add insult to injury, these Americans, who are forced to pay union dues, must also suffer the fact that unions donate millions of dollars to candidates that any individual may not support. The recent announcement by the AFL-CIO that this big labor--you would have to say now mega-labor--organization would donate $35 million to candidates this year may be welcomed by some--certainly all Democrats-- but disappointing to any who may not agree with the choices. Take President Clinton, for example. I daresay that there may be any number of union members out there who do not support President Clinton's reelection. In my view, this violation of fundamental choice and freedom of speech is compounded by the fact that labor unions do not even disclose their soft money contributions, which amount to millions. At this particular time, I would like to place in the Record a Congressional Research Service report for Congress entitled ``Political Spending by Organized Labor: Background and Current Issues.'' This report is astounding. They indicate that in Presidential elections, it is estimated that from $400 to $500 million in moneys go basically to the Democratic Party. I ask unanimous consent that that report be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point? Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. If it is on our time?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Would the Parliamentarian please state what the offer was?

Mr. HATCH. If we win, we win; if we lose, we lose. But we prefer to do it in the routine parliamentary fashion.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask my dear friend from Arkansas to correct me if I misstate this. It is my understanding that Senator Pryor will neither offer his amendment today, nor does he believe anybody else will offer a similar amendment today. We will save the vote for another day, but we will each make a few comments today. Mr. PRYOR addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am prepared to put this to a vote today. As I understand it, if the Senator had called up his amendment, then the distinguished Senator from South Carolina would have called up his second-degree amendment, which is certainly both legitimate under the rules and a common practice in the Senate whenever we have some of these very sensitive, difficult matters to consider. Let me say this, Mr. President. I admire my colleague from Arkansas. We have been friends for years. He feels very deeply about this. But there are many of us who feel very deeply about our side of the issue. When the time comes, I will ask my colleagues to vote against the Pryor amendment and to vote for the compromise legislation on the GATT/ Pharmaceutical patent issue that was recently adopted by a bipartisan vote of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I know many here are asking themselves how many times are we going to have to debate this issue? And, for that matter, they are asking why we are considering it on an underlying bill that is, at best, only tangentially related to the subject matter of our amendment. We considered the Pryor amendment in the Finance Committee last fall as part of the budget reconciliation bill, and the committee rejected it. We considered the amendment on December 7 as an amendment to the partial-birth abortion ban bill, and the amendment was not adopted. My colleagues attempted to offer the bill as an amendment to the Kassebaum-Kennedy health insurance bill, and it was withdrawn. In counterpoint to the efforts of Senator Pryor, the Judiciary Committee held a February 27 hearing, as I promised. On May 2, we held a markup, as I promised. We wanted to hold the markup before then, but consideration of the immigration bill took longer than anyone anticipated. The point is that we held the markup, and we did it in as expedited a fashion as possible. I am pleased to say that, with the support of Senators Specter and Heflin, we were able to forge a bipartisan compromise that was adopted on a 10-to-7 vote. We are working hard to file a report on this bill. We do not yet have the CBO on-budget estimates, nor do we have their newly required off- budget, unfunded mandates analysis. In short, to bring the Pryor-Brown-Chafee amendment up at this time would be to attempt to short-circuit the process that is well underway in the Judiciary Committee. Senator Pryor's amendment is nothing more than an effort to engender support for an approach that the Judiciary Committee has already considered and rejected. And while my preference would be to consider the Judiciary Committee compromise as a freestanding measure, it is clear such will probably not be the case. I have been around this body long enough to know that you cannot always pick the time and place for a debate. If today is the day, so be it. I thank my colleague for accommodating me in bringing it up at this time and giving me notice. I hope that in the future we can notify each other on this and, as always, treat each other fairly. I also hope that a great majority of my colleagues will agree with me that the Pryor amendment is unwarranted and that the Judiciary Committee compromise that Senator Thurmond will offer should be adopted by the Senate. Before I describe why I think the Judiciary Committee compromise is preferable to the Pryor amendment, I just want to recognize the fact that many in this body have spent a considerable amount of time on this somewhat arcane but very important subject. Although I firmly disagree with Senators Brown, Pryor, and Chafee on this matter, I respect each of them. They are good Senators. Frankly, I would prefer working together with them rather than in opposition. In fact, despite our sharp differences on this particular issue, Senators Pryor, Chafee, and I are working closely together on the Finance Committee to ensure adequate funding of community health centers and rural health clinics. I will miss debating David Pryor on these tough and complex pharmaceutical issues when he retires from the Senate later this year. The same is true for Hank Brown, our good friend. I will also miss Senator Heflin, a great friend who has been on the Judiciary Committee almost as long as I have. He studied this issue carefully as well. I fully agree with the observation he made at one of our recent Judiciary Committee hearings that the generic and innovator segments of the industry have much more in common than they have in contention. I was particularly pleased that Senator Heflin voted for the Judiciary Committee compromise, although he voted with Senator Pryor last December. I also wish to commend especially my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, with helping to develop the Judiciary Committee compromise proposal. He played a critical role in this effort. I want everyone to understand how much the other members of the Judiciary Committee and I value his leadership in this area. The issue we are debating today centers on the complex interrelationship between the GATT treaty, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the Patent Code. In particular, the question is how certain transition rules contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act apply to pioneer pharmaceutical patents which have been extended by the URAA. This is a tough, contentious issue. That is because there is an inherent tension involved in setting and adjusting the incentives that will result in both the next generation of breakthrough therapies and in making low-cost generic equivalents available. The American people need both breakthrough innovator products and lower cost generics. But as former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop has wisely observed: ``. . . we must resist the temptations of short-term thinking and look at the big picture. The only way to make a real difference in health care costs--and a real difference in people's lives--is to find cures for AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's and . . . other diseases. The way to do that is to encourage support for medical innovation. And make no mistake that retaining incentives for biomedical research is exactly what the Judiciary Committee compromise does. I am extremely pleased to tell my colleagues that Dr. Koop spoke to my staff this morning and said that he is supportive of the Judiciary Committee compromise that I am offering today. Let me outline the key elements of the Judiciary Committee compromise proposal that I developed, working, as I have said, in close consultation with Senator Specter who has a very deep interest in this issue. This is important, to lay this out, so people realize it is not quite as simple as the distinguished Senator from Arkansas articulates here on the floor today. The compromise allows generic drug applications which were submitted to the FDA by June 8, 1995, and were found to be sufficiently complete so as to permit substantive review to be approved for marketing during the GATT transition period. As with other industries under the URAA, a court must first determine that the generic drug manufacturer met the substantial investment requirement. This investment could not solely consist of expenditures related to the development and submission of an abbreviated new drug application, or ANDA. Under the Judiciary Committee compromise, the court would take into account activities that were specifically related to the research, development, manufacture, sale, and marketing, and other activities undertaken in connection with the specific generic drug application. The Judiciary compromise also includes a provision advocated by Senator Biden, to treat patents in force on June 8, 1995, as a result of a Hatch-Waxman restoration extension in the same manner as other patents with respect to URAA patent term modifications. This is fair and warranted given the fact that Hatch-Waxman restoration extensions are granted in partial compensation for time lost due to FDA regulatory review and should be considered wholly independent from any URAA extension. Finally, at the request of Senator Specter, the Judiciary Committee contains a 2-year marketing exclusivity extension for Lodine, a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory product. This product was under FDA NDA review for over 8 years, and presents a factual case in many respects similar to Daypro, which was recently afforded equitable relief in the continuing resolution that was passed in April. In addition, the proposal contains sense-of-the-Senate language to urge that litigation be concluded as expeditiously as possible. In this regard, let me just add that Senator Specter will work with me to add an amendment that will help us to get there. As a matter of fact, under the Judiciary Committee compromise, the interest of ensuring prompt litigation is promoted by granting the courts the authority to award equitable compensation from the patentee to the generic drug applicant in consideration for marketing time lost due to litigation. The message here is simple and clear: Equity is a two-way street. Pioneer drug firms unjustifiably drawing out litigation will be placed in substantial financial risk if it is determined by the court that equity so requires compensation be paid to the generic manufacturer. These provisions would not apply to products whose patents would have expired, including any restoration periods under the Hatch-Waxman Act, after June 8, 1998. The purpose of this provision is to prohibit obvious gaming of the system by those who may have submitted generic drug applications far in advance than would have been the case in any normal commercial transaction. It will be interesting to see once CBO completes its analysis of the FDA data whether some generic firms may have submitted applications for products whose patents expire sometime early in the next century. This hardly strikes me as the type of good-faith activity that seems to be contemplated by the URAA transition rules. The Judiciary Committee compromise is fair and balanced. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I would next like to take just a few moments to explain why I believe that this approach is preferable to the Pryor amendment. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I have several threshold concerns about the Pryor legislation. First, it undermines the incentives for biomedical research. Dr. Koop and other leading public health experts recognize that it is only through research that great life-saving and cost-saving medical advances flow. Plain and simple, more research will be conducted under the Judiciary Committee compromise than under the Pryor amendment. Second, it sets a poor, first example on GATT and will act to encourage our trading partners to drag their feet in implementing the intellectual property provisions of the GATT Treaty. I know the U.S. Trade Representative under the Clinton administration takes a different view but I think former Trade Representative Bill Brock got it exactly right, and I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Third, it may subject the Federal Treasury to substantial financial liability under the takings clause of the fifth amendment. On this last point, let me just say that the takings issue was discussed at our February hearing. I was very interested to learn that analysts at CBO have independently raised this issue, so I think it is a very real concern. We should attempt to ensure that it is the generic drug manufacturers and pioneer pharmaceutical firms, respectively, who are financially responsible for paying any court-ordered equitable remuneration and equitable compensation. In addition to these three major policy concerns that I have just outlined, I also take strong exception to the manner in which Senator Pryor has attempted to characterize this debate. There are two basic arguments that are repeatedly advanced as justification for the Pryor amendment. The first is the uneven playing field argument. You have heard it many times in this debate. Somehow only the generic drug industry has not been able to take advantage of the GATT transition rules. But the truth of the matter is that there are no reported cases of any generic product manufacturer, from any other industry reaching, or for that matter even seeking to reach, the marketplace through the transition rules. If adopted, the Pryor amendment would tilt the playing field by creating a virtually industry-wide advantage being granted to only one industry--the generic drug industry. This can hardly be called leveling the playing field. The other major argument advanced by the proponents of the Pryor amendment is the alleged unintentional mistake argument. It is said over and over again by my opponents in this debate that adopting the Pryor amendment merely amounts to making a technical correction to achieve an effect that Congress intended all long. I must say that on the surface this argument has a certain amount of appeal and is easy to understand. The trouble is that it is simply not the borne out by the facts. It is important for everyone in this body to understand what the Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit found on intent issue last November in the Royce case. Frankly, what they found was that, with my apologies to Gertrude Stein, ``there is no there, there.'' The court said: The parties have not pointed to, and we have not discovered, any legislative history on the intent of Congress, at the time of passage of the URAA, regarding the interplay between the URAA and the Hatch-Waxman Act. There have been many attempts to create after-the-fact legislative history--and additional attempts will no doubt be fabricated in the course of our debate today. But, as with the judges on the Federal Circuit, I am aware of no evidence at the time of passage of the URAA that dispositively resolves, or even hints at resolving, the intent issue in the manner now so frequently, so cavalierly, and--it must be stated--so misleadingly, claimed by my opponents. I know where the bald assertions are but where is the beef? What is this evidence? Frankly, the intent argument is somewhat galling. How many times has this body debated a supposed technical correction measure, like we did for three hours last December, only to refer the matter back to Committee for further study by a razor thin 49 to 48 vote. Technical correction, my eye. I am also greatly concerned that the Pryor approach contemplates market entry prior to an opportunity for court resolution of the key determinations surrounding substantial investment and equitable remuneration. A key principle of the Hatch-Waxman Act, and of section 154(c) of the URAA, is to first determine the rights of the patent holder before a generic competitor may enter the market. This principle should not be casually set aside. In contrast to the Pryor amendment, the Judiciary Committee substitute--consistent with the longstanding paragraph 4 certification process under the Hatch-Waxman Act and the plain language of section 154(c)--would respect the innovator's intellectual property by first resolving the substantial investment and equitable remuneration issues. In this regard, I must register my objection to the recent June 13 letter from Secretary Shalala that seems to interpret the language of section 154(c)(3) as allowing the continuation of infringing activities while the courts resolve the substantial investment and equitable remuneration issues. This interpretation would be, in my estimation, rejected by the courts because it amounts to de facto compulsory licensing. The protection of prior judicial review is critical. One of the key reasons why our Nation endorsed the intellectual property provisions of the GATT Treaty--the so-called TRIPS provisions--was to limit the ability of our trading partners to wrongfully devalue American intellectual property through compulsory licensing provisions. This June 13 administration embrace of compulsory licensing may open up a real can of worms and will send a horrible signal both overseas and to our inventor community here at home. I have taken too long, I understand. Let me close by simply saying that for the reasons I have given, I hope that my fellow Senators will agree with me that the best course is for the full Senate to adopt the Judiciary Committee compromise. It was hard fought and won in the Judiciary Committee. It is a fair compromise and one that will benefit the health of the American people and the American public. Last, but not least, let me just say this: As the author of the Hatch-Waxman bill, this is a very important issue for me. This is something that I believe in or I would not be doing this. I have been vilified and mistreated and my efforts mischaracterized on this issue. I can live with that, because that has happened to me many times in my political career, as well as to many others here. But I really resent having the issues in this matter mis-characterized in the way some people have done. I want to say that the generic industry, by and large, has been very fair to me and very decent. I personally appreciate them. I look forward to trying to help them in the future on issues on which they deserve to have help. Unfortunately, this does not happen to be one of those issues. I hope our colleagues will pay attention to the things that have been said on the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I did not hear your whole sentence. Your amendment to be what?

Mr. HATCH. If we prevail?

Mr. HATCH. We are agreeable to 45 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. It is my understanding that Senator Pryor has an amendment. I believe the Senator from South Carolina will second degree the amendment. I will agree to a 45-minute time limit divided equally on both amendments in order to accommodate my colleague, even though I think I need almost a half-hour to speak on it. But I will agree to 45 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Is the time limit we discussed agreeable to my colleague?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to add my support to the amendment regarding the United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement. The United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement, first concluded in 1986, and renewed in 1991, has led to tremendous progress in opening the Japanese market. It has provided the framework for discussing trade issues before they became problematic and has been the catalyst for increasing cooperation between United States semiconductor makers and Japanese semiconductor-consuming industries. It has also promoted fair trade in the marketplace and, at least until recently, has helped to avoid situations of injurious dumping. The current agreement expires at the end of July. It must be renewed. Moreover, both governments must play a significant role in any renewed agreement. Government-to-government involvement provides essential support and encouragement to all industry efforts, and permits the collection of relevant data regarding the calculation of market share. The agreement will not work unless this data can form the basis of the accountability in product pricing that can avoid antidumping actions. Renewal of the United States-Japan Semiconductor Agreement has become even more important because of the recent dramatic price declines for memory chips. Average sales prices have fallen by over 70 percent in recent months. These prices are so low, in fact, that the specter of significant injurious dumping is again a reality. Dumping throws markets into a panic. This type of uncertainty and disruption must not take place again. I urge the President to use all the means at his disposal to conclude a renewed agreement before the current one expires on July 31.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nebraska for his kind remarks about our friend Bob Dole, which were very eloquent. I think he expressed it beautifully for a lot of Democrats. I think everyone in this body has tremendous esteem and affection and love for Bob Dole. He is one of the all-time great Senators. There is no question about it. He will go down in history as one of the all-time great Senators. Mr. President, 20 years ago, when I was first sworn in as the junior Senator from Utah, Bob Dole was among the first of my Republican colleagues to come up and put his arm around me, and helped guide me and helped me to learn the ropes. I rise today to thank him for that, and for his extraordinary leadership in the years since. When the citizens from Kansas elected Bob Dole as their Senator, they chose a man who epitomizes the qualities of mainstream America, a team player, a war hero who demonstrated tremendous courage and perseverance both on the battlefield and afterward, a hard worker and an honest and decent man, a man whom all Americans can look up to. By now, most of us are aware of the wounds Lieutenant Dole suffered on that April morning in 1945. That was about the same time that my brother was killed in the Second World War. Bob Dole could have been killed too, and almost was. We have also heard about his amazing and long recovery. But less is known about how Bob Dole was injured. Richard Ben Cramer's book, ``What it Takes,'' tells us how: Dole got his men down to the low stone wall. Dole could have stayed in the middle [of the platoon]. But he knew his job, and he did it. He was out in front, with the lead squad. They were pinned down quick. They were pinned down in the field, when a farmhouse on the left opened fire: a Jerry machine-gun nest . . . the men in the field were hamburger. Dole had to get that machine gun. The lead squad was going to have to flank that house and get that nest of Krauts [sic]. Sergeant Carafa assumed he'd be going out with the squad, but Dole said, ``Sergeant, I'll take 'em.'' Bob Dole saw many men die trying to knock out that machine gun. It was that morning, trying to take it out, that he was wounded. Bob Dole could have let someone else go out with the squad. Bob Dole could have stayed behind and provided cover. Bob Dole could have stayed in the middle. Instead, Bob Dole was out in front. Bob Dole has been out in front ever since. He became a skillful legislator. He knew how to get things done around here. But he also knew that duty required him to take action when it wasn't always in his own best interest or when he saw public policy going down the wrong path. Take, for example, his leadership on addressing the crime issue. Throughout his career, Bob Dole consistently supported legislation to fight crime and help the victims of crime. From the Organized Crime Control Act of 1969 to the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, Bob Dole has fought to bring accountability to the criminal justice system. But, in 1994, Senator Dole stood up for what he thought was right and opposed the so-called Crime Control Act of 1994 because it was a pork-laden, big dollar, Great Society social spending boondoggle. Some of our colleagues thought we had lost our minds when we opposed a so-called crime bill in an election year. But Bob Dole did it because it was the right thing to do. He worked tirelessly for comprehensive habeas corpus reform. He worked to crack down on frivolous inmate lawsuits and was at the forefront of reform when, in 1984, he cosponsored the Sentencing Reform Act, which brought truth-in-sentencing to the Federal system. Mr. President, Senator Dole has been a leader and a fighter for civil rights from the beginning of his career. Senator Dole knows full well that prejudice and artificial barriers can hold a person down. As a Member of the other body, he voted for landmark legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was a leader in the effort to extend the Voting Rights Act in 1982. In 1967, then Congressman Dole voted for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In 1990, Senator Dole supported the expansion and clarification of this law to protect older workers from the loss of their employee benefits. Senator Dole led the passage of the Martin Luther King holiday bill. It was a bill I voted against, and I consider it the worst mistake I have made in my 20 years here. I thought that we should not add another holiday due to both the public and private sector costs involved. But, frankly, in hindsight, I made a mistake. Bob Dole, however, did what was right, and he brought that bill up and helped to pass it. He played a key leadership role in enacting the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act. I worked hard on that bill, and I know what he did. I was in the late night meetings. As the ranking Republican on the Labor and Human Resources Committee, I was in the leadership meetings. I have to tell you, without Bob Dole, that bill would not have passed. The ADA extended civil rights protections and opportunities to millions of Americans with disabilities. I can remember when it passed, he and I had tears in our eyes because it was such a monumental day. Yes, Bob Dole has been there for the big fights, let me tell you. Bob Dole recognizes that rights inhere in individuals, not groups. In 1995, he introduced the Equal Opportunity Act, which prohibits racial, ethnic, and gender preferences in Federal employment, Federal contacting, and federally administered programs. He sparked a healthy and timely national debate on affirmative action. In his view, every American should be treated with equal rights under the law, without preference based on race, ethnicity, or gender. Bob Dole helped build the Republican Party that we have today. He helped build the Republican majority we have today. There were no litmus tests under Bob Dole's leadership. He successfully knit together Senators from Alaska to Virginia to form a working team whose sole purpose was to achieve the goals for America that we all held in common--goals that I personally believe we hold in common with the American people. We are going to miss Bob Dole in the U.S. Senate. I suspect even his worthy adversaries on the Democratic side have come to admire his determination, skill, and faithfulness to the people he represents. I believe there is unanimous agreement in this body that Bob Dole served with honor and distinction as one of the greatest Senators in the history of this Federal Republic. I have to say something here that I am sure Bob Dole does not know, but I am going to say it publicly because it means so much to me. My brother died shortly before Bob Dole got wounded in the Second World War. My brother was very dear to me. I was only 10 years old when he died. When we received the news, I immediately got a white streak of hair on the right side of my forehead because it was such a shock to me. He was killed in the Ploiesti oil raid, which, of course, was the pivotal oil raid of the European war because it knocked out all of the Vienna-Austrian oilfields that Hitler depended on. But Jess' death was a tremendous shock to us. When I came to the Senate, Bob Dole put his arm around me. He looked like my brother, to a large degree. My brother had the same color hair, was about the same height, about the same build. My brother was a football player as well. He looked a lot like my brother. I have always considered Bob Dole, for good or bad, to be my brother. I have tremendous respect and admiration for this man, this fellow who has given so much to his country and who, if everybody in America knew him--knew him like we do--there would be no question that he would be the next President of the United States. I have to say I love Bob Dole. Elaine does, too. We love his wife Liddy. She is a tremendous human being. As both chairman and ranking member of the Labor Committee, I worked with Liddy Dole, who served as President Bush's Secretary of Labor. I have to tell you I appreciated those days and appreciated her kindnesses to me and her great work for the country. Today, Bob Dole is leaving the Senate to pursue a different calling. Yet it still is the calling of public service. He did not have to leave the Senate. Nobody could have pushed him out of here. It would have been safer to stay. But we have already learned that Bob Dole does not stay safely in the foxholes. That is not what we expect of our leaders, and Bob Dole, in my opinion, has what it takes. Whatever the future may hold for Bob and Elizabeth Dole, I just want to wish them both happiness and Godspeed. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, June 6, 1996, beginning at 9:00 a.m. in room SD-215. Most-favored-nation renewal for China.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 6, 1996, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 1703, a bill to amend the act establishing the National Park Foundation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 6, 1996, at 10 a.m.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, June 6, at 10 a.m., for a hearing on ``Oversight on IRS Financial Management.''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 6, 1996, 2 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, June 6, 1996, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting an executive session and markup.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 6, 1996, to conduct a hearing on S. 1317, the ``Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1995.''