Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. It is my understanding the distinguished Senator from New York just wants to speak on the bill.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from Massachusetts would like to make a statement for debate only. Am I correct, the senior Senator from Massachusetts would like to make a statement for debate only, and also the distinguished Senator from California would like to make a statement for debate purposes only? I ask unanimous consent they be permitted to proceed at this point.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we were hopeful that we could call up the Hatch-Biden-Sessions amendment and get a vote on that. We would like to cooperate with fellow Senators and be able to do that. We hope the Senator from Massachusetts will defer any amendments until we finish with that.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, we are looking at the Robb amendment.

Mr. HATCH. We are looking at the Robb amendment and studying it to determine when and if it is to be brought up. If the Senator wants to speak, it is not before the Senate.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. The Senator from Utah understands that. We chatted with Senator Robb and said we would look at the amendment to see if it is something we can accept. If not, he can bring it up any time he wants to in the regular course of business. He had to go to another meeting, and we will discuss the amendment as soon as he returns.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize a very dear friend of mine in the Senate and his historic 10,000th vote. His name is Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, a friend and colleague whose distinguished career has elevated both the quality and stature of the Senate. The number 10,000 is an important landmark in a career that has many milestones, but I believe Senator Biden will be best remembered for the significance of his varied votes. I have seen many of those notable votes cast. In every one of those votes he was careful, deliberate, and respectful of his duty to the people of Delaware. Joe and I have served in the Senate for roughly the same amount of time. He has been here a couple of years longer than I. We have worked closely together in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chaired and which I now chair. On occasion we have agreed to disagree. In fact, I wish he had cast more of those 10,000 votes with me. In all seriousness, however, Joe and I have found many areas where we strongly have agreed. Joe has long been a leader on the issue of youth violence, an issue which has affected countless lives in Delaware, Utah, and the rest of the Nation. In 1974, he was the lead sponsor of the Juvenile Justice Prevention Act. In 1992, he sponsored the Juvenile Justice Prevention Act Amendments, which provided States with Federal grants for a complete and comprehensive approach to improve the juvenile justice system and controlling juvenile crime. He has long advocated a tough stand against illegal drugs. He authored the law creating the Nation's drug czar, and in 1986, he was the guiding force for the enactment of groundbreaking drug legislation. He has probably done as much if not more than anybody in the Senate with regard to the antidrug stances that we all should support and that we all appreciate today. With regard to juvenile justice, next week we bring up a juvenile justice bill. Senator Biden has been a mainstay in helping to resolve conflicts that we have in that bill and hopefully helping it to become a bipartisan bill that all of us can support. What I admire most about Joe is the fact that he is the staunchest defender of his party's beliefs, yet he does not hesitate to cross party lines to forge a consensus position when he believes it is the right thing to do. Nowhere is that more evident than with the issue of juvenile crime. Joe has a history of standing up for what is right when it comes to juvenile crime, and I believe he will continue to do so. We look forward to working with him next week. While chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he authored the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which was signed into law in 1994. While I differed with much that was contained and dropped from the bill, this legislation contained the Biden-Hatch Violence Against Women Act, the first comprehensive law to address gender-based offenses. Senator Biden's leadership on this issue changed how many Americans view the issue of violence against women. He even changed how we refer to domestic abuse in the Senate by continually asking, ``What's domestic about beating your wife?'' Joe is widely regarded as a foreign policy expert. Many remember his leadership on NATO expansion in 1998. He stood out as a strong advocate for the inclusion of several Eastern European nations into the alliance. NATO is now engaged in its greatest test, and I am convinced that Joe's leadership was integral in strengthening the alliance. In 1997, Senator Biden showed these same leadership skills when he led the successful effort in the Senate to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. Joe Biden has truly had a distinguished career in the Senate. All that said and done, I could go on and on about his distinguished career, but it is his personal qualities that have impressed his friends, his family, and his colleagues, including, of course, myself as a friend and as a colleague. Many may not know that Senator Biden overcame two operations for a near-fatal brain aneurysm in 1988 and returned to the Senate in 1989. I remember those days and I remember how catastrophic they were for him, his family, and for those of us who prayed for him. He showed great courage and persistence in overcoming that adversity. Nobody was more thankful than his wife and three children, to whom he is a loving husband and father. Indeed, he is renowned for putting his family first, as demonstrated by his daily commute to and from Delaware. The fact that he takes a 2-hour train ride to get here every day makes the accomplishment of reaching 10,000 votes all the more astounding. So it is with great honor that I ask my colleagues to join me and others in congratulating Senator Joseph R. Biden on his 10,000th vote. His many contributions to this body are appreciated and recognized. I am sure that I speak for all of my colleagues when I say we will enjoy keeping a close eye on the many votes yet to come. Just as a gift this evening, this is the last CD that we have done. It is, frankly, Santita Jackson, Jesse Jackson's daughter, singing with a wonderful young African American from Nashville, who is as good a singer as anybody in the world, named Chris Willis. This CD is entitled ``Put Your Arms Around the World.'' I think it kind of applies to Joe Biden. When he listens to the song written by Peter McCann and me-- Peter McCann wrote ``It's the Right Time of the Night'' and ``Want to Make Love''--called ``Take Good Care of My Heart,'' that particular song, I think, really applies to Senator Biden because, in his own way, with his tremendous interest in foreign policy, tremendous interest in the law, his tremendous interest in overcoming injustice in our society not only here but throughout the world, I think this song will mean something to him. It certainly does to me. Santita Jackson and Chris Willis are two of the rising young stars in America. I would like to give this CD to Senator Biden at this time and say that I look forward to serving with him for a long time to come. So hang in there. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, of all the occupations in America, teachers may deserve their own ``appreciation day'' the most. And, perhaps no occupation influences the future of our country more. I am delighted to join my colleagues today in paying tribute to those teachers all over America who have made a real difference. One special teacher who made a real difference in my life was Mr. McElroy. When I was a young boy, I played my violin in the school orchestra. On the day of one of our most important performances, the student who was supposed to play a solo on the bass got sick and was unable to perform. My music director, Mr. McElroy came to me and convinced me that, even though I had never played the bass, I could perform the solo. I had terrible doubts about my ability to step in and do the job. But Mr. McElroy had confidence in me, even if I didn't. And he worked with me and encouraged me and coached me for most of that afternoon. That night I was able to play the solo without making a mistake. As I think back on it, this was one experience that taught me that if I applied myself I could meet a challenge. When, in 1976, everyone believed I was a long-shot to win the nomination and, indeed, the election to become Utah's senator, I should have told them about Mr. McElroy. I know that right now, in a classroom in Utah--maybe in the room of Diane Crim, who teaches math at Salt Lake's Clayton Intermediate School and is Utah's 1998 Teacher of the Year--another young student is learning these important lessons thanks to a dedicated and caring teacher. Teaching is not just a job, it's a calling. It is a calling to impart knowledge, to mete out discipline, to inspire, to motivate. Last week, our entire nation mourned the loss of a devoted teacher, Dave Sanders. The testimony of his students to his caring, whether in the classroom or on the basketball court, is a tribute better than any we here in the Senate could pay. I hope that the students he taught at Columbine High School will go on to practice the lessons he taught and be the kind of citizens in the community that he hoped they would be. Mr. President, Mr. McElroy, Diane Crim, and Dave Sanders all represent the best of the teaching profession. There are thousands of others we could mention here today who have helped our children learn the keys for living such as reading, math, science, and history. But, more than that, they have helped reinforce essential values like hard work, perseverance, team work, and integrity. I am pleased to join in honoring these teachers today. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, today I stand in support of this resolution offered by the Senator from Arizona. I think we all must acknowledge his experience in military issues. And, few of us in the Senate can speak with the authority that his personal experience in war has given him. I do not believe that we should be debating this today because of the War Powers Act, which I have always believed to be unconstitutional. But, Mr. President, if the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional under President Clinton as much as it was under President Nixon. I, for one, will not reverse my legal assessment of the act just because of the current officeholder in the White House. I confess that I do not have a great deal of confidence in the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration, Mr. President. I have been outspoken about this President's failures, particularly in dealing with this ongoing crisis in the Balkans. But, I do not think we should shape analysis, shade history, or ignore facts to serve our profound discomfort with this Administration's foreign policy. For example, I would not join some members of the other body when they argue that Operation Allied Force caused the genocidal campaign now being perpetrated by Milosevic's troops and thugs in Kosovo. That is a deplorable abandonment of analytic thinking, an egregious failure to recognize cause and effect. We know, Mr. President, that the Serbs were planning this program of ethnic uprooting, of civilian massacres and worse. We know that the Serbs were preparing this for nearly a year. We know that, for many years, the official Serbian regime practiced a form of apartheid toward the Kosovar Albanians. And we know that genocide and ethnic cleansing are what Slobodan Milosevic does. It's on his resume. This is Milosevic's fourth war. This is not a manipulation of reality. In 1991, Milosevic's Yugoslav military attacked Slovenia and Croatia. In 1992, he began a war in Bosnia that led to the deaths of over 250,000 people, most of whom were civilians. And, let us not forget Vukovar, Mr. President, the Croatian city besieged and demolished by Serb forces, who, upon the fall of the city, entered and massacred residents, including patients trapped in hospitals. Let us not forget Srebrenica, Mr. President, when Milosevic's general, Ratko Mladic, captured the Muslim town, marched 7,000 men and boys into open fields outside of town and massacred them in open graves. This is what Milosevic does. His reward for these wars was to be a negotiating partner at Dayton, Ohio. He survived because the Clinton administration operates under naive notions of peace and a feckless obeisance to polls. When it leads, it follows chimeras of the Vietnam protester generation; most of the time it follows. For the Clinton Administration, Mr. President, the pursuit of peace is the pursuit of a childish notion: The notion that peace is the absence of conflict. Such a simplistic view of peace explains why they have committed so many mistakes in the Balkans. The absence of conflict, Richard Nixon once wrote, exists only in two places: in the grave and at the typewriter. The point is not the absence of conflict, but the management of conflict so that it does not erupt into violence. And, Mr. President, to continue to negotiate with Slobodan Milosevic, as we did until last month, and as I suspect the Administration would do if it could, is a guarantee of greater, future violence. The evidence is plenty and irrefutable, in my opinion, that the ultranationalist regime Milosevic must have war to survive. That is why, Mr. President, we are seeing the brutal effects of Milosevic's fourth war today. Many are very uncomfortable in giving this President the kind of support stated in this resolution. Columnist William Safire in Monday's New York Times called it ``The Price of Distrust,'' and stated that ``Clinton has so few followers in Congress because he is himself the world's leading follower.'' Recall how candidate Clinton advocated bombing Slobodan Milosevic in 1992 as part of the ``lift and strike'' strategy (lift the embargo on the Bosnians and strike the Serbs) to aid the Bosnians, who were desperately holding off Milosevic's forces. I promoted ``lift and strike'' in 1992. But when candidate Clinton became President Clinton, he lost his desire to attack Milosevic and adopted a policy of leading the Europeans, whose mismanagement of the conflict ultimately required American leadership in 1995. I have a vivid and bitter memory of a dramatic discussion I had with then Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Siladzic in the summer of 1995, when he had come to the U.S. to plead for us to lift our arms embargo against his forces besieged by the well-armed Serbs. He met with me moments after pleading, unsuccessfully, with Vice President Gore. President Clinton had refused to meet with him. When I asked the Prime Minister what was the Vice President's reasoning, I was told that the Administration believed that lifting the arms embargo would cause the Serbs to attack the eastern enclaves of Zepa, Gorazde and Srebrenica. This is, of course, what the Serbs did anyway, weeks later. Over 8,000 unarmed men and boys were herded out of town and massacred. In retrospect, I do not know what is more astounding: The Administration's completely fallacious logic then, or the fact that, with the graves of Srebrenica as a glaring lesson, they were unprepared for Milosevic's campaign of genocide unleashed in the last month. In spite of these criticisms, I believe there are essential American national interests at stake in the Balkans. Europe has always been important to the United States, both politically and economically. We cannot stand by and watch while this region is continually disrupted. We cannot accept instability in a region that is a geopolitical crossroads and an economic thoroughfare benefitting U.S. security and trade. Therefore, Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution. Its purpose is to indicate a congressional stand on a war that is going into its second month. Countries in the region are being destabilized. Albanian and Croatian borders have been crossed by Serbian military forces, and the slaughter going on in Kosovo has seen nothing like it in Europe since the Holocaust. In the wake of these events, I believe the United States must lead. If we wish our own interests to be secure, we cannot afford to ignore instability in other key regions. We cannot look the other way and imagine that such conflict will not have an impact on us. And, we cannot abdicate our role in NATO, perhaps the most successful military alliance of the post-war era. If NATO, comprised of democratic, freedom-loving nations of Europe, fails, we face untold political and military tests in the future. Yes, Mr. President, there have been egregious mistakes conducted in the prosecution of this war. No mistake has been greater than the repeated assertion that we would not even plan for the possibility of ground forces. This is not political leadership, Mr. President, it is leadership paralysis. It will lead, I fear, to a defeat for NATO, to a diminution of the symbolic power of the U.S. military, and an increase in the insecurity this country will face in the very near future. Other NATO leaders such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair--who, never once in his political career has been referred to as a ``hawk''-- have at least the sensibility to recommend planning for the possibility of ground forces. The most critical error made by this Administration has been to reiterate our refusal to consider ground forces. This self-limiting rhetoric--which the public doesn't even believe--has compromised our military campaign so far. By declaring to Milosevic what we will not do, we have prolonged the air campaign, and thereby increased the risks to the pilots and their support. We have undermined out political goals, which, one must presume, can only be achieved by meeting our military goals. In short, we have given Milosevic the incentive to ``wait NATO out.'' And this is what leads us to this debate today, Mr. President. I believe that NATO, as the alliance led by this country for half a century, embodies both the symbolic and real military strength of this country. If it is to engage in war, as it is now, it should not limit its planning so that we increase the chance of failure. That is what is happening right now. Some fear that we give this President a blank check with this resolution. We should also consider that such reticence by the Senate position can be interpreted as a lack of resolve by Milosevic and his gang of killers. It could also be read by this President as an excuse to conclude this war in a way that does not meet even the scant NATO objectives articulated so far. One thing we have witnessed over the past decade in the Balkans, Mr. President, is that the longer we wait, the lousier the options. Fear of incrementalism can become incrementalism. We have seen this in years of ignoring the situation each time until it escalates and then meeting that escalation with stop-gap measures. Had we used airpower to degrade or destroy Milosevic's regime in the early part of this decade, we would most likely have seen the rise of a Serbian alternative to his regime. By allowing him to stay in power, he has eviscerated the legitimate democratic opposition in Serbia, and he has coalesced his power by bringing in the worst of the ultranationalists. So today, at the end of a decade of genocidal wars led by Milosevic, we appear feckless in the face of yet another war. Mr. President, let me predict now that if Milosevic's military is not destroyed--whether by air, by land, or by sea--this will not be the last war. Ask the leaders of Albania and Macedonia if they feel secure having a strong Serb military led by Milosevic camped on their borders. Ask the Hungarian leadership. Let me be clear about this: This is not an instruction to the President to send in ground forces. I do not believe we should micromanage wars. To the extent that air power can get the job done, I would be very happy not to send American troops into this theater. But, this resolution indicates that we accept no self-limiting conditions on our military options. The leader of the United States has hamstrung the most modern, effective military operation in history. But, this resolution puts him on notice: If he fails to achieve the objectives, he will not turn to the supporters of this resolution and declare we were responsible for the failure. Some insist that this is primarily a ``civil war,'' and that there is the matter of Serbian sovereignty to respect. I would make three brief remarks regarding this view. One, the rapid depopulation of hundreds of thousands of people and their forced movement across borders is an aggressive act, with destabilizing consequences for the region. If, for example, the Chinese were to unleash a million refugees across the Pacific to our shores, we would consider that an aggressive act. Second, international law is by no means clear in protecting the right of a brutal regime to slaughter its citizens. And, third, Mr. President, while we can debate the level of national interest in Kosovo, I do not believe that we, in this body, Republican or Democrat, advocate for the sovereign rights of genocidal dictators. Mr. President, I greatly fear the consequences of failing in our war against Milosevic. Yes, it is complicated, as are most matters of foreign policy. Yes, we do not have excellent options, although rarely in our history have we had them. But we cannot deny the reality of an aggressive dictator waging war after war in Europe, in a Europe this country has recognized is in our national interest, a Europe over which we fought two hot wars and one Cold War. The result of our victory in that Cold War was the liberation of eastern Europe. One dictator remaining in southeastern Europe has inflamed the region, and if he continues undefeated, others will rise in Europe and elsewhere. Among them will be some who believe they are destined to challenge America. Some of these dictators have already shown themselves, such as Saddam Hussein. And, he's taking notes. Seeing the survival of Slobodan Milosevic, he and others will challenge us again and again. I predict, Mr. President, that with the survival of Slobodan Milosevic, the security of this country will be increasingly challenged. Mr. President, the point of this resolution is to indicate that the Senate of the United States will support whatever it takes to achieve the NATO objectives. If NATO fails--and there is no objective reason that it should--it will be because of a failure of political will. The supporters of this resolution, every one of them, indicate today that we have the political will. I expect that we will have the opportunity in the near future when members who support tabling the resolution will be able to revisit the debate and demonstrate their resolve as well. Discomfort and disappointment with the Administration's conduct of this war is not an excuse for us to hedge our political will, Mr. President. That is why I will support the McCain resolution. At the end of the day, history does not wait for a heroic administration. As I stand to address this debate, I recall the Boland amendment debates in the 1980s, and the constant interference with the President's right to resolve foreign policy issues. I argued that this violated the Constitution at that time, and I tend to disagree today with some Republicans who are reluctant to support the President simply because the tables have turned. I support the McCain resolution. I think it is the right thing. All we do is give the President the authorization to use all necessary force to support our objectives. It seems to me that is a pretty reasonable thing for which to ask. Three years ago we met with Milosevic in Belgrade. This is a man who has put himself in power and kept himself in power through ethnic conflict. If NATO and this President don't do what is right here, this man will continue that ethnic conflict and it will lead to more wars. In 1992, I recommended a lift-and-strike strategy--lift the embargo and strike Milosevic's army that was committing genocidal war. Had we done that then, we wouldn't be in this problem today. The President has done what is right in going after this regime and in stopping them from further genocidal conduct and letting them know that enough is enough. But I fear the President has begun something that he is unsure of completing. His goals remain vague and, worse, he has limited the means he declares he will employ. I commend those who have supported this particular resolution, and I thank my dear friend from Connecticut for allowing me this time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record ``The Price of Distrust,'' by William Safire.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to Kenneth Y. Knight, a fellow Utahan whose selfless contributions have benefited many, and whose indelible imprint will be felt for many years to come across the great State of Utah. Ken Knight is truly a hero to the community of Salt Lake City. His selfless acts of kindness along with his unparalleled wisdom have made him one of the most respected individuals the State of Utah has had the good fortune of calling ``one of its own.'' Ken is truly a ``man for all seasons.'' He is a devoted husband and father, a highly respected businessman, a loyal community servant, and a deeply patriotic and religious leader. Mr. Knight has had a life full of extraordinary achievement. As a youth, he gained the Boy Scouts of America Eagle Rank--an honor he continues to hold dear--and was elected student body president at his high school. He excelled in academics and athletics as well. For the past several years, Ken Knight has distinguished himself in business, serving as Vice Chairman of the Board of Sinclair Oil Corporation and Little America. He was instrumental in the remarkable expansion of Sinclair and Little America, and he has mentored and shared his skills with dozens of corporate employees and community leaders. Mr. Knight's special friend and professional partner R. Earl Holding recognized the value of Ken's service when he stated, ``Perhaps the biggest challenge I faced with Ken--a challenge in which I failed was to keep him to myself. Every organization, every board, and every worthwhile charity you can think of, all wanted him to be part of their cause. His personal contributions--in time and resources--have been profound. He loves the community and the community loves him. And he had the admiration and respect of civic and government leaders throughout the State of Utah.'' Many organizations in Utah have benefited from his service and involvement including--Intermountain Health Care, the Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce, Brigham Young University, the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Salt Place Advisory Board, the Utah Travel Council, LDS Hospital, U.S. West, Utah Economic Development Corporation, the LDS Foundation's National Executive Committee for Natural Resources, Utah Youth Village, and the Utah Symphony. Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, described Mr. Knight this way: ``The measure of any man is his contribution to the society of which he is a part. Using that measure, Ken stands very tall. He truly has been a giant in our city. He knows the pulse of the community. He measures well before he leaps. There is nothing impetuous about him. He is quiet and methodical . . . He has been a good friend to each of us. He has been a man of singular accomplishment. We are all indebted to him.'' While serving as Chairman of the Utah Symphony, Mr. Knight was faced with a great challenge. ``Ken is the kind of person who relishes a challenge and it was in that spirit that he took on the chairmanship of the Utah Symphony during its darkest hour, when it had virtually depleted its reserves after running deficits for a period of several years,'' stated Harris H. Simmons, president and chief executive officer for Zions Bancorporation. To secure its future, he led legislative efforts and a public referendum to permanently devote civic funds for artistic achievement. This action not only saved the symphony, but it also widened cultural opportunities in dance, opera, theater, and other artistic expressions. ``When he was Chairman of the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau, he was the champion for expansion of the Salt Palace Convention Center, which has had a positive economic impact of hundreds of millions of dollars from increased convention and visitor spending,'' stated Richard E. Davis, president and CEO of the Bureau. While serving the Chamber of Commerce he helped overhaul the Workers Compensation Fund in Utah. Fred Ball, who was the Executive Director of the Chamber at the time, stated, ``The results of his efforts have now made Utah one of the very best States in the Nation for both rates and for benefits. Costs and claims were reduced dramatically and all agree that without Ken Knight, it would never have happened. Every Utah business, large and small, are enjoying the efforts of Ken Knight.'' Ken and his wife Nancy have raised five wonderful children, all of whom are decent, responsible citizens and--like their parents-- achievers. Perhaps the greatest tribute written about Ken comes from his daughter Lucy Knight Andre when she wrote: ``My father is often honored for his many professional and civic accomplishments. While those honors are well-deserved, they do not represent the most important and least known side of my father--his complete devotion to his family. He adores his children and his grandchildren, and everything he has done in his life has been for the ultimate benefit of his family . . . He taught us to work hard, laugh often, and never look at any problem as insurmountable. He has a great love for his Heavenly Father and an absolute commitment to his Church. He taught us by example the importance of service to our God and our fellow men. Whatever his myriad accomplishments in the community might be, those of us in his family have a remarkable legacy of ingenuity, devotion and love.'' These are indeed wonderful words for a truly remarkable man. It is an honor for me to call all of his magnificent achievements to the attention of the Senate.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased to announce my submission of a Senate resolution, together with other members of the U.S. Senate Republican Conference Task Force on Hispanic Affairs and the Senate Democrat Working Group on Hispanic Issues, to designate April 30, 2000, as Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans. Last Congress, the resolution to designate April 30, 1999, as a day to celebrate young Americans passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. As a result, cities and towns throughout the country will host community events to celebrate the nation's children throughout this week. In fact, in my home state of Utah a very special celebration is planned. Tomorrow, in Salt Lake City, on Dia de los Ninos: Dia de Los Libros [Day of the Children: Day of Books], we will dedicate the first Americas Award Reference and Resource Library to be established at the Centro de la Familia Center. This unique library will house over 1,500 books and will form the central part of a literacy program aimed at encouraging children and young adults to explore the written world by reading books that authentically and engagingly present the experience of individuals in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Latinos in the United States. These wonderful stories will help children learn to read, to expand their universe and dreams, to develop a better understanding of the history of the Americas, and to enhance their own self-esteem. Our children are our greatest promise for the preservation and betterment of this country's healthy and competitive global edge. As leaders and purveyors of hope for a better America, we must continue to nurture their development and potential through innovative programs and discussions that encourage and challenge them to become the prime movers and guardians of investments made thus far. Children's days are celebrated in many other nations, including Japan and Korea on May 5, Canada on November 20, Turkey on April 23, and Mexico on April 30. Local coalitions have formed in 17 states to realize Dia de los Ninos: Celebrating Young Americans as a special day for all children throughout this country. I think it is imperative, especially now given the recent tragedy of Columbine, Colorado, that we celebrate, honor, and encourage our youth, in much the same way we honor parents during Mother's Day or Father's Day. Our purpose is strictly to uplift children. There are no easy solutions for the challenges that face our modern day society. But I do know that we need to make and take the time to listen, to support, to observe, and to accept responsibility as parents for raising children prepared to meet the challenge of living in a complex multicultural society--a society that bestows freedom on its citizens predicated on the acceptance of basic moral values. I believe that calling upon the nation to set aside a day for that purpose can be an important step in building awareness among adults that our children need parental love, care, and guidance. They need positive role models--coaches, teachers, employers--as well as from the entertainment industry and professional sports. They need to know there is satisfaction in doing their best, honor in doing the right things, and consequences for doing the wrong thing. A day to reflect on what we are teaching our children and the cultural legacy we are leaving them could very well be a turning point for our country. It is my hope that when the sun goes down tomorrow evening we will have rededicated ourselves to this most important purpose of all--to nurture our children.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Twenty- first Century Justice Act. Last month, when I announced this initiative, along with my colleagues Senator Thurmond, Senator DeWine, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Sessions, Senator Abraham, and Senator Grams, I noted that despite some modest gains in the fight against crime, violent crime still touched far too many Americans. Sadly, this has been borne out in the weeks since. As the recent tragedies in Littleton, CO, and in my own hometown of Salt Lake City, UT, remind us, crime in America is still too prevalent and violent. The tragic cost imposed on law-abiding citizens requires reasoned and thoughtful action to deter these heinous crimes. We must come together as a society to address this problem. Furthermore, we should recognize that there is little the Federal Government could have done directly to have prevented the tragedies in Littleton and elsewhere. There are, however, important steps we can take to address this issue. Our crime bill takes such steps. Now, let me describe for my colleagues how this bill, which is a balanced, comprehensive, and focused plan to fight crime, will expand current successful law enforcement practices. It is based on what we know reduces crime. Be it increased methamphetamine abuse in Utah and other Western states, further increases in juvenile crime, or the threat of international crime, we know that our plan will make a significant difference. Our plan maintains and strengthens the current federal assistance to States that has proven invaluable in reducing crime nationally, and it adds new initiatives that will further reduce crime at the federal, state, and local levels. I am proud of our plan, and I look forward to working with the administration and my Senate colleagues to enact it. America witnessed an unprecedented growth in crime during the 20th century. Our plan ensures that we will become the 21st century with decreasing crime rates. Our plan contains four central elements: First, it continues and improves Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. Second, it reinvigorates our commitment to winning the war on drugs. Third, it emphasizes holding violent offenders accountable by vigorously prosecuting gun crimes. And fourth, it includes needed judicial and criminal procedure reforms and protections for the rights of crime victims. Notwithstanding the leadership we have seen here in Congress and by many of our nation's governors, crime in America is still unacceptably high by historical standards. For example, for 1997--the most recent year for which national crime rate statistics are available--the murder rate was 33 percent higher than it was in 1960, and the rape rate was 413 percent higher than in 1960. In 1997, the aggravated assault rate was 526 percent higher than it was in 1960. Even with the modest declines in recent years, America still has more violent crime than any industrialized nation in the world. The first obligation of government is to protect its citizens from crime. Obviously, despite the recent declines, we have a long way to go in reducing crime in America. Despite the recent progress--much of it in partnership with Governors like Mike Leavitt of Utah, George Allen and Jim Gilmore of Virginia, and George W. Bush of Texas--we cannot become complacent. The most troubling aspect of the Clinton Justice Department's budget is its elimination of block grants that have proven so successful in helping state and local authorities reduce crime. We simply cannot become indifferent. Remember the war on drugs? During the Reagan and Bush administrations, our nation began a national, long-term commitment to fight drug abuse. Due to these efforts, drug use began to decline. However, drug use, especially among teenagers, has exploded since 1992. Unless we remain vigilant, the same will happen with violent crime. Permit me to review each of the four main parts to our legislative crime plan in greater detail. Continuing and Improving Federal Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Combined with our ongoing commitment to prevention and treatment, our bill extends the authorization for the highly successful partnership we have created with local law enforcement--the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, which the Republican Congress created in the Contract with America. Since fiscal year 1996, this program has provided more than $2 billion in funding for equipment and technology, such as radios and scanners, directly to state and local law enforcement. The authorization for this program will be between $600-700 million per year. Although the block grant has been extremely effective in assisting state and local law enforcement, the Clinton administration budget eliminates funding for this program. Our bill also reauthorizes the truth-in-sentencing prison grants at approximately $700 million per year. These truth-in-sentencing grants, which provide funds to States to build prisons, have been instrumental in lowering crime by encouraging States to incarcerate violent and repeat offenders for at least 85 percent of their sentence. In January, the Justice Department reported that 70 percent of prison admissions in 1997 were in States requiring criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. More significantly, the average time served by violent criminals nationally has increased 12.2 percent since 1993. Perhaps the biggest reason for recent declines in violent crime is due to these truth-in-sentencing prison grants. Simply put, violent criminals cannot commit crimes against innocent victims while in prison. Our bill continues this successful program and makes the program more flexible by allowing States to use the funds for jails and juvenile facilities, in addition to prison construction. Despite this success, the Clinton administration eliminates funding for the Truth-in-Sentencing program--even though many States have changed their laws due to this federal commitment to assist in prison construction. Nothing deters and prevents violent crime as well as incarcerating violent and repeat offenders. Our bill also includes the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant to help States build juvenile detention centers, drug test juvenile offenders, establish graduated sentencing sanctions for repeat juvenile offenders, and improve juvenile record keeping. This provision authorizes $450 million for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. It also includes $435 million for prevention programs and reauthorizes the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention within the Justice Department. The administration's budget eliminates funding for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, even though these are the only federal funds dedicated to juvenile law enforcement purposes. Finally, our bill reauthorizes and reforms the COPS program re- targeting this assistance to the type of policing we know works--zero tolerance for crime, computer tracking of criminal hot spots, and holding commanders responsible for results. A Commitment to Winning the War on Drugs The second major part of this legislative addresses drugs. This section focuses attention where only the federal government has the ability to make a difference--drug interdiction. It also increases the penalties for methamphetamine and powder cocaine trafficking. Our bill encourages States to keep prisons and jails drug-free to break the link between drugs and crime--and provides bonus grants to help States do this. And our bill includes a faith-based drug treatment bill designed by Senator Abraham. I would especially like to thank and acknowledge the leadership that Senators Ashcroft and DeWine have shown in fighting drugs, particularly methamphetamine. Their leadership has been invaluable on this issue. Holding Violent Offenders Accountable Through Firearms Prosecutions I do not support gun control, but I do believe in crime control. In addition to remaining true to truth-in-sentencing and prison construction, our bill builds on and expands a successful Richmond, Virginia program in which the U.S. Attorney's office prosecutes as many local gun-related crimes in federal court as possible to take advantage of federal mandatory minimum sentences and stiff bond rules. This provision does not create additional federal crimes, but instead utilizes existing federal statues. This program builds on the Project Triggerlock program which was implemented by the Bush administration. This program emphasizes cooperation between state and federal prosecutors, as well as the BATF and the local police departments. The last major component of this program is an extensive media campaign to promote the message to potential criminals that ``[a]n illegal gun will get you five years in federal prison.'' The media campaign also encourages citizens to report gun crimes to authorities. This program has been a huge success. Homicides have decreased 50 percent in Richmond after this program was implemented. Our bill provides funds to implement this program in major cities across the nation. Again, the Clinton administration's record on gun prosecutions is troubling. Between 1992 and 1997, Triggerlock gun prosecutions dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to 3,765. These are prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a felony. Judicial-Procedural Reforms and Victims' Rights The last major element of our crime plan enacts procedural and judicial reforms that improve the administration of justice. Our bill reforms the Miranda rule to allow voluntary statements in evidence. It codifies common-sense procedural issues, including the ``good-faith'' exception to exclusionary rule, and further reforms habeas corpus appeals. Our bill also recognizes that the administration of justice requires government to safeguard the interests of victims. How can there be justice if crime victims feel victimized by the criminal justice system? The bill ensures that victims are given respect in the criminal system, ensuring their right to attend trials in federal court, to be heard at critical stages such as detention hearings, and to be notified when the defendant is released or escapes. Our bill also calls for ratification of a crime victim's rights constitutional amendment to ensure that these rights are recognized everywhere in America. Our bill also steers necessary funds toward combating violence against women and children, and strengthens federal mandatory restitution laws. This bill is not a panacea for our crime problem. We are faced, I believe, with a problem which cannot be solved alone by new laws. It is, at its core, a moral problem. Somehow, in too many instances, we have failed as a society to pass to the next generation the moral compass that differentiates right from wrong. This problem cannot be solved by legislation alone. It cannot be restored by the enactment of a new law or the implementation of a new program But it can be achieved by families and communities working together to teach accountability by example and by early intervention when the signs point to violent and antisocial behavior. Our bill is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this important crime fighting legislation, which will strengthen our nation's ability to protect citizens from the scourge of violent crime.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Twenty- first Century Justice Act. Last month, when I announced this initiative, along with my colleagues Senator Thurmond, Senator DeWine, Senator Ashcroft, Senator Sessions, Senator Abraham, and Senator Grams, I noted that despite some modest gains in the fight against crime, violent crime still touched far too many Americans. Sadly, this has been borne out in the weeks since. As the recent tragedies in Littleton, CO, and in my own hometown of Salt Lake City, UT, remind us, crime in America is still too prevalent and violent. The tragic cost imposed on law-abiding citizens requires reasoned and thoughtful action to deter these heinous crimes. We must come together as a society to address this problem. Furthermore, we should recognize that there is little the Federal Government could have done directly to have prevented the tragedies in Littleton and elsewhere. There are, however, important steps we can take to address this issue. Our crime bill takes such steps. Now, let me describe for my colleagues how this bill, which is a balanced, comprehensive, and focused plan to fight crime, will expand current successful law enforcement practices. It is based on what we know reduces crime. Be it increased methamphetamine abuse in Utah and other Western states, further increases in juvenile crime, or the threat of international crime, we know that our plan will make a significant difference. Our plan maintains and strengthens the current federal assistance to States that has proven invaluable in reducing crime nationally, and it adds new initiatives that will further reduce crime at the federal, state, and local levels. I am proud of our plan, and I look forward to working with the administration and my Senate colleagues to enact it. America witnessed an unprecedented growth in crime during the 20th century. Our plan ensures that we will become the 21st century with decreasing crime rates. Our plan contains four central elements: First, it continues and improves Federal assistance to State and local law enforcement. Second, it reinvigorates our commitment to winning the war on drugs. Third, it emphasizes holding violent offenders accountable by vigorously prosecuting gun crimes. And fourth, it includes needed judicial and criminal procedure reforms and protections for the rights of crime victims. Notwithstanding the leadership we have seen here in Congress and by many of our nation's governors, crime in America is still unacceptably high by historical standards. For example, for 1997--the most recent year for which national crime rate statistics are available--the murder rate was 33 percent higher than it was in 1960, and the rape rate was 413 percent higher than in 1960. In 1997, the aggravated assault rate was 526 percent higher than it was in 1960. Even with the modest declines in recent years, America still has more violent crime than any industrialized nation in the world. The first obligation of government is to protect its citizens from crime. Obviously, despite the recent declines, we have a long way to go in reducing crime in America. Despite the recent progress--much of it in partnership with Governors like Mike Leavitt of Utah, George Allen and Jim Gilmore of Virginia, and George W. Bush of Texas--we cannot become complacent. The most troubling aspect of the Clinton Justice Department's budget is its elimination of block grants that have proven so successful in helping state and local authorities reduce crime. We simply cannot become indifferent. Remember the war on drugs? During the Reagan and Bush administrations, our nation began a national, long-term commitment to fight drug abuse. Due to these efforts, drug use began to decline. However, drug use, especially among teenagers, has exploded since 1992. Unless we remain vigilant, the same will happen with violent crime. Permit me to review each of the four main parts to our legislative crime plan in greater detail. Continuing and Improving Federal Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Combined with our ongoing commitment to prevention and treatment, our bill extends the authorization for the highly successful partnership we have created with local law enforcement--the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, which the Republican Congress created in the Contract with America. Since fiscal year 1996, this program has provided more than $2 billion in funding for equipment and technology, such as radios and scanners, directly to state and local law enforcement. The authorization for this program will be between $600-700 million per year. Although the block grant has been extremely effective in assisting state and local law enforcement, the Clinton administration budget eliminates funding for this program. Our bill also reauthorizes the truth-in-sentencing prison grants at approximately $700 million per year. These truth-in-sentencing grants, which provide funds to States to build prisons, have been instrumental in lowering crime by encouraging States to incarcerate violent and repeat offenders for at least 85 percent of their sentence. In January, the Justice Department reported that 70 percent of prison admissions in 1997 were in States requiring criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. More significantly, the average time served by violent criminals nationally has increased 12.2 percent since 1993. Perhaps the biggest reason for recent declines in violent crime is due to these truth-in-sentencing prison grants. Simply put, violent criminals cannot commit crimes against innocent victims while in prison. Our bill continues this successful program and makes the program more flexible by allowing States to use the funds for jails and juvenile facilities, in addition to prison construction. Despite this success, the Clinton administration eliminates funding for the Truth-in-Sentencing program--even though many States have changed their laws due to this federal commitment to assist in prison construction. Nothing deters and prevents violent crime as well as incarcerating violent and repeat offenders. Our bill also includes the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant to help States build juvenile detention centers, drug test juvenile offenders, establish graduated sentencing sanctions for repeat juvenile offenders, and improve juvenile record keeping. This provision authorizes $450 million for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. It also includes $435 million for prevention programs and reauthorizes the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention within the Justice Department. The administration's budget eliminates funding for the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, even though these are the only federal funds dedicated to juvenile law enforcement purposes. Finally, our bill reauthorizes and reforms the COPS program re- targeting this assistance to the type of policing we know works--zero tolerance for crime, computer tracking of criminal hot spots, and holding commanders responsible for results. A Commitment to Winning the War on Drugs The second major part of this legislative addresses drugs. This section focuses attention where only the federal government has the ability to make a difference--drug interdiction. It also increases the penalties for methamphetamine and powder cocaine trafficking. Our bill encourages States to keep prisons and jails drug-free to break the link between drugs and crime--and provides bonus grants to help States do this. And our bill includes a faith-based drug treatment bill designed by Senator Abraham. I would especially like to thank and acknowledge the leadership that Senators Ashcroft and DeWine have shown in fighting drugs, particularly methamphetamine. Their leadership has been invaluable on this issue. Holding Violent Offenders Accountable Through Firearms Prosecutions I do not support gun control, but I do believe in crime control. In addition to remaining true to truth-in-sentencing and prison construction, our bill builds on and expands a successful Richmond, Virginia program in which the U.S. Attorney's office prosecutes as many local gun-related crimes in federal court as possible to take advantage of federal mandatory minimum sentences and stiff bond rules. This provision does not create additional federal crimes, but instead utilizes existing federal statues. This program builds on the Project Triggerlock program which was implemented by the Bush administration. This program emphasizes cooperation between state and federal prosecutors, as well as the BATF and the local police departments. The last major component of this program is an extensive media campaign to promote the message to potential criminals that ``[a]n illegal gun will get you five years in federal prison.'' The media campaign also encourages citizens to report gun crimes to authorities. This program has been a huge success. Homicides have decreased 50 percent in Richmond after this program was implemented. Our bill provides funds to implement this program in major cities across the nation. Again, the Clinton administration's record on gun prosecutions is troubling. Between 1992 and 1997, Triggerlock gun prosecutions dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to 3,765. These are prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a felony. Judicial-Procedural Reforms and Victims' Rights The last major element of our crime plan enacts procedural and judicial reforms that improve the administration of justice. Our bill reforms the Miranda rule to allow voluntary statements in evidence. It codifies common-sense procedural issues, including the ``good-faith'' exception to exclusionary rule, and further reforms habeas corpus appeals. Our bill also recognizes that the administration of justice requires government to safeguard the interests of victims. How can there be justice if crime victims feel victimized by the criminal justice system? The bill ensures that victims are given respect in the criminal system, ensuring their right to attend trials in federal court, to be heard at critical stages such as detention hearings, and to be notified when the defendant is released or escapes. Our bill also calls for ratification of a crime victim's rights constitutional amendment to ensure that these rights are recognized everywhere in America. Our bill also steers necessary funds toward combating violence against women and children, and strengthens federal mandatory restitution laws. This bill is not a panacea for our crime problem. We are faced, I believe, with a problem which cannot be solved alone by new laws. It is, at its core, a moral problem. Somehow, in too many instances, we have failed as a society to pass to the next generation the moral compass that differentiates right from wrong. This problem cannot be solved by legislation alone. It cannot be restored by the enactment of a new law or the implementation of a new program But it can be achieved by families and communities working together to teach accountability by example and by early intervention when the signs point to violent and antisocial behavior. Our bill is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to support this important crime fighting legislation, which will strengthen our nation's ability to protect citizens from the scourge of violent crime.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to state unequivocally my strong support for a Y2K bill. Let me begin by stating how important Y2K remediation is to consumers, business, and the economy. This problem is of particular interest in my State of Utah which has quickly become one of the Nation's leading high tech States. Working together, Senator Dianne Feinstein and I have produced a bill--S. 461, the Year 2000 Fairness and Responsibility Act--that encourages Y2K problem-solving rather than a rush to the courthouse. It was not our goal to prevent any and all Y2K litigation. It was to simply make Y2K problem-solving a more attractive alternative to litigation. This benefits consumers, businesses, and the economy. The bill was voted out of the Judiciary Committee. But, Senator McCain's bill is the focus of the present debate. With some distinctions--this bill accomplishes the same ends as Senator Feinstein's and my bill. Let me say that I support a strong bill. I do not care who gets the credit. This is of no importance to me. What is important is that the Nation needs Y2K legislation. I thus will support any mechanism that is able to pass Congress. Let me explain why. The main problem that confronts us as legislators and policymakers in Washington is one of uniquely national scope. More specifically, what we face is the threat that an avalanche of Y2K-related lawsuits will be simultaneously filed on or about January 3, 2000, and that this unprecedented wave of litigation will overwhelm the computer industry's ability to correct the problem. Make no mistake about it, this super- litigation threat is real; and, if it substantially interferes with the computer industry's ongoing Y2K repair efforts, the consequences for America could be disastrous. Most computer users were not looking into the future while, those who did, assumed that existing computer programs would be entirely replaced, not continuously modified, as actually happened. What this demonstrates is that the two-digit date was the industry standard for years and reflected sound business judgment. The two-digit date was not even considered a problem until we got to within a decade of the end of the century. As the Legal Times recently pointed out, ``the conventional wisdom [in the computer business was] that most in the industry did not become fully aware of the Y2K problem until 1995 or later.'' The Legal Times cited a LEXIS search for year 2000 articles in Computerworld magazine that turned up only four pieces written between 1982 and 1994 but 786 pieces between 1995 and January 1999. Contrary to what the programmers of the 1950s assumed, their programs were not replaced; rather, new programmers built upon the old routines, tweaking and changing them but leaving the original two-digit date functions intact. As the experts have told us, the logic bomb inherent in a computer interpreting the year ``00'' in a programming environment where the first two digits are assumed to be ``19'' will cause two kinds of problems. Many computers will either produce erroneous calculations-- what is known as a soft crash--or to shut down completely--what is known as a hard crash. What does all this mean for litigation? As the British magazine The Economist so aptly remarked, ``many lawyers have already spotted that they may lunch off the millennium bug for the rest of their days.'' Others have described this impending wave of litigation as a feeding frenzy. Some lawyers themselves see in Y2K the next great opportunity for class action litigation after asbestos, tobacco, and breast implants. There is no doubt that the issue of who should pay for all the damage that Y2K is likely to create will ultimately have to be sorted out, often in court. But we face the more immediate problem of frivolous litigation that seeks recovery even where there is little or no actual harm done. In that regard, I am aware of at least 20 Y2K-related class actions that are currently pending in courts across the country, with the threat of hundreds more to come. It is precisely these types of Y2K-related lawsuits that pose the greatest danger to industry's efforts to fix the problem. All of us are aware that the computer industry is feverishly working to correct--or remediate, in industry language--Y2K so as to minimize any disruptions that occur early next year. What we also know is that every dollar that industry has to spend to defend against especially frivolous lawsuits is a dollar that will not get spent on fixing the problem and delivering solutions to technology consumers. Also, how industry spends its precious time and money between now and the end of the year--either litigating or mitigating-- will largely determine how severe Y2K-related damage, disruption, and hardship will be. To better understand the potential financial magnitude of the Y2K litigation problem, we should consider the estimate of Capers Jones, chairman of Software Productivity Research, a provider of software measurement, assessment and estimation products and services. Mr. Jones suggests that ``for every dollar not spent on repairing the Year 2000 problem, the anticipated costs of litigation and potential damages will probably amount to in excess of ten dollars.'' The Gartner Group estimates that worldwide remediation costs will range between $300 billion to $600 billion. Assuming Mr. Jones is only partially accurate in his prediction--the litigation costs to society will prove staggering. Even if we accept The Giga Information Group's more conservative estimate that litigation will cost just $2 to $3 for every dollar spent fixing Y2K problems, overall litigation costs may total $1 trillion. Even then, according to Y2K legal expert Jeff Jinnett, ``this cost would greatly exceed the combined estimated legal costs associated with Superfund environmental litigation . . . U.S. tort litigation . . . and asbestos litigation.'' Perhaps the best illustration of the sheer dimension of the litigation monster that Y2K may create is Mr. Jinnett's suggestion that a $1 trillion estimate for Y2K-related litigation costs ``would exceed even the estimated total annual direct and indirect costs of-- get this--all civil litigation in the United States,'' which he says is $300 billion per year. These figures should give all of us some pause. At this level of cost, Y2K-related litigation may well overwhelm the capacity of the already crowded court system to deal with it. Looking at a rash of lawsuits, we must ask ourselves, what kind of signals are we sending to computer companies currently engaged in or contemplating massive Y2K remediation? What I fear industry will conclude is that remediation is a losing proposition and that doing nothing is no worse an option for them than correcting the problem. This is exactly the wrong message we want to be sending to the computer industry at this critical time. I believe Congress should give companies an incentive to fix Y2K problems right away, knowing that if they don't make a good-faith effort to do so, they will shortly face costly litigation. The natural economic incentive of industry is to satisfy their customers and, thus, prosper in the competitive environment of the free market. This acts as a strong motivation for industry to fix a Y2K problem before any dispute becomes a legal one. This will be true, however, only as long as businesses are given an opportunity to do so and are not forced, at the outset, to divert precious resources from the urgent tasks of the repair shop to the often unnecessary distractions of the court room. A business and legal environment which encourages problem-solving while preserving the eventual opportunity to litigate may best insure that consumers and other innocent users of Y2K defective products are protected. There are not at least 117 bills pending in State legislatures. Each bill has differing theories of recovery, limitations on liability, and changes in judicial procedures, such as class actions. This creates a whole slew of new problems. They include forum shopping. States with greater pro-plaintiff laws will attract the bulk of lawsuits and class action lawsuits. A patchwork of statutory and case law will also result in uneven verdicts and a probable loss of industry productivity, as businesses are forced to defend or settle ever-increasing onerous and frivolous lawsuits. Small States most likely will set the liability standard for larger States. This tail wagging the dog scenario undoubtedly will distort our civil justice system. Some States are attempting to make it more difficult for plaintiffs to recover. Proposals exist to provide qualified immunity while others completely bar punitive damages. These proposals go far beyond the approach taken in the Judiciary and Commerce Committees' bills of setting reasonable limits on punitive damages. Other States may spur the growth Y2K litigation by providing for recovery without any showing of fault. A variety of different and sometimes conflicting liability and damage rules create tremendous uncertainty for consumers and businesses. If we want to encourage responsible behavior and expeditious correction of a problem that is so nationally pervasive, we should impose a reasonable, uniform Federal solution that substantially restates tried and true principles of contract and tort law. If there is an example for the need for national uniformity in rules, this has to be it. The most appropriate role we in Washington can play in this crisis is to craft and pass legislation that both provides an incentive for industry to continue its remediation efforts and that preserves industry's accountability for such real harm as it is legally responsible for causing. This will involve a delicate balancing of two equally legitimate public interests: the individual interest in litigating meritorious Y2K-related claims and society's collective interest in remediating Y2K as quickly and efficiently as possible. We need to provide an incentive for technology providers and technology consumers to resolve their disputes out of court so that precious resources are not diverted from the repair shop to the court room. Let's face it, the only way a bill will pass is if it has significant bipartisan support. I think Congress can pass a bipartisan bill that is both fair and effective. Whatever bill is voted upon by this Chamber, it should at a minimum contain the following provisions that: Preserves the right to bring a cause of action; Requires a ``problem-solving'' period before suits can go forward. This delay must be reasonable and if so will spur technology providers to spend resources in the repair room instead of diverting needed capital; Provides that the liability of a defendant would be limited to some percentage of the company's fault in causing the harm. This will assure fairness and lessen the push to go after deep pockets; Allows the parties to a dispute to request alternative dispute resolution, or ADR during the problem-solving period; Limits onerous punitive damages; Contains a duty to mitigate. Plaintiffs should not be able to recover for losses they could have prevented; Contains a contract preservation provision. This preserves the parties' bargain and prevents States from retroactively instituting strict liability; Codifies the economic loss doctrine. This preserves the restatement of torts rule that you cannot get economic loss for tort injuries; Allows evidence of reasonable efforts in tort. This section is very important because it prevents States from retroactively imposing strict liability or negligence per se; and Contains a class action provision. The class action provision must contain a section that common material defect must be demonstrated to certify claims. It should also contain a section that allows for removal of State class actions to Federal courts based on minimal diversity. Let me end by emphasizing that the Y2K problem presents a special case. Because of the great dependence of our economy, indeed of our whole society, on computerization, Y2K will impact almost every American in the same way. But the problem and its associated harms will occur only once, all at approximately the same time, and will affect virtually every aspect of the economy, society, and Government. What we must avoid is creating a litigious environment so severe that the computer industry's remediation efforts will slacken and retreat at the very moment when users and consumers need them to advance with all deliberate speed. I recognize that if we are to enact worthwhile Y2K problem-solving legislation this year, we must all work together--Democrats and Republicans--in a cooperative manner which produces a fair and narrowly tailored bill. I think we can do this. We can produce a measure which has broad political support, can pass the Congress, and become law. I appreciate the efforts of the distinguished Senator from Arizona and others to try and get this bill through and will do everything in our power to assist him and help him to do so.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation on behalf of myself, Mr. Baucus. Mr. Mack, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Breaux. This bill would permanently extend the exclusion from Subpart F for active financing income earned on business operations overseas. This legislation permits American financial services firms doing business abroad to defer U.S. tax on their earnings from their foreign financial services operations until such earnings are returned to the U.S. parent company. The permanent extension of this provision is particularly important in today's global marketplace. Over the last few years the financial services industry has seen technological and global changes that have changed the very nature of the way these corporations do business both here and abroad. The U.S. financial industry is a global leader and plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace. It is essential that our tax laws adapt to the fast-paced and ever-changing business environment of today. The bill we are introducing today would provide a consistent, equitable, and stable international tax regime for this important component of our economy. A permanent extension of this provision will give American companies much deserved stability. The current ``on- again, off-again'' system of annual extension limits the ability of U.S.-based firms to compete fully in the marketplace and interferes with their decision making and long-term planning. The activities that give rise to this income are long-range in nature, not easily stopped and started on a year-to-year basis. Permanency is the only thing that makes sense. After all, the vast majority of the provisions in the tax code are permanent; it is only a select few that are subjected to this annual cycle of extensions. This legislation will give U.S. based financial services companies consistency and stability. The permanent extension of this exclusion from Subpart F provides tax rules that ensure that the U.S. financial services industry is on an equal competitive footing with their foreign based competitors and, just as importantly, provides tax treatment that is consistent with the tax treatment accorded most other U.S. companies. This legislation provides the U.S. financial services industry the certainty that they will be able to compete with their foreign competitors now and into the 21st century. This is important to our future economic growth and continued global leadership of American companies in the financial services industry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am today introducing legislation on behalf of myself, Mr. Baucus. Mr. Mack, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Murkowski, and Mr. Breaux. This bill would permanently extend the exclusion from Subpart F for active financing income earned on business operations overseas. This legislation permits American financial services firms doing business abroad to defer U.S. tax on their earnings from their foreign financial services operations until such earnings are returned to the U.S. parent company. The permanent extension of this provision is particularly important in today's global marketplace. Over the last few years the financial services industry has seen technological and global changes that have changed the very nature of the way these corporations do business both here and abroad. The U.S. financial industry is a global leader and plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace. It is essential that our tax laws adapt to the fast-paced and ever-changing business environment of today. The bill we are introducing today would provide a consistent, equitable, and stable international tax regime for this important component of our economy. A permanent extension of this provision will give American companies much deserved stability. The current ``on- again, off-again'' system of annual extension limits the ability of U.S.-based firms to compete fully in the marketplace and interferes with their decision making and long-term planning. The activities that give rise to this income are long-range in nature, not easily stopped and started on a year-to-year basis. Permanency is the only thing that makes sense. After all, the vast majority of the provisions in the tax code are permanent; it is only a select few that are subjected to this annual cycle of extensions. This legislation will give U.S. based financial services companies consistency and stability. The permanent extension of this exclusion from Subpart F provides tax rules that ensure that the U.S. financial services industry is on an equal competitive footing with their foreign based competitors and, just as importantly, provides tax treatment that is consistent with the tax treatment accorded most other U.S. companies. This legislation provides the U.S. financial services industry the certainty that they will be able to compete with their foreign competitors now and into the 21st century. This is important to our future economic growth and continued global leadership of American companies in the financial services industry. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am proud that the Senate is now considering S. 249, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act of 1999. First, I would like to thank my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his hard work and dedication in advancing this important legislation. I also want to pay tribute to the cosponsors of S. 249, Senators DeWine, Grams, Ashcroft, Abraham, and Biden. This bill, which was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a unanimous vote, reauthorizes two vital laws that serve a crucial line of defense in support of some of the most vulnerable members of our society--thousands of missing, exploited, homeless, or runaway children. It is a tragedy in our Nation that each year there are as many as over 114,000 attempted child abductions, 4,500 child abductions reported to the police, 450,000 children who run away, and 438,000 children who are lost, injured, or missing. I am told that this is a growing problem even in my State of Utah. Families who have written to me have shared the pain of a lost or missing child. While missing, lost, on the run, or abducted, each of these children is at high risk of falling into the darkness of drug abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation, pain, hunger, and injury. Each of these children is precious, and deserves our efforts to save them. Our bill reauthorizes and improves the Missing Children's Assistance Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. First, our bill revises the Missing Children's Assistance Act in part by recognizing the outstanding record of achievements of this National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It will enable NCMEC to provide even greater protection of our Nation's children in the future. Second, our bill reauthorizes and revitalizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. At the heart of the bill's amendments to the Missing Children's Assistance Act is an enhanced authorization of appropriations for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Under the authority of the Missing Children's Assistance Act, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has selected and given grants to the Center for the last fourteen years to operate a national resource center located in Arlington, Virginia and a national 24-hour toll-free telephone line. Today, the National Runaway Switchboard, which is a communications system designed to assist runaway youth and their families, responds to 150,000 calls a year. The Center provides invaluable assistance and training to law enforcement around the country in cases of missing and exploited children. Through the Center's work in FY 1997, almost 36,000 youth received food, 35,000 acquired shelter, over 22,000 obtained transportation home, 21,000 received substance abuse prevention services, and almost 18,000 received clothing. The Center's record is quite impressive, and its efforts have led directly to a significant increase in the percentage of missing children who are recovered safely. In fiscal year 1999, the Center received an earmark of $8.12 million in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations conference report. In addition, the Center's Jimmy Ryce Training Center received $1.25 million. This legislation continues and formalizes NCMEC's long partnership with the Justice Department and OJJDP, by directing OJJDP to make an annual grant to the Center, and authorizing annual appropriations of $10 million for fiscal years 1999 through 2004. NCMEC's exemplary record of performance and success, as demonstrated by the fact that NCMEC's recovery rate has climbed from 62% to 91%, justifies action by Congress to formally recognize it as the nation's official missing and exploited children's center, and to authorize a line-item appropriation. This bill will enable the Center to focus completely on its missions, without expending the annual effort to obtain authority and grants from OJJDP. It also will allow the Center to expand its longer-term arrangements with domestic and foreign law enforcement entities. By providing an authorization, the bill also will allow for better congressional oversight of the Center. The record of the Center, described briefly below, demonstrates the appropriateness of this authorization. For fourteen years, the Center has served as the national resource center and clearinghouse mandated by the Missing Children's Assistance Act. The Center has worked in partnership with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Treasury, the State Department, and many other federal and state agencies in the effort to find missing children and prevent child victimization. The trust the federal government has placed in NCMEC, a private, non- profit corporation, is evidenced by its unique access to the FBI's National Crime Information Center, and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). NCMEC has utilized the latest in technology, such as operating the National Child Pornography Tipline, establishing its new Internet website, www.missingkids.com, which is linked with hundreds of other websites to provide real-time images of breaking cases of missing children, and, beginning this year, establishing a new Cyber Tipline on child exploitation. NCMEC has established a national and increasingly worldwide network, linking NCMEC online with each of the missing children clearinghouses operated by the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In addition, NCMEC works constantly with international law enforcement authorities such as Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, France, and others. This network enables NCMEC to transmit images and information regarding missing children to law enforcement across America and around the world instantly. NCMEC also serves as the U.S. State Department's representative at child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. The record of NCMEC is demonstrated by the 1,203,974 calls received at its 24-hour toll-free hotline, 1(800)THE LOST, the 146,284 law enforcement, criminal/juvenile justice, and health care professionals trained, the 15,491,344 free publications distributed, and, most importantly, by its work on 59,481 cases of missing children, which has resulted in the recovery of 40,180 children. Each of these figures represents the activity of NCMEC through Spring, 1998. NCMEC is a shining example of the type of public-private partnership the Congress should encourage and recognize. The second part of our bill reforms and streamlines the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, targeting federal assistance to areas with the greatest need, and making numerous technical changes. According to the National Network for Youth, the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act provides ``critical assistance to youth in high-risk situations all over the country.'' Its three programs, discussed in more detail below, benefit those children truly in need and at high risk of becoming addicted to drugs, sexually exploited or abused, or involved in criminal behavior. The cornerstone of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act is the Basic Center Program which provides grants for temporary shelter and counseling for children under age 18. My home state of Utah received over $378,000 in grants in FY 1998 under this program, and I have received requests from Utah organizations such as the Baker Youth Service Home to reauthorize this important program. Cities such as Provo, Ogden, Cedar City, and Salt Lake City have received funding under the grants. Since 1993, at least 5,000 youths have received assistance in Utah. Community-based organizations also may request grants under the two related programs, the Transitional Living and the Sexual Abuse Prevention/Street Outreach programs. The Transitional Living grants provide longer term housing to homeless teens aged 16 to 21, and aim to move these teens to self-sufficiency and to avoid long-term dependency on public assistance. The Sexual Abuse Prevention/Street Outreach Program targets homeless teens potentially involved in high risk behaviors. In addition, the amendment reauthorizes the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act Rural Demonstration Projects which provide assistance to rural juvenile populations, such as in my state of Utah. Finally, the amendment makes several technical corrections to fix prior drafting errors in the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. The provisions of this bill will strengthen our commitment to our youth. The children helped by this legislation are not nameless, faceless statistics. They are children from every State and from each of our hometowns who are lost, sometimes abused, and frequently scared. Too often, no one takes the time to care. The Missing Children's Assistance Act and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act fund programs in every State run by dedicated staff and volunteers who take the time to care. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will strengthen the Missing Children's Assistance Act, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, and thus improve the safety and the lives of our Nation's most vulnerable children.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this legislation conveys our Nation's respect to one of its foremost civil rights pioneers. The Congressional Gold Medal is no common accolade, but Rosa Parks is no common woman. Her achievements are indeed most uncommon; they are nothing short of extraordinary. None of us of sufficient age to remember the year 1955 will ever forget Ms. Parks' courage in refusing to give up her seat to a white man who wanted it. What makes Ms. Parks' courage so uncommon was its manner: the type of action we usually associate with greatness in the civil rights movement might involve a speech, a march, a coalition . . . . Ms. Parks' courage was quiet, determined and resolute, but it had the volume of a great speech, the force of a mass march, and the power to coalesce that would lead to historic Supreme Court decisions abrogating segregation, and passage of the seminal Civil Rights Act of 1964. It has been said of our extraordinary figures that their heroic actions, as the years pass, begin to appear more accepted and less controversial. This is because, as leaders, great men and women have little company, but as their revolutionary ideas gather strength, they also gather adherents. This medal will help remind us, and generations to come, that at the time Ms. Parks refused to move from her seat on the bus, her act of defiance was anything but common.