Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I endorse the nomination of Dale Kimball, who has been nominated by President Clinton for the position of U.S. district judge for the district of Utah, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I am acquainted with Mr. Kimball personally and know that he comes before the Senate with an already distinguished record as a lawyer and litigator, an individual demonstrably well qualified for the position of Federal district court judge. After working as an associate and then as a partner with a leading Utah law firm, Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwell & McCarthy, for 8 years, Dale Kimball became a founding partner, and is now the senior partner, at what has become one of my State's most distinguished firms; Kimball, Parr, Waddoups, Brown & Gee. During his 30-year career, Mr. Kimball has developed extensive expertise in various areas of civil practice, particularly the litigation in Federal and State court of complex business cases involving such matters as energy, antitrust, securities fraud, insurance, and contracts. As an experienced litigator, Dale Kimball is particularly well-qualified to serve as a trial court judge. The respect Dale Kimball has earned from the Utah legal community is reflected in his selection as Distinguished Lawyer of the Year by the Utah State Bar in 1996. Dale Kimball's dedication to the practice of law is matched by his dedication to serving his community. He has been a member of the board of the Pioneers Theater Co., Alta View Hospital, the Desert News Publishing Co., the Jordan Education Foundation, and the J. Reuben Clark Law Society. I am confident that Dale Kimball will be a worthy addition to the Federal district court in Utah, and I am very pleased that the Senate has confirmed his nonination.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to those whose service has at long last been recognized by their country. I am speaking, of course, of those women who have served their country in uniform. This past weekend, women veterans converged in Washington for ceremonies dedicating the Women in Military Service to America Memorial. Two million women have stepped forward to serve in every conflict from the American Revolution to Desert Storm. This is a surprising fact when you look around Washington, DC, with its many monuments to American military heroes and battles--generally men on horseback. The Women in Military Service to America Memorial, thanks to the dauntless effort of retired Brig. Gen. Wilma Vaught, has finally become a reality. It will serve as a permanent reminder that the words ``duty, honor, country'' are not merely the motto of West Point cadets; they are part and parcel of citizenship in this great Nation. They certainly are not gender specific. Today, there are over 1 million women who are veterans of our Armed Forces; and 14 percent of the U.S. military are women, many of whom have made military service a career. These are women who have nursed the wounded and comforted the dying; they have flown aircraft; they have delivered the mail; they have requisitioned and moved supplies; they have maintained equipment; they have gathered and assessed intelligence; they have managed offices and pushed paperwork. They have braved every condition and suffered every deprivation. They have been prisoners of war; they have been wounded; and many have offered the ultimate sacrifice of their lives for the Nation. A person who serves in our Nation's Armed Forces is a citizen who has sworn to step into harm's way to defend freedom. Male or female, we owe our veterans a debt of gratitude for taking on these risks. With the dedication of the Women in Military Service to America Memorial, we are finally recognizing the contributions of women in our Armed Forces. I want to pay special tribute to the many women of Utah who have served. Utah's population includes more than 6,000 women veterans. During the First World War, the Red Cross made desperate pleas for qualified nurses to staff the hospitals for the troops. One-fourth of the nurses in Utah at the time offered their skills and joined the effort. I think it is of particular note that, although Utah women had the right to vote, other women volunteered for military service in World War I before they could even vote. And yet, they served under brutal conditions. Mabel Winnie Bettilyon of Salt Lake City worked at an evacuation hospital in France where she faced an unrelenting patient load. During one night, more than 800 wounded American soldiers came into the hospital, and she was assigned to care for 136 of them. Ruth Clayton called her service in France ``the most important experience of my life'' because, she said, ``I was able to help.'' She worked in a mobile medical unit caring for soldiers wounded by gas attacks, many suffering from horrifying disfigurement. She held the hands of the dying and strengthened the weak. They ate sitting in the mess tent on a wooden coffin. Upon Clayton's return, she went on, as so many others did, to a distinguished nursing career at home. During World War II, Mary Worrell of Layton, UT, was among a select group of women who were trained to fly military cargo planes. Although relegated to the copilot's chair, these women proved their bravery and skill. Worrell trained as a Navy transport airman, a WAVE, flying the B-54 in alternately hot or cold unpressurized cabins. One of her assignments was to distribute the balance of weight in the plane. She recalls directing passengers to stand in the front of the plane for take off, or have them crouch in the tail depending on conditions. Today, Worrell helps educate and inspire visitors as a volunteer at the Hill Aerospace Museum in Utah. Other women became Women Airforce Service Pilots [WASP's]; 25,000 women volunteered for the program to compensate for the shortage of pilots; 1,037 were accepted and completed the training to become full-fledged pilots, delivering bombers from factory to the troops in Europe during the 1940s. They flew every kind of mission except combat. Because they were not officially part of the military, there were no bands or benefits awaiting them at the completion of their service. In fact, 39 of them lost their lives, and families and friends paid for the return of their remains. Not until 1977 were these women finally recognized and granted veterans status. Efforts to integrate more women, to incorporate those military groups who had served as auxillaries, grew during the Korean war. Barbara Toomer is a Utah veteran of the Army Nurse Corps during the Korean conflict, when the total enrollment of women in the armed forces was at just 4 percent. Their sacrifice does not always end with their military tours of duty, nor does their struggle for respect. When Veda Jones, a disabled Vietnam-era veteran, sought to work with her local service organization, the local commander pointed her in the direction of the auxillary. Undaunted, Jones persisted. She recalls thinking, ``I'm 60 percent disabled. I am a Vietnam-era veteran. I did my time--22 years on active duty. I belong with the main body.'' Ten years later, Jones was installed as the president of this 5,400 member organization. The veterans of Utah have looked to her leadership, and she has unfailingly been found at her post. She has been an inspiring champion on behalf of veterans, working tirelessly to assist with veterans' employment and health issues in Utah today. When the country called many reservists to active duty during the gulf war, there were many Utahns, men and women, who answered the call. We hold the ideals of patriotism and service dear in Utah. With 6,000 members in the Army Reserve and 1,500 members in the Air National Guard, Utah has more units per capita than any other State. Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, has one of the few all-female Army ROTC units in the Southwest, a unit that has distinguished itself already as a force to be reckoned with. As is the case throughout today's military, women hold key leadership positions and comprise vital elements of the units, proving not only that women have the skills to be full players in the defense of our Nation, but also that they have the same motivation for service as their male colleagues. The women veterans of World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam have opened the doors of opportunity for those Utah women on active duty today--as near as Hill Air Force Base or as far away as Europe, Korea, or on board ship. The memorial dedicated last Saturday tells the stories of individual women, and it tells the story of a nation. Remember the women of the Revolutionary War and Civil War who disguised themselves as men in order to serve. Remember the women who worked as spies for the Army or nurses on the battlefield. Remember your grandmothers dodging fire as ambulance drivers in World War I, or your mothers staffing essential supply depots during World War II and Korea. Remember the women who worked in intelligence units in Vietnam or as helicopter pilots in the Persian Gulf. Today, military women are serving aboard ships and flying the space shuttle. I will look forward to visiting this beautiful and fitting memorial; and, when I do, I will think of Mamie Ellington Thorne, Mabel Winnie Bettilyon, Mary Worrell, Barbara Toomer, and Veda Jones, among so very many others. I will think of those now serving and be grateful to them as well as to their male colleagues for keeping this country safe. May the Women in Military Service to America Memorial stand to remind future generations of these noble women who, like their brothers, have given up certain comforts of civilian life, have volunteered to go to far flung places around the globe, and put themselves at risk to advance the cause of freedom.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am today introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Belinda McGregor, the beloved sister of one of my constituents, Rosalinda Burton. Mistakes are made everyday, Mr. President, and when innocent people suffer severe consequences as a result of these mistakes, something ought to be done to remedy the situation. In the particular case of Ms. Belinda McGregor, the federal bureaucracy made a mistake--a mistake which cost Ms. McGregor dearly and it is now time to correct this mistake. Unfortunately, the only way to provide relief is through Congressional action. Belinda McGregor, a citizen of the United Kingdom, filed an application for the 1995 Diversity Visa program. Her husband, a citizen of Ireland, filed a separate application at the same time. Ms. McGregor's application was among those selected to receive a diversity visa. When the handling clerk at the National Visa Center received the application, however, the clerk erroneously replaced Ms. McGregor's name in the computer with that of her husband. As a result, Ms. McGregor was never informed that she had been selected and never provided the requisite information. The mistake with respect to Ms. McGregor's husband was caught, but not in time for Ms. McGregor to meet the September, 1995 deadline. Her visa number was given to another applicant. In short, Ms. McGregor was unfairly denied the 1995 diversity visa that was rightfully hers due to a series of errors by the National Visa Center. As far as I know, these facts are not disputed. Unfortunately, the Center does not have the legal authority to rectify its own mistake by simply granting Ms. McGregor a visa out of a subsequent year's allotment. Thus, a private relief bill is needed in order to see that Ms. McGregor gets the visa to which she was clearly entitled to in 1995. Mr. President, I have received a very compelling letter from Rosalinda Burton of Cedar Hills, UT which I am placing in the Record. Ms. Burton is Ms. McGregor's sister and she described to me the strong relationship that she and her sister have and the care that her sister provided when Ms. Burton was seriously injured in a 1993 car accident. I hope that the Senate can move forward on this bill expeditiously. Ms. McGregor was the victim of a simple and admitted bureaucratic snafu. The Senate ought to move swiftly to correct this injustice. Mr. President, I am also including in the record additional relevant correspondence which documents the background of this case. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Interstate Distribution of State-inspected Meat Act of 1997. This legislation will lift the ban on interstate distribution of State-inspected meat and poultry, providing some long-term relief to our livestock producers and finally ending a long-standing inequity in meat inspection laws that affects about 3,000 meat processors in 26 States. In the 1960's, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act allowed States to implement their own inspection programs. At the time, there remained some uncertainty as to how well the State inspection programs would function, so a provision was included banning meat inspected by States from interstate distribution. There was also a provision included requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to periodically recertify that the State programs are ``at least equal to'' the Federal standards. In the 30 years since this program was instituted, a State program has never failed to achieve recertification. Mr. President, today the ban on interstate distribution has clearly outlived its purpose. Instead of protecting the health of our citizens, it only stifles competition in the meat packing industry and impounds the available market to State-inspected plants. Right now, State- inspected ostrich, venison, buffalo, and pheasant are freely distributed across State lines; yet, a perfectly good steak is banned. Furthermore, foreign competitors are allowed to send their meat products throughout the United States without regard for State boundaries. These foreign companies do not face a higher standard than our State-inspected processing plants. The only difference is that the State-inspected plants have much tighter oversight by the USDA. There is no reason that U.S. plants should be restricted from competing with foreign countries. Monte Lucherini runs a State-inspected plant in Logan, UT. He runs a good business and makes an excellent product, but is still not allowed to do business outside of Utah. He writes: I believe that my gross sales would increase 30 to 40 percent. . . . Employment would be increased also. I would need two to three more butchers, and probably five to six more part-time workers. . . . It has always been a thorn in our side that we couldn't service the customers that want our products. David H. Yadron runs a state-inspected plant in Orem, Utah. He says: By scrimping and saving, this ``mom and pop'' operation was built to federal standards two years ago. Nevertheless, large companies and foreign competitors enjoy the privilege of shipping their meat products interstate even though our facility and products are equal or superior to theirs. This injustice limits our profitability while providing an unfair marketing advantage to foreign companies and large domestic operations. Unless Congress repeals the unfair prohibition, we could be forced out of business. Conversely, if Wind River grows, then our suppliers, including the local, federal meat inspected packers, would also grow. Mr. President, there are restaurants and food retailers in many States that would love to purchase meat products from Utah's State- inspected plants. Utah's State inspection program receives the highest marks possible by the USDA, and many of our plants produce unique and hard-to-find products. Instead of purchasing from Utah, these restaurants and retailers are forced to purchase from foreign competitors, even though the quality of the foreign product is often inferior. There is no sense to this, Mr. President; it cuts into the profits of our retailers, raises the prices for our consumers, stifles business for our processors, and limits the market for our livestock and poultry producers. Mr. President, the time has come to lift the ban in State-inspected meat and poultry. There is no reason whatever to believe that permitting interstate distribution for State-inspected meat would compromise safety in any way. In fact, I believe we would have even greater assurances about the safety of meat than we do now. The USDA would continue to set and ensure inspection standards. I am aware that the USDA has recently begun looking into the merits of lifting the prohibition on interstate distribution, and I am eager to work with the USDA on a workable plan for bringing this law up-to- date. I call on my colleagues to support this effort to introduce equity into the meat packing industry.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce private relief legislation on behalf of my constituents, Mr. Saeed Rezai, and his wife, Mrs. Julie Rezai. As my colleagues are aware, those immigration cases that warrant private legislation are extremely rare. In fact, in nearly 8 years, I have introduced just one bill to grant such relief--a bill for the relief of Saeed Rezai in the last Congress. As I said before the Senate when I introduced that bill in 1995, I had hoped that this case would not require congressional intervention. Unfortunately, it is clear that private legislation is the only means remaining to ensure that the equities of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's case are heard and that a number of unresolved questions are answered without imposing a terrible hardship on Mr. and Mrs. Rezai and on their marriage. I wish to take a moment, Mr. President, to provide something by way of background to this somewhat complicated case and to explain the urgency of this legislation. Mr. Rezai first came to the United States in 1986. On June 15, 1991, he married his current wife, Julie, who is a U.S. citizen. Shortly thereafter, she filed an immigrant visa petition on his behalf. Approval of this petition has been blocked, however, by the application of Sec. 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 204(c) precludes the approval of a visa petition for anyone who entered, or conspired to enter, into a fraudulent marriage. The Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] applied this provision in Mr. Rezai's case because his previous marriage ended in divorce before his 2-year period of conditional residence had expired. In immigration proceedings following the divorce, the judge heard testimony from witnesses on behalf of Mr. Rezai and his former wife. After considering that testimony, he found there was insufficient evidence to warrant lifting the conditions on Mr. Rezai's permanent residency and, in the absence of a qualifying marriage, granted Mr. Rezai voluntary departure from the United States. The judge was very careful to mention, however, that there was no proof of false testimony by Mr. Rezai, and he granted voluntary departure rather than ordering deportation because, in his words, Mr. Rezai ``may be eligible for a visa in the future.'' Despite these comments by the immigration judge, who clearly did not anticipate the future application of the Sec. 204(c) exclusion to Mr. Rezai's case, the INS has refused to approve Mrs. Rezai's petition for permanent residence on behalf of her husband based on that very exclusion. An appeal of this decision has been pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals [BIA] for 3 years. In the meantime, Mr. Rezai appealed the initial termination of his lawful permanent resident status in 1990. In August 1995, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied this appeal and reinstated the voluntary departure order. Under current law, there is no provision to stay Mr. Rezai's deportation pending the BIA's consideration of Mrs. Rezai's current immigrant visa petition. Mr. President, there is no question that Mr. Rezai deportation will create extraordinary hardship for both Mr. and Mrs. Rezai. Throughout all the proceedings of the past 6 years, not a single person that I know of--including the INS--has questioned the validity of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage. In fact, many that I have heard from have emphatically told me that Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage is as strong as any they have seen. Given the prevailing political and cultural climate in Iran, I would not expect that Mrs. Rezai will choose to make her home there. Thus, Mrs. Rezai's deportation will result in either the breakup of a legitimate family or the forced removal of a U.S. citizen and her husband to a third country foreign to both of them. It should also be noted that Mr. Rezai has been present in the United States for more than a decade. During this time he has assimilated to American culture and has become a contributing member of his community. He has been placed in a responsible position of employment as the security field supervisor at Westminster College where he has gained the respect and admiration of both his peers and his supervisors. In fact, I received a letter from the interim president of Westminster College, signed by close to 150 of Mr. Rezai's associates, attesting to his many contributions to the college and the community. This is just one of the many, many letters and phone calls I have received from members of our community. Mr. Rezai's forced departure in light of these considerations would both unduly limit his own opportunities and deprive the community of his continued contributions. Finally, Mr. Rezai's deportation would create a particular hardship for his wife, who was diagnosed just a few years ago with Multiple Sclerosis [MS]. Mrs. Rezai's doctor has recommended that her husband be designated as her primary caregiver for what is expected to be a lifelong debilitating illness. It is doubtful that adequate medical care would be available should she be forced to return with her husband to Iran or to some other country willing to accept them as immigrants. Finally, her doctor has suggested that severe symptoms and rapid deterioration of Mrs. Rezai's condition are possible as a result of the stress being placed upon her by her husband's protracted immigration proceedings and the uncertainty of their future. Mr. President, I firmly believe that we must think before enforcing an action that will result in such severe consequences as the destruction of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage and the endangering of Mrs. Rezai's already fragile health. The legislation I am introducing today, if enacted, will put an end to what has been a long and drawn- out ordeal for the Rezais by granting Mr. Rezai full permanent resident status. At a minimum, the outstanding questions regarding the propriety of the denial of Mr. Rezai's current immigrant visa petition need to be addressed. With the introduction of this legislation today and its consideration by the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, we can ensure that Mr. Rezai's deportation will be stayed pending the thorough review of these questions by the Board of Immigration Appeals. I urge each of my colleagues to support this immigration bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce private relief legislation on behalf of my constituents, Mr. Saeed Rezai, and his wife, Mrs. Julie Rezai. As my colleagues are aware, those immigration cases that warrant private legislation are extremely rare. In fact, in nearly 8 years, I have introduced just one bill to grant such relief--a bill for the relief of Saeed Rezai in the last Congress. As I said before the Senate when I introduced that bill in 1995, I had hoped that this case would not require congressional intervention. Unfortunately, it is clear that private legislation is the only means remaining to ensure that the equities of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's case are heard and that a number of unresolved questions are answered without imposing a terrible hardship on Mr. and Mrs. Rezai and on their marriage. I wish to take a moment, Mr. President, to provide something by way of background to this somewhat complicated case and to explain the urgency of this legislation. Mr. Rezai first came to the United States in 1986. On June 15, 1991, he married his current wife, Julie, who is a U.S. citizen. Shortly thereafter, she filed an immigrant visa petition on his behalf. Approval of this petition has been blocked, however, by the application of Sec. 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 204(c) precludes the approval of a visa petition for anyone who entered, or conspired to enter, into a fraudulent marriage. The Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] applied this provision in Mr. Rezai's case because his previous marriage ended in divorce before his 2-year period of conditional residence had expired. In immigration proceedings following the divorce, the judge heard testimony from witnesses on behalf of Mr. Rezai and his former wife. After considering that testimony, he found there was insufficient evidence to warrant lifting the conditions on Mr. Rezai's permanent residency and, in the absence of a qualifying marriage, granted Mr. Rezai voluntary departure from the United States. The judge was very careful to mention, however, that there was no proof of false testimony by Mr. Rezai, and he granted voluntary departure rather than ordering deportation because, in his words, Mr. Rezai ``may be eligible for a visa in the future.'' Despite these comments by the immigration judge, who clearly did not anticipate the future application of the Sec. 204(c) exclusion to Mr. Rezai's case, the INS has refused to approve Mrs. Rezai's petition for permanent residence on behalf of her husband based on that very exclusion. An appeal of this decision has been pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals [BIA] for 3 years. In the meantime, Mr. Rezai appealed the initial termination of his lawful permanent resident status in 1990. In August 1995, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals denied this appeal and reinstated the voluntary departure order. Under current law, there is no provision to stay Mr. Rezai's deportation pending the BIA's consideration of Mrs. Rezai's current immigrant visa petition. Mr. President, there is no question that Mr. Rezai deportation will create extraordinary hardship for both Mr. and Mrs. Rezai. Throughout all the proceedings of the past 6 years, not a single person that I know of--including the INS--has questioned the validity of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage. In fact, many that I have heard from have emphatically told me that Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage is as strong as any they have seen. Given the prevailing political and cultural climate in Iran, I would not expect that Mrs. Rezai will choose to make her home there. Thus, Mrs. Rezai's deportation will result in either the breakup of a legitimate family or the forced removal of a U.S. citizen and her husband to a third country foreign to both of them. It should also be noted that Mr. Rezai has been present in the United States for more than a decade. During this time he has assimilated to American culture and has become a contributing member of his community. He has been placed in a responsible position of employment as the security field supervisor at Westminster College where he has gained the respect and admiration of both his peers and his supervisors. In fact, I received a letter from the interim president of Westminster College, signed by close to 150 of Mr. Rezai's associates, attesting to his many contributions to the college and the community. This is just one of the many, many letters and phone calls I have received from members of our community. Mr. Rezai's forced departure in light of these considerations would both unduly limit his own opportunities and deprive the community of his continued contributions. Finally, Mr. Rezai's deportation would create a particular hardship for his wife, who was diagnosed just a few years ago with Multiple Sclerosis [MS]. Mrs. Rezai's doctor has recommended that her husband be designated as her primary caregiver for what is expected to be a lifelong debilitating illness. It is doubtful that adequate medical care would be available should she be forced to return with her husband to Iran or to some other country willing to accept them as immigrants. Finally, her doctor has suggested that severe symptoms and rapid deterioration of Mrs. Rezai's condition are possible as a result of the stress being placed upon her by her husband's protracted immigration proceedings and the uncertainty of their future. Mr. President, I firmly believe that we must think before enforcing an action that will result in such severe consequences as the destruction of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage and the endangering of Mrs. Rezai's already fragile health. The legislation I am introducing today, if enacted, will put an end to what has been a long and drawn- out ordeal for the Rezais by granting Mr. Rezai full permanent resident status. At a minimum, the outstanding questions regarding the propriety of the denial of Mr. Rezai's current immigrant visa petition need to be addressed. With the introduction of this legislation today and its consideration by the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, we can ensure that Mr. Rezai's deportation will be stayed pending the thorough review of these questions by the Board of Immigration Appeals. I urge each of my colleagues to support this immigration bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Interstate Distribution of State-inspected Meat Act of 1997. This legislation will lift the ban on interstate distribution of State-inspected meat and poultry, providing some long-term relief to our livestock producers and finally ending a long-standing inequity in meat inspection laws that affects about 3,000 meat processors in 26 States. In the 1960's, the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act allowed States to implement their own inspection programs. At the time, there remained some uncertainty as to how well the State inspection programs would function, so a provision was included banning meat inspected by States from interstate distribution. There was also a provision included requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to periodically recertify that the State programs are ``at least equal to'' the Federal standards. In the 30 years since this program was instituted, a State program has never failed to achieve recertification. Mr. President, today the ban on interstate distribution has clearly outlived its purpose. Instead of protecting the health of our citizens, it only stifles competition in the meat packing industry and impounds the available market to State-inspected plants. Right now, State- inspected ostrich, venison, buffalo, and pheasant are freely distributed across State lines; yet, a perfectly good steak is banned. Furthermore, foreign competitors are allowed to send their meat products throughout the United States without regard for State boundaries. These foreign companies do not face a higher standard than our State-inspected processing plants. The only difference is that the State-inspected plants have much tighter oversight by the USDA. There is no reason that U.S. plants should be restricted from competing with foreign countries. Monte Lucherini runs a State-inspected plant in Logan, UT. He runs a good business and makes an excellent product, but is still not allowed to do business outside of Utah. He writes: I believe that my gross sales would increase 30 to 40 percent. . . . Employment would be increased also. I would need two to three more butchers, and probably five to six more part-time workers. . . . It has always been a thorn in our side that we couldn't service the customers that want our products. David H. Yadron runs a state-inspected plant in Orem, Utah. He says: By scrimping and saving, this ``mom and pop'' operation was built to federal standards two years ago. Nevertheless, large companies and foreign competitors enjoy the privilege of shipping their meat products interstate even though our facility and products are equal or superior to theirs. This injustice limits our profitability while providing an unfair marketing advantage to foreign companies and large domestic operations. Unless Congress repeals the unfair prohibition, we could be forced out of business. Conversely, if Wind River grows, then our suppliers, including the local, federal meat inspected packers, would also grow. Mr. President, there are restaurants and food retailers in many States that would love to purchase meat products from Utah's State- inspected plants. Utah's State inspection program receives the highest marks possible by the USDA, and many of our plants produce unique and hard-to-find products. Instead of purchasing from Utah, these restaurants and retailers are forced to purchase from foreign competitors, even though the quality of the foreign product is often inferior. There is no sense to this, Mr. President; it cuts into the profits of our retailers, raises the prices for our consumers, stifles business for our processors, and limits the market for our livestock and poultry producers. Mr. President, the time has come to lift the ban in State-inspected meat and poultry. There is no reason whatever to believe that permitting interstate distribution for State-inspected meat would compromise safety in any way. In fact, I believe we would have even greater assurances about the safety of meat than we do now. The USDA would continue to set and ensure inspection standards. I am aware that the USDA has recently begun looking into the merits of lifting the prohibition on interstate distribution, and I am eager to work with the USDA on a workable plan for bringing this law up-to- date. I call on my colleagues to support this effort to introduce equity into the meat packing industry.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1997. Many Members of the Senate have as a paramount concern the protection of individual rights protected by our Constitution. One particular right--the right to own and use private property free from arbitrary governmental action--is increasingly under attack from the regulatory state. Indeed, despite the constitutional requirement for the protection of property rights, the America of the late 20th century has witnessed an explosion of Federal regulation that has jeopardized the private ownership of property with the consequent loss of individual liberty. Under current Federal regulations, thousands of Americans have been denied the right to the quiet use and enjoyment of their private property. Arbitrary bureaucratic enforcement of Federal and State regulatory programs has prevented Americans from building homes and commercial buildings, plowing fields, repairing barns and fences, clearing brush and fire hazards, felling trees, and even removing refuse and pollutants, all on private property. To make matters worse, many property owners often are unable to safeguard their rights because they effectively are denied access to Federal courts. In a society based upon the rule of law, the ability to protect property and other rights is of paramount importance. Indeed, it was Chief Justice John Marshall, who in the seminal 1803 cast of Marbury versus Madison, observed that the ``government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested right.'' Despite this core belief of John Marshall and other Founders, the ability of property owners to vindicate their rights in court today is being hampered by the overlapping and confusing jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal district courts over fifth amendment property rights claims. It is also frustrated by localities which sometimes create labyrinths of administrative hurdles that property owners must jump through before being able to bring a claim in Federal court to vindicate their Federal constitutional rights. CAJA seeks to remedy these situations. Let me explain. The Tucker Act, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States by granting the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain monetary claims against the United States, actually complicates the ability of a property owner to vindicate their right to just compensation for a Government action that has caused a taking. The law currently forces a property owner to elect between equitable relief in the Federal district court and monetary relief in the Court of Federal Claims. Further difficulty arises when the law is used by the Government to urge dismissal in the district court on the ground that the plaintiff should seek just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, and is used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal Claims on the ground that plaintiff should first seek equitable relief in the district court. This Tucker Act shuffle is aggravated by section 1500 of the Tucker Act, which denies the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain a suit which is pending in another court and brought by the same plaintiff. Section 1500 is so poorly drafted and has brought so many hardships, that Justice Stevens, in Keene Corporation versus United States, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 2048 (1993), has called for its repeal or amendment. CAJA would resolve the jurisdictional muddle by both repealing section 1500 and by eliminating the Tucker Act shuffle, thereby granting to both courts concurrent jurisdiction to fully adjudicate takings claims. To assure uniformity in property rights law, appeals from both courts would be heard by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Adding to this jurisdictional problem, is the misapplication by many courts of the finality doctrine. These courts have required claimants to jump through endless administrative, appellate and other hoops, sometimes created by agencies to retard the legitimate use and development of property, before these courts will adjudicate claims. This has resulted in increased costs to the taxpayers and has impeded innocent property owners from vindicating their constitutionally protected rights. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Suitum versus Tahoe Regional Planning Agency--1997, struck as an impermissible burden on property rights such administrative and appellate schemes that make it overly difficult for property owners to protect their rights in court. CAJA would codify the Suitum case, thereby providing courts with guidance on the application of the finality doctrine. Finally, I must emphasize that CAJA certainly does not create any substantive rights. The definition of property, as well as what constitutes a taking under the just compensation clause of the fifth amendment, is left to the courts to define. The bill would not change existing case law's ad hoc, case-by-case definition of regulatory takings. Instead, it would provide a procedural fix to the litigation muddle that delays and increases the cost of litigating a fifth amendment taking case. All CAJA does is to provide for fair procedures to allow property owners the means to safeguard their rights by having their day in court. I ask for your support to allow just claimants their day in court.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1997. Many Members of the Senate have as a paramount concern the protection of individual rights protected by our Constitution. One particular right--the right to own and use private property free from arbitrary governmental action--is increasingly under attack from the regulatory state. Indeed, despite the constitutional requirement for the protection of property rights, the America of the late 20th century has witnessed an explosion of Federal regulation that has jeopardized the private ownership of property with the consequent loss of individual liberty. Under current Federal regulations, thousands of Americans have been denied the right to the quiet use and enjoyment of their private property. Arbitrary bureaucratic enforcement of Federal and State regulatory programs has prevented Americans from building homes and commercial buildings, plowing fields, repairing barns and fences, clearing brush and fire hazards, felling trees, and even removing refuse and pollutants, all on private property. To make matters worse, many property owners often are unable to safeguard their rights because they effectively are denied access to Federal courts. In a society based upon the rule of law, the ability to protect property and other rights is of paramount importance. Indeed, it was Chief Justice John Marshall, who in the seminal 1803 cast of Marbury versus Madison, observed that the ``government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested right.'' Despite this core belief of John Marshall and other Founders, the ability of property owners to vindicate their rights in court today is being hampered by the overlapping and confusing jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal district courts over fifth amendment property rights claims. It is also frustrated by localities which sometimes create labyrinths of administrative hurdles that property owners must jump through before being able to bring a claim in Federal court to vindicate their Federal constitutional rights. CAJA seeks to remedy these situations. Let me explain. The Tucker Act, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States by granting the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain monetary claims against the United States, actually complicates the ability of a property owner to vindicate their right to just compensation for a Government action that has caused a taking. The law currently forces a property owner to elect between equitable relief in the Federal district court and monetary relief in the Court of Federal Claims. Further difficulty arises when the law is used by the Government to urge dismissal in the district court on the ground that the plaintiff should seek just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, and is used to urge dismissal in the Court of Federal Claims on the ground that plaintiff should first seek equitable relief in the district court. This Tucker Act shuffle is aggravated by section 1500 of the Tucker Act, which denies the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to entertain a suit which is pending in another court and brought by the same plaintiff. Section 1500 is so poorly drafted and has brought so many hardships, that Justice Stevens, in Keene Corporation versus United States, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 2048 (1993), has called for its repeal or amendment. CAJA would resolve the jurisdictional muddle by both repealing section 1500 and by eliminating the Tucker Act shuffle, thereby granting to both courts concurrent jurisdiction to fully adjudicate takings claims. To assure uniformity in property rights law, appeals from both courts would be heard by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Adding to this jurisdictional problem, is the misapplication by many courts of the finality doctrine. These courts have required claimants to jump through endless administrative, appellate and other hoops, sometimes created by agencies to retard the legitimate use and development of property, before these courts will adjudicate claims. This has resulted in increased costs to the taxpayers and has impeded innocent property owners from vindicating their constitutionally protected rights. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Suitum versus Tahoe Regional Planning Agency--1997, struck as an impermissible burden on property rights such administrative and appellate schemes that make it overly difficult for property owners to protect their rights in court. CAJA would codify the Suitum case, thereby providing courts with guidance on the application of the finality doctrine. Finally, I must emphasize that CAJA certainly does not create any substantive rights. The definition of property, as well as what constitutes a taking under the just compensation clause of the fifth amendment, is left to the courts to define. The bill would not change existing case law's ad hoc, case-by-case definition of regulatory takings. Instead, it would provide a procedural fix to the litigation muddle that delays and increases the cost of litigating a fifth amendment taking case. All CAJA does is to provide for fair procedures to allow property owners the means to safeguard their rights by having their day in court. I ask for your support to allow just claimants their day in court.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess on Tuesday from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 30. I further ask that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate resume consideration of the Coats amendment No. 1249 to the District of Columbia appropriations bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague from Wisconsin chat about these problems. You know, in all honesty, I wonder sometimes if we do not treat the American public like they are idiots, when in fact the American public is a very smart collective group of people. You know, I just do not see why in the world we have to have government interfere with the first amendment privileges of free speech, just to mention one constitutional issue involved here, just because some think there are millionaires in the Senate. There have always been millionaires in the Senate, as far as I know, at least in this century. But there have always been a number of Senators--and there is a great number of Senators here today--who are not millionaires who made it here the hard way, even under this present system, and who will always be able to make it because the American people are not idiots. They are smart. They know what is going on. They have the ability to choose between competing candidacies. Every once in a while you know some of us worry about it because of some people who make it here, but, in all honesty, it seems to me that to put another layer of Federal regulations on what people can say and do in politics is not the way to do it, and it presumptively seems to believe that the American people do not have the capacity collectively or individually to make right decisions for themselves with regard to politics. The thing that I find heinous and offensive in the current political structure is that we have all kinds of advocacy groups out there, some of which support only one party to the exclusion of the other, who spend millions and millions of dollars that are never reported in this political process. I will just cite with particularity one group. I remember when the AFL-CIO decided they were going to spend $35 million in advocacy during the last campaign. Now, we Republicans all understand that because virtually every penny of that goes for liberal Democrats. The only Republicans that they ever support --and there are very few of those; and if there is a moderate-to-liberal Democrat, they will support the Democrat every time over even a liberal Republican for the most part-- very few of the liberal Republicans are supported by them, but if any are, they have to be very liberal. So virtually every dollar of the union movement goes into liberal Democratic Party politics. But $35 million is a drop in the bucket because the Congressional Research Service mentions that in every 2- year election cycle the trade union movement puts between $100 and $500 million into the political process, not one penny of which is reported in any filing or disclosure form. There is nothing in the Republican Party that comes close to that type of economic leverage, and yet I have to say McCain-Feingold does absolutely nothing about that. There is good reason for it, because you would be restricting the right of the trade union movement in this country to express their viewpoints with regard to their political beliefs. But you are not talking about distortion. Mr. President, $100 to $500 million every 2 years in local, State, and Federal politics, not one penny of which is reported. The $35 million was reported because those were direct contributions to individuals, or actually most of it was not reported because most of it was soft money that was used to advocate for Democratic, liberal Democratic Party politics. In fact, ask conservative Democrats how much union money they get as a general rule. Not very much. So you know, I sometimes think that we beat our gums in here over what appear to be on the surface important principles but which really in reality would undermine the very constitutional process that we have. In that regard, let me just mention that I think one of the most prescient articles on this subject ever written was written by George Will in the Washington Post yesterday. I know it has been mentioned here on the floor before. But let me just read a little bit from that article. I did not come here wanting to talk about campaign finance ``reform,'' but I did want to say these few remarks. But I did read this today, and I brought it with me. He just says, ``Here Come the Speech Police,'' which is the title of the article--``Here Come the Speech Police.'' George goes on to say: Almost nothing that preoccupies Washington is as important as Washington thinks almost all its preoccupations are. But now Congress is considering some version of the McCain- Feingold bill, which raises ``regime-level'' questions. It would continue the change for the worse of American governance. And Washington's political class hopes the bill's real importance will be underestimated. With a moralism disproportionate to the merits of their cause, members of that class--including the exhorting, collaborative media--are mounting an unprecedentedly sweeping attack on freedom of expression. Nothing in American history--not the left's recent campus ``speech codes,'' not the right's depredations during 1950s McCarthyism or the 1920s ``red scare,'' not the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the First Amendment posed by campaign ``reforms'' advancing under the protective coloration of political hygiene. I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Let me just quote a couple of other paragraphs because I think this article really sums it up. I do not know how anybody could disagree with this article. I am skipping over quite a bit of it which I think is worthy of consideration by anybody, but let me just read a couple more paragraphs: The political class is not sliding reluctantly down a slippery slope, it is eagerly skiing down it, extending its regulation of political speech in order to make its life less stressful and more secure. Thus is the First Amendment nibbled away, like an artichoke devoured leaf by leaf. This is an example of what has been called ``the Latin Americanization'' of American law--the proliferation of increasingly rococo laws in attempts to enforce fundamentally flawed laws. Reformers produce such laws from the bleak, paternalistic premise that unfettered participation in politics by means of financial support of political speech is a ``problem" that must be ``solved.'' One reason the media are complacent about such restrictions on (others') political speech is that restrictions enhance the power of the media as the filters of political speech, and as unregulated participants in a shrunken national conversation. What a comment, terrific comment. And it sums it up pretty well: Has the newspaper in which this column is appearing ever editorialized to the effect that restrictions on political money--restrictions on the ability to buy broadcast time and print space and other things the Supreme Court calls ``the indispensable conditions for meaningful communication''--do not restrict speech? If this newspaper ever does, ask the editors if they would accept revising the First Amendment to read: ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, but Congress can restrict the amount a newspaper may spend on editorial writers, reporters and newsprint.'' As Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, and others filibuster to block enlargement of the federal speech- rationing machinery, theirs is arguably the most important filibuster in American history. Its importance will be attested by the obloquies they will receive from the herd of independent minds eager to empower the political class to extend controls over speech about itself. What an article. He sums it up better than anybody I know. Frankly, I commend this article to anybody who cares about free speech rights, that this bill, as modified, would eviscerate. I don't quite agree with George Will, that this may be the most important constitutional filibuster in history, but it is certainly one of the most important. I know of others that have been, I think, equal in importance, not the least of which is the debate we had on the resignation of the President a few years ago.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise this evening to say a few words in response to President Clinton's radio address over the weekend about the pace of the Senate's consideration of judicial nominees. In that address, the President chided Members of this body for what he described as ``a vacancy crisis'' in our Federal courts ostensibly resulting from politically motivated scrutiny of his nominees. I will respond for a moment to the myths and distortions that the Clinton administration has engaged in; specifically the myth that there is a vacancy crisis in the Federal judiciary and the myth that there is a Republican slowdown of judicial confirmations. There is no vacancy crisis. So far this year, the Senate has confirmed 18 of President Clinton's judges. This brings the total number of Clinton nominees on the Federal bench to 222--that is nearly 30 percent of the active Federal judiciary. There are more sitting Federal judges today than there were through virtually all of the Reagan and Bush administrations. As of September 26, 1997, just 3 days ago, there were 750 active Federal judges. Now, this figure excludes the approximately 79 senior status judges who continue to preside over and hear cases. Yet at this point in the 101st Congress when George Bush was President and in the 102d Congress when George Bush was President, by contrast, when President Bush's nominees were being processed by a Democrat-controlled Senate, there were only 711 and 716 active judges, respectively. We have 750 as we stand here today. Keep in mind that the Clinton administration is on record as stating that 63 vacancies--a vacancy rate just over 7 percent--is considered virtual full employment of the Federal judiciary, and they were right. Ninety-four vacancies, the current vacancy rate, is a vacancy rate of about 11 percent. So ask yourselves this question, how can a 4-percent rise in the vacancy rate from 7 percent to 11 percent convert full employment into a crisis? Moreover, let's compare today's vacancy level, 94, with those that existed during the early 1990's when George Bush was President and the Democrats controlled the Senate. In May 1997 there were 148 Federal judicial vacancies, and in May 1992 there were 117 Federal judicial vacancies. I remember those years. I don't recall one comment about it in the media. I don't recall one television show mentioning it. I don't recall one writer writing about it. Nobody seemed to care. But all of a sudden it has become a crisis today with less vacancies at this time than the Democrat-controlled Senate and Judiciary Committee at that time had. I should also note that at the end of the Bush administration, there were 115 vacancies compared to the 65 at the end of the last Presidential election; 115 vacancies, for which 55 nominees were pending before the Judiciary Committee. None of these 55 nominees even received the courtesy of a hearing. I have heard all the yelling and screaming here on the floor and in the public media today and by the President on Saturday. In short, I think it is unfair and frankly inaccurate to report that the Republican Congress has created a vacancy crisis in our courts. Now, it is also incorrect when we suggest there is a deliberate Republican slowdown of the nominations process. The President pointed out on Saturday, correctly I might add, that he has sent up to the Senate nearly 70 nominees to fill vacant seats on the Federal bench, 68 to be exact. By way of comparison, he notes that the Senate has confirmed fewer than 20 of his nominees, suggesting undue Senate delay in the face of an abundance of qualified nominees. But the picture the President paints is less than complete. Of the 68 judicial nominees submitted to the Judiciary Committee this year, nearly half of them, 30 in all, have been nominated just since July 1 of this year. So, factoring in the Senate's August recess, when we were gone for better than 30 days, the Judiciary Committee has had scarcely 2 months to consider virtually one-half of the President's nominees this year. Perhaps, then, it is fair to say the delay has been a factor in the face of Senate confirmation. Unfortunately, the delay has to date been largely at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue--at the White House, if you will. Even the Administrative Office of the Courts has concluded that most of the blame for the current vacancies falls predominantly with this administration. It calculates that until his most recent rush of nominations, it has taken President Clinton an average of 618 days to name a nominee for a vacancy--nearly twice the time it has historically taken prior White Houses. By contrast, it has taken the Senate an average of 91 days to confirm a judge once the President finally nominates him or her. In other words, the Senate is carrying out its constitutional responsibilities with respect to the confirmation of judicial nominees more than six times faster than the President. And in recent months, the Judiciary Committee has been moving noncontroversial nominees at a remarkably fast pace. Since returning from the August recess, we have already scheduled two nomination hearings. At the first, earlier this month, we considered four of the President's nominees. Tomorrow we will hold a hearing for seven judicial nominees, and in addition a hearing for the President's nominee for Associate Attorney General. Those were scheduled before the President, I think, ever dreamed of giving a speech last Saturday. I should note that the Clinton administration was made aware of this fact prior to the President's address, but he failed to mention that. In addition, we are planning to have another hearing in the next few weeks, so, clearly noncontroversial nominees are being considered at a responsible pace. I will concede that some nominations have taken longer than is customary. But in many instances, this has been due to the unfortunate fact that some nominees have not been entirely forthcoming with the Judiciary Committee. In the interest of fairness, I have given these nominees repeated opportunities to fully respond to the committee's inquiries, and when they have done so, we have moved the nomination. Ms. Margaret Morrow is a good example of a nominee who was slowed by her reluctance to promptly answer questions posed by members of the committee. After I spoke with her and urged her to be more forthcoming, her nomination was reported to the floor--with my support, I might add--and I expect her nomination will be scheduled for a floor vote soon. I expect it to be scheduled. It should be scheduled. If people have differences with her, let them express those differences with their votes. But she has been reported by the Judiciary Committee, and with good reason as far as I'm concerned. Nevertheless, other nominees have been similarly less than cooperative. While I appreciate and concur in the President's expression of concern for the integrity of our courts, we will all be better served by this administration's renewed commitment to sending up restrained, qualified nominees who respect the essential role that the Senate must play in the confirmation process. We cannot serve that function well when nominees are less than forthright with members of the committee. The President was quite correct when he said over the weekend, ``This age demands we work together in a bipartisan fashion and the American people deserve no less.'' Indeed, they do deserve no less. But bipartisan cooperation depends not only on swift confirmations, but qualified and cooperative nominees as well. Now, I also want to take a moment to address some of the personal criticisms directed at our majority leader. To suggest that the majority leader has acted irresponsibly with respect to the nominations is just plain wrong. Of 21 judicial nominees reported to the floor by the Judiciary Committee, only 3 remain on the calendar. One was reported within the last 2 weeks. So to suggest that this majority leader is playing games with nominations is not only unfair, it is grossly untrue. Now, I have been pleased to have worked, over the past number of months, with White House counsel Chuck Ruff to ensure that the nomination and confirmation process is a collaborative one between the White House and Members of the Senate. I think it is fair to say that after a few months in which the process suffered due to inadequate consultation between the White House and some Senators, the process is now working rather smoothly. I think the process is due to the White House's renewed commitment to good faith consultation with Senators of both parties. Now, I think it is important to note that I believe the Senate is doing its best to move nominees and to move them quickly. If we have noncontroversial nominees submitted, we can move them quickly. If and when the administration sends us qualified, noncontroversial qualified nominees, they will be processed fairly and promptly. In the last 6 weeks or so, the administration has finally began sending us nominees which I have, for the most part, found to be quite acceptable. Take Ms. Hull, who was nominated for a very important seat on the Eleventh Circuit. That is a circuit court of appeals judge. She was nominated on June 18, she had her hearing June 22, and was confirmed on September 4. That is a remarkably fast turnaround for both parties, the White House and the Senate. Or Mr. Alan Gould from Florida, who was nominated in February. We completed his paperwork and our review in March and April. He had a hearing shortly thereafter in May, and was reported out in committee and confirmed before the Fourth of July recess. Another good example is Janet Hall, from Connecticut, who was nominated to the U.S. District Court on June 5, 1997. The Committee had a hearing on July 22, and she was confirmed September 11. Clearly, when it comes to new noncontroversial nominees, we are in fact proceeding with extraordinary speed and diligence. Now, more controversial nominees take a little more time. Of the 69 individuals nominated in this Congress, only 43 have been new. The other 23 are renominees that were nominated but never confirmed in the last Congress. Some have had committee consideration, but most of the nominees with completed paperwork who have not yet had consideration are ones who were renominated from the last Congress. When the administration simply sends back nominees who had problems last Congress, it takes much more time and it is much more difficult to process them, and they know it. I am trying to work out the differences between the Senators of the respective States--I might add, Democrats and Republicans--and the White House so that we can move more of these. It was worth pointing out that there was, in nearly every instance, a reason why the Senate confirmed 202 other Clinton nominees, but not these 23. If all we are left with are judges that we are not ready to move, I will not compromise our advise and consent function simply because the White House does not send qualified nominees. As I said at the outset, the Senate's advise and consent function should not be reduced to a mere numbers game. The confirmation of an individual to serve for life as a Federal judge is a serious matter and should be treated as such. In fact, we have sent a letter down to the White House and Justice Department and explained the problem with each nominee, and they understand perfectly well why some of these nominees have not moved. When you talk about confirmation numbers, let me compare them to the previous Congresses. As of today, we have processed 24 nominees this year--18 confirmed, 3 on the floor, and 3 are pending in committee. Now, not all of these judges have been confirmed, but we expect that most all of them will be confirmed fairly promptly. Assuming most of these nominees are confirmed, I think any reasonable person could see that our efforts compare quite favorably to prior Congresses in terms of the number of judges confirmed at this point in the first session of a Congress, especially if you look at recent Democrat controlled Congresses. In 1993, there were zero judges confirmed by the Democrat Congress by the end of July of that year. In 1991, 23 judges were confirmed, at a time when there were 148 vacancies--in a Congress controlled by Democrats. In 1989, only 4 judges were confirmed--a Democrat Congress. In 1987, only 17 judges confirmed--a Democrat Congress. I can go on and on. So the plain fact is, we are on track, if not ahead of previous Democrat Congresses. Well, I can say so much more, but let me just say this. Some have argued that the Republican leadership is holding up qualified nominees. Let me just point out for the record that there were a number of qualified nominees of President Bush who weren't even given the courtesy of a hearing. For instance, John G. Roberts, Jr., nominated on January 27, 1992, for the vacancy left by the now Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Among his long list of accomplishments, I note, was that he was a former law clerk to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He had worked at various high level positions at the Justice Department, including serving as Deputy Solicitor General of the United States. He was an outstanding lawyer and he wasn't even given the courtesy of a hearing. Another fine nominee was Maureen Mahoney. Keep in mind, we have had some Senators take to the floor here and try to imply that because it has been difficult to get a certain woman nominee through from time to time, that there must be something wrong with the Judiciary Committee for not doing that. Well, take the fine nominee, Maureen Mahoney, nominated for the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia on April 2, 1992. Like Mr. Roberts, she, too, was a well- respected litigator. She clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist and also served as a deputy solicitor general of the United States. Neither of these exceptionally qualified nominees were able to get a hearing on their nomination. I could go on and on. Keep in mind that we have 750 judges on the bench today, compared to in 1991-92 when we had considerably less judges at that particular time--711 and 716, compared to 750 today. Plus, in addition to the 750, we have a number of senior status judges--79 as I recall--who are hearing cases and continuing their work even though they have taken senior status. So there is no crisis. Now, having said all of this, I would like to move these nominees who are qualified as fast as we can. I would like them to come up on the floor as fast as they can be brought up. Thus far, the majority leader has virtually brought up everybody we have brought out of the committee, except a couple, and they will be brought up in the near future. Margaret Morrow will have her vote in the Senate. I will announce right here and now that I will vote for her, even though I did have some qualms as a result of her first confirmation hearing and as a result of some of the things that she had said while President of the California Bar Association, and on other occasions during the earlier years. But I have found her to be qualified and I will support her. Undoubtedly, there will be some who will not, but she deserves to have her vote on the floor. I have been assured by the majority leader that she will have her vote on the floor. I intend to argue for and on her behalf. I believe that with continued cooperation from the White House, in consultation with Senators up here--keep in mind that this isn't a one- way street. Senators have a right to be concerned about lifetime- appointed judges serving within their areas, their States. Therefore, that is why the Senate has a noble and very important role in this confirmation process. I want to commend the current White House counsel, Charles Ruff for the work he is doing in meeting personally with Senators up here and trying to resolve their difficulties. I think he has made a lot of strides, and I think that is going to be helpful over the long run. Mr. President, these are important matters. I do not believe they should be politicized. I think activist judges, whether they come from the right or left, are judges who ignore the law and just do whatever their little old visceral tendencies tell them to do. These are judges who act like superlegislatures from the bench who usurp the powers of the other two branches--coequal branches--of Government, the executive and legislative branches. These are judges who ignore the written law. These are judges who take their own political purposes to what the law should be. These are judges, a number of whom sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who have given me nothing but angst because of their activism. During this last year 28 of 29 cases on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were reversed by the Supreme Court because of judicial activism. Everybody knows that judicial activism is hard to define. But it is not hard to define when you look at some of those cases. Judges do have to try cases at first impression. And when they do, they do have to make decisions, and they have to split the baby, so to speak. But we are talking not about those cases. We are talking about judges who ignore the basic intents of the law, the basic languages of the law, who substitute their own policy preferences for what the law really is. When we see judges like that, I tell them they are undermining the Federal judiciary, they are making my job as chairman of the Judiciary Committee much more difficult, and the job of the ranking member much more difficult, and they are doing wrong things. It is important that this be brought to the attention of the American people because these judges are nominated by the President. They are confirmed for life. When they retire, they get full judgeship pay the rest of their lives. We need an independent judiciary in this country. There is no stronger voice for an independent judiciary than I. And we do need the lifetime tenure. But when judges ignore the basic laws and substitute their own policy preferences for what the law really is, they are undermining the Federal judiciary, and they are disgraces to the Federal judiciary. Frankly, it is time that they wake up and realize that. It is embarrassing to the good judges throughout this country--manifestly embarrassing to them to have some of these judges who just think they are above the law; who think they are above the Constitution; who think they are above the other two coequal branches of Government. Thank goodness there are not too many of them in the Federal judiciary. Thank good goodness we have people and a Senator willing to stand up and say, We have had enough. I happen to be one of them. Mr. President, these are important issues. The Federal judiciary can determine what happens in this country for years to come. It is important that we have people of the utmost integrity and respect for the law and respect for the rule of law and respect for the role of judging on our Federal benches. As long as I am on the Judiciary Committee, I am going to work as hard as I can to see that those are the kinds of people that we get there. I am not so sure it is that important whether they are liberal or conservative, if they will respect the role of judges and respect the rule of law. I have seen great liberal judges, and I have seen great conservative judges. And I have seen lousy ones in both categories as well. I just suggest that they respect the role of judging. Judging generally has been pretty good.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 57, S. 459.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, after consultation with the minority leader, may proceed to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 94, the continuing resolution, which will be received from the House. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the resolution and that the Senate then immediately proceed to a vote on passage of the resolution with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. HATCH. I now ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding the receipt of the continuing resolution, it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays at this time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. the Senate will begin 1 hour of debate prior to the cloture vote on the Coats amendment regarding school choice. Following that vote, the Senate will continue consideration of the D.C. appropriations bill with the hope of finishing action on that bill during Tuesday's session. The Senate will also consider the continuing resolution tomorrow as well. Therefore, additional votes will occur.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is an old saying, ``No good deed goes unpunished.'' And it applies only too well to those who tackle the job of shepherding the FDA legislation through Congress. The legislation we are debating today has its foundation in the last Congress. From my experience, I know that FDA bills are inherently contentious and complicated--and that would be true even if my friend from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, was not on the Labor Committee. Sometimes I believe that it was this FDA bill that drove our good friend Nancy Kassebaum out of the Senate. So we should all take off our hats and thank Jim Jeffords for his efforts in forging this important compromise bill. The overwhelming votes on cloture and on the motion to proceed are testament to the fact that S. 830 is a solid piece of bipartisan legislation that will benefit the American public for years to come. Every Member of this body understands only too well the necessity of having good staff. Our staffs work long hours in order to resolve very difficult issues. I commend the work of all of the staff involved in the development of this bill. I will defer to tradition and allow the chairman and ranking member to single them out when the bill achieves its final passage. However, I do want to depart from tradition for a moment to compliment the work of Senator Jeffords' point person on FDA reform, Jay Hawkins. It is always safe to bet against the passage of FDA legislation, but Jay joined the Labor Committee this past winter and hit the ground running and has helped the chairman in crafting and bringing S. 830 through the committee and onto the floor. Jay has worked hard, listened patiently to diverse viewpoints, identified and solved problems, and has exhibited sound judgment and tremendous energy throughout this process. Unfortunately for Jay and his family, on August 20, his mother, Mrs. Donna Lotz Hawkins, died after a long battle with cancer. Jay's mom was a mountain climber, ocean swimmer, and distance runner who had many friends that will deeply miss her. The loss of a parent can never be replaced. While I never met Jay's mom, as a parent I know that she must have been extremely proud of her son for all of his important work in the Senate. It is only fitting that this bill, which has so much of Jay's imprint, promises to speed the development of the next generation of cancer treatments. I just wanted to take these few moments to salute Jay and the chairman for their considerable efforts on the FDA bill, and I want to extend my condolences to the Hawkins family on the loss of his mother. I yield the floor. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Record reflect the fact that amendment No. 1182, as modified, which was adopted was a Hatch-Wyden amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Hatch-Wyden amendment, number 1182, modifies FDA's mission statement contained in S. 830. For the first time, this legislation puts into statute a mission statement for the Food and Drug Administration. Because of its important public health role, Congress needs to give FDA the proper mission. In short, the Hatch-Wyden amendment charges FDA to act in partnership with the public, scientific experts, and regulated entities as the agency performs its critical public health mission. The language of our amendment simply makes explicit what is already implicit, proper, and, in fact, necessary: that FDA should work, ``in consultation with experts in science, medicine, and public health and in cooperation with consumers, users, manufacturers, importers, packers, distributors, and retailers of regulated products.'' As longtime advocates of modernizing and reforming the FDA, Senator Wyden and I are convinced that this amendment will help FDA improve and protect the public health. Regulators can increase their effectiveness if they act more closely in concert with the public that they serve. As Vice President Gore, the leader of the administration's Reinventing Government initiative, has said: We can put the days of almighty holier-than-thou, mister- know-it-all Washington behind us. We can become partners.'' Business owners and local governments are noticing the changes, too, as the federal government becomes more of a partner and less of an adversary. Regulatory agencies are on orders to make partnership with business their standard way of operating. We have tested it long enough to know it increases compliance * * * Now we can move beyond pilot programs for partnership into the mainstream. The purpose of the Hatch-Wyden amendment is to inject this spirit of partnership right into the FDA mission statement. Giving such prominence and visibility to the idea of partnership can help the agency better fulfill its public health mission. In no way does the Hatch-Wyden amendment limit, or is intended to limit, FDA from carrying out its enforcement obligations. The Hatch- Wyden amendment does not concern itself with particular regulatory decisions, that is, product approvals, enforcement sanctions, etc., rather it simply clarifies that as part of the general manner in which the agency conducts itself, FDA should work closely with those affected by its regulatory actions. We are informed that the FDA is supportive of this amendment so long as language is added to make clear that the Secretary has discretion to see that only appropriate interactions between FDA and outsiders take place. We have incorporated this change. In order to fulfill its current statutory responsibilities FDA routinely solicits advice from dozens of standing advisory committees of outside experts and consults with its colleagues at the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and many others. Similarly, FDA works closely with consumer groups such as patient advocacy groups and various regulated entities such as manufacturers of foods, drugs, cosmetics and medical devices. In fact, S. 830 contains many particular provisions that detail partnerships between FDA and others such as the reauthorization of the user fee provisions for new drug review, and the rules that grant access to experimental drugs for patients suffering from serious or life-threatening conditions. In March 1997 testimony to the Senate Labor Committee, Dr. Michael Friedman, the highest ranking FDA official, observed: One of the themes that runs throughout the Agency's efforts to improve its performance of involving all stakeholders both in defining the problems that exist and in developing appropriate solutions. While this amendment is philosophical and exhortatory in nature, we believe this philosophy, if adopted, can achieve tangible benefits for the FDA and pubic alike. As Lead Deputy Commissioner Friedman testified: This model of public participation . . . is most clearly delineated in the procedures the Agency has promulgated for the issuance and use of Agency guidance documents. Concerns about the absence of public input on guidance documents and the inappropriate application of such guidance raised in a Citizen's Petition . . . and were the subject of a [House] hearing. . . In response to these concerns, the Agency undertook a thorough review . . . We found inconsistencies and lack of clarity, and we set about to fix it. As the FDA's testimony indicates, there is reason to believe that encouraging the agency to interact appropriately with the public can have practical benefits. We firmly believe that if the Congress formally embraces the principle of partnership in the FDA mission statement we will help create an atmosphere conducive to improving the public health. Accordingly, I hope my colleagues will support giving the FDA a 21st century mission statement.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the second amendment we are considering, No. 1183, will encourage the prompt and complete reporting of potentially vital public health information to the FDA. Essentially, my proposal codifies a rule that already applies to drugs and medical devices and makes it applicable to all FDA-regulated products. Specifically, my amendment would codify the liability disclaimer provisions that appear at 21 CFR section 803.16, for devices; 21 CFR section 314.80(l), for new drugs; and, 21 CFR 312.32(e), for investigational new drugs. My amendment is closely patterned after these three provisions of existing regulation. The public health benefit and rationale for my amendment are simple: A rule that encourages reporting to the FDA of any alleged adverse incident now and resolving liability issues later, helps the FDA achieve its public health mission. The FDA is a public health agency, not an arbiter of tort liability. That is the job of the courts. But what is important for the public health is that FDA be able to receive quickly and completely raw data pertaining to adverse experiences with products under its regulatory purview. Please understand that my amendment, like the existing regulations, is tort neutral. Nothing in my amendment, or in the existing regulations, increases or decreases an ultimate finding of liability. The Hatch amendment simply says that the mere filing of an adverse reaction report or submission of other information to FDA does not necessarily reflect an admission of fault or a finding of liability on the part of a manufacturer or the Federal Government. Of course, the actual information contained in the report may, or may not, justify a finding of liability but that is an entirely other matter. What this amendment says is that the mere filing of a report does not automatically mean anything with respect to the issue of liability. This is a public health amendment that encourages timely reporting and complete reporting to the FDA. Let me give a little background into the amendment and the existing FDA rules that it builds upon. Back in mid-1980's when FDA issued proposed and final rules governing mandatory reporting for adverse incidents with respect to medical devices, a concern arose among those subject to these new reporting requirements. In particular, there arose concern about the tight reporting timeframe for reporting deaths and serious injuries. The argument was that medical device firms should have an opportunity to conduct fully its own investigation into alleged malfunctions of its products before turning over these reports to FDA. After all, went the argument, this information which may have come from interested third parties--such as doctors and patients--could place the manufacturing firm in a precarious position vis-a-vis liability. Inevitably, some reports will contain inaccurate information but regardless of this it is clear that the FDA had an overriding public health interest in getting this information as quickly as possible to see whether a national trend was developing. The way this matter was resolved in the final medical device reporting rule was with the inclusion of language that permitted manufacturers to disclaim liability based solely on the filing of the report with the FDA. To be sure, the information contained in the report might be used to establish, or help establish, liability on the part of the manufacturer. That depends on what is in the report and the veracity of that information. What the rule says simply is that the mere filing of the legally required report in and of itself does not establish liability. One can easily imagine a case where a device malfunctioned and the MDR report does, and should properly be used to, establish liability. An example would be a case in which a heart pacemaker short circuited and failed. On the other hand, there will be occasions when required reports do not necessarily establish any fault on the part of the manufacturer. An example of this might include a case in which a medical scalpel is used as a murder weapon; an unfortunate, legally reportable event no doubt, but not one likely to establish fault on the part of the manufacturer. Building on the success of the disclaimer statement in the medical device rule, the FDA later included similar language both for approved and investigational drugs. Once again, the rule advances the FDA's public health mission by helping to get information to the FDA in a timely and complete fashion. The Hatch amendment codifies the basic regulation that now applies to mandatory reports that device and drug manufacturers now must make and establishes this basic principle of ``report now, resolve liability issues later'' for all products under the FDA's regulatory domain. This would include products like foods, cosmetics, and dietary supplements, as well as drugs and devices. So, I have drafted the amendment to cover situations where there are no rigorous mandatory reporting requirements, such as those which now govern drugs and devices. For example, we have heard a lot in the press recently about the Chesapeake Bay outbreak of Pfiesteria. Obviously, it would be in the public interest for the Government to have reports about the incidence of this toxic microbe. That is something we would want to encourage. I believe that it is more likely this information, even sketchy third-party, unverified reports, would be transmitted to FDA if this disclaimer clearly applied in this situation. What is good policy for drugs and devices, is also good policy for foods, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and other products under FDA's jurisdiction. The Hatch amendment embraces the ``report now/resolve liability later'' rule that is already in place by regulation for drugs and medical devices and applies this principle for all FDA-regulated products, and further applies the provision both to mandatory and voluntary reports. This is a consumer-friendly, FDA-friendly, tort-neutral provision and I urge its adoption. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters in support of these two amendments from Brian H. Moss, president of the Utah Life Science Industries Association, and Alan F. Holmer, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, be printed in the Record.