Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield to allow me this opportunity to call up the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy? I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to do so. Let me withhold.

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

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator withhold on the amendment? As I understand, we can do it at this time and it will only take a minute. I ask unanimous consent the pending Daschle amendment be set aside with the understanding we will immediately come back to it after my amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank Senator Campbell for his assistance and his courtesy, and yield the floor. reducing the number of executive branch political appointments

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 112 submitted earlier today by Senators Warner, Moynihan, and Ford.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague for allowing us to do that. THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized. (The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the introduction of S. 2358 located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of H. Con. Res. 310 in memory of the two fallen police officers following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I further ask that the veto message be set aside, to be called up by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the veto message to accompany H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and spread in full upon the Journal.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committee substitute be agreed to, the bill be read a third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to S. 2206 appear in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 483, S. 2206.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague so that we can do the necessary procedure before the closing remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I further ask that the Senate stand in recess from 11:55 a.m. until 12:15 p.m., and then again from 2:45 p.m. until 3:45 p.m. so that Members may attend the memorial services for the fallen Capitol Hill police officers.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45 a.m. on Tuesday, July 28. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then resume consideration of H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. For the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Tuesday at 9:45 a.m., there will be 15 minutes for closing remarks on the Shelby amendment to the credit union bill. At the conclusion of that debate, at approximately 10 a.m., the Senate will proceed to vote on or in relation to the amendment. Following that vote, it is hoped that the Senate will move quickly to pass the credit union bill. After disposition of that legislation, the Senate may begin consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. It is also possible during Tuesday's session for the Senate to begin consideration of health care legislation, other appropriations bills, any available conference reports, and any other executive or legislative items cleared for action. The majority leader would like to remind Members that the Senate will recess from 11:50 a.m. until approximately 12:15 p.m., and then again from 2:45 p.m. until 3:45 p.m. so that Senators may attend the memorial services in the Rotunda for the fallen police officers.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have been honored to serve here in the Senate for 22 years. I have to say that, to a person, our Capitol Hill Police are terrific human beings; to a person, they are dedicated to their jobs and they want to do the best they can. Frankly, without them, I think this place would not run anywhere near as well as it does. To a person, those of us who knew John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut have to say these are two of the finest who have ever served on Capitol Hill. These are people for whom everybody should have a sense of deep gratitude. They gave their lives as a last full measure of devotion so that many others might live. It is a shame that we have people who violate the law and who may be emotionally disturbed and do things like this. And it is an absolute catastrophe and tragedy for the families of these two fine men. Our hearts go out to them. Elaine and I have them in our prayers, as I know other Members of Congress and Members of the Senate do as well. These were two fine men--always courteous, always looking out for not only the Members as they came in and out of those doors and in and out of the Capitol, but for every citizen who came to the People's House time after time--and millions of them do. Both of them had long tenures here and both served every day of those tenures with distinction. Mr. President, I want to personally express my gratitude to these men for the sacrifice they have made, and to their families for the sacrifice that they have made. I am sure the families will be taken care of. I hope we will do some good for them and that they will realize how deeply we all feel about the sacrifice that these two brave men gave for us. Mr. President, this is one of the great spots on this Earth. It is visited by millions of people. It means so much to those of us who serve in this building. We are vulnerable to people who are emotionally disturbed or who may be terrorists. We are vulnerable to people who are insensitive to the needs of those who serve here. On the other hand, every one of us feels it to be such a privilege to serve in these two great bodies, in this separate branch of government that means so much to the people. We could not serve very well, nor could we accomplish very much if it weren't for the sacrifices of all of our people here on Capitol Hill who work so hard--like John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut. Again, Mr. President, I pray to our Father in Heaven that the families of these two heroes will be comforted and cared for. As a Nation, we are deeply grateful for their service. God bless those who remain that we all might keep in remembrance the sacrifice of these two fine men. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. For some time, I have been disturbed over reports that the Drug Enforcement Administration has been imposing multiple, substantial fines for what amount to minor pharmacy record-keeping violations. I am referring to cases in which no unauthorized person obtain control of controlled substances. Violations of sections 842(a)(5) and (10) of the Controlled Substances Act can result in penalties of $25,000 per violation. I understand that between 1989 and 1997, $50 million in such fines have been assessed. These provisions of the law adopt a strict liability standard for all record-keeping violations, even a minor error such as a mis-recording of a zipcode, or the insertion of a ditto mark. While we all favor strong regulation of controlled substances, a rule of reason should prevail here. For that reason, I am supportive of the thrust of the language contained in sections 118 and 199 of S. 2260. Section 118 adopts a ``knowingly'' standard, rather than a strict liability standard. Section 119 gives the courts discretion in assessing a fine, unlike current law which is not permissive. In addition, this section lowers the maximum penalty per occurrence from $25,000 to $500. In combination, sections 118 and 119 may provide more correction than is warranted. For example, by adding a scienter requirement, while at the same time lowering the maximum fine, we may be creating an atmosphere in which sloppy record keeping is encouraged. Overall, however, I am supportive of the work of the Committee in this area of long-standing concern to the Congress, drug wholesalers, pharmacies and drug stores. We should not be using this part of the statute as a ``cash cow'' to line the government's coffers. I will not offer an amendment to these sections at this time. However, I am hopeful that I may work with my colleagues in the Senate and the House to address these concerns in conference.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their consideration, and look forward to working with them on this.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, at the outset, let me say that I don't support the Department of Justice divulging confidential information to foreign governments in an attempt to encourage them, in any way, to take or threaten legal action against any U.S. company. I don't think the Department has done that. They assure me that they have not done that. I am aware of the letter that was sent to the Department inquiring whether the Department has encouraged any foreign antitrust authority to take action against Microsoft. I await the Department's formal response to the letter sent by my colleagues. If--and I emphasize if-- the Department of Justice was encouraging foreign countries to bring a cause of action against Microsoft--or any other American company--I would do all I can to put a stop to it. The Department of Justice has a responsibility to enforce U.S. antitrust laws--not Japan's, Brazil's or the European Union's. But having said that, the Department assures me they have done no such thing. I have to say, though, that, if Microsoft's charges prove groundless, one could reasonably conclude that this appears to be an assault, albeit a faint one, by Microsoft, on the Department of Justice's ongoing efforts to investigate potential violations of U.S. antitrust laws. When I first heard about this allegation, I was surprised that this is the best ``offensive'' more that their team of lobbyists and Washington lawyers could come up with. I was expecting a much more innovative strategy, given the reported offensive Microsoft has threatened to launch against the Department of Justice. As I said before, I too oppose efforts by our government to encourage or solicit any foreign government to take hostile actions against a U.S. company. However, I had a concern that any such amendment not hinder the ability of the Antitrust Division to investigate violations of our-- United States'--antitrust laws. And also it does not prohibit mutual assistance that the Department and its foreign counterparts provide to each other under a ratified treaty or as authorized by the International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act of 1994. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Gorton and his staff for his cooperation and willingness to work with me and ensure that the amendment does not have any such adverse impact. With this modification I am happy to lend my support to this amendment. The International Antitrust Enforcement Assistance Act passed the Senate unanimously in 1994. Let me also say that my friend and colleague, Senator Gorton, did not object to it then. This statute provides the important authority for the Attorney General when a mutual assistance agreement is in place, to cooperate with foreign agencies in assisting each other's efforts to prevent illegal antitrust activities. Given the increasingly international scope of the antitrust laws, it is crucial that the enforcement agencies have sufficient legal authority and the necessary tools to obtain information located abroad that would help them protect American consumers and businesses from antitrust abuses. Finally, I again want to thank Senator Gorton for his cooperation and willingness to work with me and I am happy that we were able to work out our concerns with this amendment. amendment no. 3297 (Purpose: to exempt orphans adopted by United States citizens from grounds of removal) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

Mr. HATCH. I continue to have some concerns about my colleague's amendment in this respect. However, I believe that these concerns could be resolved during conference. Would the Senator agree to work with me to address this issue?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I see my colleague from New Jersey Senator Torricelli, and the distinguished bill manager on the floor. I would like to briefly engage them in a colloquy on the amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey, relating to model guidelines on bounty hunters to be published by the Attorney General. I understand the concerns of Senator Torricelli in this matter. None of us want to see abuses by bounty hunters. I am also sure that he does not wish to do any thing to adversely affect the bail bond industry, which has served our criminal justice system well in providing release of non-dangerous criminal defendants pending trial.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the manager of the bill accepting the amendment I filed to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, S. 2660, which directs the Attorney General to identify two major metropolitan areas besieged by gun-related crime and to initiate vigorous federal gun prosecution projects in those districts. The amendment directs $3,000,000 in funding for hiring additional prosecutors and investigators to ensure that criminals bearing guns are not released due to a lack of prosecutorial resources. The inspiration for this amendment is ``Project Exile,'' an extraordinarily successful effort by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia to rid Richmond of armed criminals by ``exiling'' all those who use firearms to commit a crime to federal prison, regardless of the number of weapons or quantities of drugs seized. ``Project Exile'' also made use of the media to deliver its message that ``An illegal gun will get you five years in federal prison.'' That message was plastered on billboards, a city bus, TV commercials, and business cards distributed by local police. The results of ``Project Exile'' speak for themselves. In just one year, over 300 individuals were indicated under Project Exile and 363 guns were seized. More than 191 armed criminals were removed from Richmond's streets, including the members of a violent gang responsible for a number of murders. The average sentence for the individuals that have thus far been convicted and sentenced is 56.1 months. Moreover, homicides for the period from November, 1997 through May, 1998 were running more than 50% below the same period for the previous year and there was a corresponding reduction in the rate of gun carrying by criminals. ``Project Exile'' has effectively broken the spiral of violent crime in Richmond. My colleague, the senior Senator from Idaho, introduced an amendment which was passed yesterday which seeks to set up a similar project in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania had earlier secured this funding in the committee report to this bill. It is important, however, that these projects be tested in a number of jurisdictions to ensure that their effectiveness can be measured in a wide range of circumstances. By setting up a number of test projects in different locales, we should be able to prove beyond any doubt that a truly determined and aggressive effort by law enforcement to rigorously enforce existing federal gun laws will have the effect of lowering the incidence of violent crime and will create safer communities for our citizens. We don't need tougher gun control laws on abiding citizens to stem violent crime, we need to aggressively use the effective laws we have to take violent criminals off the streets. We saw yesterday where the Senate stands on issues such as mandatory trigger locks on guns and vicarious liability for gunowners, and I am glad that the Senate is devoting even more resources to targeting violent criminals who use guns. I urge my colleagues to support me in this effort.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I would like to engage the distinguished manager of the bill, Senator Gregg, in a colloquy.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the floor manager and subcommittee chairman. I was pleased that the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary appropriations bill as reported to the Senate included an increase of $20,000,000 over current levels for the Boys and Girls Clubs, bringing total funding for this outstanding organization to $40,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. As the chairman knows, I support additional funding in his bill to allow the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Washington and the national organization to establish a state-of-the-art national capital flagship Boys and Girls Club facility in Washington, DC, near the Capitol.