Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 327 (Purpose: To promote effective law enforcement)

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent to amend my amendment to reflect the change I promised Senator Leahy and others I would make. The modification is at the desk.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Delaware and the remaining 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. How much time in the opposition?

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

Mr. HATCH. I have to object.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Virginia be given 2 extra minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.

Mr. HATCH. Is all time yielded back? Has the Senator from Virginia yielded back their time?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act, together with my colleagues, Senators Rockefeller, Crapo, and Bryan. The legislation we introduce today will help to solve one of our Nation's most expensive problems-- air pollution. As air pollution was introduced at the beginning of this century, it is fitting that, at century's end, we should find solutions to this vexing problem. Automobiles are a major source of pollution in our urban areas. Past efforts to address this mobile-source pollution have been fraught with pitfalls; and, as a result, the effort to control automobile emissions has progressed in fits and starts. The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act avoids past mistakes, leaving behind command-and-control mandates from Congress and providing market-based incentives for consumers and for much needed infrastructure development. Mr. President, as we speak, my State of Utah is engaged in a mammoth road construction project on Interstate 15. This freeway runs right through Salt Lake City and through three counties in Utah that have struggled to meet national clean air standards. It might suggest that we should not improve or repair highways. Could it be that the availability of convenient and efficient roadways is in part responsible for our emissions problem? I doubt it. While the Eisenhower vision of a vast nation connected by interstate highways may have encouraged more people to commute or vacation by car, the fact is that vehicular traffic is increasing almost everywhere. One-car families have become two-car and three-car families. I do not believe that more cars crowded onto old and inefficient highways is the answer. In fact, slow-moving traffic is part of the problem. According to a recent study by Utah's Division of Air Quality, on- road vehicles account for 22 percent of coarse particulate matter in Utah. Particulate matter can be harmful to those already suffering from chronic respiratory or heart disease, influenza, or asthma. Automobiles also account for 34 percent of hydrocarbon and 52 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions in my state. These two pollutants react in sunlight to form ozone, which in turn reduces lung function in humans and hurts our resistance to colds and asthma. Ozone may also lead to premature aging of lung tissue. In Utah, vehicles account for a whopping 87 percent of carbon monoxide emissions. Carbon monoxide can be harmful to persons with heart, respiratory, or circulatory ailments. Mr. President, while Utah has made important strides in improving air quality, more vehicular miles are driven every year. If we are to have cleaner air, we must encourage low emission alternative fuels or electric power. The need for alternative fuels will dramatically increase as the Environmental Protection Agency continues to implement its new, stricter clean air standards. With the tighter standards, some of Utah's counties will, once again, face non-attainment. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can impose sanctions on a state's highway fund if it determines a state has not adequately implemented plans to attain air quality standards, a sanction which, as I have suggested, may actually be counterproductive. Nevertheless, non-attainment can be a costly enterprise, whether due to the loss of federal highway money or to the expensive measures taken to reach attainment. And, as I have suggested, may be counterproductive. By the EPA's own estimates, the annual cost of achieving the new ozone standard in 2010 will be about $9.6 billion. Additionally, the EPA puts the annual cost of achieving the PM 2.5 standard at $37 billion, making for a combined total cost of $47 billion annually. Mr. President, our most recent census count estimated that there are 65 million families in the U.S. So, by the EPA's own account, implementing the new air quality standards will cost about $723 per family every year. Wouldn't it be wise, Mr. President, to invest some of that money in the development of alternative fuels? Take natural gas as an example. Natural gas is one of the cleanest burning fuels available. Add to this, methanol, propane has a variety of options that would allow Americans to continue to drive their cars, while dramatically cutting back on air pollution. Mr. President, research has brought us a number of excellent options to replace our dependency on traditional gasoline powered autos. It appears that our last obstacle remains bringing these alternatives to the marketplace. Past efforts to do so have failed to produce the hoped-for results because they have been too heavy on mandates and too weak on incentives to car buyers and to improve infrastructure. Clearly, if consumers are to begin buying alternative fuel vehicles, two elements must be in place: first, the price for vehicles and their fuel must be right; second, the consumer must feel confident that the infrastructure is in place with refueling stations widely available. This is where the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act comes into play. With this legislation, we take important steps forward to meet these goal without mandates. The only requirement in this bill is that federal agencies submit an annual report on their use of alternative fuel vehicles in their fleets. The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act encourages customers to purchase alternative fuels through a tax credit. Congress has already given ethanol users a tax credit of 54 cents per gallon. When adjusted for its energy capacity, ethanol's gasoline-gallon equivalent credit equals 82 cents. Our legislation levels the playing field by extending a 50- cent gasoline-gallon equivalent tax credit for the other alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, natural gas, propane, methanol, and electricity. There currently exists a tax credit for the purchase of electric vehicles. Our bill would extend the life of that credit, giving a continued incentive for companies to develop this technology. The current tax credit equals 10 percent of the purchase price of the vehicle, up to $4,000. Our legislation would extend the sunset date for this credit to 2010 and give an additional $5,000 credit toward any electric vehicle with a range over 100 miles. Mr. President, consumers will never be interested in alternative fuel vehicles until a strong infrastructure is developed. Under current law, there is a $100,000 tax deduction for the capital costs of equipment at alternative fuel stations. This legislation extends that benefit to construction and installation costs at a new filling station. Often constructions costs outweigh capital costs as a barrier to the installation of new alternative fuel stations. These measures will jump start a movement already under way toward increased use of alternative fuel vehicles. In California and Arizona there are already about 300 public charging sites for electric vehicles. Utah has led the way in natural gas infrastructure. An owner of a natural gas vehicle can crisscross my state from Logan in the north to St. George in the south, and from Salt Lake to the eastern border finding filling stations all along the way. This is progress, but much more needs to be done. Mr. President, I believe the momentum is building in this nation for a leap forward in the use of alternative fuel vehicles. There is broad agreement that our approach with this legislation is the proper course to help promote this step. In a letter to me, Utah's Clean Cities Coalition signaled its support for this measure. I quote, ``We believe that for the people living in urban Utah now is a good time to take strong action to encourage Utahns to buy alternative, clean-burning vehicles. We ask that you support the 50-cent per gallon tax credit.'' This bill has also gained the support of the Wasatch Clean Air Coalition in Utah. They stated, ``We believe this tax credit would have a strong positive impact on our local air quality by encouraging the use of alternative fuels, and increasing the portion of cars on our roads fueled by alternative fuels.'' Finally, the American Lung Association has told me that, ``Motor vehicles are a major source of pollution along the Wasatch Front. While automobiles do run cleaner these days, and while alternative forms of transportation are being considered, more needs to be done to address the current and future sources of emissions and poor air quality. One reasonable strategy to cut down on the amount of pollutants in the air is to increase the use of clean fuel vehicles. Vehicles that run on natural gas, propane or electric simply are cleaner burning than those fueled by gasoline or diesel. . . . This legislation will encourage an increased number of clean fuel vehicles on the road, and clean air for years to come.'' Mr. President, I think we all know that 50 years down the road, we will not still be using petroleum fueled vehicles to the same extent we do today. This legislation is an attempt to bring the benefits of cleaner air to our citizens sooner, to free our cities from expensive EPA regulations, and to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. This legislation enables us to tackle these problems with incentives, not mandates. I urge my colleagues to join us in this future-minded approach to cleaning our air.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce S. 999, the ``Technology Transfer Act of 1999.'' The purpose of this bill is to help ensure that the fruits of federally conducted and supported research will be translated into new products and jobs that can benefit the American public. This bill is necessary in order to adopt a uniform policy across the federal government concerning the circumstances in which it is appropriate to grant an exclusive or partially exclusive license to intellectual property owned by the federal government. Essentially, this legislation codifies the most prudent, beneficial, and successful agency licensing policies that have evolved over the last few years. Each year the federal government makes a substantial investment in research and development. This year the federal government will dedicate about $79 billion toward research and development activities. Of this amount, about half--or $39 billion--is devoted to non-defense research. Much of this civilian R&D funding--over $15 billion in FY 1999--is carried out by universities across our country. Every American citizen should take pride in this considerable financial commitment because it explains why our country is in the forefront in so many areas of basic science and applied technology. While there is intrinsic value in research for the sake of advancement of knowledge, another, more tangible, benefit occurs when the mysteries of science are translated into new technologies that protect and promote the public health and welfare and create jobs. While Utah may be a small state in terms of population, I am proud to say that our universities are carrying out a vigorous program of research. For example, the University of Utah, Brigham Young University, and Utah State University each carry out substantial programs of research and in the aggregate received over $200 million in federal research support in 1998. Last year the research efforts of these three schools resulted in the issuance of patents on 40 inventions. No doubt this high level of financial support and creative activity are major reasons why our state has developed a thriving medical products industry over the last two decades. According to a recent survey of the Utah Life Science Association there are currently 116 firms--employing a total of over 11,000 people--engaged in the discovery and production of biomedical products in the state of Utah. Together, these firms produced revenues of $1.641 billion last year. Not only does this economic enterprise mean jobs for Utahns but also innovative new products for Americans and our neighbors around the world. To give just one example, researchers at the University of Utah were co-discoverers of the BRCA 1 gene which is implicated in certain kinds of breast cancer. A start-up Salt Lake City biomedical research firm, Myriad Genetics, was also a partner in this ground breaking research, as were intramural researchers at the National Institutes of Health. Building upon this basic research, academic researchers at the Huntsman Cancer Center at the University of Utah and private sector scientists at Myriad are playing a lead role in developing diagnostic tests and therapeutics which are aimed at combating the devastation of breast cancer. The success we have achieved in institutions of higher learning in Utah is also occurring across our Nation. According to the latest data available from the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), in 1997, the efforts of U.S. universities, academic health centers, and certain other non-profit research entities resulted in over 11,000 invention disclosures, over 4,200 new patent applications being filed, and over 2,600 issued patents. Also according to AUTM, in 1997, over 3,300 new licenses were executed and total licensing income reached nearly $700 million. An economic model developed by AUTM estimates that about 250,000 jobs are attributable to commercializing academic research. Government labs have also contributed to this success story. For example, in FY 1998 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) received nearly $40 million in royalty income. Also in 1998, NIH intramural labs reported 287 invention disclosures; filed 132 patent applications; were granted 171 patents; and, executed 215 licenses and 149 cooperative research and development agreements. In sharp contrast to the vibrant research and technology commercialization activities that are taking place in Utah and across our country today, the situation twenty years ago was vastly different. According to a 1978 survey, the federal government owned 78,000 patents but only 5 percent were ever licensed. Research and development is expensive, but it has been estimated that R&D accounts for only about 25% of the cost of bringing a new product to the market. Without adequate protection of intellectual property, it is simply not prudent for the private sector to invest in new technologies. In response to the problem of federally supported science languishing in the laboratory, the Congress passed a portfolio of legislation in the 1980s. The purpose of these measures was simple: to provide incentives in the intellectual property laws to help assure that federally-conducted and -supported research would be commercially developed so that the seeds of new ideas will be translated into the fruits of new products that can benefit the American public. My bill, S. 999, shares this goal and builds upon the previous intellectual property legislation in this area. The ``Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980'' (Public Law 96- 517) is commonly termed the Bayh-Dole Act out of the well-earned respect for its two far-sighted cosponsors, Senator Birch Bayh and Senator Bob Dole. The Bayh-Dole Act created a uniform patent policy among the many federal agencies that fund research and increased incentives for universities to engage in government-supported research. Under the act, small businesses and nonprofit organizations, including universities, were permitted to retain ownership of patents stemming from federal funds. In turn, patent holders could grant licenses to companies to further develop and commercialize the patented invention. In 1986, Congress enacted the ``Federal Technology Transfer Act'' (Public Law 99-502). This law established new patenting, licensing and partnering policies for government laboratories. In concert with the philosophy of the Bayh-Dole Act, the FTTA contemplates an activist role for government laboratories in assisting in the journey from the laboratory to the market place. The FTTA amended the earlier ``Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980'' (Public Law 96-480), which proved insufficient to meet its intended charge of making transfer of federal technology a duty of all federal laboratories. In addition to mandating a federal role in the technology transfer arena by strengthening the intellectual property laws in the areas of patenting and licensing, the FTTA created and embraced a unique device--the Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)--which encourages a government/private sector partnership in the earliest stages of research. In devising S. 999, I have worked closely with several colleagues, most prominently Representative Connie Morella, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology of the House Committee on Science. Chairman Morella, whose district is the home of the National Institutes of Health, has long been a leader in the area of technology policy. Chairman Morella and Representative George Brown, the thoughtful ranking member of the full Committee have often worked together in a bipartisan manner in this area and are cosponsors of H.R. 209, the House companion to S. 999. In this Chamber, Senator Rockefeller has a long and distinguished record in the area of technology policy. Together with Senator Frist, Senator Rockefeller introduced similar legislation last Congress and once again this year. I am working with all of these Members, as well as with Senator McCain, Chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and the Senate and House leadership to secure passage of this important legislation. Working together, I believe that we have succeeded in building upon as well as correcting some problems identified with the legislative proposals made last Congress, S. 2120 and H.R. 2544. S. 999 amends the patent code to make explicit when federal agencies should, and should not, grant exclusive licenses to its patented inventions. The bill permits an exclusive or partially exclusive license only if such a license is reasonable and necessary to attract the necessary private sector investment capital or otherwise promote the invention's utilization. The bill requires the agency to evaluate a potential licensee's development plans and level of capacity and commitment so that only the level of necessary exclusivity is granted. Once a license agreement is executed the bill requires a rigorous periodic evaluation of progress under the agreement and allows the government to terminate a license for non-performance of the terms of the license. The bill also requires that in granting patent licenses the government take into account possible effects on competition including any potential antitrust concerns. In the case of licensing inventions covered by foreign patents, the government is directed to consider the possible U.S. interest in foreign trade and commerce. In addition, the bill contains a domestic manufacturing requirement that is designed to keep jobs created through newly patented technologies in the United States. As well, the legislation contains a preference for issuing licenses to small businesses--the sector of the economy where most new jobs are created. Under the bill, the government would retain a nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice the invention on behalf of the United States Government in the unlikely event this need should arise. Before any exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted under the authority of the patent code, the agency, except in cases of inventions made under an existing CRADA, must give at least 15 days public notice and consider any comments that are submitted. The bill treats any confidential commercial information as part of an application or periodic performance report under normal Freedom of Information Act principles. Mr. President, the ``Technology Transfer Act of 1999'' builds upon earlier legislation in this critical area. I am honored to be following in the footsteps of our former Majority Leader, Senator Dole, and the former Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Birch Bayh--father of the new member of the Senate from Indiana. I am also pleased to follow in the footsteps of my predecessors on the Judiciary Committee, which was the locus of activity for the seminal 1980 legislation that amended the patent code and changed our nation's patent licensing policies. I urge all of my colleagues to support S. 999. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act, together with my colleagues, Senators Rockefeller, Crapo, and Bryan. The legislation we introduce today will help to solve one of our Nation's most expensive problems-- air pollution. As air pollution was introduced at the beginning of this century, it is fitting that, at century's end, we should find solutions to this vexing problem. Automobiles are a major source of pollution in our urban areas. Past efforts to address this mobile-source pollution have been fraught with pitfalls; and, as a result, the effort to control automobile emissions has progressed in fits and starts. The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act avoids past mistakes, leaving behind command-and-control mandates from Congress and providing market-based incentives for consumers and for much needed infrastructure development. Mr. President, as we speak, my State of Utah is engaged in a mammoth road construction project on Interstate 15. This freeway runs right through Salt Lake City and through three counties in Utah that have struggled to meet national clean air standards. It might suggest that we should not improve or repair highways. Could it be that the availability of convenient and efficient roadways is in part responsible for our emissions problem? I doubt it. While the Eisenhower vision of a vast nation connected by interstate highways may have encouraged more people to commute or vacation by car, the fact is that vehicular traffic is increasing almost everywhere. One-car families have become two-car and three-car families. I do not believe that more cars crowded onto old and inefficient highways is the answer. In fact, slow-moving traffic is part of the problem. According to a recent study by Utah's Division of Air Quality, on- road vehicles account for 22 percent of coarse particulate matter in Utah. Particulate matter can be harmful to those already suffering from chronic respiratory or heart disease, influenza, or asthma. Automobiles also account for 34 percent of hydrocarbon and 52 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions in my state. These two pollutants react in sunlight to form ozone, which in turn reduces lung function in humans and hurts our resistance to colds and asthma. Ozone may also lead to premature aging of lung tissue. In Utah, vehicles account for a whopping 87 percent of carbon monoxide emissions. Carbon monoxide can be harmful to persons with heart, respiratory, or circulatory ailments. Mr. President, while Utah has made important strides in improving air quality, more vehicular miles are driven every year. If we are to have cleaner air, we must encourage low emission alternative fuels or electric power. The need for alternative fuels will dramatically increase as the Environmental Protection Agency continues to implement its new, stricter clean air standards. With the tighter standards, some of Utah's counties will, once again, face non-attainment. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can impose sanctions on a state's highway fund if it determines a state has not adequately implemented plans to attain air quality standards, a sanction which, as I have suggested, may actually be counterproductive. Nevertheless, non-attainment can be a costly enterprise, whether due to the loss of federal highway money or to the expensive measures taken to reach attainment. And, as I have suggested, may be counterproductive. By the EPA's own estimates, the annual cost of achieving the new ozone standard in 2010 will be about $9.6 billion. Additionally, the EPA puts the annual cost of achieving the PM 2.5 standard at $37 billion, making for a combined total cost of $47 billion annually. Mr. President, our most recent census count estimated that there are 65 million families in the U.S. So, by the EPA's own account, implementing the new air quality standards will cost about $723 per family every year. Wouldn't it be wise, Mr. President, to invest some of that money in the development of alternative fuels? Take natural gas as an example. Natural gas is one of the cleanest burning fuels available. Add to this, methanol, propane has a variety of options that would allow Americans to continue to drive their cars, while dramatically cutting back on air pollution. Mr. President, research has brought us a number of excellent options to replace our dependency on traditional gasoline powered autos. It appears that our last obstacle remains bringing these alternatives to the marketplace. Past efforts to do so have failed to produce the hoped-for results because they have been too heavy on mandates and too weak on incentives to car buyers and to improve infrastructure. Clearly, if consumers are to begin buying alternative fuel vehicles, two elements must be in place: first, the price for vehicles and their fuel must be right; second, the consumer must feel confident that the infrastructure is in place with refueling stations widely available. This is where the Alternative Fuels Promotion Act comes into play. With this legislation, we take important steps forward to meet these goal without mandates. The only requirement in this bill is that federal agencies submit an annual report on their use of alternative fuel vehicles in their fleets. The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act encourages customers to purchase alternative fuels through a tax credit. Congress has already given ethanol users a tax credit of 54 cents per gallon. When adjusted for its energy capacity, ethanol's gasoline-gallon equivalent credit equals 82 cents. Our legislation levels the playing field by extending a 50- cent gasoline-gallon equivalent tax credit for the other alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, natural gas, propane, methanol, and electricity. There currently exists a tax credit for the purchase of electric vehicles. Our bill would extend the life of that credit, giving a continued incentive for companies to develop this technology. The current tax credit equals 10 percent of the purchase price of the vehicle, up to $4,000. Our legislation would extend the sunset date for this credit to 2010 and give an additional $5,000 credit toward any electric vehicle with a range over 100 miles. Mr. President, consumers will never be interested in alternative fuel vehicles until a strong infrastructure is developed. Under current law, there is a $100,000 tax deduction for the capital costs of equipment at alternative fuel stations. This legislation extends that benefit to construction and installation costs at a new filling station. Often constructions costs outweigh capital costs as a barrier to the installation of new alternative fuel stations. These measures will jump start a movement already under way toward increased use of alternative fuel vehicles. In California and Arizona there are already about 300 public charging sites for electric vehicles. Utah has led the way in natural gas infrastructure. An owner of a natural gas vehicle can crisscross my state from Logan in the north to St. George in the south, and from Salt Lake to the eastern border finding filling stations all along the way. This is progress, but much more needs to be done. Mr. President, I believe the momentum is building in this nation for a leap forward in the use of alternative fuel vehicles. There is broad agreement that our approach with this legislation is the proper course to help promote this step. In a letter to me, Utah's Clean Cities Coalition signaled its support for this measure. I quote, ``We believe that for the people living in urban Utah now is a good time to take strong action to encourage Utahns to buy alternative, clean-burning vehicles. We ask that you support the 50-cent per gallon tax credit.'' This bill has also gained the support of the Wasatch Clean Air Coalition in Utah. They stated, ``We believe this tax credit would have a strong positive impact on our local air quality by encouraging the use of alternative fuels, and increasing the portion of cars on our roads fueled by alternative fuels.'' Finally, the American Lung Association has told me that, ``Motor vehicles are a major source of pollution along the Wasatch Front. While automobiles do run cleaner these days, and while alternative forms of transportation are being considered, more needs to be done to address the current and future sources of emissions and poor air quality. One reasonable strategy to cut down on the amount of pollutants in the air is to increase the use of clean fuel vehicles. Vehicles that run on natural gas, propane or electric simply are cleaner burning than those fueled by gasoline or diesel. . . . This legislation will encourage an increased number of clean fuel vehicles on the road, and clean air for years to come.'' Mr. President, I think we all know that 50 years down the road, we will not still be using petroleum fueled vehicles to the same extent we do today. This legislation is an attempt to bring the benefits of cleaner air to our citizens sooner, to free our cities from expensive EPA regulations, and to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. This legislation enables us to tackle these problems with incentives, not mandates. I urge my colleagues to join us in this future-minded approach to cleaning our air.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately begin consideration of S. 254, the juvenile justice bill, with debate only until 12 noon. Amendments are anticipated after noon, and therefore rollcall votes can be expected during today's session of the Senate. Members will be notified as votes are ordered with respect to this legislation. The majority leader encourages Members who intend to offer amendments to work with the chairman and ranking member to schedule a time to come to the floor to debate those amendments. I thank my colleagues for their attention. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate will begin consideration of the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Accountability and Rehabilitation Act of 1999. There are few issues that will come before the Senate this Congress that touch the lives of more of our fellow Americans than our national response to juvenile crime. Crime and delinquency among our young people is a problem that troubles us in our neighborhoods, in our schools and in our parks. It is the subject across the dinner table, and in those late night, worried conversations all parents have had at one time or another. The subject is familiar--how can we prevent our children from falling victim--either to crime committed by another juvenile, or to the lure of drugs, crime, and gangs? Their concerns are shared by all of us. Most of us are parents. Many of us are now proud grandparents. We have dealt with the challenges of raising children--the joys and the trying times. But for today's parents, the challenges they face are more complex. The temptations children confront come from many different directions and parents seemingly have less and less control over what it is their children are exposed to. There is a sense among many Americans that we are powerless to reverse this trend, that we are powerless to deal with violent juvenile crime, that we are powerless to change our culture. It is this feeling of powerlessness which may restrain our collective ambition for meaningful, penetrating solutions in the wake of the Littleton tragedy. As Dr. William Bennett said recently on a national talk show, if the two students who committed the murders at Columbine High had ``carried Bibles and [said] Hail the Prince of Peace and King of Kings, they would have been hauled into the principal's office.'' Instead, these young people who committed these crimes saluted Hitler and they were ignored. Ironically, it seems the only time we promote morality in school these days is when mourners visit on-school memorials in the wake of tragedies like Littleton. If the murder of twelve innocent students and one teacher cannot give us the backbone to shed this defeatism and to do what is right, then we are doomed to see more tragedies. I believe that as a nation we must do more--and expect more--from our schools, the entertainment industry, our juvenile justice systems, and--where appropriate--the Department of Justice. We must also do more to empower parents in the raising of their children and help the States reform our juvenile justice systems. True--the tragedy in Littleton was a bizarre and complex crime. For that reason, we should resist the temptation to claim we have all of the answers. And we should also fight the temptation to play politics with the matter. We should examine this and other acts of school violence and not single out one politically attractive interest as a cause. Yet, we must also do more than simply talk about the problem. Accordingly, I along with several of my colleagues have developed--and will advance this week--a comprehensive legislative plan to respond to the problem of violent juvenile crime. Our Youth Violence Plan contains four main components: No. 1, prevention and enforcement assistance to State and local government; No. 2, parental empowerment and stemming the influence of cultural violence; No. 3, getting tough on violent juveniles and those who commit violent crimes with a firearm; and No. 4, providing for safe and secure schools. Allow me to discuss each of these in more detail: No. 1, prevention and enforcement assistance to State and local government: The first tier of this plan involves passage of the measure we are beginning consideration of today--S. 254, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender and Accountability Act. We believe we should provide a targeted infusion of funds to state and local authorities to combat juvenile crime. S. 254 provides $1 billion a year to the States to fight juvenile crime and prevent juvenile delinquency. We need to reach out to young children early in life, ensure that parents are empowered to do what they believe is best for their children, and take meaningful steps to give local education and enforcement officials the tools they need to hold violent juveniles accountable. I will discuss the underlying bill in greater detail shortly. No. 2, parental empowerment and stemming the influence of cultural violence: The second tier of our plan involves steps Congress should take to empower parents, educators and the entertainment industry to do more to limit the exposure of America's children to violence in our popular culture. We plan to offer several amendments to the underlying bill which will further this leg of our plan. For example, parents should be given the power to screen undesirable material from entering their homes over the Internet. I have an amendment I will offer to this bill which does just that. Senator Brownback's hearings on marketing violence to children provided powerful evidence of the exposure of children to violence in music, movies, and video games. He and I plan to offer a measure to give the entertainment industry the tools it needs to develop and enforce pre-existing ratings systems so that children are not exposed to material that the industry itself has deemed unsuitable for children. In recent years, the movies our children watch have become increasingly violent. The video games they play reward virtual killings. The lyrics of popular music have grown more violent and depraved. And much of the violence and cruelty in modern music and cinema is directed toward women. The President of the Motion Picture Association of America, Jack Valenti, is a man of great intellect and a man who I admire. He recently testified at a hearing that, ``I do earnestly believe that the movie/TV industry has a solemn obligation . . . [to engage in] creative scrutiny.'' He also notes that the industry has ``a duty to inform parents about film content.'' I agree with him and commend the industry for some of the steps they have taken. But I believe the entertainment industry's ``obligation'' and ``duty'' go a bit further. Indeed, what good is a ratings system if it is not enforced? Is the industry fulfilling its obligation to parents if, out of one side of its mouth, it take steps to inform parents that a particular video game, movie, or CD is not suitable for children and then, out of the other side of its mouth, advertises, promotes, and sells this same material to children? Let me be clear. I am not standing here arguing that this filth should be banned or regulated by the government. I simply believe we should limit our young people's exposure to it. It is one thing to say that Marilyn Manson or Eminem should be prohibited from producing their material. It's another thing for Congress to condone the entertainment industry's embracing of this garbage and its sale to children. Exposure to violent and depraved material is just one part of a complex problem. But I do hope that we can encourage the industry to work with us to do what is best for our children. Why can't this industry, which is a source for so much good in America, do more to discourage the production and marketing of filth to children? Why shouldn't the industry help fight the marketing of violence to young people? This week, I intend to give them the opportunity to do more. No. 3, getting tough on violent juveniles and enforcing existing law: A third tier of our plan insures that violent juveniles--teenagers who commit violent crimes--will be held accountable. Part of the solution is to insure that when a teenager brings a gun to school, he or she is held accountable by the criminal justice system. The Administration-- and several of my colleagues--have called for more gun control. I plan to offer and support many of the proposals that have been discussed. I support the extension of the Youth Handgun Safety Act to semi-automatic rifles. Indeed, the Republican bill before the Senate contains reforms like the juvenile Brady provision--a measure which will prohibit firearms possession by violent juvenile offenders. Republicans have been fighting for this provision for years, but the Administration has, until recently, largely ignored our efforts. The test for the Senate over the coming days will be whether we choose to play politics with the gun issue or work in a bipartisan manner to insure that access to firearms by juveniles is tightly controlled and that the laws are fully enforced. You see, we need to remember that it seems the Clinton Justice Department has trouble prosecuting violations of existing gun laws, especially gun crimes committed at school or involving minors. Arguably, we should not simply rush to enact more gun control--some of which cannot even be remotely associated with the Littleton tragedy--without taking steps to insure that existing federal laws are being enforced. So, we plan to propose legislation to insure that the Department of Justice will walk the walk--not just talk the talk--when it comes to prosecuting violent gun offenders and providing needed funding to the States to build detention facilities for violent and recidivist juvenile offenders. No. 4, safe and secure schools: The fourth tier of our plan revolves around the basic right that all students share--the right to receive the quality education they deserve. Our teachers and students need to know that their schools are safe and that, should they take action to deal with a violent student, the teacher will be protected. Our plan will also promote safe and secure schools, free of undue disruption and violence, so that our teachers can teach and our children can learn. The sad reality is that we can no longer sit silently by as children kill children, as teenagers commit truly heinous offenses, or as our juvenile drug abuse rate continues to climb. In 1997, juveniles accounted for nearly one fifth--18.7 percent--of all criminal arrests in the United States. Persons under 18 committed 13.5 percent of all murders, over 17 percent of all rapes, nearly 30 percent of all robberies, and 50 percent of all arsons. In 1997, 183 juveniles under 15 were arrested for murder. Juveniles under 15 were responsible for 6.5 percent of all rapes, 14 percent of all burglaries, and one third of all arsons. And, unbelievably, juveniles under 15--who are not old enough to legally drive in any state--in 1997 were responsible for 10.3 percent of all auto thefts. To put this in some context, consider this: in 1997, youngsters age 15 to 19, who are only 7 percent of the population, committed 22.2 percent of all crimes, 21.4 percent of violent crimes, and 32 percent of property crimes. And although there are endless statistics on our growing juvenile crime problem, one particularly sobering fact is that, between 1985 and 1993, the number of murder cases involving 15-year olds increased 207 percent. We have kids involved in murder before they can even drive. Cold statistics alone cannot tell the whole story. Crime has real effects on the lives of real people. Last fall, I read an article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch by my good friend, crime novelist Patricia Cornwell. It is one of the finest pieces I have read on the effects of and solutions to our juvenile crime problem. Let me share with my colleagues some of what Ms. Cornwell, who has spent the better part of her adult life studying and observing crime and its effects, has to say. She says ``when a person is touched by violence, the fabric of civility is forever rent, or ripped, or breached. . . .'' This is a graphic but accurate description. Countless lives can be ruined by a single violent crime. There is, of course, the victim, who may be dead, or scarred for life. There are the family and friends of the victim, who are traumatized as well, and who must live with the loss of a loved one. Society itself is harmed, when each of us is a little more frightened to walk on our streets at night, to use an ATM, or to jog or bike in our parks. And, yes, there is the offender who has chosen to throw his or her life away. Particularly when the offender is a juvenile, family, friends, and society are made poorer for the waste of potential in every human being. One crime, but permanent effects when ``the fabric of civility is rent.'' This is the reality that has driven me to work for the last three years to address this issue. In this effort, I have been joined by a bipartisan majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which last Congress reported comprehensive legislation on bipartisan, two to one vote. Our legislation from last Congress, which S. 254 is modeled after and improved upon in an effort to gain the support of more Democrats, was supported by law enforcement organizations such as the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the National Troopers Coalition, as well as the support of juvenile justice practitioners such as the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and victim's groups including the National Victims Center and the National Organization for Victims Assistance. S. 254 is enthusiastically supported by law enforcement. It has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the National Troopers Coalition. Victim's groups including the National Center for Victims of Crime and the National Organization for Victims Assistance support the bill and its pro-victim provisions. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America, undeniably experts in what it takes to prevent juvenile crime and delinquency, has urged passage of S. 254. And the National Collaboration for Youth, which includes a wide array of front-line juvenile crime and delenquency prevention providers such as the American Red Cross, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the National 4-H Council, the National Network for Youth, and the YMCA and YWCA of the USA, has called S. 254 a ``strong bill'' and praised ``the increasingly balanced emphasis S. 254 places on prevention activities''. Mr. President, allow me to spell out in greater detail the major provisions of this bill--the first tier in our plan to deal with violent juvenile crime. And how it will help reform the juvenile justice system that is failing the victims of juvenile crime, failing too many of our young people, and ultimately, failing to protect the public. First, this bill reforms and streamlines the federal juvenile code, to responsibly address the handful of cases each year involving juveniles who commit crimes under federal jurisdiction. Our bill sets a uniform age of 14 for the permissive transfer of juvenile defendants to adult court, permits prosecutors and the Attorney General to make the decision whether to charge a juvenile offender as an adult, and permits in certain circumstances juveniles charged as an adult to petition the court to be returned to juvenile status. It also provides that when prosecuted as adults, juveniles in Federal criminal cases will be subject to the same procedures and penalties as adults, except for the application of mandatory minimums in most cases. Of course, the death penalty would not be available as punishment for any offense committed before the juvenile was 18. Finally, in reforming the federal system, I believe that we must lead by example. So our bill provides that the federal criminal records of juveniles tried as adults, and the federal delinquency records of juveniles adjudicated delinquent for certain serious offenses such as murder, rape, armed robbery, and sexual abuse or assault, will be treated for all purposes in the same manner as the records of adults for the same offenses. Other federal felony juvenile criminal or delinquency records would be treated the same as adult records for criminal justice or national security background check purposes. The bill also permits juvenile federal felony criminal and delinquency records to be provided to schools and colleges under rules issued by the Attorney General, provided that recipients of the records are held to privacy standards and that the records not be used to determine admission. Let me assure any who may be concerned that it is not our intent in reforming the federal juvenile code to federalize juvenile crime-- indeed, no conduct that is not a federal crime now will be if this reform is enacted. I do not intend or expect a substantial increase in the number of juvenile cases adjudicated or prosecuted in federal court. It is our intent, rather, to ensure that when there is a federal crime warranting the federal prosecution of a juvenile, the federal government assumes its responsibility to deal with it, rather than saddling the states with that burden. Second, at the heart of this bill is an historic reform and reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, the most comprehensive review of that legislation in 25 years. The States--under the leadership of a new breed of young, no-nonsense Governors, like Mike Leavitt of Utah, then-Governor George Allen and current Governor Jim Gilmore of Virginia, and Frank Keating of Oklahoma--have for several years have been far ahead of the Federal Government in implementing innovative reforms of their juvenile justice systems. For example, between 1992 and 1996, of the 50 States and the District of Columbia, 48 made substantive changes to their juvenile justice systems. Among the trends in State law changes are the removal of more serious and violent offenders from the juvenile justice system, in favor of criminal court prosecution; new and innovative disposition/ sentencing options for juveniles; and the revision, in favor of openness, of traditional confidentiality provisions relating to juvenile proceedings and records. While the States have been making fundamental changes in their approaches to juvenile justice, the Federal Government has made no significant change to its approach and has done little to encourage and reward State and local reform. Thus, the juvenile justice terrain has shifted beneath the Federal Government, leaving its programs an policies out of step and largely irrelevant to the needs of State and local governments. This bill corrects this imbalance between State and Federal juvenile justice policy, and will help ensure that federal programs support the needs of State and local governments. First, our bill reforms and strengthens the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, of the Department of Justice. The effectiveness of the OJJDP will be enhanced by requiring its Administrator to present to Congress annual plans, with measurable goals, to control and prevent youth crime, coordinate all Federal programs relating to controlling and preventing youth crime, and disseminate to States and local governments data on the prevention, correction and control of juvenile crime and delinquency, and report on successful programs and methods. And, most important to state and local governments, in the future, OJJDP will serve as a single point of contact for States, localities, and private entities to apply for and coordinate all federal assistance and programs related to juvenile crime control and delinquency prevention. This one-stop-shopping for federal programs and assistance will help state and local governments focus on the problem, instead of on how to navigate the federal bureaucracy. Second, our reform bill consolidates numerous JJDPA programs, including Part C Special Emphasis grants, State challenge grants, boot camps, and JJDPA Title V incentive grants, under an enhanced $200 million per year prevention challenge block grant to the States. The bill also reauthorizes the JJDPA Title II Part B State formula grants. In doing so, it also reforms the current core mandates on the States relating to the incarceration of juveniles to ensure the protection of juveniles in custody while providing state and local governments with needed flexibility. This flexibility is particularly important to rural states, where immediate access to a juvenile detention facility might be difficult. Since many communities cannot afford separate juvenile and adult facilities, law enforcement officers must drive hours to transport juvenile offenders to the nearest facility, instead of patrolling the streets. Another unintended consequence of JJDPA is the release of juvenile offenders because no beds are available in juvenile facilities or because law enforcement officials cannot afford to transport youths to juvenile facilities. Juvenile criminals are released even though space is available to detain them in adult facilities. Our reform will provide the states with a degree of flexibility which currently does not exist. However, this flexibility is not provided at the expense of juvenile inmate safety. The bill strictly prohibits placing juvenile offenders in jail cells with adults. No one supports the placing of children in cells with adult offenders. To be clear--nothing in the bill will expose juveniles to any physical contact by adult offenders. Indeed, the legislation is explicit that, if states are to qualify for federal funds, they may not place juvenile delinquents in detention under conditions in which the juvenile can have physical contact, much less be physically harmed by, an adult inmate. These provisions are largely based on H.R. 1818 from the 105th Congress, but are improved to ensure that abuse of juvenile delinquent inmates is not permitted by incorporating definitions of what constitutes unacceptable contact between juvenile delinquents and adult inmates. Third, and finally, our reform of the JJDPA reauthorizes and strengthens those other parts of the JJDPA that have proven effective. For example, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act are reauthorized and funded. Gang prevention programs are reauthorized. And important, successful programs to provide mentoring for young people in trouble with the law or at risk of getting into trouble with the law are reauthorized and expanded. Operating through the Cooperative Extension Service program sponsored by the Department of Agriculture, the University of Utah has developed a ground-breaking and highly successful program that mentors to entire families--pairing college age mentors with juveniles in trouble or at risk of getting in trouble with the law, and pairing senior citizen couples with the juvenile's parents and siblings. This program gets great bang for the buck. So our bill provides demonstration funds to expand this program and replicate its success in other states. Finally, our bill provides an important new program to encourage state programs that provide accountability in their juvenile justice systems. All or nearly all of our states have taken great strides in reforming their systems, and it is time for the federal government's programs to catch up and provide needed assistance. Despite reforms in recent years, all too often, the juvenile justice system ignores the minor crimes that lead to the increasingly frequent serious and tragic juvenile crimes capturing headlines. Unfortunately, many of these crimes might have been prevented had the warning signs of early acts of delinquency or antisocial behavior been heeded. A delinquent juvenile's critical first brush with the law is a vital aspect of preventing future crimes, because it teaches an important lesson --what behavior will be tolerated. Accountability is not just about punishment--although punishment is frequently needed. It is about teaching consequences and providing rehabilitation to young offenders. According to a recent Department of Justice study, juveniles adjudicated for so-called index crimes--such as murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, and auto theft--began their criminal careers at an early age. The average age for a juvenile committing an index offense is 14.5 years, and typically, by age 7, the future criminal is already showing minor behavior problems. If we can intervene early enough, however, we might avert future tragedies. Our bill provides a new Juvenile Accountability Block Grant to reform federal policy that has been complicit in the system's failure, and provide states with much needed funding for a system of graduated sanctions, including community service for minor crimes, electronically monitored home detention, boot camps, and traditional detention for more serious offenses. And let there be no mistake--detention is needed as well. Our first priority should be to keep our communities safe. We simply have to ensure that violent people are removed from our midst, no matter their age. When a juvenile commits an act as heinous as the worst adult crime, he or she is not a kid anymore, and we shouldn't treat them as kids. State receipt of the incentive grants would be conditioned on the adoption of three core accountability policies: the establishment of graduated sanctions to ensure appropriate correction of juvenile offenders, drug testing juvenile offenders upon arrest in appropriate cases; and recognition of victims rights and needs in the juvenile justice system. Meaningful reform also requires that a juvenile's criminal record ought to be accessible to police, courts, and prosecutors, so that we can know who is a repeat or serious offender. Right now, these records simply are not generally available in NCIC, the national system that tracks adult criminal records. Thus, if a juvenile commits a string of felony offenses, and no record is kept, the police, prosecutors, judges or juries will never know what he did. Maybe for his next offense, he'll get a light sentence or even probation, since it appears he's committed only one felony in his life instead 10 or 15. Such a system makes no sense, and it doesn't protect the public. So the reform we offer in this bill also provides the first federal incentives for the integration of serious juvenile criminal records into the national criminal history database, together with federal funding for the system. Finally, we all recognize the value of education in preventing juvenile crime and rehabilitating juvenile offenders. When trouble- causing juveniles remain in regular classrooms, they frequently make it difficult for all other students to learn. Yet, removing such juveniles from the classroom without addressing their educational needs virtually guarantees that they will fall further into the vortex of crime and delinquency. The costs are high--to the juvenile, but also to victims and to society. These juveniles too frequently become crime committing adults, with all the costs that implies--costs to victims, and the cost of incarcerating the offenders to protect the public. So our bill tries to break this cycle, by providing a three-year $45 million demonstration project to provide alternative education to juveniles in trouble with or at risk of getting in trouble with the law. The bill we are debating today authorizes significant funding for the programs I have described. In all, our bill authorizes a total of $5 billion in assistance to state and local governments. This breaks down to $1 billion per year for five years, in the following categories: $450 million per year for Juvenile Accountability Block Grants; $435 million per year for prevention programs under the JJDPA, including $200 million for Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Block Grants, $200 million for Part B Formula grant prevention programs, and $35 million for Gangs, Mentoring and Discretionary grant programs; $75 million per year for grants to states to upgrade and enhance juvenile felony criminal record histories and to make such records available within NCIC, the national criminal history database used by law enforcement, the courts, and prosecutors; and $40 million per year for NIJ research and evaluation of the effectiveness of juvenile delinquency prevention programs. Additionally, the bill authorizes $100 million per year for joint federal-state-local law enforcement task forces to address gang crime in areas with high concentrations of gang activity. $75 million per year of this funding is authorized for establishment and operation of High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas, and the remaining $25 million per year is authorized for community-based gang prevention and intervention for gang members and at-risk youth in gang areas. And, finally, as I have already noted, the bill authorizes $45 million over three years for innovative alternative education programs to make our schools safer places of learning while helping ensure that the youth most at risk do not get left behind. Under the leadership of a crime conscious Republican Congress and the leadership of our nation's governors, we as a nation have seen a decrease in our overall violent crime rate. Consider that since 1995, we have made significant progress against crime--much of it in partnership with public officials like Governors Mike Leavitt of Utah, Jim Gilmore of Virginia, George Pataki of New York and George W. Bush of Texas, and Mayors Rudy Giulianni of New York City and Richard Riordan of Los Angeles. Consider that violent crime is down 18 percent from 1993 to 1997, murders are down 28 percent from 1993 to 1997, and overall crime is down 10 percent from 1993 to 1997. These declines have put a serious dent in our crime rates for the first time since the 1960's. Congress since 1995 has supported the efforts of our state and local officials with legislation that has provided real funding and real solutions to crime, rather than feel- good measures. We cleared out our courts with habeas corpus and prisoner litigation reform. We have added thousands of border guards to stop criminal aliens from entering the country. We have returned billions of the taxpayers' dollars directly to our governors to build prisons and equip our police. Now it is time to address the problem of juvenile crime in the same way--with real solutions and real support to state and local efforts. Meaningful reforms like truth-in-sentencing laws, which replaced the liberal indeterminate sentencing systems with longer and binding sentences for violent, drug, and repeat offenders, zero-tolerance policing, which put law enforcement officers back in our neighborhoods, and habeas corpus reform, which insured death sentences for heinous criminals would be carried out, have all contributed to this improving picture. Yet, in the face of this improving domestic environment, depraved acts of school and related violence by young people are becoming increasingly more commonplace and increasingly more depraved. While overall, juvenile crime may be headed down slightly, juvenile drug use is up and juveniles increasingly account for the violent crime being committed. Our states are responding to this trend. They recognize, as this first chart shows, that the average age of delinquency or problem behaviors for tomorrow's adult violent offenders begins very early in life--with the average age of a first serious offense occurring before the child turns 12 years old. It is this fact--that many of tomorrow's violent crime problems are today's juvenile delinquents--which caused Senator Sessions and me to take this issue head-on more than three years ago. This chart shows the average age of the onset of problem behaviors of delinquency in male juveniles for minor problem behavior is 7 years old; moderately serious problem behavior is 9.5 years old; serious delinquency, 11.9 years of age, almost 12; and first court contact for index offenses, 14.5 years old. This is data based on the statements of the oldest sampling in the Pittsburgh Youth Study and on statements made by their mothers. It was also in the OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, ``Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders,'' in May 1998. I am concerned that the Clinton Administration has been slow to respond and provide assistance. They have failed to enforce the gun laws already on the books and they have sat silently by, failing to endorse our bill because it was too tough on violent juveniles and because it wanted more control over how the monies would be spent. As recently as last week, I offered the Attorney General the opportunity to endorse S. 254 or provide us with her suggested improvements but we have heard nothing. Instead the Administration holds summits which produce nothing in terms of assisting the states. Instead of concrete proposals, the Administration offers the public poll-driven, legislative trinkets. They hold press conferences ``announcing'' as their own industry driven reforms aimed at making the Internet more safe for children. Desperate for something to crticize, I expect the Administration will argue that our bill is short on the prevention-side of the equation--a claim they have to know just doesn't add up. Consider the fact that, under our bill, Justice Department juvenile justice spending will reach unprecedented heights. Since 1994, the Republican Congress has steadily increase funding for OJJDP--from $107 million in FY 94 to $267 million in FY 99. Our bill continues this trend by increasing authorized funding levels over existing appropriations from $267 million to $435 million in FY 2000. So, it is left to the Congress--once again--to step forward to provide the necessary leadership at the federal level. I hope the Administration will see its way clear to do what's right and come out in support of our efforts to help fight juvenile crime. Mr. President, in the face of a confounding problem like juvenile crime and school violence, it is tempting to look for easy answers. It is also tempting to play politics and advance poll-driven, legislative trinkets in lieu of meaningful reform. I do not believe that we should succumb to this temptation. We are faced with a complex problem which cannot be solved solely by the enactment of new criminal prohibitions. It is at its core a problem of our nation's values. But I believe that by parents and communities working together to teach accountability by example, by early intervention when the signs clearly point to violent and antisocial behavior, and by demanding more of our popular culture and industry leaders, we will be taking a postitive step forward. Mr. President, that is what our efforts are all about. Our efforts are a comprehensive approach to this national problem. I hope we can work together to develop a bipartisan solution to these problems as well. To that degree, I appreciate the work of my colleagues, especially Senator Sessions, who worked so long and hard on our side, as well as Senator Campbell, who has been very concerned about these juvenile crime issues, and my colleagues on the Democratic side, Senator Biden, Senator Leahy, and others, who are working with us to try to come up with what needs to be done. Privilege Of The Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent floor privileges be granted to the following staff for the duration of the Senate's consideration of S. 254: Sharon Prost, Rhett DeHart, Michael Kennedy, Craig Wolf, Ed Harden, Leah Belaire, and David Muhlhausen. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished Senator and I understand the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is about to take the floor. Does the distinguished Senator from California wish to speak before lunch?

Mr. HATCH. Then I suggest after the Senator from Minnesota completes his remarks we recess for the policy meeting. Is there any objection?

Mr. HATCH. The Senator would be the last speaker before the policy meetings of both parties.

Mr. HATCH. I am hoping after lunch we will be able to start on the first amendment. But we will certainly accommodate the Senators as they come to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Sure. Of course it is. We will try to go back and forth, if we can, on the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator withhold until after we have offered an amendment?

Mr. HATCH. After we have offered an amendment, then we will work it out.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 11, 1999, in executive session, to mark up the fiscal year 2000 Defense authorization bill.