Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I compliment the distinguished Senator from Iowa and the distinguished Senator from Illinois for their work on this bill. This is called the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donations Act of 1998, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for its passage. S. 1244 will help spell out the safe harbors for tithe-payers or others who contribute to charitable organizations and then find themselves in bankruptcy. It will work, together with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in this area, to relieve burdens on often strained organizations that provide important services to our society. It will relieve an untenable burden on the religious rights of tithe- payers throughout America. Mr. President, the issue of the status of tithes paid to churches by religiously motivated Americans who find themselves in bankruptcy proceedings has vexed tithe-payers and our courts for a number of years now. Vigilant, and some might say over-zealous, bankruptcy trustees have tried to recover tithes paid to churches as fraudulent conveyances under the bankruptcy code. Hundreds, if not thousands, of such claims for recovery against churches have been filed over the last few years. This has imperiled many churches, which operate on the offerings they receive as they come in. By the time a bankruptcy claim is filed, the money has been spent feeding the poor or otherwise serving the needs of the congregation. Many churches find it very difficult to make up money that has already been spent, and when they can, it weakens their ability to do the charitable and spiritual work that is part of the grand tradition of religious charity in America. Not only are the churches themselves imperiled, but many believers are told by the government that they can no longer pay tithes once they have been in bankruptcy, even if a believing debtor wishes to forgo allowable entertainment expenses to pay the tithing they believe God requires of them. This is an unsupportable interposition of Uncle Sam and the bankruptcy system between believing Americans and God. I believe we fixed the problem in 1993, when we passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (``RFRA''), which gave greater protections to religious activities across the board than the courts were affording at that time. An early bankruptcy case under that law, however, and the position the Clinton Justice Department took in that case, risked undermining those protections. Under pressure from me and others in Congress, the Justice Department reversed itself on direct orders from the President. And, luckily, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals applied RFRA`s stronger protections to the case. When that decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, however, it was vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court for further proceedings in light of the Court's decision in City of Boerne v. Flores,--U.S.--,117 S. Ct. 2157 (1997), in which it held that RFRA was unconstitutional as applied to the states. Upon the review of the Young case, I filed an amicus brief in the 8th Circuit, arguing with others that Boerne had no effect on questions of federal law such as bankruptcy, and so RFRA was constitutional and should apply in the bankruptcy context. I am pleased to report that the case of Christians v. Crystal Evangelical Free Church, 1998 WL 166642 (8th Cir. (Minn.)), decided last month, held RFRA to be constitutional for federal law purposes and protective of tithes in bankruptcy proceedings. The uncertainty caused by Boerne accelerated the challenging of tithes as fraudulent conveyances, and in turn spurred our efforts to clarify the law. I am glad that RFRA will continue to be of service in this area, but I am also pleased that we will have targeted legislation to clear up any remaining confusion without undue confusion during further litigation. S. 1244 will help spell out the safe harbors or tithe payers or others who contribute to charitable organizations and then find themselves in bankruptcy. It will relieve burdens on often- strained organizations that provide important services in our society, and relieve an untenable burden on the religious rights of tithe payers across America. Let me thank all of those who worked on this legislation, especially Senator Grassley and Senator Durbin, who are leaders on bankruptcy issues on the Judiciary Committee, and, in the case of at least Senator Grassley and I believe Senator Durbin, are strong supporters of the religious rights of our people. I thank both of them for the work in this area. We have worked to make this legislation useful and efficacious. So I urge all of our colleagues to vote for its passage. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we will cast one the most important votes of the 105th Congress. We will vote on reforming the Internal Revenue Service. Of all the powers bestowed upon a government, the power of taxation is the one most open to abuse. As the agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the tax laws that we here in Congress pass, no other agency touches the lives of American citizens more completely than the IRS. I believe that Americans understand and appreciate that they have to pay taxes. Without their tax dollars, there would be no defense; no Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid; no environmental protections; no assistance for education or job training; no national parks, food inspection, or funds for highway and bridges. But, everywhere I go in Utah, I hear from my constituents about their frustrations. My office receives numerous letters each month detailing taxpayer interactions with the IRS. It seem that everyone has had, or knows someone who has had, a bad experience with the IRS. The stories range from small annoyances such as unanswered phones or long periods of time spent on hold to shocking abuses such as unwarranted seizures of assets or criminal investigations being based on false information for the purpose of personal revenue. It is small wonder that the taxpayers are scared and frustrated. These stories illustrate a disturbing trend. They are dramatic reminders of the failure of Congress to exercise adequate oversight over a federal agency. I have been here long enough to know that we are never going to be able to achieve a system where people do not get frustrated about paying their taxes--both the process of paying taxes and the amounts. Let's face it: paying taxes is not something we will ever enjoy doing. We must, however achieve a system of collection that is efficient, fair, and, above all, honest. Unfortunately, throughout the hearings we have held over the last several months and in the letters my office has received from constituents from my state of Utah and all over the country, we know that the current system often fails on these counts. We have heard several horror stories from taxpayers, innocent spouses, IRS employees, and those who have been the subjects of criminal raids and investigations. While these are the minority of the cases dealt with by the IRS, they still illustrate that serious abuses are occurring. We are not taking about appropriate enforcement of the law. We are talking about heavy-handed abuses of enforcement powers. At best, such tactics are counterproductive; at worst, it is reprehensible behavior by big government. It must stop. The bill before us today gives the IRS Commissioner great flexibility to carry out a fundamental reorganization of the agency. But, it also places the IRS under an independent, most private-sector board to oversee the big picture of operations at the agency. These are two very important elements to creating a new culture of the IRS: responsible leadership and accountability. I commend the new Commissioner for the steps he has taken so far to rectify these problems at the IRS, and I encourage him to keep going. And, I hope he will not feel constrained by ``business as usual'' attitudes among those who have an interest in maintaining the current methods. I hope the new Commissioner will shake any dead wood out of the tree. But Mr. Rosotti needs to know that Congress will hold him and the agency accountable. And, our expectations--and the expectations of the American people--are not hard to fathom. We do not expect tax delinquents or cheats to go undetected or unpenalized. But, we do expect the IRS to enforce our tax laws appropriately. We expect the IRS to assist taxpayers to understand and comply with complicated laws and regulations. We expect taxpayers to be treated courteously . We expect taxpayers' questions to be answered promptly and their returns processed efficiently. And, we expect any penalties to fit the crime. Today, we will vote on a bill that takes a leap forward in eradicating a culture that has allowed corruption and abuse to occur over and over again and to taint the efforts of honorable IRS employees. There has been a lot of talk about changing the IRS into a service-oriented agency, and the bill before us goes a long way towards dong just that. We cannot stop there, however. While customer service is an important part of the equation, we must go further and address taxpayer rights. The bill before us goes one more step forward and will reform the penalty system, provide taxpayer more protections from unwarranted seizures, and make the IRS more accountable for the actions of its agents. This bill goes further than the legislation passed by our counterparts in the House last fall. The Senate legislation expands key aspects to grant taxpayers additional protections. The Senate bill adds protections that allow spouses to choose proportional liability, award attorney's fees in more cases, require that the IRS specify to an individual the details of any penalty imposed and suspend interest and some penalties if the IRS does not provide notice of liability within one year after a return is filed. The bill would add several provisions dealing with the due process of taxpayers including a requirement that the IRS notify taxpayers 30 days before a notice of federal lien, levy, or seizure is filed; a guarantee that the taxpayer has 30 days to request a hearing by IRS Appeals; and the opportunity for the taxpayer to petition the Tax Court to contest the Appeals decision. The bill also permits an issuer of tax-exempt bonds to appeal the decision of the IRS through the tax court system. This will help protect the individual taxpayers from having to go to court on an individual basis to fight the IRS determination that a bond issue is not tax-exempt. This is extremely important to those municipalities that issue these bonds. These bonds are issued for tax-exempt purposes, such as to construct schools or build hospitals and universities. This is a good provision to provide an avenue of appeals for these bond issuers. The legislation before us today will fundamentally change how the IRS works. It is a necessary and bold set of initiatives. But, we cannot just declare victory and bask in the glow of a job well done. We must remember how we got to this point in the first place. The IRS was not born evil, and it is not an inherently bad organization. Rather, it has suffered from decades of neglect and inadequate oversight. Once we have set the agency on the road to recovery and given it the tools it needs to move forward, we must continue to guide it and ensure that the agency continues down the right road. We must continue to responsibly exercise our oversight responsibility. We must have continued hearings, reviews, and cooperation. Left alone, any entity with power and authority will lose its way. Without continued oversight and cooperation, we will soon see this debate repeated on the Senate floor. This legislation can be summed up in one word--accountability. For too long, the IRS and its employees have operated in an environment with little or no accountability. This bill changes all that. The legislation before us makes individual IRS employees accountable for their actions. It makes management more accountable for the treatment given taxpayers and other employees. Finally, it makes the agency as a whole more accountable to the Congress and the American taxpayer. This debate has focused on the negative--on the abuses and misdeeds that are the exception and not the rule. Just as a vast majority of the taxpayers are honestly trying to comply with the tax code, the vast majority of IRS employees are honest and hard working individuals doing their best in a very difficult and unpopular job. Yes, abuses do occur, and we must reform the system to prevent improper activities. At the same time, we must make sure that we acknowledge those employees who are doing their jobs with competence and integrity. These employees are the reason that most taxpayers today, even if frustrated by the forms and irritated with the amount of their tax bill, continue to comply. Is this bill perfect? No. There are some things I would like to see changed. For example, I have some serious concerns about the creation of an accountant-client privilege in this context. I am concerned that we are using the Internal Revenue Code to effectively amend the Federal Rules of Evidence. We have a clear procedure for amending these rules already set out. Changing these rules is no simple matter. It should only be done through careful, deliberate evaluation of the change and the effect it will have on the judicial system. It should only be done with input from the Judicial Conference of the United States and others. Despite these misgivings, Mr. President, I want to reiterate the importance of the bill before us today. The IRS touchers more taxpayers in more aspects of their lives than probably any other agency. It is an important bill, and we must pass it. The ultimate goal of reforming the IRS is to protect both the honest taxpayer trying to comply with our complex tax laws and those honest employees struggling to enforce an almost incomprehensible set of tax laws with integrity. The bill before us today makes significant progress toward that goal. I want to commend Senator Roth, Senator Moynihan, and my colleagues on the Finance Committee for seeing this bill through. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. In brief, the concerns highlighted in this letter from the Attorneys General of Colorado, Ohio, Utah and Washington are: (1) The difficulties created by enacting legislation without the industry's voluntary waiver of several constitutional prerogatives. The Generals raise specific legal concerns about attempting to legislate in the absence of consent decrees and other voluntary agreements with the industry. These concerns go to several major features of any comprehensive bill: advertising and marketing restrictions (including restrictions affecting retailers, distributors, and advertisers); look back penalties; and document disclosure. We should also take to heart General Mike Moore's observation that, in the nearly three years since it was first proposed, the FDA's rule on tobacco advertising has not gone into effect. We all know the cause: litigation. But by settling the lawsuit, in Mississippi, there is no billboard advertising today, a result that goes far beyond the FDA rule and what the Constitution would permit us to do legislatively. (2) The second concern of the Attorneys General is the untoward effect that the potential bankruptcy of the tobacco industry would entail. Let me be clear about my position on this. I would like nothing more than for the tobacco industry to pay a trillion dollars. But I also want an anti-tobacco program which works. All of the bills before Congress have in common a serious effort to curtail youth tobacco use. All of the bills rely on industry payments to fund those efforts. If we bankrupt the companies, or if we drive them offshore, ultimately no one wins, because we need the industry payments to fund the massive anti-tobacco program the American public wants. Without that funding source, the whole program goes down the drain. If the companies become bankrupt or move offshore, it is a whole new ball game, and one which we cannot control. It would be more intellectually honest just to ban tobacco. On this subject, the AGs' letter said: State Attorneys General do not seek financial ruin of any industry. It is our job to bring about compliance with the laws and that is what we seek from the tobacco companies. This is an industry that sells a legal product, employs thousands of people, and provides a living to many more, ranging from farmers to retailers. Our goal has been to hold the industry accountable for its actions, and to provide for significant public health gains. If the current companies are liquidated, new companies can be expected to step into the breach, within or outside this country. We would have virtually no claims against these replacement companies for past industry practices. Further, foreign tobacco companies (possibly with manufacturing operations abroad) might immediately step in to satisfy U.S. demand for cigarettes. This, of course, could hurt our farming communities and those whose employment depends on this industry. (3) The third major point of concern for the Attorneys General is the potential for increasing the black market for illegal contraband cigarettes. A recent case study from Alaska is illustrative. Five months ago, Alaska increased its cigarette tax from 29 cents to one dollar. From all we know about nicotine addiction, the resulting decrease in sales cannot be explained by sudden cessation. Rather, it appears that legal sales were replaced in part by black market cigarettes. The Alaskan legislature is considering rolling back some of the tobacco taxes. With respect to the issue of contraband the AGs' letter says: As law enforcement officials of the states, we are also concerned about the danger of creating a contraband market for tobacco products. Our children will not be helped by creating a new product line for organized crime, nor by providing a new entry market for drug dealers. Additionally, the adverse health consequences of smoking cigarettes produced in unregulated foreign or clandestine markets are likely to be even more significant than cigarettes produced by the existing U.S. companies . . . The letter from the AGs notes that the cigarette contraband problem is already a $1 billion nationally. For example, the AGs provide an estimate that in the state of California--which raised its state tobacco tax in 1988 from 18 cents to 35 cents a pack--that today between 17% and 23% are smuggled. That's about 1 in every 5 cigarettes. The AG's letter goes on to say: There is a definite correlation between tax rates and the level of smuggling. For many years, the differential in tax rates on tobacco taxes was mainly an interstate problem with contraband products being smuggled into those states with the highest tax rates. The problem has now reached international proportions. At first, popular American brands were smuggled into other countries. We are now seeing that as tobacco taxes rise nationwide, foreign manufactured cigarettes and other products are being smuggled into the United States. I have also received letters from a number of law enforcement organizations, whose thousands of members will be expected to provide the first line of defense against these smugglers. These law enforcement officers are extremely apprehensive that passage of this legislation will precipitate the emergence of a thriving black market in cigarettes, posing huge problems for law enforcement at every level. They say the Commerce bill, in particular, will inevitably lead to the creation of a massive black market, giving organized crime a new line of business and undermining not only respect for the rule of law, but also the real goal of the legislation, preventing underage tobacco use. I might also add that one of the most frightening outcomes of a new black market would be the likelihood that children will find it easier than ever to purchase tobacco products. One of government's principal responsibilities is to help families and communities keep children from smoking. A large, lucrative black market could have the unintended consequences of making parents' job harder. It is not too hard to envision unregulated cigarettes being sold on literally every street corner. In response to this concern we have been told by the Administration not to worry because the system contemplated by the Commerce Committee bill is a closed system. When our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, asked a series of questions about this black market she was repeatedly told about this purported closed system. I believe that Senator Feinstein shares my concern about the government's ability to design a ``closed system,'' given our experience with guarding the nation's borders and safeguarding our children in the costly and never-ending battle against illicit drugs. I share Senator's Feinstein's pointed remarks on this issue because I, too, simply do not believe that this closed system will prove so easy to implement. It seems to me that the real question for policymakers is this. Given these facts, how can we shape a comprehensive national tobacco control strategy that can help prevent the next generation of young Americans from choosing to use tobacco and help those already addicted to stop? In my view, most of the essential elements for answering this question can be found in the proposed global tobacco settlement announced last June 20th. In return for funding a comprehensive anti-tobacco education and cessation program with an unprecedented payment of $368.5 billion spread over 25 years, under the agreement the industry would be granted a measure of financial certainty and predictability by settling a series of pending lawsuits. Now, almost 11 months after that settlement was proposed, it still holds forth the best model for comprehensive legislation which can be enacted this year. It contains the limited liability provisions which are necessary to evoke tobacco industry compliance with the program. The President's most senior representatives have said, both publicly and privately, that they would not oppose some version of those provisions in a bill which was otherwise acceptable. It is not the breaking point some assert it to be. The AGs' proposal also avoids some of the pitfalls inherent in legislation currently being discussed. For example, it will pass Constitutional scrutiny. At some point, you have to stand up for some principles like the First Amendment's protection of commercial speech--a principle that, according to virtually every constitutional law expert that has testified before the Judiciary Committee, will be subject to court intervention if advertising and promotion restrictions of tobacco products are written into a federal statute. For example, noted First Amendment practitioner Floyd Abrams has stated that attempting to codify the existing FDA rule--currently in held in abeyance pending further judicial proceedings in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, would run afoul of First Amendment protection. By virtually insisting that the Commerce Committee codify the FDA rule, the Administration is risking a protracted Constitutional battle over advertising provisions that industry will voluntary go far beyond. Still others point out that, absent industry agreement by contract and consent decree, it will be unconstitutional to require so-called industry lookback penalties if certain tobacco reduction targets are not met. Mr. President, these are issues that concern me very much. They are issues which merit serious study, and then concerted action, but they should not be stumbling blocks to enactment of a final bill. I am alarmed. I see the sands racing through the hourglass as we move toward adjournment, but I do not see consensus emerging on the shape of tobacco legislation. Indeed, I see the Congress increasingly polarized, as members race into either one of two camps: the ``keep-upping-the-ante'' faction, those who will ``pile on'' any punitive bill, or the ``minimalist approach'' contingent. The result of this polarity is a paralysis which cannot be breached until we realize we are jeopardizing our effectiveness through politicization. Surely there is a middle ground, a basis for legislation which focuses on our real target--weaning a generation of kids off of nicotine--not on the politics of punishment. These political games not only disappoint those we represent, but also, as I have outlined, punish them as well. We owe our kids, and we owe their parents, hard-working Americans in every state, so much, much more.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, to date, our efforts to develop comprehensive, bipartisan anti-tobacco legislation have been stymied by the lack of consensus on a number of major issues. Over the next few weeks, I intend to devote full attention toward refocusing our efforts on a bill which can be enacted this year. To accomplish that goal, it is important that Congress and the Administration reflect on what our objective actually has been--and should continue to be. Last June, the 40 State Attorneys General, public health representatives, tobacco company officials, and representatives of the Castano group, announced a bold new initiative focused on eradicating the scourge of youth tobacco use. This proposed global tobacco settlement presents Washington with a once-in-a-generation-opportunity to help families and communities raise a whole generation of youth tobacco-free. Certainly, no one in Congress was bound to the particulars of the June agreement. But, we would not have seen such virtually unprecedented legislative consideration of the tobacco issue in the past 11 months were it not for this settlement. In short, our objective in 1997 was to improve the public health, and specifically the health of our youth, through a constitutional package of reforms which relies on a guaranteed stream of revenue from tobacco companies. Our objective should be the same in 1998. But it appears that it is not. Unfortunately, partisan politics, fear, greed and Washington's pile- on mentality have caused us to lose sight of this objective. Instead, we are simply trying to ``out-tobacco'' one another. If that continues, the public interest will not be served, and Big Tobacco will win. As an optimist, I remain hopeful the Congress will succeed this year in passing strong, anti-tobacco legislation that is comprehensive, workable, and Constitutionally-permissible. But as a realist, I also know that the events of the last few weeks, in which this issue has become increasingly fractionalized and politicized, make our task that much more difficult. Comprehensive tobacco legislation is now in jeopardy. Not for want of trying, to be sure, but for a lack of consensus on several crucial issues. For us to consider comprehensive tobacco legislation, and then to fail, would be a terrible loss, a loss for our country, a loss for our political system, and a loss for the generation of our youth America's parents hope to bring up tobacco-free. Let me be blunt. Our failure to enact comprehensive anti-tobacco legislation would also be a significant victory for the tobacco industry, an industry which has knowingly marketed harmful products for decades, deliberately targeting our youth in their quest for profits. Let me be equally frank. Passage of just any bill will be a significant loss for the American people, who should be able to rely on their legislators to write sound, responsible legislation. In writing a bill, we should not give in to the tobacco industry's demands. We should not give in to their less-than-veiled attempts to force both the Administration and the Congress into abandoning our objectives--addressing the problem of youth tobacco, reforming the legal system to allow for appropriate compensation to claimants, enhancing biomedical research with respect to tobacco, improving the public health, as well as helping our farmers transition away from growing tobacco. At the outset of my remarks, I want to distinguish carefully and clearly any substantive concerns I have about the legislation that has emerged from the Commerce Committee with my respect and admiration for those who have brought the legislation to this point. First and foremost, I commend the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain. Anybody who knows anything about John McCain knows that he is a patriot and true American hero. As I will lay out, while I do have significant concerns with many of the major details of the legislation that the Commerce Committee has put forward--and would have preferred that we could have worked more closely together--I do commend the efforts of all the members of the Commerce Committee in moving a bill forward for floor consideration. But before I discuss the policies of tobacco control, I want to sound a cautionary note about its politics. Pundits report that Democrats are in a ``win-win'' position on this issue. As conventional wisdom goes, the minority can keep on moving the goal posts of this legislation, proposing more and more harsh amendments, defying Republicans to vote against their ever-changing version of the bill. In this way, the Democrats can either foster the perception that they are tougher on Big Tobacco by making the bill more and more onerous, or they can tar and feather any recalcitrant Republicans with the charge that Republicans are in cahoots with Big Tobacco. That is pure bunk. Listening to the President's press conference last week, I was impressed by his earnest statement that this not be an election year issue. But, as we all well know, any issue raised consistently fewer than six months before an election is an election issue. It cannot be avoided. All rhetoric aside, the way to accomplish our goal--the reduction of youth tobacco use--is for the Congress and the White House to work together on a bill which can be enacted and implemented. We are not there yet, despite public protestations to the contrary. A number of key differences in approach are major stumbling blocks to enactment of a bill. These barriers include: Allocating any revenues that are derived from a bill The Senate budget resolution calls for all revenues to be devoted to Medicare. While the House has not completed work on its version, there are some in the House who believe that tobacco revenues should be used for more general tax decreases. Others suggest the tobacco revenues be used to help pay for health insurance for low-income people. A fourth approach is embodied in the President's budget, which advances a number of new or expanded domestic spending programs that will be financed with tobacco revenues. Determining the final cost of the proposal The bill approved by the Senate Commerce Committee has an initial price tag of $516 billion over the next 25 years, without any calculation of the lookback provision, which naturally could push that price tag much higher. In contrast, the original settlement offered on June 20, 1997 was $368.5 billion. Legitimate questions have been raised about the ability of various industry players to pay a sum as high as $500 billion to $700 billion, which is what, extrapolated out, the Commerce bill could cost in the end. Let's face it, as much as many would like to penalize this industry, we are penalizing ourselves if we enact a new program predicated upon revenues that won't be there. Assessing the per pack or per can increase A related question is the price per product increase that will result from the new industry payments. A widely-reported figure is the Treasury Department's estimate that the Commerce bill, for example, will result in a per cigarette pack increase of $1.10 five years from now. As the Judiciary Committee's hearing last week revealed, we do not know the precise methodology the Administration used to make this price projection. Deputy Secretary Summers told the Judiciary Committee last week that he would provide us with the information that I requested, but we are still waiting. We do know that Wall Street experts, like David Adelman of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Martin Feldman of Salomon Smith Barney, and Gary Black of Sanford C. Bernstein, have concluded that the Administration's projections are far too low and that the true retail price of a pack of cigarettes--measured in constant 1997 dollars--will be in the neighborhood of $5 per pack in year 5, more than a $3 increase. Under this scenario, the price per carton will shoot up $30. This increase is almost twice as high, twice as fast, as the ``up to $1.50 per pack'' increase over 10 years called for by the President last September. Ascertaining the effect on law enforcement The Treasury Department testified before the Judiciary Committee last week that ``by closing the distribution chain for tobacco products, we will be able to ensure that these products flow through legitimate channels and effectively police any leakages that do take place.'' In fact, Deputy Secretary Summers said that with these regulatory controls, ``we do not expect a large-scale smuggling problem. . .'' Law enforcement officials at all levels with whom I have spoken are not so sanguine. These are the officers who will be on the front lines, policing against the violence, hijackings, smuggling, and other related crimes that are inherent in any opportunity for a black market. One officer with whom I spoke termed the Treasury statement ``laughable.'' Developing a consensus on the agriculture provisions One of the most unifying themes in the tobacco debate is the need to make certain that we provide an adequate program to transition American farmers out of tobacco production into other alternatives. There are major divisions, however, on how to structure that program. There are two major approaches in the Senate, one developed by our colleague from Kentucky, Senator Ford (the ``LEAF'' Act), the other by our colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar. The major difference between these two bills is that the Lugar bill terminates the tobacco price support program, while the LEAF bill does not. The final key difference is in determining the extent of the role of the tobacco companies in any final legislation. As many are aware, the Department of Justice has undertaken one or more investigations related to tobacco companies. If there have been violations of the law, they should be prosecuted to their fullest, and it behooves the Department to move forward on its investigations swiftly and conclusively. But this specter of wrong-doing should not be allowed to cast such a shadow over the tobacco legislation that it becomes an excuse for inaction. Some have castigated the companies for their departure from directionless congressional deliberations. I do not believe that Congress needs the approval of the industry to pass tobacco legislation. As everyone knows, I am no friend of the tobacco industry or their products. But, having made these points, as a legislator with a deep appreciation of the process of building consensus in our democratic society, I do believe that Congress would be wise to consider the perspectives of the tobacco industry in fashioning legislation. This is true for one very fundamental reason: we want a program which works, a program with which this tremendously-resourced, tremendously- creative industry will comply. Perhaps I am just not as smart as those who believe the companies cannot contribute anything constructive to the process. When Congress is dramatically affecting a sector of the economy, as long as that industry's products are legal, as long as they have a right to perform in our society, then that industry's views should be heard, no matter how much we don't like that industry. That should not amount to a veto. No outside group--not the tobacco companies, not the private attorneys, not the state attorney generals, not the public health groups, not anyone--should expect or be granted a veto over this legislation. What all affected parties should get is a forum for their views, an opportunity to be heard. This is the very essence of democracy. So I must ask those who pride themselves on not sitting down at the table with this industry to reexamine this position. I echo the suggestion that Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore made a few weeks ago, that the President reconvene all of the original participants in these negotiations. Congress should be part of such talks. It just seems to me that beyond the purely public health issues, tobacco legislation has major social, political, and economic dimensions that argues for an inclusive process as possible. Some 50 million Americans use these products. Public health experts almost unanimously agree that we should not make them go cold turkey overnight. There is also the question of political philosophy of whether it is a proper role for the government to take away the freedom of adult Americans to consume tobacco products. Moreover, as a conservative, I am generally loath to endorse any type of new taxes. I am particularly sensitive about advocating a regressive scheme whereby the lower income segments of our society which have disproportionately higher smoking rates are called upon, in essence, to fund social programs dictated by the political elites. Tobacco revenue ought not be used to finance an explosion of new entitlements, a veritable ``honey pot'' of money to fund a mini Great Society. I am afraid that the President's approach in the budget strays down this path by paying for child care and education initiatives with the as yet agreed upon and uncollected tobacco revenues. To put it bluntly, the President has spent the money even before Congress has passed a bill. Also from an economic standpoint, I am mindful that several million decent, tax-paying, Americans are dependent, directly or indirectly, on the tobacco industry for their livelihoods. We have wisely, I think, sought to make an accommodation to the thousands of tobacco farmer families. Do we not also have some similar responsibility to carefully consider the economic interests of those who work on the loading docks at Philip Morris or sell cigarettes at the local gas station or 7-11 Store? Still other of our citizens are shareholders in these firms or may be dependent on pension funds with substantial holdings of tobacco securities. I note that Yale University, home of one of the most absolutist anti- tobacconists, Dr. David Kessler, recently voted not to divest its tobacco holdings from its endowment investment portfolio. To me, this says a lot. We in Congress and the Administration must take care not to engage in a game of political one-upsmanship in which we all trip over ourselves in the race to show the public who is the toughest on tobacco. We may find that in the quest to punish the black-hatted tobacco industry we will have trampled over the interests and security of a lot of ordinary, hard-working Americans. These are very hard questions to answer, but they are questions which must be resolved before Congress can write a tobacco bill. Ten days ago, I received a bipartisan letter from four of the State Attorneys General who participated in last year's settlement negotiations. This letter--which I believe is a serious effort to help Congress make the corrections necessary before we consider the Commerce Committee legislation--highlighted three areas of concern, three particular areas in which Congress runs the risk of undermining the settlement's objectives if it continues down the current road. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. There are those who object that the Government should not interfere with the dynamic hi-tech marketplace. I agree with those who espouse a natural, instinctive skepticism toward any Government intervention in the marketplace. But enforcement of the antitrust laws may be all the more important if innovation in the most important, fast-growing sector of our present and future economy is being suffocated under the thumb of a company both willing and able to exploit its monopoly power. The media campaign surrounding the public release of Windows 95 was accompanied by a theme song. As I recall, it was the Rolling Stones' hit song Start Me Up. For innovators seeking to compete with Bill Gates, for PC makers who feel that they have little choice but to steer clear of any actions that might upset their relationship with Microsoft, and for consumers, beholden to Microsoft for software products, I wonder whether the theme song for Windows 98 shouldn't be another Rolling Stones hit--Under My Thumb. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Anyone who knows Judge Bork knows that he would never take the position he has taken were he not convinced that it was 100 percent consistent with the antitrust views he has long espoused. Similarly, Daniel Oliver, former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission under President Reagan, just published a piece in the May 4 edition of The National Review. Mr. Oliver, long known as a free-market proponent who generally opposes all but the most justified government intervention in the marketplace, had this to say: If ever there was a case that raises consumer-welfare issues, this would seem to be it. Microsoft has a 90 per cent share of a world market; there are reasons to think that share will endure; Microsoft has engaged in restrictive practices; and many of those practices do not appear to have any efficiency justifications that would benefit consumers rather than the company. Where you find a dead body, a bloody knife, fingerprints, and a motive, there may have been a crime. I ask unanimous consent that this article as well be printed in the Record, along with a personal letter I received several weeks ago from Mr. Oliver and from Mr. James Miller, also a former chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am told that this afternoon in New York City Bill Gates and a number of other executives from throughout the computer and software industries will be holding a press conference urging law enforcement officials not to interfere with the release of Windows 98. I certainly do not begrudge Mr. Gates or others in the industry to make their views known. That is what makes our democracy work. Indeed, I would like nothing more than to see more enlightened debate on this terribly important policy issue. But I cannot help but wonder how many of these executives are on that stage because they truly want to be. It strikes me as curious that it was only after calls from Microsoft that many of these individuals saw fit to sign letters and make public appearances. Indeed, I have been told that some executives in fact hope to see the Justice Department pursue further its case against Microsoft, but have chosen to join Mr. Gates on that stage today because they feel they have little choice but do so in order not to jeopardize their relationship with the industry's most powerful and important player. I understand perfectly well that no one would publicly admit as much, but, given recent developments, I do believe it is a question worth considering. But, I also think it is timely to review where we stand today as the Justice Department considers whether to bring a broader suit alleging anti-competitive or monopolistic practices by Microsoft. I first raised the question of Microsoft's seemingly exclusionary licensing practices last November. While we are not privy to all of the licensing and other practices the Justice Department has been scrutinizing, over the past few months a number of specific practices have come to light. In particular, we have learned that Microsoft not only tied the shipment of its browser, Internet Explorer, to its monopoly operating system, Windows, but also engaged in a series of licensing practices with respect to computer makers, Internet Service Providers, and Internet Content Providers which appear designed not to serve consumers but rather to exclude competing browser companies from the marketplace. For a company with a monopoly in the personal computer operating system market--and nobody other than Microsoft would dispute that the firm has monopoly power--to use its monopoly power to exclude potential rivals clearly raises serious antitrust concerns. Let me point out that such seemingly predatory and exclusionary practices raise concerns for even the most conservative, free-market antitrust thinkers. Judge Robert Bork, one of the most brilliant and highly respected conservative antitrust thinkers, and author of the renowned ``Antitrust Paradox,'' just yesterday explained in The New York Times why even he is troubled by what he has learned of Microsoft's practices. As Judge Bork wrote: [w]hen a monopolist employs practices and makes agreements that exclude competitors and does so without the justification that the practices and agreements benefit consumers, the company is guilty . . . of an attempt to monopolize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. When its own documents display a clear intent to monopolize through such means, the case is cold. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor, I am happy to yield time to the distinguished Senator from Idaho. Then I would like to make my statement.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today regarding the topic before us: Senate ratification to amend the North Atlantic Treaty to allow for the accession of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. I wish to commend Senator Helms and Senator Biden for their sustained efforts to investigate thoroughly the issues inherent in this historic move. As befits the importance of the North Atlantic Treaty, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held numerous public hearings and provided many briefings and reports giving consideration to all aspects--and all views--regarding this historic move. The Budget, Appropriations, Armed Services and Intelligence Committees in both bodies of Congress have further contributed to this valuable debate. Indeed, in the post-Cold War era in which we now find ourselves, I don't believe any issue has been more thoroughly vetted, and I thank my colleagues and the leaders of the relevant committees for their efforts. I have lent a great deal of thought to this issue. Amid the euphoria of 1989, when many focused on the stunning collapse of Soviet occupation throughout central and eastern Europe, we had to recognize that a yawning geopolitical vacuum had just opened. For the first few years we correctly focused on assisting the Germans in their successful reunification efforts, but as nascent democratic and free markets institutions arose in central Europe, the United States stepped in to assist and solidify these developments. The costs to us of solidifying these institutions were significantly less than the costs of waging the Cold War, but the benefits we saw--in terms of the freedom spread where darkness reigned for nearly half a century--were so much greater. Mr. President, I have regularly visited the countries that will soon be accepted as NATO's new members, sometimes on my own, sometimes with other members, and regularly with our delegations to the North Atlantic Assembly, recently under the leadership of my colleague Senator Roth. I have met with their political leaders, their military representatives, and local analysts on many occasions, as I have sought to measure their level of democratic advancement. In 1995, I was honored to address the first multinational graduating class from the International Law Enforcement Academy in Budapest, Hungary, where the FBI now works with law enforcement officials from throughout central Europe to assist in combating criminal challenges to us all. Democracy is strong in Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. The rule of law is established, civilian control of militaries is well- established, and these nations rightly take their place alongside the nations of the West. There are a few voices, Mr. President, who argue that what the nations of central Europe need more than NATO membership is economic development. This is the essence of the amendment proposed by my respected colleague, Senator Moynihan, which requires European Union membership prior to the deposit of our instrument of ratification. With great respect for the senior Senator of New York, I must disagree: Yes, the countries of central Europe require economic development, but it is mistaken, in my view, to believe that economic development and geopolitical advantage are exclusive of each other. The European Union has only planned for joint defense capabilities; NATO has preserved the territorial integrity for its members for nearly half a century. The European Union excludes the United States; but the United States leads NATO. Therefore, subjecting determinations for future NATO expansions to the European Union is not only unwise, it is, in my view, illogical. Mr. President, you have heard this many times already in this debate, and I daresay you will hear it many more times. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the most successful treaty defense organization in human history. Twice, before the founding of NATO, the United States was drawn into wars on the European continent, where we suffered huge losses of blood and treasure. An unbridled Germany and an unstable central Europe were predominant reasons for the calamities that became these world wars. The accession of the Federal Republic of Germany to NATO in 1955 firmly established free Germany into the community of western democracies. With the unification of Germany in 1990 following the collapse of the Soviet empire, the integration of Germany was complete. Throughout that period, NATO succeeded by the virtue of its defensive cohesiveness and its deterrent effect on the European continent. Today, we are set to integrate three important nations of central Europe, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland. With their integration, geopolitical space in central Europe will be firmly incorporated into the territory protected by the defensive military alliance of NATO. As the report accompanying the resolution of ratification asserts correctly: ``With the enlargement of NATO, the United States and its allies have an opportunity to build a more stable Europe, to lock in that stability, and to replace the dynamics of confrontation and conflict with trust and cooperation.'' Some have asserted that no threat exists to legitimize such an enlargement to the alliance now. Mr. President, the extension of geopolitical stability in Europe is an insurance policy against the future development of regional threats. The United States, and the United States Senate, should not need to wait for the development of an imminent threat in order to implement sound geopolitical strategy. NATO's mission has always been subject to certain applications beyond the core mission to defend territory. These applications have reflected consensus among members regarding military challenges, and I am hesitant to amend this resolution in any way that would impose definitions or mechanisms that might politicize the carefully honed language of the original North Atlantic Treaty. I believe the language of the resolution sufficiently asserts the central mission and strategic rationale for this enlargement. It is entirely reasonable for the Senate to carefully review the costs that this enlargement will incur. Through the years of considering this move, many numbers have been manufactured: the range has been startling and the spin has been confounding. I suppose it is somewhat predictable that attempts were made to politicize these numbers, but the scrutiny of many committee hearings have provided great focus. I am confident that the most recent GAO and CBO estimates are accurate: a total of $1.5 billion in increased U.S. contributions over the next 10 years. For increasing the geopolitical stability well into central Europe, this is a sound and defensible expenditure. A great deal of debate has focused on the consequences of NATO enlargement on Russian geopolitical behavior and U.S.-Russian relations. I am not convinced of any direct causality between NATO's decision to enlarge and the content and direction of Russian foreign policy. I think historians and analysts of Russia concur with my view. Despite an unprecedented U.S.-Russia relationship that has developed over the past decade, a relationship that has seen billions of U.S. assistance go to the development of Russian democratic institutions, a relationship that has seen Russian and American troops serving side-by-side in Bosnia, some believe that this expansion of NATO will poison our efforts, or will, in the words of some, ``scare the Russians.'' I have visited Russia many times in my career in the Senate, most recently three weeks ago. Senator Gordon Smith, who is chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I had many meetings with the Russian foreign policy establishment, including Deputy Foreign Minister Mamedov, responsible for U.S.-Russia relations, and Andrey Kokoshin, Secretary of President Yeltsin's Security Council. We met with a number of Duma and Federation Council members. We discussed many aspects of our bilateral relations, and NATO was reviewed in every meeting. Every Russian official I met in Moscow objected to NATO enlargement. Yet every official I met denied that they believed NATO posed a military threat to Russia's territorial integrity, and every official I met admitted that, despite being unhappy with this enlargement, they were all reconciled to this development. Mr. President, no Russian--not one--told me that NATO enlargement would be a legitimate cause for reversal of Russia's domestic evolution toward democracy. Not one Russian official told me he was afraid of NATO enlargement. Not one Russian, Mr. President, objected to the new contiguous border between Poland and Kaliningrad. I must admit that I find this objection raised by opponents to enlargement to be somewhat bizarre. Since Turkey's accession to NATO in 1952, NATO had a long border with what was then the Soviet Union--we used to have nuclear-armed Jupiter missiles in that border country. We also had a contiguous border between NATO and the Soviet Union along Norway's eastern border with the Kola peninsula, behind which the Soviet Union's strategic naval forces resided. And now we have opponents objecting to a border with Kaliningrad, which is not contiguous with Russia itself? Or, even stranger, there are those who analogize the Kaliningrad situation with a Russian alliance with Mexico along our southern border. Such an argument would have been denounced 15 years ago as ``moral equivalence.'' Today, the Kaliningrad argument is ahistorical and simply dilatory. Every Russian I met three weeks ago told me they still objected to NATO enlargement, but told me also they wanted to work with the Founding Act instrumentalities and were eager to continue and expand our many levels of bilateral cooperation. The enlargement of NATO that this body will pass in the next few days is not short-sighted, Mr. President, but the most significant foreign policy act before the end of this century. It has been long-considered, and, frankly, desired even longer. I recall the days when we looked across the Iron Curtain to countries we knew had once had Western, democratic societies. I hope this is not the last enlargement, although I am confident that future enlargements, if they occur, will occur with the same detailed, painstaking consideration as we have conducted over the past four years. Over the course of this debate we will hear quoted many testimonials by Americans from all walks of life, both parties, and all regions in favor of the move we will ultimately take. It is particularly significant to me that the American Legion, as well as the American Veterans of Foreign Wars, have endorsed NATO enlargement. These men and women know the territory; they know the history; and they know the price. I'm proud to be associated with them on this important issue. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of this historic move. The countries formerly imprisoned by the Soviets have come out of the cold, have elected democratic governments that have established the rule of law, civilian control over their militaries and individual liberty and free markets. They have all indicated strong support from their publics for NATO membership and its responsibilities. A geostrategic vacuum, long a source of instability on the European continent, is being filled--by an organization that is strictly defensive, with absolutely no offensive intentions. The action this body takes in the next few days--by ratifying this protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty--will not only extend stability into central Europe, but will extend the promise of peace and stability into the next century. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize an interpretive center and visitor facilities at the Four Corners National Monument. As my colleagues know, Four Corners is the only place in our country where four state boundaries meet. Over a quarter of a million people visit this monument every year. The Four Corners area is also unique for reasons other than the political boundaries of four states. Once inhabited by the earliest Americans, the Anaxazi, this area is rich in historical, archaeological,and cultural significance as well as natural beauty. Currently, however, there is nothing at Four Corners that would help visitors to fully appreciate and learn about the area. And, at a national monument that has 250,000 visitors a year, one would expect certain basic facilities to exist--restrooms, for example. But, there is no electricity, running water, telephone, or permanent structure at Four Corners. The bill I am introducing today is simple: We propose a Federal matching grant to build an interpretive center and visitor facilities within the boundaries of Four Corners Monument Tribal Park. We are not suggesting a museum the size of the Guggenheim. But, exhibits on the history, geography, culture, and ecology of the region would significantly enhance the area and Americans' appreciation of this unique part of their country and their heritage. And, I daresay that some very basic guest amenities would enhance their enjoyment of it. There is, as you can imagine, a great deal of excitement and enthusiasm for this project from many fronts. Currently, the Monument is operated as one of the units of the Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department. And, since there has been so much debate about ``monuments'' recently, I should clarify that the Four Corners ``Monument'' is merely a slightly elevated concrete slab at the juncture of our four states. The Navajo Nation owns the land in the Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah quarters and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe owns the quarter in Colorado. Although the Navajo Nation and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe are fully supportive of the project and have entered into an agreement with one another in order to facilitate planning and development at the Four Corners Monument, neither Tribe has the necessary resources to improve the facilities and create an interpretive center at the Monument. The bill, however, does not contemplate federal government give-away. The bill requires matching funds from nonfederal sources and for the two tribes to work collaboratively toward the development of a financial management plan. It is intended that the Interpretive Center become fully self-sufficient within five years. The bill requires that proposals meeting the stated criteria be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior. These criteria include, among other things, compliance with the existing agreements between the Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes, a sound financing plan, and the commitment of nonfederal matching funds. The federal contribution would not exceed $2.25 million over a 5 year period. Over the past several years, the Navajo Nation has met with many of the local residents of the area and has found overwhelming support to improve the quality of the services provided at the Four Corners Monument. The local area suffers an unemployment rate of over 50 percent and any development which would create employment opportunities and would encourage visitors to stay longer in the area would be welcomed. Another important participant in the development of this proposal is the Four Corners Heritage Council. This Council, which was established in 1992 by the governors of the four states, is a coalition of private, tribal, federal, state, and local government interests committed to finding ways to make the economy of the Four Corners region sustainable into the future. The mission of the Heritage Council is to guide the region toward a balance of the sometimes competing interests of economic development, resource preservation, and maintenance of traditional life ways. Back in 1949, nearly 50 years ago, the governors of the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah assembled at the Four Corners in a historic meeting. Each governor sat in their respective state and had what is probably the most unusual picnic lunch in history. They pledged to meet often at the Four Corners Monument to reaffirm their commitment to working together. Clearly, the governors understood that they shared stewardship of a unique piece of western real estate. Mr. President, the heritage of this area belongs to all Americans. The small investment requested in this legislation will help bring it to life. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize an interpretive center and visitor facilities at the Four Corners National Monument. As my colleagues know, Four Corners is the only place in our country where four state boundaries meet. Over a quarter of a million people visit this monument every year. The Four Corners area is also unique for reasons other than the political boundaries of four states. Once inhabited by the earliest Americans, the Anaxazi, this area is rich in historical, archaeological,and cultural significance as well as natural beauty. Currently, however, there is nothing at Four Corners that would help visitors to fully appreciate and learn about the area. And, at a national monument that has 250,000 visitors a year, one would expect certain basic facilities to exist--restrooms, for example. But, there is no electricity, running water, telephone, or permanent structure at Four Corners. The bill I am introducing today is simple: We propose a Federal matching grant to build an interpretive center and visitor facilities within the boundaries of Four Corners Monument Tribal Park. We are not suggesting a museum the size of the Guggenheim. But, exhibits on the history, geography, culture, and ecology of the region would significantly enhance the area and Americans' appreciation of this unique part of their country and their heritage. And, I daresay that some very basic guest amenities would enhance their enjoyment of it. There is, as you can imagine, a great deal of excitement and enthusiasm for this project from many fronts. Currently, the Monument is operated as one of the units of the Navajo Nation Parks and Recreation Department. And, since there has been so much debate about ``monuments'' recently, I should clarify that the Four Corners ``Monument'' is merely a slightly elevated concrete slab at the juncture of our four states. The Navajo Nation owns the land in the Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah quarters and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe owns the quarter in Colorado. Although the Navajo Nation and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe are fully supportive of the project and have entered into an agreement with one another in order to facilitate planning and development at the Four Corners Monument, neither Tribe has the necessary resources to improve the facilities and create an interpretive center at the Monument. The bill, however, does not contemplate federal government give-away. The bill requires matching funds from nonfederal sources and for the two tribes to work collaboratively toward the development of a financial management plan. It is intended that the Interpretive Center become fully self-sufficient within five years. The bill requires that proposals meeting the stated criteria be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior. These criteria include, among other things, compliance with the existing agreements between the Navajo and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes, a sound financing plan, and the commitment of nonfederal matching funds. The federal contribution would not exceed $2.25 million over a 5 year period. Over the past several years, the Navajo Nation has met with many of the local residents of the area and has found overwhelming support to improve the quality of the services provided at the Four Corners Monument. The local area suffers an unemployment rate of over 50 percent and any development which would create employment opportunities and would encourage visitors to stay longer in the area would be welcomed. Another important participant in the development of this proposal is the Four Corners Heritage Council. This Council, which was established in 1992 by the governors of the four states, is a coalition of private, tribal, federal, state, and local government interests committed to finding ways to make the economy of the Four Corners region sustainable into the future. The mission of the Heritage Council is to guide the region toward a balance of the sometimes competing interests of economic development, resource preservation, and maintenance of traditional life ways. Back in 1949, nearly 50 years ago, the governors of the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah assembled at the Four Corners in a historic meeting. Each governor sat in their respective state and had what is probably the most unusual picnic lunch in history. They pledged to meet often at the Four Corners Monument to reaffirm their commitment to working together. Clearly, the governors understood that they shared stewardship of a unique piece of western real estate. Mr. President, the heritage of this area belongs to all Americans. The small investment requested in this legislation will help bring it to life. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, during the week of May 12, the country will honor once again those law enforcement and public safety officers who have died in the line of duty. It is entirely fitting that we do this. And as we remember those who have fallen in defense of the public safety, we should also do all we can to comfort and assist the families and loved ones they have left behind. The bill I rise to introduce today, the Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998, will help ensure that we are doing so. First, this bill, which was introduced in the House as H.R. 3565, will strengthen programs available to the families of slain police officers. For instance, the bill will allow groups like Concerns for Police Survivors, more commonly referred to as COPS, to increase and improve their services to these families. Second, this bill provides authority to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to spend no less than $150,000 out of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program to support and enrich national peer support and counseling programs for families of police officers lost in the line of duty. Second, this act will expedite the process of handling cases pending before the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Office by allowing the expenditure of PSOB program funds on outside hearing officers. Currently, survivors of fallen police officers have to wait entirely too long to obtain an appeal hearing for the denial of benefits. By enacting this bill, we will make the process of helping these families less burdensome. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Biden, Leahy, DeWine, and Sessions in introducing this bill in the Senate. On Tuesday of this week, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 3565 by a 403 to 8 vote. I urge my colleagues to join me in expeditiously passing this legislation to demonstrate our tremendous gratitude and support for these heroes and their families.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, during the week of May 12, the country will honor once again those law enforcement and public safety officers who have died in the line of duty. It is entirely fitting that we do this. And as we remember those who have fallen in defense of the public safety, we should also do all we can to comfort and assist the families and loved ones they have left behind. The bill I rise to introduce today, the Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998, will help ensure that we are doing so. First, this bill, which was introduced in the House as H.R. 3565, will strengthen programs available to the families of slain police officers. For instance, the bill will allow groups like Concerns for Police Survivors, more commonly referred to as COPS, to increase and improve their services to these families. Second, this bill provides authority to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to spend no less than $150,000 out of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program to support and enrich national peer support and counseling programs for families of police officers lost in the line of duty. Second, this act will expedite the process of handling cases pending before the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Office by allowing the expenditure of PSOB program funds on outside hearing officers. Currently, survivors of fallen police officers have to wait entirely too long to obtain an appeal hearing for the denial of benefits. By enacting this bill, we will make the process of helping these families less burdensome. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Biden, Leahy, DeWine, and Sessions in introducing this bill in the Senate. On Tuesday of this week, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed H.R. 3565 by a 403 to 8 vote. I urge my colleagues to join me in expeditiously passing this legislation to demonstrate our tremendous gratitude and support for these heroes and their families.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I spent part of last weekend in San Antonio at the Alamodome watching some of the most exciting basketball I have seen in a long time. I was there as one of the ``Runnin' Utes'' biggest fans. In a state that has a strong basketball tradition, the University of Utah men's basketball team has given us an extraordinary season. Our entire state is proud of this team and proud of its coach, Rick Majerus. It is a tribute to the exceptional skills of any college team to make it to the ``Final Four.'' The two games on Saturday evening were a sports fan's dream. Stanford and North Carolina put their best into the games, and they were exciting to watch. Of course, I am disappointed in the outcome of Monday's final championship game in which Utah lost to another fine team from the University of Kentucky--a team which has become known as the ``Comeback Cats.'' Nevertheless, Monday night's championship game caps a brilliant season for the Utes that started with the longest undefeated streak in the country and ended in a fantastic tournament run to the finals. The championship battle showcased two teams that were not favored to be there. Despite Kentucky's tremendous history and great success in the 1990s, the Wildcats were overshadowed by other teams who filled the top spots in the polls all year. Similarly, Utah was overlooked by many sportswriters for much of the year, even though it began the season with the best record in the country. Mr. President, the University of Utah's season was a great accomplishment not only for the team, but also for the entire university community, the Western Athletic Conference, and the great State of Utah. Since taking over the reins at the ``U'' in 1989, Coach Rick Majerus has made Utah one of the best teams in the country during the 1990s. He has done so by encouraging tremendous discipline and work ethic, stressing both basketball fundamentals and positive attitude. Rick Majerus is also a coach who cares about his players beyond their ability to play ball; he understands the importance of other aspects of the university mission, including academics and community citizenship. It is important to note that Ute players have excelled in other pursuits as well. Seniors Michael Doleac and Drew Hansen, for example, are headed for medical school and law school respectively. Mr. President, I am extremely proud of the University of Utah for a tremendous year. It is said that everyone loves a winner. Well, this team has been truly outstanding both on and off the court. They have won with grace and lost with dignity. These same attributes are reflected in the loyal Utah fans. Some 4000 die-hard supporters viewed the game on a giant screen in the university's Huntsman Center. And, despite the heartbreaking loss, Ute fans have continued to be proud of their team. After the players and coaches returned to campus late Tuesday, they joined students and fans in an exuberant pep rally to celebrate their achievements. On Wednesday, a parade was held in their honor, culminating on the steps of City Hall. Mayor Deedee Corradini and the city council presented the team with the key to the city. I want to congratulate the entire Ute team: The coaching staff, including Coach Majerus and his great assistant coaches Donny Daniels, Jeff Judkins, and Brock Brundhorst. And, my hat is off to the players: Michael Doleac, Drew Hansen, Andre Miller, Hanno Mottola, Alex Jensen, Jordie McTavish, David Jackson, Nate Althoff, Greg Barratt, Jon Carlisle, Trace Caton, Britton Johnsen, and Adam Sharp. Thanks for giving us so much to cheer about.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. One minute on the Gregg amendment.

Mr. HATCH. I rise in opposition to the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment is an attempt to put the Senate on record against any liability provisions in connection with the tobacco bill now being formulated in the Commerce Committee. True, the amendment refers to ``immunity.'' Now, I do not want to give the tobacco industry and nobody else wants to give them immunity. No one does. However, the term ``immunity'' is broader than the limited liability provisions many of us believe are key to the comprehensive antitobacco global settlement bill. I fear many will seize upon what will be a near unanimous vote today to say the Senate opposes any liability provisions. That is not the case. And 284 days ago, 40 courageous State Attorneys General, both Democrats and Republicans, announced an agreement which should continue to be the basis of any legislation to curb youth smoking. It is predicated on large tobacco industry payments for a whole host of antitobacco programs, including cessation, prevention, and biomedical research. I, for one, continue to believe that the best way to ensure we will have the huge sums necessary to wean a generation of teens off tobacco is to guarantee there are industry payments. I do not believe that it will be possible to attain that without endorsing the framework of the AG settlement which does include some liability provisions. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am delighted that my dear friend Muhammad Ali has been named by Gentlemen's Quarterly as Athlete of the Century. We have had many noteworthy athletes in this century--the century that has brought us modern sport. Excellence has been personified by such sports heroes as Lou Gehrig, Babe Didrickson Zaharias, Bobby Orr, Walter Payton, and Michael Jordan. But, to my mind, though this company is clearly outstanding, GQ made the obvious choice. Muhammad Ali's road to sports immortality began on January 17, 1942, in Louisville, Kentucky. Introduced to boxing at the age of 12, Ali won National AAU and Golden Gloves titles. He brought home the Olympic gold medal from Rome in 1960. After turning professional, he stunned the sports world by defeating the also great boxer Sonny Liston in 1964. His victories over such accomplished opponents as Liston, Floyd Patterson, Ernie Terrell, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and Ken Norton make him, in my mind, the greatest boxer of all time. But Ali's greatness goes beyond his physical strength and athleticism, In 1964, he converted to the religion of Islam, adopting a set of beliefs for which he would sacrifice a great deal. In 1967, at the height of his career, he was convicted of draft evasion and stripped of his heavyweight title. For a period of three years, Ali was shunned by the boxing world and vilified by many who had previously hailed him. The conviction was eventually overturned by the United States Supreme Court, and Ali turned to the ring in 1970 and took on Joe Frazier in the ``Fight of the Century.'' This bout, between the only two undefeated fighters, resulted Ali's ascension as the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. Ali brought speed and grace to the world of boxing, demonstrating how to ``flit like a butterfly and sting like a bee.'' Ali held this title until 1978 when he lost a hard fought bout to Leon Spinks in 15 rounds on points. But, just seven months later, he dethroned Spinks and recaptured the title for an unprecedented third time. I have come to admire Ali, however, not just for his unparalleled skill in the boxing ring, but also for his faith and his humanity. Ali has traveled the world on humanitarian missions. And he has given most unselfishly, particularly to young people. During his recent visit to Utah he was never without a gaggle of kids surrounding him. Even though the effects of Parkinson's disease have made speech difficult, he really does not need to talk to communicate. He exudes kindness and friendship. I am honored to count Ali and his wonderful wife Lonnie among my friends. I commend the writers and editors at GQ for selecting Ali for this very significant distinction. No one deserves it more. He's the greatest.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to recognize March as ``Women's History Month.'' It is appropriate that, at this time, we credit the countless women who have contributed so much to our society. In particular, I would like to draw attention to some of the women who have helped to shape the history of Utah. From its beginnings, Utah has relied heavily on the strength of women. The first groups of American settlers that crossed the continent to establish their homes in what is now Utah consisted of both men and women. Besides the simple rigors of walking hundreds of miles across the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, these courageous pioneer women braved many trials such as extreme winter cold, lack of provisions, and the death of loved ones. They struggled to provide for the basic needs of their families. Sadly, many women had to witness the burial of their children and husbands along the way. Upon arriving in the valleys of the mountains, these pioneer women toiled along with the men to establish farms, schools, businesses, and towns. Their hard work, and dedication are reflected in the character of our State even today. Politically, Utah was a leader in recognizing the rights of women, and involving them in the process of government. Much has and will be said of the valiant efforts of women's suffrage activists such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Carrie Chapman Catt. This group of national heroes includes a Utahn by the name of Emmeline Wells. As an advocate for women's rights, Mrs. Wells worked to achieve a political voice for Utah women. She won her first battle in 1870, when the territorial legislature legally gave Utah women the right to vote. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress stripped Utah women of their voting rights in 1887. Undaunted, Mrs. Wells and others formed the Woman Suffrage Association of Utah, the purpose of which was to reclaim their voting rights. These women finally succeeded in 1896, when Utah was admitted into the Union as a State with a constitution providing female suffrage. Emmeline Wells remained an active member of the Woman's Republican League and the National Suffrage Association, and kept up the suffrage campaign on the national level. I am proud to say that Utah was ahead of its time in this respect. By the end of 1896, only Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado recognized women's right to vote. No other States granted this right for another 14 years. Later in 1896, the people of Utah elected Martha Hughes Cannon to be their first female state senator. And, proving that the past is prologue, women continue to play significant, influential leadership roles in our State. In 1991, Deedee Corradini was elected mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah's largest city and the seat of State government. In 1992, Olene Walker was elected Utah's Lieutenant Governor, and two recent members of Utah's delegation to the U.S. Congress have been women. Women have also added much to Utah's cultural heritage. A prime example is Alice Merrill Horne. She was an educator and prolific artist at the turn of the century. As a twenty-three year old in 1891, Alice was appointed chairperson of the Utah Liberal Arts Committee for the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago. She published a book of poems composed by women for the exposition. Alice Merrill Horne became the second woman elected to the Utah House of Representatives in 1898. As an elected official, she continued to encourage cultural development. She moved a bill for the State to create the Nation's first art institute, which would encourage the fine arts, hold an annual art exhibition, and start a state-owned art collection. As a memorial to her, the state collection bears her name. Today's women continue the tradition of Mrs. Horne. In 1997, the Women's Center Advisory Board at Utah State University named a number of recipients of the Women Over 65 Achievement Awards. Among them was Ruth Call. Ruth became director of the Unicorn Theater in 1957. In this capacity she has brought beauty and happiness into the lives of children in Cache Valley by allowing them to participate in the performing arts. Since 1957, she has continued to influence children's lives through the theater, as a Girl Scout leader, and by her involvement in local art groups. Ruth Call is only one of the many modern unsung heroes who quietly enrich the lives of many. Ever since Utah's earliest periods, women have contributed in many ways in the professional sector. Patty Sessions was a pioneer midwife and horticulturist who developed her own strain of plums. Singer Emma Lucy Gates founded an opera company. Before her election to the state senate, Martha Hughes Cannon was a very successful medical doctor. Now more than ever, women are an integral part of the State's business sector. According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, between 1987 and 1996, the number of women-owned firms along Utah's Wasatch Front increased by 87 percent. Thus, Utah is among the top 10 states in the Nation for growth of women-owned firms. The NFWBO also said that women-owned companies represent 38 percent of all businesses in the area, employ 21 percent of all workers, and generate 24 percent of all sales. This is an exciting time for women's athletics as well. On the heels of Olympic gold medals for our teams in both the Summer and Winter Games, women's soccer, softball, basketball, and hockey have found a new popularity in the United States. This is combined with gold medals in more traditionally popular sports like figure skating, track and field, and gymnastics to showcase the athletic talent that abounds among our women. My State is very proud to be home to the Utah Starzz, one of the teams in the new Women's National Basketball Association. I'm a big fan. We are also very proud of the many female college athletes in our universities. Several of my State's college teams have achieved great success. In particular, I want to draw attention to one native Utahn who is leaving her mark on history. As a junior on the Brigham Young University track and field team, Tiffany Lott made 1997 a banner year. Set the world record in the 55- meter hurdles by running 7.30 seconds at the Western Athletic Conference indoor championships. This eclipsed the eight-year-old record previously held by the great Jackie Joyner Kersee. Tiffany also won the heptathalon at the NCAA Championships. En route to her victory, she scored the third-highest point total in the history of the women's pentathlon. These feats, among others, led Track & Field News magazine to name Tiffany Lott the female college athlete of the year. I have only touched on some of the many important achievments of Utah's women throughout our history. However, I cannot begin to give enough credit to the women who have added the most to our civilization, those who have influenced each one of us in some way. I wish to salute the countless women who have borne, nurtured, raised, instructed, and loved their children. I cannot think of a more important responsibility than that of a mother. Ironically, those who have had the greatest impact on us as a people are also those who receive the least public recognition. I invite my colleagues to join in celebrating Women's History Month by recognizing all that women have contributed to this Nation in both large and small ways. Much of the progress of America is owed to the perseverance, ingenuity, and dedication of women.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, Judge Massiah-Jackson has made the right decision in withdrawing her nomination to the Federal bench, given the strong bipartisan opposition from law enforcement groups, her demonstrated leniency in sentencing convicted criminals, and the Judiciary Committee's concerns about her lack of candor throughout the nomination process. I believe withdrawing the nomination was the right thing for her to do. Despite the fact that the committee afforded two hearings for this nominee, and gave her ample opportunity to answer criticisms of her record, her responses were found to be unconvincing. After having heard the nominee's testimony and having considered the information provided to the committee by law enforcement officials about her treatment of police officers in court and her flawed judicial rulings, I would not have voted to confirm this nominee to a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. The events surrounding Judge Massiah-Jackson's nomination demonstrate the need for the Senate to scrutinize the President's nominees carefully. That is what we have been doing. This is not a numbers game. We have to look at these people very carefully. They are nominated and, if confirmed, are confirmed for lifetime positions. Some people say the closest thing to God put in this life is being put on the Federal bench, because nobody can criticize you under those circumstances once you make it there. So this particular nomination does demonstrate the need for scrutiny of any President's nominees. Unfortunately, I think many in the legal community do not understand the Senate's role in the confirmation process. The Constitution obligates the Senate to advise the President with respect to his choice in nominees and ultimately consent to their appointment. No one has the right to a Senate confirmation anymore than he or she has the right to be nominated by the President. Federal judges serve for what amounts to life terms. They wield enormous power in our society, power that must be exercised fairly and impartially. When the President sends us nominees who lack the necessary qualifications to be elevated to the Federal bench, the Senate's duty is to bring these deficiencies to light. In this case, given the bipartisan opposition of law enforcement and the nominee's problematic record, I believe withdrawal of the nominee was appropriate. But let me add, had this nominee come to a vote today, she would have been overwhelmingly defeated by both sides of the aisle. There were many Democrats who were going to vote against Massiah- Jackson, and I think most all Republicans were going to vote against her as well. And there were reasons to do so with regard to this nomination. Having said that, let me just say that I was impressed with Massiah- Jackson's family. It is clear that she is a nice woman. It is clear that her husband is a very nice man. Her two children whom she introduced to the committee looked as though they were just outstanding in every way. So I commend her for that, and I hope she has learned from this process that people in Philadelphia expect her to be tough on crime, to be tough on criminals, and to support the law enforcement people when they are right. When they are wrong, she should correct them and she should do so vociferously. But some of the things that were done really cast such a cloud over this nomination that we just could not vote for her in the end, so I was pleased that she did the right thing by withdrawing her nomination. I feel badly about it, because I believe her to be a nice person. I believe that she intends to be a very fine judge, and I commend her to work very hard to be that. Being a tough trial judge in Pennsylvania is a very great honor. The fact that she has not received consent to this nomination and this opportunity should not deter her from proving that she could be one of the best trial judges in the State of Pennsylvania if she wants to be. I certainly believe she is intelligent enough to be. My own personal belief is that she is good enough to be. But because of these problems in the past, she is going to have to redeem herself in the eyes of the law enforcement community. If Judge Massiah-Jackson takes out vengeance against the law enforcement community and those who have raised these issues, then she will have proven us even more right and she will have proven that the action of withdrawal here today was even more right than I believed it to have been. I hope she will treat all law enforcement officials with the respect that they are due when they appear before her court. I practiced law in Pennsylvania for a number of years and I tried a number of cases in front of the Common Pleas bench in Pittsburgh, and I have to say these are very important judgeships. She still has that judgeship. I wish her the best. I am counting on her doing the very best she can from here on in, and I have counted on her proving that those who have criticized her, though perhaps just at this time, it appears, can have faith in the future because of what she has tried to do.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, this is a letter written to the Honorable William J. Clinton. I am glad to have that in the Record. Again, I express my sorrow that it had to end this way, and I wish the very best to Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson. I hope she will take this in a way that will be instructive, informative and, hopefully, helpful to her if she continues to serve on the highest trial court in the State of Pennsylvania, the Court of Common Pleas. I hope she will benefit from this experience instead of it being a detriment to her. If she will treat law enforcement officials fairly, if she will be tough on crime when it is clearly shown, and if she will be totally honest in her dealings on that bench, I have great belief that she will yet serve in many, many good ways the people of Pennsylvania. I wish her the best. I wish her family the best. And I, again, am sorry this has turned out this way, but I think it is the way it had to turn out under the circumstances. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the speech that I would have made had this nomination come to the floor and not been withdrawn. I feel it is incumbent upon me to do so because of Ms. Jackson's letter.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor. Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and a number of my colleagues--Senators Campbell, McCain, Abraham, Domenici, Grassley, and Hutchison--to introduce a bill to grant a federal charter to the American GI Forum a National Veterans Family Organization. The American GI Forum, a nonprofit Section 501(c)(4) corporation, was founded on March 26, 1948, in Corpus Christi, Texas by the late Dr. Hector P. Garcia, a medical doctor who was an Army veteran of World War II, and other visionary Mexican American veterans. This year, 1998, the American GI Forum will celebrate its 50th Year of service to our Nation's veterans and their families. Then, as now, the American GI Forum is dedicated to addressing issues affecting Hispanic veterans and their families. As the American GI Forum enters its 50th Year, we believe it is fitting to secure passage of this important legislation which would recognize and grant the American GI Forum a federal charter. A federal charter is an honorary recognition that does not convey any special status or authority. However, within the veterans community a federal charter is deemed to be recognition of a national veterans organization's commitment and service to our nation's veterans. Also, other entities sometimes distinguish between Veterans Service Organizations which are congressionally-chartered and those which are not. For example, the web page of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs separately lists ``Congressionally-Chartered Veterans Service Organizations'' and ``Other Veterans Service organizations and Military Associations'' (http://www.house.gov/va/vetlinks.htm). A congressional charter would prove an appropriate tribute to the selfless sacrifices and tireless work of their beloved Founder, Dr. Garcia, and the countless Hispanic Americans who have answered and continue to answer America's call to fight for and defend the freedom of all Americans. Having earned the highest number of medals of honor per capita, Hispanic Americans have a distinguished record of valor and patriotism. Today, the American GI Forum has more than 500 chapters in the United States and Puerto Rico. Though predominately Hispanic, the AGIF is open to all veterans and their families. The organization is comprised of three elements--the Veterans Forum, the Women's Forum, and the Youth Forum. On a local level, American GI Forum chapters function under a regional and/or a state structure. The elected officers of each state organization serve as members of the National Board of Directors. The National Commander and other National officers are elected at our National Convention and are also members of the National Board of Directors. The patriotism of this community, and their willingness to make daily sacrifices and even the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the freedoms we all enjoy is inspiring, and deserves our support, recognition and gratitude. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I urge you to join us in sponsoring this legislation to grant a federal charter to this deserving organization.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and a number of my colleagues--Senators Campbell, McCain, Abraham, Domenici, Grassley, and Hutchison--to introduce a bill to grant a federal charter to the American GI Forum a National Veterans Family Organization. The American GI Forum, a nonprofit Section 501(c)(4) corporation, was founded on March 26, 1948, in Corpus Christi, Texas by the late Dr. Hector P. Garcia, a medical doctor who was an Army veteran of World War II, and other visionary Mexican American veterans. This year, 1998, the American GI Forum will celebrate its 50th Year of service to our Nation's veterans and their families. Then, as now, the American GI Forum is dedicated to addressing issues affecting Hispanic veterans and their families. As the American GI Forum enters its 50th Year, we believe it is fitting to secure passage of this important legislation which would recognize and grant the American GI Forum a federal charter. A federal charter is an honorary recognition that does not convey any special status or authority. However, within the veterans community a federal charter is deemed to be recognition of a national veterans organization's commitment and service to our nation's veterans. Also, other entities sometimes distinguish between Veterans Service Organizations which are congressionally-chartered and those which are not. For example, the web page of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs separately lists ``Congressionally-Chartered Veterans Service Organizations'' and ``Other Veterans Service organizations and Military Associations'' (http://www.house.gov/va/vetlinks.htm). A congressional charter would prove an appropriate tribute to the selfless sacrifices and tireless work of their beloved Founder, Dr. Garcia, and the countless Hispanic Americans who have answered and continue to answer America's call to fight for and defend the freedom of all Americans. Having earned the highest number of medals of honor per capita, Hispanic Americans have a distinguished record of valor and patriotism. Today, the American GI Forum has more than 500 chapters in the United States and Puerto Rico. Though predominately Hispanic, the AGIF is open to all veterans and their families. The organization is comprised of three elements--the Veterans Forum, the Women's Forum, and the Youth Forum. On a local level, American GI Forum chapters function under a regional and/or a state structure. The elected officers of each state organization serve as members of the National Board of Directors. The National Commander and other National officers are elected at our National Convention and are also members of the National Board of Directors. The patriotism of this community, and their willingness to make daily sacrifices and even the ultimate sacrifice to preserve the freedoms we all enjoy is inspiring, and deserves our support, recognition and gratitude. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I urge you to join us in sponsoring this legislation to grant a federal charter to this deserving organization.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I just want to take a moment to express appreciation to the Environment and Public Works Committee members, particularly Senators Chafee, Baucus, and Warner, for the yeoman's effort they have made to get this bill to the floor and ultimately passed by the United States Senate. Developing a measure this complex, with so many competing interests, isn't easy. Believe me, I've been there, done that. My hat is off to my colleagues who have succeeded in guiding this well-balanced package this far through the legislative process. My colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee have had a difficult row to hoe in even bringing this measure to the floor a few weeks ago. In fact, I seem to recall hearing that the joke around the EPW Committee was that ISTEA was a six year reauthorization, not a six year reauthorization process. Additionally, I commend our determined and highly effective Majority Leader. Without the direct influence of Senator Lott, we would not have gotten a bipartisan agreement on the committee's amendment to ISTEA which provides for additional funding for highway projects. And without his statesmanlike intervention last fall, we would not have had the six-month extension that was so critical to Utah and, I'm sure, to other states as well. Along with my junior colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, I communicated my concerns about the effect that a delay on the ISTEA reauthorization would have on my state of Utah to the Majority Leader, and I appreciate the fact that he moved quickly on this legislation once the Senate returned from the recent recess. I commend as well, Senators Domenici, Byrd and Gramm for their efforts in ensuring that our nation's vital transportation infrastructure needs are met in a responsible manner which does not violate the balanced budget agreement. I enthusiastically support final passage of ISTEA. Here's why. Utah faces a number of transportation challenges. The most critical is the reconstruction of the I-15 corridor. Designed in the 1960s, with a life span of 20 years, the seventeen mile I-15 corridor enters its third decade with certain areas close to collapse. In photos I have observed which detail the level of disintegration to the highway and bridge structure along I-15, I could actually see the sky breaking through holes in the infrastructure. It has also been reported that employees who park underneath some of the I-15 bridge structures had to sign safety waivers! Before construction began, a dozen of the bridges along I-15 posed direct safety threats. Additionally, despite an earthquake fault line along the Wasatch front, none of I-15's bridges met modern earthquake standards. The I-15 corridor reconstruction project is vital to the economic growth of our nation, the safety of the traveling public, and presents a unique opportunity to study the effects of an innovative ``Design/ Build'' approach to highway construction. The I-15 project is the largest ``Design/Build'' project ever undertaken in the United States. As my colleagues know, the ``Design/ Build'' process is the cost and time savings process of having the same contracting team that designs the project actually build the project. In Utah, it is estimated that this approach will save half a billion dollars and cut construction time in half. The I-15 project will provide vital data to transportation policy makers, engineers, and state and federal departments of transportation as more states opt to use the ``Design/Build'' approach. In addition to the challenges associated with the I-15 corridor project, Utah is a fast growing state that must make substantial improvements to accommodate not only its own rapid growth but also interstate commerce. And, although some colleagues may think of Utah as being an essentially rural state with wide open spaces, Utahns face rush hour traffic gridlock that rivals the Washington Beltway. The rate of population growth in Utah currently exceeds the national average by two to three times. Over the next two decades, the population in the Salt Lake Valley alone is expected to escalate to 1.3 million people, a 66% increase. The area south of Salt Lake is becoming known as the new ``Silicon Valley,'' home to Novell and other high tech employers. North of Salt Lake, the population of Davis and Weber Counties are expected to grow 55% and 37%, respectively. All together, the 100-mile corridor along the Wasatch Front will exceed 2 million by 2015. Travel in the Salt Lake Area is projected to grow significantly over the next 20 years. Total trips will grow by 57%, from 7.25 million trip-ends per day to 11.4 million in 2015. Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) will grow even faster, from current level of 21 million to 34 million in 2015 or 62%. Our dependence on mass transit is also increasing. Total daily transit ridership will be 128,000 by 2010--an increase of 103% over 1993. All of this would be enough for Utahns to support prompt passage of the ISTEA reauthorization. But, in addition, Utah faces an important deadline for completion of key transportation projects. That deadline, of course, is the 2002 Winter Olympics, which Salt Lake City will host on behalf of all Americans. During the 2002 Olympic Winter Games, more than 2 million tickets will be issued to 179 events, which will be spread over five city and five mountain venues, each within a 55 minute drive of the Olympic Village. It goes without saying that the efficient--not to mention safe-- transportation of athletes, their families and coaches, American and foreign press, volunteers and visitors from one place to another is crucial. And, we can't postpone critical construction and improvements. In Utah's climate, we have basically four construction seasons remaining to meet this deadline, and some of our road projects are necessarily going to have to be front-loaded into this time frame. I know that I felt a sense of pride when the Olympic flag passed from Japan to the United States at the closing ceremonies in Nagano. Perhaps my colleagues noticed the banner carried by our U.S. athletes into the arena that said: ``Thank you, Nagano! See you in Salt Lake!'' You don't have to be a Utahn to want to show off our country. I am confident that the bill before us provides the funding and the mechanism for Utah to meet its own transportation needs as well as to fulfill its obligation to our country as host of this prestigious international event. Again, I want to commend and thank my colleagues for their fine work on this legislation. I am pleased to vote for final passage of S. 1173.