Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to take 1 additional minute, with an additional minute given to the other side.

Mr. HATCH. I have debated the issue, as I say, of price controls many times, so I will not spend any more time on the issue of price controls. But it does not make sense. That is what we are headed towards. The greatest industry in our country, that has the greatest potential to do the greatest amount of good to bring health care costs down in the end--even though it is tremendously expensive to develop these drugs--is going to be flattened by this type of legislation which is well meaning, well intentioned, and absolutely destructive to our innovative industries in this particular country. We have to find a way around this drug price problem in this country without creating a gray market in these particular goods and services. There has not been 1 day of hearings on this particular language. How can we guarantee that foreign government price controllers will not set an artificially low price on some new Alzheimer's drug? And can we be sure this will not have the unintended but real, ripple effect of convincing company officials to forgo research----

Mr. HATCH. Given the reported White House activity on this bill, I would not be surprised that FDA will quickly respond to and brush aside the questions this letter raises. Mr. President, in sum, we are in danger of losing a tremendously innovative and effective and productive industry that has made the American Nation the leader in health care throughout the world. I think this type of an amendment will undermine everything we have decided to do all these years, that has really benefited the whole world. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Can we be sure this will not have the unintended, but real, ripple effect of convincing company officials to forego research on this new class of drugs for fear that, in conjunction with the new liberal reimport policy, they will not be able to recoup their investment? Let us hope that the future does not come down to a choice between two lousy alternatives, what economists call a Hobson's Choice: great drugs that are not widely affordable or potentially great drugs abandoned due to minimal projected revenues. And I can tell you given my work in the area of the AIDS epidemic, as between expensive drugs and no drugs, expensive drugs is a better problem to have. My conservative instincts are always against government price controls, and I don't think that this principle should be limited to U.S. government price controls if a by-product of this well-intentioned re-import bill is to import some other government's price controls into U.S. market dynamics. Frankly, this does not seem the type of far reaching legislation that we should rush into without pausing to try to think through all of its ramifications. It just seems to me that if there are areas where governments world- wide must tread carefully in enacting legislation, if indeed they must tread at all, it is in areas like biotechnology. It is clear from absolutely stunning developments like the early completion of the mapping of the human genome that there is an incredible synergy taking place between information technology and biotechnology. The high-speed sequencing machines that mapped the genetic code and almost instantaneously made this information available on the Internet represent this confluence of technology. In our valid and justified quest to help make drugs more affordable to the American public, we should be mindful not to unwittingly retard the development of the next generation of innovation. Having described the general angst I feel in relation to the possible effect that this legislation may have on the pace of and investment in pharmaceutical research and development as well as challenges it will create in terms of respect for intellectual property rights, I want to focus next on the important concerns that I have about the public safety aspects of the amendment. I want to commend Senators Jeffords and Dorgan for perfecting some of the gaps and shortcomings related to drug safety contained in the House-passed legislation. But let me say that, as Chairman of the Committee with jurisdiction over the Controlled Substances Act, I am not convinced that the American public is adequately protected by this amendment. Now, I know that drafting and redrafting is an unglamourous part of the legislative process and that you and your staffs, and if the reports are correct many in the Administration, have been working hard to refine this amendment. But let's be fair, legislating on an appropriations bill is not the optimum way to change some central provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. I was involved in redrafting the Import and Export Chapter of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act both in 1986 and in 1996. While I recognize the HELP Committee had a hearing yesterday, I think that everyone would agree with me that it is helpful to have a legislative hearing on legislation when the ink is at least dry. I would like to see what the FDA, the DEA, General McCaffrey and the Patent and Trademark Office have to say about the bill when they have had time to give thoughtful consideration to a sufficiently finalized draft. While it is true that the bill is drafted generally to the FDC Act, it will be particularly important to see how this liberalized re-import may affect controlled substances. Can't we take the time to hear from the Drug Enforcement Administration? Also, I don't know if this is the case, but I have heard second hand reports that the White House has more or less limited FDA to a ``let's make the best of this'' role and is not encouraging the agency to look at this bill more globally. Also, I cannot help but note that in the latest draft that I have seen, the language covers only drug products and not biologics, which are in the vast majority of cases perceived and used by consumers as drugs in the non-legalistic definition. And since it is also the case that many times it is precisely these new generation biologics that are the most costly on the market, the question must be asked why Americans should not get the advantage of lower priced biologics as well as drugs? Frankly, it is evident that each successive draft attempts to address the many shortcomings with respect to assuring the American public that the imported drugs are the safe and effective and unadulterated. Clearly, this drafting would be better served if it were down in the public forum of a mark-up. I just don't think that we know enough about this language to be reasonably certain that we could be sowing the seeds of a future tragedy but I certainly don't want to take that chance. I worry that a day will come when either a under-potent or over-potent batch of imported drugs will leave a trail of avoidable carnage. Yes, we can have certifications and regulations and foreign inspections and every other thing you can think of, but the fact remains we are opening a door that Congress carefully closed in 1988 when it enacted the Prescription Drug Marketing Act. The history of this bill is that it was enacted after a series of serious adverse events due to improperly stored, handled, and transported imported drugs. It also addressed the issue of the import of counterfeit and unapproved drugs such as the presence of counterfeit antibiotics and contraceptives. These were serious threats to public health and safety. These incidents were the subject of extensive hearings of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. These incidents were the impetus of the 1988 legislation that this amendment would unravel. Look, I know that there is a certain attractiveness to accept this amendment and that some members may be inclined to vote for this measure with the expectation that the language, which is still in flux, will be cleaned up in Conference. But I am concerned that opening up this import loophole is either fixable or will do more good than harm. As interested parties study this measure, objections are beginning to be registered. And they are not only from the big drug companies who are the true, and, to some extent, justified target of this provision. I am mindful that a similar provision passed the House by a wide margin. But one vote that this legislation did not get was of that the Dean of the House, Representative John Dingell of Michigan. Now you would think that if ever there was a group that stood to benefit from legislation it would be the wholesale druggists because they are the natural middlemen in the new, liberalized import system. Instead they call the amendment ``unworkable'' because ``(w)wholesalers do not have the expertise, equipment or personnel to undertake such complicated tasks''. I will say in public right now that I fully expect that the DEA, FBI, and other components of DOJ will weigh in when this correspondence is answered. I am particularly interested in learning from the DEA and FBI to what extent importation of counterfeit and adulterated controlled substances is a current problem and to what extent, if any, this legislation, would likely affect the current state of affairs? But before my colleagues vote on this measure I would ask each of you to review the Dingell correspondence together with any response from the administration. Here are some of the questions that were included in Congressman Dingell's letter to FDA: 1. Please provide a detailed analysis on how (H.R. 4461 and H.R. 3240) would affect FDA's present operations regarding efforts to prevent misbranded or potentially dangerous drugs from entering the U.S. Specifically, please provide: (a) a description of how the present system now used by FDA works; (b) what the present system is intended to accomplish; and (c) what changes would be required (and the potential effects of those changes) if this legislation passes in its present form. Please include a discussion of how these amendments would affect the activities of other agencies, such as the U.S. Customs Service, with responsibilities for assuring the safety of imported prescription drugs. 2. Please determine if either of these amendments would have any effect on FDA's ability to enforce good manufacturing practices (GMPs) in any foreign firms that ship drugs to the U.S. If so, please explain any potential effect on consumer health and safety. 3. Please provide a full description regarding what a ``warning letter'' is and how it is typically used by the FDA. Please compare this with correspondence that is sent by Customs. 4. It appears that these amendments would directly affect the ability of FDA to send warning letters to consumers that purchase drugs over the Internet. As you know, some web sites appear to be covertly linked to foreign drug suppliers. When a consumer orders from such a site, it is not always obvious that they are dealing with an offshore supplier, and thus a potentially non-FDA approved facility. Often, warning letters may be the only indication that the Internet-ordered drugs originated from a foreign (and potentially dubious) source. Please indicate how this legislation could affect FDA's ability to protect consumers who purchased drugs in this way. 5. Please detail any other potential effects this legislation could have on FDA's ability to protect consumers from potentially dangerous drugs that originate aboard. 6. Finally, please provide technical assistance in the form of specific suggestions for legislative or regulatory changes that would be needed in order to facilitate the safe importation of prescription drugs by individuals, wholesalers, or retailers. Only if you are convinced that FDA has the resources and international presence to enforce the myriad of new regulations and procedures required by the amendment should you vote for this measure. Ask yourself how confident you are that more word-smithing during a closed conference committee meeting is likely to prevent one or more of your constituents from being seriously injured down the road by unsafe drug products brought into the U.S. as a result of this amendment? Do we really want to turn back the clock and essentially re-open a dangerous door that was closed by the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1988? Why the rush to open a potential Pandora's box of public health problems? I hope that this well-intentioned amendment, offered by two highly- respected co-sponsors, does not place Congress and the public in the position of the old adage, those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it. I respect the men and good intentions behind this amendment. We all want to increase access to pharmaceuticals for all Americans. I do not think that the benefits of the Jeffords-Dorgan amendment outweigh its downsides, and that is why I am supportive of the alternative offered by the Senator from Mississippi. I have to say, when this debate happened in the House, my dear friend, Congressman John Dingell, who has played a tremendous role in health care all these years I have been in the Congress, stood up and argued against this. He lost in the House, but he should have won. During the House debate, Congressman Dingell said the following, ``We now find ourselves in the regrettable position of confronting the possibility that the easing of the law with regard to food and drug and cosmetics, which is going to be done here under this legislation, will in fact reduce the safety of the American consuming public.'' Mr. Dingell was Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee when the PDMA passed in 1988. He was a key mover and shaker behind the bill. As the bill was being developed the Energy and Commerce Committee issued a report that concluded that ``the very existence of a market for reimported goods provides the perfect cover for foreign counterfeits.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that his letter be printed in the Record, as well as the National Wholesale Druggists' Association letter, where they beg us not to pass this type of legislation because of the harm it could cause to the American public and to the American consumer.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is a very important amendment. There is a lot of sincerity behind it. I rise today to offer some concerns about the Jeffords-Dorgan Amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill and to support the Cochran amendment. I have many questions about the Jeffords-Dorgan amendment. Let me make something perfectly clear from the start--I do not question the good intentions of this amendment. I know that my colleague, Senator Jeffords, is sincerely seeking to address this difficult matter of high prices for pharmaceuticals in the United States. As I traveled across my state and around our country this election year, I found that many Utahns and many Americans, particularly our senior citizens, are having difficulty in affording prescription medicines. Some are going across the borders to Canada and Mexico. We have all seen the news broadcasts of those cross-border bus trips to buy the cheaper foreign drugs. And, it may seem obvious, particularly to two Senators who represent States on the Canadian border, that the solution is simply to allow the importation of prescription drugs into our country. There is something of a cruel dilemma at play here: right at the moment when scientists seem poised to invent an unbelievable new array of diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines, many Americans are encountering difficulties in affording these new and sometimes costly medications. There are many issues at play in this debate. One issue that policymakers face is to see whether a balance can be constructed whereby we retain the necessary investment to produce the promised wonder cures while at the same time maintain our ability to deliver these new products to the patients at affordable prices. This is part of what is shaping the debate over the fashioning of a prescription drug benefit for the Medicare program. This balance between new drugs and affordable drugs is what shaped the debate 16 years ago when the Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. I am proud to have played a leadership role in this law that helps, according to CBO, consumers save $8 billion to $10 billion annually through the purchase of generic drugs. But, in our understandable and highly populist zeal to make drugs more accessible, we must not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is to say, we must be able to continue to attract the private sector investment into the biomedical research establishment that has made the American drug development pipeline so promising. While it is true enough that, at this time, the drug industry is the most profitable sector of the economy, I do not think that success should be a license for us to over-regulate this industry. Sometimes well-intentioned, but ill-advised, governmental policies have hastened the decline of American business to the detriment of American workers and consumers alike. But, another consideration with respect to the advisability of this amendment is the premium that we place on our citizens receiving safe and effective products, free from adulteration and misbranding. Dating from the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, through the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the 1962 efficacy amendments, and the 1988 Prescription Drug Marketing Act, our Nation has devised a more or less closed regulatory system that ensures that drug products will be carefully controlled from the manufacturer to the patient's bedside. If we are to open up our borders to a new plethora of drug reimports--I am talking about reimports--we need to be absolutely certain that we have not undermined the integrity of this regulatory system by admitting products improperly manufactured, transported, or stored. A pill may look like the real item but not contain the active ingredient in the right concentration, or it may simply not contain the medication at all. Similarly, we must not allow the American public to fall prey to counterfeit so-called ``gray market'' products. These are products which could be made to look exactly like the real thing and may comply with, or attempt to comply with, the requirements of the actual approved product, but do not comply with the legal requirement of a license from the patent holder--in short, a pirated product. While there is a clear and obvious health danger in an adulterated, non-conforming pirated product, there is also great detriment to the American public if the unscrupulous are allowed to reimport America's inventions back into America without compensating the inventor. Few will be willing to invest the upfront capital--hundreds of millions of dollars--to develop a drug if another party can make and sell the drug while it is under patent protection. It takes an average of 15 years and a half a billion dollars to create one of the blockbuster drugs. So we have to be careful. Keep in mind, too, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have a special obligation with respect to our intellectual property laws that we not go down any path that can be seen as inviting the development of a gray market for prescription drugs. After all, a fake Rolex may be right twice a day, but a bad copy of a good drug can kill you. This is something we have to be more concerned about around here. We can't just do what appears to be good but, in essence, could kill people. As we move further into the information age, protection of American intellectual property becomes more and more vital to our national interest. For example, if the latest computer software can be taken without proper licensing arrangements, our national leadership in high technology will be threatened. Where is the pharmaceutical industry in Canada? They have price controls, and nobody is going to invest the money into developing these lifesaving and cost-saving drugs over the long run in those countries with price controls. We have had many debates over price controls. I remember those days when Senator Pryor and I were on this floor arguing back and forth about price controls. Fortunately, the Senate, in its wisdom, decided not to go for price controls. This is another step toward price controls that will stultify one of the most important industries in America at a time when we just mapped the human genome, and we are at the point where we can actually create more lifesaving drugs--perhaps at even a greater cost but nevertheless at a greater health care cost savings than ever before. So that is why intellectual property protections are so necessary. In fact, one of the great accomplishments of the 1995 GATT Treaty was to put intellectual property protection front and center in our trade relationships with the developing world. Many countries are notorious for the lax policing of patent and copyright violations by their citizens. When the value of American inventions is expropriated, it is American inventors and American consumers who suffer. The United States cannot and should not allow free riders around the world essentially to force the American public to underwrite a disproportionate amount of the research and development that results in a next generation breakthrough product. One has only to read a collection of the section 301 reports the Office of the United States Trade Representative to get a feel of just how prevalent such intellectual property theft is worldwide. I took the time to present this background because I think the Jeffords-Dorgan amendment requires such analysis. And I will be the first one to admit that the amendment, at first blush, seems quite simple and appealing. What could be the matter with a rule that essentially says drugs obtained from outside the United States at prices lower than U.S. prices can be resold in the U.S., presumably in a manner that places pressure to lower prevailing U.S. prices? Yet, I recall H.L. Mencken's sage observation, ``There is always an easy solution to every human problem neat--plausible, and wrong.'' I, too, join many of my constituents in Utah and others across the country, in questioning why our citizens are paying higher drug prices than those who live in other countries. And while I recognize that there are complex economic, political, and social factors at play that partially explain why a drug company would charge less for a drug in a destitute region in sub-Saharan Africa, it is more difficult to understand why drug costs less in Tijuana, Mexico, or Alberta, Canada than in San Diego, California. This is a policy I cannot totally defend. And I do think the pharmaceutical companies need to address this more. But I can say that where nations impose price controls, a flawed economic theory which we have proven does not work in the U.S., there are negative consequences which among other hazards could imperil the flourishing research and development we count on to bring us miracle cures. I am very apprehensive about government price controls, particularly on our most cutting-edge technologies like pharmaceuticals. Price controls function in an economic environment the way a lid works on a boiling pot. Price controls may temporarily keep prices down, but they are certainly no long term solution to the problem. As soon as the lid comes off, the pot boils over. And, why not just keep the lid on indefinitely? Because price controls also have a stifling effect on the incentives to conduct research. Without the prospect of recouping a substantial, multi- million dollar investment, there is little reason for pharmaceutical companies to undertake such research on the next breakthrough drugs. It would not take long for our nation's pharmaceutical industry to atrophy. How can we guarantee that foreign government price controllers will not set an artificially low price on some new Alzheimer's drug? And can we be sure that this won't have the unintended, but real, ripple effect of convincing company officials to forgo research on this new class of drugs for fear that, in conjunction with the new liberal re-import policy, they will not be able to recoup their investment? I support those who wish to instruct the United States Trade Representative to be even more aggressive in promoting and protecting intellectual property rights in all of our bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. It seems to me that rather than importing the effects of foreign price controls back into the U.S., a strong case can be made that we should be using our Trade Representative to attack the foreign price controls that many countries have enacted so that a better balance between U.S. research costs and foreign borne research costs might be achieved. Let's stop the free riders and cheap riders overseas while American citizens are paying the full freight of R&D. I have to confess that one part of me likes the feature of this amendment that creates the challenge to the entrepreneur of bringing goods sold cheaper abroad back to the United States at presumable savings to U.S. citizens. Yet, the amendment provides no guarantee that those wholesalers and pharmacists importing the products would pass their savings on to the consumer. And so, we could be trading public safety for middleman profits, an outcome not contemplated by proponents of the amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that fellows in my office, Dr. David Russell, Bruce Artim, and Meg Gerstenblith, be granted the privilege of the floor for the pendency of H.R. 4461, the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, many years ago William Wordsworth wrote a wonderful poem entitled ``Ode On Intimations of Immortality,'' in which he said: Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting; The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star, Hath had elsewhere its setting, And cometh from afar; Not in entire forgetfulness, And not in utter nakedness, But trailing clouds of glory do we come From God, who is our home. . . . I feel particularly bereft today because of the loss of Paul Coverdell. I have served here for 24 years and I have seen great people come and go. There are people in this body who are just as great as the Founding Fathers were. There may not be many, but there are people here who by any measure qualify as great leaders. These great people, who are able to cross party lines and bring people together, make this body the greatest legislative body in the world. Paul was one of those people. He was kind, he was considerate, a good listener; he was wise and he was a person with whom you would want to counsel if you had any concerns. But Paul was more than that. He was politically astute. He knew when to get tough about matters and stand up for what he believed. But there was also a kindness, a softness, a decency about him that is going to live long after today. I know that ``our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting,'' and that we came ``from God, who is our home.'' I know that Paul was one of God's chosen people. He was given the privilege of coming here to be with us in the Senate. We had the privilege of knowing him. William Cullen Bryant once said: So live that when thy summons comes to join The innumerable caravan that moves To that mysterious realm, where each shall take His chamber in the silent halls of death, Thou go not, like a quarry-slave at night, Scourged to his dungeon, but, sustained and soothed By an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave Like on who wraps the drapery of his couch About him, and lies down to pleasant dreams. Paul was like that. We are all going to miss him. The fact that he died such a quick and unfathomable death has made a mournful impression on all of us. Paul was one of those people who could move mountains because of his personality, because of his intelligence, because of his background, because of his experience, because of his kindness, because of his love, because of his fairness, and because of his leadership. I could go through all of his leadership qualities, all of the things he was working on and the accomplishments he made. Right now, I am thinking more of the mourning and the sense of loss we feel in losing Paul Coverdell. Tennyson wrote this wonderful poem called ``Crossing the Bar.'' Sunset and evening star, And one clear call for me, And may there be no moaning of the bar, When I put out to sea. But such a tide as moving seems asleep, Too full for sound and foam, When that which drew from out the boundless deep Turns again home. Twilight and evening bell, And after that the dark! And may there be no sadness of farewell, When I embark, For tho' from out our bourne of time and place The flood may bear me far, I hope to see my Pilot face to face When I have crossed the bar. I have no doubt that Paul is going to see his pilot face to face. I have no doubt that he doesn't want any moaning of the bar as he put out to sea. I know he doesn't want any sadness or farewell now that he has embarked on this next phase of eternity. Let us today concentrate on all the good that Paul stood for on all his amazing accomplishments, not only as a Senator, but also as a man. We all know about Paul's love for education--he led our caucus on that issue--and all the work he did as chairman of the Senate Republican Task Force on Education to encourage learning opportunities for America's schoolchildren. Paul worked hard to make sure that every parent, every child, and every teacher could devote enough time throughout each year to educational matters. He made encouraging a love of reading his special priority for students, pupils, and teachers alike. He was a leader in formulating ``A+'' tax free accounts for education. His landmark Safe and Affordable Schools Act has been widely regarded as a model program to improve our country's education policies. Paul authored bills to make sure we appreciate the hard work of our Nation's teachers, something we tend to forget so easily when formulating education policy. Paul must also be memorialized for his steadfast work to lower taxes and make our tax policies more fair. Many times Paul reminded us of his belief that the freedom and means to raise, educate and care for our families are threatened by a government that takes more than 50 percent of an average family's income in taxes and cost of government. Paul was very proud of his work on tax issues and in particular, of the law he authored to stop unscrupulous IRS workers from rummaging through the tax files of private citizens. It is many ways so ironic that the last vote he cast was on repealing the death tax, an important policy change he had worked so hard to advocate. I worked closely with Paul on his antidrug efforts, on his work to stop narcotics trafficking, and on his efforts to make the workplace drug free. All of these things Paul did, and he did them well. Paul never forgot the needs of his home state, whether it were through his work as chairman of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Marketing, Inspection and Product Promotion, or through his work as a member of the Finance Committee and the Small Business Committee. His record is replete with accomplishments that benefited his constituents back home. Of course, there were so many other legislative things I would like to mention, but let me leave it at that. Another side of Paul was his love for baseball. He was as excited as anybody I have ever seen when Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's Major League home run record as a beloved Atlanta Brave. I am deeply saddened by his passing. I am going to miss him very much. One of my favorite poets is a poet named Sara Teasdale who wrote an interesting poem. Although this was surely a love poem, I think it applies to our memories of Paul as this poem is called ``The Beloved.'' It is enough of honor for one lifetime To have known you better than the rest have known, The shadows and the colors of your voice, Your will, immutable and still as stone. The shy heart, Which Paul had-- so lonely and so gay, The sad laughter and the pride of pride, The tenderness, the depth of tenderness Rich as the earth, and wide as heaven is wide. I like that. Even though it was meant for someone else, I think it applies to a large degree to Paul Coverdell. Paul was a good man. He did the right things. He set a good example. He was a good colleague here. He was one of the most respected Senators in this body for all of these qualities, qualities that very few people can come close to matching. I wish Paul the best in his afterlife. My sympathy and heartfelt feelings to Nancy, his wife, and to the rest of his family who are mourning him. I thank God for the privilege of knowing Paul, working with Paul, accomplishing things with Paul, laughing with Paul. I am grateful for our colleagues in this body on both sides of the floor. We do learn that these people are here for a very important reason. They have been selected by their respective constituents to do good things. I can say as one who has been here long enough to know that Paul Coverdell did good things while he was here and that his legacy will be that all of us need to do better in the things we have been and are doing. All of us need to follow and emulate his example so that we can hopefully be as good as he was. My sympathy and my best to Nancy and other members of his family, and to my fellow colleagues who are mourning Paul Coverdell this day. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act of 2000. This much-needed bill has had a long and difficult journey in getting to this point where we can pass it in the Senate. Passage will occur today; and, as we did in 1999, the Congress will send legislation to help married couples being hurt by marriage tax penalties to the President. I congratulate my colleague, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, for his very effective leadership on this issue. I realize that this matter has not been an easy one for Chairman Roth this year, because he has been unfairly criticized by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle for taking the approach on marriage tax penalty relief that is reflected in this bill. Let me explain. The Senate last year, led by Chairman Roth, passed a marriage penalty relief provision in the Taxpayer Refund Act, which used a different solution to the marriage penalty problem than the one included in the bill before us today. Last year's bill would have solved the marriage penalty problem by allowing married couples the option of filing as single taxpayers on a combined joint return. I supported that bill as did a majority of our colleagues. It was a good approach to solving a major tax problem for American families. Last year's bill was effective in relieving the marriage penalty. However, it left untouched another glaring family tax problem that I will call the single-earner penalty. I would like to illustrate this with a hypothetical example of three Utah families. Let's suppose we have three families, all neighbors living on the same street in Ogden, UT. These families are nearly identical, in that they each have three children and household incomes of $80,000 per year. The only differences in these three families are in the marital status of the parents and in who earns the income. In the first family, the Allen family, the parents are married and both work outside the home and earn $40,000 each for a total of $80,000. The second family, the Brown family, are also married but only the husband works outside the home, earning $80,000 per year. The third family, the Campbell- Clark family, are unmarried parents and each of them earns $40,000 per year for a total of $80,000. As you can see from this chart, under current law, the Allen and the Brown families each pay about $9,200 in income tax each year. The Campbell-Clark family, however, because they can file as single taxpayers, pay only a combined $7,900. Because the Allens each earn one-half the family income, if they were to divorce and file as singles, they could reduce their combined tax bill down to $7,900, the same as the Campbell-Clarks. Therefore, the Allens suffer a marriage penalty of about $1,300 each year. The marriage penalty relief provision included in last year's tax bill would have eliminated this marriage penalty and reduced the tax bill of the Allen family down to the same level paid by the Campbell- Clarks. However, by doing so it would have left behind the Brown family, who would still be paying income taxes of $9,200 per year. This is not fair. We must not, in the name of fairness, fix the marriage tax problems of one category of families, but not another category. It is true that the Browns do not suffer a marriage penalty, but why should they pay higher taxes simply because their family income is earned by one spouse and not two? There are approximately 210,000 couples in my home state of Utah, who, like the Allens, suffer a marriage penalty. However, there are also about 108,000 couples in Utah who are like the Browns, and would be left behind by marriage tax relief like we passed in 1999. This is why this year's marriage penalty bill is superior to last year's. The bill before us today lowers the tax burden of both the Allen family and the Brown family. It alleviates the marriage penalty and the one-earner penalty. It does not leave any family behind. In essence, the Internal Revenue Code results in marriage tax penalties and bonuses because it pursues three conflicting ideals or principles--marriage neutrality, equal treatment of married couples with the same household income, and progressive taxation. The ideal of marriage neutrality states that a couple's tax liability should not be determined based on their marital status. In other words, there should not be a tax incentive either to marry, to remain single, or to divorce. Under our example, current law does penalize the Allen family, because they would pay about $1,300 per year less if they were to divorce and live together. That is ridiculous. We want to encourage people to live together in marriage. The equally important principle of equal treatment holds that married couples with equal incomes should pay the same amount in taxes without regard to how much each spouse contributes to the couple's income. Under this principle, the Allens and the Browns should pay the same tax since they are both married with identical family incomes. Currently, they do pay the same, but this principle would be violated if we did not also lower the Browns' tax while fixing the Allens' marriage penalty. Progressive taxation is the principle that those with higher incomes should pay a higher percentage of their incomes in taxes than is required of those with lower incomes. It is mathematically impossible for the Tax Code to achieve all three of these tax policy ideals simultaneously. One of the three objectives must be sacrificed. If we continue to insist on a progressive tax system, we cannot solve both the marriage penalty and the one-earner penalty. Simply put, last year's marriage penalty relief provision did solve the marriage penalty, but it violated the one-earner penalty. The bill before us today does not totally solve the marriage penalty, but it greatly alleviates it for most families. And, it does not create a one-earner penalty. All in all, it represents the fairest approach for the most families in our country. As long as we have a progressive tax system, we will never achieve total family tax fairness. Therefore, no marriage tax penalty bill will be perfect. While making tremendous progress toward marriage penalty relief for most families, the bill before us leaves some serious marriage penalties in place. For example, the current-law student loan interest deduction provision penalizes married couples struggling to pay off student loans. In February, the Senate passed an amendment to the education tax bill that Senator Mack and I offered that would have eliminated this problem. I had hoped to add that provision to this bill, but it would not be germane under the reconciliation rules. I hope we can take care of that problem in another tax bill later this year. President Clinton has given strong indications he will veto this bill because it gives tax relief to families who do not suffer from marriage penalties. This is a shortsighted point of view that ignores the structure of our tax system and the needs of American families. In fact, it kind of makes me wonder whether President Clinton's real concern is the idea of cutting taxes. He has made no secret of his opposition to tax cuts. He has fought us every step of the way in our efforts to return a portion of the budget surplus to those hard-working Americans who produced it. But, I will be very sorry if a Presidential veto denies American families even this tax cut which is not being made for its own sake, but rather to correct a longstanding inequity in the Tax Code. I implore the President to reconsider that all American families need fair and substantial tax relief--those where both spouses work outside the home as well as those where one parent stays home. I hope he will sign this bill into law. And, allow me to say just a word about parents who forego outside income to remain at home. Everyone in this body knows that I believe we must have adequate child care for those families who need it. I have worked with my Republican colleagues and my Democratic colleagues across the aisle on child care legislation. But, I cannot say emphatically enough that the best child care is still provided by a parent. I have yet to hear a single Senator disagree with that. Yet, our Tax Code penalizes a family in which one parent makes this choice to stay at home with their children. I am glad that my wife stayed home with our children. She did work in the early years of our marriage as a grade school teacher, but she stayed home virtually all of the time our children were growing up, and I think it shows. It is high time we fix this problem. It is high time we correct the marriage penalty for both the Allens and the Browns in Utah, and families like them all over the country. Today, we have the means to do it. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: There are no more excuses. Again, I thank Chairman Roth for his insight and leadership on this important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this bill. I urge President Clinton to sign it. One last thing, and that is, when you have a $4.3 trillion surplus in the budget, you know darn well somebody is being taxed too much. Why can't we at least solve these inequities that are literally calling out to us for a solution? Why can't we make it clear that being married should not be a disadvantage to couples? Why don't we make it clear that we are going to treat married couples just as well as those who live together and are not married, who don't pay as much in taxes today? These three families illustrate this as well as I think we can illustrate it. Why should the Allen family and the Brown family pay $9,222, while the Campbell-Clark family, just because they live together--each of them single, and each of them earning $40,000--why should they get a tax bill of $1,300 less than the other two families? I urge the President to sign this bill. I think it is the right thing to do. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. The death tax, which is also known as the estate and gift or the transfer tax, is an unfair and counterproductive burden on our economy, and it is past time Congress repealed it. Many of my colleagues who agree with me that this tax ought to be repealed have made many persuasive arguments as to why. Rather than repeat all of these excellent arguments, I would like to focus on just one vital reason the death tax should be repealed: by hurting millions of closely-held businesses and farms, the death tax harms the economy and every American. Mr. President, our colleagues from across the aisle have been quick to assert that only two percent of all estates are affected by the estate tax and that fewer than five percent of these estates are made up of farms and small businesses. These statistics are highly misleading and conceal a very important point. Estates that actually pay the estate tax represent only the tip of the iceberg of the total number of estates that are harmed by the tax. Let me explain. Millions of individuals and the owners of millions of family-owned farms, ranches, and closely-held businesses are potentially subject to the estate tax, but the majority of them are able, with great effort and expense, to avoid the tax by complex tax planning or by selling the business or farm. What are left are the two percent of death tax-paying estates my colleagues keep mentioning. Every year, billions of dollars are spent in legal and tax planning fees and other costs so that estates may effectively avoid the death tax. A survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers last month found that, over the past five years, more than 40 percent of respondents spent more than $100,000 on attorney and consultant fees, life insurance premiums, and other estate planning techniques. More than half had spent over $25,000 in the past year. Despite this planning, nearly one-third of the respondents believed the business would have to be sold to pay the death tax if the owner died tomorrow. Furthermore, thousands of businesses are prematurely sold each year in order to escape the death tax. Business owners are forced into selling their business when they have tangible assets of significant value, such as land or business machinery, and yet have few liquid assets to pay an estate tax bill. Clearly, a great many more taxpayers are affected by the estate tax than opponents of repeal would have us believe. Let me give you an example, Mr. President. Until late last year, Ken Macey was the chairman of his second-generation family-owned grocery business based in Sandy, Utah. Ken's father had founded the business in 1946, opening a tiny store called ``Sava Nickel'' in a renovated house in North Salt Lake. Relying on old-fashioned hard work and thrift and the principle of treating customers and employees as they would want to be treated, the Macey family built their business into an eight-store chain, with $200 million per year in revenues and 1,800 employees. Mr. Macey tells me he would have liked to keep the business in the family. However, the long shadow of the death tax loomed. Even though Mr. Macey had spent many thousands of dollars in professional fees for estate tax planning, he still believed his estate was vulnerable for tax rates of up to 60 percent. Rather than risk the trauma of a forced sale upon his death that could have been devastating to his children and the 1,800 employees and their families that depended on Macey's for their livelihood, Mr. Macey decided to sell his business to a larger food store chain. Although this story could have been much worse if some or all of Macey's employees has lost their jobs, it is a tragedy that a business founded by this Utahn's father was forced to be sold outside the family. Macey's Inc. is another example of the millions of American family businesses that do not survive to the next generation. Some of the same senators and congressmen--and our President--who have decried the loss of family farms and family-owned small businesses and who have wondered aloud why large corporations seem to be taking over Main Street have totally ignored the estate tax as one major reason. Yet, many of these colleagues continue to argue that repealing the death tax benefits only the wealthiest two percent. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, only about 30 percent of family farms and businesses survive to the second generation, and only about 4 percent survive a second-to-third generation transfer. No one can tell Mr. Macey or his children or grandchildren that they are not the victims of an unfair death tax. The point is that a huge amount of money, effort, and talent is wasted by millions of individuals and owners of family farms and businesses on activities designed to avoid the death tax. Most of these efforts are successful in the sense that the majority of these estates avoid paying the tax. However, the cost to the economy in terms of lost productivity, business disruption, and lost jobs is enormous. A December 1998 study by the Joint Economic Committee concluded that the death tax has reduced the stock of capital in the economy by almost a half trillion dollars. By putting these resources to better use, as many as 240,000 jobs could be created over a seven year period, resulting in an additional $24.4 billion in disposable personal income. A study released last year by the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) estimated that the repeal of the estate tax would, over 10 years: Increase annual gross domestic product by $137 billion. Boost the nation's capital stock by $1.7 trillion. Create 275,000 more jobs than would otherwise be created. The IPI study also estimated that over the first decade following repeal of the death tax, added growth from capital formation would generate offsetting federal revenues of 78 percent of the static revenue loss. By 2010, these gains would totally offset the loss in revenues. Mr. President, my colleagues who oppose the repeal of the estate and gift tax would have the American people believe that this repeal would benefit only a very few rich families in America. What a distortion of the facts! All of us are hurt by a tax that drives millions of people to spend billions of dollars in largely effective, but economically destructive, activities to avoid paying the death tax. When these efforts fail, jobs are often lost and dreams often die. All of us will benefit by repealing the tax, through increased economic activity, more jobs, more disposable income, and a fairer tax system. Again, I commend Senator Roth and other supporters of this bill for pointing out the many reasons it should be passed and passed expeditiously. I would like my friends and colleagues on the other side of this issue to remember that the estate and gift tax--the ``death tax''--is not a tax on income. Income was already taxed. This is a tax on the American dream. This is a tax on a way of life for many American families and the accumulation of their hard work. This is a tax on their hope for the future, which often includes leaving something for their children and grandchildren. We must repeal it, and the time is now.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, who together with Senator Abraham and Senator Robb, is a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. HATCH. I am prepared to yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this amendment is a simple one. It would permanently extend the research and experimentation tax credit--a tax provision that has been instrumental in helping to keep our economic growth robust over the past decade. Let me explain why this amendment is necessary. Last July, this body voted to extend the research credit permanently. Unfortunately, the House version of last year's tax bill included only a five-year extension of the credit. The five-year extension prevailed in conference. Of course, last summer's tax bill was vetoed by the President. Fortunately, however, last November, Congress passed and the President signed the Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act, which included the five-year extension of the research credit. Therefore, the credit has been extended to June 30, 2004. And, in 2004, corporate America will have to go through this rigmarole again. This tax credit has been on and off, extended and expired, a legislative certainty or a legislative football almost more times than anyone can count. Anyone in this body who has been in business for more than 10 minutes knows that planning and budgeting--unlike what we do here in Congress-- is a multiyear process. And, anyone who has been involved in research knows that the scientific enterprise does not fit neatly into calendar or fiscal year. Our treatment of the R&E tax credit--that is, allowing it to run to the brink of expiration and reviving it at the 11th hour--is a disservice to our research entities and, yes, our whole country. It is time to get serious about our commitment to a tax credit that is widely believed by economists and business leaders to be one of the most effective provisions in creating economic growth and keeping this country on the leading edge of high technology in the world. This amendment gives us an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment. A large number of the Members of this body, on both sides of the aisle, are on record in support of a permanent research credit. Indeed, S. 680, the research credit permanence bill that my colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, and I introduced last year, enjoys the support of 26 Democrats and 20 Republicans. In addition, a permanent research credit was included in Democratic alternative to last summer's tax bill, which was supported by 39 Democrats. Moreover, both Governor Bush and Vice President Gore support a permanent research credit. But, while practically everyone says they support a permanent research credit, it has become too easy for Congress to fall into its two-decade-long practice of merely extending the credit for a year or two, or even five years, and then not worrying about it until it is time to extend it again. These short-term extensions have occurred ten times since 1981, Mr. President. Ten short-term extensions for a tax credit that most members of this body strongly support. I am not sure if we realize how the lack of permanence of the credit damages the effectiveness of the research credit. Research and development projects typically take a number of years and may even last longer than a decade. As our business leaders plan these projects, they need to know whether or not they can count on this tax credit. The current uncertainty surrounding the credit has induced businesses to allocate significantly less to research than they otherwise would if they knew the tax credit would be available. This uncertainty undermines the entire purpose of the credit. For the government and the American people to maximize the return on their investment in U.S. based research and development, this credit must be made permanent. And now is the time to do so. During the ten times in the past 19 years that Congress has extended the research credit for a short time, the ostensible reason has been a lack of revenue. The excuse we give to constituents is that we didn't have the money to extend the bill permanently. Ironically, it costs at least as much in terms of lost revenue, in the long run, to enact short-term extensions as it does to extend it permanently. With the latest projections of the on-budget surplus, for one year, for five years, and for ten years, this excuse is gone. There is simply no valid reason that the research credit should not be extended on a permanent basis. Moreover, now is the time to extend the provision permanently. By making the research credit permanent now, we will send a strong signal to the business community that a new era of stronger support for research has dawned. The timing could not be better because, as I mentioned, many research projects, especially those in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, must be planned and budgeted for months and even years in advance. The more uncertain the long-term future of the research credit is, the smaller the potential of the credit to stimulate increased research. Simply knowing of the reliability of a permanent research credit will give a boost to the amount of research performed, even before the current credit expires in 2004. My home state of Utah is a good example of how state economies benefit from the research tax credit. Utah is home to a large number of firms who invest a high percentage of their revenue on research and development. For example, between Salt Lake City and Provo lies one of the world's biggest stretches of software and computer engineering firms. This area, which was named ``Software Valley'' by Business Week, is a significant example of one of a growing number of thriving high tech commercial regions outside California's Silicon Valley. Newsweek magazine included Utah among the top ten information technology centers in the world. The Utah Information Technologies Association estimates that Utah's IT industry consists of 2,427 enterprises, employing 42,328 with revenue of over $7 billion. In addition, Utah is home to about 700 biotechnology and biomedical firms that employ nearly 9,000 workers. Research and development are the reasons these companies exist. Not only do these companies need to continue conducting a high quality level of research, but this research feeds other industries and, ultimately, consumers. Just ask the patients who have benefited from new drugs or therapies. In all, there are more than 80,000 employees working in Utah's thousands of technology based companies. Many other states have experienced similar growth in high technology businesses. Research and development is the lifeblood of these firms and hundreds of thousands like them throughout the nation. Findings from a study conducted by Coopers & Lybrand show that workers in every state will benefit from higher wages if the research credit is made permanent. Payroll increases as a result of gains in productivity stemming from the credit have been estimated to exceed $60 billion over the next 12 years. Furthermore, greater productivity from additional research and development will increase overall economic growth in every state in the Union. Research and development is essential for long-term economic growth. Innovations in science and technology have fueled the massive economic expansion we have witnessed over the course of the 20th century. These advancements have improved the standard of living for nearly every American. Simply put, the research tax credit is an investment in economic growth, new jobs, and important new products and processes. In conclusion, if we decide not to make the research credit permanent, we are not limiting the potential growth of our economy? How can we expect the American economy to hold the lead in the global economic race if we allow other countries, which provide huge government direct subsidies, to offer faster tracks than we do? Making the credit permanent will keep American business ahead of the pack. It will speed economic growth. Innovations resulting from American research and development will continue to improve the standard of living for every person in the U.S. and also worldwide. Simply put, the costs of not making the research credit permanent are far greater than the costs of making it permanent. As we enter the new millennium, we cannot afford to let the American economy slow down. Now is the time to send a strong message to the world that America intends to retain its position as the world's foremost innovator. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a narrowly focused bill that protects religious liberty from unnecessary governmental interference. It will provide protection for houses of worship and other religious assemblies from restrictive land use regulation that often prevents the practice of faith. This legislation also allows institutionalized persons to exercise their religion to the extent that it does not undermine the security, discipline, and order of their institutions. Seven years ago, recognizing the need to strengthen the fundamental right of religious liberty, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Unfortunately, in 1997, in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact RFRA as applied to state and local governments. In an attempt to respond to the Boerne decision, I introduced S. 2081 earlier this year. Legislation similar to S. 2081 passed the House of Representatives. Yet, concerns were raised by some regarding the scope of S. 2081, and I undertook an effort to seek out a consensus approach. The legislation I am introducing today, which maintains certain provisions of S. 2081, is a tailored version which represents the product of our efforts. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 provides limited federal remedies for violations of religious liberty in: (1) the land use regulation of churches and synagogues; and (2) prisons and mental hospitals. land use regulation At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together. Finding a location to do so, however, can be quite difficult when faced with pervasive land use regulations. As was seen during congressional hearings in both the House and Senate, land use regulations, either by design or neutral application, often prevent religious assemblies and institutions from obtaining access to a place of worship. Under current law, an assembly whose religious practice is burdened by an otherwise ``generally applicable'' and ``neutral'' law can obtain relief only by carrying the heavy burden of proving that there is an unconstitutional motivation behind a law, and thus, that it is not truly neutral or generally applicable. Such a standard places a seemingly insurmountable barrier between the religious assemblies of our country and their right to worship freely. An example of this was seen recently when a city refused to allow the LDS Church to construct a temple simply because it was not in the ``aesthetic'' interests of the community as set forth in a ``generally applicable'' statute. Another example includes an effort to suspend the operation of a religious mission for the homeless operated by the late Mother Teresa's order because it was located on the second floor of a building without an elevator. The land use section of the bill prohibits discrimination against religious assemblies and institutions, and prohibits the total exclusion of religious assemblies from a jurisdiction. The section also prohibits unreasonable limits on religious assemblies and institutions and requires that land use regulations that substantially burden the exercise of religion be justified by a compelling governmental interest. It is important to note that this legislation does not provide a religious assembly with immunity from zoning regulation. If the religious claimant cannot demonstrate that the regulation places a substantial burden on sincere religious exercise, then the claim fails without further consideration. If the claimant is successful in demonstrating a substantial burden, the government will still prevail if it can show that the burden is an unavoidable result of its pursuit of a compelling governmental objective. institutionalized persons Our bill also provides that substantial burdens on the religious exercise of institutionalized persons must be justified by a compelling interest. Congressional witnesses have testified that institutionalized persons have been prevented from practicing their faith. For example, some Jewish prisoners have been denied matzo, the unleavened bread Jews are required to consume during Passover, even though Jewish organizations have offered to provide it to inmates at no cost to the government. While this legislation seeks to improve the ability of institutionalized persons to practice their religion, it remains under the complete application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Both sections are based firmly on constitutional principles that grant Congress its authority. Thus, today's legislation should withstand the scrutiny that has thwarted our efforts in the past. As we begin in this effort, it is worth pondering just why America is, worldwide, the most successful multi-faith country in all recorded history. The answer is to be found, I submit, in both components of the phase ``religious liberty.'' Surely, it is because of our Constitution's zealous protection of liberty that so many religions have flourished and so many faiths have worshiped on our soil. Our country has achieved its greatness because, with its respectful distance from our private lives, our government has allowed all its citizens their own forms of ``internal governance,'' that is, those religious and moral tenets that make a free society possible. Our country has allowed people to answer for themselves, and without interference, those questions that are most fundamental to humankind. And it is in the way that religion informs our answers to these questions, that we not only survive, but thrive as human beings. While this bill provides much needed preservation of our religious liberty, I personally would have preferred a broader approach. I recognize, however, in this shortened legislative year, the long list of items before the congressional leadership that require their attention. In order to ensure enactment of a measure this year, I think all advocates of a broader approach took a prudent step in embracing a more targeted, consensus bill. With the help of Senator Kennedy, Congressman Canady, and others, I hope this legislation will move swiftly through the Congress. We look forward to welcoming others to our modest, yet important, effort to enact this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a narrowly focused bill that protects religious liberty from unnecessary governmental interference. It will provide protection for houses of worship and other religious assemblies from restrictive land use regulation that often prevents the practice of faith. This legislation also allows institutionalized persons to exercise their religion to the extent that it does not undermine the security, discipline, and order of their institutions. Seven years ago, recognizing the need to strengthen the fundamental right of religious liberty, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Unfortunately, in 1997, in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court held that Congress lacked the authority to enact RFRA as applied to state and local governments. In an attempt to respond to the Boerne decision, I introduced S. 2081 earlier this year. Legislation similar to S. 2081 passed the House of Representatives. Yet, concerns were raised by some regarding the scope of S. 2081, and I undertook an effort to seek out a consensus approach. The legislation I am introducing today, which maintains certain provisions of S. 2081, is a tailored version which represents the product of our efforts. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 provides limited federal remedies for violations of religious liberty in: (1) the land use regulation of churches and synagogues; and (2) prisons and mental hospitals. land use regulation At the core of religious freedom is the ability for assemblies to gather and worship together. Finding a location to do so, however, can be quite difficult when faced with pervasive land use regulations. As was seen during congressional hearings in both the House and Senate, land use regulations, either by design or neutral application, often prevent religious assemblies and institutions from obtaining access to a place of worship. Under current law, an assembly whose religious practice is burdened by an otherwise ``generally applicable'' and ``neutral'' law can obtain relief only by carrying the heavy burden of proving that there is an unconstitutional motivation behind a law, and thus, that it is not truly neutral or generally applicable. Such a standard places a seemingly insurmountable barrier between the religious assemblies of our country and their right to worship freely. An example of this was seen recently when a city refused to allow the LDS Church to construct a temple simply because it was not in the ``aesthetic'' interests of the community as set forth in a ``generally applicable'' statute. Another example includes an effort to suspend the operation of a religious mission for the homeless operated by the late Mother Teresa's order because it was located on the second floor of a building without an elevator. The land use section of the bill prohibits discrimination against religious assemblies and institutions, and prohibits the total exclusion of religious assemblies from a jurisdiction. The section also prohibits unreasonable limits on religious assemblies and institutions and requires that land use regulations that substantially burden the exercise of religion be justified by a compelling governmental interest. It is important to note that this legislation does not provide a religious assembly with immunity from zoning regulation. If the religious claimant cannot demonstrate that the regulation places a substantial burden on sincere religious exercise, then the claim fails without further consideration. If the claimant is successful in demonstrating a substantial burden, the government will still prevail if it can show that the burden is an unavoidable result of its pursuit of a compelling governmental objective. institutionalized persons Our bill also provides that substantial burdens on the religious exercise of institutionalized persons must be justified by a compelling interest. Congressional witnesses have testified that institutionalized persons have been prevented from practicing their faith. For example, some Jewish prisoners have been denied matzo, the unleavened bread Jews are required to consume during Passover, even though Jewish organizations have offered to provide it to inmates at no cost to the government. While this legislation seeks to improve the ability of institutionalized persons to practice their religion, it remains under the complete application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Both sections are based firmly on constitutional principles that grant Congress its authority. Thus, today's legislation should withstand the scrutiny that has thwarted our efforts in the past. As we begin in this effort, it is worth pondering just why America is, worldwide, the most successful multi-faith country in all recorded history. The answer is to be found, I submit, in both components of the phase ``religious liberty.'' Surely, it is because of our Constitution's zealous protection of liberty that so many religions have flourished and so many faiths have worshiped on our soil. Our country has achieved its greatness because, with its respectful distance from our private lives, our government has allowed all its citizens their own forms of ``internal governance,'' that is, those religious and moral tenets that make a free society possible. Our country has allowed people to answer for themselves, and without interference, those questions that are most fundamental to humankind. And it is in the way that religion informs our answers to these questions, that we not only survive, but thrive as human beings. While this bill provides much needed preservation of our religious liberty, I personally would have preferred a broader approach. I recognize, however, in this shortened legislative year, the long list of items before the congressional leadership that require their attention. In order to ensure enactment of a measure this year, I think all advocates of a broader approach took a prudent step in embracing a more targeted, consensus bill. With the help of Senator Kennedy, Congressman Canady, and others, I hope this legislation will move swiftly through the Congress. We look forward to welcoming others to our modest, yet important, effort to enact this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to extend my personal gratitude to the Armed Services Committee Chairman and the Ranking Member, as well as to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Readiness for their consideration of my recommended language at Sec. 361 of this bill. This provision requires the Secretary of Defense to report on the consequences of high OPTEMPO on military aviation and ground equipment. Let me explain why I applaud this provision. My particular interest is somewhat more focused on aviation assets. Quite simply, we need to know the adverse effects that the worldwide contingency operations engaged in by our military high-performance aircraft are having on the integrity of the aircraft's frame, engines and other components. I raise this issue, Mr. President, because my state proudly hosts the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. Just recently, a team of depot technicians at Hill discovered that the mechanical assembly designed to brake or halt the rise and fall of the stabilizer on the Air Force KC-135 tanker had been prematurely wearing out because of a surge of KC-135 flight activity, much of it related to the frantic deployment schedules that these aircrews are tied to. The shortage of replacement parts for the stabilizer braking system forced the Air Force to come up with a methodology to refurbish the old part. There had never been a refurbishment of the braking assembly before this time. This is an important fact because the engineering design missed a critical step in the refurbishment process designed to heat out hydrogen that risked getting into microscopic fissures in the brake ratchet. This would have eventually embrittled the system, causing the stabilizer to fail. It would have meant with near certainty that we would have lost aircraft in midair flight as well as some aircrew lives. The Secretary of the Air Force, Whitten Peters, has commended the depot technicians for their astute recommendations to the Air Force Materiel Command to ground the KC-135 fleet; this was done, and I am convinced that lives were saved. But I am no less convinced that we need better visibility over the rapidly aging aircraft airframes and other parts are suffering from the near-frenetic flying schedules and deployments that they and their crews are committed to. Put more directly: we cannot and must not push these brave aircrews into harm's way in aircraft that are even remotely vulnerable to critical component failures. Mr. President, my concern extends to all tactical and strategic, as well as support and service support aviation assets used in these contingency and peacekeeping operations by the Navy, Marine Corps, and the Air Force. The provision asks for a study of the effects of these deployments on all such assets. Wisely, the Committee has added Army aviation since its predominately rotary wing--or helicopter--operations warrant inclusion in the scope of this assessment. If one looks at the Air Force commitments, which have carried the bulk of many of the contingency operations, the statistics are as staggering as they are telling: 18,400 sorties over Iraq; 73 percent of the air assets patrolling the Northern watch no-fly zone which produced 75 percent of the total number of sorties in that region. In the Southern Watch no-fly zone, the Air Force also provided 35 percent of the total air assets and produced 68 percent of the sorties. But I don't want to ignore the Navy with its carrier-based aircraft that undergo take-off and, especially, landing procedures that create unimaginably harsh stresses on aircraft. Many members of this body have witnessed carrier operations and know precisely what I am talking about. Some of our colleagues, like my good friends John McCain and Tom Harkin, are even former Navy carrier pilots. The Secretary of Defense has tried to deal with this issue. And we have tried to help him in the past year. Secretary Bill Cohen cited in his report to Congress this February that aging systems, spot spare parts shortages, and high OPTEMPO [high operating tempo] are placing increased pressure on materiel readiness.'' The Secretary has testified to his ``particular concern'' for ``negative readiness trends in mission capable rates for aircraft.'' Last year, Congress provided DOD with $1.8 billion in Kosovo emergency supplemental funding to meet the most urgent demands. Yet, our equipment is aging. The average age of Air Force aircraft is now 20 years old. Our state of art air-to-ground mission aircraft, the F-16, has a technology base older than most of its pilots, some of whom are flying F-16 aircraft that have been in service longer than they have been alive! The problems of corrosion, fatigue and even parts obsolescence are rampant. I spend much time at Hill Air Force Base in my state of Utah. There are certain critical components that are still tied to vacuum tube technology. Imagine that! How many of us still listen to vacuum tube radios; some of our younger staff members may not even know what they are! Some of our top-of-the-line tactical fighter aircraft use gyroscopes--which are absolutely critical to positional accuracy--that are several generations old. It bothers me greatly to hear people complain about ``gold-plated'' military aircraft. I would invite any of them to join me in a tour of the Ogden, Utah, depot. When they see the condition of components from our best tactical fighters being serviced, I suspect they would better understand the real meaning of courage. But let me conclude with a word about the most important resource in this equation: people. We have reduced our forces by 30 percent and increased deployments by nearly 400 percent. The effect is exactly what you would expect. Recently, the Marine Corps' Commandant and the Army Chief of Staff announced that deployments of their aviation and ground equipment are now 16 times the rate during the Cold War. Unprecedented pilot losses, reaching a 33 percent level in the Navy, 15 percent in the Air Force and 21 percent in the Marine Corps. But the most critical losses are found among the highly specialized aircraft service technicians. Specialists in electronic components, air traffic control, armaments and munitions, and other technical specialties, at all levels of service, short-term, mid-term and long-term, are leaving in unprecedented numbers. Even the Air Force's valiant Expeditionary Air Force concept, which organizes a highly mobile slice of the Air Force into 10 task forces, called ``Air Expeditionary Forces,'' faces technical enlisted skill shortages which still burden the fewer and fewer technicians who remain on active duty, according to a General Accounting Office study on military personnel released in early March 2000. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues for listening to this long presentation regarding my concerns for the state of our military aircraft and the people who fly and service them. I know that most will join with me and the committee in calling for a full review of the consequences of the unprecedented peacetime demands being made on our people and their equipment. National Guard ChalleNGe Program

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate passed H.R. 4577, the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act. I would like to congratulate my colleagues, Senator Specter, Senator Stevens, and Senator Harkin for working together to pass one of the more contentious of the annual appropriations bills. I appreciate the comity and courtesy displayed by the managers of this bill. I realize that most of my colleagues have specific priorities they wish to highlight in this measure. I appreciate the managers' support of the Inhofe amendment regarding the Impact Aid program. As I have stated in the past, this is a vital program for Utah. I also appreciate the fact that the subcommittee has once again included a provision which would allow school districts adversely affected by a recalculation of the census to keep their Title I concentration funds. According to Utahns who live and work and educate our children in these districts, this cut would do a huge disservice to Title I students in these districts. These hardworking Utahns have informed me that they believe that the census calculations do not adequately reflect the pockets of poverty that exist in these districts. Some of the schools in these districts have a poverty rate, when calculated based on school lunch data, at over 70 percent. I am pleased that the subcommittee has accepted the recommendation to hold these districts harmless. I intend to vote in favor of the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, but I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to note, once again, that a crucial provision in the Title I formula remains unfunded. The Education Finance Incentive Grant Program was authorized in the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and is included in S. 2, the ESEA reauthorization, currently pending before the Congress. I recently detailed the merits of this program when I spoke about my intention to offer an amendment to S. 2 that would make EFIG a mandatory component of Title I. I will briefly review those arguments here: EFIG has, as a principal component, an equity factor, which measures how states distribute resources among school districts. As policy, equalizing resources among school districts has merit well documented in academic literature. Moreover, many States are being compelled by the courts to equalize resources among school districts. Over 30 states have been taken to court on the basis of an unequal distribution of resources. My amendment would provide some relief to states that are currently required by the courts to equalize resources among school districts by increasing their share of Title I funds. My amendment would also provide the incentive to equalize resources to states which may not have already done so. The Education Finance Incentive Grant program would be the only part of the Title I formula that does not use the per-pupil expenditure as a proxy for a state's commitment to education. There are many ways to measure a State's commitment to education--the per-pupil expenditure is merely one. Indeed, one of the most damaging aspects of the Title I formula is that it is replicated as a means to distribute Federal money to the states in other programs that have no relation to Title I. The insertion of another measure of a state's commitment to education is appropriate. When EFIG is a factor in the Title I formula, more states do better than under current law. This was a key factor in the debate over the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and why it was the intent during the enactment of the 1994 reauthorization that any additional funds directed to Title I go out through the EFIG. Indeed, it was the reason why a number of Senators voted for the conference report. It is my strongly held conviction that the intention of the 1994 act should be realized, and I will continue to pursue this goal. I do not believe that the Senate should authorize on an appropriations measure, which is why I did not offer my amendment during consideration of this bill. However, I join with many of my colleagues who have expressed concerns over the possibility that, for the first time in nearly 30 years, the Congress will fail to reauthorize vital elementary and secondary education programs. I sincerely hope that those who have obstructed enactment of S. 2 will reconsider their position and allow the bill to go forward.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Christopher Dodd and others, to introduce a simple but highly significant bill which will confer the treasured status of American citizenship on individuals with disabilities. Under current law, the Attorney General possesses the authority to waive certain requirements of naturalization, such as the English and civics test requirements, for disabled applicants. The law, however, has been construed to stop short of granting the Attorney General authority to waive the requirement for the oath of renunciation and allegiance for disabled adult applicants. Consequently, even though such persons are able to fulfill all other requirements of naturalization, or it is clear that the Attorney General can waive them, certain individuals with disabilities may never become citizens. This is the sad situation that a young man from my home state of Utah is facing. Gustavo Galvez Letona, a 27 year-old immigrant from Guatemala, suffers from Down's syndrome. Mr. Letona's entire family are already American citizens. But, while Mr. Letona is otherwise able to become a citizen, despite his developmental disability, the fact that the Attorney General's authority to waive the oath is unclear will prevent Mr. Letona from enjoying the same status as a naturalized American citizen. Imagine a family in which mother, father, brothers and sisters could become U.S. citizens, but one sibling could not only because of a disability. I believe all my colleagues would agree that this would be a sad and tragic situation. It is discriminatory to boot. This bill would not affect a large number of people. A recent estimate was that only about 1100 individuals with disabilities would possibly be eligible for such a waiver. Moreover, I used the word ``possibly'' because the waiver would not be automatic. The waiver would be granted at the discretion of the Attorney General and is not intended to confer citizenship on individuals--regardless of a disability--who would not otherwise qualify for citizenship. It would not apply to every individual with a disability, most of whom would not need such a waiver. Today's legislation remedies this unfortunate scenario facing Gustavo Letona by extending the Attorney General's authority to waive the taking of the oath if the applicant is unable to understand or communicate an understanding of the oath because of disability. This simple solution allows Mr. Letona and others the privilege of becoming American citizens. I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Dodd for his willingness to make this a bipartisan effort. I would also like to thank my Utah Advisory Committee on Disability Policy, and particularly Ron Gardner, who brought this problem to my attention and who works tirelessly to protect the rights of the disabled. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senator Christopher Dodd and others, to introduce a simple but highly significant bill which will confer the treasured status of American citizenship on individuals with disabilities. Under current law, the Attorney General possesses the authority to waive certain requirements of naturalization, such as the English and civics test requirements, for disabled applicants. The law, however, has been construed to stop short of granting the Attorney General authority to waive the requirement for the oath of renunciation and allegiance for disabled adult applicants. Consequently, even though such persons are able to fulfill all other requirements of naturalization, or it is clear that the Attorney General can waive them, certain individuals with disabilities may never become citizens. This is the sad situation that a young man from my home state of Utah is facing. Gustavo Galvez Letona, a 27 year-old immigrant from Guatemala, suffers from Down's syndrome. Mr. Letona's entire family are already American citizens. But, while Mr. Letona is otherwise able to become a citizen, despite his developmental disability, the fact that the Attorney General's authority to waive the oath is unclear will prevent Mr. Letona from enjoying the same status as a naturalized American citizen. Imagine a family in which mother, father, brothers and sisters could become U.S. citizens, but one sibling could not only because of a disability. I believe all my colleagues would agree that this would be a sad and tragic situation. It is discriminatory to boot. This bill would not affect a large number of people. A recent estimate was that only about 1100 individuals with disabilities would possibly be eligible for such a waiver. Moreover, I used the word ``possibly'' because the waiver would not be automatic. The waiver would be granted at the discretion of the Attorney General and is not intended to confer citizenship on individuals--regardless of a disability--who would not otherwise qualify for citizenship. It would not apply to every individual with a disability, most of whom would not need such a waiver. Today's legislation remedies this unfortunate scenario facing Gustavo Letona by extending the Attorney General's authority to waive the taking of the oath if the applicant is unable to understand or communicate an understanding of the oath because of disability. This simple solution allows Mr. Letona and others the privilege of becoming American citizens. I would like to express my gratitude to Senator Dodd for his willingness to make this a bipartisan effort. I would also like to thank my Utah Advisory Committee on Disability Policy, and particularly Ron Gardner, who brought this problem to my attention and who works tirelessly to protect the rights of the disabled. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Congress is approving one of my top legislative priorities, the ``Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000,'' (S. 1515) which will update the compensation program Congress enacted a decade ago. The amendments we pass tonight will make certain that more Utahns who were exposed to radiation during the Cold War can now be granted deserved compensation to recognize the injuries and hardship they and their families have suffered. It will also streamline the application process, making it easier for eligible claimants to qualify. Mr. President, we our government can never truly make right the unanticipated illness and injury caused by our Nation's nuclear testing program. But we should do all we can, and it is my fervent hope these amendments show Congress' commitment to righting a wrong in which the government played such a substantial role. S. 1515 is aimed at improving a program which provides a measure of compensation to individuals who have sustained illness due to radiation exposure. These are fellow Americans who have suffered terribly from cancer and other debilitating diseases resulting from exposure to fallout and uranium mining during this narrow period of our history. In meetings with constituents over the past several years, I have heard countless heart-rending stories about the devastating effects families have felt due to their exposure to radiation. I recall so vividly one young woman in St. George, Utah talking about the ``beautiful sky'' that her mother called all the children outside to view, thus exposing every family member to radiation. Tragically, many of those family members were eventually diagnosed with cancer. Through advances in science, we now know so much more about the effects of that radiation than we did in the late 1950s and 1960s. In fact, we know so much more today than we did in 1990 when Congress passed the original compensation program, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Our current state of scientific knowledge allows us to pinpoint with more accuracy which diseases are reasonably believed to be related to radiation exposure, and that is what necessitated the legislation we are considering today. The RECA amendments of 2000 updates that 1990 law in a number of important areas. Let me briefly take this opportunity to summarize the improvements to RECA that S. 1515 makes: 1. It expands the list eligible diseases (leukemia) and other cancers eligible for compensation to include: lung; thyroid; breast (male and female); esophagus; stomach; pharynx, small intestine; pancreas; bile ducts; salivary gland; urinary bladder; brain, colon; ovary; gall bladder, or liver in those claimants referred to as ``downwinders'' and onsite test participants. 2. It extends eligibility to other diseases (non-cancers) including pulmonary fibrosis, silicosis and pneumoconiosis to millers and miners. 3. It includes two new counties, Wayne and San Juan, as well as several other counties from other states. 4. It extends eligibility for compensation to include above-ground and open-pit uranium mine workers, uranium mill workers, and individuals who transported uranium ore. Under the 1990 law, only underground miners of uranium were included. 5. In an important change, it eliminates a distinction between smokers and nonsmokers. While I appreciate the concern of government officials that smokers who became ill could not reasonably attribute that illness to radiation exposure, many constituents have explained to me that it was virtually impossible to provide reliable documentation about as to whether they had smoked or not. Thus, I insisted in this change so that claimants no longer need to prove they were non-smokers. For many individuals, this will ease the application process immeasurably. 6. It allows for certified physician/patient written documentation and appropriate tests (e.g. CAT scans and MRIs) to be used in the verification of a claim. This will also ease the claimant's application process tremendously. Before, claimants had to search for specific documentation that may have never existed or was disposed of years earlier. 7. In another important provision, these amendments respect Native American law in claims processing as it applies to survivor eligibility based on law, tradition, and custom of a particular Indian tribe (i.e. martial status). 8. While the bill retains the RECA'90 levels of compensation and does not alter the documentation requirements showing that a person was present during the atomic testings, at the request of Senator Daschle, the bill does extend compensation to a new group of individuals: millers (and ore transporters) who are also eligible for $100,000. 9. In the case of millers, miners, and ore transporters, the bill lowers the amount of documented radiation from 200 Working Level Months (WLM) to 40 Working Level Months. If a miller or ore transporter applies for compensation, their exposure documentation can be either proof of 40 WLM or one year documented employment. This is a big change, for with RECA 90, millers and ore transporters were not even eligible for compensation and miners were required to show proof of 200 WLMs. 10. Miners and millers are eligible for compensation if they meet the eligibility criteria for lung cancer and chronic lung diseases mentioned above in #2. Millers are eligible for compensation if they develop renal cancers, chronic renal disease including nephritis and kidney tubal tissue injury. The compensation would be $100,000. 11. Finally, at the suggestion of several Washington County, Utah constituents, the bill includes a new grant program that will help with early detection, prevention and screening of radiogenic diseases. These programs will screen for the early warning signs of cancer, provide medical referrals and educate individuals on prevention and treatment of radiogenic diseases. The grant program is designed to be available to a wide range of community-based groups, including cancer centers, hospitals, Veterans Affairs medical centers, community health centers and state departments of health. I am extremely grateful to the interested and concerned constituents who helped in the drafting of the RECA amendments. Many times, their heartfelt stories helped lead to provisions in the legislation which can only help improve the program. For example, in one meeting on the bill held in St. George, Utah, a woman explained to my office that the compensation program, while well-intended, could never make families who had experienced radiation-caused illness whole again. She expressed her feeling that the greater good could come not from compensating individuals, but from instituting programs which will help families detect potential illness earlier, allowing them to be treated more successfully and cost-effectively. From that conversation was born the new prevention grant program, which I believe will prove to be extremely successful. Our nation has a commitment to the thousands who suffered ill-effects from radiation exposure during a period of nuclear testing critical to our Nation's defense capabilities. I believe we have an obligation to those who were injured, especially since they were not adequately warned about the potential health hazards involved in their exposure. This legislation was made possible by a staunch group of bipartisan supporters who have worked several years to see these program modernizations through. In particular, I want to thank my colleagues from the Beehive State, Representative Chris Cannon, a Judiciary Committee member who worked so hard to get this bill through, and Senator Bob Bennett, for his support on this measure. Likewise, I want to thank a number of other Senators for their help in passing this legislation--Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Jon Kyl, and Pete Domenici, and Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Senator Jeff Bingaman. All of these Senators assisted substantially in developing this legislation. I would be remiss if I did not thank members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and especially Senator Pat Leahy, for their help and cooperation on this issue. And, I want to pay special tribute to my counterpart in the House, Chairman Henry Hyde, as well as to Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims. Finally, I would also like to thank the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers, Representative Barney Frank, and Representative Joe Skeen for their generous support and contributions toward the passage of this bill. I would also be remiss if I did not mention the contributions made to this bill by Stewart Udall, whose substantial work on RECA and these amendments should not go unnoticed. I want to offer sincere appreciation for the assistance and cooperation of key staff, including Cindy Blackston of the House Judiciary Committee, Trudy Vincent of Senator Bingaman's staff, Peter Hansen and Mark Childress of Senator Daschle's staff, and Ed Pagano of Senator Leahy's staff. Also, I want to recognize the hard work by my own staff on this legislation. I have often thought that the probability of any bill passing by unanimous consent is an inverse relationship to the number of hours spent developing it. This bill has been a long time in development. Dr. Marlon Priest began the research phase for this bill over two years ago. Dr. David Russell has brought the legislation to its completion. Pattie DeLoatche, Rob Foreman, Shawn Bently, Troy Dow, Jeannine Holt, and Patricia Knight have worked tirelessly together on behalf of this legislation. And last, but not least, I want to thank the many constituents who offered helpful suggestions to me as we worked to enact S. 1515. I have a tremendous appreciation for their determination, dedication and hard work which was such a necessary part of crafting this legislation. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendment of 2000 is an important piece of legislation which will speed up the application process as well as modernize the criteria for compensation, helping thousands of fellow Utahns and other deserving Americans who were injured by our nation's nuclear development and testing programs. I am hopeful that President Clinton will sign this bipartisan bill into law on a priority basis.

Mr. HATCH. I agree to work with the Democratic Leader. While we cannot afford a delay in sending the current bill to the resident, a strong argument can be made that both miners and mill workers should have the same standard of eligibility for compensation. I will work with the Senator in an expeditious manner to address this issue and make any necessary amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the Committee on the Judiciary. Paul C. Huck, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. John W. Darrah, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. Joan Humphrey Lefkow, of Illinois, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois. George Z. Singal, of Maine, to be United States District Judge for the District of Maine. (The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time we have.