Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 3, 1998, at 10:00 a.m., to hold a hearing.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a hearing Tuesday, February 3, 1998, at 2:00 p.m., Hearing Room (SD-406), to receive testimony from Donald J. Barry, nominated by the President to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior; and Sallyanne Harper, nominated by the President, to be Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 3, 1998, in open session, to receive testimony on the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1999 and the future years Defense program.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to support the nominations of Carlos Moreno to the Federal district bench in the Central District of California and Christine O. Miller to the Court of Federal Claims. I plan to discuss in greater detail why I intend to support these judges' nominations, but first I would like to address some of the concerns that have been expressed with respect to the Senate's role in the confirmation of Federal judges. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the most important duties I hold or fulfill is in screening judicial nominees. Indeed, the Constitution itself obligates the Senate to provide the President with advice concerning his nominees and to consent to their ultimate confirmation. Although some have complained about the pace at which the Senate has moved on judicial nominees, I would note that this body has undertaken its constitutional obligation in a wholly appropriate fashion. Indeed, the first matter to come before the Senate this session was confirmation of three of President Clinton's judicial nominees. Senator Lott is to be commended for giving these nominees early attention. As well, the Judiciary Committee has announced judicial confirmation hearings for February 4 and February 25. In 1997, the first session of the 105th Congress, the Senate confirmed 36 judges. This is only slightly behind the historical average of 41 judges confirmed during the first sessions in each of the last five Congresses. And I would note the Judiciary Committee itself processed 47 nominees, including the two judges we are considering today. Currently, there are 88 judicial vacancies in the judiciary, 85 if the three nominees confirmed last week are included. In May 1992, however, when a Republican occupied the White House and the Democrats controlled the Senate, there were 117 vacancies on the Federal bench. In fact, there are more sitting Federal judges today than there were through virtually all of the Reagan and Bush administrations. As of today, there are 756 active Federal judges. In addition, there are 432 senior judges who must, by law, hear cases, albeit with a reduced load. Ordinarily, when a judge decides to leave the bench, he or she does not completely retire, but instead takes senior status. A judge who takes senior status, as opposed to a judge who completely retires, must hear a certain number of cases each year. Thus, when a judge leaves the bench, he or she does not stop working altogether, he or she merely takes a somewhat reduced caseload. Even in the ninth circuit, which has 10 vacancies, only one judge has actually stopped hearing cases. The others have all taken senior status and are still hearing cases. The total pool of Federal judges available to hear cases is 1,188, a record number of Federal judges. The Republican Senate has confirmed the vast majority of President Clinton's judicial nominees, and if the President continues to send us qualified nominees, I am sure that trend will continue. Let me say, however, that I will not vote to confirm judges who refuse to abide by the rule of law. In my view, that is the absolute minimal qualification an individual must have to serve as one of our lifetime-appointed Federal judges. Last year, I sought to steer the confirmation process in a way that kept it a fair and principled one, and exercised what I felt was the appropriate degree of deference to the President's judicial nominees. It is in this spirit of fairness that I will vote to confirm Judge Miller and Judge Moreno. Judge Moreno is currently a Los Angeles superior court judge. He was appointed to that position in 1993 by Governor Wilson. Prior to his current appointment, Judge Moreno served as a municipal court judge, worked as an associate in the L.A. firm of Kelley, Drye & Warren, and served as deputy city attorney in Los Angeles. Judge Miller currently serves on the Court of Federal Claims. She was appointed to that position in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. Judge Miller, before her judicial appointment, worked at the law firms of Shack & Kimball, and then Hogan & Hartson. She also had the honor, after graduating from the Utah College of Law, of clerking for the Honorable David Lewis, a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judge. I think both these individuals will serve the Federal bench well and, therefore, urge my colleagues to support them. I also would like to submit for the Record an editorial written by our leader, Senator Trent Lott, which appeared on February 2 in the Washington Post, also a letter I wrote to the ABA discussing the Senate's work in confirming nominees. I ask unanimous consent that both those documents be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on each of the nominations.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for its second reading.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this point.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I yield such time as the Senator needs, but at least 10 minutes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to support the nomination of Ann Aiken to the federal district bench in Oregon. I know too that my distinguished colleagues from that State, Senators Smith and Wyden, wholeheartedly support this nominee. And it is no wonder that Judge Aiken enjoys their support. She has served as a state district and circuit court judge for nearly a decade. Before that, she worked in private practice and had extensive involvement in Oregon statehouse politics. Perhaps most significantly, she is the mother of 5 children. As the father of 6 myself, I can think of no better preparation for the bench than first having served as the referee of a large family. I plan to discuss in greater detail why I intend to support Judge Aiken's nomination, but first, I would like to address some of the concerns that have been expressed with respect to the Senate's role in the confirmation of federal judges. As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of the most important duties I fulfill is in screening judicial nominees. Indeed, the Constitution itself obligates the Senate to provide the President with advice concerning his nominees and to consent to their ultimate confirmation. Although some have complained about the pace at which the Senate has moved on judicial nominees, I would note that this body has undertaken its constitutional obligation in a wholly appropriate fashion. Indeed, the first matter to come before the Senate this session are the confirmation of three of President Clinton's judicial nominees. Senator Lott is to be commended for giving these nominees early attention. As well, the Judiciary Committee has already announced judicial confirmation hearings for February 4 and February 25. In 1997, the first session of the 105th Congress, the Senate confirmed 36 judges. This is only slightly behind the historical average of 41 judges confirmed during the first sessions in each of the last five Congresses. And, I would note, the Judiciary Committee itself processed 47 nominees--including the three judges we will be considering today. Keep in mind that the Clinton Administration is on record as having stated that 63 vacancies--a vacancy rate just over 7%--is considered virtual full employment of the federal judiciary. The current vacancy rate--88 vacancies--is a vacancy rate of approximately 10%. Some of those vacancies occurred after the Senate recess last year, however. How can a rise in the vacancy rate--from 7% to 10%--convert ``full employment'' into a ``crisis''? Although we can always do better, this is a record of which I am proud. I would further add that there are currently 32 vacancies for which the Committee has yet to receive a nomination. As hard as I work, I have never been able to confirm a person that has not yet been nominated. And I have to say that there were more vacancies just up until a few days ago. This is a point, gone largely unnoticed by the popular press, that Chief Justice Rehnquist recently made in his Annual Report on the Judiciary. In that report he urged, among other things, that certain judicial vacancies be filled. I would ask you to compare today's 88 judicial vacancies with the record of a Democratic Senate during President Bush's presidency. In May 1992 there were 117 vacancies on the federal bench. And, interestingly enough, the Chief Justice made basically the same remarks back in 1992 that he did this past month. The only real difference that I can see, however, is that in the days immediately following the Chief Justice's remarks we have a plethora of media acting as though there were some big crisis developing basically fomented by the White House and some down at the Justice Department. I might say that in the days immediately following Chief Justice Rehnquist's criticism back in 1992 when there was a Democrat Congress, there were only a handful of newspapers who even bothered to report on the judicial vacancy issue even though there were 117 vacancies during that period of time, and even more. At one time in 1991 there were 148 vacancies, and hardly a peep out of the media, or hardly a peep out of any of the so-called ``critics'' of today. So it seems that when a Republican President confronted a Democrat Senate on the issue of judicial vacancies the press seemed to be considerably less interested. That I think is the state of affairs in Washington. We are all used to it. But I just wanted to point that out because I think it is pretty fallacious to blame the Senate when in many instances we don't have any nominees to fill the position, especially when some of the nominees who came over had problems from the last Congress as well. And the number of vacancies is not nearly as problematic as it might appear, at first blush. In fact, there are more sitting federal judges today than there were throughout virtually all of the Reagan and Bush administrations. As of today, there are 756 active federal judges. In addition, there are 432 senior judges who must, by law, hear cases, albeit with a reduced load but nevertheless taking the burden off of the sitting full-time judges. Ordinarily, when a judge decides to leave the bench, she does not completely retire, but instead takes senior status. A judge who takes senior status, as opposed to a judge who completely retires, must hear a certain number of cases each year. Thus, when a judge leaves the bench, she does not stop working altogether, she merely takes a somewhat reduced caseload. Even in the ninth circuit, which has ten vacancies, only one judge has actually stopped hearing cases; the other have taken senior status and are still hearing cases. The total pool of federal judges available to hear cases is 1,188--a record number of federal judges. So this so-called ``crisis'' has been fomented, frankly, by partisan people at the White House and some at the Justice Department, and, frankly, it is beneath their dignity to do this. I will say that there is room for improvement, and certainly we on the Judiciary Committee want to do everything we can to improve it. I hope that those who manage the floor will feel the same way and do the same thing. And some in the media have failed to read completely the Chief Justice's report, or, if they ignored all of the other aspects of the report. In fact, his report centered on the problem of judicial workload--not judicial vacancies. He went on to compliment the Senate for enacting habeas corpus and prison litigation reform, two of the bills that I have pushed hard for. The Chief observed that these two vital reforms, which I sponsored, will greatly reduce the federal courts' workload. He also asked Congress to curb federal jurisdiction and to provide better pay for federal judges. I think we may be able to make progress on both those fronts this session in addition to moving qualified judicial nominees. I was disappointed to read in the Washington Post a week or so ago that the Clinton White House, ``galvanized by the critique by Chief Justice Rehnquist,'' has tapped communications director Ann Lewis to head a ``fullscale political confrontation'' over judicial appointments. [Washington Post, Jan. 16, 1998]. According to the Post, part of the so-called ``campaign'' plan is to paint Republicans as anti-women and anti-minority. There is no depth to which they will stoop in trying to win political points down there. Frankly, I don't think the American people buy that. This is certainly a poor way to begin what I hope will turn out to be a cooperative effort to confirm federal judges. We should not play race or gender politics with judges, and I personally resent that. I have never considered, much less kept track of, the race or gender of the nominees that have been submitted for the Committee's approval. And I don't think anyone else does. I oppose, and support, nominees on the basis of their professional qualifications and their commitment to uphold the rule of law--their commitment or lack of commitment. In the final analysis, all that matters is whether a nominee will make a good judge. I hope this is the standard the White House uses as well. Nor will the Judiciary Committee, under my stewardship, push nominees through just for the sake of filling vacancies. Only recently, after the Judiciary Committee had expeditiously reviewed and held hearings on two nominees, did information surface that caused one of those nominees to withdraw and that places the other nominee's confirmation prospects in jeopardy. There is a good deal of background research that must be done by the Judiciary Committee before we can send a nominee to the floor. If the Committee fails to do the groundwork, it fails the Senate, and prevents this body from fulfilling its constitutional duty. And it is no secret that Senators rely on us doing this duty in a bipartisan way, and I believe for the most part we have. The reality, of course, is that the Republican Senate has confirmed the vast majority of President Clinton's judicial nominees. Even the Washington Post expressed dismay over the administration's efforts to politicize the nominations process, writing on its editorial page that the campaign could ``grind the nominations process to a halt.'' So I urge the White House to reconsider their plans to politicize the Federal judiciary and the process because, if they do, I think they are going to have nothing but problems up here. I would like to help them. I would like to be cooperative. I would like to make sure that good nominees get through expeditiously and in the best way. Last year I sought to steer the confirmation process in a way that kept it a fair and principled one and exercised what I felt was the appropriate degree of deference to the President's judicial selections and appointees. It is in this spirit of fairness that I will vote to confirm Judge Aiken. Conducting a fair confirmation process, however, does not mean granting the President carte blanche in filling the Federal judiciary. It means assuring that those who are confirmed will uphold the Constitution and abide by the rule of law. Based upon the committee's review of her record, I believe Ann Aiken to be such a person. Now, Judge Aiken likely would not be my choice if I were sitting in the Oval Office, but the President has seen fit to nominate her. She has the bipartisan support of both Senators from Oregon, and the review conducted by my committee suggests that she understands the proper role of a judge in our Federal system and will abide by the rule of law. She has personally assured me that she will, which goes a long way towards obtaining my vote here today. I will also state that both Senators have actively advocated in her behalf, especially the distinguished junior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith. He has continuously fought for her--fought for her right to have her nomination hearing, fought for her right to be heard in that hearing, and fought for her right to be passed out of the committee and on to the floor. I notice that he is here today to fight for her confirmation on the floor. Based on the committee's review of the record, I believe that Judge Aiken is a good choice. In fact, when asked whether there were any so- called constitutional rights that existed independent of the Constitution itself, Judge Aiken replied ``No, sir. The Constitution is one of the most elegantly written documents. The words of the Constitution are clear. It expresses the rights that are given. I find no need to look beyond those express words and the document itself.'' This is precisely the type of answer I would expect of any Federal judicial nominee. Of course, sometimes people say things they do not mean. But I am willing to give this nominee as well as any nominee the benefit of the doubt unless the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. It is also significant to me that when asked what judge or justice has most influenced her thinking, she replied, ``Justice Felix Frankfurter, because of his staunch adherence to the principle of judicial restraint and his reluctance to substitute the inclinations of the court for the express will of the legislature.'' She has demonstrated to me that she understands the proper role of a Federal judge in our constitutional system. But more than that, it is important that a judge give more than lip service to principles of judicial restraint. Rather, a good judge will internalize and abide by those principles. I have no reason to believe that Judge Aiken will not do precisely that. Moreover, I do not think anyone seriously believes that Judge Aiken is not qualified to sit on the Federal bench. She is currently a judge on the Oregon circuit court. She attended the University of Oregon both for her undergraduate and juris doctorate degrees, and she received a master's degree from Rutgers University. Prior to her appointment to the bench, Judge Aiken practiced largely in the area of domestic relations law. She focused on child custody, foster care and family preservation cases. As anyone who has ever engaged in the practice of law knows, domestic disputes of this type truly require the wisdom of Solomon. In sum, I join Senators Smith and Wyden in supporting this nominee and once again ask the White House to work with, not against, the Senate in seeking out qualified individuals to serve on the Federal bench. With that, I notice my colleague, the ranking member on the committee, is here, and I will yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield to me for just a couple of additional remarks, and then I will yield to the distinguished Senator?

Mr. HATCH. I yield 10 minutes. How much time is remaining to both Senators?

Mr. HATCH. I feel I should make a few more remarks here, because I would not want this day to pass without mentioning Barry Silverman, who is one of the judges nominated for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and, of course, Richard Wayne Story, who was nominated for the Northern District of Georgia. Each of these nominees has the support of his home State Senators and each is well qualified for the Federal bench. So I want our colleagues to know that. Barry Glen Silverman was nominated for United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He graduated summa cum laude in 1973 and got his J.D. in 1976 from Arizona State University. He is currently a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. He has served as a Superior Court Judge both in Phoenix and Maricopa Counties, and he has also served as a prosecutor in Phoenix. He is the recipient of numerous awards including the 1991 Henry Stevens Award, which recognizes trial judges who represent the finer qualities of the judiciary. His nomination is not the least bit controversial, and he is supported by Senators Kyl and McCain. Richard Wayne Story has been nominated for United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He received his B.A. in English from LaGrange College in 1975, and his J.D. from the University of Georgia in 1978. He is presently a sitting judge on the Superior Court bench in the Northeastern Circuit of Dawson and Hall Counties of Georgia. Prior to that he served as Juvenile Court Judge and as a part- time Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Georgia. He was also a member of the firm of Kenyon, Hulsey, and Oliver for eight years. His nomination is not controversial, and he is supported by Senator Coverdell and Senator Cleland. So I hope that our colleagues will vote for all three of these judges. I think all three of them deserve support. We will move on from there. I yield to my colleague from Oregon.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Aikens nomination.

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

Mr. HATCH. All Senators should now be aware that there will be one rollcall vote beginning at 2:15 this afternoon. In order to accommodate a number of Senators' schedules, the remaining nominations will be confirmed without a rollcall vote. I thank all Members for their cooperation in this matter. With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to executive session and a vote on the confirmation of the nomination of Calendar No. 454, Ann Aiken. I further ask consent that immediately following that vote, Executive Calendar Nos. 486 and 488 be confirmed and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table and the President be notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly to the comments of Senator Ashcroft on Judge Aiken's record. Senator Smith, I believe, has already amply defended Judge Aiken's record. I want to add a few comments of my own here, if I can. My colleagues, Senators Enzi and Ashcroft, have rightly criticized Judge Aiken for her ruling in the Dye case, in which during her first month on the circuit court bench, she gave the defendant what appears to be a fairly light sentence for the molestation of a 5-year-old girl. I agree with the criticisms of Judge Aiken's decision. She did indicate that she imposed the sentence in order for the defendant to receive treatment. In her opinion, treatment was the only way she could prevent this individual from repeating his heinous crimes. I seriously question the wisdom of her decision. But to her credit, Judge Aiken stated that if she had to do it all over again, she would have imposed a lengthy prison term. She recognized her mistake and she learned from it, and it was made in the early tenure of her judgeship. A review of her record since the Dye case suggests that she has more than learned from this original error. I know, too, that some are troubled by Judge Aiken's comment to a young, violent criminal that he was ``a victim of the community's lack of intervention.'' Well, what often gets lost in this criticism is that Judge Aiken also sentenced this defendant who had robbed people and threatened to kill them to the maximum range of penalties allowed under the Oregon guidelines. Given Judge Aiken's background in family law, her comment was not as unreasonable as some might think it seems. So the question for the Senate is whether, in the face of a relatively clear record as a State judge and the overwhelming bipartisan support of the Oregon delegation, the Oregon bar, her colleagues on the bench, and the people of Oregon, the Senate should defeat this nominee because of one or two errant cases. I have to say, I think not. I hope none of us are going to be judged on one or two mistakes we might have made in our lifetimes. To the extent that these cases raise questions--and they do raise serious questions--I do not believe a strong case can be made that Judge Aiken has a record of exceeding the proper bounds of judicial authority or that she will attempt to legislate from the bench or act otherwise as an activist judge. Accordingly, I will vote to confirm Judge Aiken, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. Now, in addition, I have had personal conversations with Judge Aiken, and I have to say she has impressed me greatly as someone who I think will act very properly on the Federal district bench. I agree with both Senators that she is going to be a very strong anticrime judge. I think her record shows that, in spite of these what some call ``discrepancies,'' to which I think legitimate criticism can be lodged, I don't know of many judges who have been on the bench very long that somebody can't find some criticism to lodge against them, because judges sit in judgment. They have to ``split the baby,'' so to speak, and make some decisions. In almost every case, somebody is going to be unhappy with their decision. If a judge ever shows leniency in this day and age, they are going to be subject to criticism by some. If the judge is too tough, that judge is going to get criticism from others. One side or the other is always going to find some fault. But in this particular case, she more than adequately explains the situation. In the first case, the Dye case, she admitted that if she had to do it all over again, she would have decided the case differently. Keep in mind that all people in the early tenures of their work life generally stumble and make a few mistakes. That is what happened here. But you have to judge these judges, and all nominees who may not be judges, on the totality of their lives' work and the totality of what they have done and not just defeat judges on the basis of one or two things with which we might legitimately disagree, especially when the judge has indicated a willingness to change and do things differently in the future. There is no doubt that the judge erred in the Dye case. It was wrong to sentence the criminal to only 3 months in prison. But you have to Judge Aiken on her whole record. She has more than adequately explained that, as far as I am concerned. We are definitely going to have some votes on judges this year where there will be real, legitimate reasons to oppose them, and the administration knows that. They understand that when they send some of these folks up, there might be opposition. But I don't think the opposition is justified against this judge. On the other hand, I respect my colleagues who feel otherwise, but I hope that our fellow Senators will vote for Judge Aiken. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. They mean a lot to me because this job of being Judiciary chairman isn't all a piece of cake, as anybody can see. I personally appreciate those kind remarks. I want to compliment both of the Senators from Oregon for their active work on behalf of Judge Aiken. Without their work, I don't think Judge Aiken would be here today. I personally express that so that she will fully appreciate how hard the Senators from Oregon have worked. They have certainly, along with Judge Aiken, convinced me that she will make an excellent judge. I intend to fully support her. I hope my colleagues will also. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, eight years ago, Congress passed and President Bush signed the landmark Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. I was proud to have helped lead the effort, and I am proud of what our states have been able to accomplish since its implementation. But, it is also clear that we must do more to help families. In my home state of Utah, more than half of the children under age 6 have either their only parent or both parents in the workforce. The ``Child Care Connection,'' a four-county resource and referral program, reported last year that there were five major Salt Lake area zip codes that had zero openings for infants. Utah child care officials have reported that there are too few slots generally for infants and toddlers and for special needs children. It is my pleasure to be here today with Senators Chafee, Snowe, Roberts, and Specter, each of whom has a long track record of involvement in child care issues. We believe that we have developed a comprehensive, yet realistic, child care proposal that will augment the ability of the child care block grant to serve families in each state. Of particular note, this proposal recognizes the choice that many families make to have one parent remain at home as primary caregiver. As important as it is to assist low- and middle-income families with necessary out-of-home child care expenses--and our proposal will increase the Dependent Care Tax Credit for such families--it is also important for us to realize the value of a parent in the home and that the sacrifice of a second income is also a child care expense. Additionally, our proposal will not create major new programs in need of permanent funding. We do not intend to spend federal dollars on bigger bureaucracy in the name of expanding child care. We want available resources to be put directly in the hands of parents through tax credits and in the hands of states to address specific gaps in availability and enforcement of health and safety standards. Our bill takes a very balanced approach to the issues of affordability, availability, and quality. Child care costs, of course, are a significant part of a family budget. The average cost of child care has been estimated at over $4000 per child. This is a substantial increase from the $3000 average it was when we enacted the Child Care and Development Block Grant eight years ago. Clearly, low- and middle-income taxpayers devote a larger share of their earnings to child care. And, at a time when we are trying to move families off of public assistance and into employment, child care has to be a key element of transitional support. Our bill increases the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) for working parents. Our bill raises the maximum credit from 30 percent to 50 percent. And, it raises the maximum income level for the maximum credit from $10,000 to $30,000. No change is made in the maximum allowable expenses of $2400 for one child and $4800 for two or more children. Thus, a family in St. George, Utah, earning $30,000, with two children, would receive a tax credit of $2400. Under current law, this family's credit would be $960. Both our bill and the proposal made by the Clinton administration begin to gradually reduce the percentage of the credit at $30,000, but the ``Caring for Children Act'' reduces the credit at a slower rate. Thus, families earning between $30,000 and $75,000 will receive a bigger tax benefit than under either President Clinton's proposal or current law. We can afford to provide larger benefits for this income group because we have recommended a phase-out of the credit entirely for families with incomes of $105,000 or more. Under current law, there is no income limit for eligibility for the DCTC. This is one tax credit that wealthy taxpayers do not need. But, our bill, the ``Caring for Children Act,'' goes one step further. The bill I have developed along with Senators Chafee, Snowe, Roberts, and Specter would, for the first time, recognize child care provided by a parent. Our bill would extend eligibility for the Dependent Care Tax Credit to families with young children in which one parent remains at home as caregiver. How would this work? The bill would impute monthly child care expenses of $150 to families with children age 3 and under. For example, a family in Morgan, Utah, earning $30,000 a year and having one or more children under age 3, would receive a $900 tax credit. It works this way: 50% credit $150 monthly imputed expenses 12 months = $900. I would like to see this tax break be even more generous. I will work toward that end. But, given our budget realities, this ground-breaking extension of the DCTC is feasible. And, I believe it is an essential component of the ``Caring for Children Act.'' It is high time we recognize the value of stay-at-home parents. This tax credit in no way offsets their work or their monetary sacrifices; but it does, at last, give a mother or father in the home standing in our tax code. It transforms the Dependent Care Tax Credit from an employment-based credit to a child-based credit. These two changes to the DCTC will put money--their own money I might add--back into the pockets of America's families. The ``Caring for Children Act'' also deals with the issue of availability. As I mentioned, there are areas where child care-- particularly infant care, after school care, or care for special needs children--is tough to find. The substantial increase we are recommending for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) will provide states with the ability to address shortages as well as to increase support to low- income families. President Clinton has recommended solving the availability problem by creating two new programs, one for after school care and one geared to early childhood. While I can appreciate the President's concern that there may be few choices out there for parents who depend on out-of- home care, I do not believe it makes sense to create new programs when the CCDBG already permits such programs. I think the answer is not to second guess how the states have chosen to allocate their scarce resources under the block grant, but rather to give the states some additional resources so that they can better meet their own priorities. We are proposing a $5 billion increase in the CCDBG over five years. These additional resources will give states much more flexibility in their planning. States will be able to provide subsidies for a greater number of the eligible population; they will be able to finance child care programs in underserved areas of the state; they will be able to address particular shortages. And, they will be able to better enforce critical health and safety standards. I am a firm believer that states should be able to set their own rules and regulations for child care providers. I do not believe that the federal government can or should interfere with child care affordability in our various states by setting national standards that are unrealistic. Moreover, to the extent that child care standards reflect the values as well as the economic conditions of any given state, the federal government has no business micromanaging them. But, I also believe that states that participate in the block grant program--and that would be all of them--have an obligation to ensure that children are in safe and healthy environments. And, they have an obligation to see that such standards are adequately enforced. A sanitary standard is no standard at all if it is unenforced. It may not matter where you have your car washed, but it absolutely matters who is taking care of your child. Therefore, the ``Caring for Children Act'' puts some teeth into the requirement for inspections under the block grant. A state that inspects a threshold number of facilities subject to inspection will be eligible for a 10 percent bonus. After the second year, a state failing to inspect a minimum number of child care sites will be subject to a 10 percent penalty. Additionally, our bill authorizes $50 million a year for HHS to undertake two important quality enhancing activities. First, more information about child care can be made available to parents. Consumer information about automobiles, credit cards, and well-baby care are available. I believe parents would welcome more information on what to look for in a child care center or family-based care setting. I also believe that parents are the best form of accountability in child care. Second, to assist providers and child care workers enhance the quality of their services, the bill would enable HHS to award grants for the development of a technology infrastructure for distance learning. Many child care providers are in rural areas. Traditional training in the form of workshops and college classes are not practical. Programs for child care providers that could be developed and made available through distance learning, however, could prove a viable alternative as well as a valued help. My home state of Utah, I might add, has been a leader in the distance learning arena. I have no doubt that such a format would be eagerly received in my state. The ``Caring for Children Act'' contains several other provisions of interest. In order to test the effectiveness of small business consortia as employer-based child care providers, the bill authorizes $60 million over three years for demonstration grants. To increase the awareness of the existing Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP), a tax provision that permits employees to authorize their employers to withhold up to $5000 of the employee's salary in a DCAP account for child care expenses to be paid by the employer, the ``Caring for Children Act'' authorizes $1 million a year for the next five years to the Secretary of Labor to conduct outreach to both employers and employees about this program and its benefits. Finally, the bill would require that child care facilities located in federal buildings for federal employees be held to the same quality standards that apply to child care programs in the state in which the federal facility is located. I believe the measure we have introduced is a balanced approach. It does not depend entirely on the tax code to address child care issues, nor does it depend solely on federal spending. It does not concentrate benefits on only one income group. The DCTC expansion is geared particularly to assist the middle class. The increase in the CCDBG is targeted to subsidies for low-income families. It recognizes that we have to make an investment in our children, but it does not propose new federal mandatory spending programs that can become wildly expensive. Our bill gives careful attention to each of the three cornerstones of child care: affordability, availability, and quality. And, for the first time, federal child care legislation will not ignore those families who choose to forego one income to have a parent remain at home. I want to say again that I am proud to sponsor this bill with my colleagues, Senators Chafee, Snowe, Roberts, and Specter. I urge other senators to join us in this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, eight years ago, Congress passed and President Bush signed the landmark Child Care and Development Block Grant Act. I was proud to have helped lead the effort, and I am proud of what our states have been able to accomplish since its implementation. But, it is also clear that we must do more to help families. In my home state of Utah, more than half of the children under age 6 have either their only parent or both parents in the workforce. The ``Child Care Connection,'' a four-county resource and referral program, reported last year that there were five major Salt Lake area zip codes that had zero openings for infants. Utah child care officials have reported that there are too few slots generally for infants and toddlers and for special needs children. It is my pleasure to be here today with Senators Chafee, Snowe, Roberts, and Specter, each of whom has a long track record of involvement in child care issues. We believe that we have developed a comprehensive, yet realistic, child care proposal that will augment the ability of the child care block grant to serve families in each state. Of particular note, this proposal recognizes the choice that many families make to have one parent remain at home as primary caregiver. As important as it is to assist low- and middle-income families with necessary out-of-home child care expenses--and our proposal will increase the Dependent Care Tax Credit for such families--it is also important for us to realize the value of a parent in the home and that the sacrifice of a second income is also a child care expense. Additionally, our proposal will not create major new programs in need of permanent funding. We do not intend to spend federal dollars on bigger bureaucracy in the name of expanding child care. We want available resources to be put directly in the hands of parents through tax credits and in the hands of states to address specific gaps in availability and enforcement of health and safety standards. Our bill takes a very balanced approach to the issues of affordability, availability, and quality. Child care costs, of course, are a significant part of a family budget. The average cost of child care has been estimated at over $4000 per child. This is a substantial increase from the $3000 average it was when we enacted the Child Care and Development Block Grant eight years ago. Clearly, low- and middle-income taxpayers devote a larger share of their earnings to child care. And, at a time when we are trying to move families off of public assistance and into employment, child care has to be a key element of transitional support. Our bill increases the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC) for working parents. Our bill raises the maximum credit from 30 percent to 50 percent. And, it raises the maximum income level for the maximum credit from $10,000 to $30,000. No change is made in the maximum allowable expenses of $2400 for one child and $4800 for two or more children. Thus, a family in St. George, Utah, earning $30,000, with two children, would receive a tax credit of $2400. Under current law, this family's credit would be $960. Both our bill and the proposal made by the Clinton administration begin to gradually reduce the percentage of the credit at $30,000, but the ``Caring for Children Act'' reduces the credit at a slower rate. Thus, families earning between $30,000 and $75,000 will receive a bigger tax benefit than under either President Clinton's proposal or current law. We can afford to provide larger benefits for this income group because we have recommended a phase-out of the credit entirely for families with incomes of $105,000 or more. Under current law, there is no income limit for eligibility for the DCTC. This is one tax credit that wealthy taxpayers do not need. But, our bill, the ``Caring for Children Act,'' goes one step further. The bill I have developed along with Senators Chafee, Snowe, Roberts, and Specter would, for the first time, recognize child care provided by a parent. Our bill would extend eligibility for the Dependent Care Tax Credit to families with young children in which one parent remains at home as caregiver. How would this work? The bill would impute monthly child care expenses of $150 to families with children age 3 and under. For example, a family in Morgan, Utah, earning $30,000 a year and having one or more children under age 3, would receive a $900 tax credit. It works this way: 50% credit $150 monthly imputed expenses 12 months = $900. I would like to see this tax break be even more generous. I will work toward that end. But, given our budget realities, this ground-breaking extension of the DCTC is feasible. And, I believe it is an essential component of the ``Caring for Children Act.'' It is high time we recognize the value of stay-at-home parents. This tax credit in no way offsets their work or their monetary sacrifices; but it does, at last, give a mother or father in the home standing in our tax code. It transforms the Dependent Care Tax Credit from an employment-based credit to a child-based credit. These two changes to the DCTC will put money--their own money I might add--back into the pockets of America's families. The ``Caring for Children Act'' also deals with the issue of availability. As I mentioned, there are areas where child care-- particularly infant care, after school care, or care for special needs children--is tough to find. The substantial increase we are recommending for the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) will provide states with the ability to address shortages as well as to increase support to low- income families. President Clinton has recommended solving the availability problem by creating two new programs, one for after school care and one geared to early childhood. While I can appreciate the President's concern that there may be few choices out there for parents who depend on out-of- home care, I do not believe it makes sense to create new programs when the CCDBG already permits such programs. I think the answer is not to second guess how the states have chosen to allocate their scarce resources under the block grant, but rather to give the states some additional resources so that they can better meet their own priorities. We are proposing a $5 billion increase in the CCDBG over five years. These additional resources will give states much more flexibility in their planning. States will be able to provide subsidies for a greater number of the eligible population; they will be able to finance child care programs in underserved areas of the state; they will be able to address particular shortages. And, they will be able to better enforce critical health and safety standards. I am a firm believer that states should be able to set their own rules and regulations for child care providers. I do not believe that the federal government can or should interfere with child care affordability in our various states by setting national standards that are unrealistic. Moreover, to the extent that child care standards reflect the values as well as the economic conditions of any given state, the federal government has no business micromanaging them. But, I also believe that states that participate in the block grant program--and that would be all of them--have an obligation to ensure that children are in safe and healthy environments. And, they have an obligation to see that such standards are adequately enforced. A sanitary standard is no standard at all if it is unenforced. It may not matter where you have your car washed, but it absolutely matters who is taking care of your child. Therefore, the ``Caring for Children Act'' puts some teeth into the requirement for inspections under the block grant. A state that inspects a threshold number of facilities subject to inspection will be eligible for a 10 percent bonus. After the second year, a state failing to inspect a minimum number of child care sites will be subject to a 10 percent penalty. Additionally, our bill authorizes $50 million a year for HHS to undertake two important quality enhancing activities. First, more information about child care can be made available to parents. Consumer information about automobiles, credit cards, and well-baby care are available. I believe parents would welcome more information on what to look for in a child care center or family-based care setting. I also believe that parents are the best form of accountability in child care. Second, to assist providers and child care workers enhance the quality of their services, the bill would enable HHS to award grants for the development of a technology infrastructure for distance learning. Many child care providers are in rural areas. Traditional training in the form of workshops and college classes are not practical. Programs for child care providers that could be developed and made available through distance learning, however, could prove a viable alternative as well as a valued help. My home state of Utah, I might add, has been a leader in the distance learning arena. I have no doubt that such a format would be eagerly received in my state. The ``Caring for Children Act'' contains several other provisions of interest. In order to test the effectiveness of small business consortia as employer-based child care providers, the bill authorizes $60 million over three years for demonstration grants. To increase the awareness of the existing Dependent Care Assistance Program (DCAP), a tax provision that permits employees to authorize their employers to withhold up to $5000 of the employee's salary in a DCAP account for child care expenses to be paid by the employer, the ``Caring for Children Act'' authorizes $1 million a year for the next five years to the Secretary of Labor to conduct outreach to both employers and employees about this program and its benefits. Finally, the bill would require that child care facilities located in federal buildings for federal employees be held to the same quality standards that apply to child care programs in the state in which the federal facility is located. I believe the measure we have introduced is a balanced approach. It does not depend entirely on the tax code to address child care issues, nor does it depend solely on federal spending. It does not concentrate benefits on only one income group. The DCTC expansion is geared particularly to assist the middle class. The increase in the CCDBG is targeted to subsidies for low-income families. It recognizes that we have to make an investment in our children, but it does not propose new federal mandatory spending programs that can become wildly expensive. Our bill gives careful attention to each of the three cornerstones of child care: affordability, availability, and quality. And, for the first time, federal child care legislation will not ignore those families who choose to forego one income to have a parent remain at home. I want to say again that I am proud to sponsor this bill with my colleagues, Senators Chafee, Snowe, Roberts, and Specter. I urge other senators to join us in this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will proceed to executive session to begin 2 hours of debate on the nomination of three judges on the Executive Calendar: Ann L. Aiken to be United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, Barry G. Silverman to be United States District Judge for the Ninth Circuit, and Richard W. Story to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia. Following that debate, as previously ordered, the Senate will recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy luncheons to meet. As ordered, at 2:15 p.m. the Senate will begin a series of rollcall votes on the aforementioned judicial nominations. Following those votes, the Senate will be in a period for the transaction of morning business with Senator Coverdell or his designee in control of the first 90 minutes, and Senator Daschle or his designee in control of the next 90 minutes. As a reminder to all Members, the Senate will not be in session on Friday, and no rollcall votes will occur on Monday, February 2nd. So I thank my colleagues for their attention.