Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a matter related to the pending legislation in that it concerns a study commissioned by the Bureau of Land Management. As my colleagues know, last September, President Clinton invoked the authority granted under the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah. The total acreage contained within the new monument is 1.7 million acres, or approximately an area the size of the states of Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island combined. This action, undertaken behind closed doors and without any input from the public, including the Utah congressional delegation or Utah's governor, has caused considerable upheaval throughout my state. I say this not because we are opposed to the designation of national monuments, but because of the process utilized to designate the monument and because of the short and long term impacts to the local communities and their economies which, unfortunately, are currently unknown. Those of us in Congress are working with the State of Utah and the Clinton Administration to develop a management plan for the monument that meets the needs of the managing agent--the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)--the state, and the surrounding communities. I am grateful that the report accompanying this year's Interior appropriations bill includes language to address these needs, and I wish to publicly thank Senator Gorton for his efforts. At the same time, I am concerned about the atmosphere existing in my state as it relates to the new monument. The manner in which the monument has been designated has created a high level of mistrust among certain parties. Unfortunately, there is considerable disinformation circulating throughout the affected areas that compounds this problem and fans the fire of antifederal sentiment. To be honest, I can hardly blame them. A major torpedo was launched directly at these rural communities. If such an abuse of federal executive power ever occurs again, it will be too soon. Yet, while the citizens of my state remain angry and disillusioned regarding this entire episode, they understand it is fait accompli. As I anticipate the planning for the future of this new monument, including the preservation of Utah's existing rights as promised last year by the President and the equitable exchange of state trust lands captured within the monument's boundaries, it is critical that an environment of trust be created among all parties involved in this process. That environment must be established first by ensuring that the basis for decisionmaking is accurate and comprehensive. Earlier this year, the BLM released a study prepared by BXG, Inc., a private contractor, entitled ``Kaiparowits Plateau--Coal Supply and Demand.'' This study discussed the marketability of the coal reserves of the Kaiparowits Plateau, which are located entirely within the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument, and which are technically unreachable because of the monument's existence. Personally, I believe it is an abuse of the Antiquities Act to designate a monument simply to prevent a coal mine from being developed, but that is what has happened in this case and one of the primary reasons why the President signed this order acted in the fashion he did almost one year ago. Several pending lawsuits will determine if, indeed, this has been an unwarranted extension of the Antiquity Act's authority. In the meantime, the BXG study concludes that the Kaiparowits coal is of poorer quality and higher cost than current reserves located in the Wasatch Plateau and the Book Cliffs. As a result, they conclude that Kaiparowits coal will have little or no demand until at least the year 2020. These conclusions by BXG, and as far as I know, supported by the BLM, are erroneous and cannot go unchallenged. The Director of the Utah Geological Survey recently analyzed this study and found that BXG used numerous invalid assumptions as it prepared its study. For example, estimates of recoverable coal reserves in the Kaiparowits Plateau were based on recovery amounts in the Appalachian coalfield, a region with vastly different geology and history of operation. Kaiparowits coal recovery would be at least twice that of the Appalachian region. Also, the study assumes an average coal quality for Kaiparowits coal instead of the quality of the coal that would actually be mined. The quality of coal produced from Kaiparowits would be comparable to compliance coal currently mined in central Utah. And, the productivity for a Kaiparowits mine was based on the average productivity rate for all western long wall mines during 1990-95. Historically, Utah underground mines are the most productive mines in the U.S., and the nature of the Kaiparowits deposits would likely make the new mines more productive than any others in the region. Finally, the thick flat nature of Kaiparowits coal seams and their shallow overburden would lower costs for development, not increase them, as assumed by BXG. There are other deficiencies in the BXG study that have been identified which I will refrain from mentioning here. In sum, energy experts for the State of Utah using assumptions that are more appropriate for the resource characteristics and market conditions of the Kaiparowits Plateau coal fields have demonstrated that coal mined from the Kaiparowits Plateau is of sufficient quantity and quality, and would likely have production costs that would make it an economically viable source of future supply for many utility and industrial markets in the West. What we have here may be a disagreement of what the facts mean among experts.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to praise my good friend Senator Slade Gorton for his efforts in putting together this important legislation. It is particularly important to my state, where over 70 percent of our land is owned or managed by the Federal government. My colleagues will recall that one year ago, President Clinton stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon in Arizona and designated 1.7 million acres of Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Since that time, we have been discussing the future of this monument and what the short and long term impacts will be to my state and the surrounding communities. There are many questions and concerns that remain to be addressed. But, I am confident that during the next two years, the Bureau of Land Management will develop a management plan which properly and effectively addresses these matters. For this reason, I am pleased that H.R. 2107, the Interior Appropriations bill, includes $6.4 million for the planning, management, and operation of the new monument. Mr. President, regardless of where public opinion eventually comes down on this new monument and the controversial way in which it was created, we should not forget the important lessons we have learned from the experience. When citizens are deliberately excluded from government deliberations that so directly impact their homes, communities, schools, and families, damage is done to the very institution of democracy. This is what happened prior to last September 18. Unfortunately, the message received by the people of Southern Utah last year was that the federal government knows best and has the right to impose its narrow vision without regard to those most affected. I am confident that we can go forward from here and begin the process of rebuilding the trust we lost one year ago. A vital part of this rebuilding process is the inclusion of those parties directly affected from the monument's designation in the development of the monument's management plan. The Committee Report accompanying H.R. 2107 directs the BLM to continue its cooperative efforts with state and local governments and the citizens of Utah in the plan's development. While the Report gives specific and practical direction to the BLM, the language also provides the agency with the flexibility its needs to address the unknowns that will invariably arise in the early stages of this sweeping process to develop a management plan. I would like to state for the record that I am pleased with the progress made so far by the BLM in working with the local communities. I am particularly glad to see that collaborative efforts have been formed between the federal agencies and the local communities involved, specifically Kane and Garfield counties, where the monument is located. The cooperative agreements that we renegotiated earlier this year are a good start. They provide for continued local participation in the development of the monument's management plan as well as in the actual delivery of visitor services. Mr. President, we have learned in the West that the best manner to implement successful land policies is to involve the communities that are directly affected by them. Wherever possible, we should proceed in the spirit of a partnership between the affected local governments and the national government. This is especially true with the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, where many of the local citizens have their entire lives invested in this region. They want to see the Monument developed; they want to see it succeed. They deserve a seat at the planning table, and I am pleased the BLM is sensitive to this issue. In the end, the residents of the area will be providing the necessary services to visitors. In closing, I would like to commend the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, and especially my colleague, Senator Bennett, for their diligent efforts on the Appropriations Committee to ensure that the necessary funding and direction will be there to help make the monument a success for all involved. I yield the floor. coal in the kaiparowits coal basin

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleagues for their responses. allegheny national forest (USFS)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me say to my good friend from Washington, Senator Gorton, and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, that it seems to me, in light of the scientific disagreements between the recently conducted BXG findings and the ongoing data collection and analysis by the Utah Geological Survey, there is sufficient reason to revisit the BXG study regarding the Kaiparowits Coal Basin located in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Do my colleagues from Washington and West Virginia agree that the significant disparate findings of these studies warrant additional review before the BXG work is accepted as fact?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Interior appropriations bill, H.R. 2107, I want to comment briefly about a small but very important provision in the bill that will provide $100,000 in Federal money to renovate the Montezuma Creek Health Clinic in Montezuma Creek, Ut. The Montezuma Creek Clinic is located in the rural community of Montezuma Creek in the southeastern part of Utah in San Juan County. This community serves as the population center for the eastern portion of the Utah Navajo region which is home to more than 6,000 Navajos who live on and around the Navajo Reservation. This area also has one of the most critical health care shortages in Utah and, in fact, in the entire region of the western United States. Located in the heart of this community is the Montezuma Creek Health Clinic which was initially operated by the Indian Health Service [IHS] to serve the Navajo population. Today, the clinic principally serves the 6,000 Navajos as well as the non-Indian population who live in southeast Utah and northeast Arizona. The clinic is presently operated in a cooperative effort between the Utah Navajo trust fund as the owners of the clinic facility, the San Juan County Health Care Services as the county provider of health services, and the IHS which provides contract support services. It is ironic that there is only one IHS facility located in the entire State of Utah when neighboring States have as many as a dozen or more facilities each. The only IHS facility in Utah is an outpatient facility at Fort Duchesne which is located over 350 miles away. It is obvious that the health care needs for this segment of the Utah Native American population are greatly under-served. For over 3 years, I have worked with the IHS, the Utah Navajo trust fund, the State of Utah, the Aneth Chapter of the Navajo Nation, San Juan County and many other concerned parties in an effort to improve the delivery of health care for the residents of this community. Unfortunately, it has not been an easy task. The Federal budgetary pressures on facility construction projects within the IHS budget have prevented federal dollars for the construction of a new Facility at Montezuma Creek. Moreover, the current IHS facility's priority list--which includes construction funding for projects on the priority list--has as a practical matter precluded the addition of new facilities for Utah. This is very unfortunate for the community of Montezuma Creek. It seems that Utah has always been short-changed when it comes to IHS and IHS- related health care services in our State. And, I would remind my colleagues that the health status of Utah Navajos living in San Juan County is lower than the Utah Native American population in general which, overall, is even lower than the Native American population as a whole. In spite of the difficulties, the Montezuma Creek Clinic continues to operate and provide life saving health care services to the community albeit in the facility that is clearly outdated and in need of renovation. Although the facility is functional, it is in poor condition and inadequate for the provision of needed services to the 65 to 110 patients served on a daily basis. In addition, there is a need to bring the facility into compliance with modern building codes for medical facilities. Accordingly, I am delighted that the Interior bill contains Federal funds in the amount of $100,000 for design and construction purposes in renovating the existing facility. Moreover, these funds will be matched dollar for dollar by the State of Utah and the Utah Navajo trust fund to collectively bring the total to $300,000. It is my hope that the Federal commitment of $100,000 will also prompt private contributions from those national corporations operating in San Juan County. I believe with the collective support and backing of all parties we will be able to set in motion much needed improvements in health care for the residents of Montezuma Creek. I also want to thank my good friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett who, as a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, was extremely helpful in securing these funds for this project. Moreover, let me thank the distinguished chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, Senator Gorton, for agreeing to this modest request and including it in the bill. I must say that I am delighted we are finally able to help this clinic. A great deal of time and effort has been devoted by many people in securing both the needed money and the cooperative arrangements for carrying-out this project. In addition to Senator Bennett and Senator Gorton, I want to thank Judy Edwards with the Utah Department of Health, Ed Alter who serves as Chairman of the Utah Navajo trust fund in which the combined funding will be deposited, Mark Maryboy with the Aneth Chapter of the Navajo Nation--Utah--and Donna Singer with the Montezuma Creek Clinic. I look forward to working with these individuals and others in the months ahead on the long needed renovation of Montezuma Creek Clinic.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I am proud today to introduce--along with my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Abraham, Leahy, and DeWine--the Mother Teresa fee waiver bill of 1997. While daily newscasts focus our attention on the scourge of senseless crime and deadly drugs in our country and around the world, Mother Teresa's death last week focused the world's attention on the simple good works that are all too often overlooked. As the flag of India was draped over Mother Teresa, an observer commented ``She now belongs to the State.'' I think it is more accurate to say that Mother Teresa has and will always belong to the world. In an era where the phrase ``global economy'' has become commonplace, Mother Teresa represented a ``global morality.'' Her good works, and those of so many other religious organizations around the world are not, and should not be, confined by national borders and boundaries. Shortly before her death, Mother Teresa personally sought a waiver of the fees charged to her missionaries seeking to enter this country on a temporary basis to help the poorest of the poor and the sickest of the sick in our own cities. Of course, she was absolutely right. We should give thanks to these kind and giving persons who travel to foreign lands for no other purpose than to give of themselves to help the neediest in those lands. Instead, we've been charging them. It is an absurd situation that needs to be remedied. I am, therefore, pleased today to stand with my colleagues in introducing a simple and straightforward bill that would waive the fees for persons coming here temporarily for the purpose of engaging in charitable activities to help the needy. This bill is but one small but fitting and timely tribute to Mother Teresa who stood under 5 feet but whose goodness and righteousness made her tower among us. I look forward to the Senate's swift action on this measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I am proud today to introduce--along with my colleagues Senators Kennedy, Abraham, Leahy, and DeWine--the Mother Teresa fee waiver bill of 1997. While daily newscasts focus our attention on the scourge of senseless crime and deadly drugs in our country and around the world, Mother Teresa's death last week focused the world's attention on the simple good works that are all too often overlooked. As the flag of India was draped over Mother Teresa, an observer commented ``She now belongs to the State.'' I think it is more accurate to say that Mother Teresa has and will always belong to the world. In an era where the phrase ``global economy'' has become commonplace, Mother Teresa represented a ``global morality.'' Her good works, and those of so many other religious organizations around the world are not, and should not be, confined by national borders and boundaries. Shortly before her death, Mother Teresa personally sought a waiver of the fees charged to her missionaries seeking to enter this country on a temporary basis to help the poorest of the poor and the sickest of the sick in our own cities. Of course, she was absolutely right. We should give thanks to these kind and giving persons who travel to foreign lands for no other purpose than to give of themselves to help the neediest in those lands. Instead, we've been charging them. It is an absurd situation that needs to be remedied. I am, therefore, pleased today to stand with my colleagues in introducing a simple and straightforward bill that would waive the fees for persons coming here temporarily for the purpose of engaging in charitable activities to help the needy. This bill is but one small but fitting and timely tribute to Mother Teresa who stood under 5 feet but whose goodness and righteousness made her tower among us. I look forward to the Senate's swift action on this measure.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join with my colleagues in celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month. Since 1968, we have formally recognized and celebrated the tremendous contributions of Hispanic-Americans to the history, strength, security, and development of our great nation. This year, we once again embark on this month-long celebration. It is right to honor more than five centuries of contributions by Hispanics to the development not only of our great nation, but of the Western Hemisphere and the world. As I look back on the history of my own State I see the many great contributions Hispanics have made to its development and progress. It was Father Escalante who first chartered the territory of what is now Utah and made way for the major trade routes that followed. It was through the determination, sweat, and dedication of Mexican-Americans and other Hispanics, working alongside nonHispancs that our railroads, great steel plants, and mining industries were established, making our State competitive in national and global markets. And our State is home to many great Hispanic-Americans, past and present, including Antonio Amador, former Vice-chair of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board; Judge Andrew Valdez, Maria Garciaz, the executive director of Neighorhood Housing Services, Inc.; and John Medina, chair of Utah's Coalition of La Raza. My experience has shown me that Hispanics are a strong and proud people, loyal, patriotic, courageous, and dedicated to their families, their country, and their communities. Hispanics have a strong work ethic and tremendous faith in the American dream. They have made great contributions to the advancement of all people in every area, to music, the arts, science, engineering, mathematics, and government. I am thrilled to see so many wonderful Hispanic role models help light the way for Hispanic youth to attain the American Dream. Jaime Escalante, the Garfield High School mathematics teacher, helped an unprecedented number of Hispanic students prepare for and pass the advanced placement tests in calculus. And, Amalia V. Betanzos, president of the John V. Lindsay Wilcat Academcy, an alternative high school with tremendous success rates, has helped us all to see what faith and encouragement can do for the soul. Such great recording artists as Los Lobos, the late Selena, Freddy Fender, and Gloria Estefan have brought joyous latin rhythms into our homes and our hearts. Great authors, like Luis Valdez, Victor Villasenor, and Nicholasa Mohr, and great screen artists like the late Raul Julia, Andy Garcia, Jimmy Smits, Edward James Olmos, and Rita Moreno have entertained while they inspired us. And the leadership and foresight of Permanent United Nations Representative and former Congressman Bill Richardson, and Carmen Zapata, director and cofounder of the Billingual Foundation of the Arts, helps pave the way for our children as they enter the 21st century. And, of course, Nancy Lopez, Chi Chi Rodriguez, Pedro Morales, Gigi Fernandez, and Trent Dimas are but five of the great athletes who have shared with us the pride and success born of great sacrifice and a hunger for perfection. We are proud of their accomplishments. It is important that, when they win, all America cheers. But for all their contributions to the strength of our Nation, many Hispanics have not yet fully shared in the dream. The national dropout for Hispanics exceeds 30 percent--for nonHispanics the rate is 11 percent, and for blacks, the rate is 12 percent--the highest for any ethnic group, and their educational attainment levels are among the lowest for any ethnic group. Hispanic children are most likely to be among America's poor, even though Hispanic males have the highest labor participation rates. Hispanics are most likely to lack health insurance and access to regular health care, yet suffer disproportionately from certain diseases. We must do better. As the youngest and fastest growing minority community in the Nation, Hispanics must share equally in the benefits and opportunities of this great Nation, so that our country might grow stronger and compete in global markets. For this reason, in 1987, Senator John Chafee and I established the U.S. Senate Republican Conference Task Force on Hispanic Affairs, which now numbers 24 Senators. The task force provides a unique forum for Hispanic leaders to raise awareness and support on the national level for key issues facing the Hispanic community in the areas of education, economic development, employment, and health. The task force is aided by a bipartisan, volunteer advisory committee, for whose service we are very grateful. We have made great strides and we continue to progress. But I long for the day when a task force on Hispanic affairs no longer exists because there is no longer a need; because Hispanics will have succeeded in full measure in joining the ranks of the public officials, the managers, the CEO's and presidents of corporations, the teachers, doctors, lawyers, the U.S. Senators, Congressmen, and Presidents of the United States. As we gather this month to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, let us celebrate the accomplishments of this year's Hispanic Heritage Awards: Andy Garcia, Nancy Lopez, Amalia V. Betanzos, Nicholasa Mohr, Bill Richardson, and Carmen Zapata. And, let's also give a nod to those many, many other Hispanic- Americans, whose daily contributions often go unrecognized, but whose legacy continues to demonstrate the viability of the American dream.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I hear these cries of hysteria all the time on judges. Let's be honest about it. So far this year we processed out of committee 24 nominees. Fifteen have been confirmed. Three will be left after this, and six are pending in the committee. We will have another hearing within a week on another five or six, and another hearing after that. So we are moving ahead quite well. Let's understand something. There are more sitting judges today than there were throughout virtually all of the Reagan and Bush administrations, as of right now. As of August 10, we had 742 active Federal judges. Let's just be honest about it. In the 101st Congress and the 102d Congress by contrast, when a Democrat controlled Congress was processing President Bush's nominees, there were only 711 and 716 active judges. The fact of matter is that we have not had a White House processing these people very fast. And there are some who have problems. Mr. President, we received 13 new nominees just before the August recess, and a few more just a short while ago. They have not even been processed yet. We are doing our best. All I can say is that there is room here to realize that we are doing a fairly good job. We can do a better job. But the White House has not been doing its job in a full effect. And, frankly, we still have something like 53 total pending out of the 98 vacancies.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Many of us have been reading the excellent series in the Washington Post this week about the changing face of the AIDS virus. The article on Monday, if I am correct, highlighted the dramatic gains that have been made with new AIDS therapies, particularly the so-called triple drug therapy or cocktails which seem to have so much promise, at least in the short term. We are all keeping our fingers crossed. Could you tell me how the bill addresses this issue?

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator for this information. It is clear that we are all going to have to work harder--both the government and the private sector--in making AIDS medications available to those who need them. It is one of the modern paradoxes that the new AIDS drugs can defer an HIV infected individual's progression to disability. Yet, it may only be that the individual can get financial assistance when disabled, a situation we would clearly like to prevent. I am aware of a Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America study which indicated that, as of December 1, there were 122 medicines in testing for AIDS. The cost, which the Senator alluded to, is astounding. One company spent more than $1 billion over a 10-year period to develop a protease inhibitor. American technological gains are nothing short than miraculous, but we all have to recognize they are expensive as well. I am heartened by the Senator's remarks about funding for the State ADAP programs. I am fully supportive of your efforts and I thank you for your substantial interest in this area. rural health transition grants

Mr. HATCH. Would the distinguished chairman yield for a question?

Mr. HATCH. As the original author of the Ryan White CARE Act with Senator Kennedy in 1990, I am extremely pleased to hear of the committee's action to provide such a high level of support for the CARE Act. There is no doubt we have come a long way in the past 7 years. A good deal of that progress has been made because you, Senator Specter, have had the foresight and the courage to provide the funding HHS needs to operate the program. And I hope all of our colleagues recognize that fact. But, despite our best efforts at both research and services, AIDS is still a serious problem in the United States. The most promising development we have had in years are the protease inhibitors and the combination therapies which are giving thousands of people literally a new lease on life. In fact, as you have noted, we are now seeing lower mortality rates for individuals for the first time in the history of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Let me ask you one final question. Are you satisfied that the committee's recommendation for the ADAP program will be sufficient?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I respect the motivation of my colleagues who are offering amendments on the proposed global tobacco settlement tonight. As we all know, the issues surrounding this settlement prove easy to frame, but difficult to resolve. I have been listening carefully to this debate, and the timing is very interesting to me. Here we are now in September. Everybody would like to see this session end sometime near the end of October, or early in November, at the latest. But as far as the proposed global tobacco settlement goes, people around here seem to be assuming it is going to happen when, really, basically, nothing is being done. Yet, tonight we are making arguments and amendments on the assumption that something is going to get enacted. I would suggest to my colleagues, though, that this discussion is premature. We do not have all the details of the agreement. No one, that is no one, does, not even any of the parties to the agreement has final legislative language. We have not even reached a discussion in this body of the most general question we have to answer before we decide if the Senate will consider the global tobacco settlement: do we want to further regulate the use and sale of tobacco products in order to protect the public health and bring a degree of accountability and finality to the surge in tobacco-related litigation. More precisely, the question we face during the remaining weeks of this session is whether the global tobacco settlement proposal should be implemented and, after we make that decision, then amendments would be in order. Mr. President, I don't think anybody in this body despises the use of tobacco more than I. Frankly, I think tobacco use is wrong, it is deleterious to health, and it basically can ruin people's lives. There is no question that--in the eyes of almost every research scientists--tobacco use causes cancer. There is no question that it causes cardiovascular, respiratory, and other similar diseases, and still we treat it as though it is a substance that has every right to exist. As long as it does have the right to exist as a legitimate business in this country--and I believe that it will continue to be available-- then it seems to me that we have to resolve these problems in an amicable, decent manner that is in the best interests of this country. As I see it, there is not much happening on the proposed tobacco settlement. There is no use kidding ourselves, the $368 billion settlement proposed by the attorneys general and most of the tobacco industry--all except Liggett & Myers--as I understand it, is an interesting proposal. There is no question, that offers a substantial sum of money. It is to be paid over a 25-year period and, if my calculations are correct, the tobacco companies will be able to write off about a third of the cost of that settlement at the expense of the taxpayers. There are many, many issues that have to be resolved on the tobacco settlement if we are going to have one at all. Let me name just a few of them, in no particular order of importance. No. 1 would be an evaluation of the totality of the settlement. That is, as I have said, whether this Congress should seize the window of opportunity presented by the tobacco proposal which offers the possibility of significant advances in public health and liability reform. Are the public health gains it offers something we wish to pursue? Are the legal reforms it contains sound public policy? Are the two in appropriate balance? No. 2 would be whether the costs associated with implementation of this agreement should be treated for tax purposes as ordinary business expenses? Third would be the appropriate role of the Food and Drug Administration in the regulation of tobacco products. This is an extremely complicated issue. It involves an evaluation of the FDA's current legal authority, the regulations FDA has promulgated on youth tobacco use and the Greensboro court decision, and the future authority called for in the agreement. The fourth issue is an examination of the constitutional limitations posed by an agreement which some believe abrogates their first amendment, free speech rights. The fifth issue is what I call the ``show me the money'' issue. I challenge anyone to undertake an exhaustive review of the 68-page proposed settlement and then delineate clearly how the $368 billion in funds will be allocated. For example, many participants in the agreement have said there are funds for children's health. On what page? It simply isn't there. And even for the amounts stipulated in the agreement, there is no definition of how the funds will be divided among states or parties to the agreement. The sixth issue is a consideration of civil justice concerns, such as changing traditional plaintiffs' rights to seek redress through the courts. The seventh issue is how those who were not parties to the original agreement will be treated. One company, for example, Liggett & Myers, has now signed agreements with about 25 States and all of the Castano class members. How should those agreements be factored into the settlement? The eighth issue is related. Should there be an accommodation for those who manufacture, sell, or use vending machines or for others who have been engaged in legal businesses and have made a livelihood with products or services that might not be continued after a settlement is finalized? Here's another important issue. The ninth issue we need to address is that of documents disclosure. Some in this body have called for full disclosure of all tobacco-related documents before any settlement is considered. Others believe we will never get to a settlement if we become enmeshed in an investigation of abuses extending back over 30 years. One of the greatest advantages of having a tobacco settlement is the public benefits that may derive from it for our children and indeed our society as a whole. As we all know, 3,000 kids start smoking a day--teenagers, that is-- 1,000 of whom will become addicted over their lifetimes. These numbers are only going up, and it is no secret that part of the reason is that the tobacco industry has basically enticed these kids into smoking. Without a tobacco agreement, we will not be able to put meaningful resources into solving these teen tobacco use problems. It is questionable whether we could ever provide the same nationwide incentives or resources to not only slow down teenage smoking, but perhaps end it forever. And since we are debating the National Institutes of Health funding bill, I might mention that without the tobacco settlement, we won't be able to have as many funds as we would otherwise have for biomedical research. It is also apparent that if we break the cigarette companies, we are not going to be able to have 25 years of continual multibillions of dollars paid into a settlement agreement system for the benefit of our society as a whole. There are so many other issues that I hesitate to even begin. But the fact is the proposed settlement is complex, it is difficult, and Congress basically has done nothing about it since it arrived here on June 20. It is true we have held three hearings in the Judiciary Committee. They have been interesting hearings. They have enlightened us to a degree. We think we now know the issues involved. We have listened to the attorneys general. We have listened to people representing the tobacco industry. We have listened to constitutional experts. We have listened to health care specialists. And, frankly, we are going to hold some more hearings on this. But it seems to me that we need to address the proposed tobacco settlement with a timetable and a process that will literally cause it to be done. We aren't there yet, and piecemeal amendments on an appropriations bill won't get us to that point. If the tobacco settlement is not completed by the end of this particular session, I fear we may never have a tobacco settlement. If that is so, we will lose this one-time opportunity to help our children and perhaps to help keep millions of kids from ever starting to smoke or chew tobacco. If we lose that opportunity, it will be pathetic. It is no secret that the tobacco industry has virtually won every case but one in the history of litigation in this matter. In that one particular case it was a $750,000 verdict. If I understand it correctly, that is on appeal. And that will be dragged out for another 10 years by very, very good lawyers who are very, very capable of doing exactly that. So, if we do not move ahead and we don't solve these problems, we are going to find ourselves in a morass where we are right back to business as usual, and the tobacco companies will be making billions of dollars at the expense of the society at large with no help to our young people in this society and not much money for research other than what we can generate through congressional appropriations. In the end, we lose all of the advantages that we could achieve. In fact, there are several things which must occur if we are even going to try to move forward to an agreement, or move an agreement forward. First, the President of the United States has to get off the dime and start leading on this issue. In July, we heard the President would speak out a few days before his planned August 15 vacation. It didn't happen. Earlier this week, we heard the President was supposed to speak out about the settlement this Thursday. Let's speak the plain truth here. Without the President's leadership, the tobacco agreement can't happen. The proposed settlement was announced on June 20. At that time President Clinton called the concessions attained by negotiators from the tobacco industry ``unimaginable.'' He also tasked top executive branch officials with the job of reviewing the settlement, consulting with the public health community, and advising him on whether or not this agreement adequately protects the Nation's public health interests. Eleven weeks have passed with no final word at all from the White House on what, if any, changes the President wishes to see. Almost daily we hear, or so it seems, rumors that the President will speak-- only to find out that he does not. The President's silence in this area speaks volumes. It has been speculated in the press that the President will say that the level of funding needs to be increased, that the FDA's regulatory authority needs to be strengthened, and that there needs to be greater accountability on the part of the tobacco companies if the reduction targets are not met, especially among the Nation's teenagers. But this is only speculation at best. Should President Clinton support the idea of moving forward, he needs to tell our American people, and he needs to reveal what changes, if any, he deems to be necessary. We need the President to speak out and tell us precisely where he stands and whether he believes there should be an agreement, and an agreement this year. We need him to help us to understand where we are going on this issue. We need to know how much political capital he is willing to expend on this issue, and we need to know whether he is really serious about solving these problems. With 3,000 children starting to smoke each and every day, I don't believe the Clinton administration can afford to delay this any longer. Second, I call on parties to the agreement to resolve ambiguities and to help produce legislative language agreed upon by all parties so that Congress can be crystal clear about the details of the proposal and therefore can plan and judge it accordingly. If the President chooses to take advantage of this one-time opportunity, the parties to the agreement have a responsibility to settle ambiguous points within the settlement agreement and provide the Congress with their version of the settlement in legislative form. Today, I am challenging the parties to the agreement to do so, to provide us with the details of the agreement beyond the 68-page prospectus. I, for one, am willing to look at it. I think the other committee chairmen who are involved are willing to look at it as well. We are willing to see if we can mold together an agreement that literally will be in the best interests of the public at large. Let me add that several weeks ago I sent the proposed agreement to legislative counsel and asked them to try to draft a bill based on the language of the settlement. We found that these expert draftsmen were presented with more questions than answers. So the parties need to get together and help us to formulate the legislative language. I am calling upon them to do that. If there are problems or ambiguities that have to be resolved, we will help them with that. Third, the parties who negotiated this settlement presented it to Congress must also produce others willing to champion this unprecedented public health opportunity. Beyond the several attorneys general, the plaintiffs bar, and public health groups, few have seized on the settlement as a viable option. Major legislation such as the settlement envisions has never been approved absent widespread support. And we aren't there yet, which is another reason why these amendments we are considering tonight are premature. The fact is we will not be there without the President and without an awful lot of hard work on the part of all of us here. Fourth and finally, we must consider how we resolve this issue of document production. The proposed agreement provides that previously undisclosed documents be publicly disclosed through a national tobacco document depository open to the public and located centrally here in Washington, DC. These documents would include documents from the files of the tobacco companies, including those relating to internal health research, documents that we have not been able to get up until now. Any documents already produced in the attorney general actions would be immediately deposited, and additional existing documents would be placed in the depository within 3 months of the enactment of the bill. Despite this provision for open disclosure, some in Congress--those who question the settlement most--have proposed immediate disclosure of these documents. The documents in the Minnesota case alone brought by Attorney General Hubert Humphrey, who has testified before our committee, amount to 33 million documents. Such massive disclosure is neither practicable nor possible in the presettlement arena. Naturally there are attorneys all over this country who believe that the settlement will never make it through and they are trying to look out for their clients. Internal documents which have not yet been released could be invaluable in such suits. But the greater good demands that we look at an agreement which could bring us tremendous public health advances, and it appears that agreement could actually be hindered by an exhaustive investigation of internal tobacco documents. I can't blame the cigarette companies for not wanting to produce the documents in advance--although I cannot in any way condone some of their past reprehensible behavior. I simply question whether it is the appropriate role of Congress to conduct discovery for private litigants. I think we are all indebted to the negotiators for stimulating a potentially fruitful public discussion on the public health issues attendant to tobacco. I commend the States attorneys general, especially those involved in the class action litigation. I commend the public health representatives who have been speaking out, and the representatives of the tobacco industry for advancing the ball in a meaningful direction. The climate has been created for the Congress and the public to have opportunities to make significant strides on this whole set of tobacco issues. It is clear that the Senate is only in the beginning stages of this process. Five congressional hearings having been held, and more are planned. I urge my colleagues to let the process work. Let us move a proposal in the Judiciary Committee. Many of my colleagues here tonight are members of that committee, and we will have ample opportunity for full discussion. I just have to doubt if this is the right time and the place, on the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, to be raising these issues that could blow the settlement out of the water. I personally believe we ought to move that settlement forward. My study has led me to conclude it is a one-time opportunity to do something for our kids in this society. It is a one-time opportunity to make significant advances in biomedical research, And it is surely a one-time opportunity to have the tobacco companies fully cooperate in providing all of their internal research for the benefit of the public health at large. There are so many benefits that could derive from a decent settlement, if we can formulate one and keep the parties together. It is time now for the President to speak out. He was supposed to speak out this Thursday. Now they have put it off for another week, knowing that every week that it is put off it is less likely that we can pass something in this Congress. Let me make a prediction. I believe that we are going to lose this historic opportunity if we do not seize the opportunity, bite the bullet, do the work that is necessary, get the involvement of the companies, the attorneys general and others who are interested in this process, and come up with a package, that literally, will realize all of the public health gains I have been talking about, and more. It is no secret that the tobacco industry may not proceed with the settlement if the North Carolina case, which does indicate that FDA does have some right to regulate in the area of nicotine, is overturned on appeal. Many legal experts say that the Greensboro case is iffy at best and that it could very easily be overturned on appeal. In fact, I think there are many good arguments for overturning it on appeal based on present law and our understanding of present law. But let me admonish my colleagues that if that case is overturned on appeal, I am not so sure that the tobacco industry is going to proceed with a settlement anyway, because they might just continue to take the risk that juries in the respective States will almost invariably find that those who smoked all of their lives assumed the risk, or were contributorily negligent in doing so. That is why they have won these cases in large measure right up to today. I was in Pittsburgh, PA, when the first anticigarette tobacco case was brought, Pritchett versus Liggett & Myers, by the then fabled McArdle law firm. Jimmy McArdle, was one of the leaders, if not the leader in the whole country, in paving the way for tobacco litigation. He scared the daylights out of tobacco companies, but lost, one of few times that great lawyer did not prevail in court. So I have watched this litigation for all of these years. If that case in North Carolina is lost, we will lose a major incentive for the tobacco companies to come to the table. Or let's put it another way. If Minnesota Attorney General Hubert Humphrey wins his case, the tobacco companies may very well decide not to go forward anyway. Or, conversely, if General Humphrey loses, what is the incentive for the tobacco companies to stay in the deal? It would be a message to every other attorney general in the country. Already they have decided to fight right to the end the case brought by the Attorney General of Texas. What is the incentive to continue? Right now we have an opportunity for all sides to put something together. The attorneys general have put inordinate amounts of time and effort into this matter, and there is an obligation on our part to try to resolve it. But without Presidential leadership, it is very unlikely that we can resolve it. If we have the President's endorsement, then I think we have to have leadership here in the Congress to move forward, and to do what is right. No matter what we do, it is going to be difficult because there are those in the Senate and in the House who resent anything done to the tobacco industry. And there are those who feel that anything the tobacco industry wants should be blocked. My feeling is that the benefits that could come from a legitimately and well put together tobacco settlement clearly outweigh the desire of some to just kill the industry, when in fact they don't have the tools to do so. There is no doubt in my mind that the $368 billion figure has to change. We have to give serious consideration to the tax implications, as some in this body have suggested. We have got to have some clear-cut approach toward FDA authority. We have to do a number of things that literally will make that settlement more acceptable. And we have to bring all sides and all parties together, and we have to bring the weight of the Federal Government, the weight of the administration, the weight of the legislative branch of Government, and ultimately the weight of the courts into bringing this all together so that the public at large can benefit greatly. Personally, I am willing to devote substantial effort toward that end. I know other committee chairmen, who have various jurisdictional areas in this matter, are willing to work on it as well. In all honesty, we are not going to resolve this by bits and pieces in amendments to legislation like this. With regard to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Illinois, let's face it, the language in the Balanced Budget Act was pretty ambiguous. I see any way that language could be binding; it is too ambiguous. The language, in my opinion, is not really going to require any tobacco settlement to pay for child health insurance. Nevertheless, it would be nice to clarify that matter, and we could do that in a true tobacco settlement. With regard to attorneys' fees, I share some of the view of the distinguished Senator from Alabama. I agree that there should be a limitation. This should not be a ripoff situation where we have a feeding frenzy on attorney's fees. On the other hand, there are attorneys who have worked long and hard and spent a lot of money and a lot of effort and time, and without whom the settlement would not have been brought to this point. They do deserve some compensation for that. I think we were all well aware that the issue of attorneys' fees is going to have to be solved in any tobacco settlement that happens. I do not believe we can easily solve tonight the problem that has been raised by the Sessions amendment that would retroactively limit attorney fees which have already been a matter of contract between States and private counsels. But we can solve the problem as to how much of this money that actually has to be put up over 25 years is going to go for attorneys' fees. That is something we are going to have to work to solve. It needs to be done fairly; it needs to be done with wisdom, as with all other aspects of this agreement, in totality. The way to do it isn't by nit-picking or just by amendment after amendment in the Chamber. We could literally get into 100 tobacco amendments on just this appropriations bill alone. I think the way to do it is to get the President to speak out. Let's keep holding our hearings. Let's get a final legislative draft and look at it. Let's bring the parties together and demand that the attorneys, the attorneys general, the public health groups, and the tobacco companies who originally negotiated the deal work to provide us with a draft. Let's reform and refine that draft, factor in the President's perspective, and the views of others who did not participate, such as the farmers, and let's move forward to resolution of this issue in the best interests of the American people. I just wanted to make these comments because I am very upset that we keep playing around with this issue. Frankly, if we let it go beyond the end of this year, it may be very difficult, it maybe impossible, to do next year. I ask unanimous consent that Bruce Artim be granted access to the floor for the remainder of the session.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to attempt something that I know will not fully succeed. I stand to speak to the legacy of Mother Teresa who in my opinion, was one of the greatest of all humanitarians and advocates for the poor, for the unclothed, the unhoused, the ignored, and the forgotten poor of the world--not only the forgotten poor of India but of the world at large. Many, of course, have remarked on the striking coincidence that last week we saw the passing of two of the world's most famous women--the Princess of Wales, and the guardian of India's poor, and really the poor of the world. Their association was coincidence. And those who again say that Diana's commitment to the poor, to the sick, and to the maimed simply ignored the profound friendship that had formed between these two remarkable women. As Diana was moved to even greater compassion by the small nun from Calcutta, so were all of us who knew Mother Teresa. I don't have a power wall in my personal office--pictures of me with other dignitaries. In my office you will find a lot of paintings. And the only photographs are of my family and one other individual. For years I have had a photo of Mother Teresa and me from one of the several meetings that I was most fortunate to have with her over the years. I met her here in Washington at least twice. And I visited her in Calcutta, and visited her orphanage there. In Washington one time was with a number of others. But the second time was just Mother Teresa and myself and one staff member. For me, Mother Teresa embodies the highest commitment to spiritual principles in this very imperfect world. And her memory I will always keep alive to remind me that we can in fact hold spiritual principles deeply relevant to this harsh world. That little nun from Calcutta held the greatest power that anyone can have--the power of love. She radiated it through her actions by serving the destitute, the maimed, and the forgotten. There have been some trivial criticisms about her--that she didn't address the root causes of the horrible poverty in which she lived. We should never forget the distinction between the abstractions of policy and the practice of charity. We must never lose the humility that recognizes that the policy attempts that governments and their leaders make often fall short while the commitment to love can be endless. And in the end the love given to a homeless child or to a dying street person cannot be legislated. I recently heard a particularly telling anecdote concerning Mother Teresa. She was in the ghetto of Calcutta putting salves on the wounds of a desperately sick person. A devout priest who was accompanying her said, ``I wouldn't do that for $100,000.'' I think maybe it could have even been $100 million. ``I wouldn't either,'' the dear, wise woman responded. ``I do it for Christ.'' I know that it is considered by some inappropriate to mention anything religious. But Mother Teresa reminded all of us of the great good that all religions do for man. And her Christian compassion will be an inspiration to me as long as I live. Mr. President, I will never forget seeing her emotional remarks about abortions and the heinous nature of abortion in our society and in our world today--30 million children aborted just in the history of our country since 1972. I remember her saying, ``If you do not want them, give them to me.'' She meant it. She took care of the poor, the sick, the maimed, the forgotten, those who were rejected by the rest of the world. She took them to her bosom. She took them to her best ability to help, and, because of her, literally thousands--hundreds of thousands-- of people have been helped around the world. And millions know what it is like to do charitable giving. Mr. President, God bless the memory of Mother Teresa, as he blessed all of those who knew this woman, who I think will be known as one of this century's most selfless and wonderful humanitarians. So I am happy to cosponsor any resolution that supports Mother Teresa. And I hope that all people throughout the world will take her example and realize that all of us in our own sphere, in our own little life, can do a little bit more for our fellow men and women than we have been doing, and use her as an example of one who gave her all for her fellow men and women and children. I thank her personally, and that is why I am making these remarks this day. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given an extra 5 minutes past 5 o'clock to make statements.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am offering for myself, Senator Leahy, Senator Specter, Senator Landrieu, Senator Mikulski, and I am sure others, a resolution that designates Saturday, September 6, 1997, as a National Day of Recognition for the Humanitarian Efforts of Diana, Princess of Wales. Death is always difficult to accept. It is, however, more difficult when it captures someone in the prime of her life as it has Princess Diana. It is safe to say that events surrounding her death will make us all take a closer look at the handling of this event by the press, its responsibilities, and the role it should play in the future. As a mother, humanitarian, and a goodwill ambassador, Princess Diana was an inspiration to many people throughout the world who admired her strength in adversity, her dedication to those less fortunate, and her devoted love to her children. The extraordinary outpouring of grief and affection is a true testament to the legacy that she leaves. The stunning array of flowers, candles, and notes in front of the British Embassy is just one indication of the high esteem in which the Princess was held here in the United States. Our country rejected a monarchy a long time ago, but we know a true friend when we see one. In a town accustomed to the art of issue advocacy, the Princess of Wales was clearly one of the most persuasive and compelling advocates to have graced our Nation's Capital. Much has already been said about her efforts to raise awareness and attention to breast cancer and AIDS. She recently took up the cause of banning the deployment of antipersonnel landmines. She was informed and articulate and committed to these causes. Many people can make speeches, and many people can throw gala benefits. What set Diana apart from others working for these same causes was the gentleness of her spirit. To break the back of intolerance and to help to dispel unfounded notions about AIDS, Diana broke tradition, and held babies afflicted with AIDS in her arms and to offer her hands to comfort AIDS patients. We understood that she participated in these activities not just out of a sense of duty but because she genuinely cared. She delighted in children, commiserated with the rank and file, and listened to the elderly or less fortunate. Her vulnerability was also her strength. She could connect with people like few people ever could. She was indeed the people's Princess. Although she was a symbol of glamour and celebrity, she taught us all that the quality of life is measured by what you do for others and how you treat others. By that measure, Diana's all too short life was very rich indeed. Her warmth and joie de vivre transcended wealth and power. Along with my fellow Utahns and millions of people around the world, Elaine and I were shocked and saddened to hear the tragic news of her untimely and tragic death. We want to extend our sincere and heartfelt condolences and sympathy to her family, and especially to her two sons, Prince William and Prince Harry. In offering this resolution, Mr. President, Senator Leahy and I believe it is appropriate to extend the sympathy of all Americans to the people of the United Kingdom on the death of such an extraordinary lady. Mr. President, we expect to pass this today and I urge the support of all of our colleagues. This is a sad event. This was a sad day. This is a tremendous loss for the world. And this is the least we can do. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to pay a word of tribute to Dr. Richard Lesher, outgoing president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mr. President, it has been my pleasure to know and work with Dick Lesher since I was a freshman Member of the Senate. We have served in the army of free enterprise in many important legislative battles. Dick was a dedicated fighter for small businesses. Dick can also be justifiably proud of the growth and success of the U.S. Chamber over the last 22 years. During his tenure as president, the Chamber has grown to 215,000 strong. The Chamber has also expanded its information services to include television. ``First Business'' is carried on 42 local stations, the USA Latin American channel, and USIA's WorldNet. ``It's Your Business'' is seen on USA Cable Network and 140 stations around the country. Dick Lesher also took very seriously the Chamber's responsibility to help educate the next generation of business leaders and created the Center for Workforce Preparation. These are just a few of Dick Lesher's many accomplishments as president of the flagship business organization in our country. But, Dick is a man we can appreciate as much for who he is as for what he did. I have always known Dick Lesher to be straightforward and honest. He never pulled punches. You knew where you stood. And, even if Dick disagreed on a matter of policy, he admired his opponents' convictions. Such a fair-minded attitude sets the stage for alliances on other issues. And, I have always believed, having genuine respect for everyone on the playing field is not only good business, it is a hallmark of good character. Dick is leaving the Chamber to return to his hometown in Chambersburg, PA. I wish him all the best in his new home and, hopefully, more relaxed lifestyle. But, while he will be leaving the day-to-day battles on labor and tax policy to his successor, I do not believe for a minute that he is retiring. I know that he will remain informed and engaged in the myriad of issues that affect the health and growth prospects of American business. And, I look forward to his continued counsel and insights.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Larry A. Donoso, M.D., Ph.D., director of research at Wills Eye Hospital, in Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Donoso is a world renowned ophthalmologist, a native son of the State of Utah, and a proud graduate of the University of Utah School of Medicine. Recently, Dr. Donoso was honored by the Queens Medical Center at the University of Nottingham, one of the United Kingdom's most prestigious academic medical centers. There they established the Larry A. Donoso Eye Research Laboratory in recognition of his long collaboration in the establishment of the new laboratory, and his efforts to advance eye treatment for patients around the world. He is the first American to be so honored by the Queens Medical Center. Both the city of Philadelphia and the Senate of the State of Pennsylvania have acknowledged the significance of this award, and the breadth of his contributions to the field of ophthalmology. Dr. Donoso is being lauded for his vast contributions as a premier research scientist, compassionate medical doctor, and extraordinary teacher. Having graduated from East High School in Salt Lake City, Dr. Donoso received his bachelors degree from the University of Utah in 1965. The School of Medicine conferred his Ph.D. in 1971 and his medical degree in 1973. He also went on to complete his clinical residency training in ophthalmology at Utah before joining the faculty of the Wills Eye Hospital in Pennsylvania. Dr. Larry Donoso, or ``LD'' as his friends affectionately call him, is an extraordinary eye researcher who has worked tirelessly over the last 30 years to advance the reputation of Wills Eye Hospital among the international medical community. His career accomplishments have been honored by the city of Philadelphia, the Senate of the State of Pennsylvania, and the Queens Medical Center at the University of Nottingham in England. I wanted my colleagues to be aware of these outstanding achievements, which, I hope, will serve as inspiration to us all.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to correct a problem with the way unemployment benefits are currently offset when received by participants in a multiemployer pension plan. Under our current Unemployment Compensation [UC] system States pay and administer UC benefits. The federal government shares in the cost of these benefits. Since 1980, the Federal Government has required that UC benefits be offset or reduced by any pension benefits that an individual receives from a base-period employer. A base period employer is any employer of the recipient during the 52-week period before the loss of a job. Here is how it works. If you are involuntarily separated from the same employer that is paying your retirement benefits and your employment caused your retirement benefits to increase any unemployment compensation you may qualify for will be offset by any retirement income received for this same employer. Thus, retirement benefits received could significantly reduce or eliminate any unemployment benefits. Mr. President, this policy was implemented, in part, to prevent employees from receiving pension benefits and qualifying for unemployment compensation from the same employment. Unfortunately, the application of the offset requirement to participants in multiemployer pension plans can unfairly penalize some taxpayers. Under current law, all employers in a multiemployer plan group are considered base-period employers for unemployment compensation purposes. Because of this, members of a multiemployer pension plan, such as actors and actresses that return to work, even through it may be for another employer (i.e., studio), are treated as returning to work for the same employer because all entertainment industry employers are part of the same multiemployer pension plan. Thus, when they return to work in their later years and their pension is increased by a nominal amount their unemployment compensation benefits are offset by their full pension amount. This can leave some with the little or no unemployment compensation benefits. Mr. President, to correct this, I am introducing legislation that would simply limit the unemployment benefit offset to the amount of the pension increase rather than the full pension amount received. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Rep. English as H.R. 841. Mr. President, I hope we can pass this change to allow workers in multiemployer pension plans to receive the same treatment as participants in other plans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their comments, and look forward to working with them as implementation of the National Capital Revitalization Act goes forward.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman of the Budget Committee, and the distinguished majority leader, on the inclusion of a little noticed provision in this conference report. I am referring to the National Capital Revitalization Act. This provision is, in my view, an important step in cleaning up the District of Columbia and making our Nation's Capital City once again the safe and beautiful place we all expect it to be. Among other important changes, this bill completely overhauls the District of Columbia's broken criminal justice system. If implemented properly, I am certain that this legislation will result in a criminal justice system for the District of Columbia that is fairer for the victims of crime, that appropriately punishes criminals, and that incarcerates criminals in a secure, appropriate environment. I see that my colleagues from Kansas and Florida are on the floor, and I would like to commend them for their hard work on this issue, as well. They have worked tirelessly to see these provisions included in the budget reconciliation conference report. Mr. President, I am committed, as I know my colleagues are, to ensuring that these provisions are implemented in the most effective manner. A number of the provisions in the National Capital Revitalization Act, particularly as they relate to, among other things, the transfer of District of Columbia corrections functions to the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the assumption by the U.S. Parole Commission of parole functions of the District government are issues within the authorizing jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. I would like to ask my colleagues, the Senator from Kansas and the Senator from Florida, if this is their understanding, as well.