Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, to proceed to Calendar No. 210, S. 10, the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act, and that it be considered under the following limitations: The only amendments in order be a substitute amendment offered by Senators Hatch and Sessions, and the following listed amendments: An amendment by Senator Campbell on law enforcement concealed carry; Senator Lugar on jail drug treatment; Senator Hutchison, SOS on prosecutions; Senator Smith of Oregon, juveniles with weapons at school; Senator Hatch, relevant amendment; And, five relevant amendments offered by the minority leader or designee; There be a managers' package of amendments to be cleared by both the majority and minority manager; And, that each amendment be subject to relevant second degrees. I finally ask unanimous consent following the disposition of any or all amendments the bill be read a third time, the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 10, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill. I further ask that following the vote, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand my colleague is acting on behalf of the minority leader, as I am for the majority leader and the Senate Judiciary Committee. But I am disappointed that Members on the other side of the aisle do not wish to take up juvenile crime legislation under an agreement that provides the Senate chance of getting this done. We all know that time is short and the schedule crowded in the last weeks of a session, and in my view, the only way we can get this important bill done is to work in good faith to limit amendments. I would like to remind my colleagues that this issue, and this legislation are not new. It has been over a year since the Judiciary Committee completed action on S. 10, the most comprehensive reform and reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act in that law's 25 year history. Since the Judiciary Committee completed action on S. 10, we have heard many suggestions on the key provisions of this bill. Many suggestions we received were helpful, and are incorporated in the substitute amendment. And I should note for my colleagues that the minority has had the text of this substitute for well over a month. The substitute is a good faith effort to respond to the legitimate concerns of all members, and makes changes to improve and streamline the block grant, clarify the juvenile records provisions, and improve the anti-gang provisions while ensuring the protection of the rights of law abiding citizens. All of us have been shocked over the past several months, as our nation has witnessed a series of atrocious crimes committed by juveniles. These incidents bring home to all of us the reality of juvenile crime. And the reality is that we can no longer sit silently by as children kill children, as teenagers commit truly heinous offenses, as our juvenile drug abuse rate continues to climb. FBI data confirms the national problem of rampant juvenile violent crime. In 1996, juveniles accounted for nearly one fifth--19 percent--of all criminal arrests in the United States. Persons under 18 committed 15 percent of all murders, 17 percent of all rapes, and 32.1 percent of all robberies. Our juvenile crime problem has taken a new and sinister direction. I can imagine few acts more heinous than some of the crimes recently committed by juveniles around the country. We seem now to be in a new era, in which juveniles are committing sophisticated adult crimes. This disturbing trend demonstrates the need to 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. The Senate has before it comprehensive youth violence legislation. S. 10, the Hatch-Sessions Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender Act, was reported out of the Judiciary Committee last year on bipartisan vote, two to one vote. This legislation will fundamentally reform and redirect the role played by the federal government in addressing juvenile crime in our Nation. S. 10 provides the framework to address the modest federal role in reforming a system that neither protects the public nor succeeds in preventing juvenile crime or rehabilitating the offenders. That is why, I believe, it has the support of 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 Juvenile Judges Association, and victim's groups including the National Victims Center and the National Organization for Victims Assistance. In short, S. 10 lays the groundwork for a new national approach to the problem of juvenile crime. This is not a federal approach. Indeed, much of S. 10, including the flexible block grant program, the reform of the mandates under the current JJDPA, and the reform of the federal juvenile code that applies to the handful of juvenile cases in federal court, all take their lead from successful reforms in the states. But it is past time for the federal government to adjust its approach to juvenile crime, in order to give realistic and meaningful assistance to state and local reforms. We simply need to pass this bill. S. 10 will accomplish this. The bill we wish to bring to the floor includes a $450 million per year block grant states and local governments can use to initiate graduated sanctions, build much-needed juvenile corrections facilities, improve juvenile criminal records, and fund a wide variety of prevention programs. The bill provides $100 million a year for state and local prosecutors and courts, for their juvenile crime dockets. The bill provides $50 million per year for an innovative prevention program run by the private sector, to help keep our young people away from crime to start with. And the bill provides $50 million per year for states to upgrade their juvenile criminal records, so that police, courts, and prosecutors all have vital information regarding the records of juvenile offenders. And this bill beefs up federal laws against interstate gang crime, by including a modified version of the Hatch-Feinstein Federal Gang Violence Act. In recent years, criminal street gangs not only have increased in size and strength, but also have become more sophisticated. Gang activity has spread across the country at a startling rate and is placing more and more of our people in harm's way. Interstate and international criminal gang activity is becoming a national crisis, and it is time for the federal government to take a greater role in assisting state and local law enforcement efforts in addressing these criminal enterprises. Mr. President, some of my colleagues may suggest that this bill inadequately funds prevention programs. This is demonstrably not the case. And they know it. We all recognize the value of programs that intervene in the lives of juveniles to prevent crime before it starts. They are important. The federal government already spends about $4.1 billion a year on programs aimed at delinquent and at-risk youth. The Hatch-Sessions juvenile crime bill adds another $2.145 billion over 5 years to these efforts. We are doing some great things through public- private partnerships with youth groups like the Boys and Girls Clubs, and we will continue to do this. What we need is to ensure that the prevention programs that we have are backed up by a juvenile justice system that takes crime seriously, and imposes real sanctions for juvenile crime. Mr. President, it is time for the Senate to act, and I commend the Majority Leader for attempting to bring this bill up at this time. We should debate this bill, debate the amendments, and vote. We have tried for months to get a list of amendments from the minority. We have seen nothing. Accordingly, I believe we should try to limit--in the interests of our children and public safety--the partisan debate which too often infects criminal justice issues. We must not let petty politics stand in the way of fulfilling our commitment to the American people--this matter is too important to our nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield to Senator Dodd to make his final remarks, and then I will make my remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the last several weeks leading up to the end of a Congress are always a pressure packed time and a challenging time for all Members of this body. This fall, of course, is no exception. Given the legislative challenges we face, I would prefer that the Judiciary Committee's and the Senate's efforts stay focused exclusively on completing remaining legislative and appropriations items. Unfortunately, the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno, has diverted our attention from those issues we would all prefer to be working on because of her continued refusal to do what the law compels her: request the appointment of an independent counsel to conduct the investigation of the fundraising activities surrounding the 1996 reelection campaign. I thank my ranking member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for being willing to meet with me and Attorney General Reno and others for almost 3 hours this morning and into the afternoon. We met along with top officials and staff of the Justice Department, including Deputy Attorney General Holder, Criminal Division Director James Robinson, Former Task Force head Charles LaBella, FBI Task Force lead agent James DeSarno, Public Integrity head Lee Radek, along with House Judiciary Chairman Hyde, House Government Reform and Oversight Chairman Burton, and Ranking Member Waxman, having invited the Ranking Member John Conyers as well who could not attend the meeting, regarding the campaign finance investigation and the application of the independent counsel statute to this widespread and dangerous scandal. I had requested this meeting in late July after the existence of the so-called LaBella memorandum had come to light. In that memo, Mr. LaBella, her handpicked lead investigator with the most extensive knowledge of the facts of this scandal, concluded that the facts and law dictated that a broad independent counsel be appointed to investigate campaign finance abuses by the 1996 Clinton/Gore reelection campaign, the Clinton administration, and the Democratic National Committee. This memo came several months after a similar written conclusion made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Louis Freeh. Under federal law, the Attorney General must apply to the special division of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for appointment of an independent counsel whenever, after completion of a preliminary investigation, she finds that a conflict of interest exists or when she finds specific and credible information that a high-ranking official included in a specific category of individuals within the executive branch may have violated federal law. The appointment of an independent counsel is a serious matter and one which the Attorney General should only initiate when necessary. Yet, more than one and a half years ago, all ten Republicans on the Judiciary Committee felt the time had come to request such an appointment. We sent a letter to the Attorney General, as we are authorized to do by the independent counsel statute, requesting that she make an application for an independent counsel and demonstrating the evidence which requires such an application concerning the campaign finance scandal. I must confess, as I did then, to a degree of frustration with the Independent Counsel Act. Did I appreciate having to send our letter? Certainly not. Do I believe that changes need to be made to the Independent Counsel Act? Yes. Yet, the Independent Counsel Act is the law of the land and, notwithstanding its relative flaws, we on the Judiciary Committee and even a stubborn Attorney General have an obligation to abide by it. That issue was the primary focus of today's meeting. In addition, the Department and my House colleagues asked me to broaden the focus of today's meeting to include a review of the LaBella memorandum. I agreed to this additional focus in order to work toward a reasonable resolution of the ongoing contempt dispute between Attorney General Reno and the House Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight concerning the Attorney General's refusal to produce this document. I had hoped that today's meeting might allay my concerns that the Attorney General is flouting both the independent counsel law and the Congress in its legitimate oversight function. Unfortunately, only some of my concerns were addressed satisfactorily. On the contempt issue, I believe that Chairman Burton generally concluded that today's review of the partially-redacted memoranda is a solid first step towards a reasonable resolution of the dispute. It is clear that we will need to have followup discussions with the Department as to some of the redactions, but it appears that the contempt crisis possibly may be averted. I congratulate Chairman Burton, Ranking Member Waxman, Chairman Hyde, and the Attorney General for striving towards an accommodation, and I am pleased that our meeting had this positive outcome. We are not yet there, and it is a decision that only the House can make. But I have to say I think we made a very important first step, hopefully the final step, and towards a positive outcome here. I should point out, however, that approximately 60-70% of the LaBella memo was redacted on the alleged grounds that it discussed material protected under Rule 6(e), and nobody should conclude that the Attorney General has made a complete disclosure to the Congress. However, on the larger and more significant issue of the appointment of an independent counsel, I cannot announce similar progress. After reviewing redacted versions of the memos prepared by Mr. LaBella and Director Freeh, it is clear that both gentlemen have advanced strong, convincing arguments in support of a broad-based independent counsel. Importantly, when I asked the Attorney General and her top advisors why those recommendations have, thus far, been rejected, the answers I received were vague, insufficient, or unconvincing. I have urged Attorney General Reno to appoint a broad-based independent counsel for campaign finance for well over a year. In fact, these events have gone on for well over 2 years. I have written the Attorney General numerous times to demonstrate how she is misapplying and misunderstanding the independent counsel law. The law allows her to appoint an independent counsel if she has information that a crime may--that is the pivotal word, ``may''--have been committed, but she has read the law as requiring that the evidence shows without a doubt that a crime has been committed. This standard is way too high. By setting up these legal standards, she basically has required that a smoking gun walk in the doors of Justice Department before she will do anything. I believe she is reexamining that issue. She has promised us to reexamine it. She has promised to look into this one final time, and I hope with all my heart she is doing so in good faith, and I will give her the benefit of the doubt that she is. But, as has been widely reported, numerous individual investigations are being handled by the task force. We found out again today that is true. The LaBella memorandum talked in terms of literally dozens of independent investigations in which he was involved. Yet, the task force has reportedly never conducted an investigation or inquiry into the entire campaign finance matter in order to determine if there exists specific and credible information warranting the triggering of the independent counsel statute. Indeed, as has been reported, the task force has been utilizing a higher threshold of evidence when evaluating allegations that may implicate the Independent Counsel Act or White House personnel. It has been argued that this different legal standard being applied to the campaign finance investigation has had the result of keeping the investigation of White House personnel out of the reach of the Independent Counsel Act. Today's briefing failed to respond to or put to rest any of these longstanding charges. I have admired the courage of FBI Director Freeh and lead investigator LaBella in discussing, within applicable rules, their views on these important issues. They made it clear that the independent counsel is required under the law, that there are no legal arguments for the Attorney General to hide behind. Director Freeh stated that covered White House persons are at the heart of the investigation. Investigator LaBella said there was a core group of individuals at the White House and the Clinton campaign involved in illegal fundraising. That should be the end of the argument. I was also struck by Mr. LaBella's comments that the public only knows one percent of what's out there. That scares me because I thought we have heard a lot about abuses by the DNC and how foreign money corrupted our system. His remark shows just how much we need an independent counsel. Now some may attempt to defend the Attorney General by noting that she has initiated two 90-day reviews of potential perjury by the Vice- President and former White House deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes. The political machine surrounding the Attorney General may have convinced her to take the two limited actions she has initiated to relieve the political heat. These two 90-day reviews completely avoid the substance of the real allegations. This is not to minimize the significance of perjury allegations, but her actions thus far miss the larger issues. Any independent counsel must be given authority to delve into the most important questions surrounding or involving the scandal. As the New York Times concluded, a limited appointment would be a ``scam to avoid getting at the more serious questions of whether the Clinton campaign bartered Presidential audiences or policy decisions for contributions. A narrowly focussed inquiry could miss the towering problem of how so much illegal foreign money, possibly including Chinese government contributions, got into Democratic accounts.'' This is the New York Times. We read today how FBI Director Freeh and Lead Investigator LaBella have recommended an appointment with a wide scope, and the Attorney General should not and cannot ignore their wise counsel any longer. As a unnamed senior government source told the Wall Street Journal: ``We showed [the Attorney General] significant threads of evidence that went right into the White House and to the upper levels of the DNC.'' Yet the Attorney General, thus far, has refused to act. Moreover, the time for 30-day or 90-day reviews has passed: we need action. The campaign finance violations we are discussing happened 2 and 3 years ago. While the independent counsel statute allows for 30 and 90 day review periods, it does not require it. When the FBI Director and the lead investigator lay out the evidence showing that a broad independent counsel is necessary, the review periods are not warranted. I must also take issue with the Attorney General's assertions that the current investigation is not a failure because it has secured a limited number of indictments. Let's remember that the ongoing campaign finance investigation has only indicted the most conspicuous people who made illegal donations to the DNC or the Clinton/Gore campaign. It has made no headway in finding out who in the administration or DNC knew about or solicited these illegal donations. Until it does so, the investigation is a failure, and in the eyes of many a sham. Rather than make pronouncements concerning what the Congress should or must do in response to the Attorney General's continued misinterpretation of the law, I feel it is prudent to meet with those of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who joined with me in requesting that she apply for the appointment of an independent counsel more than a year ago. I also want to pay particular tribute and respect to my ranking minority member, Senator Leahy, who sat through all this today, has cooperated through all this, has tried to get to the bottom of this with us, and who may have a different view from me but nevertheless has worked in a bipartisan way to try to resolve these matters, a way that I intend to continue to work. And I don't think anybody can accuse me of not bending over backwards for the Attorney General through all these months and years. In closing, let me quote the New York Times, which, I believe, captured the situation perfectly: ``Ms. Reno keeps celebrating her stubbornness as if it were some sort of national asset or a constitutional principle that had legal standing. It is neither. It is a quirk of mind or personality that has blinded her to the clear meaning of the statute requiring attorneys general to recuse themselves when they are sunk to the axle in conflict of interest.'' That is strong language. I wish it had not had to be issued by the New York Times. But to many it seems to be accurate. Strong will is a character trait I admire. Certainly I admire the Attorney General in many ways. But adherence to one's personal opinion at the expense of the law cannot be ignored, particularly when it is the Attorney General. Her refusal to appoint an independent counsel in accordance with the law should be of great concern to both Republicans and Democrats and to the American people for whom she is obligated and sworn to enforce the law. Notwithstanding the recent announcements, this matter has now passed the point of reasonableness, and I am no longer willing to give the Attorney General the benefit of the doubt: it is now beyond dispute that she is not living up to her duty to enforce the law. I am hopeful that within a short period of time she will enforce the law, or I will have more to say on this matter. I have bent over backwards to try to be accommodating to her and accommodating to the Justice Department, but as we all know, it is now becoming an embarrassment to the Justice Department. There are a few down there who are backing her decisions and an awful lot of people including the Nation's top investigator, Louis Freeh, his chief investigator, James V. Desarno of the FBI, and the chief prosecutor and investigator, Charles LaBella, who have no axe to grind but all of whom have said it is time to get this behind us, to get an independent counsel, to stop any claims of conflict of interest, and to implement the law that is so clear on its face so that we can get to the bottom of these problems and do so in a way that does not involve the President's appointee investigating the very people who appointed her including the President. I hope nobody has any legal problems in this matter, but it has to be resolved in the eyes of the American people and certainly has to be resolved in the eyes of the Judiciary Committee or at least those who have requested that she request the appointment of an independent counsel, and it is time to get this behind us. Again, I thank all of those who were in the meeting this morning-- specifically, my colleague Senator Leahy, my dear colleagues over in the House, Chairman Hyde who chairs the Judiciary Committee and has tremendous burdens on his shoulders right now, and also Congressmen Burton and Waxman. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if I can take just another minute?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, you know, by some counts--some can count as many as nine requests for preliminary reviews in this matter. We are now almost 2 to 3 years down the line. The evidence is growing cold. The witnesses are absenting the country. We have evidence that cannot be found. And we had investigators telling us today that while one part of the Justice Department is going this way, another part of the Department is going another way, they weren't meeting, and that they were not able to put these threads of evidence together because of the type of restrictions and limitations that were placed on them. It is true that they said that they could investigate anybody, but thus far it seems as though the White House and the DNC leadership, the people who would have known who committed crimes were off limits or at least have not been fully examined. That is one reason why Mr. LaBella, Mr. Freeh, and Mr. Desarno--top people in this Government--have suggested that we should have an independent counsel. I think the Attorney General has to make a decision here one way or the other. If she makes a decision to just have a limited, narrowly appointed independent counsel or counsels under these circumstances, then I have to say that is going to be a catastrophic event. I am hopeful that she will do the right thing within a very limited period of time. She does not have to use the 90 days that she has requested. She has had years now to make determinations in these matters, and she ought to make them, and she ought to make them one way or the other--to her praise or condemnation. I personally believe that she will, within a short period of time. I pray with all my heart that she will, because I like her personally, and I don't feel good about standing up and disagreeing with her. I would like to have a good relationship with her and would naturally like her to be a great Attorney General. But she has to face these problems and she has to face that statute and she can no longer ignore it. Even if she does not agree with the mandatory part of that statute, which appears to be the case, although she is willing to relook at it, she has to agree that there is a whopping conflict of interest here, both an actual conflict and an appearance of a conflict, which necessitates the requests for the appointment of a broad-based independent counsel in these matters to get this finally behind us. And I hope that we can do that. I apologize to my colleague from Kentucky for interrupting this debate, but this is important to do. I apologize to him at this time and I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the conference report to H.R. 629, the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact, a Compact among the states of Texas, Maine, and Vermont. The Texas Compact which was introduced in the House by Representative Barton and has 23 cosponsors, and the conference report to the Compact, both passed the House overwhelmingly with bi-partisan support. I am confident that the conference report to the Texas Compact will now pass this body with the same commanding support it garnered in the House. In July of this year, I was a Conferee to the Texas Compact along with Senators Thurmond and Leahy. I thank Senators Thurmond and Leahy, Congressman Bliley who chaired the conference, and all other conferees for working together to accomplish the goal of passing the Texas Compact through conference without any unnecessary or distracting amendments that would have forced the Compact States to go through an arduous re-ratification process. After thorough consultation with the governors of the Compact States, the conferees unanimously agreed to recede from two amendments that were offered by Senator Wellstone. The Wellstone amendments would have spawned costly litigation and imposed strict limitation not imposed on other existing compacts. The conferees ultimately concluded that the amendments were not in the best interests of the Texas Compact. The passage of this Compact will place the States of Texas, Maine, and Vermont in compliance with the 1980 Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act which Congress passed in an effort to establish a uniform Federal policy on nuclear waste disposal. While the Federal Government retained responsibility over high-level waste disposal, this act placed the onus on the States to dispose properly of low-level radioactive waste generated within their borders. To promote and encourage the fulfillment of this obligation by all States, Congress authorized the States to enter into compacts with other States to share waste disposal facilities. It is pursuant to this obligation and mandate that the Texas-Maine-Vermont Compact was negotiated and approved by the legislatures of Texas and Vermont and through a public referendum in the State of Maine. The compact was subsequently signed by the governors of all three states. Currently, nine interstate compacts involving 41 States are operating through Congressional consent. I have received a letter signed by the Governors of Texas, Maine, and Vermont urging Congress to pass this compact as passed by the States. This compact would bring these states into compliance with federal law. The hard work for drafting a compact that all three states would ratify and that would meet with congressional approval has been completed for some time. The States have carefully crafted a compact that will serve their low-level waste disposal needs in a responsible and lawful manner. The States have done their part and have been patiently waiting for congressional consent before moving forward with plans to construct the waste disposal facility. It is now time for this body to do its part in assuring that this compact will be passed swiftly without further delay. I therefore support this important piece of legislation, and encourage my colleague to do the same. Ms. SNOWE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. That is correct. The bill simply makes it clear that major league baseball players have the same rights under the antitrust laws as do other professional athletes. The bill does not change current law in any other context or with respect to any other person or entity.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct. S. 53 is intended to have no effect other than to clarify the status of major league players under the antitrust laws. With regard to all other context or other persons or entities, the law will be the same after passage of the Act as it is today.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I offer on behalf of myself and Senator Leahy, the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 53, the Curt Flood Act of 1997. This bill, which was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on July 31, 1998, by a vote of 12-6, clarifies that the antitrust laws apply to labor relations at the major league level, but does not have any affect on any other persons or circumstances. Given our limited time, I will only make a few brief comments, and would ask unanimous consent that my full statement be entered into the Record. In a baseball season that is likely to set records in a number of different categories, I am extremely pleased to be able to report that a truly historic milestone in the history of professional baseball has been reached. People said it would never happen, but today I can tell you that major league baseball players, along with both major and minor league club owners, have reached an agreement on a bill clarifying that the antitrust laws apply to major league professional baseball labor relations. This agreed upon language is reflected in the substitute we are offering today. With this historic agreement, I am confident that Congress will, once and for all, make clear that professional baseball players have the same rights as other professional athletes, and will help assure baseball fans across the United States that our national pastime will not again be interrupted by strikes. With the home run battles and exciting pennant races, baseball is enjoying a resurgence. And, as fans are returning to the ballparks, they deserve to know that players will be on the field, not mired in labor disputes. I am pleased that Congress will, it now appears, be able to help guarantee that this is the case. Due to an aberrant Supreme Court decision in 1922, labor relations in major league baseball have not been subject to antitrust laws, unlike any other industry in America. In every other professional sport, antitrust laws serve to stabilize relations between the team owners and players unions. That is one of the principal reasons why, in recent years, baseball has experienced more work stoppages, including the disastrous strike of 1994-95, than professional basketball, hockey and football combined. In the 103d Congress, the House Judiciary Committee took the first important step by approving legislation which would have ensured that the antitrust laws apply to major league baseball labor relations, without impacting the minor leagues or team relocation issues. During the 104th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved and reported S. 627, The Major League Baseball Antitrust Reform Act, to apply federal antitrust laws to major league baseball labor relations. None of these bills were passed, however, as many Members of Congress were reluctant to take final action while there was an ongoing labor dispute. With the settling of the labor dispute and with the signing of a long term agreement between the major league baseball team owners and the players union, the time was right this Congress finally to address this matter. In fact, in the new collective bargaining agreement, the owners pledged to work with the players to pass legislation that makes clear that major league baseball is subject to the federal antitrust laws with regard to owner-player relations. At the beginning of this Congress, we introduced S. 53, a bill which was specifically supported by both the players and owners and which was reported out of the Judiciary Committee almost exactly one year ago. At the Committee markup, however, several Members indicated a concern that the bill might inadvertently have a negative impact on the Minor Leagues. Although both Senator Leahy and myself were firmly of the view that the bill as reported adequately protected the minor leagues against such a consequence, we pledged to work with the minor leagues' representatives, in conjunction with the major league owners and players, to make certain that their concerns were fully addressed. Although this process took much longer, and much more work, than I had anticipated, I am pleased to report that it has been completed. I have in my hand a letter from the minor leagues, and a letter co-signed by Don Fehr and Bud Selig, indicating that the major league players, and major and minor league owners, all support a new, slightly amended version of S. 53. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. This new bill specifically precludes courts from relying on the bill to change the application of the antitrust laws in areas other than player-owner relations; clarifies who has standing under the new law; and adds several provisions which ensure that the bill will not harm the minor leagues. Senator Leahy and I have incorporate these changes into our substitute, which, given its support across the board, we hope and expect to be passed today without objection. I urge my colleagues to adopt this substitute. This amendment, while providing major league players with the antitrust protections of their colleagues in the other professional sports, such as basketball and football, is absolutely neutral with respect to the state of the antitrust laws between all entities and in all circumstances other than in the area of employment as between major league owners and players. Whatever the law was the day before this bill passes in those other areas it will continue to be after the bill passes. Let me emphasize that the bill affects no pending or decided cases except to the extent a court would consider exempting major league clubs from the antitrust laws in their dealings with major league players. But because of the complex relationship between the major leagues and their affiliated minor leagues, it was necessary to write the bill in a way to direct a court's attention to only those practices, or aspects of practices, that affect major league players. It is for that reason, that a bill that ought to be rather simple to write goes to such lengths to emphasize its neutrality. And, although much of the Report filed by the Committee with respect to S. 53 is still applicable to this substitute, there have been some changes. Section 2 states the bill's purpose. As originally contained in S. 53, the purpose section used the word ``clarify" instead of the word ``state'' as used in this substitute. That language had been taken verbatim from the collective bargaining agreement signed in 1997 between major league owners and major league players. When the minor leagues entered the discussions, they objected to the use of the word ``clarify'' on the grounds that using this term created an inference regarding the current applicability of the antitrust laws to professional baseball. The parties therefore agreed to insert in lieu thereof the word ``state.'' Both the parties and the Committee agree that Congress is taking no position on the current state of the law one way or the other. It is also for that reason that subsection (b) was inserted, as will be discussed. Section 3 amends the Clayton Act to add a new section 27. As was the case with S.53, as reported, new subsection 27(a) states that the antitrust laws apply to actions relating to professional baseball players' employment to play baseball at the major league level and as in S.53 is intended to incorporate the entire jurisprudence of the antitrust laws, as it now exists and as it may develop. In order to accommodate the concerns of the minor leagues however, new subsection (a) has been changed by adding the word ``directly'' immediately before the phrase ``relating to or affecting employment'' and the phrase ``major league players'' has been added before the phrase ``to play baseball.'' These two changes were also made at the behest of the minor leagues in order to ensure that minor league players, particularly those who had spent some time in the major leagues, did not use new subsection (a) as a bootstrap by which to attack conduct, acts, practices or agreements designed to apply to minor league employment. This is in keeping with the neutrality sought by the Committee with respect to parties and circumstances not between major league owners and major league players. Additionally, the new draft adds a new paragraph (d)(3) that states that the term directly is not to be governed by interpretations of the labor laws. This paragraph was added to ensure that no court would use the word ``directly'' in too narrow a fashion and limit matters covered in subsection (a) to those that would otherwise be known as mandatory subjects of bargaining in the labor law context. The use of directly is related to the relationship between the major leagues and the minor leagues, not the relationship between major league owners and players. Mr. President, I have a letter from the Commissioner of Baseball, Mr. Allan H. ``Bud'' Selig, to the Executive Director of the Major League Baseball Players Association, confirming this interpretation of the use of the word ``directly'' and I ask unanimous consent that it be inserted in the Record at this time. As in S. 53, as reported, new subsection (b) is the subsection which implements the portion of the purpose section stating that the ``passage of the Act does not change the application of the antitrust laws in any other context or with respect to any other person or entity.'' In other words, with respect to areas set forth in subsection (b), whatever the law was before the enactment of this legislation, it is unchanged by the passage of the legislation. With the exception of the express statutory exemption in the area of television rights recognized in paragraph (d)(4), each of the areas set forth depend upon judicial interpretation of the law. But Congress at this time seeks only to address the specific question of the application of the antitrust laws in the context of the employment of major league players at the major league level. Thus, as to any matter set forth in subsection (b), a plaintiff will not be able to allege an antitrust violation by virtue of the enactment of this Act. Nor can the courts use the enactment of this Act to glean congressional intent as to the validity or lack thereof of such actions. New subsection ``c'' deals specifically with the issue of standing. Although normally standing under such an act would be governed by the standing provision of the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15, the minor leagues again expressed concern that without a more limited standing provision, minor league players or amateurs would be able to attack what are in reality minor league issues by bootstrapping under this Act through subsection (a). The subsection sets forth the zone of persons to be protected from alleged antitrust violations by major league owners under this Act. New paragraph (d)(1) defines ``person'' for the purposes of the Act, but includes a provision expressly recognizing that minor league clubs and leagues are not in the business of major league baseball. This addition was requested by the minor leagues to ensure that they would not be named as party defendants in every action brought against the major leagues pursuant to subsection (a). New paragraph (d)(2) was added to give the courts direction in cases involving matters that relate to both matters covered by subsection (a) and to those matters as to which the Act is neutral as set forth in subsection (b). In such a case, the acts, conducts or agreements may be challenged under this Act as they directly relates to the employment of major league players at the major league level, but to the extent the practice is challenged as to its effect on any issue set forth in subsection (b), it must be challenged under current law, which may or may not provide relief. New paragraph (d)(5) merely reflects the Committee's intention that a court's determination of which fact situations fall within subsection (b) should follow ordinary rules of statutory construction, and should not be subject to any exceptions or departures from these rules. As stated in the Committee Report, nothing in this bill is intended to affect the scope or applicability of the ``nonstatutory'' labor exemption from the antitrust laws. See, e.g., Brown v. Pro Football, 116 S.Ct. 2116 (1996). Before yielding to my good friend from Vermont, I would like to thank him for his hard work on this bill. His bipartisan efforts have been vital to the process. I would also like to thank our original cosponsors, Senators Thurmond and Moynihan. I urge the quick adoption of this bill, which will help restore stability to major league baseball labor relations.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to the noteworthy efforts of the Utah Assistive Technology Program, which has helped empower individuals with disabilities, allowing them to live more rewarding, productive, and independent lives. An estimated 216,100 Utahns of all ages--approximately 10 percent of our state's population--live with a disabling condition. Assistive technology provides a means whereby these individuals can live and work in virtually all areas of society. Stated plainly, assistive technology not only improves the quality of life for individuals with disabilities but also enables the rest of us to have the benefit of their contributions. The term ``assistive technology'' encompasses all devices that improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities. Such devices can be as simple as a wheelchair or as high-tech as an electronic Liberator, a technological apparatus that makes communication possible for disabled individuals who are not able to speak. Organizations such as the Utah Assistive Technology Program provide services that assist disabled individuals in the selection and acquisition of these products. With the help of assistive technology, children have received a more meaningful and challenging education; adults have undertaken rewarding careers; and senior citizens have continued to live independently in their own homes. The Tech Act, as it is known, passed by Congress in 1988, has proven invaluable to the realization of these goals. Under this act, Utah has established an impressive assistive technology program. According to my fellow Utahn, Ms. Corey Rowley, chairperson of the National Council on Independent Living Assistive Technology Task Force, the effectiveness of the Utah Assistive Technology Program lies in its ability to initiate and coordinate projects with all relevant Utah agencies--an integrated effort that transcends any one piece of federal legislation. Prominent among its achievements is the creation of the Utah Center for Assistive Technology in Salt Lake City--a statewide service center that provides invaluable assessments and demonstrations of applicable assistive technology devices to consumers. This center also provides people with informative guidance concerning available resources to acquire these services. While federal funds from the Tech Act were crucial to the center's creation, it is now fully funded by the state. This is an excellent example of how Utah has been able to leverage a small amount of federal funding. Mr. President, we must make sure that the Tech Act is reauthorized. While this act has already enhanced the lives of many Americans, a great need still exists. We must do more. It seems clear that the need for assistive technology in the coming years will increase as America's population ages. Moreover, we must take full advantage of scientific and technological advances that can be applied to persons with disabilities. Congress will have the opportunity this year to continue a modest federal effort to empower individuals with disabilities to learn, to work, and to prosper. I hope that all my colleagues will support this program.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with pleasure that I rise today in support of S. 512, the ``Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998.'' This measure has bipartisan support, and I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor along with Senators Leahy, Feinstein, DeWine, D'Amato, Grassley, Abraham, Faircloth, Harkin, Warner, Murkowski and Robb. Identity information theft is a crime that destroys the lives of thousands of innocent people each year. It occurs when an imposter, who has falsified or stolen personal information from another individual, uses the information to make financial transactions or conduct personal business in the name of another. This heinous crime often leaves victims with mountains of debt, ruins their credit history, and makes it difficult for the individuals to obtain employment. In short, it virtually takes over the lives of innocent citizens who find themselves trying to untangle an endless trail of obligations they did not make or actions they did not commit. Many of you know individuals who have been victims of this crime. These are people whose lives have been destroyed because a con-artist gained access to and used their personal data, such as their address, date of birth, mother's maiden name, or social security number. This is information that you and I are asked to verify every day in our society. Once that information is obtained, these con-artists use it to open bank and credit card accounts and to obtain bank and mortgage loans. These fake business and personal commitments and obligations can ruin a lifetime of hard work. Currently, the applicable federal statute, Title 18 United States Code Section 1028, only criminalizes the possession, transfer, or production of identity documents. In other words, you have to catch the culprit with the actual documents in order to bring a prosecution for fraud. Obviously, such criminals are not always going to keep these documents once they have acquired the information they need. Many times criminals simply misappropriate the information itself to facilitate their criminal activity. As there is no specific statute criminalizing the theft of the information, when and if these criminals are prosecuted, law enforcement must pursue more indirect charges such as check fraud, credit card fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, or money laundering. Unfortunately, these statutes do little to compensate the victim or address the horror suffered by the individual whose life has been invaded. Often these general criminal statutes treat only affected banks, credit bureaus, and other financial institutions as the victim, leaving the primary victim, the innocent person, without recourse to reclaim his or her life and identity. S. 512 recognizes not only that it is a crime to steal personal information, and enhances penalties for such crimes, but it also recognizes the person, whose information has been stolen, as the real victim. Moreover, it gives the victim the ability to seek restitution and relief. I believe this bill to be an important piece of legislation. It is supported by federal law enforcement agencies, credit bureaus, banking associations, and other private entities. I urge all of my colleagues to join us and support the passage of this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act. As a cosponsor of this measure, I applaud the efforts of my friend and colleague, Senator Bennett, for bringing this matter before the United States Senate. This is a refreshing approach to managing public lands in the West. This legislation reflects the ability of our citizens to make wise decisions about how land in their area should be used and protected. It is an article of our democracy that we recognize the prerogatives and preferences of citizens who are most affected by public policy. This measure gives citizens who live next to these lands a say as to what is right and appropriate for the land's management. I believe this initiative, which began locally at the grassroots level, is a cynosure for future land management decisions in the West. Much more than simply protecting rocks and soil, this legislation safeguards wildlife and their habitat, cultural sites and artifacts, and Indian and Western heritage. This is not your standard one-size- fits-all land management plan. It provides for the conservation of this unique area, opting to encourage visitors not development. Mr. President, the San Rafael Swell is an area of immense scenic beauty and cultural heritage. It was once the home to Native Americans who adorned the area with petroglyphs on the rock outcrops and canyon walls. What were once their dwellings are now significant archaeological sites scattered throughout the Swell. After the Indian tribes came explorers, trappers, and outlaws. In the 1870s, ranchers and cowboys came to the area and began grazing the land, managing it for its continued sustainability. Today, there are still citizens with roots in this long western tradition. These citizens understand the land; they understand conservation and preservation principles; and they want to see the land they love and depend on preserved for present and future generations. First of all, Mr. President, this legislation sets up a National Heritage Area, the first of its kind west of the Mississippi. In the new National Heritage Area, tourists will walk where Indians walked and where other outstanding historical figures such as Kit Carson, Chief Walker, Jedediah Smith, John Wesley Powell, Butch Cassidy, and John C. Fremont spent time. The area already boasts a number of fine museums, including the John Wesley Powell Museum, the Museum of the San Rafael, the College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum, the Helper Mining Museum, and the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry. Consolidated under the new National Heritage Area, these important sites and museums will add a Western flavor to the already diverse network of existing National Heritage Areas in our nation. Next, this legislation sets up one of our nation's most significant and dynamic conservation areas. The San Rafael Conservation Area will encompass the entire San Rafael Swell and protect approximately 1 million acres of scenic splendor. The area will be managed according to the same standards set by Congress for all other conservation areas. In fact, this legislation withdraws the entire San Rafael Swell from future oil drilling, logging, mining, and tar sands development. Moreover, the area will protect important paleontological resources including an area on the northern edge of the Swell know as the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry which was set aside in 1966 as a National Natural Landmark, preserving one of the largest sources of fossils in the New World. Of particular interest, Mr. President, is the designation of the Desert Bighorn Sheep National Management Area. This provision ensures that our precious herd of bighorn sheep will continue to be monitored by state wildlife managers. The bill also provides strict protections to other resources in the area. Last but not least, Mr. President, this legislation formally designates certain areas within the Swell as wilderness. This proposal preserves a portion of the West as it currently exists and allows for traditional uses, where appropriate, such as hunting, trapping, and fishing. It will foster the development and management of tourism in keeping with the overall goals of preservation. This management concept is one of multiple use and allows for the continuation of working landscapes including agriculture, irrigation, and ranching, which are a part of our Western tradition. Mr. President, this initiative is compatible with local and regional needs, but it invites the world to come and enjoy the natural and historical treasures of the San Rafael Swell. I urge my colleagues to support this important citizens' initiative to preserve the San Rafael Swell.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of the San Rafael Swell National Heritage and Conservation Act. As a cosponsor of this measure, I applaud the efforts of my friend and colleague, Senator Bennett, for bringing this matter before the United States Senate. This is a refreshing approach to managing public lands in the West. This legislation reflects the ability of our citizens to make wise decisions about how land in their area should be used and protected. It is an article of our democracy that we recognize the prerogatives and preferences of citizens who are most affected by public policy. This measure gives citizens who live next to these lands a say as to what is right and appropriate for the land's management. I believe this initiative, which began locally at the grassroots level, is a cynosure for future land management decisions in the West. Much more than simply protecting rocks and soil, this legislation safeguards wildlife and their habitat, cultural sites and artifacts, and Indian and Western heritage. This is not your standard one-size- fits-all land management plan. It provides for the conservation of this unique area, opting to encourage visitors not development. Mr. President, the San Rafael Swell is an area of immense scenic beauty and cultural heritage. It was once the home to Native Americans who adorned the area with petroglyphs on the rock outcrops and canyon walls. What were once their dwellings are now significant archaeological sites scattered throughout the Swell. After the Indian tribes came explorers, trappers, and outlaws. In the 1870s, ranchers and cowboys came to the area and began grazing the land, managing it for its continued sustainability. Today, there are still citizens with roots in this long western tradition. These citizens understand the land; they understand conservation and preservation principles; and they want to see the land they love and depend on preserved for present and future generations. First of all, Mr. President, this legislation sets up a National Heritage Area, the first of its kind west of the Mississippi. In the new National Heritage Area, tourists will walk where Indians walked and where other outstanding historical figures such as Kit Carson, Chief Walker, Jedediah Smith, John Wesley Powell, Butch Cassidy, and John C. Fremont spent time. The area already boasts a number of fine museums, including the John Wesley Powell Museum, the Museum of the San Rafael, the College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum, the Helper Mining Museum, and the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry. Consolidated under the new National Heritage Area, these important sites and museums will add a Western flavor to the already diverse network of existing National Heritage Areas in our nation. Next, this legislation sets up one of our nation's most significant and dynamic conservation areas. The San Rafael Conservation Area will encompass the entire San Rafael Swell and protect approximately 1 million acres of scenic splendor. The area will be managed according to the same standards set by Congress for all other conservation areas. In fact, this legislation withdraws the entire San Rafael Swell from future oil drilling, logging, mining, and tar sands development. Moreover, the area will protect important paleontological resources including an area on the northern edge of the Swell know as the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry which was set aside in 1966 as a National Natural Landmark, preserving one of the largest sources of fossils in the New World. Of particular interest, Mr. President, is the designation of the Desert Bighorn Sheep National Management Area. This provision ensures that our precious herd of bighorn sheep will continue to be monitored by state wildlife managers. The bill also provides strict protections to other resources in the area. Last but not least, Mr. President, this legislation formally designates certain areas within the Swell as wilderness. This proposal preserves a portion of the West as it currently exists and allows for traditional uses, where appropriate, such as hunting, trapping, and fishing. It will foster the development and management of tourism in keeping with the overall goals of preservation. This management concept is one of multiple use and allows for the continuation of working landscapes including agriculture, irrigation, and ranching, which are a part of our Western tradition. Mr. President, this initiative is compatible with local and regional needs, but it invites the world to come and enjoy the natural and historical treasures of the San Rafael Swell. I urge my colleagues to support this important citizens' initiative to preserve the San Rafael Swell.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I would appreciate the Senator working with me to address my concerns over the BATF's withdrawing support for this important task force.

Mr. HATCH. Would the Chairman also agree that BATF should devote sufficient resources to ensure the continued viability of these efforts?

Mr. HATCH. I thank the manager of the bill for his courtesy. I was very pleased to note that the committee report accompanying this bill specifically notes that the program objectives of the BATF include assisting ``Federal, State, and local investigative and regulatory agencies in explosives and arson-related areas.'' Until recently, BATF was involved in just such a program in my State of Utah, where in the past year there has been a very troubling escalation of arsons connected with the animal rights movement. Utah has experienced a string of animal rights terrorism arsons, including an attack on a West Jordan McDonald's, the firebombing of a Murray mink co-op, and numerous other arsons. I am very concerned, however, by reports last week that the BATF has withdrawn the last remaining agent assigned to this task force, leading to its imminent disbandment. I believe this will have a serious negative effect on counter-terrorism efforts in Utah, and will send the wrong message to those pursuing social and political goals through violence. I think the Utah task force is exactly the type of program the Subcommittee has in mind, and I would like to ask Senator Campbell if he agrees.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague, Senator Campbell, on the floor. I would like to briefly discuss with him a concern I have relating to BATF arson task forces.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield again?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield?

Mr. HATCH. This is an amendment to reauthorize the Office of the National Drug Control Policy. In this era of passivity and neglect toward what I believe should remain a vigorous war on drugs, we as Americans must refuse to give up the fight against a youth drug plague that is threatening to erode the very core of our society. To do this, we must mount an unflappable effort against this drug scourge that continues to tighten its grip on our nation's children. Faced with such an ominous task, it is essential that the Office of National Drug Control Policy be maintained as the principal clearing house for the formulation and implementation of our nation's comprehensive counter-drug strategy. As a nation we simply cannot continue to turn our backs while drug abuse continues to run rampant among our youth. For this reason I implore each of my colleagues to support the Hatch/ Biden amendment, a substitute to H.R. 2610. This amendment truly represents a bipartisan effort to craft legislation that gives the office a meaningful reauthorization period and strengthens ONDCP's authority over drug control program agencies. In an effort to erase this Administration's abdication of its responsibilities to the Congress, the bill requires enhanced reporting requirements on the effectiveness of the National Drug Control strategy thus imposing far greater accountability to the Congress. It also disposes with an annual strategy that, under the Clinton administration, simply has served as an opportunity to grandstand in an effort to show that the President was going to take the drug war seriously in the future to make up for his past disinterest. Instead, the bill recognizes the comprehensive long term strategy drafted last year, and further requires an annual report that requires each administration to report on the success or failures of its strategy in the previous year. This substitute differs principally from the House bill in that it calls for a 4-year versus a 2-year reauthorization period; and, in that it does not statutorily mandate ``hard targets'' that must be achieved by 2001. Rather, consistent with ONDCP's previous authorization, it requires that ONDCP establish annual measurable objectives and long term goals. In addition, the legislation also officially authorizes ONDCP's Performance Measurement System which will provide the Congress and the American people with the specific data needed to ascertain whether the strategy is working and where changes are necessary. The legislation also provides flexibility in the event of a change in Presidents or ONDCP Directors. In such case, the incoming President or Director has the option of either adopting and continuing with the current strategy, or abandoning it in favor of an entirely new strategy. In addition, at any time upon a finding by the President that the current strategy, or certain policies therein, are found not to be sufficiently effective, the President may submit a revised strategy. We have worked with ONDCP, the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Biden to resolve a significant disagreement concerning ONDCP's involvement in, and authority over, the development of budgets of other agencies. We have crafted a process which allows ONDCP to have input at all stages of the budget drafting process and to decertify budgets which are inadequate to fulfill the responsibilities given to that agency. It also allows agencies who are forced to alter their budgets at the direction of ONDCP to submit an ``impact statement'' describing how such changes might affect the ability of that agency to fulfill its other responsibilities. I oppose a proposal by the administration to disband the office of ``Supply Reduction'' headed by a deputy director, which was established to coordinate all law enforcement and interdiction programs, both domestic and international. As recognized by the legislation recently introduced by Senator DeWine, which I cosponsored, supply reduction is an integral part of our anti-drug efforts, and we need a deputy director specifically responsible for these efforts. We have, however, incorporated significant reorganizations of the leadership of ONDCP, including the new position of Deputy Director and a Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs. We have also strengthened the ONDCP office in many respects, including: (1) Clarifying the Director's authority by adding to his responsibilities that he shall represent the administration before the Congress on all issues relating to the National Drug Control Program, and that he shall serve as the administration's primary spokesperson on drug issues; (2) Requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to give ONDCP an annual assessment of the acreage of illegal domestic drug cultivation; and (3) In order to strengthen ONDCP's ability to obtain information from its program agencies, adding provisions that require, upon the request of the Director, heads of departments and agencies under the National Drug Control Program to provide ONDCP with statistics, studies, reports, and other information pertaining to Federal drug abuse programs. I might also point out that the definition of ``drug control'' has been modified in the reauthorization to include underage use of alcohol and tobacco. This change codifies ONDCP policy begun under Republican administrations. While I recognize that there remain some concerns over reauthorizing this office in light of the Clinton administration's abysmal record on drugs, it is my belief that we must employ every possible weapon that is available to fight the drug war, including the authorization of a national drug office with teeth, which will be held accountable to take real action in combating illegal drug abuse. This bill achieves that goal. For this reason, I urge each of my colleagues to support this amendment, and to work in a bipartisan manner to address legitimate concerns as we go to conference. Let me highlight why this issue is so pressing. Drug use by teenagers is one of the most serious domestic problems facing our nation today: In my mind, it may be the most crucial issue for our nation's ability to craft productive and law-abiding citizens. The worsening problem of drug abuse among our children and teens wreaks havoc on the lives and potential of thousands of young people each year. If we do not act decisively, we will pay a heavy price. According to the highly respected Monitoring the Future study published by the University of Michigan, drug use among young people began a steady decline in the early 1980's which continued until 1992. Survey after survey demonstrated that we were on the right track in raising children free from drug abuse. These declines, which I believe were largely the result of the strong leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, are not just statistics. The 1980's and early 1990's produced a generation of young adults with low rates of substance abuse. We reap the benefits of that fact every day as those young men and women succeed in the workforce and build their families and communities. We see the benefits of our work in the 1980's and early 1990's in the lower drug abuse rates and declining crime rates we find among adults today. But just as we are realizing some benefit today from the hard work of the last decade, we will pay the price for the failures of the 1990's. Young people are being raised in an environment lacking in definition of moral leadership. As I saw these trends developing, I spoke out and demanded that this administration reverse course: I particularly recall, in 1993, President Clinton's first drug czar--Lee Brown--saying that drug control was no longer ``at the top of the agenda'' for the administration. Indeed, the administration's first drug control strategy in 1993 noted that there was developing ``a loss of public focus which has also allowed the voices of those who would promote legalization to ring more loudly.'' Mr. Brown's concerns regarding legalization, as we all know, were realized in some States. I feared then that the blame for this loss of public focus on the drug war would be laid at the feet of the Clinton administration. The Committee's warnings were frank, continuous, and bipartisan. In recent years, under the leadership of General Barry McCaffrey, we have seen some efforts to make up for the years of neglect. Yet, notwithstanding his efforts I believe drug control--and ONDCP--lack the full backing of President Clinton and the results are indisputable. The steady downward trends of the 1980's and early 1990's were tragically reversed. Remember that each percentage point we discuss represents thousands of teens who are much more likely to become bigger problems for society as they become adults. As measured by use in the past month, drug abuse by high school seniors jumped 27 percent in 1993, 20 percent in 1994, and an additional 9 percent in 1995. Past-monthly abuse by 10th graders skyrocketed by 27 percent in 1993. The 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse published by Health and Human Services, published last year, shows that between 1992 and 1996 the number of 12- to 17-year- olds having used marijuana in the past year more than doubled--from 1.4 million to 2.9 million. The annual use of any illicit drug among high school students has dramatically increased since 1991--from 11 percent to 24 percent in 1996 for 8th graders, from 21 percent to 38 percent for 10th graders, and from 29 percent to 40 percent for 12th graders. Lifetime use statistics show a similar trend--from 19 percent in 1991 up to 31 percent in 1996 for 8th graders, from 31 percent up to 45 percent for 10th graders, and from 44 percent to 51 percent for 12th graders. As for marijuana use for 8th graders, it is clear that marijuana use shot from 10 percent in 1991 to 23 percent in 1997. Although marijuana is still the most readily available drug across the United States, teenagers can obtain just about any drug they desire with little problem. Today, illegal drugs are more easily obtained than alcohol or tobacco. To those who suggested that marijuana does not serve as a gateway to even more harmful drug use, there are very few instances that I am aware of where the first drug a child ever tried was heroin or methamphetamine. Most teens tell you that they first experimented with marijuana. Studies show that if kids smoke marijuana, they have an 85 times greater propensity to move on to experiment with harder drugs. General Barry McCaffrey should be commended for his personal leadership in fighting the trends towards tolerance for marijuana use. While marijuana use increasing, the use of other drugs--harder drugs--is growing at a dramatic rate. The use of methamphetamine has skyrocketed in the Western half of the country. Easy manufacturing and the increasing market have helped make methamphetamine cheaper and more available to kids. What is the reason behind this surge in teen drug consumption? I believe several things. First, in recent years there has been a decline in anti-drug messages from elected leaders--like President Clinton--and similar messages in homes, schools, and the media, Second, the debate over the legalization of marijuana and the glorification of drugs in popular culture has caused confusion in our young people. Third, disapproval of drugs and perception of risk has declined among young people. The percent of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders who ``disapproved'' or ``strongly disapproved'' of use of various drugs declined steadily from 1991 to 1995. In 1992, 92 percent of 8th graders, 90 percent of 10th graders, and 89 percent of 12th graders disapproved of people who smoked marijuana regularly. By 1996, however, those figures had dropped significantly. Previous administrations recognized that education and treatment programs were only effective if coupled with tough criminal deterrence and effective interdiction. Statistics clearly show that as the interdiction dollars go down, drugs use goes up. I was recently pleased to hold a hearing on teen drug use. We heard from a teenager named Rachel who recounted her personal experience with drug addiction. We also heard testimony from two physicians, Dr. Nancy Auer and Dr. Sushma Jani who have seen in our emergency rooms and hospitals the devastating effects that drug abuse has had on our nation's youth. Lastly, we heard from Chris, an individual who works as an undercover officer in high schools in Ohio--to protect his continued ability to provide this valuable service, his identity was shielded during the hearing. In conclusion, I think it is clear that the rates of youth drug abuse are neither stable nor acceptable, but are instead rising sharply. I was therefore very surprised to hear President Clinton claim on the world stage in his recent speech before the United Nations that ``drug use by our young people is stabilizing, and in some categories, declining.'' I believe that we are in the middle of a crisis and that the time for action long since passed. Passage of this legislation will be a crucial part of that action. As I understand it, this is acceptable to both managers of the bill. So I urge its adoption.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is the reauthorization of the office of the drug czar, National Drug Control Policy. I do believe it has been accepted by both sides. It is critical that we have this amendment agreed to at this time.

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