Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asia Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 6, 1996, at 2 p.m., to hold hearing.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we are again debating U.S. foreign policy toward the Communist regime of Fidel Castro. We are here to strengthen the policy that the majority of both parties have supported for over 30 years. And, we are here to show that as long as Mr. Castro and his brutal regime remain, he shall see no easing of that policy. That policy has been one of economic containment and diplomatic isolation. That policy has worked. It has isolated a brutal regime and restrained its ability to undermine stability around the world. Unfortunately, this policy has not forced Castro from power, nor eliminated his ability to cause mayhem about the world. Castro was still able to send his forces to Angola, prolonging that war as a payback to Castro's Soviet masters. Our containment policy did not prevent Castro's henchmen from conspiring with Latin American drug bosses to smuggle cocaine poison into our country. And, our policy did not prevent Castro from shooting down two unarmed airplanes in international airspace last week, killing four American citizens. But, Castro's behavior should never surprise us. His regime is built on oppression; his currency is flagrant disrespect for basic human rights. Now that Fidel Castro's tab at the Moscow cafe has been closed, we see how desperately his regime is to survive. Without rubles and oil, the dictator of Havana stands without the slightest shred of a functionary economy. Without his Soviet sponsors, Emperor Castro has no clothes. Our embargo has ensured that the United States has not in any way participated in granting a figleaf of legitimacy to the aging strongman. I say let us strengthen our embargo. If Castro wishes to use foreign investment to replace the rubles from his Communist masters, let us at least ensure that the firms that would succor the Castro regime do not do so with property stolen from U.S. citizens. Foreign investors are free to take the place of the Kremlin powerbrokers, but they cannot trade in stolen property without consequence. In recent years, the debate over U.S. policy toward the autocratic Castro regime and, in particular, the debate over maintaining the embargo have included the introduction of two arguments. One argument suggests that, now that we are in a post-cold-war world, we need not maintain a cold war policy toward Cuba. A second argument we have heard suggests that if we can engage authoritarian states like China and Vietnam, we should be able to engage in the Cuban regime. Regarding the first argument, we are constantly reminded that we now live in the post-cold-war world. In this new world, we are told, we need to revisit so many of the crises and flashpoints that we saw through the bipolar lens of cold war competition. Derivative of this approach is the notion that we must learn to give up our neuralgic distaste for the few remaining Communist regimes, and we must recognize that the basic security and political notions of the cold war no longer provide the touchstones for U.S. policy. A specific point of this rationale is that our Cuba policy must no longer be containment. The problem with this argument is simple: The cold war may be over, but Fidel Castro still rules. While I admit that the Cuban regime is a cold war anachronism, which certainly belongs on the scrap heap of history, the harsh political reality is that Castro and his secret police remain as the dictatorship of Cuba. With the conclusion of the cold war, we saw the end of our global competition with Communist states and the collapse of totalitarian regimes before the popular will of newly freed peoples. Throughout Central Europe, the withdrawal of Soviet support combined with the decay of Communist client governments. Faced with the uprisings of the people demanding freedom, the dictators fled and freedom won the day. The result was the transformation of a part of Europe that had been frozen in time and oppression for nearly 50 years. The United States welcomed these nations to the democratic fold, for we were no longer threatened by their hostile diplomatic postures, their support for terrorists, and their dedication to undermining democracies around the world. But the end of the cold war brought no popular revolution to Cuba. Castro denounced the last Soviet leaders as having failed the Communist catechism. The evaporation of Soviet subsidies brought more misery for the Cuban people, and Castro, no doubt thinking more of Ceausescu than of Havel, clamped down even more. Human rights have not improved in Cuba. No talk about looking at Cuba from a post-cold-war perspective will change this dismal fact. The Cuban people are not free. They are not free to choose their own government; they do not have an independent judiciary; they cannot work in a free economy. They are never free from their political jailers. Those brave ones who dare attempt political discourse continue to be harassed and jailed by Castro's police, as we saw 2 weeks ago when dozens of members of Concillio Cubano were arrested, interrogated, and jailed. The second argument suggests that if we can engage China and Vietnam, under the hope of moderating and influencing their policies, we can do the same for Cuba. I am not sympathetic to the analogy with Vietnam, mostly because I am not sympathetic to opening relations with Vietnam. I believe that Vietnam had much more to gain from recognition by the United States than we did, and that, as a result, we should have been able to extract more concessions before we granted the valuable diplomatic asset of recognition. For recognition from Washington, we should have gained from Hanoi more openness on the POW-MIA issue, and more concessions on human rights. It's clear the authorities in Hanoi recognized that they were getting away with a lot: Less than a month after recognition, they jailed a handful of elderly Buddhist monks. We recognized their dictatorship, and the jailers kept jailing. In all the debate over Vietnam, I never heard adequate reasoning for why we should, at this time, open our Embassy there. So, from my perspective, Vietnam hardly justifies as a reason to adjust our Cuba policy. Mr. President, I don't believe we can compare countries. Cuba is not China, which has the world's largest population, a booming economy, a predominant position in Asia, and a nuclear arsenal. Global foreign policy for this country must take into account this Asian giant, and United States national security must account for the role of China. Cuba has 11 million people, a supine economy, and has become largely irrelevant in Latin America. With no Communist sponsors, it no longer provides a major security threat. While I don't believe it can threaten stability in the region--unless Castro unleashes another wage of refugees--we have seen that the regime is a threat to international civility. When MiG's are dispatched to shoot down Cessnas, you know that the regime is showing its true colors, and those are not the colors of a civilized nation. Mr. President, containing the Castro regime has worked. We must remain vigilant rather than provide sustenance. We must tighten the embargo, rather than engage in the ``Lax Americana'' policies of President Clinton. Mr. President, this bill addresses the role the United States will play during the transition from the Castro dictatorship. In this manner, this legislation provides some forward thinking that I believe was lacking in some of our policies conducted during the cold war. This bill looks to a post-Castro regime, and outlines our responsibility to prepare for the inevitable. It is one of the many paradoxes of a current historical myopia that many view the cold war from simply a security perspective. The result is that we hear the reasoning that says, ``now that we defeated the Soviet Union, we need not concern ourselves with an island run by a bunch of ragged and increasingly isolated Communists.'' But, the cold war was not just fought for security reasons alone. It was fought over ideals: the ideals of humankind's right to liberty, to democratic government and to freedom from oppression. These are the fruits that many of the formerly captive nations of Central Europe now enjoy; these are the fruits denied to captive citizens of Castro. But, in Castro's Cuba, the instruments of oppression remain. And, this is why this body now debates the merits of the bill presented by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, which stands for continuing a firm and resolute policy toward the dictator Castro. And, this is why, today, I believe that we should declare that we stand for a policy that recognizes that the Cuban dictatorship remains in place, and that this brutal reality demands of us that we remain vigilant in our opposition to the Castro regime, determined to outlast it, and dedicated to help the Cuban people when the dictatorship falls. Because fall it will, as so many of those rusted and despised statues dedicated to Communists ideals fell all over Central Europe and the newly independent states when the victors of the cold war were finally freed. I urge my colleagues to support the Libertad bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the U.S. Senate considers the nomination of Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, President Clinton's nominee to be Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy--the so- called drug czar. I strongly support General McCaffrey's nomination and applaud President Clinton's choice of this decorated hero of the Vietnam and Desert Storm conflicts. General McCaffrey currently runs the United States military's joint command in Latin American--Southern Command, also know as SOUTHCOM. SOUTHCOM is responsible for overseeing the military's Latin American interdiction efforts. I have been a vocal critic of President Clinton's drug policy, or should I say, lack of drug policy. While President Clinton has abdicated his responsibility to combat the plague of illegal narcotics to fight the war on drugs by refusing to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to speak out against drugs, I believe that he should be commended for the nomination of General McCaffrey to join forces with others such as Judge Freeh [FBI], Tom Constantine [DEA] and Attorney General Janet Reno who have been instrumental in fighting the drug war. General McCaffrey has the opportunity to use his position to condemn drug use and take active steps in formulating a policy that will help this Nation triumph over drug abuse. A question I have is whether the selection of General McCaffrey signals a new-found commitment by the President to lead in the drug war, or whether it is, more simply, an election year make over. But I am willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt. I am willing to see if he will provide General McCaffrey with the support necessary to reverse the disturbing trends we have seen the past 2 years, trends that suggest substantial increases in youthful drug use. In order to be successful, General McCaffrey will need to engage the full support and involvement of the President. The general promised me that he enjoys the President's full support. I want General McCaffrey to know that he will have strong allies in Congress for a serious effort against drugs. Senator Biden and I, for example, have made a major commitment of time and energy to the drug issue, including shoring up the drug czar even after President Clinton slashed it substantially in his first year in office. While the President cut the Office of National Drug Control staff from 147 to 25, I am pleased that General McCaffrey said he plans on increasing staff to its original level of 150. Last summer Senator Biden and I saved the office from elimination. As late as last week we interceded to lift an earmark against ONDCP's operating budget. These recent efforts to eliminate or cut back the drug czar's office reflect congressional frustration with the Clinton administration's abdication of responsibility. I hope we will see the President take a more active role in supporting General McCaffrey and in condemning illegal drug use. General McCaffrey has raised three children free from the scourge of illegal drugs. I hope he will now view all this Nation's children as his own, and take their futures to heart as he devises and implements a drug strategy. I hope the Senate will commit to assisting him any reasonable way that it can.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as you know, I do not take the floor very often unless I consider it very important. One of the most lasting legacies of a President are the Federal judges he appoints for life. These judges are every bit as much a part of the Federal anti-crime effort as FBI and DEA agents and prosecutors. Mr. President, the American people are going to face stark choices on a range of issues in November. One of those choices will be whether we resume the appointment of hard-nosed Federal judges who are tougher on crime than we can expect from the incumbent. President Clinton talks about cops on the beat. Yet, he appoints some judges who are too willing to put criminals back on the street. Let me tell the American people about Timothy Sherman of Maryland. He was convicted in Maryland State court for the brutal shotgun murders of his mother and step-father. The murder occurred in the middle of the night when Timothy Sherman, who was 17 at the time, was at home. There was no indication of forced entry. Indeed, the home had an alarm system. The 12-gauge shotgun used in the murder belonged to the Shermans. Timothy Sherman's fingerprints were on the shotgun's trigger mechanism. A box holding five 12-gauge shotgun shells was found under his mattress, with two of the shells missing. The police found two matching expended shells that experts concluded were fired from the shotgun. Police found the murder weapon in the branches of a large tree, where the younger Sherman had hidden objects before, and which is located between his own house and the house of his grandparents to which he ran to report the killings. Sherman's conviction was upheld by Maryland courts and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Sherman then sought to have his conviction overturned through a habeas corpus petition. Why? Because a trial juror had visited the crime scene, particularly the tree where the murder weapon was found. This was indeed improper. But criminal defendants are guaranteed a fair trial, not a perfect one. The trial judge found that the error was harmless and not prejudicial. The Federal district judge, William M. Nickerson, who heard the habeas claim, also found the error to be harmless, thereby upholding the conviction in a well reasoned opinion. Judge Nickerson is a Republican- appointed judge, appointed by President Bush. The prisoner appealed the denial of the writ of habeas corpus to the fourth circuit. A Carter judge, Francis Murnaghan, and a Clinton district court judge sitting by designation, James Beaty, reversed the Federal district court judge in a per curiam opinion. These two judges believed that the juror's visit had so prejudiced the proceedings as to invalidate the conviction and they granted Sherman the right to a new trial. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson dissented: ``In light of all the evidence presented at trial, [the juror's] unauthorized excursion to the crime scene was harmless.'' Judge Wilkinson was appointed to the fourth circuit by President Reagan, over vigorous opposition by the other side of the aisle. Indeed, the other side of the aisle conducted a filibuster against this nominee at the time. The two Republican appointed judges, then, would have rejected this convicted murderer's effort to overturn his conviction. The two Democratic-appointed judges have given him a new trial, which, if not undertaken within 6 months, will result in the prisoner's release. Not to worry, say Judges Murnaghan and Beaty: ``If the State of Maryland elects promptly to retry him, a jury, acting properly, may well again convict. It also may not, however, [convict him again] * * *,'' but, at least the second trial will meet their standard of justice, and at the taxpayers' expense. Fortunately, the entire fourth circuit will rehear this case. Mr. President, who do you think the American people would prefer to rehear this criminal case: a majority of judges appointed by Presidents Carter and Clinton, or judges appointed by Presidents Reagan and Bush? I should point out that President Clinton wishes to promote Judge Beaty to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Let me turn to another recent, disturbing case. The New York Times of January 25, 1996, tells the story of Carol Bayless, who confessed to charges of possession of 75 pounds of cocaine and 4.4 pounds of heroin. She faced a minimum sentence of 10-years in jail and as much as life imprisonment. According to the police officer's testimony, on April 21, 1995, he was patrolling in an unmarked car in plain clothes with his partner, both 10-year police veterans, in Washington Heights, an area he said was known as a hub for the drug trade. At about 5 a.m., he noticed Ms. Bayless' car, which had an out-of-State license plate, moving slowly down the street. She then double parked her car. Four unidentified males then emerged from between parked cars and crossed the street in single file. Ms. Bayless popped open the car's trunk, and the men placed two large duffel bags in the trunk and closed it. The police officer did not observe any conversation between the males and the car's driver, and the entire episode took mere seconds. Ms. Bayless drove off and the police officer and his partner pulled up behind her at a stop light. As the two officers stared at the four men, two of the men noticed the police officers, spoke briefly to each other, and split up, rapidly moving in different directions, with at least one of the men running from the area. Do my colleagues find these circumstances suspicious? The police officer did. He pulled Ms. Bayless over, searched the car, and found the nearly 80 pounds of illegal drugs. But according to Judge Harold Baer, Jr., appointed by President Clinton, the police officer is out of step and out of line. Judge Baer ruled that the police officer violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches. Why? According to Judge Baer, the police officer did not have reason to be suspicious of the four men and Ms. Bayless. Oh no. Instead, according to this bleeding heart judge, the four men had reason to be suspicious of the police officer. Here is what the Judge said: ``Even before this prosecution * * * residents in this neighborhood tended to regard police officers as corrupt, abusive and violent * * * had the men not run when the cops began to stare at them, it would have been unusual.'' Whose side is this judge on? Understandably, ``Ms. Bayless reacted with glee * * * over the ruling * * *'' according to the New York Times. I am absolutely sure she did. As a practical matter, the judge's ruling, if it stands, lets her off the hook--free to run more dope into the veins of our people. Her lawyer called Judge Baer courageous. I would say he lacks common sense and judgment. By the way, Ms. Bayless' 40-minute videotaped confession was also thrown out by Judge Baer because it resulted from the stopping of the car. In that confession, Ms. Bayless said she had made over 20 trips from Michigan to New York City to buy cocaine for her son and others beginning in 1991. Judge Baer found this drug runner's statement about what happened the morning of her arrest to be credible, and he rejected the police officer's testimony. The President speaks about cops on the beat. This police officer was on the beat. He was risking his life on behalf of decent, law abiding citizens in Washington Heights and for all of us. He made a good arrest. He took nearly 80 pounds of deadly dope off the street, worth-- well, it is incalculable how much that 80 pounds is worth. But what is the use of cops on the beat if the President appoints soft-headed judges who let the criminals they catch back on the street? It just seems a waste of taxpayers' money. We might as well just let them do whatever they want to do. At least that is the conclusion one would draw from what Judge Baer did in this case. I, for one, hope the U.S. attorney in this area appeals this decision, and I am going to be burned up if he does not. In 1994, by a vote of 61 to 37, the Senate confirmed a Florida State judge, Rosemary Barkett, for the eleventh circuit, that no Republican would have appointed to the Federal bench. Time and again, Judge Barkett, as a State judge, erroneously came down on the side of lawbreakers and against police officers and law enforcement. The full record of my concerns is set forth in the March 22, 1994, Congressional Record. But I cannot refrain from reminding my colleagues of one shocking and outrageous dissent she joined in a brutal murder case, in which she would have reduced a vicious killer's death penalty to life imprisonment, with eligibility for parole in 25 years. Dougan versus Florida involved a terrible, racially motivated murder. The killer bragged about the murder in tape recordings which he mailed to the victim's mother. The dissent which Judge Barkett joined had the gall to say, in part: This case is not simply a homicide case, it is also a social awareness case. Wrongly, but rightly in the eyes of Dougan, this killing was effectuated to focus attention on a chronic and pervasive illness of racial discrimination and of hurt, sorrow, and rejection. Throughout Dougan's life his resentment to bias and prejudice festered. His impatience for change, for understanding, for reconciliation matured to taking the illogical and drastic action of murder. His frustration, his anger, and his obsession of injustice overcame reason. The victim was a symbolic representation of the class causing the perceived injustices. This opinion reeks of moral relativism and excuse making that is totally unacceptable in a judge. And this opinion, which she joined, is just the tip of the iceberg regarding Judge Barkett's very liberal record as a State judge. Yet, President Clinton found her record to be within his mainstream and promoted her to an important judgeship. Why is this so important? Why am I raising cain here today? As a practical matter, the Senate gives--and certainly I give--every President deference in confirming judicial candidates nominated by the President. A Republican President would not nominate the same judges that a Democrat would, and vice versa. Although the Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent to the nominees, the Senate, as a practical matter, gives the President leeway. The President has been elected by the whole country and, while this President has been unable to put all of his choices on the bench, he has filled many judgeships, as have his predecessors. We on the Judiciary Committee have gone along with him because we want to give this President deference. He did win the election. But let us not miss the point of this. We have to be concerned about what kind of judges this President is going to appoint. I respectfully submit, therefore, that the American people must bear in mind that when they elect a President, they get his judges too--and not just for 4 years, but for life. And, while the Senate has served as a check on the President, there is no substitute for holding, and exercising, the power to nominate Federal judges. Indicia of judicial activism or a soft-on-crime outlook are not always present in a nominee's record. Not every nominee who turns out to be a judicial activist or soft on crime can be ferreted out in the confirmation process. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, every President is able to obtain confirmation of most of his nominees. The general judicial philosophy of nominees to the Federal bench reflects the general judicial philosophy of the person occupying the White House--the Oval office, if you will. And differences in judicial philosophy have real consequences for the safety of Americans in their streets, homes, and workplaces. I want to say that I believe the next President of the United States, whether it be President Clinton or whoever, is probably going to have the opportunity to nominate at least two Supreme Court Justices, maybe three. If President Clinton is reelected, he will have appointed better than 50 percent of the total Federal judiciary. It is something we all have to think about. I decry these kind of decisions made by the Clinton judges that I have named so far, and Carter judges--one. I believe you could probably point out deficiencies in judges of every President. But I am really concerned, in this day of rampant criminal activity, with the flood of drugs into our society, that we have judges who are being appointed on a daily basis who have a philosophy like Judge Barkett's, who do not blame the acts of these criminals on themselves but blame them on society, blame them on their environment, on anything but their own volition and their own desire to do wrong. I believe there are wrongs in our society. I believe that there are injustices. I believe that there is still discrimination in our society against certain people. I believe these things are wrong. On the other hand, when people who are not insane commit heinous murders and heinous crimes and are spreading drugs among our young people and are destroying the youth of this Nation and doing it with full intent to do so and to profit from their decisions, or because they are murderers, then I think we ought to come down pretty doggone hard on them; that is, if we want to have a civil, humane, free, and fair society. I will have more to say about these judges in the future, but I have become so alarmed about some of these decisions that I just felt I had to come to the floor today and make this point, since we on the Judiciary Committee have this very important honor of working with these judges. I do not think anybody can say that I have not done my very best to try to accommodate this administration, to try to help them in the appointment of judges. I am going to continue to do that as long as I can. I want to be fair to this President. On the other hand, these type of judges are giving me the chills, and I think they are giving the American people the chills as well. We have to consider just who we want appointing these judges in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my friends and colleagues, Senator Baucus, Senator Simpson, and Senator D'Amato, in introducing legislation that would extend certain expired tax provisions that have been delayed by the recent budget impasse. If no action is taken, the current tax treatment for individuals who accept educational benefits from their employer or donate stock to a charitable foundation will disappear as well as the tax incentives for companies who hire disadvantaged employees and invest heavily in research and development, orphan drug research, and alternative fuel research. These items are noncontroversial and have consistently enjoyed bipartisan support. However, because President Clinton vetoed the balanced budget of 1995, which included these extensions, these much-needed provisions need immediate attention inasmuch as April 15 is quickly approaching. Both individuals and businesses are anxiously awaiting the extension of these expired provisions so they will be able to pay their anticipated tax bill. Mr. President, this bill would ensure continued opportunity for Americans. The termination of one of these provisions--the employer- provided educational assistance program--would end the hopes of thousands to attend college in order to enhance their job opportunities. This program has been well-established as an alternative way for individuals to meet their long-range educational goals. Without this extension, an estimated 800,000 Americans would be required to pay taxes on the education expenses paid by employers who did not withhold for the 1995 tax year because they counted on Congress to extend this program. Companies have already reported a significant drop in program participation because employees would be unable to pay the anticipated additional taxes. Without this exclusion, education becomes too expensive for many and the future promise embodied by it often slips away. Not only will educational goals be defeated if these expired provisions are not extended, but programs that contribute to economic growth and long-term job creation will also be eliminated as research incentives dissipate. Many high-technology industries rely on the research and experimentation tax credit to make the development of new products economically feasible. Without this credit, they would be forced to either reduce the amount of their research or relocate to a country with research-friendly tax policies. In the end, the people of the United States would pay the price for our negligence in not extending this tax credit. They would be the ones without the high- technology, high paying jobs. They would be the ones who would suffer from a research deficit. And they would be the ones who had to live in a country with a less than robust economy. As this extender package focuses on job creation for the high- technology industries, it also creates incentives for businesses to hire high-risk employees through the work opportunities tax credit [WOTC]. This program helps remove individuals from the more costly government assistant programs and provides them with jobs that allow them to both learn and earn. Mr. President, some of my colleagues will correctly note that this bill includes no offset to pay for the lost revenue of extending these expired tax provisions. However, when these items were introduced as a small portion of the balanced budget of 1995, they were an important part of a complete package that placed this Nation on a path to fiscal responsibility. Thus, in the context of a complete balanced budget deal, the cost of these provisions are offset by the necessary spending cuts. This bill has been carved out of the larger piece of legislation because time constraints require that we must now focus attention on the immediacy of this issue. While all of the tax provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 are important and need to be addressed in comprehensive legislation, the items singled out in this bill are those that will have a direct impact on tax returns that are due this spring. As the sponsor of the balanced budget amendment, I certainly recognize the need to enact these provisions in a way that will not increase the deficit. And, I remain hopeful that Congress will pass an effective and responsible budget bill, including these and other vital tax provisions, that the President will sign. We look forward to working with Chairman Roth of the Finance Committee and Senator Domenici of the Budget Committee in crafting a revenue neutral package that would include these provisions. Mr. President, these programs are specifically designed to target individuals and businesses in a way that will produce benefits for the American economy. History has proven that high employment rates, educational opportunities, and intensive research are goals that we can agree on. It is important that we see this bill enacted in a timely matter so that our Nation will feel the effects of this legislation. Individuals and businesses alike have anticipated the renewal of these provisions. Congress has extended them in the past, and should have extended them in the 1995 budget agreement. Failure to do so now could have serious repercussions. I note that similar legislation will be introduced in the House by Representatives Nancy Johnson and Robert Matsui. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is the text of a bill, S. 1133, authored by Senators McConnell, Harkin, and myself. Senators McConnell and Harkin are chair and ranking member of the Nutrition Subcommittee, and we consider this a very important amendment. This is a small amendment, but makes a good deal of sense. It allows food stamps to be used to purchase vitamins and minerals, a practice which I believe is permissible under current law, but which is not allowed due to Agriculture Department policy, a ridiculous policy, I might add. It is time to change it. There is ample evidence to show the nutritional benefits of vitamins and minerals. This incontrovertible fact was recognized not once, but twice, by the U.S. Senate in 1993 when it passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, Public Law 103-417. I need not remind my colleagues that the dietary supplement bill passed without a single dissenting vote in either body, abundant proof, I believe, as to the safety and public health benefits of both vitamins and minerals. For any of my colleagues who remain unconvinced, I direct their attention to Senate Report 103-410 which provides numerous references to scientific studies supporting the nutritional benefits of dietary supplements. In fact, studies have shown that more than 100 million Americans regularly use vitamins and minerals to ensure that their basic nutritional requirements are met, to support their health during periods of special risk, and to help protect against chronic disease. Let me point out that there is an ample body of evidence to show that many Americans simply do not have healthy diets, and this is true for children as well as for men and women. For example, in one Government study of the eating habits of more than 21,000 people, not a single person got the full recommended daily allowance of 10 key vitamins and minerals--and that was just one study. Many other studies have shown that the poor and elderly in our country are especially likely to have low nutrient intakes, often with significant health consequences. For example, a 1992 study by a world- renowned authority on immune function reported that giving a modest multivitamin with minerals to a group of men and women over the age of 65 for a period of 1 year cut the number of sick days in this group to half compared to a similar unsupplemented group. Perhaps the best example is folic acid, which the Food and Drug Administration steadfastly resisted revealing to America's women as a significant protector against birth defects. So while we all recognize it would be desirable for Americans to eat healthy foods and maintain an adequate diet, that simply is not happening. The purpose of the Food Stamp Program, and let me quote from the Department's own regulation, is to ``promote the general welfare and to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households.'' I think that just about makes my case. Vitamins and minerals do just that; they raise levels of nutrition. Vitamins and minerals can prevent half of all neural tube defects in America. They can protect against heart disease and stroke. They can improve appetite growth in poor children. They can protect against some cancers. They can build bone mass in children. They can improve mental development in infants. Those are very compelling reasons why the other Senators and I think this is a good amendment. Frankly, I do not know why anyone would have an objection to this amendment. Indeed, I do not know why the Agriculture Department has chosen to exclude vitamins and minerals from food stamp coverage. As I read the applicable regulations, they only state that eligible foods are ``any food or food product intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods and hot food products prepared for immediate consumption.'' That would certainly seem to include vitamins and minerals which are by Federal law considered to be foods. The law to which I refer is the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, a bill which passed this body twice with literally no objection at all. I understand that it is the Food and Nutrition Service Handbook 318 which prohibits food stamp purchases of vitamins and minerals under the theory that they are deficiency correctors or therapeutic agents. That definition flies in the face of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which, as modified by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 confirms that dietary supplements are--by law--foods. I think many of my colleagues would be astounded to learn that under the Agriculture Department's interpretation, a food stamp recipient can buy sunflower seeds or wheat germ, but not vitamin C or calcium tablets. So we are forced to come to the floor today and correct this agency misinterpretation. To me, the reasons for our amendment are obvious. We want to help improve nutrition, and vitamins and minerals can do just that. As one expert pointed out during House hearings on this issue, food stamp recipients have free choice of virtually every food sold in the supermarket--except vitamins and minerals. Let us think about the wisdom in that policy. To be fair, some expressed concerns about the wisdom of adopting this change in the law, but I believe there are compelling counter arguments which this body should consider. For example, I recognize that Ms. Yvette Jackson, Deputy Administrator of the Food Stamp Program, has testified against the House version of this amendment. Frankly, I am disappointed with the administration's testimony and dismayed with its rationale. In the House testimony, Ms. Jackson was quoted as saying: ``It is unclear what effect a policy permitting the use of food stamp benefits to purchase vitamin and mineral supplements would have on the ability of recipients to purchase a varied and nutritious diet.'' I do not see what could be more clear than the fact that dietary supplements can improve the health of the American people. When we passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act last year, and it passed the Senate twice by unanimous consent, it is no secret that the administration, in general, and the Food and Drug Administration, in particular, resisted our efforts. To me, the USDA testimony is but further evidence that this administration cannot, or will not, accept the fact that dietary supplements can benefit the American people. As I mentioned, this was made abundantly clear with the Food and Drug Administration's foot-dragging on approving a health claim for folic acid. Even after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made a formal recommendation, endorsed by the Public Health Service, the FDA held back. It has been estimated by public health experts that 50 percent of neural tube defect cases could be eliminated by consuming 0.4 milligrams per day of folic acid a day. I fail to see how a food stamp policy that allows women to purchase folic acid in pill form can do anything but to further the public health. We are talking about healthy babies. That's what this amendment does. Another argument that the administration and other critics of the policy make is that--and I quote from the administration's own testimony--``Adding more stores and more products would certainly make our efforts to fight fraud and abuse more difficult.'' First off, I do not see how the argument about adding more products passes the laugh test when you consider that each year literally thousands of food products and food producers enter the marketplace, and virtually all of these products are food stamp eligible, no questions asked. I also don't see how opening up the Food Stamp Program to new outlets, presumably health food stores, not already selling some conventional products would appreciably increase the incidence of fraud or abuse. Query how many retail outlets that sell vitamins and minerals don't also already sell food stamp-eligible products? It seems to me that many grocery store, pharmacy, and health food store already sell food stamp-eligible products. Even if some new retail outlets come on line with this change, I think that is a good thing. I challenge anyone in this body to present any factual information that supports the proposition that a modest expansion of new stores would necessarily lead to more fraud and abuse. I certainly never have seen this type of argument used to curtail new vendors from becoming eligible to participate in a Federal entitlement program. Let us be honest about it. If one extended this argument to its logical conclusion, we should cut back the 216,000 stores that utilize food stamps. And while we are at it, we should cut back the number of doctors and hospitals that provide Medicare and Medicaid services. How many of us would support that approach? That is how ridiculous this is. Let me spend a few moments to review what I hope is a now-undisputed fact that dietary supplements are beneficial to health. I mentioned a few of the health benefits of supplements that were on the chart, including protection against heart disease and stroke. This is the number one cause of death in this country. We also know that supplements can help promote growth in children. According to testimony presented by the Council for Responsible Nutrition, low-income children can particularly benefit from consuming the recommended daily allowances of vitamins and minerals. As the National Nutritional Foods Association has pointed out, we know that supplements can help protect against cancer, help build bone mass in children and the elderly, and help improve mental developments in infants. Last year, as my colleagues may recall, when we passed the dietary supplement legislation, our findings included these two statements: Congress finds that the importance of nutrition and the benefits of dietary supplements to health promotion and disease prevention have been documented increasingly in scientific studies; there is a link between the ingestion of certain nutrients or dietary supplements and the prevention of chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and osteoporosis. It seems to me that changing the food stamp laws to encourage low- income people to use these product is good public policy. As my colleagues can see from my second chart, it has been estimated that in 1994 about $216 billion was spent by Americans on food products in supermarkets. A little over three quarters of this, 77.7 percent, was spent on so- called core foods; these are foods that, in lay terms, your mother and your health teachers taught you are good to eat. These core foods include produce, dairy products, meat, poultry, seafood, baby food, juices, nuts, pasta, rice, bread, and other good food. As the diagram also shows, what some have termed frivolous foods, make up 21.7 percent of food sales in supermarkets. These foods are exactly what you think they are: snack foods that are so good to eat but may not be the most healthy choice. If you think about what you ate during the Super Bowl--chips, cookies, candy, soft drinks, and the like, you know what we mean when we use the term frivolous foods. They have a place in our diets, but so do vitamins and minerals. About 22 cents out of every $1 goes to these types of products, which amounted to some $47 billion in 1994. Compare that substantial amount of purchasing power with the less than 1 percent--about $587 million in 1994-- that was estimated to be spent on vitamins in food stores during the same period. In relative terms, much, much more is spent on what some nutritionists would call junk foods than on vitamins. The reason I point this out is not to castigate any particular type of food. Rather, since some of my colleagues criticize this amendment because they say it dilutes the spending power of the food stamp, I would like to point out how very, very small spending on vitamins and minerals is compared to all other foods sold in the supermarket setting. And so I think we must question the public health benefit of continuing a policy that allows for Federal subsidization of frivolous foods but prevents food stamp coverage of valuable dietary supplements? Indeed, I think both should be covered, and that is my point. Let me drive this home. As my last chart shows, it is OK under current food stamp policy to buy all the soda pop you want--and this may be very refreshing but it probably is not the most healthful product in the world. At the same time, it is not OK to use food stamps to buy vitamins and minerals that generally are agreed upon by health experts to have unquestioned health benefits for the people who use them. In other words, a food stamp recipient can use a coupon to purchase a 50-cent can of soda, but not a 2-cent multivitamin. That is the most compelling argument I know against those who feel that this amendment would dilute the purchasing power of the food stamp. I think our amendment would help recipients to make more wise purchases. It seems to me that something is wrong with this picture and what is wrong is that vitamins and minerals should be covered by the food stamp program as well as all other foods. I think it is entirely appropriate, indeed warranted, that any participant in the food stamp program who wants to improve his or her own health be allowed to purchase vitamins and minerals. Why allow parents on food stamps the opportunity to give their children Cheez Whiz instead of vitamin C? Why not do both? Why allow pregnant women to buy Fritos but not folic acid, which prevents neural tube defects? Does this body really stand for the proposition that a Twinkie a day is more nutritious than a multivitamin? Mr. President, if there is room in the food stamp program for vanilla wafers and Milky Ways, surely, there is room for vitamins and minerals as well. I hope our colleagues will support this amendment. We think it is a worthwhile amendment. We hope that we can have the support of our friends. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield whatever time I can.

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. I wonder if I could ask the two leaders, is it possible to agree to have hearings on this matter? I cannot see for the life of me why this adds anything to the cost of food stamps. It just says that instead of buying pop, you might buy vitamins and minerals.

Mr. HATCH. If you will hold hearings and if we can make a case that this is beneficial--I have no doubt in my mind we will make that case-- if you will hold a hearing on this specific issue on a bill that we will file, and if we make the case you will help us move the bill, I am willing to withdraw the amendment for now. But if not, we should just vote on it.

Mr. HATCH. If the leaders will help us move the bill, and the leaders will help call it up, I think we could do it in 10 minutes, because I think we can make more than an adequate case. It is a smart thing to do for the American people. It is hard to understand how anybody could understand that this is not a good amendment. We will be happy to do it your way if the leader prefers.

Mr. HATCH. In a relatively short period of time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Dole, Senator Lugar, Senator Leahy, and others for their tireless efforts in bringing us a farm bill. I know that they have overcome many obstacles, and that it has not been an easy task. I also understand that there is an urgency to pass this bill. It is important for all those in the business of providing food for America that we act to improve these programs. Overall, I support these improvements and will vote for this bill. I do object, however, to the provision added to the compromise version of S. 1541 that would give congressional approval to the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact. This proposal was introduced and placed directly on the Senate calendar, bypassing the Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over interstate compacts. In other words, we are being asked to vote on this controversial compact without having had a hearing or a committee markup on the issue during this Congress. Although some changes and minor improvements were made to the proposal from the version that was debated in the 103d Congress, those changes have not altered the essential nature of this compact. It would still permit member States to set the price for fluid milk above the existing Federal order price, effectively setting up a dairy cartel. These member States would be protected from competition from other States. This form of trade barrier is exactly the kind of practice prohibited by the commerce clause of the Constitution, and it is not one we should sanction in an interstate compact. Compacts have been used to build bridges, roads, and tunnels; to dispose of waste; or to set boundaries. Never have they been used to restrict interstate commerce. Despite the modifications its proponents have made, I remain concerned about the dairy compact's potential anticompetitive effects, the burdens it places on interstate commerce, and the harm it would cause to consumers by increasing prices. The compact would raise the prices milk processors would have to pay for milk sold in the compact States, and those costs would be passed on to consumers. I am equally concerned that the compact will disrupt existing Federal programs that regulate milk prices and that it will increase costs to the Federal Government. Costs to the Government will undoubtedly increase if the Government is forced to purchase more surplus when farmers are encouraged to increase production well beyond demand. This is certainly not a time when we should be increasing pressure on the Federal budget. The fact is that we already have a Federal system for setting minimum milk prices to dairy farmers. That system provides a safety net through the dairy price support program and dictates minimum prices paid through the Federal milk marketing order program. I see no reason to establish a second milk pricing mechanism that will benefit only a few States. In short, I remain seriously concerned that the dairy compact will hurt consumers, milk processors, and taxpayers. At a minimum, it embodies a concept that requires deeper scrutiny and further discussion.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3277 and ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of my cosponsors, we withdraw this amendment and hope it accommodates our colleagues and our leader.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, today I introduced a bill to address a grave miscarriage of justice--the wrongful investigation prosecution of Mr. Billy Dale and the other former White House Travel Office employees. Mr. Dale served his country at the pleasure of eight Presidents as the Director of the White House Travel Office. During his 32 years of service, Mr. Dale took on the thankless and often grueling task of ensuring that the national and international media were in a position to cover the movements of the President and thus report to the American and worldwide public. As thanks for his numerous years of dedicated service, Mr. Dale was summarily discharged from his post on May 19, 1993, and was thereafter indicted and prosecuted for embezzlement. On December 1, 1995, after 2\1/2\ years of being investigated and haunted on a daily basis, Mr. Dale was tried before a jury of his peers and, in less than 2 hours, found not guilty of all charges. The travesty in this situation is that Mr. Dale simply got caught in the political crossfire of a new administration. He had served eight Presidents, both Democratic and Republican, but found himself in a job that, apparently, was an impediment to the ambitious money-making schemes of the new President's friends. President Clinton certainly could have dismissed Mr. Dale without cause, but I believe the Clinton administration may have felt the need to justify its actions in firing Mr. Dale and the other White House Travel Office employees given the tremendous media interest in this dismissal. The reputations of Mr. Dale and his colleagues were discredited and ruined in the process. I have a great deal of respect for the First Lady. But, on April 6, 1994, in response to questions about the White House Travel Office situation, Mrs. Clinton stated that she ``had no role in the decision to terminate the employees.'' (Responses of Hillary Rodham Clinton to the General Accounting Office, Apr. 6, 1994) Moreover, she ``did not direct any action be taken by anyone with regard to the Travel Office, other than expressing an interest in receiving information * * *''(Id.) Unfortunately, these statements do not coincide with the evidence we have come to discover in recent months. In fact, it appears as though the First Lady was actively involved in the decision to fire the White House Travel Office employees. According to notes taken by David Watkins--the former Assistant to the President for Management and Administration who oversaw the workings of the Travel Office--during his conversation with the First Lady on May 14, 1993, 5 days before the Travel Office employees were dismissed, Mrs. Clinton articulated that ``Harry [Thomason] says his people can run things better, save money, etc. And besides we need those people out--we need our people in--we need the slots.'' (GAO report, The White House Travel Office, at 53-54) Moreover, according to a recently released memorandum written by Mr. Watkins, ``[t]he First Family was anxious to have that situation [the White House Travel Office] immediately resolved, and the First Lady in particular was extremely upset with the delayed action in that case.'' (Draft memorandum from David Watkins, re: ``Response to Internal White House Travel Office Management Review,'' (undated) at 2.) Mr. Watkins also notes ``that there would be hell to pay if, * * * we failed to take swift and decisive action in conformity with the First Lady's wishes.'' (Id. at 1-2.) This memorandum was not released by the White House for more than 2 years despite subpoenas from Congress and Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. In May 1993, the Travel Office employees were fired and told to vacate the premises. Needing to justify its actions before the employees were terminated, the White House met with and urged the FBI to investigate the White House Travel Office using allegations concocted by Catherine Cornelius, President Clinton's cousin who desperately wanted to replace Mr. Dale in running the White House Travel Office. Indeed, the FBI helped craft the White House's press release about the firings. Peat Marwick was hired to do an audit of the Office, but its own report did not substantiate the allegations asserted by the White House. Modest financial irregularities are not the same as embezzlement. This story would be tragic enough if it ended here, but it does not. The Department of Justice indicted Mr. Dale, seemingly without concern for their lack of evidence. This is best demonstrated by the fact that the citizens sitting on the jury, who heard the evidence, exonerated Mr. Dale in less than 2 hours. This inappropriate use of the Federal criminal justice system created a situation for Mr. Dale where he had to expend $500,000 and even considered taking a plea when he had committed no crime. After the jury summarily dismissed the allegations, someone leaked the existence of the plea negotiations to the public in an attempt to further discredit Mr. Dale's reputation. Not only are plea negotiations a necessary part of our judicial system, they are intended to remain confidential and are not to be used against a criminal defendant. I cannot, in good conscience, sit quietly when I believe an arrogant abuse of power has occurred. The power of the White House was wielded to make victims of the inculpable. The targeting of dedicated public servants apparently because they held positions coveted by political profiteers demands an appropriate response. Although their muddied personal reputation may never be fully restored, it is only just that the Congress do what it can to rectify this wrong. Accordingly, I introduce this bill to make Mr. Dale and the other former White House Travel Office employees whole, at least financially, by providing for their attorneys fees and expenses.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, telecommunications technology is evolving at a speed that is unprecedented, and it has been and will continue to be difficult to keep up with these revolutionary developments. However, without a vehicle that allows us to at least attempt to keep pace with these changes, we cannot even hope to take full advantage of the benefits that today's technology potentially affords us. That is why I am pleased to support the telecommunications conference report that we are considering today. It has been a very long and difficult process over a number of years in order to get to this point today. There have been many hearings held in several committees, long debates in both houses of Congress, and extensive hours spent in conference meetings. And, as is always the case with legislation that is as important and far-reaching, the conference report we will vote on shortly is not perfect. As we have already heard on the floor today during this final debate, there are still a number of issues upon which total consensus has not been reached. In fact, we can expect to be revisiting a number of issues in the not too distant future, and I look forward to that. Nevertheless, I believe we can all agree that this legislation establishes some basic principles that will provide a gateway to the future of communications in our country. I am convinced that the basic policy changes contained in this conference report will not only positively impact our Nation's economy be enhancing competition within a number of communications markets but will also result in noticeable benefits for individual consumers throughout the United States. I do not wish to take up too much time, but I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee for his leadership over the past year in bringing this historic legislation to the floor of the Senate. I especially want to thank him and his committee colleagues for effectively keeping the conference focused on the communications issues under its jurisdiction. Implementation of the legislation will raise issues in the area of intellectual property, which will need to be addressed in the future. These issues are best left to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction and expertise. As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is the committee of jurisdiction over intellectual property issues in the Senate, I look forward to working on these matters. We can support the efforts of the conference and to increase the opportunities the legislation makes available to creators and users of intellectual property. Again, let me commend the conferees for their work in the communications arena and thank them for not prejudicing the Judiciary Committee's work on any relevant intellectual property issues. I am pleased to support this bill. It is a major step forward.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I intend to hold hearings in the Judiciary Committee in the very near future on the subject of possession of dangerous human pathogens, such as bubonic plague, anthrax, and similar pathogens. My purpose will be to determine what legislation may be necessary to protect the American people from the misuse of such pathogens. These are very dangerous and deadly organisms which, apparently, are readily available to just about anyone, including those with legitimate needs, such as researchers, and those who, instead, may have an evil intent or who simply do not know how to store and handle properly these organisms. The December 30, 1995, Washington Post has a story with a headline that leaps off the page: ``Man Gets Hands on Bubonic Plague Germ, but That's No Crime.'' The story is more chilling than the headline. An Ohio white supremacist purchased, through the mail, three vials of this extremely dangerous pathogen, which wiped out about one-third of Europe in the Middle Ages. When the purchaser called the seller to complain about slow delivery, the sales representative got concerned about whether the caller was someone who really ought to have the bubonic plague in his possession. Ohio authorities were contacted, according to the story. When police, public health officials, the FBI, and emergency workers in space suits scoured the purchaser's house, they found nearly a dozen M-1 rifles, smoke grenades, blasting caps, and white separatist literature, but no bubonic plague. The deadly microorganisms were found in the glove compartment of his automobile, still packed as shipped. Apparently, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture requires permits for shipping animal pathogens, at least between States, there is no Federal domestic regulation of who may receive these deadly human pathogens. According to the Washington Post story, ``* * * the only domestic restrictions on human pathogens * * * are the rules the handlers impose themselves.'' As Kenneth Gage, acting chief of the plague section at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vector-borne diseases division, stated: ``I don't think it's going too much out on a limb by saying this kind of thing shouldn't happen.'' So, for the purchase of three strains of bubonic plague, what was the purchaser charged with? Three counts of wire fraud and one count of mail fraud. And these charges have been plea bargained down to a guilty plea for one count of wire fraud. Even these charges would not have been possible if the purchaser had not faxed a false statement on the letterhead of a nonexistent laboratory stating the laboratory assumed responsibility for the shipment, as the seller had required. Earlier this year, a group released a nerve gas in Tokyo's subway station, killing 12 and injuring over 5,000. The ready availability of deadly human pathogens raises the obvious concern that such organisms not fall into the wrong hands. The task will be to meet the legitimate needs of scientists while assuring protection of our citizens from the inadvertent or deliberate misuse of these pathogens.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce S. 1540, the Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996. Very simply stated, this legislation will allow the Patent and Trademark Office [PTO] to restore patent term in cases in which patent life has been shortened due to unusual and unavoidable administrative delay. I wish to commend the majority leader, my good friend from Kansas, for first bringing this matter to my attention. I share Senator Dole's concern that patent term not be eroded due to unusual delays in evaluating patent applications by the PTO. The recent adoption of the new 20 year from time of filing patent term has created a need for legislation to address the issues giving rise to the Dole/Rohrabacher measure. As my colleagues are aware, the legislation implementing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] passed by the Congress and signed by the President in December, 1994, contained a provision designed to achieve harmonization of patent standards in the international community. This was accomplished by changing our old system, which allowed for a patent term equal to 17 years from the date the patent was issued, to a new system in which patents are valid for 20 years from the date of application. There has been some concern expressed that the transition under GATT from a ``17-year from issuance'' to a ``20-year from filing'' patent term will cause some inventors to lose valuable patent term. This can occur when patent applications are under review at PTO for unusually long periods of time. To remedy this potential loss of patent term, the bill I am introducing today will allow the PTO to restore patent term for up to 10 years if such term are lost because of unusual and unavoidable administrative delay. The bill also provides an opportunity for an independent review of the Commissioner's determination. At present, the patent code does not allow for patent term restoration on the basis of ``unusual administrative delay.'' Such a provision was not included in previous legislation because it was believed that there were too few cases to warrant its inclusion. Nevertheless, the changes made by the GATT implementing legislation and several cited cases in which patent applications have taken up to 10 years to be processed have heightened an awareness of the need to address the potential diminution of patent life. If enacted, the Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996 will allow inventors to regain patent term lost due to unusual administrative delay. S. 1540 addresses the same general issue expressed by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, and by Congressman Rohrabacher in their legislation this Congress. I am very sympathetic to the problem which led them to introduce their legislation and I want to work closely with them to resolve the matter. At the same time I must note my concern that previous legislative proposals pose at least two problems. First, a provision that allows each applicant to select the way in which the patent term will be measured could pose significant administrative problems. And second, I am still concerned that we have not done enough to address the problem of so-called submarine patents which was one of the motivating factors behind adopting the GATT change. As with the Dole/Rohrabacher legislation, the Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996 attempts to preserve a full term of patent protection for American inventors, thereby promoting creativity and investment and maintaining U.S. competitiveness in the rapidly growing high-tech global marketplace. However, by retaining the basic principle of measuring the patent term from the earliest filing date, my proposed legislation preserves the necessary incentives for patent applicants to diligently and expeditiously pursue the issuance of their patent. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to hold hearings on these issues in the near future. I want to make clear to my colleagues that the measure I introduce today is an effort to start the process of finding a middle ground which will accommodate the interests of all parties. I intend for the Judiciary Committee to examine this issue very closely over the next few months and I look forward to working with Senator Dole and all other interested parties to make any necessary modifications. Before closing, I want to mention my interest in soliciting input on one particular provision of this legislation. Section 2 grants the PTO the authority to determine the circumstances under which a patent adjustment can be made. Some have questioned whether providing this authority to the very agency which caused the delay would be the most appropriate way to address the adjustment issue. Mr. President, I believe that S. 1540, the Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996 is a balanced legislative response to the problem of potential loss of patent term. It will protect the legitimate patent rights of American inventors, uphold our international treaty obligations under GATT, and provide the necessary incentives to ensure the responsible and timely pursuance of patent applications. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to its timely consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text and a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce S. 1540, the Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996. Very simply stated, this legislation will allow the Patent and Trademark Office [PTO] to restore patent term in cases in which patent life has been shortened due to unusual and unavoidable administrative delay. I wish to commend the majority leader, my good friend from Kansas, for first bringing this matter to my attention. I share Senator Dole's concern that patent term not be eroded due to unusual delays in evaluating patent applications by the PTO. The recent adoption of the new 20 year from time of filing patent term has created a need for legislation to address the issues giving rise to the Dole/Rohrabacher measure. As my colleagues are aware, the legislation implementing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT] passed by the Congress and signed by the President in December, 1994, contained a provision designed to achieve harmonization of patent standards in the international community. This was accomplished by changing our old system, which allowed for a patent term equal to 17 years from the date the patent was issued, to a new system in which patents are valid for 20 years from the date of application. There has been some concern expressed that the transition under GATT from a ``17-year from issuance'' to a ``20-year from filing'' patent term will cause some inventors to lose valuable patent term. This can occur when patent applications are under review at PTO for unusually long periods of time. To remedy this potential loss of patent term, the bill I am introducing today will allow the PTO to restore patent term for up to 10 years if such term are lost because of unusual and unavoidable administrative delay. The bill also provides an opportunity for an independent review of the Commissioner's determination. At present, the patent code does not allow for patent term restoration on the basis of ``unusual administrative delay.'' Such a provision was not included in previous legislation because it was believed that there were too few cases to warrant its inclusion. Nevertheless, the changes made by the GATT implementing legislation and several cited cases in which patent applications have taken up to 10 years to be processed have heightened an awareness of the need to address the potential diminution of patent life. If enacted, the Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996 will allow inventors to regain patent term lost due to unusual administrative delay. S. 1540 addresses the same general issue expressed by the distinguished majority leader, Senator Dole, and by Congressman Rohrabacher in their legislation this Congress. I am very sympathetic to the problem which led them to introduce their legislation and I want to work closely with them to resolve the matter. At the same time I must note my concern that previous legislative proposals pose at least two problems. First, a provision that allows each applicant to select the way in which the patent term will be measured could pose significant administrative problems. And second, I am still concerned that we have not done enough to address the problem of so-called submarine patents which was one of the motivating factors behind adopting the GATT change. As with the Dole/Rohrabacher legislation, the Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996 attempts to preserve a full term of patent protection for American inventors, thereby promoting creativity and investment and maintaining U.S. competitiveness in the rapidly growing high-tech global marketplace. However, by retaining the basic principle of measuring the patent term from the earliest filing date, my proposed legislation preserves the necessary incentives for patent applicants to diligently and expeditiously pursue the issuance of their patent. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, it is my intention to hold hearings on these issues in the near future. I want to make clear to my colleagues that the measure I introduce today is an effort to start the process of finding a middle ground which will accommodate the interests of all parties. I intend for the Judiciary Committee to examine this issue very closely over the next few months and I look forward to working with Senator Dole and all other interested parties to make any necessary modifications. Before closing, I want to mention my interest in soliciting input on one particular provision of this legislation. Section 2 grants the PTO the authority to determine the circumstances under which a patent adjustment can be made. Some have questioned whether providing this authority to the very agency which caused the delay would be the most appropriate way to address the adjustment issue. Mr. President, I believe that S. 1540, the Full Patent Term Preservation Act of 1996 is a balanced legislative response to the problem of potential loss of patent term. It will protect the legitimate patent rights of American inventors, uphold our international treaty obligations under GATT, and provide the necessary incentives to ensure the responsible and timely pursuance of patent applications. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to its timely consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the text and a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, each year in this country approximately 180,000 women are diagnosed as having breast cancer, a terrible disease that will claim nearly 50,000 lives. But, nearly 2.6 million women are breast cancer survivors, in part because of the availability of Tamoxifen citrate, a widely used post-operative drug for this disease. My colleagues may not be aware that a low-cost version of Tamoxifen is available on the market today. As a result, the estimated 800,000 women who take two tablets per day of this lower cost medicine are saving a total of $81 million a year. It has not been widely publicized, but during consideration of the Balanced Budget Act, a provision was included in the now-vetoed conference report to amend the Medicare Program to include reimbursement for Tamoxifen. In an effort to lessen the cost of this expansion of Medicare reimbursement, a rebate was included to reduce the cost of the drug to the Federal Government when covered as part of Medicare. Unfortunately, I believe my colleagues were unaware of the negative effects of this rebate provision when it was passed as part of the budget bill. One notable drawback is that the provision would have set the very undesirable precedent of establishing a Medicare rebate. Such a rebate would be unwise policy for a number of reasons, but that is not the focus of my remarks here today. More importantly, as a result of this new and unprecedented Medicare rebate, the provider of the low-cost alternative of Tamoxifen would no longer be able to make this product available in the domestic market. That is because the rebate, combined with the terms of a contract negotiated between the lower cost provider and the drug innovator, would cause the lower cost provider to lose money on each bottle of Tamoxifen sold. Ironically, for Medicare beneficiaries and other consumers, the result of what I believe was a well-intentioned amendment could only be higher prices for this life-saving breast cancer therapy. Such a result would indeed be tragic, and I hope that my colleagues will give this a second thought as future Medicare bills are developed.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I want to thank my colleague. I appreciate the kind remarks and hear him.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is becoming difficult to open a newspaper without reading another horrifying story of drug-related child abuse. From Brooklyn, we learn of Elisa Izquierdo, the 6-year-old girl who was born to a crack addicted mother. Elisa's mother allegedly beat her to death, leaving New York's public welfare agencies to engage in the usual finger pointing. [New York Times, Nov. 28, 1995] In suburban Chicago, a woman and two children are brutally murdered by a trio that includes a convicted drug dealer high on crack. [Time, Dec. 4, 1995]. In Patterson New Jersey, a crack-addicted woman beats her 14-year-old daughter with a three-foot board with a nail protruding, after a dispute over dirty dishes. [New York Times, Dec. 6] To most of us, horrifying incidents like these seem nearly unimaginable. They demonstrate the incredible dangers of drugs like crack cocaine--drugs so addictive that they could actually impel a mother to kill her own child. These may be extreme cases, but they are instructive because they represent the extreme end of the kind of pressures facing young people today. Indeed, sometimes it almost seems to me as if our culture is dedicated to separating children from their innocence. A recent Carnegie Foundation report put it this way: Barely out of childhood, young people ages 10 to 14 are today experiencing more freedom, autonomy, and choice than ever at a time when they still need special nurturing, protection, and guidance. Without the sustained involvement of parents and other adults in safeguarding their welfare, young adolescents are at risk of harming themselves and others. [Report of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.] Lately, the harm referred to in the Carnegie report has been taking the form of increased drug use. A few numbers tell the story: Last year the number of 12- to-17 year-olds using marijuana hit 2.9 million, almost double the 1992 level [National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Nov. 1995]. LSD use is way up among high-school seniors--11.7 percent of the class of 1995 have tried it at least once. That is the highest rate since recordkeeping started in 1975. [Monitoring the Future Study, released Dec. 11, 1995] A parents' group survey released this November found that 1 in 3 high school seniors now smoke marijuana [Survey released Nov. 2, 1995 by Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education]. Unbelievably, another survey shows that young people are more likely to be aware of the health dangers of cigarettes than of the dangers of marijuana [May 1995 survey by Frank Luntz]. As I said, kids have it rough today. They are faced with adult choices at an ever-earlier age, as the culture surrounds them with hedonistic messages. And it bothers me, frankly, when I read that sometimes our mass media, our educators, and our public officials are making things even worse. Take the recent advent of rap and hip hop music, a kind of music that enjoys great popularity among young people. A lot of hip hop music is perfectly unobjectionable, although I have to admit it is not what I listen to. But take a look at these lyrics by the hip hop group Total Devastation and tell me if you hear what I hear--kids as young as 10 being encouraged to take drugs. Chart No. 1 reads: When it comes to puffing blunts [blunts are a kind of marijuana cigarette] I'm a 12-year vet. And I wasn't 10 yet when I took my first hit. I was headed out the house to school one day, And guess what I found in my dad's ashtray . . . Now there's only three things in life that I need Money, safe sex, and a whole lot of weed. Total Devastation, ``Many Clouds of Smoke''] If my colleagues believe that this is an isolated phenomenon, let me quote from some other songs. This is ``Hits From the Bong,'' by the group Cypress Hill. Chart No. 2 reads: Pick it, pack it, fire it up, Come along, take a hit from the bong. . . . [Cypress Hill, Black Sunday, Hits From the Bong] Of course, for those of you who have led sheltered lives, a bong is a plastic pipe used for smoking marijuana. This is what our kids get hit with every day. This last chart has an excerpt from a No. 4 hit song by performers known as ``Channel Live'' and ``KRS One''. Chart No. 3 reads: Wake up in the mornin' got the yearning for herb Which loosens up the nouns, metaphors and verbs And adjectives ain't it magic, kid What I'm kickin' Multiflower bags and seeds for the pickin'. . . . [Group: Channel Live and KRS One; Song: ``Mad Izm''] This is not just talk, either. The author of this hit song told High Times magazine: ``I love marijuana.'' ``Anything that gives a good feeling the youth are going to gravitate towards. Period. Drugs are part of the human experience.'' [High Times, May 1995, p. 66] From Atlanta we get the Black Crowes, known for unfurling large banners on stage emblazoned with a marijuana leaf and bearing the words ``Free Us.'' Crowes lead singer Chris Robinson explained to a reporter: ``Everybody in this band smokes weed. . . . We did 350 shows, smoked every night, and never got busted.'' [Hartford Courant, Mar. 12, 1993] If you think it is easy to do something about this stuff, think again. Baltimore deejay Marcel Thornton lost his job after he stopped playing songs like ``First of the Month,'' by Bone Thugs-N-Harmony, a song which according to the Washington Post talks about ``getting high and selling crack to welfare recipients.'' [Washington Post, Dec. 2, 1995] According to the Post, Thornton, who attended the Million Man March, got a call from a female listener pointing out the contradiction between the ideals of the march and some of the lyrics he was playing-- coarse and sexually explicit lyrics that I would not repeat on the Senate floor. Thornton agreed; now he is unemployed. Some people claim that music reflects values but has no influence over the way people really live. But how else to explain the following story, reported in the December 18 Washington Post. A homemade video shows a man sitting at a table packaging what appears to be crack cocaine. His 4-year-old son sits next to him--also packaging a crack-like substance. The father drinks from a bottle of gin. The 4-year-old takes a drink. The father pulls a 9 mm pistol and subdues an assailant. The 4-year-old pulls a pistol--it may have been a toy, we do not know--and turns it on a younger sibling. Why was this child being trained, for lack of a better word, to be a predatory criminal? His father says they were making a rap music video. Of course, there are two sides to every coin. America's music and entertainment industry has brought us greater access to more kinds of music than at any time in history. Music entertains us, but it also edifies us. It has always been a source of great inspiration to me. There is so much in what the music industry produces for kids that is positive--even uplifting. And there are so many musicians out there who have put forth antidrug and other positive messages for people. I also speak as one who has been a big supporter of the music industry. The digital performance rights bill that was recently signed by the President, and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, are only two of the more recent pieces of legislation that I have worked to enact. But the industry has to admit that it just is not helpful to be peddling albums and artists whose music endorses this type of completely self-destructive activity. To those of you at Arista, Sony, Interscope, Capricorn and Columbia Records, and the many others who produce and distribute these groups and the ones like them, I ask: How can you sit by and look at 1.3 more young people--that is more young people than 2 years ago--smoking marijuana? How can you ignore a 200-percent increase in marijuana use between 14- and 15-year-olds? The recording industry has a positive role to play here, but I just have to ask the people promoting these groups, do you not feel irresponsible distributing this garbage? The record industries are hardly the only sector of the entertainment industry that is sending mixed messages. In an episode of the hit TV show ``Roseanne,'' Roseanne and her husband find a stash of marijuana in their daughter's room. After lecturing her boyfriend, whom they initially suspect of buying the marijuana, they then as parents shut themselves up in the bathroom and smoke it. Now, that is one of the most popular shows on television. Why, I will never know, but nevertheless it is. What can our kids get from stuff like that? I, fortunately, missed this particular episode, but I understand that the writers treated it like it was something funny--as if the main characters in a top-rated show have no influence over our mores and our attitudes. [``Roseanne'' show aired Oct. 5, 1993.] Small wonder, then, that 67 percent of adults and 76 percent of kids say that pop culture--TV, movies, magazines, and pop music--encourages drug abuse. There may be no direct causality, but there is certainly positive reinforcement of a truly negative message. [May 1995 survey by Frank Luntz.] It is not just the mass media, of course. Kids are getting the wrong message from areas as diverse as the instructional materials they receive in school, and even a new encyclopedia that glorifies drug use. Schools all across this country hand out free copies of Scholastic Update, a magazine geared to youthful readers. Here is what an issue of Scholastic Update had to say about illegal drugs: Marijuana is back and coming out of the closet. Stars smoke it. Musicians . . . celebrate it. TV shows like Saturday Night Live and Kids in the Hall depict it as harmless fun. Marijuana fashion has grown into a $10 million industry. . .'' [Buschbaum, Herbert, ``Legalizing Drugs: Where do you Stand?'' Scholastic Update, May 6, 1994 pp. 8-11]. The article gushes that ``America's antidrug policy is getting a fresh look'' with ``[a] small but increasing number of public figures * * * calling for legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana,'' and strongly suggests that the Government treat drug use as a ``health problem,'' providing addicts with controlled access to cheap drugs and clean needles. Here is another example that surprised me. The 1995 edition of Colliers Encyclopedia--the book our kids are going to be using to write book reports in junior high and high school--tells us there is no reason to worry about drug use because ``[t]he desire of human beings to alter their state of consciousness is one of the few constants in human history.'' The Colliers entry on ``Drugs, Prohibition of'' was written by noted legalization proponent Ethan A. Nadlemann. Among other novel theories Dr. Nadlemann advances in this entry are that most drug laws, including those banning cocaine and opiates, have their historic origin in racism and the desire to crack down on socialism and other forms of political dissent and nonconformity. What bull. I cannot believe that an organization like Colliers would go to this person to tell us and to tell our kids what is right with the world. This is the kind of material we are giving to our young people to read in school. Imagine what they are reading in their free time. Keeping our kids off drugs is critical for all the obvious reasons-- plus one. Those who reach age 21 without using drugs almost never try them later in life. Hard core drug abusers almost always start young and almost invariably start by smoking marijuana. Let us emphasize this point. Marijuana is not harmless. According to the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 12- to 17-year-olds who use marijuana are 85 times are more likely to graduate to cocaine than those who abstain from marijuana. The conclusion is clear. Glamorizing drug use is just reckless, whether it is through music, TV, magazine articles, educational materials, or misguided Government policies. Keeping kids away from drugs in the first place requires us to stigmatize drug use--a conclusion confirmed by numerous surveys and one that, unfortunately, explains our recent upturn in youthful marijuana usage. According to a University of Michigan study, youthful use began rising in 1992, just 1 year after declines in peer disapproval were first noted. One organization that has been doing a great job in explaining the dangers of illicit drugs is the Media Advertising Partnership for a Drug Free America. The Partnership brought us the famous frying egg with the voice-over saying, ``This is your brain on drugs.'' They have come a long way since the frying egg. Lately, they have been doing a terrific job of producing ads that target all sorts of high-risk groups. But they rely on donated air time--otherwise, a very expensive commodity--to get their message out. This is becoming a problem for this group. Partnership's ad placements are off more than 20 percent-- from $365 million in 1991 to a projected $290 million this year. Partnership for a Drug Free America. Network news coverage of the drug issue has fallen dramatically, from 518 stories in 1989 to just 82 in 1994. Center for Media and Public Affairs. We need to see more of these Partnership messages on TV, not fewer. The media have to be more generous with their time and more proactive. Unless we want a generation of junkies, more violence, more abuse and neglect, and more crime on our streets, we had better stop singing and laughing about drug abuse. It is a deadly serious matter. I had one of the leading French law enforcement officials tell me how difficult it is because Holland, a nation which has legalized drugs, has become the sewer through which they are pouring in all the drugs and then out to the rest of the neighboring states in Europe. It is just devastating to the nations of Europe. We cannot let that happen here. All the recent news has not been bad. I am pleased that President Clinton has responded to Congress' call for expedited nomination of a new drug czar. Gen. Barry McCaffrey is an impressive nominee with a history of courageous and energetic leadership. I am proud that he has been nominated. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss these and other issues with him before and at his confirmation hearings. I commend the President for finally grabbing the ball and doing something in this area. I hope he will back General McCaffrey, who I do not think would take this job if he was not going to have the backing of the President. I hope the President will back him and help him to get out there and do what needs to be done. Mr. President, in the area of drug use, we have our work cut out for us. The Senate Judiciary Committee has been holding a series of hearings to bring national attention to bear on just how bad this situation has become--and they are bipartisan hearings, I might add. We are going to begin the process of revitalizing the drug war. Over the next 2 months I will be joining with Senators Dole and Grassley to look at specific approaches to dealing with the problem of drug use. By working together I believe we will be able to reclaim the ground that we have lost. But we cannot do it without people in America being aware of these problems that are just killing our country and killing our young people, and just satiating them with substances that are horrifying, debilitating and wrong, and that will lead them down the primrose path of drug abuse, drug addiction and ultimately death and degradation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to do so.