Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. The Senator is correct to state that I intend to request such a study from the GAO.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 684, S. 2869.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the Senate in anticipation of its action in passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. I want to express my appreciation specifically to the lead cosponsor of this bill, Senator Kennedy. He and I worked together almost 10 years ago in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. He has once again demonstrated his commitment to religious liberty by his leadership and effort on this measure. I also express my appreciation to Senators Thurmond and Reid. Both of these Senators had strong and serious concerns about portions of this bill but were willing to work with us to secure passage of this legislation because of their overriding commitment to religious freedom. Our bill deals with just two areas where religious freedom has been threatened--land use regulation and persons in prisons, mental hospitals, nursing homes and similar institutions. Our bill will ensure that if a government action substantially burdens the exercise of religion in these two areas, the government must demonstrate that imposing the burden serves a compelling public interest and does so by the least restrictive means. In addition, with respect to land use regulation, the bill specifically prohibits various forms of religious discrimination and exclusion. It is no secret that I would have preferred a broader bill than the one before us today. Recognizing, however, the hurdles facing passage of such a bill, supporters have correctly, in my view, agreed to move forward on this more limited, albeit critical, effort. The willingness of many serious and well-intentioned persons has brought us to this successful conclusion in the Senate today and likely swift action in the House of Representatives this fall. I thank all persons involved in this effort. Numerous religious denominations have come together with other groups in the spirit of cooperation to form the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion. They have joined forces and concentrated their energy on this vital issue--I am grateful to all of them. In conclusion, I thank the staff members who devoted so much of their time and who worked so hard to ensure the success of this bill. In particular, I would like to thank Eric George, my former counsel, Manus Cooney, my Chief Counsel, Sharon Prost, my Deputy Chief Counsel, and Sam Harkness, a law clerk for the Judiciary Committee. Their collective work has brought us to where we are today. Furthermore, I would like to express my gratitude to the staff of Senator Kennedy; specifically, Melanie Barnes and David Sutphen, who were a pleasure to work with. Eddie Ayoob, from the office of Senator Reid, also provided valuable assistance. Finally, I would like to thank the dedicated professionals at the Department of Justice who helped in the effort. I ask unanimous consent that following my statement and that of Senator Kennedy the following items be printed in the Record: A manager's statement consisting of a joint statement by myself and Senator Kennedy; a letter received today from the administration in support of the bill; and several other letters of support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 584, H.R. 3244.

Mr. HATCH. My understanding is Senators Brownback and Wellstone have an amendment the desk.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'') Amendment No. 4028 to Amendment No. 4027

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent the reading be dispensed. (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments Submitted.'')

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to, the substitute amendment be agreed to as amended, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the Senate then insist on its amendment, request a conference on the part of the Senate, and any statements relating to this action be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will pass the Shivwits Band of the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Water Rights Settlement Act and send this legislation to the President. This is an important day for the citizens of Washington County, Utah, and the members of the Shivwits Band. This legislation will finally provide a settlement of water rights issues of the Santa Clara River in Washington County, the driest county in the second driest state in the Union. The Santa Clara is a fairly small river running through the Shivwits Band's reservation near the city of St. George, Utah. This water is shared by the Washington County, the Washington County Water Conservancy District, St. George, the town of Ivins, the town of Santa Clara, and the Shivwits Band. Last, but not least, Mr. President, this water is also used by the Virgin Spinedace, an endangered fish species residing in the river. This water settlement meets the needs of all of these interested parties. This legislation will also establish the St. George Water Reuse Project. This project will provide 2,000 acre-feet of water for the Shivwits Band. It will also create the Santa Clara Project. This project will provide a pressurized pipeline from the nearby Gunlock Reservoir to deliver 1,900 acre-feet of water to the Shivwits Band. I was pleased to be the sponsor of this bill in the Senate, and I would like to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Campbell and Vice Chairman Inouye of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for their outstanding support for this legislation. Without their help and the help of their staffs, this legislation would not have progressed as smoothly as it has. I also express my appreciation to my good friend, Senator Bennett, a cosponsor of this bill, for his support. Finally, however, I want to give due credit to the Administration, the local officials of Washington County, and the members of the Shivwits Band for constructing this agreement. I am a firm believer in a collaborative process and the inclusion of local officials and citizens in it. I believe that legislation--both before and after passage--can be far more successful than when local input is missing from a bill's development. Again, I want to thank all Senators for their support of this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the Committee on the Judiciary. Janie L. Jeffers, of Maryland, to be a Commissioner of the United States Parole Commission for a term of six years. Marie F. Ragghianti, of Tennessee, to be a Commissioner of the United States Parole Commission for a term of six years. Michael J. Reagan, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois. Norman C. Bay, of New Mexico, to be United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico for the term of four years. Susan Ritchie Bolton, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona. Mary H. Murguia, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona. James A. Teilborg, of Arizona, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona. (The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the bill introduced today by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, that would provide relief for payment of asbestos-related claims. I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to take a close look at the serious problem this bill addresses. Certain manufacturers who were required by government specification to use asbestos in their products are facing a severe financial crisis arising from claims made by individuals who are suffering health problems from asbestos-related diseases. These claims have put several of these companies into bankruptcy, and several more appear to be on the brink of insolvency. Thousands of jobs may be at stake, as may be the proper compensation of the victims of the illnesses. A major part of the underlying justification for this measure is that the federal government shares some culpability in the harm caused by the asbestos-related products manufactured by these companies. For example, from World War II through the Vietnam War, the government required that private contractors and shipyard workers use asbestos to insulate navy ships from so-called ``secondary fires.'' Because of sovereign immunity, however, the government has not had to share in paying the damages, leaving American companies to bear the full and ongoing financial load of compensation. The legislation we are introducing today is a step toward recognizing that the federal government is partially responsible for payment of these claims. It does so through two income tax provisions, both of which directly benefit the victims of the illnesses. The first provision exempts from income tax the income earned by a designated or qualified settlement fund established for the principal purpose of resolving and satisfying present and future claims relating to asbestos illnesses. The effect of this provision, Mr. President, is to increase the amount of money available for the payment of these claims. The second provision allows taxpayers with specified liability losses attributable to asbestos to carry back those losses to the tax year in which the taxpayer, or its predecessor company, was first involved in producing or distributing products containing asbestos. This provision is a matter of fairness, Mr. President. Because of the long latency period related to asbestos-related diseases, which can be as long as 40 years, many of these claims are just now arising. Current law provides for the carryback of this kind of liability losses, but only for a ten-year period. Many of the companies involved earned profits and paid taxes on those profits in the years the asbestos-related products were made or distributed. However, it is now clear, many years after the taxes were paid, that there were no profits earned at all, since millions of dollars of health claims relating to those products must now be paid. It is only fair, and it is sound tax policy, to allow relief for situations like these. Again, it should be emphasized that the primary beneficiaries of this tax change will not be the corporations, but the victims of the illnesses, because the taxpayer would be required to devote the entire amount of the tax reduction to paying the claims. This is not the only time the federal government has been at least partially responsible for health problems of citizens that arose many years after the event that initially triggered the problem. During the Cold War, America conducted above ground atomic tests during which the wind blew the fallout into communities and ranches of Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. The government also demanded quantities of uranium, which is harmful to those who mined and milled it. The incidence of cancers and other debilitating diseases caused by this activity among the ``downwinders,'' miners and millers has been acknowledged by the federal government. The least we can do for those manufacturers forced to use asbestos instead of other materials is provide some tax relief for their compensation funds. This legislation has substantial bipartisan backing. It is sponsored in the House by both the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee. It is backed by the by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and by at least one related labor union. This bill addresses a very serious problem and is the right thing to do. I hope we can pass it expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 132, the adjournment resolution, which is at the desk, which will provide for returning Tuesday, September 5, 2000.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier today, we approved the Helms substitute to H.R. 3519, ``Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000.'' I was pleased to support this legislation, recognizing the need for our country to support an enhanced effort to prevent and treat AIDS and tuberculosis abroad. I was pleased to work with Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, Senator Frist, Senator Smith of Oregon, and other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as this legislation was finalized, and, indeed, I want to work closely with them on our continuing efforts to address the problems of infectious diseases in the developing world. For the reasons I will lay out today, I believe the aid we make possible in H.R. 3519 should be expanded to embrace not only HIV/AIDS and TB, but also malaria as well. In fact, I think it essential to make sure our foreign assistance program in Africa and the developing world coordinates its activities closely among these three diseases. With the support of Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, and Senator Frist in the Senate, and Chairman Leach in the House of Representatives, I have drafted companion legislation to H.R. 3519 which make certain that U.S. efforts for all three diseases are well-coordinated. Accordingly, I rise today to introduce S. 2940 the ``International Malaria Control Act of 2000''. The World Health Organization estimates that there are 300 million to 500 million cases of malaria each year. According to the World Health Organization, more than 1 million persons are estimated to die due to malaria each year. The problems related to malaria are often linked to the devastation of two other terrible diseases--Acquired Immunodeficiency Disease, that is AIDS, and tuberculosis. One of the unfortunate commonalities of these diseases is that they all ravage sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the underdeveloped world. In addition to the one million malaria related deaths per year, about 2.5 million persons die from AIDS and another 1.5 million people per year die from tuberculosis. The measure I introduce today centers on malaria control and calls for close cooperation among federal agencies that are charged with fighting malaria, AIDS, and TB worldwide. According to the National Institutes of Health, about 40 percent of the world's population is at risk of becoming infected. About half of those who die each year from malaria are children under nine years of age. Malaria kills one child each 30 seconds. Although malaria is a public health problem in more than 90 countries, more than 90 percent of all malaria cases are in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to Africa, large areas of Central and South America, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East are high risk malaria areas. These high risk areas represent many of the world's poorest nations which complicates the battle against malaria as well as AIDS and TB. Malaria is particularly dangerous during pregnancy. The disease causes severe anemia and is a major factor contributing to maternal deaths in malaria endemic regions. Research has found that pregnant mothers who are HIV-positive and have malaria are more likely to pass on HIV to their children. ``Airport malaria,'' the importing of malaria by international aircraft and other conveyances is becoming more common as is the importation of the disease by international travelers themselves; the United Kingdom reported 2,364 cases of malaria in 1997, all of them imported by travelers. In the United States, of the 1,400 cases of malaria reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1998, the vast majority were imported. Between 1970 and 1997, the malaria infection rate in the United States increased by about 40 percent. In Africa, the projected economic impact of malaria in 2000 exceeds $3.6 billion. Malaria accounts for 20 to 40 percent of outpatient physician visits and 10 to 15 percent of hospital visits in Africa. Malaria is caused by a single-cell parasite that is spread to humans by mosquitoes. No vaccine is available and treatment is hampered by development of drug-resistant parasites and insecticide-resistant mosquitoes. Our nation must play a leadership role in the development of a vaccine for malaria as well as vaccines for TB and for the causal agent of AIDS, the human immunodeficiency virus--HIV. In this regard I must commend the President for his leadership in directing, back on March 2nd, that a renewed effort be made to form new partnerships to develop and deliver vaccines to developing countries. I must also commend the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for pledging a substantial $750 million in financial support for this new vaccine initiative. The private sector appears to be prepared to help meet this challenge as the four largest vaccine manufacturers, Merck, American Home Products, Glaxo SmithKline Beecham, and Aventis Pharma, have all stepped to the plate in the quest for vaccines for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. We must all recognize that the private sector pharmaceutical industry, in close partnership with academic and government scientists, will play a key role in the development of any vaccines for these diseases. Among the promising developments in recent months has been Secretary Shalala directing the National Institutes of Health to convene a meeting of experts from government, academia, and the private sector to address impediments to vaccine development in the private sector. Another goal of this first in a series of conferences on Vaccines for HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, held on May 22nd and 23rd, was to foster public-private partnerships. These ongoing NIH Conferences on Vaccines for HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis will address three basic questions: what are the scientific barriers to developing vaccines for malaria, TB and HIV/ AIDS? What administrative, logistical and legal barriers stand in the way of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS vaccines? And, finally, if vaccines are developed how can they best be produced and distributed around the world? Each of these questions will be difficult to answer. Developing vaccines for malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS will be a difficult task. While each vaccine will be different, there are commonalities such as the fact that the legal impediments and distributional issues may be very similar. Also, there is an unfortunate geographical overlap with respects to the epidemics of malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS. Ground zero is sub-Saharan Africa. So while the ultimate goal is to end up with three vaccines, we must be mindful that there is a close societal and scientific linkage between the tasks of developing and delivering vaccines and therapeutic treatments for those at risk of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS worldwide. While the greatest immediate need is clearly in Africa and in other parts of the developing world, citizens of the United States and my constituents in Utah stand to benefit from progress in the area of vaccine development.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, earlier today, we approved the Helms substitute to H.R. 3519, ``Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000.'' I was pleased to support this legislation, recognizing the need for our country to support an enhanced effort to prevent and treat AIDS and tuberculosis abroad. I was pleased to work with Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, Senator Frist, Senator Smith of Oregon, and other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as this legislation was finalized, and, indeed, I want to work closely with them on our continuing efforts to address the problems of infectious diseases in the developing world. For the reasons I will lay out today, I believe the aid we make possible in H.R. 3519 should be expanded to embrace not only HIV/AIDS and TB, but also malaria as well. In fact, I think it essential to make sure our foreign assistance program in Africa and the developing world coordinates its activities closely among these three diseases. With the support of Chairman Helms, Senator Biden, and Senator Frist in the Senate, and Chairman Leach in the House of Representatives, I have drafted companion legislation to H.R. 3519 which make certain that U.S. efforts for all three diseases are well-coordinated. Accordingly, I rise today to introduce S. 2940 the ``International Malaria Control Act of 2000''. The World Health Organization estimates that there are 300 million to 500 million cases of malaria each year. According to the World Health Organization, more than 1 million persons are estimated to die due to malaria each year. The problems related to malaria are often linked to the devastation of two other terrible diseases--Acquired Immunodeficiency Disease, that is AIDS, and tuberculosis. One of the unfortunate commonalities of these diseases is that they all ravage sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the underdeveloped world. In addition to the one million malaria related deaths per year, about 2.5 million persons die from AIDS and another 1.5 million people per year die from tuberculosis. The measure I introduce today centers on malaria control and calls for close cooperation among federal agencies that are charged with fighting malaria, AIDS, and TB worldwide. According to the National Institutes of Health, about 40 percent of the world's population is at risk of becoming infected. About half of those who die each year from malaria are children under nine years of age. Malaria kills one child each 30 seconds. Although malaria is a public health problem in more than 90 countries, more than 90 percent of all malaria cases are in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition to Africa, large areas of Central and South America, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East are high risk malaria areas. These high risk areas represent many of the world's poorest nations which complicates the battle against malaria as well as AIDS and TB. Malaria is particularly dangerous during pregnancy. The disease causes severe anemia and is a major factor contributing to maternal deaths in malaria endemic regions. Research has found that pregnant mothers who are HIV-positive and have malaria are more likely to pass on HIV to their children. ``Airport malaria,'' the importing of malaria by international aircraft and other conveyances is becoming more common as is the importation of the disease by international travelers themselves; the United Kingdom reported 2,364 cases of malaria in 1997, all of them imported by travelers. In the United States, of the 1,400 cases of malaria reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1998, the vast majority were imported. Between 1970 and 1997, the malaria infection rate in the United States increased by about 40 percent. In Africa, the projected economic impact of malaria in 2000 exceeds $3.6 billion. Malaria accounts for 20 to 40 percent of outpatient physician visits and 10 to 15 percent of hospital visits in Africa. Malaria is caused by a single-cell parasite that is spread to humans by mosquitoes. No vaccine is available and treatment is hampered by development of drug-resistant parasites and insecticide-resistant mosquitoes. Our nation must play a leadership role in the development of a vaccine for malaria as well as vaccines for TB and for the causal agent of AIDS, the human immunodeficiency virus--HIV. In this regard I must commend the President for his leadership in directing, back on March 2nd, that a renewed effort be made to form new partnerships to develop and deliver vaccines to developing countries. I must also commend the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for pledging a substantial $750 million in financial support for this new vaccine initiative. The private sector appears to be prepared to help meet this challenge as the four largest vaccine manufacturers, Merck, American Home Products, Glaxo SmithKline Beecham, and Aventis Pharma, have all stepped to the plate in the quest for vaccines for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. We must all recognize that the private sector pharmaceutical industry, in close partnership with academic and government scientists, will play a key role in the development of any vaccines for these diseases. Among the promising developments in recent months has been Secretary Shalala directing the National Institutes of Health to convene a meeting of experts from government, academia, and the private sector to address impediments to vaccine development in the private sector. Another goal of this first in a series of conferences on Vaccines for HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis, held on May 22nd and 23rd, was to foster public-private partnerships. These ongoing NIH Conferences on Vaccines for HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis will address three basic questions: what are the scientific barriers to developing vaccines for malaria, TB and HIV/ AIDS? What administrative, logistical and legal barriers stand in the way of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS vaccines? And, finally, if vaccines are developed how can they best be produced and distributed around the world? Each of these questions will be difficult to answer. Developing vaccines for malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS will be a difficult task. While each vaccine will be different, there are commonalities such as the fact that the legal impediments and distributional issues may be very similar. Also, there is an unfortunate geographical overlap with respects to the epidemics of malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS. Ground zero is sub-Saharan Africa. So while the ultimate goal is to end up with three vaccines, we must be mindful that there is a close societal and scientific linkage between the tasks of developing and delivering vaccines and therapeutic treatments for those at risk of malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS worldwide. While the greatest immediate need is clearly in Africa and in other parts of the developing world, citizens of the United States and my constituents in Utah stand to benefit from progress in the area of vaccine development.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the last several weeks, I have listened as some of my colleagues have, with escalating invective, expressed repeatedly their dismay about the manner in which Senate Republicans have processed President Clinton's judicial nominees. That some would accuse the Senate majority of failing to act in good faith strikes me as ironic, given the recent reckless statements made by President Clinton and members of the all-Democratic Congressional Black Caucus. I already have made my views on their reckless statements known and will not repeat them again here. Some of my colleagues like to talk about proceeding in good faith, but they ignore the fact that there is much legislation with broad, bi- partisan support that is at a standstill because they refuse to let this institution work its will. From bankruptcy reform to H-1B legislation to juvenile justice reform to religious liberty protection legislation, there are several legislative items where the blessings of good faith cooperation have not been bestowed. Consider, for example, the fact that a handful of members on the other side of the aisle have kept us from simply proceeding to a formal conference on the bankruptcy bill. Having poisoned the water themselves, they have no ground for complaining that the water is now poisoned. The more substantive complaints lodged by some of our colleagues have taken various forms. Some complain that there is a vacancy crisis in the federal courts; that the Senate has not confirmed enough of President Clinton's judicial nominees; and that the confirmation record of the Republican Senate compares unfavorably to the Democrats' record when they controlled this body. The claim that there is a vacancy crisis in the federal courts is simply wrong. Using the Clinton Administration's own standard, the federal judiciary currently is at virtual full employment. Presently there are 60 vacancies in the 852-member federal judiciary, yielding a vacancy rate of just seven percent. Of these 60 vacancies, the President has failed to make a nomination for 27 of them. Think about that. Some of my colleagues are complaining about a so- called vacancy crisis when almost half of the current vacancies don't even have a nominee. It is too late to really send additional nominations up here because we are in the final few months of the Congress and there is no way to get through them with the work we have to do in processing judges. In 1994, at the end of the Democrat-controlled 103d Congress, there were 63 judicial vacancies. That is when the Democrats controlled the Senate and President Clinton was President. There were 63 judicial vacancies, yielding a vacancy rate of 7.4 percent. At that time, on October 12, 1994, the Clinton administration argued in a Department of Justice press release that ``[t]his is equivalent to `full employment' in the 837-member Federal judiciary.'' If the Federal judiciary was fully employed in 1994, when there were 63 vacancies and a 7.4 percent vacancy rate, then it certainly is fully employed now when there are only 60 vacancies and a 7 percent vacancy rate, even though we have a significantly larger judiciary. Democrats further complain that the Republican Senate has not confirmed enough of President Clinton's judicial nominees. So far this year, the Judiciary Committee has held seven hearings for 30 judicial nominees. In addition, the Committee is holding a hearing today for four additional nominees. This year the Senate has confirmed 35 nominees, including eight nominees for the U.S. Courts of Appeals. With eight court of appeals nominees already confirmed this year, it is clear that the Senate and the Judiciary Committee have acted fairly with regard to appeals court nominees. In presidential election years, the confirmation of appellate court nominees historically has slowed. In 1988, the Democrat-controlled Senate confirmed only seven of President Reagan's appellate court nominees; in 1992, the Democrat- controlled Senate confirmed eleven of President Bush's appellate court nominees. This year, the Senate already has confirmed eight circuit court nominees--evidence that we are right on track with regard to circuit court nominees. While some may complain that the Republican Senate has not confirmed enough of President Clinton's judicial nominees, conservatives criticize us for confirming too many. An editorial in today's Washington Times argues that the Republican Senate has confirmed far too many federal judges since gaining control of the Senate in 1995. This view is typical many reactionary conservatives who, like their counterparts on the extreme left, serve in some respects as a check on our political system. I plan to respond to this particular editorial in a more formal manner, but let me just say this--the notion that our Leader is not doing what he believes is best for our country's future is absurd. The fact that the criticism comes from both sides leads me to believe that we probably are carrying out our advice and consent duties as most Americans would have us. There are some on the political right who complain that we are not confirming conservative judges. They forget that we are in the midst of a liberal Presidency and that the President's power of nomination is more powerful than the Senate's power of advice and consent. I urge them to get on the ball and help elect a Republican President who will nominate judges that share our conservative judicial philosophy. Finally, Democrats contend that things were much better when they controlled the Senate. Much better for them perhaps--it certainly was not better for many of the nominees of Presidents Reagan and Bush. At the end of the Bush administration, for example, the vacancy rate stood at nearly 12 percent. By contrast, as the Clinton administration draws to a close, the vacancy rate stands at just seven percent. The disparity between the vacancy rate at the end of the Bush Administration, as compared to the vacancy rate now, illustrates that the Republican Senate has, in fact, acted in good faith when it comes to President Clinton's nominees. The Senate has carried out its advice and consent duties appropriately, in a manner that has been fair to all--to the President's nominees, to the federal judiciary, and to the American people. I stand ready to help Senators Lott and Daschle undertake and complete work on the appropriations bills that are before us and on other legislation, much of which enjoys broad, bi-partisan support and should be acted on this year. I am getting sick and tired of my colleagues on the other side just stopping everything--even bills that they agree with--to try and make the Senate look bad for their own political gain, so that they can take control of the Senate after the next election. If I were in their shoes, I would want to take control of the Senate honorably, rather than dishonorably. I repeat, I stand ready to help Senators Lott and Daschle undertake and complete work on the appropriations bills before the Senate and on other legislation which enjoys broad bipartisan support and should be acted on this year. It is my hope that the important legislative work of the Senate will not be impeded by political gamesmanship over judicial confirmations. I particularly resent people indicating that the Senate is not doing its duty on judicial confirmations, or that there is some ulterior purpose behind what goes on, or that this President isn't being treated fairly, because he has been treated fairly. I am getting sick and tired of it and will not put up with it anymore. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support an increase to the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Monitoring System regarding dietary supplements. This would be administered by the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). This increase in FDA's Adverse Event Monitoring System for dietary supplements is an important component in the overall effort to implement fully the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act.

Mr. HATCH. Despite this phenomenal growth in the supplement industry, the FDA currently does not have the resources to process adverse event reports in a timely manner and with comprehensive information. As a result, a substantial backlog currently exists in reviewing adverse event reports in the dietary supplement area. However, we must assure that these funds for AERs are effectively spent. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that you work with Senator Harkin and myself on this issue. More specifically, we request that the FDA be directed to assign additional personnel to maintain the timeliness and accuracy of the AER system for dietary supplements. In addition, Congress needs to be assured that all published reports are accompanied by the results of a scientific evaluation of the link between the product and the adverse event and evidence of timely prior notification of any manufacturer or distributor mentioned in the report.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator Durbin and I wanted to take this opportunity to urge support for our amendment which is intended to speed up generic drug reviews at the Food and Drug Administration. We are pleased to announce that the Hatch-Durbin amendment is cosponsored by Senators DeWine, Leahy, Wyden, Feinstein, Graham of Florida and Voinovich. Specifically, our amendment increases funding for FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Review by $2.0 million over the Committee- recommended amount. We intend these funds to be used to provide much-needed additional resources, that is, appropriately-equipped staff, to the Office of Generic Drugs. This will help them reduce review times for generic alternatives to brand-name pharmaceuticals, a considerable benefit to the consumer. One way they can do this is by establishing an additional chemistry division which will allow OGD to increase its efficiency thus permitting applications for new generic drugs to be considered and approved much more rapidly, giving patients access to these products much more quickly. Mr. President, when I travel throughout my home state of Utah, I am besieged by constituents who raise very valid complaints about the need to improve drug coverage for the elderly and others who cannot afford needed medicines. I am very sympathetic to those concerns, and have made this a high legislative priority. But while we are in the midst of devising a program to improve Medicare coverage of pharmaceuticals, it is important to remember that generic drugs offer a less-costly, safe alternative to brand-name medicines for seniors and others who cannot always afford prescription drugs. Our amendment will help offer those who are struggling to make ends meet a viable alternative. It will help get less expensive and more affordable prescription drugs on the market more quickly so that seniors will have additional choice when it comes to purchasing their medications. None of us wants these vulnerable citizens to be faced with the Hobson's choice of whether to purchase food or needed medications. The American public, especially our seniors, can only benefit from having more generic drug products available to them. The problem we face is that the level of FDA resources devoted toward the review and approval of generic drugs can be termed ``modest'' at best. The Office of Generic Drugs is currently funded at $37.8 million and was flat-lined in the Administration's FY 2001 budget request. In contrast to this relatively modest sum available for generic drug review, I would point out that the overall budget for human drug review at the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is $308 million. This represents a total of 2,554 full time equivalents. So the amount devoted to generic drug barely exceeds 10 per cent of the human drug review budget. Hiring additional professional review personnel, together with the necessary computer equipment, at OGD would cost about $100,000 per reviewer. So our amendment will translate into about 20 additional staff members and the computer equipment they need which would certainly be adequate to fund a new chemistry division. The FDA generic drug program currently utilizes about 370 staff members. This amendment, coupled with the $1.2 million, already in the Senate bill will give the generic drug unit at FDA a needed shot in the arm. As a principal author of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, I have long been interested in how we can provide better access to pharmaceuticals, which can do so much to improve the health of the American public. Our nation needs both innovative new drugs and affordable generic drugs. I am particularly pleased that today about 40 percent of all U.S. prescriptions are written for generic products--most of which were made available for generic competition under the 1984 law. These generic drugs save consumers about $8 billion to $10 billion each year. And that's according to a CBO estimate based on 1994 data, so it seems reasonable to project that today's savings must be even higher than the old $8 billion to $10 billion annual savings estimate. Many of us have been pleased to learn that, since 1994, generic drug approval times have generally decreased: the median approval time was 26.9 months in 1994; 27.0 months in 1995; 23 months in 1996; 19.3 months in 1997; and, 18 months in 1998. Unfortunately, this five year downward trend was reversed in 1999. The approval time rose to 18.6 months. This was in a year when the number of products approved actually fell from 225 drugs to 186 drugs. So the time per completed review grew for the first time in 5 years and it is now growing at a time when many important drug products will be coming off patent. We cannot afford to let this continue. The data on the monthly averages rending applications are also troublesome. Under the law, FDA has 180 days to act on a generic drug application. Let's look at what is happening with the number of generic drug applications that are overdue--that is at FDA for more than 6 months. In 1995 the monthly average of backlogged generic drug applications was 46 applications. This number increased to 59 in 1996. It jumped to 109 in 1997. In 1998, it rose to 127 overdue applications. And last year, the average monthly number of overdue generic applications rose again to 147 overdue applications. So the number of overdue generic drug applications has grown by more than 300 percent since 1995. Clearly, this trend needs to be reversed. It seems obvious to me that we want FDA to have sufficient resources to efficiently evaluate generic drug applications. The funds the Hatch- Durbin amendment provides would be sufficient to fund about 20 full- time equivalents (or ``FTEs'') in the Office of Generic Drugs. Given the fact that so many important medications are about to lose their patent status, it is imperative that FDA has the necessary skilled personnel and computer equipment to do the job of assuring the American public that generic drug products come on the market as soon as possible. We need to make sure that FDA's Office of Generic Drugs has sufficient resources to conduct timely reviews of generic drug applications. That's what this amendment accomplishes, and that is why Senator Durbin and I have joined together in a bi-partisan manner to work to see that the promise of more affordable generic drug products reach the American public. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. I am pleased that the managers are willing to put it into the bill. I think it is something that will benefit everybody in this country. Hopefully, we can resolve some of these conflicts with regard to generic drugs and help bring the price of drugs down, as the Hatch-Waxman bill has done for the last 16 years. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a brief moment to speak on bankruptcy reform legislation, which in my view, our Nation desperately needs. We have a balanced bankruptcy reform bill. The administration is on record as saying they support it. If the President really wants a bill, and if my colleagues in the Senate really want a bill, then they should let us move to a formal conference. Furthermore, they should tell us why the clinic violence provision is even necessary. Current law already prevents perpetrators of clinic violence, as well as other types of violence, from discharging the judgments against them in bankruptcy. Given this, it is clear that the overbroad abortion clinic violence amendment serves no substantive purpose. No one has brought forth a single case in which current law has been used to discharge debts from clinic violence. I raised this issue in a letter to Senator Schumer last week, and am still awaiting a response. Let's move forward with a bankruptcy conference--we have waited long enough. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bruce Artim, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for this session of Congress.