Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, next month, friends, associates and colleagues will gather at Utah State University to honor Mr. Marvin G. Fifield, a remarkable man whose entire professional career has been devoted to improving the lives of those with learning or developmental disabilities. While I stand in tribute to my friend of many years, it is his body of work over the span of forty-four years that does him honor. At his retirement on July 1, Dr. Fifield will have served as the founder and Director of the Center for Persons with Disabilities for thirty-three years. He wrote the grant application, saw it funded, and directed the creation of the center. But it is not the Center alone that owes its existence to Dr. Fifield. Over a thirty year period, he succeeded in writing, achieving the approval and funding for over fifty projects, with combined grants exceeding $60 million. Without his skilled direction, numerous regional mental health centers, rehabilitation and vocational services, studies and workshops would not now be available. The Navajo Initiative in the Developmental Disabilities program, the Indian Children's Program, and the Native American Initiative program all owe their start to this man. Dr. Fifield's chairmanship and membership in professional and community service organizations bridges more than three decades and forty organizations. To this day he chairs or serves on eight boards, including serving as Chairman of the Hatch Utah Advisory Committee on Disability Policy. He also serves on the innovative Assistive Technology Work Group. Marv was the first to champion assistive technologies for people with disabilities--or at least I think he was the first because he was the first to tell me about this exciting field. Assistive technology comprises all devices that improve the functional capabilities of those individuals with disabilities. Marv Fifield is so accomplished that his curriculum vitae is not so much measured in pages as in pounds. In academe, an individual's worth is often measured by how widely they have been published. Dr. Fifield has published seventeen books, chapters in books, or monographs; he has published twelve refereed journal articles and seven non-referenced journal articles; he has published seven technical papers; he has submitted ten testimonies and reports to congressional and Senate subcommittees; published twenty- three final reports and research reports; authored eleven instructional products, and has authored ninety-one selected unpublished conference papers. Dr. Fifield has been a consultant to both national and international organizations including the World Health Organization. Among the richly deserved honors bestowed upon him, he is the recipient of the Leone Leadership Award, the highest honor an administrator can receive. He was presented the Maurice Warshaw Outstanding Service Award by the Governor of the State of Utah and was twice called to serve as a staff member on the Labor and Human Resources Committee. Since 1981, Marv Fifield has provided leadership for my Utah Advisory Committee on Disability Policy. The Disability Advisory Committee has become a model for encouraging constructive dialogue among diverse interests and points of view. The committee has often been able to develop consensus recommendations, which have helped me a great deal over the years. I am most grateful to Marv for all his efforts with the committee. I want to wish him well as he enters the next chapter in his already full life. I hope he will find retirement rewarding. But, if he thinks he can escape consulting with me and those in Utah who rely on his quiet and good-natured leadership to achieve consensus on matters of importance in disability policy, he can forget it. I am here to announce that we are not letting him off the hook. We need the benefit of Marv's knowledge, his humor, and his diplomacy to help us continue moving forward. So, Mr. President, I rise today to pay a well-deserved tribute to Dr. Marvin Fifield. But, I am not bidding him farewell. On the contrary, I will be calling on him often for the same solid advice and counsel he has given to us for so many years. The lives of countless thousands of disabled and disadvantaged citizens have been enriched as a result of Marvin Fifield's work. As a result, our nation will benefit for generations to come. It is a privilege to honor him today. I am proud to call him a friend.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Kennedy asked me about the source of one of the statistics I quote during the debate on S. 2. I am pleased to provide the Senator from Massachusetts with the source for my statistics. During the 105th Congress, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the Committee on Education and the Workforce prepared an excellent report, entitled, ``Education at a Crossroads: What Works and What's Wasted in Education Today.'' I am pleased to share an excerpt from it with my colleagues. This report concludes that: One of the main problems with delivering federal education aid to states and communities through such a vast array of programs is the added cost of paperwork and personnel necessary to apply for an keep track of the operations of each of these programs. Many of the costs are hidden in the burdens placed on teachers and administrators in time and money to complete federal forms for this multitude of overlapping federal programs. In 1996, Governor Voinovich of Ohio noted that local schools in his state had to submit as many as 170 federal reports totaling more than 700 pages during a single year. This report also noted that more than 50 percent of the paperwork required by a local school in Ohio is a result of federal programs--this despite the fact that the federal government accounts for only 6 percent of Ohio's educational spending. The Subcommittee has attempted to quantify the number of pages required by recipients of federal funds in order to qualify for assistance. Without fully accounting for all the attachments and supplemental submissions required with each application, the Subcommittee counted more than 20,000 pages of applications. So how much time is spent completing this paperwork? In the recently released strategic plan of the Department of Education, the administration highlights the success of the Department in reducing paperwork burdens by an estimated 10 percent--which according to their own estimates accounts for 5.4 million man hours in FY 97. If this statistic is accurate, it would mean that the Department of Education is still requiring nearly 50 million hours worth of paperwork each year--or the equivalent of 25,000 employees working full-time. [page 15] Mr. President, this paper chase, as I suggested yesterday, has our nation's teachers and administrators spinning their wheels on the requirements of a federal education bureaucracy instead of concentrating on teaching and meeting the needs of students. Our educational system has been taken over by a federally driven emphasis on form rather than substance. While I commend Secretary Riley's 10 percent reduction effort, we need to go much further in order to put our education emphasis where it needs to be--in classrooms, not on process requirements. I am committed to helping reduce the amount of paperwork teachers and administrators must fill out. S. 2 goes a long way to easing this burden.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I notice probably one of the wealthiest States in the Union, Connecticut, gets more money per pupil than any other State, and it does not even need the money. What about these States that do? I hate to call it a stupid formula because it is in an education bill, but it is really a dumb, stupid formula, and it ought to be changed. I thank my colleague for his kind remarks.

Mr. HATCH. I will be glad to.

Mr. HATCH. The purpose of title I is to give educationally and economically disadvantaged students additional assistance: teachers, textbooks, and additional education resources. These resources were never intended to comprise the entirety of aid to an educationally or economically disadvantaged student. Unless there is an equity factor used in their distribution so that poorer districts within a state can be brought closer to even, those title I funds that are provided will merely be a thin coat of paint covering up the cracks. The layering of resources where resources are already inadequate will not meet the needs of disadvantaged children. Title I was meant to provide additional resources, not to compensate for an inadequate financial commitment to poorer LEAs on the part of States. By directing resources to states where this is not the case, we are being true to the underlying intent of title I. Indeed, as the following excerpts from the debate over the final conference report reveal, the addition of the effort and equity factor in the title I formula it was the reason why many Members of the Senate may have voted for the conference report. However, title I funds have yet to be distributed using this factor. I refer my colleagues to excerpts from the debate over the conference report to ESEA and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I am pleased to point out that 30 States, plus Puerto Rico, would increase their title I allocations under my amendment relative to their allocations under the formula in S. 2. A number of these beneficiaries are States with high poverty districts. Moreover, as my colleagues will note, my amendment holds states harmless for funds going out under the remaining title I part A formula. Additionally, my amendment allows school districts affected by census changes to retain 95 percent of their FY 98 funds. One of my priorities in crafting this amendment was to improve title I while preventing huge shifts in the allocation amounts. Of those States which would currently stand to lose under my amendment, only one state loses 7 percent of their allocation, 4 States lose an average of about 5 percent of their allocation, 7 States lose about 3 percent of their allocation and 8 States lose under 1.3 percent of their allocation. I reiterate that I have worked to adjust my proposal so that it not only captures the benefits of including effort and equity in the formula but also so that the minority of states who would currently lose under these factors would lose as little as possible. Again, I hasten to add that States can change their own circumstances under my amendment. If States wish to access more Federal title I money, they can take steps to increase their effort and their equity. My amendment provides a degree of control for States. States can, and many have already, adopted financing systems to equalize resources among districts. States have chosen a variety of equalization systems of their own design. A fair equalization factor will promote ``bottom up'' education reform that will help all kids make progress towards achieving the national goals. Real education reform must take place at the grassroots level. A series of edicts issued from Washington, D.C. is not going to improve education for Americans. State and local education agencies must take on this challenge. But, the Federal Government should help--and at least not plant obstacles in the way which cannot be overcome. The degree to which a State equalizes funding for education is a factor that a State can control. A State that equalizes is a state that will benefit under a this improved title I formula. Also, equalization is a factor that can be quantified. So much of what the Congress is asking the State and local education agencies to do requires a judgment based a series of qualitative analyses. An equalization factor does not rely on subjective determinations. An equalization factor does not rely on mandates or guidelines for how a State should achieve equalization. I, for one, would oppose a measure that specified how a state was to engage in equalization. On the contrary, I believe States are perfectly capable of figuring this out for themselves. S. 2 is a good bill. It was thoughtfully prepared, appropriately amended, and now after many days, is being thoroughly debated. I think my amendment improves this bill. I sincerely believe that this amendment will help needy schools make important improvements in education for all children. I urge the Senate to support my amendment. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct. That is in the neighborhood. That is what I have been led to believe.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have really enjoyed listening to my colleague from Massachusetts. He seems to think the only answer to education, public education in this country, happens to be the Federal Government. Of course, those of us who really have watched it and observed it over all these years realize that is not the answer. The Federal Government spent, over the last 30 years, I guess, $120 billion. And in almost every category in title I, poor kids do a lot worse. We had over 700 Federal programs--over 700--300 of them just in the Department of Education alone. Yet we still have the same age old arguments that the Federal Government is the last answer to everything and really parents and families just don't know what to do for their kids. I know there is a legitimate feeling on the part of those on the left that that is true, but there is more than a legitimate feeling on the part of us on the right who know that that is not true and literally the Federal Government is not the last answer. My good friends talks about block grants just being another name for revenue sharing--no, block grants are a way of letting the State and local people take care of their educational processes and to find out how and then to use the money in the best interests of the State and local educational processes. It is a pretty pivotal, basic Federalist principle, it seems to me. I rise today to talk about the education bill pending before the Senate today. S. 2, the Educational Opportunities Act, if enacted would make a number of improvements to education. This bill that is on the floor would really help education. S. 2 allows up to 15 states to shake off federal restrictions in exchange for increased accountability. It allows eligible parents to choose the provider of Title I services for their children. This bill also gives parents the right to move their children out of schools that are failing them. Why would we not want to do this? why would we not want to allow parents more control over the education of their children? I am sincerely baffled as to why this bill has attracted such opposition--I cannot believe that my colleagues are more interested in protecting bureaucracy instead of supporting teachers and students. Why should my colleagues be more concerned with filling out forms than in getting needed funds into classrooms? I commend the Chairman and the hard working members of the HELP Committee. This is one of the most difficult committees to chair and to work on. I should know. I think the committee has put together a common-sense piece of legislation that, while not as sweeping as some would prefer, moves us along in the right direction. I would like the opportunity to vote for this bill. I listened with interest to the comments of my fellow Utahn, Senator Bennett last week. I thought he made some excellent points, especially about the voluntary nature of some of more controversial elements of the bill. These really are very modest reforms, and this Congress and this President should move ahead with them. It may come as a shock to some here in the Emerald City, but the Federal Government did not invent the public schools. Education in our country is never going to get better if we do not stop spinning our wheels here in Washington and start supporting the innovative reforms being implemented at state and local levels. There is a role for the Federal Government, but it is a supportive one. And, many of those supportive programs are being reauthorized in this bill. Today, however, I would like to speak about my amendment to the Title I funding formula for economically and educationally disadvantaged authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act--ESEA. Before I get into that, though, I would like to note the Federal Government pays about 7 percent of the cost of education. Yet it requires 50 percent of the paperwork. That is the equivalent of 267,500 full-time teachers. We could go a long way towards solving some of the teacher problems in this country if we would get off the kick that the Federal Government is the last resort to everything. I think the Federal Government muddles in education where it should not. And many of the things it has done have not been fruitful or beneficial, even though I admit that the Federal Government can have a supportive role, if it is truly supportive and not destructive. My amendment would make the Education Finance Incentive Grant Program, EFIG, a permanent statutory factor in the allocation of resources in the Title I formula. The EFIG program is currently authorized as a separate part of the Title I formula, which has never been funded. I believe that including it as a permanent factor in the Title I formula has merit. The Education Finance Incentive Grant Program distributes resources to states based on two important factors: effort and equity. The effort factor measures a State's own fiscal commitment to education. The equity factor is determined by a state's commitment to equitably distributing resources among its school districts. Unlike demographic factors, both effort and equity can be controlled to a substantial degree by states as a matter of policy. The equity factor is a crucial element of the EFIG program. It measures the ``coefficient of variation'' of funding among a state's school district; i.e., the equity factor measures how well a state endeavors to even out education assistance between districts which have high property tax revenues and those which do not. Let me reiterate my support and appreciation for the hard work done by the HELP Committee on this bill, which I support. But, I wish the Committee had looked a little harder at the Title I formula. S. 2, as reported, does not change the fundamental problem of using State-per- pupil-expenditure as a proxy for determining a state's financial commitment to education. What this expenditure proxy does is place a higher value on a child who lives in a rich State than it places on a child from a poor state, which cannot spend a large amount. If a State can afford to spend more money per-pupil, it gets more money from the Federal Government. If a State has less capacity and cannot spend as much per-pupil, it gets less money under Title I. This seems backwards to me. Second, use of per-pupil spending as the sole proxy for a State's commitment to education ignores other important factors--such as tax effort. Thus ``effort'' is also a component of the EFIG formula, which my amendment would finally incorporate into the Title I formula. In my home State of Utah, education consistently ranks as one of the highest priorities for Utahns. During this year's session of the Utah legislature, Utah reaffirmed its commitment to improving education, reducing class size, and increasing salaries for teachers. Utah takes its commitment to education funding very seriously. During the 1995-96 school year, education expenditures in Utah amounted to $92 per $1000 of personal income. The national average was $62 per $1000. In other words, Utah's education expenditure relative to total personal income is 50 percent more than the national average. It is the third highest in the nation. In terms of education expenditures as a percent of total direct State and local government expenditures, Utah ranks 2nd in the Nation. Utah's expenditure for education was 41.5 percent of the total amount spent for government. The national average is 33.5 percent. No one can tell me that Utahns are not serious about funding education. And these efforts have garnered results. Utah's scores on ACT tests are equal to or better than the National average in English, math, reading and science. Utah ranks 1st in the nation in Advanced Placement tests taken and passed. Still, even with these efforts, Utah remains 1st in the Nation in terms of class size and last in per-pupil expenditure. This is due to Utah's unique demographic. Utah families are, on average, larger than any other state. Utah has the highest birth rate in the Nation. But I am realist. While I would like to completely eliminate per- pupil expenditure from the Title I formula, I understand that this is not going to happen. However, I do believe it is appropriate and very sound policy to include in the Title I formula a small measure of diversity, that is, other ways of measuring a state's commitment to education--namely, effort and equity. Including the EFIG program as a permanent factor in the allocation of Title I makes sense from this perspective. Equity in education financing is receiving considerable attention both in the media and in the courts. States are being compelled by the courts to equalize resources. Most experts agree that the courts are tending towards equalization. To the extent reluctant states are having to equalize education funding to comply with court decisions, my amendment provides these States with some measure of relief because greater equity will increase their allocations under Title I. David Goodman in ``Mother Jones'' noted: Since 1971, when the California Supreme Court declared in Serrano v. Priest that using property taxes to finance public education was a violation of the state constitution's equal protection clause, all but six states have been sued over educational equity. To date, school financing systems in 19 states have been deemed unconstitutional, and the courts have ordered these states to restructure their systems to improve the quality of education for all. The implication is clear: School funding and student performance are believed to be directly and inextricably linked and wide variances in school funding are thought to both promote and maintain inequality of educational opportunity. Indeed, some States are increasingly compelled to demonstrate that not only are they equalizing resources, but are providing an equal quality of education to all students. I understand that these initiatives are causing some community concerns. I know that the distinguished Chairman of the HELP committee is all too aware of the controversies associated with the legal ruling in his home State of Vermont. However, the increasing reliance on resolving these issues through the courts and the fact that the courts are tending to favor equalization as a means of mitigating educational disparities lead me to conclude that legally requiring States to equalize resources among districts will continue to be a strategy employed by those concerned about education equity. I also conclude that it is an appropriate use of federal resources to provide incentives for states to implement equalization programs as well as to assist those implementing court-ordered policies. Resource equity has been identified as an effective strategy to accelerate education reform, which was the theme of the 2000 education conference sponsored by the Aspen Institute. Included in the rapporteur's summary was the following: In the effort to raise the achievement of all American students, an extremely serious barrier is the huge disparities in resources for education across districts and states, It is not unusual for the per-student expenditure to be three times greater in affluent districts than in poorer districts of the same state. Although qualified, effective teachers and principals are key to student achievement--even more so for at-risk students--districts where salaries are low continually lose teachers and principals to districts that are able to pay more. . . . Equally important is crafting finance equalization strategies, such as allowing federal funds to go only to those states that demonstrate equitable and adequate state education funding. A Rand report summarized that, A . . . promising strategy would offer federal incentives to states to equalize spending among their own districts. A crude form of incentive would make a state's eligibility for Chapter 1 funds contingent on a certain degree of interdistrict fiscal equality. The Rand report concludes, however, that Potentially the most effective incentive-based approach would build rewards for intrastate equalization into a new program of general-purpose federal education aid to the states. The size of each state's general grant would depend on one of more indicators of school finance equity.'' This amendment that I will offer later in this debate is consistent with the Rand report recommendation. Let me make it clear that my amendment does not call for equalization among States. In essence, that is what Title I itself is supposed to do--assist States and local education agencies to fund low-income districts and schools. My amendment is not even mandatory on the states. Those states who wish to retain their current within-state distribution plans, assuming the court has not compelled them to change those plans, may do so. I am not asserting the equalization of resources among school districts is the answer to every education dilemma faced in our county. Indeed, like most reform efforts, the data on its effectiveness are contradictory. Moreover, I have always been a firm believer that states and school districts must be able to adopt school policies--including school reforms--that work for them. Whether or not we happen to like a particular reform idea here at the national level should not matter. We should not be drawn into the ``reform du jour'' mentality. Just because something is the latest idea flowing from academia doesn't mean it will work for the Granite School District or any of the 41 local districts in my State or any other school district. Equalization is not a silver bullet, and I am not claiming that it is. It is a very small modification. But, when equalization is combined with other education reform efforts, such as in Texas, there is improvement in education. The following from the National Journal illuminates the success Texas has had when the equalization of resources became the catalyst for other systemic education reforms. Poor districts received substantially increased funds, but no one in Texas got a lot of money for education, especially compared with states such as New Jersey and Connecticut. . . . Texas officials say the additional funds were crucial for low-income schools. ``If you went to poor communities that are doing well, they will point to programs they've implemented, issues they've addressed, that they would not have been able to address without the funding that's become available to them in recent years,'' said Joseph Johnson, director of the Collaborative for School Improvement at the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas (Austin) . . . The crucial difference, he maintains, is focus, especially on the ``academic success of every student and making sure resources in those schools are very clearly, deliberately focused on instruction.'' The moral of this story: Money matters--but only if schools make it work for them. I believe that an equalization factor is consistent with the intent of this Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization to assist students at risk. I believe that the unequal distribution of resources among school districts disproportionately affects poor and minority students. A strong equalization factor will provide an incentive for States to address this. A report prepared by the Policy Information Center of the Educational Testing Service, titled The State of Inequality, concludes that: Thus, it can be established with national data that educational resources are unevenly distributed. It is also clear that, on average, students in poorer areas are likely to have fewer educational resources than those in wealthy areas. There are also wide variations in the effectiveness of schooling, after differences in socioeconomic status are considered. Further studies have also determined that high poverty and minority students have fewer opportunities to take ``critical gatekeeping'' courses in math and the hard sciences, thus preventing access to institutions of higher learning. A report prepared for the House Committee on Education and Labor, titled, Shortchanging Children: The Impact of Fiscal Inequity on the Education of Students At Risk found that, ``Inequitable systems of school finance inflict disproportionate harm on minority and economically disadvantaged students.'' Additionally, as I have discussed, the EFIG program has been modified to include a poverty factor in the effort portion of this formula. This continues to be a pressing issue. I was particularly moved by a recent article I read in the Charleston, South Carolina, Post and Courier, that highlights once again, the glaring disparities between what poor children can except from schools and what rich children can expect from school. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to do that, and also it may be more than 50 percent. All I can say is, all I get is complaints from the State and local people that they are being overrun with paperwork that seems silly and nonproductive.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the people who have followed the victims' rights amendment closely know that I voted for this measure in the Judiciary Committee, and that I did so despite some reservations about its provisions and its language. No one has worked harder on this issue than the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information-- Senator Jon Kyl. He has been a tireless advocate for victims rights, and has done more than most will ever appreciate to make the Senate's consideration of this proposed resolution a reality. Both he, and his lead cosponsor and ranking member on the Subcommittee, Senator Dianne Feinstein, are to be commended. Frankly, they--and the committed network of victims' advocates--are why we are here today. It is because of their tireless commitment to this measure that I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 3. I should be clear, however, that I do so with some reservations concerning the proposed text of the amendment. But I hope my concerns can be addressed during the floor debate on the resolution. Among my reservations are: Its scope: the amendment's protections apply only to violent crimes; Its vagueness: some of its definitions are unclear and will be subject to too much judicial discretion; and Its effects on principles of federalism: the proposed amendment could pave the way for more federal control over state legal proceedings. Given my reservations, some of my colleagues have asked how I could nevertheless approve the Senate's consideration of S.J Res. 3. I'd like to explain, beginning with a little background on the origins of the criminal justice system. Our Constitution provides the backbone for what has unquestionably evolved into the best criminal justice system that has ever existed on Earth. Decent and thoughtful people have worked for over two hundred years writing and re-writing the statutes, case law, rules and procedures that guide the judges and lawyers who run the system. Those laws and rules have, by and large, kept the courts appropriately focused on the twin goals of seeking the truth and protecting the accused from arbitrary or unreasonable government actions. Although our criminal justice system is the best, it is not perfect. There are many ways in which it could improve. One of the most important areas needing improvement is the manner in which the criminal justice system treats victims of crime. The fact that the drafters of the Constitution did not include specific rights for victims of crime is not surprising. At that time, there was no need for such rights because victims were parties to the legal actions against their perpetrators. There was no such thing as a public prosecutor; victims brought cases against their attackers. When the Constitution was drafted, victims of crime were protected by the same rights given to any party to litigation. The rights of victims were dramatically altered--along with the rest of the criminal justice system--with the advent of government-paid public prosecutors in the mid-1800s. Since then, the government, not the victim, has been the party litigating against criminals in court. Obviously this has been a tremendously important effect on society by ensuring that criminals are punished even when their victims could not, or would not, prosecute them. Today we would not have even a semblance of crime control without public prosecutors. Unfortunately, however, one side-effect of replacing victims with public prosecutors was to force victims to the sidelines of the criminal justice system. No longer are victims parties to the case. No longer do individual victims have legal representation in court. No longer are the victims an integral part of the process. Instead, victims have become relegated to the role of one-call witnesses who can be summoned--or not--by either side. The distance between victims and the criminal process has grown greater over time. Prosecutors are overworked, courts face backlogs of cases, and prisons are overcrowded. These practical constraints, together with strategic legal considerations, has led to an increasingly institutional view of crime--a view that focuses on processing cases rather than involving victims. In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe the time has come for the Senate to consider the victims rights amendment. The issue for the Senate should not be whether we pass a victims' rights amendment--I believe we should do so. But I believe we must ensure that whatever form our final product takes, we have fully debated and considered the matter. In the end, deliberations and our final passage of a victims' rights amendment will have profound, reaching effects on the criminal justice system. We need to be sure the results are as we would wish them to be.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week the Senate passed the FY 2001 Budget Resolution. I would be remiss if, upon reflection, I did not take this opportunity to talk about the federal commitment to education in my state of Utah. In my state of Utah, education consistently ranks as one of the highest priorities for Utahns. During this year's session of the Utah legislature, Utah reaffirmed its commitment to improving education, reducing class size and paying dedicated teachers a salary commensurate with their efforts and qualifications. Utah takes its commitment to education funding very seriously. During the 1995-96 school year, education expenditures in Utah amounted to $92 per $1000 of personal income. The national average was $62 per $1000. In other words, Mr. President, Utah's education expenditure relative to total personal income is nearly 50 percent more than the national average. It is the third highest in the nation. In education expenditures as a percent of total direct state and local government expenditures, Utah ranks 2nd in the nation. Utah's expenditure for education was 41.5 percent of the total amount spent for government. The national average is 33.5 percent. Mr. President, no one can tell me that Utahns are not serious about funding education. And these efforts have garnered results. Utah's scores on ACT tests are equal to or better than the national average in English, math, reading and science. Utah ranks 1st in the nation in Advanced Placement tests taken and passed. Still, even with these efforts, Utah remains 1st the nation in terms of class size and last in per-pupil expenditure. This is due to Utah's unique demographic. Utah families are, on average, larger than any other state. Utah has the highest birth rate in the nation. While it is true that these factors contribute to the allocation of federal education funds, most notably the Title I funds, the Clinton administration has done very little to help Utah. Indeed, many of the proposals in the administration budget would be detrimental to education efforts underway in Utah. Among other things, this administration has consistently cut funding for Impact Aid. Impact Aid is a vital program for Utah because it helps make up for the lost property tax revenue in school districts where there is a significant federal presence. Since half of our state is federally owned or controlled, that means our schools would suffer even greater financial difficulties without Impact Aid. I appreciate that this Budget Resolution rejects the 15 percent cut requested by the Clinton administration. Indeed, in addition to support for Impact Aid, there is much to applaud in this Budget Resolution relative to education. It assumes an increase of more than $600 million over the administration's request. Over $11 billion will be dedicated to funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This will greatly assist Utah fund the education of students with special needs. Moreover, because the federal government will be contributing more toward the costs of special education, fulfilling more of its promise to fund 40 percent of the cost for educating students with disabilities, the state will be able to use its own resources to address state and local priorities such as lowering class size, improve facilities, increasing teachers' pay, upgrading instructional equipment and textbooks, or offering enrichment programs. Finally, this administration has never recommended funding for the Education Finance Incentive Grant program which, instead of a per-pupil expenditure as a proxy for a state's commitment to education, uses a combination of a state's effort to fund education and a state's willingness to more equitably distribute resources among a state's economically diverse school districts. As I have noted, Utah allocates a significant amount of state revenue to education, demonstrating our state's effort. Utah also has in place an ``equity program'' for assisting schools with smaller tax bases. Nationally, we ought to be encouraging states to make such effort, and we ought to be rewarding states that do. This is an important program that deserves a consistent funding stream, and I will be addressing this issue in the context of the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In the area of higher education, this Budget Resolution rejects the administration's proposal to require guaranty agencies, which finance guaranteed student loans (GSLs), to pay accelerated and increased funds from their federal reserves. This would be especially devastating to Utah's Higher Education Assistance Authority (UHEAA). Utah has one of the lowest average incomes in the nation; and, therefore, Utah students who are not reliant on their parents for financial assistance rely instead on assistance from UHEAA. During past assessments, because UHEAA had maintained one of highest guarantee program reserves ratios, Utah had to return one of the highest percentages of current reserves to the federal government. Under the administration's proposal, these cuts would have been deepened, and I am grateful to the Budget committee for rejecting them. In closing, I would like to commend the tireless hard work of the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. His dedication to sound fiscal policy and appropriate spending priorities are laudable. I also thank the Senate leadership for their efforts on moving this process along. I look forward to the enactment of this Budget Resolution. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate voted on a cloture motion to end debate on Senator Lott's proposal to roll back the gasoline excise tax. Senator Lott's bill is a sincere effort to address the hardships many Americans have been facing given the rising price of gasoline at the pump. I commend the majority leader for this legislation. But, I do want to clarify my vote on the cloture motion. I voted for cloture because I believe the majority leader, of all people, deserved an up-or-down vote on the proposal. I also believed that, if we were going to vote to cut or maintain the current gasoline tax, we ought not to confuse the American people about where we stood by deciding this issue on a procedural vote. Unfortunately, because cloture was not invoked, and there may not be a vote up-or-down on the proposal itself, it seems that Utahns are indeed confused about where I stand on this issue. As it frequently happens, the vote on the procedural motion becomes a proxy for how a senator would have voted on the bill. However, that assumption does not hold true for me in the case of this gas tax proposal. I would have reluctantly voted against it. While I respect Senator Lott for his effort at providing relief for truckers, farmers, landscapers, salesmen, and everyone else who depends on his or her vehicle, I have an equal concern for the quality of the highways they drive on. It is unclear to me that the loss of revenue that would have resulted from passing this legislation could have been immediately made up from other programs, thus necessary highway construction and repair projects in Utah and around the nation could have been delayed. Moreover, I believe that there are other measures we can find should take to address the issue of high gas prices. In the long-term, we should encourage development of alternative fuels vehicles. Toward this end, Senator Jeffords and I will be introducing legislation later this month that will provide strong tax incentives for the development and purchase of such vehicles, along with the alternative fuel they use. I also believe that there are other tax relief initiatives that will have greater positive impact for American families, and I will continue to press hard for these proposals.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few minutes to comment about the status of the Medicare program and the more immediate issue of adding outpatient prescription drugs as a covered benefit. First of all, I think we can be pleased with the news from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees on March 31 regarding the financial status of the Medicare program. The Trustees' annual reports on the financial status of Medicare and Social Security were, indeed, encouraging to the nearly 84 million Americans who rely on these two critically important entitlement programs. The news for the Medicare program was especially good. The Trustees' reported that Medicare's Part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which pays for inpatient hospital expenses, is projected to remain solvent until the year 2023. Last year, the Trustees' reported the Part A Trust Fund would remain solvent until 2015. Thus, we have gained an additional eight years of solvency under the projections recently issued by the Trustees' report. This is very welcome news. But we must recognize that the fiscal soundness of the Medicare program cannot be attributed to the underlying health of Medicare itself. Medicare's projected bankruptcy has been extended eight years to 2023 because of the strong economy, and not because of the overall health of the Medicare program. As one witness before the Finance Committee testified last year, if there is as much as a hiccup in the economy, that could translate into lowering the solvency date by as much as five to ten years. Medicare is not solvent indefinitely. In fact, beginning in 2010, the Part A Trust Fund will begin deficit spending taking in fewer dollars than it spends until 2023 when it is projected to be bankrupt. That is why Medicare reform is needed, and why it is needed now. The Finance Committee, on which I serve, is currently considering several proposals that, in addition to reforming Medicare, would also provide Medicare beneficiaries with a drug benefit. There is not one member I am aware of on the committee who is opposed to adding prescription drugs as a Medicare benefit. And, I doubt there are many, if any, members in the Senate or House who do not believe prescription drugs should be added as a covered benefit. Prescription drugs are as much a part of modern medicine as is any component of health care. In fact, drug therapy has often provided a successful alternative to more extensive and expensive medical interventions. To preclude prescription drugs from Medicare's benefit package today is tantamount to precluding hospital care back in 1965 when the Medicare program was enacted. Some of my friends on the other side of the aisle want to cast Republicans as the barrier to a new drug benefit. That could not be farther from the truth. In fact, I was one of the three sponsors of legislation in 1997 along with the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and the Ranking Minority Member, Senator Moynihan, that created the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare Reform. That Commission held great promise to identify and forge a bipartisan proposal to reform Medicare, including the development of a drug benefit. But, by just one vote--which was cast by the President's own commission appointee--the nearly two years of work by the seventeen member commission failed to receive the necessary super majority vote to formally report recommendations to Congress. In fact, all of the President's appointees voted against the commission's recommendations. As a result, the commission was unable to formally recommend to Congress a strong bipartisan proposal that would clearly have helped provide the impetuous toward reforming Medicare and providing a drug benefit. The issue now before the Finance Committee is not so much should we have a prescription drug benefit, but rather how a benefit would be structured and how much a benefit would cost the Medicare program. These are very real and complicated issues that will clearly need to be fully vented and addressed before any legislation can move forward. For example, one of the key issues which will need to be addressed, but on which there has been little discussion, is who will administer or manage the new drug benefit? This is not an insignificant decision, Mr. President. Under the President's program, the Health Care Financing Administration, along with pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, would be responsible for administering the drug benefit. Another proposal by Senator Breaux and Senator Frist--who I would add is the only physician that serves in the Senate--would create a new Medicare Board to be the administering entity. Now, I don't mean to be too critical of my friends at HCFA, but I do believe that involving the Health Care Financing Administration in the management of the drug benefit is not the prudent course of action. Moreover, HCFA has been besieged by complaints from providers over reimbursement policies and practices. Although, in all fairness to HCFA, it is not totally at fault. There are clearly management issues involving third-party fiscal intermediaries, or the insurance carriers, which actually administer the reimbursement component of the Medicare program. I do not think the current structure is a good model on which to base a new drug benefit. It seems to me we need to fix the current structure under which HCFA and the fiscal intermediaries operate before we add-on a whole new layer of responsibility which, in many respects, will be one of the costliest benefits Medicare beneficiaries receive. I believe we can fix the current administrative structure. There are many good people at HCFA, including the administrator and the deputy administrator, who are committed to improving program integrity and accountability by the carriers. But I simply do not believe that the kind of significant administrative reforms necessary to make the President's proposal work can be approved by Congress and implemented in time to make a drug benefit available within the foreseeable future. A new Medicare Board as proposed under the Breaux/Frist legislation makes inherently greater sense in the overall scheme of providing a drug benefit. The proposal is modeled on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program which has successfully served federal employees, including the President of the United States and each member of the U.S. Congress, for over 40 years. Moreover, the proposal promotes choice by allowing seniors a voluntary option to either stay in the current, traditional Medicare fee-for-service system, as run by HCFA, or enroll in a private plan, as run by the Medicare Board. Both options would offer prescription drugs. This is just one example of the numerous logistical and structural issues that must be addressed before a drug benefit can be implemented. Even under the Breaux/Frist proposal, there will need to be considerable lead time to get the Medicare Board up and running, and fully functional. So I am very pleased the Budget Committee has reported a budget resolution which provides $40 billion over five years for this purpose. This is certainly an important first step. The Finance Committee is now currently considering all options under the very able leadership of our Chairman, Senator Roth. I would only reiterate the importance of fully addressing the critical management and administrative issues because they clearly will be instrumental in the success of any new drug benefit Congress enacts. Once again, the provisions in the Budget Resolution represent an important first step in moving forward. But there remains a great deal of work on the details and little time in which to address them. Our work will have to be bipartisan and it will require the support and leadership of President Clinton. Otherwise, we jeopardize the very real prospect of a drug benefit this year. I will continue to work with my colleagues on the Finance Committee in the development of a drug proposal that meets the needs of Medicare beneficiaries while preserving the underlying financial integrity of the Medicare program. We owe it to our seniors, and to those with disabilities, to do this the right way.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank Senator Domenici, chairman of the Budget Committee, for his outstanding leadership on the budget resolution. Mr. President, I feel compelled to make some short remarks today because the topic has strayed away from the budget and focused once again on gun control. This topic--and many misleading statements about it--are paraded out year after year when the Senate considers the budget resolution. This year, I hope we can see through the rhetoric and focus on what objective observers already know to be true: The statistics prove that the Clinton administration has failed to enforce federal gun laws. For example: Between 1992 and 1998, so-called Triggerlock prosecutions-- prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a felony--dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to approximately 3,800. Despite over 6,000 incidents of children carrying guns into public schools last year, the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only eight cases under the federal law against possessing firearms on school grounds in 1998, and only five such cases in 1997. It is a federal law to transfer a firearm to a juvenile, yet the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only six cases in 1998, and only five in 1997. Similarly, for all its talk about the dangers of semiautomatic assault weapons, the Clinton Justice Department has an equally abysmal record for prosecuting cases under the current laws governing those weapons. The Clinton administration brought only four cases in 1998, and only four in 1997, under the federal law criminalizing the transfer or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons. Now, Mr. President, you will not hear the Clinton administration or the gun control advocates in Congress talk about these statistics, even though it is these statistics--not a wish-list of more laws and regulations--that reveal the true story of gun misuse in America. Instead, the number that gun control advocates talk about is the 500,000 felons and other prohibited purchasers that the Brady background check prevented from buying firearms since the Brady law was enacted. Let me point out that with the original Brady law this administration wanted was a 7-day delay once you tried to buy a weapon. We reduced it to 5 days. We knew that wasn't going to work, so we instituted an instant check system so you can find out immediately whether a person is capable of purchasing a weapon. It was our instant check system that caught these, according to the President, 500,000 people. Actually, it was about 400,000 people. But even this statistic points out the Clinton administration's lack of commitment to enforcing federal gun laws. Every one of those 500,000 people who were thwarted in their attempts to purchase firearms violated 18 U.S.C. section 922(a)(6) by stating under oath that they were not disqualified from purchasing a firearm. How many of those 500,000 were prosecuted between 1996-1999? Only about 200 were even referred for prosecution. Mr. President, the only thing worse than this poor enforcement record is the Clinton administration's disingenuous and concerted effort to blame the lack of federal gun prosecutions on a lack of resources. The facts demonstrate that, during the period when federal gun prosecutions decreased nearly 50 percent, the overall budget of the Department of Justice has increased by 54 percent. The Clinton administration also tries to hide its failure to prosecute gun crimes behind its never-ending calls for more federal gun control laws. The irony of the administration's position was evident at an oversight hearing last year, when I questioned Attorney General Reno about the decline in federal firearms prosecutions. She replied that many firearms violations have been prosecuted in state court, and she indicated that state court is the proper forum for these cases. As chairman of the board of the Federalist Society, I agree that most firearms crimes can be prosecuted in state court as well as federal court. Nevertheless, I find it ironic and hypocritical for the administration to argue that crimes involving firearms should be prosecuted in state court at the same time they are calling for more federal gun control laws. If the administration really believes that its dismal record on gun prosecutions is because gun laws are a state issue, it should be consistent and stop pressuring Congress for even more federal gun control laws that it does not intend to enforce. The relevance of all this to the budget resolution is that there are several actions the Justice Department could take right now--with no additional laws or resources--that would have a positive impact on reducing crime in America. First, the Justice Department should use state law enforcement grants to encourage States to enact mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offenses based on 18 U.S.C. 924(c), and to prosecute such offenses in state court. The key to Project Triggerlock is the 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for any person who uses or carries a firearm in a crime of violence or serious drug trafficking offense. This 5-year prison sentence is in addition to the prison term for the underlying crime. As I mentioned earlier, most of these gun crimes can be prosecuted in state court as well as federal court. By encouraging States to enact stronger penalties for gun crimes, there will be less need to prosecute these cases in federal court. Mr. President, there is a precedent for the federal government encouraging States to increase prison sentences. The Truth-in- Sentencing Grant Program provides prison construction funds to States that adopt truth-in-sentencing laws. Truth-in-sentencing laws require violent criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. Due to truth-in-sentencing grants, more than 70 percent of prison admissions last year occurred in states requiring criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Another positive step the Justice Department should take is using the funds provided in the budget resolution to designate at least one assistant United States attorney in each district to prosecute federal firearms violations. As the U.S. attorney's office in Richmond, Virginia has shown, federal prosecutors, in cooperation with state and local law enforcement, can help reduce violent crime. The U.S. attorney's offices should focus their efforts on federal firearms violations until the States enact stronger sentences for state firearm offenses. Finally, the Justice Department should place mental health adjudications on the National Instant Check System (NICS). It is a federal crime for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution to possess or purchase a firearm. Despite this commonsense federal law, mental health adjudications are not placed on the NICS system. Consequently, mentally ill persons can buy firearms from licensed dealers because the dealers are not notified by the NICS system of the mental disqualification. The NICS system will never reach its potential until mental health adjudications are included. These commonsense ideas would go a lot further toward reducing the number of crimes committed with firearms than the administration's current practice of ignoring federal violations, asking for more gun restrictions, and blaming lack of funding for their abysmal record of prosecutions. It is pathetic that there are 2,000 laws, rules, and regulations on the books that aren't being taken care of now, and now we have some who say let's have a political recitation here on this resolution to try to embarrass people instead of standing up and doing something about the misuse of weapons in our society.

Mr. HATCH. The juvenile justice bill provides $450 million in accountability in block grants for all kinds of problems; $547.5 million in prevention grants for juveniles, $75 million in grants to update felony records, et cetera, none of which basically will pass as long as we stay in the gunfight. A majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House will not support the Lautenberg amendment. A majority of the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate will not support the Dingell amendment. So we are stuck with one of the most important anticrime juvenile justice bills in history because we can't resolve the gun process. The best thing we can do is strip it out, fight that another day, and do it this way. We cannot get a conference report and call a conference when all we will do is polarize the situation and divide people even more. I think we have to come to a conclusion and pass the juvenile justice bill, regardless of what happens. I hope we can vote down this amendment. It is not helping.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to wait for 5 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. How much time do we have left on this side?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has today passed a bill that I tried to have passed along with the comprehensive satellite reforms enacted a few months ago at the end of the last congressional session. The reforms we authored are already bearing fruit. Satellite carriers are beginning to serve their customers local television, which they had not done before. As part of our comprehensive reform we developed a loan guarantee program to help ensure that smaller markets would not be left behind in enjoying the benefits of our reforms. The chairman of the Banking Committee requested further time to review and improve if possible the program, and we were able to work together to meet his concerns. The bill the Senate adopts today is similar in most respects to the legislation we developed last year, and I am pleased that we are finally able to pass this important legislation. I hope the House will act expeditiously on similar legislation, or take up the Senate legislation as soon as possible. I have long championed the provision of local television signals by satellite carriers for many reasons. First, it allows for more direct competition against cable customers alike, in the form of lower prices and better services, as well as expanded choice. Second, I believe that local television helps unite local communities by providing programming relevant to that community. It is important that Utahns know what is happening in their communities, and be able to participate in civic affairs as informed citizens. They need to know what the local weather forecast in New York. And they enjoy watching the local sports teams, or other Utah-related programming. Third, I think local television service is more consistent with the current market relationships than beaming the programming tailored to other communities into our local communities. For these reasons, I pushed reforms to allow satellite companies to carry local programming for a number of Congresses, culminating in our passage of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 last year. The one piece of unfinished business from that package of reforms was the loan guarantee program we adopt today. Under this legislation, government-backed loans will be made available to ensure that those smaller markets, the markets that most need local television delivery by satellite or other means, are not left behind. The satellite carriers and cable companies understandably serve the larger markets first, where costs are lower and revenues potentially greater. Hopefully with the adoption and eventual enactment of this legislation today, we will go a long way to help all our local communities enjoy together the programming most relevant to them, their local television signals.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it would be appropriate at this point to explain our joint view regarding the application of copyright and communications law to those who provide local television signals with the assistance provided under this Act. We all agree that the rights, obligations, and limitations that apply to applicants under this loan guarantee program ought to be the same as those providing similar services without the assistance of the loan guarantee program. Congress passed comprehensive rules in this area just a few months ago at the end of the last session, and it is our joint intention to clarify that those rules apply to applicants under this program just as they do to others who take advantage of the reforms passed last year. To underscore this position we have offered an amendment, and that amendment has been accepted, that will clarify some confusion resulting from the manner in which section 8 of the underlying bill was drafted by dropping section 8 from the bill altogether. It is the general rule that otherwise applicable law will apply absent a clear statement to the contrary. Since the relevant sections of Title 17 and Title 47 would apply, the attempt to list the provisions that apply in this context is superfluous, and to the extent that the drafting in current section 8 could be read to be inconsistent with current law, it merely causes needless confusion. It seems best, therefore, to simply drop the provision and make a clear statement that currently applicable copyright and communications law will apply to applicants under the loan guarantee program just as it does to those providing similar services without loan guarantee assistance. Do my colleagues agree?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield the remainder of our time, if the minority will yield the remainder of its time. Senator Lott will be the last speaker.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have had a productive and educational debate concerning our proposed constitutional amendment to protect the flag. We have considered--and defeated by overwhelming votes--two significant amendments which were aimed at the heart of this amendment. A clear majority of the Senate has its mind made up on this resolution, and it is proper that we are now preceding to a vote. The events of the last three days could cause one to question the depth of feeling my colleagues have for their argument that this flag protection constitutional amendment would erode free speech rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Many of these same Senators have denounced flag desecration and voted for statutes which would allegedly protect the flag. In 1989, the Congress responded to the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson, which held that State flag protection statutes were unconstitutional, by enacting the Flag Protection Act. Ninety-one Senators--let me repeat, 91 Senators--voted in favor of that statute, which provided that: Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. That was the statute that 91 Senators in this body in 1989 voted for. Clearly, 91 Senators believed in 1989 that flag desecration should be stopped; that people who knowingly mutilate, deface, physically defile, burn, or trample upon any flag of the United States should be prevented from engaging in this sort of conduct. Clearly, 91 Senators believed in 1989 that prohibiting flag desecration would in no way erode free speech rights guaranteed by the first amendment, and voted for the bill in response to a Supreme Court decision that had said otherwise. I remember those arguments. We can do this by statute. We have had the same arguments in this debate, all of which are just as specious as they were back then. Yet, of those 91 Senators who voted to outlaw flag desecration in 1989 to prohibit this form of expressive conduct, 18 who are still here will vote against the flag protection constitutional amendment. In other words, of the more than 30 opponents of the proposed constitutional amendment, 18 voted in 1989 to prohibit flag desecration. Let me read directly from the joint resolution, the constitutional resolution: The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. In other words, we want to give them the power so that they can, again, vote for their beloved statute. They can't vote for it now because it would be declared unconstitutional again. I think the limited version presented here, the McConnell statute, which would not do much to begin with, is likewise unconstitutional. The point was that 18 of those who will vote against the flag protection constitutional amendment today, at least 18 of the more than 30 opponents of this proposed constitutional amendment, voted in 1989 to prohibit flag desecration. Just yesterday we voted on whether to adopt the Flag Protection Act of 1999. That is a more narrow flag desecration statute offered by Senator McConnell. Now some Senators voted against Senator McConnell's amendment because they do not believe flag desecration is a problem in our society, that it is too trivial of an issue for the Senate even to consider. Other Senators, including myself, voted against the McConnell amendment because we believe that under the Supreme Court precedents, and given the present composition of the Court, it would be struck down as the other statutes were. Yet 36 Senators voted in favor of the McConnell amendment, a statute prohibiting flag desecration. Clearly, these 36 Senators do not believe that prohibiting flag desecration will erode free speech rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Of these 36 Senators, 30 have indicated they will vote against the flag protection constitutional amendment today. I must ask these Senators: Do you believe in flag protection or not? Or are you just playing political games? If they do believe in flag protection, they should vote for this constitutional amendment, which is the only constitutional way of protecting our flag. If not, they should have the courage to repudiate the votes they cast yesterday, in 1995, and in 1989, and to admit that they do not want to prohibit flag desecration in any way. They can't have it both ways unless they are just playing politics. I would never accuse anybody in this body of doing something as denigrating as playing politics. Some of my colleagues contend our country has achieved greatness in its two centuries of existence because they say we value tolerance over all else. Yes, we are tolerant of everything that is rotten and we are intolerant of many things that are good. They say if we pass this constitutional amendment and then adopt legislation prohibiting flag desecration, we will become Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, and a host of other repressive and dictatorial regimes that do ban desecration of their respective flags. They even suggest we will become like South Africa during apartheid or like Nazi Germany if we protect our flag. This argument is not only specious, it is absolutely ridiculous. It is insulting. Indeed, I must say their argument is full of historical revisionism. The United States of America prohibited desecration of the American flag during the first two centuries of its existence. If this constitutional amendment is adopted and implementing legislation is passed, the United States of America will not somehow become an intolerant, repressive, dictatorial police state. No, the United States of America's laws will be just as they were for over 200 years before this lousy decision by five people on the Supreme Court, versus four, showing it was hotly contested. Even they weren't sure what they were doing. I find that a sense of elitism is creeping into the Senate. In fact, I don't fear it, I know that is the case. We have amongst us people who seem to think the Senate has more important things to do than to listen to, and act on, the views of the overwhelming majority of American citizens who want the flag protection constitutional amendment. I find this elitism profoundly troubling. As a matter of fact, all we are asking is for this body to give a two-thirds vote, as the House did, so we can submit this to the people in the respective States and let them decide once and for all whether or not they want to protect the flag. The American people do not believe that the flag of the United States of America is just a piece of cloth or just another symbol. The American people know that the flag is the embodiment of our heritage, our liberties, and indeed our sovereignty as a nation, as Madison indicated--the author of the Constitution. The American people are deeply offended and morally outraged when they see the flag humiliated and the Government powerless to defend it. I have heard both sides of this debate cite leaders in the military, and I am sure that some of these people who are opposed to our amendment today are good people. But let me quote Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of U.S. and allied forces during the gulf war. He wrote: The flag remains the single, preeminent connection to each other and to our country. Legally sanctioned flag desecration can only serve to further undermine this national unity and identity that must be preserved. There are tens of thousands of veterans living in our country today who have put their lives on the line to defend our flag and the principles for which it stands. Those are the fortunate ones who were not required to make the ultimate sacrifice. For every one of those, there is someone who has traded the life of a loved one in exchange for a flag, folded at a funeral. Let's think about that trade--and about the people who made that trade for us--before deciding whether the flag is important enough to be addressed by the Senate. Let's think about the meaning of majority rule before we dismiss the feelings of the American public. Would it really trivialize the Constitution, as some of these critics suggest, to pass an amendment that is supported by the vast majority of Americans? The Constitution itself establishes the process for its own amendment. It says that the Constitution will be amended when two-thirds of the Congress and three- fourths of the States want to do so. It does not say that this procedure is reserved for issues that some law professors, or even some Senators, think are important. If government by the people means anything, it means that the people can decide the fundamental questions concerning the checks and balances in our government. It means the people can choose whether flag desecration is against the law. The people have said they want Congress to protect the American flag. Because the flag amendment reflects the will of the people, I believe passage and ratification of this amendment is ultimately inevitable. It may not pass the Senate today, but it will pass the Senate. The votes in the past few years demonstrate that momentum--as well as the fulfillment of duty--is on our side. In 1989, 51 Senators voted for the amendment. That was it, 51. In 1990, there were 58 votes in favor. In 1995, 63 Senators voted for the amendment. And, today, we hope we will at least get that many. We have had some reversals, as you have seen. But the trend of support will continue until we get the 67 needed to pass this resolution and send the constitutional amendment to the States for ratification. I personally will not stop fighting for the flag amendment until it passes the Senate with the requisite two-thirds vote. I came up the hard way. I had to earn everything I have, and I have earned it the hard way. I learned a trade as a young man. I worked as a janitor to get through school. I have never been part of the elite, and I wouldn't be there if I could be. I have to tell you, this place is filled with elitism among those who are voting against this amendment today. Frankly, I get a little tired of the elitism in this country. It is throughout our country, and it is elitism that is allowing the savaging of our values to occur today in this country. It is the elite who are basically upholding things that force us to be tolerant, as they say, of some of the very offensive acts that occur in our society. They say we should be tolerant, not to do anything about people who defecate on our flag or urinate on our flag or burn our flag with contempt or trample on it. They don't seem to see any real problem with that, although they condemn it vociferously without doing one doggone thing about changing this culture and letting the American people know we are going to stand for something. What better thing can you stand for, other than your families--and this is part of standing for families in my book--what better thing to stand for than standing up for this national symbol that unites us and brings us together? Just think about it. In conclusion, the flag amendment is the very essence of government by the people because it reflects the people's decision to give Congress a power that the Supreme Court has taken away on a 5-4 vote. The four who voted against the five--in other words voted to uphold the right of the Federal Government and the States to ban desecration of the flag--those four fought very hard for their point of view. They happen to be right. I urge all my fellow Senators to do the right thing for the American people. I urge everybody in America to hold us responsible for not doing so. I am asking the folks out there in America to start getting excited about this. If we could pass this amendment through the Senate, since the House has already done it, I guarantee we would create the biggest debate on values this country has seen in years in every one of our 50 States. If we did that, that alone would justify everything we are talking about today, let alone standing up for the greatest symbol of any country in the world today. I think we ought to do it. I hope my fellow Senators will do the right thing and vote for this resolution so the people, through their State legislatures, can decide for themselves whether or not they want their elected representatives to enact a law prohibiting the physical desecration of the American flag. We know we do not have the votes today, but we are not going to stop until this amendment is approved. Sooner or later we will get enough people here who feel strongly enough about this to get the constitutional amendment passed. I venture to say, if we could pass this constitutional amendment, at least 38 States--and, frankly, I think all 50 States would ratify this amendment--I believe the people out there would ratify this amendment and we would have more than 80 percent in the end, and people would feel very good about it. I know one thing, those seven Congressional Medal of Honor recipients who were standing with us yesterday as we had a press conference on this, it would make their lives, as it would for all these veterans throughout this country who have sacrificed for you and me that we might be free. I would like to see that happen. If it does not happen today, don't worry, we will be back because we are not going to quit until we win on this amendment. When we do, it will be a great thing for this country. I want to thank the dedicated staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee for their hard work on this important proposed constitutional amendment--S.J. Res. 14. In particular, I would like to commend Alex Dahl, Catherine Campbell, Kyle Sampson, and Ed Haden. These fine lawyers and professional staff spent countless hours getting us to this point. I also want to thank the committee's chief counsel, Manus Cooney, for his assistance and counsel. On the minority side, let me acknowledge Bruce Cohen for his professionalism and spirited opposition. Many other staffers were helpful including Jim Hecht and Stewart Verdery of our leadership staff. I think these staffers know that this debate was an important one and one of significance. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida.