Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I again commend Senators Grassley and Torricelli for the great work they have done and all members on the Senate Judiciary Committee for having worked so hard to get this bill ready for presentation today. I hope we can pass it quickly. With that, I end my remarks and turn the time over to Senator Sessions.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent during consideration of S. 625, the following staffers be extended the privilege of the floor: Rene Augustine, Makan Delrahim, Kolan Davis, John McMickle, Kyle Sampson, and Leah Belaire.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased we are finally considering the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999. I would like to express my personal appreciation to Senator Lott for his efforts, along with those of Senator Daschle, which resulted in this opportunity for floor consideration of the bill. Also, I am grateful for the hard work of Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, along with Senator Torricelli, the ranking Member of the subcommittee, for their tireless efforts in working out this bipartisan bill. I also thank Senators Sessions, Biden, and others for their dedication and hard work on this bankruptcy reform bill. As I have said before, I remain confident that given the opportunity to consider the merits of this legislation, the Senate will pass this bill with overwhelming, bipartisan support. As we consider S. 625, I am hopeful that we will keep in mind the broad support for the substance of this important legislation. I hope we will see quick passage of these much needed reforms to the bankruptcy system, because the reform proposals have been studied by Congress at length, they are bipartisan, and they are fair. First, the reforms proposed in this bill have been deliberated at length. Indeed, Congress has been engaged in the consideration of this issue for several years, and the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, which is chaired by Senator Grassley, has held numerous hearings on the issue of bankruptcy reform. The subcommittee heard extensive testimony from literally dozens of witnesses on this subject. Second, this bill is truly bipartisan. During our consideration of this bill at both the subcommittee and full Judiciary Committee levels, numerous changes suggested by the minority were included in the bill. We have been able to reach a number of compromises on this legislation in order to respond to the concern of both parties. I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank Senators Grassley and Torricelli for their bipartisan efforts to create this balanced bill. Finally, this bill is fair. One of the principles that guided the authors of our country's original bankruptcy laws, and which is guiding us as we overhaul these laws today, is the concept of a fresh start. The bankruptcy system was designed to provide a fresh start to people in serious financial difficulty, who have no other way out of their predicament. Mr. President, S. 625 does just that. It ensures that people in the most serious financial difficulty will continue to have access to the debt relief they need. At the same time, this legislation ensures that more of the people who have the capacity to repay their debts are required to do so. Depending on what study you believe, anywhere from 6 to 15 percent of bankruptcy filers are using bankruptcy as a financial planning tool, running up debts and erasing them under laws that consider income irrelevant--all without any noticeable impact on their lifestyle. I would doubt that any of my colleagues feel that these are the sort of filers who need a fresh start. What they need is a lesson in personal responsibility. I believe that S.625 accomplishes both goals. The bill continues to make bankruptcy an accessible option for those who truly need it. But, it makes it more difficult for spendthrifts--those people who have no desire to change their excessive lifestyles and see bankruptcy as a convenient way to erase their debts. It is no secret that the current bankruptcy system is broken and that Congress must fix it to preserve the opportunity for those individuals in financial straits to obtain a ``fresh start.'' Despite this country's strong economy--unemployment is down and inflation is low-- the rate of personal bankruptcy filings has increased dramatically. Instead of bankruptcy being a safety net, it has become for some a convenient financial management tool. I find it unacceptable and inherently unfair that those who pay their bills have to foot the bill for those who are able to pay, but choose not to. It has been conservatively estimated that personal bankruptcies cost every household $400 per year, and it takes fifteen responsible borrowers to cover the cost of one bankruptcy of convenience. The goal of our bankruptcy system has always been to protect those who need protecting--to provide those who experience genuine and serious financial hardship the opportunity to wipe the slate clean. We must return our system back to its original mission. Bankruptcy reform is not a Republican or a Democratic issue--it is a consumer issue. According to a recent poll, 76 percent of Americans believe that individuals should not be allowed to erase all their debts in bankruptcy if they are able to repay a portion of what they owe. This survey merely reflects the American public's belief that individuals should be responsible for their own actions. S. 625 helps remedy the glaring problems of today's bankruptcy system be creating a needs-based system to determine the chapter under which a person should file for bankruptcy. Mr. President, the House bankruptcy reform bill passed by an overwhelming margin of 313 to 108. Half of the House Democratic Caucus joined with every House Republican to support a bill with more stringent measures than those we are considering in the Senate. S. 625 contains new measures to protect against fraud in bankruptcy, such as a requirement that debtors supply income tax return sand pay stubs, audits of bankruptcy cases, and limits on repeat bankruptcy filings. It eliminates a number of loopholes, such as the one that allows debtors to transfer their interest in real property soothers who then file for bankruptcy relief and invoke the automatic stay. And, it puts some controls on the ability of debtors get large case advances on their credit cards and to pay luxury goods on the eve of filing for bankruptcy. At the same time, s. 625 provides many unprecedented new consumer protections. It imposes penalties upon creditors who refuse to negotiate in good faith with debtors prior to declaring bankruptcy. Also, it imposes penalties on creditors who wilfullly fail to properly credit payments made by the debtor in a chapter 13 plan, and for creditors who threaten to file motions in order to coerce a reaffirmation without justification. Moreover, the bill imposes new measures to discourage abusive reaffirmation practices. It also addresses the problem of bankruptcy mills, firms that aggressively promote bankruptcy as a financial planning tool, and often end up hurting unwitting debtors by putting them in bankruptcy when it may not be in their best interest. The legislation also imposes penalties on bankruptcy petition preparers who mislead debtors. Importantly, S. 625 makes major strides in trying to break the cycle of indebtedness. It educates debtors with regard to the alternatives available to them, sets up a financial management education pilot program for debtors, and requires credit counseling for debtors. I am particularly proud that the bill makes extensive reform of the bankruptcy laws in order to protect our children. I have authored provisions to ensure that bankruptcy cannot be used by deadbeat dads to avoid paying child support and alimony. Under my provisions, the obligation to pay child support and alimony is moved to a first priority status, as opposed to its current place at seventh in line behind attorneys fees and other special interests. My measures also ensure the collection of child support and alimony payments by, among other things, exempting state child support collection authorities from the ``automatic stay'' that otherwise prevents collection of debts after a debtor files for bankruptcy, and by exempting from discharge virtually all obligations one ex-spouse owes another. S. 625 also includes a provision to create new legal protections for a large class of retirement savings in bankruptcy. This measure has widespread support from a long list of groups, ranging from the American Association of Retired Persons, to the Small Business Council of America and the National Council on Teacher Retirement. Let me take this opportunity also to point out that the assets of some pension plans already are protected from bankruptcy proceedings. The United States Supreme Court has ruled in Patterson v. Shumate, reported at 504 U.S. 753 (1992), that assets of pension plans which have, and are required by law to have, anti-alienation provisions, are excluded from bankruptcy estates. Let me be clear that my amendment is intended to expand the protection of retirement savings to protect assets that were not previously protected. My amendment is not intended in any way to diminish the protections offered under existing law and under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Patterson v. Shumate, but, rather, is intended to provide protection to other retirement plans and accounts not currently protected. I am proud to propose several enhancements to the bill that primarily are designed to protect consumers and further provide incentives for consumers to take personal responsibility in dealing with debt management. In the area of domestic support, as I indicated earlier, Senator Torricelli and I intend to build upon the new legal protections we have created, as part of the underlying bill, for ex-spouses and children who are owed child support and alimony. The changes will further strengthen the ability of ex-spouses and children to collect the payments they are owed, and will make changes to a number of existing provisions in the bill to clarify that they will not directly or indirectly undermine the collection of child support or alimony payments. I must highlight just a few of these important enhancements: our amendment prevents bankruptcy from holding up child custody and domestic violence cases. It facilitates wage withholding to collect child support from deadbeat parents. In addition, our amendment helps avoid administrative roadblocks to get kids the support they need. It makes staying current on child support a condition of discharge in bankruptcy. Also, our amendment makes the payment of child support arrears a condition of plan confirmation. Finally, it allows for the payment of child support with interest by those with means. In the area of debtor education, I have developed an amendment that will protect from creditors contributions made to education IRAs and qualified state tuition savings programs for educational expenses. This is a significant protection for those who honestly put money away for the benefit of their children and grandchildren's future schooling. The potential that education savings accounts will be abused in bankruptcy is addressed by the amendment's requirement that only contributions made more than a year prior to bankruptcy are protected. I believe that protecting educational savings accounts is particularly important because college savings accounts encourage families to save for college, thereby increasing access to higher education. Nationwide, there are more than a million educational savings accounts, meaning there are more than a million children who could potentially benefit from this amendment. As much as I believe that bankruptcy laws need to be reformed to prevent abuse and to ensure debtors take personal responsibility, the ability to use dedicated funds to pay the educational costs of children should not be jeopardized by the bankruptcy of their parents or grandparents. I developed a debt counseling incentive provision, which builds on the credit counseling provisions currently in S. 625. It removes any disincentive for debtors to use credit counseling services by prohibiting credit counseling services from reporting to credit reporting agencies that an individual has received debt management or credit counseling, and establishes a penalty for credit counseling services that do. Debt management education is vital to reducing the number of Americans who, because of poor financial planning skills, are forced to declare bankruptcy. Providing credit counseling--instruction regarding personal financial management--to current and potential bankruptcy filers will help curb bankruptcy filings. In addition, I intend to offer an amendment that is designed to curb fraud in bankruptcy filings. This amendment puts in place new procedures and provides new resources to enhance of bankruptcy fraud laws. It will require (1) that bankruptcy courts develop procedures for referring suspected fraud to the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for investigation and prosecution and (2) that the Attorney General designate one Assistant U.S. Attorney and one FBI agent in each judicial district as having primary responsibility for investigating and prosecuting fraud in bankruptcy. I also plan to offer an amendment that allows the victim of a crime of violence or drug trafficking offense to move the bankruptcy court to dismiss a voluntary petition filed by a debtor who was convicted of the crime of violence or drug trafficking offense. To protect women and children who may be owed payments by such a debtor, however, the amendment still allows the bankruptcy petition to continue if the debtor can show that the filing of the petition is necessary to ensure his ability to meet domestic support obligations. Bankruptcy is not an entitlement--it is a process by which certain qualifying individuals with substantial debts may cancel their debts and obtain a ``fresh start.'' Under this amendment, violent criminals and drug traffickers-- individuals who have chosen to engage in serious, criminal conduct-- would be precluded from availing themselves of the benefits of bankruptcy protection. Mr. President, if we do not take the opportunity to reform our bankruptcy system, every family in my own State of Utah and throughout the Country, many of whom struggle to make ends meet, will continue to bear the financial burden of those who take advantage of the system. Last year alone, approximately $45 billion in consumer debt was erased in personal bankruptcies. Losses of this magnitude are passed on the American families at an estimated cost--if we use low estimates--of $400 for every household in American every year. Rampant banckruptcy filings are a big problem. In 1998, 1.4 million Americans filed for bankruptcy. That was more Americans than graduated from college. That was also more Americans than were on active military duty. Not long ago, I received a letter from a long list of organizations, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Ski and Snowboard Retailers Association, the American Sheep Industry Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Multi-Housing Council. In the letter, they drove home the importance of this legislation to small businesses. I would like to read a quote from that letter: Delay of this will . . . hurt America's small businesses-- the heart and soul of this nation. These hard-working entrepreneurs, trying to live out their American dream, can be financially devastated by one ``bankruptcy of convenience''. Additionally, frivolous bankruptcy filings force businesses to charge more for goods and services. This is why small business owners throughout the country are calling on Congress to repair our fundamentally flawed bankruptcy system--they've waited long enough. In closing, let me say I hope we can move through this bill in a timely and orderly fashion. I hope Members who intend to offer amendments do so sooner rather than later, so we may consider as many amendments as we can and hopefully finish consideration of this bill by early next week. I look forward to doing what I can to help Senators Grassley and Torricelli move this process along. I do not think this is going to be difficult given the many compromises already reached in this legislation. This bill is fair, balanced, and long overdue. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the Hart- Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1999. I also am pleased to note that joining with me in sponsoring this important bipartisan legislation are Senators DeWine and Kohl the chairman and ranking member of the Antitrust, Business Rights and Competition Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their efforts and cooperation in working to craft this balanced reform measure which is long overdue. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 requires companies contemplating a merger of acquisition to file a premerger notification with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission if the size of the companies and the size of the proposed transaction are greater than certain monetary thresholds. These monetary thresholds have not been changed-- even for inflation--since the legislation was originally enacted in 1976, over 23 years ago. When the statute was first enacted, Congress intended to limit the scope of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act to very large companies involved in very large transactions. At that time, the House Judiciary Committee reported that the statute would apply ``only to the largest 150 mergers annually: These are the most likely to `substantially lessen competition'--the legal standard of the Clayton act.'' However, because the monetary thresholds in the statute have never been updated, nearly 5,000 transactions were reported. Because these monetary thresholds have not been kept current, companies frequently are required to notify the Antitrust Division and the FTC of proposed transactions that do not raise competitive issues. As a result, the agencies are required to expend valuable resources performing needless reviews of transactions that were never intended to be reviewed. In short, current law unnecessarily imposes a costly regulatory and financial burden upon companies, particularly upon small businesses, as well as a sizable drain on the resources of the agencies. Because of the unnecessarily low monetary thresholds, the current Act simply fails to reflect the true economic impact of mergers and acquisitions in today's economy. In addition, after a premerger notification is filed, the Hart-Scott- Rodino Act imposes a 30-day waiting period during which the proposed transaction may not close and the Antitrust Division or the FTC conducts an antitrust investigation. Prior to the expiration of this waiting period, the agency investigating the transaction may make a ``second request''--a demand for additional information or documentary material that is relevant to the proposed transaction. Unfortunately, many second requests require the production of an enormous volume of materials, many of which are unnecessary for even the most comprehensive merger review. Complying with such second requests has become very burdensome, often costing companies in excess of $1 million to comply. Second requests also extend the waiting period for an additional 20 days, a period of time which does not begin to run until the agencies have determined that the transacting companies have ``substantially complied'' with the second request. This procedure results in many lawful transactions being unnecessarily delayed for extended periods of time. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing today will correct these problems with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. First, the legislation increases the size-of-transaction threshold from $15 million to $35 million, effectively exempting from the Act's notification requirement mergers and acquisitions that, based on the FTC's data, do not pose any competitive concerns. Such mergers make up at least one-third of transactions reported in 1999. Therefore, this modest legislation provides significant regulatory and financial relief for small- and medium-sized companies. In addition, the legislation indexes the threshold for inflation, so that the problem of an expanding economy outgrowing the statute's monetary threshold will not recur. In addition to providing regulatory and financial relief for companies, another purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the Antitrust Division and the FTC efficiently allocate their finite resources to those transactions that truly deserve antitrust scrutiny. To ensure budget neutrality, the legislation adjusts the amount of the filing fee that parties must submit with their notification: For transactions valued between $35 million and $100 million, the filing fee remains unchanged at $45,000; for transactions valued at more than $100 million, the filing fee is increased to $100,000. I have worked with the business community to ensure that this filing fee adjustment is fair by imposing a higher fee on transactions which likely will require more of the agencies' resources to review. Although I would prefer that the filing fees be eliminated completely, in the interest of seeing the reforms in this bill become law, this legislation does not include such a measure. Second, this legislation reforms the second request process by limiting the scope of the information and documents that the agencies may require transacting companies to produce. Under this legislation, second requests must be limited to information that (1) is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative and (2) does not impose a cost or burden on the transacting parties that substantially outweighs any benefit to the agencies in conducting their antitrust review. If a company believes that the second request does not meet this standard, then that company may petition a United States magistrate judge for review of the second request. Similarly, if the company produces information and documents pursuant to a second request, but the agency determines that the company has not ``substantially compiled'' with the request, then the company also may petition the magistrate judge for a determination on substantial compliance. To ensure that proposed transactions are not unreasonably delayed, the bill provides deadlines by which the agency must notify a company of its failure to comply with a second request and also imposes certain controls, so that the process is not tied up in litigation by either the transacting party or the government. Finally, this legislation requires that the Antitrust Division and the FTC jointly report to Congress annually regarding the second request process and jointly publish guidelines on how companies can comply with second requests. Mr. President, the bill that I am introducing today sets forth reforms to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act that are long overdue. It provides significant regulatory and financial relief for businesses, while ensuring that transactions that truly deserve antitrust scrutiny will continue to be reviewed. As this bill moves through the legislative process, I remain willing to address any concerns any of my colleagues may have, and look forward to working with the Administration to see that this proposed legislation becomes law, thereby providing relief for small business that is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to support the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1999.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to remember my friend and colleague, Senator John Chafee. We were both elected to this great body in 1976. But, John was not your average freshman Senator. Whereas I had never held office before, John came to the Senate with a service record to his State and his country that was already exemplary. He was a war hero, having fought with the Marines on Guadalcanal. He was a Rhode Island state legislator, Governor, and Secretary of the Navy. But here, he was not content to rely upon past achievements, no matter how great those achievements were. He fought diligently for a cleaner environment, better health care, and a fair and fiscally sound Medicare and Medicaid system. Most recently, we worked together on the ``Caring for Children Act,'' a bill which would have responsibly taken our nation's child care policy into the next century, providing parents with more options and expanding the ability of states to meet the needs of low-income working parents. It was my pleasure to serve with John Chafee on the Finance Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence. His leadership and understanding on these issues will be greatly missed. I secretly admired John in another way as well. I understand that he could play a mean game of squash, which is a game I never learned. Of all of John's titles--Governor, Secretary, Senator--I know that his favorites were ``Dad'' and ``Grandpa.'' I offer my deep condolences to John's wife, Virginia, and to their children and grandchildren. I know that spending more time with them and in his beloved Rhode Island following his retirement next fall was something that he looked forward to. The tragedy of his sudden death is all the worse because he was cheated out of this well-earned retirement. John Chafee was a gentleman, a statesman, and a true public servant. There is no higher accolade that I can pay him. Elaine and I send our deepest sympathies to his wonderful family and to all Rhode Islanders on this great loss.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on October 22, the Senate passed by unanimous consent the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999. The Senate agreed, also by unanimous consent, to an amendment of mine added to that legislation. My amendment made a technical clarification to the L visa program. Unfortunately, an ``Interpretation of Technical Amendment'' at the end of my remarks on my amendment was inadvertently left out of the Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, along with the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to introduce the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. Simply put, this legislation reflects several years of discussions and consensus- building efforts in the Senate and the House, and represents the most important and most comprehensive reforms to our nation's patent system in nearly half a century. As we prepare to enter a new millennium built on high-tech growth, the Internet, and electronic commerce, in which American competitiveness will depend on the strength of the patent system and the protections it affords, this legislation could not be more timely. The last time the Patent Act underwent a significant update was in 1952. Since then, our Nation has experienced an unprecedented explosion of technology growth and a tremendous expansion of the global market for the fruits of American ingenuity. Yet our patent laws have remained largely unchanged in the face of the new demands engendered by these developments. This legislation--which many of my colleagues will recognize as a compromise version of the Omnibus Patent Act passed by the Judiciary Committee with near unanimity more than 2 years ago--will effect targeted changes to the patent code to equip the patent system to meet the challenges of new technology and new markets as we approach the new millennium, while at the same time promoting American competitiveness and ensuring adequate protection for American innovators, both at home and abroad. As many of my colleagues know, this legislation is the product of several years of discussion and extensive efforts to reach agreement on a responsible package of patent reforms. The Senate made significant progress toward consensus during the last Congress when several key compromises were reached in the Judiciary Committee to strengthen the bill's protections for small businesses and independent inventors and to preserve America's competitive edge in the face of increasing global competition. I was pleased this year to see those efforts continued in the House, where the supporters and former opponents of the bill agreed to sit down and work through their differences to produce a constructive patent reform bill. The result is H.r. 1907, which has 59 cosponsors in the House--including the most ardent opponents of prior reform measures--and was passed in the House by a 376-43 vote. In many ways, the House-passed ``American Inventors Protection Act'' builds upon the compromises reached in the Senate during the last Congress. For example, the widespread agreement on 18-month publication of patent applicants is centered around the Senate compromise that allowed inventors to avoid disclosure of their applications by not filing their application abroad, where 18-month publication is now the rule. Similarly, estoppel provisions similar to those agreed to in the Senate form a key component on the broad-based agreement on patent reexamination reform. I am pleased to see these compromises preserved and to see that the House has built upon them to reach the sort of broad consensus on patent reform that I have long advocated. The bill Senator Leahy and I are introducing today in the Senate preserves these important compromises and adds to them a number of important provisions. For example, our bill includes a title not in the House bill to reduce patent fees for only the second time in history (the first time fees were reduced was last year in a bill Senator Leahy and I ushered through the Senate), to ensure that trademark fees are spent only for trademark-related operations, and to require a study of alternative fee structures to encourage maximum participation by the American inventor community. Our bill also adds important provisions to enhance protections for our national security by preventing disclosure of sensitive and strategic patent-related information and by helping to identify national security positions at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and obtain appropriate security clearances for PTO employees. The bill also prohibits the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks from entering into an agreement to exchange U.S. patent data with certain foreign countries without explicit authorization from the Secretary of Commerce. Also in our bill is a requirement that GAO conduct a study on patents issued for methods of doing or conducting business, which have been the subject of a 75 percent increase in applications at the PTO/ Like the House bill, our legislation will achieve a number of important substantive patent reforms, consistent with the principles of protecting American inventors, our national competitiveness, and the integrity of our patent system. First, the bill provides inventors with enhanced protections against invention promotion scams by creating a private right of action for inventors harmed by deceptive and fraudulent practices and by requiring invention promoters to disclose certain information in writing prior to entering into a contract for invention promotion services. An inventor who is harmed by any material false or fraudulent statement or representation, or any omission of material fact, by an invention promoter, or by the invention promoter's failure to make the required disclosures, may recover actual damages or, at the plaintiff's election, statutory damages in an amount up to $5,000, as the court considers just, plus reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. A court may award increased damages, up to treble damages, where it finds such conduct to have been intentional and done with the intent to deceive the inventor. And, in an effort to provide better access to information for inventors, the Patent and Trademark Office is required to make publicly available all complaints received involving invention promoters, along with any response of the invention promoter. Second, as noted above, the bill will reduce patent fees, protect trademark fees from being diverted to non-trademark uses, and require the PTO to study alternative fee structures to encourage maximum participation by American inventors. Third, the bill provides a ``first inventor defense'' to an action for patent infringement for someone who has reduced an invention to practice at least one year before the effective filing date of the patent and commercially used the subject matter before the effective filing date of such patent. The bill responds to recent changes in PTO practice and the Federal Circuit's 1998 decision in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed Cir. 1998), in which it formally did away with the so-called ``business methods'' exception to statutory patentable subject matter. As a result, patent filings for business methods are up by 75 percent this year, and many who have been using business methods for many years pursuant to trade secret protection--believing such methods were not patentable--are now faced with potential patent infringement suits from others who, while they may have come later to the game, were first to reach the patent office after the bar to patentability for business methods was lifted. Fourth, the bill will guarantee a minimum 17-year patent term for diligent applicants, addressing concerns that have been expressed since the United States went to a 20-year from filing term of protection with the adoption of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1994. Fifth, the bill will place American inventors on a level playing field with their foreign competitors by providing for domestic publication in English of those patent applications that are now subject to foreign publication by foreign patent offices, while still retaining the option inventors now enjoy of preserving the secrecy of their application by not filing abroad. It also protects American inventors from broader disclosure of their invention through domestic publication than occurs in foreign publications by allowing the patent applicant to submit a redacted copy of their application for publication. This provision will effectively facilitate access to information that will enable inventors to target their resources more effectively while also providing, for the first time, effective interim protection for inventors during patent pendency. Sixth, the bill is designed to reduce litigation in district courts and make reexamination a viable, less-costly alternative to patent litigation by giving third-party requesters the option of inter-partes reexamination procedures (in addition to the current ex parte reexamination procedures). Under this optional procedure, the third party is afforded an expanded, although still limited, role in the reexamination process through an opportunity to respond, in writing, to an action by a patent examiner when, but only when, the patent owner does so. These expanded rights for third parties are carefully balanced with incentives to prevent abusive reexamination requests, including broad estoppel provisions and severe restrictions on appeals. Finally, the bill will make a number of miscellaneous, yet important patent reforms. In short, the provisions of this bill now enjoy widespread bipartisan and bicameral support. The total package of changes that have been made to this legislation over the past several years are both responsive and comprehensive. The time to act on this package of reforms is now. Intellectual property, and patents in particular, are among our nation's greatest assets in this technology-dominated age. Our patent system must be equipped to handle the challenges of the new millennium and to protect our nation's creators into the next century. The strength of our economy depends upon it. If we do not, we will lose our edge in the ongoing race for technological and economic leadership in the world economy. In the most simple of terms, we must have a patent system that is state of the art. The bill Senator Leahy and I are introducing today will help to provide just that. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in giving their overwhelming support for this measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, along with the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to introduce the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999. Simply put, this legislation reflects several years of discussions and consensus- building efforts in the Senate and the House, and represents the most important and most comprehensive reforms to our nation's patent system in nearly half a century. As we prepare to enter a new millennium built on high-tech growth, the Internet, and electronic commerce, in which American competitiveness will depend on the strength of the patent system and the protections it affords, this legislation could not be more timely. The last time the Patent Act underwent a significant update was in 1952. Since then, our Nation has experienced an unprecedented explosion of technology growth and a tremendous expansion of the global market for the fruits of American ingenuity. Yet our patent laws have remained largely unchanged in the face of the new demands engendered by these developments. This legislation--which many of my colleagues will recognize as a compromise version of the Omnibus Patent Act passed by the Judiciary Committee with near unanimity more than 2 years ago--will effect targeted changes to the patent code to equip the patent system to meet the challenges of new technology and new markets as we approach the new millennium, while at the same time promoting American competitiveness and ensuring adequate protection for American innovators, both at home and abroad. As many of my colleagues know, this legislation is the product of several years of discussion and extensive efforts to reach agreement on a responsible package of patent reforms. The Senate made significant progress toward consensus during the last Congress when several key compromises were reached in the Judiciary Committee to strengthen the bill's protections for small businesses and independent inventors and to preserve America's competitive edge in the face of increasing global competition. I was pleased this year to see those efforts continued in the House, where the supporters and former opponents of the bill agreed to sit down and work through their differences to produce a constructive patent reform bill. The result is H.r. 1907, which has 59 cosponsors in the House--including the most ardent opponents of prior reform measures--and was passed in the House by a 376-43 vote. In many ways, the House-passed ``American Inventors Protection Act'' builds upon the compromises reached in the Senate during the last Congress. For example, the widespread agreement on 18-month publication of patent applicants is centered around the Senate compromise that allowed inventors to avoid disclosure of their applications by not filing their application abroad, where 18-month publication is now the rule. Similarly, estoppel provisions similar to those agreed to in the Senate form a key component on the broad-based agreement on patent reexamination reform. I am pleased to see these compromises preserved and to see that the House has built upon them to reach the sort of broad consensus on patent reform that I have long advocated. The bill Senator Leahy and I are introducing today in the Senate preserves these important compromises and adds to them a number of important provisions. For example, our bill includes a title not in the House bill to reduce patent fees for only the second time in history (the first time fees were reduced was last year in a bill Senator Leahy and I ushered through the Senate), to ensure that trademark fees are spent only for trademark-related operations, and to require a study of alternative fee structures to encourage maximum participation by the American inventor community. Our bill also adds important provisions to enhance protections for our national security by preventing disclosure of sensitive and strategic patent-related information and by helping to identify national security positions at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and obtain appropriate security clearances for PTO employees. The bill also prohibits the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks from entering into an agreement to exchange U.S. patent data with certain foreign countries without explicit authorization from the Secretary of Commerce. Also in our bill is a requirement that GAO conduct a study on patents issued for methods of doing or conducting business, which have been the subject of a 75 percent increase in applications at the PTO/ Like the House bill, our legislation will achieve a number of important substantive patent reforms, consistent with the principles of protecting American inventors, our national competitiveness, and the integrity of our patent system. First, the bill provides inventors with enhanced protections against invention promotion scams by creating a private right of action for inventors harmed by deceptive and fraudulent practices and by requiring invention promoters to disclose certain information in writing prior to entering into a contract for invention promotion services. An inventor who is harmed by any material false or fraudulent statement or representation, or any omission of material fact, by an invention promoter, or by the invention promoter's failure to make the required disclosures, may recover actual damages or, at the plaintiff's election, statutory damages in an amount up to $5,000, as the court considers just, plus reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. A court may award increased damages, up to treble damages, where it finds such conduct to have been intentional and done with the intent to deceive the inventor. And, in an effort to provide better access to information for inventors, the Patent and Trademark Office is required to make publicly available all complaints received involving invention promoters, along with any response of the invention promoter. Second, as noted above, the bill will reduce patent fees, protect trademark fees from being diverted to non-trademark uses, and require the PTO to study alternative fee structures to encourage maximum participation by American inventors. Third, the bill provides a ``first inventor defense'' to an action for patent infringement for someone who has reduced an invention to practice at least one year before the effective filing date of the patent and commercially used the subject matter before the effective filing date of such patent. The bill responds to recent changes in PTO practice and the Federal Circuit's 1998 decision in State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1360 (Fed Cir. 1998), in which it formally did away with the so-called ``business methods'' exception to statutory patentable subject matter. As a result, patent filings for business methods are up by 75 percent this year, and many who have been using business methods for many years pursuant to trade secret protection--believing such methods were not patentable--are now faced with potential patent infringement suits from others who, while they may have come later to the game, were first to reach the patent office after the bar to patentability for business methods was lifted. Fourth, the bill will guarantee a minimum 17-year patent term for diligent applicants, addressing concerns that have been expressed since the United States went to a 20-year from filing term of protection with the adoption of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act in 1994. Fifth, the bill will place American inventors on a level playing field with their foreign competitors by providing for domestic publication in English of those patent applications that are now subject to foreign publication by foreign patent offices, while still retaining the option inventors now enjoy of preserving the secrecy of their application by not filing abroad. It also protects American inventors from broader disclosure of their invention through domestic publication than occurs in foreign publications by allowing the patent applicant to submit a redacted copy of their application for publication. This provision will effectively facilitate access to information that will enable inventors to target their resources more effectively while also providing, for the first time, effective interim protection for inventors during patent pendency. Sixth, the bill is designed to reduce litigation in district courts and make reexamination a viable, less-costly alternative to patent litigation by giving third-party requesters the option of inter-partes reexamination procedures (in addition to the current ex parte reexamination procedures). Under this optional procedure, the third party is afforded an expanded, although still limited, role in the reexamination process through an opportunity to respond, in writing, to an action by a patent examiner when, but only when, the patent owner does so. These expanded rights for third parties are carefully balanced with incentives to prevent abusive reexamination requests, including broad estoppel provisions and severe restrictions on appeals. Finally, the bill will make a number of miscellaneous, yet important patent reforms. In short, the provisions of this bill now enjoy widespread bipartisan and bicameral support. The total package of changes that have been made to this legislation over the past several years are both responsive and comprehensive. The time to act on this package of reforms is now. Intellectual property, and patents in particular, are among our nation's greatest assets in this technology-dominated age. Our patent system must be equipped to handle the challenges of the new millennium and to protect our nation's creators into the next century. The strength of our economy depends upon it. If we do not, we will lose our edge in the ongoing race for technological and economic leadership in the world economy. In the most simple of terms, we must have a patent system that is state of the art. The bill Senator Leahy and I are introducing today will help to provide just that. I hope that my colleagues will join with me in giving their overwhelming support for this measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering is a minor, technical clarification to the L visa program. The L visa is a temporary, nonimmigrant visa allowing a U.S. company which is part of an international business to make intra-company transfers from overseas of foreign executives, managers, and employees with specialized knowledge to America. In 1990, Congress clarified that international accounting firms and their related management consulting practices would be able to use the L visas. This specific provision in the Immigration Act of 1990 was thought necessary by Congress because, for legal and historical reasons, international accounting firms and their management consulting businesses are not organized the same way most international corporations are organized. The laws of various foreign countries relating to the accounting profession have caused the international accounting and associated management consulting businesses to be generally organized as partnerships held together by contracts with a worldwide coordinating organization. The INS regulations reflect congressional intent to be sure that international accounting firms and their associated management consulting businesses so organized would not be at a disadvantage under the L visa program. 8 CFR Section 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(L)(3). My amendment will make sure that any international management consulting firm that separates from an international accounting firm, yet continues to maintain the qualifying worldwide organizational structure, may continue to use the L visa even if it is no longer connected to an accounting firm. Thus, no new category of beneficiaries may use the L visa. On the other hand, no business currently able to use the L visa will lose the right to do so under this amendment, including management consulting firms which have a relationship with an international accounting firm or which are organized in a more typical international corporate structure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 1692, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. At the outset, I would like to thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, for his great efforts here this week, and over the past few years, in trying to seek passage of this measure. Few people can speak on this issue with the same passion and depth of understanding as Senator Santorum. As we face this vote today, it is clear that the majority of the Senate supports this bill. It is a bipartisan effort. The hope we have, however, in the face of an inevitable veto, is that a number sufficient to override this veto will vote in favor of this bill. Mr. President, I have spoken in past years on this important legislation. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I chaired a major hearing on this bill several years ago, and the graphic description of this procedure and the testimony I heard was compelling, even chilling. This bill presents, really, a very narrow issue: whether one rogue abortion procedure that has probably been performed by a handful of abortion doctors in this country, that is never medically necessary, that is not the safest medical procedure available under any circumstances, and that is morally reprehensible, should be banned. This bill does not address whether all abortions after a certain week of pregnancy should be banned or whether late-term abortions should only be permitted in certain circumstances. It bans one particular abortion procedure. I chaired the Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill that was held on November 17, 1995. After hearing the testimony presented there as well as seeing some of the submitted material, I must say that I find it difficult to comprehend how any reasonable person could examine the evidence and continue to defend the partial-birth abortion procedure. That procedure involves the partial delivery of an intact fetus into the birth canal. The fetus is delivered from its feet through its shoulders so that only its head remains in the uterus. Then, either scissors or another instrument is used to poke a hole in the base of the skull. This is a living baby at this point, in a late trimester of living. Once the abortionist pokes that hole in the base of the skull, a suction catheter is inserted to suck out the brains. This bill would simply ban that procedure. The committee heard testimony from a total of 12 witnesses presenting a variety of perspectives on the bill. I wanted to ensure that both sides of this debate had a full opportunity to present their arguments on this issue, and I think that the hearing bore that out. Brenda Shafer, a registered nurse who worked in Dr. Martin Haskell's Ohio abortion clinic for 3 days as a temporary nurse in September 1993, testified to her personal experience observing Dr. Haskell performing the procedure that would be banned by this bill. Dr. Haskell is one of only a handful of doctors who have acknowledged performing the procedure. The committee also heard testimony from four ob-gyn doctors--two in favor of the bill and two against--from an anesthesiologist, from an ethicist, and from three women who had personal experiences either with having a late-term abortion or with declining to have a late-term abortion. Finally, the committee also heard from two law professors who discussed constitutional and other legal issues raised by the bill. The hearing was significant in that it permitted the issues raised by this bill to be fully aired. I think that the most important contribution of the hearing to this debate is that the hearing record puts to rest a number of inaccurate statements that have been made by opponents of the bill and that have unfortunately been widely covered in the press. Because the Judiciary Committee hearing brought out many of the facts on this issue, I would like to go through the most important of those for my colleagues to clear up what I think have been some of the major misrepresentations--and simply points of confusion--on this bill. The first and foremost inaccuracy that we must correct once and for all concerns the effects of anesthesia on the fetus of a pregnant woman. I must say that I am personally shocked at the irresponsibility that led some opponents of this bill to spread the myth that anesthesia given to the mother during a partial-birth abortion is what kills the fetus. Opponents of the measure presumably wanted to make this procedure appear less barbaric and make it more palatable. In doing so, however, they have not only misrepresented the procedure, but they have spread potentially life-threatening misinformation that could prove catastrophic to women's health. By claiming that anesthesia kills the fetus, opponents have spread misinformation that could deter pregnant women who might desperately need surgery from undergoing surgery for fear that the anesthesia could kill or brain-damage their unborn children. Let me illustrate how widespread this misinformation has become: In a June 23, 1995, submission to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee, the late Dr. James McMahon, the other of the two doctors who has admitted performing the procedure, wrote that anesthesia given to the mother during the procedure causes fetal demise. Let me note also that if the fetus was dead before being brought down the birth canal, then this bill by definition would not cover the procedure performed to abort the fetus. The bill covers only procedures in which a living fetus is partially delivered. An editorial in USA Today on November 3, 1995, also stated, ``The fetus dies from an overdose of anesthesia given to its mother.'' In a self-described fact sheet, circulated to Members of the House, Dr. Mary Campbell, Medical Director of Planned Parenthood, who testified of the Judiciary Committee hearing wrote: The fetus dies of an overdose of anesthesia given to the mother intravenously. A dose is calculated for the mother's weight, which is 50 to 100 times the weight of the fetus. The mother gets the anesthesia for each insertion of the dilators, twice a day. This induces brain death in a fetus in a matter of minutes. Fetal demise therefore occurs in the beginning of the procedure while the fetus is still in the womb. When that statement was referenced to the medical panel at the Judiciary Committee hearing by Senator Abraham, the president of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Dr. Norig Ellison, flatly responded, ``There is absolutely no basis in scientific fact for that statement.'' The American Society of Anesthesiologists was invited to testify at our hearing precisely to clear up this obvious misrepresentation. They sought the opportunity to set the record straight. What was terribly disturbing about this distortion was that it could endanger women's health and women's lives. The American Society of Anesthesiologists has made clear that they do not take a position on the legislation, but that they came forward out of concern for the harmful misinformation. The spreading of this misinformation strikes me as a very sad commentary on the lengths that those who support abortion on demand, for any reason, at virtually any time during pregnancy and apparently regardless of the method, will do to defend each and any procedure, and certainly this procedure. The sacrifice of intellectual honesty is very disheartening. As Dr. Ellison testified, he was ``Deeply concerned . . . that the widespread publicity given to Dr. McMahon's testimony may cause pregnant women to delay necessary and perhaps lifesaving medical procedures, totally unrelated to the birthing process, due to misinformation regarding the effect of anesthetics on the fetus.'' He stated that the American Society of Anesthesiologists, while not taking a position on the bill, ``. . . have nonetheless felt it our responsibility as physicians specializing in the provisions of anesthesia care to seek every available forum in which to contradict Dr. McMahon's testimony. Only in that way we believe can we provide assurance to pregnant women that they can undergo necessary surgical procedures safely, both for mother and unborn child.'' Dr. Ellison also noted that, in his medical judgment, in order to achieve neurological demise of the fetus in a partial-birth abortion procedure, it would be necessary to anaesthetize the mother to such a degree as to place her own health in jeopardy. In short, in a partial-birth abortion, the anesthesia does not kill the fetus. The baby will generally be alive after partly being delivered into the birth canal and before having his or her skull opened and brain sucked out. Mr. President, if this description is distasteful, that is because the procedure itself is. That is also consistent with evidence provided by Dr. Haskell describing his use of the procedure. In his 1992 paper presented before the National Abortion Federation, which is part of the hearing record, Dr. Haskell described the procedure as first involving the forceps- assisted delivery into the birth canal of an intact fetus from the feet up to the shoulders, with the head remaining in the uterus. He does not describe taking any action to kill the fetus up until that point. In a 1993 interview with the American Medical News, Dr. Haskell acknowledged that roughly two-thirds of the fetuses he aborts using the partial-birth abortion procedure are alive at the point at which he kills them by inserting a scissors in the back of the head and suctioning out the brain. Finally, in a letter to me dated November 9, 1995, Dr. Watson Bowes of the University of North Carolina Medical School wrote, ``Although I have never witnessed this procedure, it seems likely from the description of the procedure by Dr. Haskell that many if not all of the fetuses are alive until the scissors and the suction catheter are used to remove brain tissue.'' Simply put, anesthesia given to a mother does not kill the baby she is carrying. Let me move on to the next misrepresentation. Another myth that the hearing record debunks is that the procedure can be medically necessary in late-term pregnancies where the health of the mother is in danger or where the fetus has severe abnormalities. Now, there were two witnesses at the hearing who testified as to their experiences with late-abortions in circumstances in which Dr. McMahon's performed the procedure. Both women, Coreen Costello and Viki Wilson, received terrible news late in their pregnancies that the children they were carrying were severely deformed and would be unable ot survive for very long. I would like to make it absolutely clear that nothing in the bill before us would prevent women in Ms. Costello's and Ms. Wilson's situations from choosing to abort their children. That question is not before us, and it is not one that we face in considering this narrow bill. I also would like to point out that I have the utmost sympathy for women--and their husbands and families--who find themselves receiving the same tragic news that those women received. Regardless of whether they aborted the child or decided to go through with the pregnancy, which is what another courageous witness at our hearing, Jeannie French of Oak Park, Illinois, chose to do--and as a result, her daughter Mary's heart valves were donated to other infants--their experiences are horrendous ones that no one should have to go through. The testimony of all three witnesses was among the most heart- wrenching and painful testimony I have ever heard before the committee. My heart goes out to those three women and their families as well as any others in similar situations. However, the fact is that medical testimony in the record indicates that even if an abortion were to be performed under such circumstances, a number of other procedures could be performed, such as the far more common classical D&E procedure or an induction procedure. When asked whether the exact procedure Dr. McMahon used would ever be medically necessary--even in cases like those described by Ms. Costello and Ms. Wilson--several doctors at our hearing explained that it would not. Dr. Nancy Romer, a practicing Ob-Gyn and clinical professor in Dayton, Ohio, stated that she had never had to resort to that procedure and that none of the physicians that she worked with had ever had to use it. Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Chicago, stated that a doctor would never need to resort to the partial-birth abortion procedure. This ties in closely to what I consider the next misrepresentation made about the partial-birth abortion procedure: the claim that in some circumstances a partial-birth abortion will be the safest option available for a late-term abortion. Testimony and other evidence adduced at the Judiciary Committee hearing amply demonstrate that this is not the case. An article published in the November 20, 1995, issue of the American Medical News quoted Dr. Warren Hern as stating, ``I would dispute any statement that this is the safest procedure to use.'' Dr. Hern is the author of ``Abortion Practice,'' the Nation's most widely used textbook on abortion standards and procedures. He also stated in that interview that he ``has very strong reservations'' about the partial-birth abortion procedure banned by this bill. Indeed, referring to the procedure, he stated, ``You really can't defend it. I'm not going to tell somebody else that they should not do this procedure. But I'm not going to do it.'' In fairness to Dr. Hern, I note that he does not support this bill in part because he feels this is the beginning of legislative efforts to chip away at abortion rights. But, his statement regarding the partial- birth abortion procedure certainly sheds light on the argument made by opponents that it is the safest procedure for late-term abortions. Another misrepresentation that should be set straight concerns claims that the partial-birth abortion procedure that would be banned by this bill is, in fact, performed only in later-term pregnancies where the life of the mother is at risk or where the fetus is suffering from severe abnormalities that are incompatible with life. I certainly do not dispute that in a number of cases the partial- birth abortion procedure has been performed where the life of the mother was at risk or where the fetus was severely deformed. Substantial available evidence indicates, however, that the procedure is not performed solely or primarily where the mother's life is in danger, where the mother's health is gravely at risk, or where the fetus is seriously malformed in a manner incompatible with life. The fact of the matter is--and I know this is something that opponents of the bill have not faced--this procedure is being performed where there are only minor problems with the fetus, and for purely elective reasons. Most important, however, medical testimony at our hearing indicated that a health exception in this bill is not necessary because other abortion procedures are in fact safer and better for women's health. Now, let me be perfectly clear that I do not doubt that in some cases this procedure was done where there were life-threatening indications. However, I simply must emphasize two points. First, those cases are by far in the minority. We should get the facts straight so that our colleagues and the American people understand what is going on here. Second, the most credible testimony at our hearing--confirmed by other available evidence--indicates that even where serious maternal health issues exist or severe fetal abnormalities arise, there will always be other, safer abortion procedures available that this bill does not touch. On that note, I would like to close by highlighting a statement made at our hearing by Helen Alvare of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. She remarked that opponents of this bill keep asking whether enacting it would be the first step in an effort to ban all abortions. In her view, however, the real question should be whether allowing this procedure would serve as a first step toward legalized infanticide. I urge the bill's opponents to ask themselves this question. What is the real purpose of this procedure? That is the fundamental problem with this procedure, It involves killing a partially delivered baby. Let me say to my colleagues in the Senate that the evidence presented more than confirms my view that this procedure is never medically necessary and should be banned. This evidence, regardless of one's view on the broader issue of abortion, provides ample justification for an ``aye'' vote on S. 1692. I hope my colleagues will agree.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill corresponding to one introduced by Congressman Horn of California and passed the House of Representatives this week. The intent of this bill is to allow immigrant orphan siblings to stay together when being adopted by U.S. citizens. Under current law, a U.S. citizen may bring an immigrant child they have adopted to the United States if the child is under the age of 16. This bill would allow U.S. citizens to adopt immigrant children ages 16-17 if the adoption would keep a group of siblings together. Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Horn's conclusion that family unity is a frequently cited goal of our immigration policy, and this proposal would promote that goal. Under current law, if children are adopted by U.S. citizens and the oldest sibling is 16 or 17, the oldest sibling cannot come to the United States with his or her brothers and sisters under current law. It seems clear to me that siblings of these young ages ought not to be separated. Further, foreign adoption authorities in some cases do not allow the separation of siblings. In such cases, if a U.S. citizen wanted to adopt a group of siblings and one of them is 16 or older, the citizen would lose the opportunity to adopt any of them under current law. As Mr. Horn's analysis of the consequences of this bill confirm, this bill is unlikely to cause a significant increase in immigration levels overall. During fiscal year 1996, a total a 351 immigrant orphans older than age 9 were adopted by U.S. citizens, out of 11,316 immigrant orphans adopted by U.S. citizens overall that year. I thank Congressman Horn for his leadership in this issue. I certainly hope that we can act of this measure before we adjourn. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill corresponding to one introduced by Congressman Horn of California and passed the House of Representatives this week. The intent of this bill is to allow immigrant orphan siblings to stay together when being adopted by U.S. citizens. Under current law, a U.S. citizen may bring an immigrant child they have adopted to the United States if the child is under the age of 16. This bill would allow U.S. citizens to adopt immigrant children ages 16-17 if the adoption would keep a group of siblings together. Mr. President, I agree with Mr. Horn's conclusion that family unity is a frequently cited goal of our immigration policy, and this proposal would promote that goal. Under current law, if children are adopted by U.S. citizens and the oldest sibling is 16 or 17, the oldest sibling cannot come to the United States with his or her brothers and sisters under current law. It seems clear to me that siblings of these young ages ought not to be separated. Further, foreign adoption authorities in some cases do not allow the separation of siblings. In such cases, if a U.S. citizen wanted to adopt a group of siblings and one of them is 16 or older, the citizen would lose the opportunity to adopt any of them under current law. As Mr. Horn's analysis of the consequences of this bill confirm, this bill is unlikely to cause a significant increase in immigration levels overall. During fiscal year 1996, a total a 351 immigrant orphans older than age 9 were adopted by U.S. citizens, out of 11,316 immigrant orphans adopted by U.S. citizens overall that year. I thank Congressman Horn for his leadership in this issue. I certainly hope that we can act of this measure before we adjourn. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Leahy of Vermont, a bill titled ``Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act of 1999.'' This is an important measure that I hope can move promptly through the Senate Judiciary Committee and through the Senate. The provisions contained in this bill are crucial in combating crime internationally. I believe that it will give law enforcement critical tools in more effectively pursuing fugitives and ware criminals. I thank my ranking member for his work on this matter. This bill incorporates in title III, his own bill dealing with war criminals and it is an important component of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the bill in the Record. [Data not available at time of printing.] Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with Senator Hatch a bill to give United States law enforcement agencies important tools to help them combat international crime. The ``Denying Safe Haven to International and War Criminals Act of 1999'' contains a number of provisions that I have long supported. Unfortunately, crime and terrorism directed at Americans and American interests abroad are part of our modern reality. Furthermore, organized criminal activity does not recognize national boundaries. With improvements in technology, criminals now can move about the world with ease. They can transfer funds with the push of a button, or use computers and credit card numbers to steal from American citizens and businesses from any spot on the globe. They can strike at Americans here and abroad. They can commit crimes abroad and flee quickly to another jurisdiction or country. The playing field keeps changing, and we need to change with it. This bill would help make needed modifications in our laws, not with sweeping changes but with thoughtful provisions carefully targeted at specific problems faced by law enforcement. We cannot stop international crime without international cooperation, and this bill gives additional tools to investigators and prosecutors to promote such cooperation, while narrowing the room for maneuver that international criminals and terrorists now enjoy. I initially introduced title I, section 4 of this bill, regarding fugitive disentitlement, on April 30, 1998, in the ``Money Laundering Enforcement and Combating Drugs in Prisons Act of 1998,'' S. 2011, with Senators Daschle, Kohl, Feinstein and Cleland. Again, on July 14, 1998, I introduced with Senator Biden, on behalf of the Administration, the ``International Crime Control Act of 1998,'' S. 2303, which contains most of the provisions set forth in this bill. Virtually all of the provisions in the bill were also included in another major anti-crime bill, the ``Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998,'' S. 2484, that I introduced on September 16, 1998, along with Senators Daschle, Biden, Moseley-Braun, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Bingaman, Reid, Murray, Dorgan, and Torricelli. In addition, Senator Hatch and I included title II, section 1 of this bill regarding streamlined procedures for MLAT requests in our ``International Crime and Anti-Terrorism Amendments of 1998'', S. 2536, which passed the Senate last October 15, 1998. We have drawn from these more comprehensive bills a set of discrete improvements that enjoy bipartisan support so that important provisions may be enacted promptly. Each of these provisions has been a law enforcement priority. Title I sets forth important proposals for combating international crime and denying safe havens to international criminals. In particular, section 1 would provide for extradition under certain circumstances for offenses not covered in a treaty or absent a treaty. Treaties negotiated many years ago specified the crimes for which extradition would be allowed. Developments in criminal activity, however, have outpaced the ability of countries to renegotiate treaties to include newly developing criminal activity. Under the bill, extradition would nevertheless proceed as if the crime were covered by a treaty for ``serious offenses,'' which are defined to include crimes of violence, drug crimes, bribery of public officials, obstruction of justice, money laundering, fraud or theft involving over $100,000, counterfeiting over $100,000, a conspiracy to commit any of these crimes, and sex crimes involving children. The section sets forth detailed procedures and safeguards for proceeding with extradition under these circumstances. Section 2 contains technical and conforming amendments. Section 3 would give the Attorney General authority to transfer a person in custody in the United States to a foreign country to stand trial where the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that such transfer would be consistent with the international obligations of the United States. The section also allows for the transfer of a person in state custody in the United States to a foreign country to stand trial after a similar determination by the Attorney General and the consent of the State authorities. Similarly, the Attorney General is authorized to request the temporary transfer of a person in custody in a foreign country to face prosecution in a federal or state proceeding. Section 4 is designed to stop drug kingpins, terrorists and other international fugitives from using our courts to fight to keep the proceeds of the very crimes for which they are wanted. Criminals should not be able to use our courts at the same time they are evading our laws. Section 5 would permit the transfer of prisoners to their home country to serve their sentences, on a case-by-case basis, where such transfer is provided by treaty. Under this section, the prisoner need not consent to the transfer. Section 6 would provide a statutory basis for holding and transferring prisoners who are sent from one foreign country to another through United States airports, preventing them from claiming asylum while they are temporarily in the United States. Title II of the bill is designed to promote global cooperation in the fight against international crime. Specifically, section 1 would permit United States courts involved in multi-district litigation to enforce mutual legal assistance treaties and other agreements to execute foreign requests for assistance in criminal matters in all districts involved in the litigation. Section 2 outlines procedures for the temporary transfer of incarcerated witnesses. Specifically, the bill would permit the United States, as a matter of reciprocity, to send persons in custody in the United States to a foreign country and to receive foreign prisoners to testify in judicial proceedings, with the consent of the prisoner and, where applicable, the State holding the prisoner. A transfer may not create a platform for an application for asylum or other legal proceeding in the United States. Decisions of the Attorney General respecting such transfers are to be made in conjunction with the Secretary of State. Title III of the bill is the ``Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act,'' S. 1235, which I introduced on July 15, 1999, with Senator Kohl and is cosponsored by Senator Lieberman. This bill has also been introduced in the House with bipartisan support as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058. This title of the bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to cover aliens who have engaged in acts of torture abroad. ``Torture'' is already defined in the Federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, in a law passed as part of the implementing legislation for the ``Convention Against Torture.'' Under this Convention, the United States has an affirmative duty to prosecute torturers within its boundaries regardless of their respective nationalities. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A (1994). This legislation would also provide statutory authorization for OSI, which currently owes its existence to an Attorney General order, and would expand its jurisdiction to authorize investigations, prosecutions, and removal of any alien who participated in torture and genocide abroad--not just Nazis. The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. OSI has worked, and it is time to update its mission. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and may best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions. Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission. Additional resources are authorized in the bill for OSI's expanded duties. These are important provisions that I have advocated for some time. They are helpful, solid law enforcement provisions. I thank my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his help in making this bill a reality. Working together, we were able to craft a bipartisan bill that will accomplish what all of us want, to make America a safer and more secure place. I ask that the attached sectional analysis of the bill be printed in the Record. The summary follows: Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act of 1999-- Section by Section Analysis title i--denying safe havens to international criminals Section 1. Extradition for Offenses Not Covered by a List Treaty This section allows the Attorney General to seek extradition of a person for specified crimes not covered by a treaty. Treaties negotiated many years ago specified the crimes for which extradition would be allowed, and developments in criminal activity have outpaced the ability of countries to renegotiate treaties to include newly developing criminal activity. Extradition would proceed as if the crime were covered by treaty, and the section sets forth detailed procedures and safeguards. Applicable crimes include crimes of violence, drug crimes, obstruction of justice, money laundering, fraud or theft involving over $100,000, counterfeiting over $100,000, conspiracy to commit any of these crimes, and sex crimes involving children. Section 2. Technical and Conforming Amendments This section amends related statutes to conform with Section 1. Section 3. Temporary Transfer of Persons in Custody for Prosecution This section allows a temporary transfer of a person from another country to the United States to stand trial where the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State determines that such transfer would be consistent with the international obligations of the United States. The section also allows for the transfer of a person in custody in the United States to a foreign country to stand trial after a similar determination by the Attorney General. Section 4. Prohibiting Fugitives From Benefiting From Fugitive Status This section adds a new section 2466 (Fugitive Disentitlement) to Title 28 to provide that a person cannot stay outside the United States, avoiding extradition, and at the same time participate as a party in a civil action over a related civil forfeiture claim. The Supreme Court recently decided that a previous judge-made rule to the same effect required a statutory basis. This section provides that basis. Section 5. Transfer of Foreign Person to Serve Sentences in Country of Origin This section permits transfer, on a case-by-case basis, of prisoners to their home country where such transfer is provided by treaty. Under this section the prisoner need not consent to the transfer. Section 6. Transit of Fugitives for Prosecution in Foreign Countries This section would provide a statutory basis for holding and transferring prisoners who are sent from one foreign country to another through United States airports, at the discretion of the Attorney General. The temporary presence in the United States would not be the basis for a claim for asylum. title II--promoting global cooperation in the fight against international crime Section 1. Streamlined Procedures for Execution of MLAT Requests This section permits United States courts involved in multi-district litigation to enforce mutual legal assistance treaties and other agreements to execute foreign requests for assistance in criminal matters in all districts involved in the litigation or request. Section 2. Temporary Transfer of Incarcerated Witnesses This section permits the United States, as a matter of reciprocity, to send persons in custody in the United States to a foreign country and to receive foreign prisoners to testify in judicial proceedings, with the consent of the prisoner and, where applicable, the State holding the prisoner. A transfer may not create a platform for an application for asylum or other legal proceeding in the United States. Decisions of the Attorney General respecting such transfers are to be made in conjunction with the Secretary of State. title III--anti-atrocity alien deportation Section 1. Inadmissibility and Removability of Aliens Who Have Committed Acts of Torture Abroad Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, and (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, are inadmissible to the United States and deportable. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E)(i) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The bill would amend these sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act by expanding the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to cover aliens who have engaged in acts of torture abroad. The United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment'' entered into force with respect to the United States on November 20, 1994. This Convention, and the implementing legislation, the Torture Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2340 et seq., includes the definition of ``torture'' incorporated in the bill and imposed an affirmative duty on the United States to prosecute torturers within its jurisdiction. Section 2. Establishment of the Office of Special Investigations Attorney General Civiletti established OSI in 1979 within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, consolidating within it all ``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851- 79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order. This section would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations within the Department of Justice with authorization to investigate, remove, denaturalize, or prosecute any alien who has participated in torture or genocide abroad. This would expand OSI's current authorized mission. Additional funds are authorized for these expanded duties to ensure that OSI fulfills its continuing obligations regarding Nazi war criminals.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Leahy of Vermont, a bill titled ``Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act of 1999.'' This is an important measure that I hope can move promptly through the Senate Judiciary Committee and through the Senate. The provisions contained in this bill are crucial in combating crime internationally. I believe that it will give law enforcement critical tools in more effectively pursuing fugitives and ware criminals. I thank my ranking member for his work on this matter. This bill incorporates in title III, his own bill dealing with war criminals and it is an important component of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the bill in the Record. [Data not available at time of printing.] Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with Senator Hatch a bill to give United States law enforcement agencies important tools to help them combat international crime. The ``Denying Safe Haven to International and War Criminals Act of 1999'' contains a number of provisions that I have long supported. Unfortunately, crime and terrorism directed at Americans and American interests abroad are part of our modern reality. Furthermore, organized criminal activity does not recognize national boundaries. With improvements in technology, criminals now can move about the world with ease. They can transfer funds with the push of a button, or use computers and credit card numbers to steal from American citizens and businesses from any spot on the globe. They can strike at Americans here and abroad. They can commit crimes abroad and flee quickly to another jurisdiction or country. The playing field keeps changing, and we need to change with it. This bill would help make needed modifications in our laws, not with sweeping changes but with thoughtful provisions carefully targeted at specific problems faced by law enforcement. We cannot stop international crime without international cooperation, and this bill gives additional tools to investigators and prosecutors to promote such cooperation, while narrowing the room for maneuver that international criminals and terrorists now enjoy. I initially introduced title I, section 4 of this bill, regarding fugitive disentitlement, on April 30, 1998, in the ``Money Laundering Enforcement and Combating Drugs in Prisons Act of 1998,'' S. 2011, with Senators Daschle, Kohl, Feinstein and Cleland. Again, on July 14, 1998, I introduced with Senator Biden, on behalf of the Administration, the ``International Crime Control Act of 1998,'' S. 2303, which contains most of the provisions set forth in this bill. Virtually all of the provisions in the bill were also included in another major anti-crime bill, the ``Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998,'' S. 2484, that I introduced on September 16, 1998, along with Senators Daschle, Biden, Moseley-Braun, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Mikulski, Bingaman, Reid, Murray, Dorgan, and Torricelli. In addition, Senator Hatch and I included title II, section 1 of this bill regarding streamlined procedures for MLAT requests in our ``International Crime and Anti-Terrorism Amendments of 1998'', S. 2536, which passed the Senate last October 15, 1998. We have drawn from these more comprehensive bills a set of discrete improvements that enjoy bipartisan support so that important provisions may be enacted promptly. Each of these provisions has been a law enforcement priority. Title I sets forth important proposals for combating international crime and denying safe havens to international criminals. In particular, section 1 would provide for extradition under certain circumstances for offenses not covered in a treaty or absent a treaty. Treaties negotiated many years ago specified the crimes for which extradition would be allowed. Developments in criminal activity, however, have outpaced the ability of countries to renegotiate treaties to include newly developing criminal activity. Under the bill, extradition would nevertheless proceed as if the crime were covered by a treaty for ``serious offenses,'' which are defined to include crimes of violence, drug crimes, bribery of public officials, obstruction of justice, money laundering, fraud or theft involving over $100,000, counterfeiting over $100,000, a conspiracy to commit any of these crimes, and sex crimes involving children. The section sets forth detailed procedures and safeguards for proceeding with extradition under these circumstances. Section 2 contains technical and conforming amendments. Section 3 would give the Attorney General authority to transfer a person in custody in the United States to a foreign country to stand trial where the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines that such transfer would be consistent with the international obligations of the United States. The section also allows for the transfer of a person in state custody in the United States to a foreign country to stand trial after a similar determination by the Attorney General and the consent of the State authorities. Similarly, the Attorney General is authorized to request the temporary transfer of a person in custody in a foreign country to face prosecution in a federal or state proceeding. Section 4 is designed to stop drug kingpins, terrorists and other international fugitives from using our courts to fight to keep the proceeds of the very crimes for which they are wanted. Criminals should not be able to use our courts at the same time they are evading our laws. Section 5 would permit the transfer of prisoners to their home country to serve their sentences, on a case-by-case basis, where such transfer is provided by treaty. Under this section, the prisoner need not consent to the transfer. Section 6 would provide a statutory basis for holding and transferring prisoners who are sent from one foreign country to another through United States airports, preventing them from claiming asylum while they are temporarily in the United States. Title II of the bill is designed to promote global cooperation in the fight against international crime. Specifically, section 1 would permit United States courts involved in multi-district litigation to enforce mutual legal assistance treaties and other agreements to execute foreign requests for assistance in criminal matters in all districts involved in the litigation. Section 2 outlines procedures for the temporary transfer of incarcerated witnesses. Specifically, the bill would permit the United States, as a matter of reciprocity, to send persons in custody in the United States to a foreign country and to receive foreign prisoners to testify in judicial proceedings, with the consent of the prisoner and, where applicable, the State holding the prisoner. A transfer may not create a platform for an application for asylum or other legal proceeding in the United States. Decisions of the Attorney General respecting such transfers are to be made in conjunction with the Secretary of State. Title III of the bill is the ``Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act,'' S. 1235, which I introduced on July 15, 1999, with Senator Kohl and is cosponsored by Senator Lieberman. This bill has also been introduced in the House with bipartisan support as H.R. 2642 and H.R. 3058. This title of the bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to expand the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to cover aliens who have engaged in acts of torture abroad. ``Torture'' is already defined in the Federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340, in a law passed as part of the implementing legislation for the ``Convention Against Torture.'' Under this Convention, the United States has an affirmative duty to prosecute torturers within its boundaries regardless of their respective nationalities. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A (1994). This legislation would also provide statutory authorization for OSI, which currently owes its existence to an Attorney General order, and would expand its jurisdiction to authorize investigations, prosecutions, and removal of any alien who participated in torture and genocide abroad--not just Nazis. The success of OSI in hunting Nazi war criminals demonstrates the effectiveness of centralized resources and expertise in these cases. OSI has worked, and it is time to update its mission. The knowledge of the people, politics and pathologies of particular regimes engaged in genocide and human rights abuses is often necessary for effective prosecutions of these cases and may best be accomplished by the concentrated efforts of a single office, rather than in piecemeal litigation around the country or in offices that have more diverse missions. Unquestionably, the need to bring Nazi war criminals to justice remains a matter of great importance. Funds would not be diverted from the OSI's current mission. Additional resources are authorized in the bill for OSI's expanded duties. These are important provisions that I have advocated for some time. They are helpful, solid law enforcement provisions. I thank my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his help in making this bill a reality. Working together, we were able to craft a bipartisan bill that will accomplish what all of us want, to make America a safer and more secure place. I ask that the attached sectional analysis of the bill be printed in the Record. The summary follows: Denying Safe Havens to International and War Criminals Act of 1999-- Section by Section Analysis title i--denying safe havens to international criminals Section 1. Extradition for Offenses Not Covered by a List Treaty This section allows the Attorney General to seek extradition of a person for specified crimes not covered by a treaty. Treaties negotiated many years ago specified the crimes for which extradition would be allowed, and developments in criminal activity have outpaced the ability of countries to renegotiate treaties to include newly developing criminal activity. Extradition would proceed as if the crime were covered by treaty, and the section sets forth detailed procedures and safeguards. Applicable crimes include crimes of violence, drug crimes, obstruction of justice, money laundering, fraud or theft involving over $100,000, counterfeiting over $100,000, conspiracy to commit any of these crimes, and sex crimes involving children. Section 2. Technical and Conforming Amendments This section amends related statutes to conform with Section 1. Section 3. Temporary Transfer of Persons in Custody for Prosecution This section allows a temporary transfer of a person from another country to the United States to stand trial where the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State determines that such transfer would be consistent with the international obligations of the United States. The section also allows for the transfer of a person in custody in the United States to a foreign country to stand trial after a similar determination by the Attorney General. Section 4. Prohibiting Fugitives From Benefiting From Fugitive Status This section adds a new section 2466 (Fugitive Disentitlement) to Title 28 to provide that a person cannot stay outside the United States, avoiding extradition, and at the same time participate as a party in a civil action over a related civil forfeiture claim. The Supreme Court recently decided that a previous judge-made rule to the same effect required a statutory basis. This section provides that basis. Section 5. Transfer of Foreign Person to Serve Sentences in Country of Origin This section permits transfer, on a case-by-case basis, of prisoners to their home country where such transfer is provided by treaty. Under this section the prisoner need not consent to the transfer. Section 6. Transit of Fugitives for Prosecution in Foreign Countries This section would provide a statutory basis for holding and transferring prisoners who are sent from one foreign country to another through United States airports, at the discretion of the Attorney General. The temporary presence in the United States would not be the basis for a claim for asylum. title II--promoting global cooperation in the fight against international crime Section 1. Streamlined Procedures for Execution of MLAT Requests This section permits United States courts involved in multi-district litigation to enforce mutual legal assistance treaties and other agreements to execute foreign requests for assistance in criminal matters in all districts involved in the litigation or request. Section 2. Temporary Transfer of Incarcerated Witnesses This section permits the United States, as a matter of reciprocity, to send persons in custody in the United States to a foreign country and to receive foreign prisoners to testify in judicial proceedings, with the consent of the prisoner and, where applicable, the State holding the prisoner. A transfer may not create a platform for an application for asylum or other legal proceeding in the United States. Decisions of the Attorney General respecting such transfers are to be made in conjunction with the Secretary of State. title III--anti-atrocity alien deportation Section 1. Inadmissibility and Removability of Aliens Who Have Committed Acts of Torture Abroad Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act provides that (i) participants in Nazi persecutions during the time period from March 23, 1933 to May 8, 1945, and (ii) aliens who engaged in genocide, are inadmissible to the United States and deportable. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(3)(E)(i) and Sec. 1227(a)(4)(D). The bill would amend these sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act by expanding the grounds for inadmissibility and deportation to cover aliens who have engaged in acts of torture abroad. The United Nations' ``Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment'' entered into force with respect to the United States on November 20, 1994. This Convention, and the implementing legislation, the Torture Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2340 et seq., includes the definition of ``torture'' incorporated in the bill and imposed an affirmative duty on the United States to prosecute torturers within its jurisdiction. Section 2. Establishment of the Office of Special Investigations Attorney General Civiletti established OSI in 1979 within the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, consolidating within it all ``investigative and litigation activities involving individuals, who prior to and during World War II, under the supervision of or in association with the Nazi government of Germany, its allies, and other affiliated [sic] governments, are alleged to have ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion.'' (Attorney Gen. Order No. 851- 79). The OSI's mission continues to be limited by that Attorney General Order. This section would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1103, by directing the Attorney General to establish an Office of Special Investigations within the Department of Justice with authorization to investigate, remove, denaturalize, or prosecute any alien who has participated in torture or genocide abroad. This would expand OSI's current authorized mission. Additional funds are authorized for these expanded duties to ensure that OSI fulfills its continuing obligations regarding Nazi war criminals.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week, the minority put the Senate in a take-it-or-leave, it position with respect to campaign finance reform. Using a parliamentary tactic that foreclosed other amendments from being offered, and then objecting to requests to take up other proposals, the proponents of S. 1593, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, got what they wanted--a vote on an unamended, and therefore unimproved, version of their bill. Mr. President, there are many of us who agree that we should make changes in our campaign finance laws; but, we disagree that we should compromise the First Amendment to do it. Today, I am introducing the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' a bill that represents my thinking on campaign finance reform. Many pundits and many colleagues here in Congress perceive that the American people think that our government has become too fraught with special interest influence, bought with special interest campaign contributions. We have all heard voters voice their frustrations about government. Given some of the games we play up here that affect necessary legislation--such as the bankruptcy bill to name just one example--this attitude is not surprising or unwarranted. Yet, it may be a mistake to interpret these frustrations as widespread cynicism about the influence of special interests rather than about the government's inability to enact tax relief, inertia on long-term Social Security and Medicare reforms, and the tug-of-war on budget and appropriations. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that maintaining the integrity of our election system and citizens' confidence in it has to be among our highest priorities. The question is: what is the right reform? There are a number of flaws in the McCain-Feingold bill. The principal one is that the McCain-Feingold attempts, unconstitutionally, I believe, to gag political parties. What Senators McCain and Feingold forgot is that political parties are organizational instruments for promoting a political philosophy and ideas. To ban the ability of parties to get their messages out to the people is an infringement on free speech. The proposal I am introducing today has two main goals: (1) to open up our campaign finances to the light of day, thus allowing citizens to make their own judgments about how much influence is too much; and (2) to expand opportunities for individuals to participate financially in elections, thus decreasing the reliance on special interest money in campaigns. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' would require all candidates and political committees to disclose every contribution they receive and every expenditure they make over $200 within 14 days on a publicly accessible website. This means people will not have to wade through FEC bureaucracy to get this information, and the information will be continuously updated. People should be able to compare the source of contributions with votes cast by the candidate. They can decide for themselves which donations are rewards for faithfulness to a principle of representation of constituents and which contributions might be a quid pro quo for special favors. Further, my proposal would encourage--not require--non-party organizations to disclose expenditures in a constitutionally acceptable manner the funds that they devote to political activity. Organizations that chose to file voluntary reports with the FEC would make individual donors to their PACs eligible for a tax deduction of up to $100. This provision is designed to encourage voluntary disclosure of expenditures of organizational soft money. Those organizations that did so would be shedding light on campaign finance not because they have to, but because it furthers the cause of an informed democracy. An article in the Investor's Business Daily quoted John Ferejohn of Stanford University as writing that ``nothing strikes the student of public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of information most people possess about politics.'' The article goes on to suggest that ``But many reforms, far from helping, would cut the flow of political information to an already ill- informed public.'' Citing a study by Stephen Ansolabehere of MIT and Shanto Iyengar of UCLA, which demonstrates that political advertising ``enlightens voters,'' the IBD concludes that ``well-informed voters are the key to a well-functioning democracy.'' [Investor's Business Daily; 9/20/99] Morton Kondracke editorializes in the July 30, 1999, Washington Times, ``Full disclosure would be valuable on its merits--letting voters know exactly who is paying for what in election campaigns. Right now, campaign money is going increasingly underground.'' This is precisely the issue my amendment addresses. My amendment, rather than prohibit the American people from having certain information produced by political parties, it would open up information about campaign finance. Knowledge is power. My proposal is predicted on giving the people more power. Additionally, my legislation will raise the limits on individual participation in elections. Special interest PACs sprung up as a response to the limitations on individual participation in elections. The contribution limit for individuals is $1000 and it has not been adjusted since it was enacted in 1974. Why are these limits problematic? The answer is that if a candidate can raise $5000 in one phone call to a PAC, why make 5 phone calls hoping to raise the same amount from individuals? My legislation proposes to make individuals at least as important as PACs. My bill also raises the 25-year-old limits on donations to parties and PACs. It raises the current limits on what both individuals and PACs can give to political parties. As the League of Women Voters has correctly pointed out, the activities of political parties are already regulated, whereas the political activities of other organizations are not. If we are concerned about the influence of ``soft'' money--that is, money in campaigns that is not regulated and not disclosed--and cannot be regulated or subject to disclosure under our Constitution-- then we ought to encourage--not punish--greater political participation through our party structures. We need to put individuals back as equal players in the campaign finance arena. Special interests--both PACs and soft money--have become important in large part because current law limits are not only a quarter century old, but are also higher for special interests than individuals. Some people have argued that raising the limits on donations to political candidates and parties exacerbates the problem. Their concern is that there is too much money in politics, not that there is too little. I will respond by saying that, first, all individual donations would have to be disclosed. The philosophy of the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act'' is that people have a right to make their own determinations about whether a contribution is tainted or not. Second, the higher contribution limits for hard money donations make individual citizens more important relative to special interests in campaign finance. If one goal of campaign finance reform is to reduce the influence of special interests, then raising the limits on individual contributions is a way to do it. Third, most of the increases in the bill are merely an adjustment for 25 years of inflation. While the contribution limits have remained unchanged, the costs of running a campaign have increased. The higher levels reflect reality. Most importantly, while money is an essential ingredient in a campaign, and is necessary to get one's message to the voters, the real influence in campaigns is the public. Even if wealthy John Smith gives thousands of dollars to a party or candidate, the fact is that he only gets one vote on election day. Candidates and parties have to persuade people to their way of thinking. All the money in the world cannot compensate for a dearth of principles or unpopular ideas. The McCain-Feingold approach represents a constitutionally specious barrier on free speech. It would, by law, prohibit political parties from using soft money to communicate with voters. Prohibitions are restrictions on freedom. My bill, in contrast, does not prohibit anything. It does not restrict the flow of information to citizens. On the contrary, my proposal recognizes that citizens are the ultimate arbiters in elections. They should have access to as much information as possible about the candidates and the positions they represent. Thus far, the information that is available to voters about campaign finance has been difficult to obtain and untimely. My bill, by empowering voters with this information, will put the role of special interests where it rightfully belongs--in the eye of the beholder, not the federal government.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week, the minority put the Senate in a take-it-or-leave, it position with respect to campaign finance reform. Using a parliamentary tactic that foreclosed other amendments from being offered, and then objecting to requests to take up other proposals, the proponents of S. 1593, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, got what they wanted--a vote on an unamended, and therefore unimproved, version of their bill. Mr. President, there are many of us who agree that we should make changes in our campaign finance laws; but, we disagree that we should compromise the First Amendment to do it. Today, I am introducing the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' a bill that represents my thinking on campaign finance reform. Many pundits and many colleagues here in Congress perceive that the American people think that our government has become too fraught with special interest influence, bought with special interest campaign contributions. We have all heard voters voice their frustrations about government. Given some of the games we play up here that affect necessary legislation--such as the bankruptcy bill to name just one example--this attitude is not surprising or unwarranted. Yet, it may be a mistake to interpret these frustrations as widespread cynicism about the influence of special interests rather than about the government's inability to enact tax relief, inertia on long-term Social Security and Medicare reforms, and the tug-of-war on budget and appropriations. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that maintaining the integrity of our election system and citizens' confidence in it has to be among our highest priorities. The question is: what is the right reform? There are a number of flaws in the McCain-Feingold bill. The principal one is that the McCain-Feingold attempts, unconstitutionally, I believe, to gag political parties. What Senators McCain and Feingold forgot is that political parties are organizational instruments for promoting a political philosophy and ideas. To ban the ability of parties to get their messages out to the people is an infringement on free speech. The proposal I am introducing today has two main goals: (1) to open up our campaign finances to the light of day, thus allowing citizens to make their own judgments about how much influence is too much; and (2) to expand opportunities for individuals to participate financially in elections, thus decreasing the reliance on special interest money in campaigns. The legislation I am introducing today, the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' would require all candidates and political committees to disclose every contribution they receive and every expenditure they make over $200 within 14 days on a publicly accessible website. This means people will not have to wade through FEC bureaucracy to get this information, and the information will be continuously updated. People should be able to compare the source of contributions with votes cast by the candidate. They can decide for themselves which donations are rewards for faithfulness to a principle of representation of constituents and which contributions might be a quid pro quo for special favors. Further, my proposal would encourage--not require--non-party organizations to disclose expenditures in a constitutionally acceptable manner the funds that they devote to political activity. Organizations that chose to file voluntary reports with the FEC would make individual donors to their PACs eligible for a tax deduction of up to $100. This provision is designed to encourage voluntary disclosure of expenditures of organizational soft money. Those organizations that did so would be shedding light on campaign finance not because they have to, but because it furthers the cause of an informed democracy. An article in the Investor's Business Daily quoted John Ferejohn of Stanford University as writing that ``nothing strikes the student of public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of information most people possess about politics.'' The article goes on to suggest that ``But many reforms, far from helping, would cut the flow of political information to an already ill- informed public.'' Citing a study by Stephen Ansolabehere of MIT and Shanto Iyengar of UCLA, which demonstrates that political advertising ``enlightens voters,'' the IBD concludes that ``well-informed voters are the key to a well-functioning democracy.'' [Investor's Business Daily; 9/20/99] Morton Kondracke editorializes in the July 30, 1999, Washington Times, ``Full disclosure would be valuable on its merits--letting voters know exactly who is paying for what in election campaigns. Right now, campaign money is going increasingly underground.'' This is precisely the issue my amendment addresses. My amendment, rather than prohibit the American people from having certain information produced by political parties, it would open up information about campaign finance. Knowledge is power. My proposal is predicted on giving the people more power. Additionally, my legislation will raise the limits on individual participation in elections. Special interest PACs sprung up as a response to the limitations on individual participation in elections. The contribution limit for individuals is $1000 and it has not been adjusted since it was enacted in 1974. Why are these limits problematic? The answer is that if a candidate can raise $5000 in one phone call to a PAC, why make 5 phone calls hoping to raise the same amount from individuals? My legislation proposes to make individuals at least as important as PACs. My bill also raises the 25-year-old limits on donations to parties and PACs. It raises the current limits on what both individuals and PACs can give to political parties. As the League of Women Voters has correctly pointed out, the activities of political parties are already regulated, whereas the political activities of other organizations are not. If we are concerned about the influence of ``soft'' money--that is, money in campaigns that is not regulated and not disclosed--and cannot be regulated or subject to disclosure under our Constitution-- then we ought to encourage--not punish--greater political participation through our party structures. We need to put individuals back as equal players in the campaign finance arena. Special interests--both PACs and soft money--have become important in large part because current law limits are not only a quarter century old, but are also higher for special interests than individuals. Some people have argued that raising the limits on donations to political candidates and parties exacerbates the problem. Their concern is that there is too much money in politics, not that there is too little. I will respond by saying that, first, all individual donations would have to be disclosed. The philosophy of the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act'' is that people have a right to make their own determinations about whether a contribution is tainted or not. Second, the higher contribution limits for hard money donations make individual citizens more important relative to special interests in campaign finance. If one goal of campaign finance reform is to reduce the influence of special interests, then raising the limits on individual contributions is a way to do it. Third, most of the increases in the bill are merely an adjustment for 25 years of inflation. While the contribution limits have remained unchanged, the costs of running a campaign have increased. The higher levels reflect reality. Most importantly, while money is an essential ingredient in a campaign, and is necessary to get one's message to the voters, the real influence in campaigns is the public. Even if wealthy John Smith gives thousands of dollars to a party or candidate, the fact is that he only gets one vote on election day. Candidates and parties have to persuade people to their way of thinking. All the money in the world cannot compensate for a dearth of principles or unpopular ideas. The McCain-Feingold approach represents a constitutionally specious barrier on free speech. It would, by law, prohibit political parties from using soft money to communicate with voters. Prohibitions are restrictions on freedom. My bill, in contrast, does not prohibit anything. It does not restrict the flow of information to citizens. On the contrary, my proposal recognizes that citizens are the ultimate arbiters in elections. They should have access to as much information as possible about the candidates and the positions they represent. Thus far, the information that is available to voters about campaign finance has been difficult to obtain and untimely. My bill, by empowering voters with this information, will put the role of special interests where it rightfully belongs--in the eye of the beholder, not the federal government.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill entitled the ``Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999.'' This bill would restore a 30-year-old practice under which a single court, to which several actions with common issues of fact were transferred for pre-trial proceedings, could retain the multidistrict actions for trial. This bill is necessary to correct a statutory deficiency pointed out by the Supreme Court in Lexecon v. Milbert Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1997). It is an important bill for judicial efficiency and for encouraging settlements of multidistrict cases. And I am pleased that the Judicial Conference and the Multidistrict Litigation Panel support this bill. Moreover, I am pleased that this is a bipartisan bill with Senators Leahy, Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, and Schumer as cosponsors. Section 1407(a) of title 28, United States Code, authorizes the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer civil actions with common questions of fact ``to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.'' It also requires the Panel, on or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings, to remand any such actions to the district courts in which they were filed. However, for the 30 years prior to the Lexecon decision, federal courts followed the practice of allowing the single transferee court, upon the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, to transfer all of the actions to itself under the general venue provisions contained in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404. This had the practical advantage of allowing the single transferee court to retain for trial the multiple actions for which it had conducted pretrial proceedings. This greatly enhanced judicial efficiency and encouraged settlements. In Lexecon, however, the Supreme Court held that the literal terms of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 did not allow the single transferee court to retain the multidistrict actions after concluding pretrial proceedings. Instead, the Court held, the plain terms of Sec. 1407 required the Panel to remand the actions back to the multiple federal district courts in which the actions originated. The Court noted that to keep the practice of allowing the single transferee court to retain the actions after conducting the pretrial proceedings, Congress would have to change the statute. The bill would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to restore the traditional practice of allowing the single transferee court to retain the multiple actions for trial after conducting pretrial proceedings. The bill also includes a provision under which the single transferee court would transfer the multiple actions back to the federal district courts from which they came for a determination of compensatory damages if the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties so require. Mr. President, this bill is very similar to the first portion of a H.R. 2112 that passed the House of Representatives under the effective leadership of Congressman Sensenbrenner. H.R. 2112 includes both the ``Lexecon fix'' and a provision to streamline catastrophe litigation. I believe that both provisions would make good law. However, the Lexecon matter constitutes an emergency for the Multidistrict Litigation Panel, which has a large number of these cases poised for remand if the retention practice is not restored. The catastrophe legislation would constitute an important improvement, but is not an emergency matter. Given this situation, I propose that we pass only the ``Lexecon fix'' during this session by unanimous consent and work to pass the catastrophe legislation during the second session. Senators Leahy, Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, Schumer, and I look forward to passing the Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999 very quickly. The Judiciary awaits our prompt action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, after 25 years of service to the country, the State of Vermont, and this body, Senator Leahy has just cast his 10,000th vote. I should note that this milestone vote was cast in relation to substantively dubious campaign finance reform legislation. I can't say that I blame him for supporting the legislation given the fact that his Republican opponents in his last race spent no money and actually endorsed him. All kidding aside, this is an occasion to reflect on Senator Leahy's impressive career. In 1974 Senator Leahy joined this body as the youngest Senator ever elected to represent the state of Vermont. He was the first Democrat elected to the Senate from Vermont in more than a century. If political commentators thought that voting in Pat Leahy was a one-time event, they were wrong. Senator Leahy is currently serving his fifth 6 year term. I have had the privilege of working closely with Senator Leahy for all of my years on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where I serve as chairman and he is my partner, the ranking member of that committee. I have appreciated and benefited from his experience and expertise in may areas. When Senator Leahy came to the Senate he was already an expert in the area of law enforcement having been named one of the three outstanding prosecutors in United States in 1974. We on the Judiciary Committee have looked to Senator Leahy on these issues. On high-technology issues, as you all know, Senator Leahy prides himself in his leadership and knowledge of the issues. His interest and expertise in these areas have helped move the Judiciary Committee forward in tackling these important issues. We who know Pat Leahy know that he has remained young at heart, as evidenced by his continued devotion to the Grateful Dead. But his devotion to the arts and his devotion to work in this body do not compare to Senator Leahy's devotion to his wife, his children, and recent grandson. So, in conclusion, I want to pay tribute to Senator Leahy and his wonderful family on this remarkable day which symbolizes years of hard work and dedication for which this institution and this country are grateful. While Members of the senate differ from time to time, we can all appreciate and admire the accomplishment of casting 10,000 votes. so when I leave the floor today, I'll tell Senator Leahy, ``Pat you were, `Built to Last' and while you may be getting up there in years, it's `just a touch of gray. Kind of suits you anyway. That was all I have to say. It's all right.' ''

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill entitled the ``Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999.'' This bill would restore a 30-year-old practice under which a single court, to which several actions with common issues of fact were transferred for pre-trial proceedings, could retain the multidistrict actions for trial. This bill is necessary to correct a statutory deficiency pointed out by the Supreme Court in Lexecon v. Milbert Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1997). It is an important bill for judicial efficiency and for encouraging settlements of multidistrict cases. And I am pleased that the Judicial Conference and the Multidistrict Litigation Panel support this bill. Moreover, I am pleased that this is a bipartisan bill with Senators Leahy, Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, and Schumer as cosponsors. Section 1407(a) of title 28, United States Code, authorizes the Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer civil actions with common questions of fact ``to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.'' It also requires the Panel, on or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings, to remand any such actions to the district courts in which they were filed. However, for the 30 years prior to the Lexecon decision, federal courts followed the practice of allowing the single transferee court, upon the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, to transfer all of the actions to itself under the general venue provisions contained in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404. This had the practical advantage of allowing the single transferee court to retain for trial the multiple actions for which it had conducted pretrial proceedings. This greatly enhanced judicial efficiency and encouraged settlements. In Lexecon, however, the Supreme Court held that the literal terms of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 did not allow the single transferee court to retain the multidistrict actions after concluding pretrial proceedings. Instead, the Court held, the plain terms of Sec. 1407 required the Panel to remand the actions back to the multiple federal district courts in which the actions originated. The Court noted that to keep the practice of allowing the single transferee court to retain the actions after conducting the pretrial proceedings, Congress would have to change the statute. The bill would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to restore the traditional practice of allowing the single transferee court to retain the multiple actions for trial after conducting pretrial proceedings. The bill also includes a provision under which the single transferee court would transfer the multiple actions back to the federal district courts from which they came for a determination of compensatory damages if the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties so require. Mr. President, this bill is very similar to the first portion of a H.R. 2112 that passed the House of Representatives under the effective leadership of Congressman Sensenbrenner. H.R. 2112 includes both the ``Lexecon fix'' and a provision to streamline catastrophe litigation. I believe that both provisions would make good law. However, the Lexecon matter constitutes an emergency for the Multidistrict Litigation Panel, which has a large number of these cases poised for remand if the retention practice is not restored. The catastrophe legislation would constitute an important improvement, but is not an emergency matter. Given this situation, I propose that we pass only the ``Lexecon fix'' during this session by unanimous consent and work to pass the catastrophe legislation during the second session. Senators Leahy, Grassley, Torricelli, Kohl, Schumer, and I look forward to passing the Multidistrict Jurisdiction Act of 1999 very quickly. The Judiciary awaits our prompt action. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, last Thursday, I listened aghast to the exchanges among Senators McCain, Bennett, Feingold, McConnell, and Gorton concerning the implication that an appropriation was provided to a project in my home in exchange for campaign money. While my junior colleague from Utah made the case commendably, I do feel compelled to respond for myself since I have actively sought and promoted these appropriations for my State. The Senator from Arizona seems to have confused representation with corruption. Since when does standing up for one's State, its local governments, or its people constitute corruption? I was under the impression that this is what we were sent here to do. The Senator from Arizona is way out of line when he suggests that my colleague, Senator Bennett, has done even one thing even remotely improper in advocating for our State and for the help necessary to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. He should include me in that accusation as well. My definition of ``pork'' is an appropriation that is unjustified (i.e., unneeded), not meritorious (i.e., the proposal is poorly conceived or too expensive), or it is solely to benefit the entity receiving the appropriation. The project that the Senator has labeled as ``pork'' is none of those things. First, Salt Lake City was America's choice to host the Olympic games. These are America's games. There are certain things we are going to need help with and that can appropriately be done by the federal government. The so-called pork barrel project he has cited was for Ogden, UT, for water, sewer, and storm water improvements. The Senator from Arizona has intimated on his website that this project received appropriated funds because members of the Senate--and I presume he means me and Senator Bennett--have been improperly influenced by soft money. I wonder if my colleague has actually thought about that. Does he really believe that Ogden, UT, is so tremendously wealthy that it can make campaign contributions or that its citizens would even countenance such a thing to achieve this project grant? Does the Senator from Arizona hear how ridiculous this sounds? I have thought, while listening to the Senator's remarks, that we have been debating that old question about the tree falling in the forest. If a dollar flows into a campaign chest, but no one takes any action in relation to it, does that make it corrupt? Is acceptance of any campaign contribution de facto corrupt? That certainly seems to be what Senator McCain is saying. I was stunned by the personal nature of the Senator's remarks last week, particularly as regards my colleague Senator Bennett, and most particularly since Senator McCain could not seem to cite any specific evidence that this line item for sewer improvements was included as a payoff for a soft money--or hard money for that matter--contribution. No, the best he could do is to say that the appropriation was not authorized. I am the chairman of the Judiciary Committee--it is an authorizing committee. And, I can't tell you the number of times I have debated jurisdiction with the Senator from Arizona. I am well aware of how strongly he feels about the authorization process. I agree with him on that. But give me a break. The Judiciary Committee is not going to authorize every individual grant to a law enforcement agency. I can't believe the Senator wants to authorize $2 million for water, sewer, and storm water improvements in Ogden, UT. And, I suspect that, if he were to be a spectator at the Olympic downhill in 2002, and he needed to use the restroom, he would appreciate those sewer improvements. Moreover, the authorization process is not the good housekeeping stamp of approval. If campaign contributions can taint the appropriations process, they can also taint the authorization process. The logic of the Senator from Arizona is false on this point. I will second the remarks made by Senator McConnell with respect to the tenor of this debate. One would have hoped that we could debate our respective ideas about campaign finance reform without getting into accusing one another of soft money-for-pork deals. But, I hope my colleagues will listen carefully when the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin attempt to smooth things over by saying, ``we're not accusing you; it's the system.'' If these colleagues are not accusing us, then why do we need this bill? If members have not engaged in abuses--then this bill has no basis. When I was a youngster I remember being terribly irritated when the teacher made the whole class stay after school because a couple of my classmates misbehaved. I remember too that sometimes the punishment was that the rules governing library privileges or playground activity became stricter because certain classmates broke the old ones. Today, our Government reacts much the same way when there have been abuses of freedome--we want to legislate a means of prevention. We want to tighten up the rules. Because the people are justifiably outraged at abuses, particularly at breaches of their trust, we feel compelled to respond. We think if we rail loudly in sympathy with their outrage and introduce bills to address the cause of it, the people will think we are above it and have nothing to do with the dirty business. But, me thinks some doth protest too much. (So there will be no misunderstanding, I refer here to the Clinton administration which has yet to sanction the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate the alleged campaign finance violations involving contributions to the Democratic National Committee.) At the end of the day, the people will not be fooled. While there is no doubt in my mind that those who favor the McCain-Feingold legislation do so with the purest of motives, and I respect their views, I believe that what the people really want is not new law, but honest politicians. And, that, I say to my colleagues, cannot be legislated. Moreover, to the extent that there have been abuses of campaign integrity, let alone existing law, the problem is not the lack of regulation, but the violation of it. Our efforts might be better spent in toughening both public and private oversight, enforcement, and penalties on the offenders. But, we are instead debating legislation that would impose significant new regulations on the way we undertake the most fundamental of all American freedoms--elections for public office. What on earth are we doing? Why are we even contemplating such sweeping changes--changes that would inevitably dampen free speech in our country? Changes that would damage the ``checks and balances'' that are inherent in our two-party system? Well, in light of recent abuses of freedom in campaign fundraising and in light of what we politicians perceive to be mounting dissatisfaction among the electorate, we are debating a proposal for a new law. That'll fix it. We will all put out our press releases. We will congratulate each other on our so-called ``reform'' legislation. And, if it's a ``reform'' bill, it must be good, right? With all due respect to my colleagues Senators McCain and Feingold, who have been working on this legislation for a long time and who I know are sincerely dedicated to improving our campaign process, I must say that, if we pass their bill, we will deliver broad-based reforms which we perceive to be popular at the moment. But, we will also be fundamentally changing the relationship between those running for public office and those who elect them for the long term. We will be imposing significantly more regulation governing who can give what to whom as well as how support can be given and how it can be received. Let me comment briefly on this relationship. We all understand it--or we should. When we throw our hats in the ring for public office, we do so because we believe we have ideas and a point of view that would benefit our home state constituents and our country. And, I think it is safe to say that we don't do it for the money--and we have pretty well ``deperked'' this place as well. But, our success depends on the support of others. Our candidacies all began in someone's office or living room. There may have been 3, 5, 10, 15 people in the room. The first order of business was to get our views and ideas before the people with the hope that our platform would appeal to enough people that they would join our bandwagon. How do you grow a campaign? First, people have to know who you are. So, you print some posters and campaign buttons. I might add that when I first ran in 1976, having never held public office before and running against a 3-term incumbent senator, I needed a lot of signs. Then, since you can't really get much substantive information on a yard sign or button, you need some brochures. You need to put out some press releases. You need to buy some TV and radio advertising. Assuming you get some positive response from the people to your views, you will need to hire some staff to organize volunteer efforts and precincts. Later on, you will need to have some phone banks and a get-out-the-vote program. All of this requires money--that people who believe in your candidacy donate to your campaign. This is not money that is taxed and apportioned by some governmental entity. It is money voluntarily given because, in giving it, people are expressing their preferences for those who will represent them. It could be one dollar or a thousand dollars, but the act of contributing to a candidate for public office is an exercise of political freedom. Now, the McCain-Feingold bill, for all of its good intentions, fails this crucial test: it imposes new restrictions on how people can participate financially in campaigns. Previous incarnations of the McCain-Feingold bill would have outlawed all soft money contributions and issue advocacy by special interest groups. The argument goes that sophisticated organizations are manipulating candidates and elections by donating large amounts of money. And, the argument goes further that this manipulation is poisoning the political process for all citizens. So-called coffees at the White House, nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, receptions at Buddhist temples, fundraising from taxpayer-maintained territory, specious connections to foreign governments--that is what has affected people's faith in the electoral process. It isn't the direct mail letter, the cocktail reception, or the $10 per person summer weinie roast. People are pretty savvy. They know we have to raise the money to run, and they know it's not cheap. But, this year, Senators McCain and Feingold have apparently accepted that their proposed ban was blatantly unconstitutional. They have opted for a half-ban--a ban on soft money contributions from political parties, but not on non-party organizations. Let's be clear about one thing: political parties are already regulated by law and regulation. These contributions and expenditures are already controlled. The Republican or Democratic National Committees cannot so much as buy a legal pad with 100 percent soft money. This ban on party soft money merely elevates the importance of special interest soft money, which Senators McCain and Feingold have declared to be society's biggest evil. The League of Women Voters, which previously supported the McCain-Feingold bill, has now asked Senators to oppose it because it not only fails to correct the problem of soft money influence as they see it, but exacerbates it. Additionally, this half-ban on soft money from political parties and its concomitant increase in the importance of special interest groups, serves to weaken our political parties. I recognize that many Americans are frustrated with both parties-- and, I admit, often for good reason. But, the fact is that a strong two-party system is what keeps American government working. Nations with multiparty systems often have extreme difficulty finding consensus and are plagued with frequent reversals in ministerial leadership, national policy, and unstable markets given political uncertainty. The American two-party system is a healthy competition of ideas and viewpoints. And, national parties should not be curtailed in their efforts to build their state and local infrastructures and to support their slates of candidates. A ban on the ability of national parties to send money to state and local parties and to candidates is like telling a major league baseball team that it cannot support its farm teams or give a bonus to its promising players. Last, but certainly not least, the revised McCain-Feingold bill remains constitutionally specious. Despite the sponsors recognition that the ban on all soft money violated free speech rights under the Supreme Court's decision ion Buckley v. Valeo, the half-ban still skates on very thin ice. The Court stated: The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not the government but the people--individually as citizens and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. But, the bottomline for today is that, quite simply, political parties are entitled to promote their views. The McCain-Feingold bill would compromise that right. Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts, balanced budgets, and health care have all been the subject of issue advertising. And, neither Republicans nor Democrats should be ``gagged'' by the provisions of this bill. Since a political party exists to promote a particular viewpoint or philosophy of government, the McCain-Feingold proposal quite simply infringes on its right to do so. But, unlike my school teacher's withholding recess, the McCain- Feingold proposal is not a simple trade-off of privileges for accountability. It asks Americans to exchange a fundamental freedom, which is coveted throughout the world, for the vague promise of curtailing the influence of special interests in elections. But, here again, the McCain-Feingold proposal misses the mark. Who are the special interests? I submit that the ``special interests are us.'' One man's greedy special interest is another man's organization standing up for truth and the American way. It is impossible for this Congress--or any Congress--to make this distinction. The prohibition on party soft money suggested by the McCain-Feingold bill does not even allow the people to exercise their own judgments about the propriety of an expenditure or even about the candidates or the issue. It simply outlaws soft money activity out of hand. Some have said to me, ``But this is a bipartisan bill. It is a good compromise.'' My response must be that just because a measure is bipartisan and called ``reform'' does not make it good. Moreover, I remind my colleagues that the original plaintiffs in this suit included James Buckley, the conservative Senator from New York and Eugene McCarthy, liberal former Senator from Minnesota. The diverse coalition of groups who have led the opposition to previous versions of McCain-Feingold include the National Right to Life Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union. In my view, Mr. President, this is not campaign finance reform. No legislation, certainly nothing called ``reform,'' should leave the people with less freedom. Let's look at this issue. Many pundits and many colleagues here in Congress perceive that the American people think that our government has become too fraught with special interest influence, bought with special interest campaign contributions. We have all heard voters voice their frustrations about government. Given some of the games we play up here that affect necessary legislation--such as the bankruptcy bill to name just one example--this attitude is not surprising or unwarranted. It may be a mistake to interpret these frustrations as widespread cynicism about the influence of special interests rather than about the government's inability to enact tax relief, inertia on long-term Social Security and Medicare reforms, and the tug-of-war on budget and appropriations. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that maintaining the integrity of our election system and citizens' confidence in it has to be among our highest priorities. The question is: what is the right reform? The best way to reform our campaign finance system is to open it up to the light of day and to allow citizens to make the judgments about how much influence is too much. For example, some people may believe that a single dollar from a tobacco PAC, an environmental lobby, or the AFL-CIO is too much. For others, such contributions may not be as much of a concern. Under a system of more prompt, user-friendly disclosure, people can compare the source of contributions with votes cast by the candidate. They can decide for themselves which donations are rewards for faithfulness to a principle and representation of constituents and which contributions might be a quid pro quo for special favors. I had planned to offer a substitute amendment to S. 1593. I called my proposal the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act.'' It would require all candidates and political committees to disclose every contribution they receive and every expenditure they make over $200 within 14 days on a publicly accessible website. This means people will not have to wade through FEC bureaucracy to get this information, and the information will be continuously updated. Further, my proposal would encourage--not require--non-party organizations to disclose expenditures in a constitutionally acceptable manner the funds that they devote to political activity. Organizations that chose to file voluntary reports with the FEC would make individual donors to their PACs eligible for a tax deduction of up to $100. This provision is designed to encourage voluntary disclosure of expenditures of organizational soft money. Those organizations that did so would be shedding light on campaign finance not because they have to, but because it furthers the cause of an informed democracy. An article in the Investor's Business Daily quoted John Ferejohn of Stanford University as writing that ``nothing strikes the student of public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of information most people possess about politics.'' The article goes on to suggest that ``many reforms, far from helping, would cut the flow of political information to an already ill-informed public.'' Citing a study by Stephen Ansolabehere of MIT and Shanto Iyengar of UCLA, which demonstrates that political advertising ``enlightens voters,'' the IBD concludes that ``well-informed voters are the key to a well-functioning democracy.'' [Investor's Business Daily; 9/20/99] Morton Kondracke editorializes in the July 30, 1999, Washington Times, ``Full disclosure would be valuable on its merits--letting voters know exactly who is paying for what in election campaigns. Right now, campaign money is going increasingly underground.'' This is precisely the issue my amendment addresses. My amendment, rather than prohibit the American people from having certain information produced by political parties, it would open up information about campaign finance. Knowledge is power. My proposal is predicated on giving the people more power. Additionally, my legislation will raise the limits on individual participation in elections. Special interest PACs sprung up as a response to the limitations on individual participation in elections. The contribution limit for individuals is $1000 and it has not been adjusted since it was enacted in 1974. Why are these limits problematic? The answer is that if a candidate can raise $5000 in one phone call to a PAC, why make 5 phone calls hoping to raise the same amount from individuals? My legislation proposes to make individuals at least as important as PACs. My bill also raises the 25-year-old limits on donations to parties and PACs. It raises the current limits on what both individuals and PACs can give to political parties. As the League of Women Voters has correctly pointed out, the activities of political parties are already regulated, whereas the political activities of other organizations are not. If we are concerned about the influence of ``soft'' money--that is, money in campaigns that is not regulated and not disclosed--and cannot be regulated or subject to disclosure under our Constitution--then we ought to encourage--not punish--greater political participation through our party structures. We need to put individuals back as equal players in the campaign finance arena. Special interests--both PACs and soft money--have become important in large part because current law limits are not only a quarter century old, but are also higher for special interests than individuals. The McCain-Feingold approach represents a constitutionally specious barrier to free speech. It would, by law, prohibit political parties from using soft money to communicate with voters. My amendment, in contrast, does not prohibit anything. It does not restrict the flow of information to citizens--it does not restrict freedom. On the contrary, my amendment recognizes that citizens are the ultimate arbiters in elections. They should have access to as much information as possible about the candidates and the positions they represent. Thus far, the information that is available to voters about campaign finance has been difficult to obtain and untimely. My amendment, by empowering votes with this information, will put the role of special interests where it rightfully belongs--in the eye of the beholder, not the federal government. I regret very much that Senator Daschle has elected to use this parliamentary tactic--filling the amendment tree and objecting to consideration of other amendments--to foreclose all other amendments. He has put the Senate in a take-it-or-leave-it situation. Some of us had ideas for amendments to the McCain-Feingold bill--or, such as the ``Citizens' Right to Know Act,'' a proposal for a complete substitute. The opportunity for amendments, however, has been scuttled. The proponents evidently believe they have done such a marvelous job that they refused to consider any other amendment when Senator McConnell asked consent to do so last Friday. The proponents of McCain-Feingold will no doubt hit the airwaves and say that the opponents do not support reform. They will say that we voted to keep the status quo, that we support the so-called insidious corruption of soft money. These would be false statements. Many of us do support reform--we simply want it to be fair and respectful of constitutional protections. There is no righteousness whatsoever in voting for a reform bill that limits freedom. I would have liked to offer my proposal. I would have liked the Senate to consider the merits of its approach. But, inasmuch as I will not be able to do that, and other senators who may have supported my alternative will not be able to vote for it, we are left with the Reid amendment, which does not even contain the amendments offered by the Senator from Kentucky to beef up internal procedures for accountability. We are left with an unamended, constitutionally flawed piece of legislation that has the effect of further bureaucratizing our electoral processes and gagging our two most prominent political organizations, thus shielding the people from information as if they are incapable of making evaluations on their own. If this is ``reform,'' it is not reform worthy of support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to submit a resolution designating the week beginning on November 21, 1999, and the week beginning on November 19, 2000, as ``National Family Week.'' Such a resolution has been passed in every Congress since 1976, and I am proud to support this tradition of honoring America's families. The family is the backbone of our free nation and vital to the prosperity of the United States. We have all seen and, hopefully, have felt the tremendous impact a supportive family makes in the life of an individual. A strong family nurtures and teaches children the values they need to be successful in this world: hard work, honesty, loyalty and respect for others. National Family Week is the week that includes Thanksgiving in both 1999 and 2000. This is a very fitting time to celebrate the institution that brings us together with those we love. This resolution will officially recognize the great significance of the family in our society and encourages states and communities to emphasize the importance of the family with appropriate activities, celebrations, and ceremonies. I hope my distinguished colleagues will join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about certain aspects of the FY 2000 funding level for the Food and Drug Administration. My greatest concern is that while the FY 2000 conference report provides about $70 million over FDA's 1999 funding level of $982,217 million, this is about $90 million below the agency's FY 1999 request of $1.142 billion. While the conference report for FY 2000 does fund important new initiatives within the FDA such as food safety programs, other key priorities are not accommodated such as $20.4 million for phase I funding for construction of the agency's Los Angeles laboratory facility and $15.3 million for improvements to FDA's adverse event reporting system. I thank the chairman for allowing me to bring these vital issues to his attention. If Congress can find resources to fund these important priorities, the American public will reap great benefits. Finally, I commend him for your demonstrated leadership and expertise in financing the operations FDA and I look forward to continuing to work with you on funding this key public health agency.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate debates an arms control treaty of idealistic intent, vague applicability, and undetermined effects. Given today's state of scientific, geopolitical and military affairs, I must vote against the resolution of ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a treaty that will lower confidence in our strategic deterrent while creating an international regime that does not guarantee an increase in this country's security. On balance--and these matters are often concluded on balance, as rarely are we faced with clear-cut options--it is my reasoned conclusion that the CTBT does not advance the security of this nation. Some people think that, by passing the CTBT, we will be preventing the horrors of nuclear war in the future. There is great emotional content to this argument. But in deliberations about a matter so grave, I had to apply a rational, logical analysis to the affairs of nations as I see them. And, on reflecting on half a century of the nuclear era, I can only conclude that it is the nuclear strategic deterrent of this country that is the single most important factor in explaining why this country has not been challenged in a major military confrontation on our territory. We emerged victorious from the cold war without ever engaging in a global ``hot'' war. Despite the security we have bought with our nuclear deterrent, the world we live in today is more dangerous than the cold war era. Today, we are faced with the emergence of new international threats. These include rogue states, such as Iraq, Sudan, and North Korea; independent, substate international terrorists, such as Osama bin Laden; and international criminal organizations that may facilitate funds and, perhaps, nuclear materials to flow between these actors. Some of these actors, of course, can and have developed the ``poor man's'' nukes, as they are called: biological and chemical weapons. It is to the credit of the serious proponents of this treaty that they have not argued that this treaty can effectively prevent these new actors on the global scene from developing primitive nuclear weapons-- which can be built without tests. The CTBT does not prevent them from stealing or buying tactical nuclear weapons that slip unsecured out of Russian arsenals. The CTBT cannot prevent or even detect low-yield testing by rogue states which have a record of acting like treaties aren't worth the paper they're written on. These are the threats we face today. In this new threat environment, the proponents of this treaty suggest that we abandon testing to determine the reliability of our weapons, to increase their safety, and to modernize our arsenal. Yet we have recent historical evidence that our nuclear deterrent is a key factor in dealing with at least some of these actors. Recall that, in the gulf war, Saddam Hussein did not use his chemical and biological weapons against the international coalition. This was not because Saddam Hussein was respecting international norms. It was solely because he knew the United States had a credible nuclear deterrent that we reserved the right to use. Proponents of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty argue that scientific tests at the sub-critical level can replace testing as the methodology to ensure the reliability and safety of our nuclear arsenal, which, we all know, has not been tested since 1992. The question of reliability of our deterrent is absolutely essential to this nation's security. And yet the proponents of our science-based alternative program to testing--known as the Stockpile Stewardship Program--all acknowledge that this critical replacement to testing is not in place today and will not be fully developed until sometime in the next decade. Even if the Stockpile Stewardship Program is fully operational in 2005, as the most optimistic representations suggest, that will be more than 10 years since we have had our last tests. After a decade of no testing, the confidence in our weapons will have declined. Throughout this period, we will be relying on a scientific regime whose evolution and effectiveness we can only hope for. This is the concern of numerous national security experts, and their conclusions were not supportive of the CTBT. Addressing this central issue, six former Secretaries of defense (Schlesinger, Cheney, Carlucci, Weinberger, Rumsfeld, Laird) said: The Stockpile Stewardship Program, which will not be mature for at least 10 years, will improve our scientific understanding of nuclear weapons and would likely mitigate the decline in our confidence in the safety and reliability of our arsenal. We will never know whether we should trust the Stockpile Stewardship if we cannot conduct tests to calibrate the unproven new techniques. Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and former Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch said recently: But the fact is that the scientific case simply has not been made that, over the long term, the United States can ensure the nuclear stockpile without nuclear testing . . . The Stockpile Stewardship Program is not sufficiently mature to evaluate the extent to which it can be a suitable alternative to testing. I hasten to point out that the experts who have spoken against the CTBT have served in Republican and Democratic Administrations. Secretary Kissinger served in the Nixon administration, for example, which negotiated the Threshold Test Ban Treaty banning tests above 150 kilotons. This treaty was ratified during the Bush Administration. John Deutch, as we all know, was head of the CIA in the present Administration. I support the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and will continue to support it. There may be a day when my colleagues and I can be convinced that science-based technology can ensure the reliability and safety of our arsenal to a level that matches what we learn through testing. That would be a time to responsibly consider a Comprehensive Test Ban. And that time is not now. This central point on the reliability of our nuclear deterrent has not escaped the public's view of the current debate. Utahns have approached me on both sides of the argument. Yes, we have seen numerous polls that suggest that the public supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. When people are asked, ``do you support a global ban on nuclear testing?'' majorities respond affirmatively. However, when people are asked, as some more specific polls have done, ``Do you believe our nuclear arsenal has kept this country free from attack?'' the majority always answers overwhelmingly affirmatively. When asked whether we need to continue to rely on a nuclear deterrent, the answer is always overwhelmingly affirmative, as it is when the public is asked whether we need to maintain reliability in our nuclear deterrent. Once again, I find the public more sophisticated than they are often given credit for. When I speak with people about the limits of monitoring this global ban, and the numerous methods and technologies available to parties that wish to evade detection, confidence in the CTBT falls even lower. The fact is--and, once again, the proponents of the treaty concede this--that a zero-yield test ban treaty is unverifiable. Small but militarily significant tests--that is, 500-ton tests, significant to the development and improvement of nuclear weapons--will not always be detectable. Higher yield tests--such as 5 kilotons--can be disguised by the techniques known as ``decoupling,'' where detonations are set in larger, either natural or specially constructed, subterranean settings. Today we are uncertain about a series of suspicious events that have occurred recently in Russia, a country that has not signed the CTBT. Some Russian officials have suggested that they would interpret the CTBT to allow for certain levels of nuclear tests, a view inimical to the Clinton administration's proponents of the CTBT. These are troubling questions, Mr. President, which should cast great doubt on the hopes of the proponents of the CTBT. But the proponents say, under a CTBT regime we could demand an on- site inspection. But the on-site inspection regime is, by the terms of the treaty, weak. It is a ``red-light'' system, which means that members of the Executive Council of the Conference of States Parties must vote to get affirmative permission to inspect--and the vote will require a super-majority of 30 of 51 members of the Council for permission to conduct an inspection. The terms of the treaty allow for numerous obstructions by a member subject to inspection. Some of these codified instructions appear to have come out of Saddam Hussein's play book for defeating UNSCOM. Some have suggested that Senate rejection of this treaty, which seems likely, will undermine this country's global leadership. It is said that, if we fail to ratify, critical states will not ratify the treaty. This assertion strikes me as highly suppositious. Since the end of World War II, there are very few instances of the United States using its nuclear threat explicitly. Besides the Soviet Union, locked in a bipolar global competition with us until its collapse in 1991, other nations' decision to develop nuclear programs were based, not on following ``U.S. leadership,'' but on their perception of regional balances of power, or on their desire to establish global status with a strategic weapon. Their decisions to cease testing will be similarly based. The CTBT, it is argued, will prevent China from further modernizing its nuclear forces. It would be more accurate, in my opinion, to state that the treaty, if it works as its proponents wish, may constrain China from testing the designs for nuclear warheads it has gained through espionage. The debate over future military developments always hinges on the distinction between intentions and capabilities. China's current nuclear capabilities are modest, although it has a handful of warheads and the means to deliver them to the North American continent. But I have to ask: Are the analysts in the Clinton administration confident that China's intentions are consistent with a view embodied in the CTBT that would lock China into substantive nuclear inferiority to the United States? Is that what their espionage was about? Or their veiled threats--such as the famous ``walk-in'' in 1995, when a PRC agent showed us their new-found capabilities? And how about the PRC's explicit threat to rain missiles on Los Angeles? That was a reflection on intentions. Those of us who study intentions and capabilities of such a key geopolitical competitor as China know that their capabilities are far inferior to us. But you have to wonder, based on their statements and other actions, whether the Chinese are willing to accept the current strategic balance that would be locked in with the CTBT. And, does it make sound strategic sense for the defense of our country that the United States, in effect, unilaterally disarms our technological superiority by freezing our ability to modernize and test? When we freeze our deterrent capability, we are, in effect, abandoning America's technological edge and mortgaging that deteriorating edge on the belief and hope that all of our geopolitical competitors will do the same. This reflects a view of the world that is far more optimistic than I believe is prudent. A substantial dose of skepticism should be required when thinking about the defense of our country. To address these concerns, the administration has waived ``Safeguard F,'' which it will attach to the treaty. This addendum states that it is its understanding that if the Secretaries of Defense and Energy inform the President that ``a high level of confidence in the safety or reliability of a nuclear weapon type which the two Secretaries consider to be critical to our nuclear deterrent could no longer be certified, the President, in consultation with Congress, would be prepared to withdraw from the CTBT under the standard ``supreme national interests'' clause in order to conduct whatever testing might be required.'' This vaguely worded escape clause is the manifestation of what is known in international law as rebus sic stantibus. This famous expression is attributed to Bismark, who declared: ``At the bottom of every treaty is written in invisible ink--rebus sic stantibus--`until circumstances change'.'' This is a recognition common in international law, and now manifest in black-and-white in ``Safeguard F,'' that agreements hold only as long as the fundamental conditions and expectations that existed at the time of their creation hold. The fundamental conditions that the CTBT seeks to address are where my fundamental reservations lie. There are too many factors that we cannot control and that will not be restrained by the best intentions of a testing freeze. The world is changing, and alliances are subtly changing. Geopolitical competitors such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are undergoing radical--radical--social changes that are demonstrably affecting their governments, foreign policies, and militaries. An agreement on a test ban freeze today does not reconcile with these realities. Even the most stalwart proponents of the treaty can only argue that U.S. ratification of the treaty may influence other states' behaviors. That is a hope, not a certainty. The need for a reliable nuclear deterrent, last tested in 1992, remains a certainty. I firmly believe that the CTBT will not control these external realities. While some countries may see a test ban regime in their interests, others, motivated not by the norms we hope for in the international community, but by the more historic realities of national interest and competition, may not. The timing is simply wrong to pass this treaty. The science has not been sufficiently reassuring, and global developments have not been encouraging. I must admit that my ongoing concerns about this administration's understanding of the world do not promote confidence in their support for this treaty. Under this administration, we have seen a precipitous decline in the funding of the military; we have seen an unacceptable resistance to missile defense; we have seen that it was Congress that had to promote sanctions on nuclear and missile proliferation from Russian firms spreading nuclear and missile technology to rough states. All of this belies confidence. Combine this with a lack of confidence in the science-based alternative to testing promoted by the administration, which even its supporters recognize is not up to speed, and I must conclude that it is against the U.S. national interest to vote for the CTBT. This vote is not about the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is about whether the nuclear deterrent that has kept this country secure for half a century and will keep this country secure for the foreseeable future. Deterrence is not static, it is dynamic. The world is not static, it is unpredictable and dangerous. The CTBT is an attempt to impose a static arms control environment--to freeze our advantage--while gambling that our competitors abide by the same freeze. Today, that is unsound risk. I will vote to oppose the resolution of ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this month the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office is celebrating their sesquicentennial anniversary. The Sheriff's Office is a proud tradition of Utah, and I am grateful to them for keeping Salt Lake County a safe place to live and visit. Pioneers first settled the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. In March 1849, they elected Brigham Young to be their Governor. Then, in October of the same year, John D. Parker was elected to serve as the first sheriff of what would become the state of Utah. Later, in 1852, after the federal government ratified the creation of the office of county sheriff, James B. Ferguson became John D. Parker's successor. Sheriff Ferguson was the first officially elected sheriff of Salt Lake County. This makes the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office one of the oldest law enforcement agencies in the west. Today, the 1,254 employees of the Sheriff's Office continue that tradition. Today, there are more than 835,000 citizens of Salt Lake County. These citizens are served by the Sheriff's Office through patrols, investigations, jails--which have held Ted Bundy, Mark Hoffman, and Charles Manson among others--court security, civil service, and specialized services, including K-9, air support, SWAT, and search and rescue units. The Sheriff's Office also coordinates local, state, and federal task forces. Some of the more heroic deeds have received national recognition. Captain Lloyd Prescott is just one example of the kind of person we have working for the people of Utah. During a hostage situation at a Salt Lake County library, then Lieutenant Lloyd Prescott offered himself as an additional hostage to see if he could defuse the situation. After almost five hours, it was obvious that the suspect was becoming more agitated and that he would likely harm one of the hostages. Lieutenant Prescott then announced himself as a police officer and was forced to shoot the suspect. For this act of bravery and courage, Lieutenant Prescott was awarded the Presidential Commendation from President Clinton, the Governor's Commendation from Governor Leavitt, Officer of the Year from the International Association of the Chiefs of Police, Officer of the Year from the International Foot Printers Association, and Deputy Sheriff of the Year from the National Sheriff's Association. Captain Prescott continues to serve the citizens of Salt Lake County and the Sheriff's Office as the Division Commander for the Special Operations Division. This is just one example of the many acts of courage, bravery, and simple acts of service performed daily by employees of the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office. I want to extend a public thank you to all the employees and deputies of the Sheriff's Office for their hard work, service, and dedication to upholding justice and the rule of law. I offer my hearty congratulations to them on this landmark anniversary.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, had the White House worked with these home- State Senators and with other Senators to achieve broad support for the nominee, perhaps Judge White would not have been defeated. I don't know. I might add, had both home-State Senators been opposed to Judge White in committee, Judge White would never have come to the floor under our rules. I have to say, that would be true whether they are Democrat Senators or Republican Senators. That has just been the way the Judiciary Committee has operated. Had the President diligently worked with Senators to determine that there would not be broad support for the candidate, he could have found an alternative, consensus candidate. But the President did not. Thus, Judge White's nomination failed on the floor of the Senate. To compound the problem, the President and some of my colleagues in this body made the grave error of suggesting that race was the reason that Senate Republicans voted against Judge White. This transparently political accusation has, as the administration is well aware, no basis in fact. The Judiciary Committee, under my chairmanship, has not kept formal statistics on the race of any of these nominees, nor would we have informed Democrat or Republican members that Judge White is an African American. Many of my Republican colleagues were literally unaware of Judge White's race, and that is the way it has been. We just haven't made notice of anybody's race as we have confirmed these 325 judges that President Clinton has nominated. Instead, they were aware of his record in death penalty cases. I admit that that awareness happened at a relatively late time in this matter. It caught me by surprise as well--the opposition at least. They were aware of the opposition of State and national law enforcement communities that arose after his committee hearing. They were aware of the opposition of both home-State Senators that was announced after his hearing. Indeed, I even had a Democratic Senator inform me that had that Senator known of the recent law enforcement opposition to Judge White's nomination, that Senator would have opposed the nomination as well. Senator Bond did support this judge at the hearing but later changed his position on this as he became more and more aware of the opposition by law enforcement. It was not race that defeated Judge White; it was his record and the opposition of the elected leaders of his State. These same Republican Senators who opposed Judge White overwhelmingly supported the nomination of Charles Wilson, an African American, to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Florida. While Senate Republicans were mostly unaware of Judge Wilson's race, Members were informed of his outstanding record as a Federal Magistrate and U.S. Attorney, the strong Florida support for Mr. Wilson, and the support of both home- State Senators--1 Republican and 1 Democrat--for Mr. Wilson. Most members were not informed of his race. But these home-State Senators were for Mr. Wilson. And there was broad support in the Senate for Mr. Wilson's candidacy. It was not race that confirmed Mr. Wilson; it was his record and the support of the elected leaders of his State. The same is true for other minority nominations. To mention a few, Victor Marrero, Carlos Murguia, Adalberto Jordan--nominees whose records show they were qualified and respected the rule of law, who had the support of home-State Senators, and who had broad support in the Senate. Thus, the suggestion that the Republicans in this body voted against Judge White on the basis of race is no more true than a parallel accusation that my Democratic colleagues voted against Clarence Thomas because of his race. I don't think any of us have made that suggestion. I am also deeply disappointed by the patently false suggestions from the administration, and some in this body, that Republicans intentionally delay the processing of minority and women nominees based on their race and gender. This would be a surprise to Charles Wilson, who was nominated on May 27, reported by the Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate on July 22, and confirmed on July 30. This would also be a surprise to Marryanne Trump Barry, who was nominated on June 17, reported by the Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate on July 29, and confirmed on September 13. Both of these nominees had outstanding records reflecting respect for the law, strong home-State support, the support of both home-State Senators, and broad support in the Senate. Mr. Wilson, Judge Barry, and most of these other nominees proceeded smoothly through the confirmation process because the President worked with the Senate, not against the Senate. The administration is very proud of its record of placing women and minorities on the bench, and it makes a point of informing the public of its work in this regard. In an address to the American Bar Association this summer, President Clinton called the collection of judges he has nominated to the Federal bench ``the most diverse group in American history.'' Nearly half are women and minorities, he said. But each of these judges was confirmed by the Senate, and all were confirmed with Republican support. How can it be that a Senate which has directly participated in this record of accomplishment can become an institution of bias simply by opposing one nominee--a nominee opposed by both home-State Senators and by an overwhelming number of State and national law enforcement leaders? It cannot be. It simply cannot be. The record and the Department of Justice's own numbers speak for themselves. According to the Clinton administration's own data, the Senate-- whether it was under Democratic or Republican control--has done its duty and confirmed qualified women and minorities. For example, in 1998, based on Department of Justice data, approximately 32 percent of judicial nominees were women, and 21.5 percent were minorities. Even though the committee does not keep formal statistics, I had my staff manually compute the proportion of women and minorities reported to the Senate floor. So far this year, over 45 percent of the judicial nominees reported to the Senate floor are women or have been minorities. Yes, some nominees take longer than others--but it is not because of their race or gender. My colleagues, I believe, know that. I believe the President and his people at the White House know that. Indeed, several of the nominees of the past that took longer to confirm had my strong support. These included Anne Aiken, Margaret Murrow, and Susan Mollway. I have been condemned for that by certain people on the far right almost on a daily basis ever since. In the end, those who make these troubling accusations either, one, believe them to be true or, two, know they are not true, but want to politicize the issue. Either motivation is evidence of a serious problem within our noble institution, which I hope we, as leaders, can work to rectify. That is one reason I am taking this time today. Using race as a political tactic to advance controversial nominees is especially troubling. I care too much about the Senate and the Federal judiciary to see these institutions become the victims of base, cheap, wedge politics. I would urge my colleagues and the President to reconsider this destructive and dangerous ploy. Instead, they should put aside this destructive rhetoric and work with us to do what is best for the Judiciary, the Senate, and the American people. The Ronnie White nomination is an unfortunate example of what I believe is an increasing pattern on the part of the Clinton White House. I am referring to what appears to be a fire-sale strategy of knowingly sending up nominees who lack home-State support. Some time ago, I sent the White House Counsel a letter stating clearly that consultation was an essential prerequisite to a smoothly functioning confirmations process. But over the past several months, a number of nominees have been forwarded to the Senate over the objection--both private and public--of home-State Senators. Is this a pattern the aim of which is to get nominees confirmed, or is this a strategy, the object of which, is to create a political show down with the Senate. My concern is with the latter. To find the answer to the current political crisis, I turn once again to the Constitution and its requirement that the President and the Senate work ``with'' each other in the nomination and advice and consent process. To enable us to return to working together instead of against each other, I propose that we take time for both sides to cool off. The President and the Senate should take a step back, cool off, and then return to working with each other in the nomination and confirmation process as the Constitution so plainly requires. Mr. President, we have worked well with this President up to now. I have certainly taken my share of criticism for being as fair to this administration as I can possibly be. But this administration knows the rules up here--that when two home State Senators oppose a district court nominee, that district court nominee is not going to make it. That is the way it is. There is nothing I can do to change that because it is the correct rule. It is important that we work together and work with home State Senators in order to resolve this. I yield the floor.