Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in a different vein than my colleague from West Virginia, I rise to speak in strong support of this historic balanced budget and tax relief agreement. On many occasions I have come to the floor of the Senate arguing the importance of curbing Federal spending and balancing the Federal budget. It is equally, if not more, important that we pass on the benefits of a balanced budget in the form of tax relief to the American people. Mr. President, I have long been an ardent supporter of tax cuts for the American people. This bill marks a very decided shift, a dramatic shift from the tax increases that have been prevalent over the past decade. The bill before us represents the first real tax cut in 16 years. It was not easy to get here. We can all remember the partisan budget debates we have had in the past few years. The difference between those bills and the one before us today is the bipartisan cooperation that went into this year's legislation. It is because of unceasing bipartisan effort to end big government and the benefit of a strong and vibrant economy that we can stand here today debating such historic legislation. I maintain, Mr. President, that this bipartisanship developed because the American people insisted on it. They reelected President Clinton, but they also reelected a Republican majority in the House and Senate. And I have to say we would not even be debating a balanced budget bill, we would not be debating a tax cut bill if it was not for the Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate. The people who we each have pledged to serve decided that both points of view were necessary to get a balanced Federal budget. Congress and the President finally got the message, and the American people are the beneficiaries. The package before us contains a variety of tax cuts that will bring much-needed relief. These tax cuts allow the taxpayers in my home State of Utah and across the Nation to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. This bill provides significant relief through: First, a tax credit for families with children; second, lower capital gains tax rates; third, tax incentives for education; fourth, small business incentives; fifth, increased savings through enhanced IRA's; and sixth, higher death tax exemptions. The child tax credit is especially important for America's working families. Raising children in today's world becomes more expensive each year. This family tax credit will put the tax relief where it is needed most, in the pockets of parents with small children. This bill also contains a number of proposals to ease the burden for paying for college. I hear again and again from parents in Utah and throughout the country struggling to keep up with the high costs of college for their children. Mr. President, having put six children through college myself, I know exactly what they are going through. This bill will help these families by providing a tax credit for tuition expenses, a deduction for student loan interest and a new education IRA to promote saving for education. There aren't many things in this world that mean as much to us parents as giving our kids an opportunity that perhaps we didn't have or helping them to get along with good education. The bill also contains important tax cuts to stimulate economic growth and create new jobs. In the past two Congresses, I have introduced legislation to cut capital gains rates in half. I am extremely pleased that this tax package lowers the capital gains tax rate in half to almost 20 percent. This historical and important change will not only ease the current double taxation of capital income, it will encourage more capital investment and help maintain the strong economic growth that this country has experienced over the past number of years. In fact, ever since the original recession during the Reagan years, we basically have had a good economy. We had a couple of downturns during the Bush years, but the fact is, we are all still benefiting from having cut the marginal tax rates from 70 percent down to 28 percent. I might also add that a great deal of the credit should go to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Roth. I remember in those early days in the late 1970's and early 1980's there were a number of us who banded together under the leadership of Bill Roth and Jack Kemp to advance supply-side tax cuts which have proven to be successful. We are still benefiting from the cuts in those marginal tax rates from 70 percent down to 28 percent, still benefiting today, and this administration is benefiting from that. And to blame all of those deficits on Reagan kind of ignores the Great Society programs, kind of ignores the fact that during those years Reagan got his marginal tax cuts but Tip O'Neill got his great spending increases, and, of course, we had to increase spending on the military. Ultimately, because of Reagan and his spending, we actually ended the cold war. And we have saved trillions of dollars because of that. I want to pay particular tribute to my colleague from Delaware. Without his leadership, we would not have this bill. We would not have these tax cuts. And I have to say he has been a strong, firm, solid, steady leader in these matters. This capital gains tax rate reduction alone is going to prove to be very beneficial to our economy. There are trillions of dollars locked up in capital assets in this economy because people just don't want to pay a 28-percent top capital gains tax rate and corporations don't want to pay a 36-percent rate. Unfortunately, we couldn't do much for the corporations this year because of the limited amount of tax cuts we have negotiated with the President. But we have done a lot for the millions and millions of people, now, many in the middle class--50 percent of whom are in the middle class--who now are getting robbed because of inflated values of their capital assets, which if they sell they are paying taxes on the inflated value rather than the actual value. It wouldn't have happened but for our distinguished chairman of this committee, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Bill Archer, and of course my friend--both friends--Bill Roth, as well. This is important. For a long time we have made the case if we cut capital gains tax rates we are actually going to get an increase in tax revenues. I believe over the next 5 years that will prove to be true. Instead of losing actual tax revenues we ought to increase tax revenues. But if all we do is break even or even slightly below breaking even, it's worth it because it's the type of thing that will benefit so many millions of Americans, especially those of us in the middle class who put our hard-earned savings into mutual funds or into other areas of the stock market or into capital assets that literally will receive some benefit in the future from what is being done here today. Some of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle have categorized the capital gains tax cut as being for the rich. This is just not true. The capital gains tax cuts will help any American investing in a mutual fund, owning a home, or with an IRA which invests in stock. These are not the rich. These are hard-working middle-class families saving for their future and struggling to own a piece of the American dream. In addition, this bill provides much needed relief from the estate and gift tax. This so-called death tax is nothing more than a punishment for success. This tax has the damaging effect of forcing families to sell a business or a family farm just to pay their tax liability. Many farms in my State of Utah have been passed on from generation to generation. Under the current estate tax, it is inevitable that at sometime in the future these families may be forced to sell these farms unless this tax is eliminated. This is one area of unfinished business. I hope that we can continue the process we have begun here and work together in the future to further reduce this onerous tax on American family farms and businesses. This bill also contains a number of proposals that will help small businesses. Since 1993, I have attempted to clearly define what is a principal place of business for purposes of the home office deduction. This bill would clarify that definition and allow thousands of small business men and women deduct their legitimate home office expenses. In addition, this bill makes important changes to allow self-employed individuals to fully deduct the cost of health insurance. The bill also modifies the employee stock ownership plan rules and other pension provisions that will allow more small businesses to provide employees with savings and retirement benefits. Mr. President, I would like to commend the conferees for including provisions contained in the International Tax Simplification for American Competitiveness Act which I introduced earlier this year with Senator Baucus. This bill will extend the same export benefits to software products that are available to films and other recordings. It will also provide relief to U.S. financial services companies, including banks, security firms, insurance companies and brokers, and other finance and credit entities. The simplification and other changes to the most complex area of our Tax Code will enhance the global competitiveness of American products and companies. Mr. President, while this bill does, in some ways, create more complexity in the Tax Code, there are a few sections that simplify various areas of our tax system. One such provision is a provision that I have worked hard on--exempting State and local government pension plans from the cumbersome pension nondiscrimination rules. This provision reinforces the right that State and local governments have to determine the compensation of their employees without Federal Government intrusion. Mr. President, the passage of this tax relief bill is truly historic. The taxpayers in my State of Utah and across this country are deserving of this tax cut. They are overtaxed and over regulated. This bill provides broad tax relief in many important areas. The budget conference report also contains provisions to restructure and preserve the Medicare Program for a decade. These changes are nothing less than historic in nature and will help insure that Medicare remains solvent well beyond 2001--the date for financial insolvency for the Medicare part A hospital trust fund. Elderly Utahns can rest assured tonight that the Federal Government's health care commitment to them remains strong and undeterred. And, while work remains to be done, all future Medicare beneficiaries can rest assured that Medicare will be there as they become eligible early in the next century. I join my colleagues in the Senate and particularly those Senators on the Finance Committee, on which I serve, where this legislation was originally developed and drafted. We all have worked tirelessly over the past 7 months through numerous committee hearings and through countless committee meetings. We worked in a bipartisan fashion, resolved our differences on policy, and ultimately developed a consensus approach to Medicare reform. The effort has paid off, and the American people are the recipients of this great and historic dividend. Nevertheless, we must also recognize--and the American people must realize--that there still remains considerable work to be done with respect to long-term reforms of the Medicare Program. This is why I am delighted the conference report contains legislation I sponsored earlier this year to establish a National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. This Commission will be comprised of 17 members who will be charged to develop recommendations to ensure the long-term fiscal health of the Medicare Program. Those recommendations will be completed and sent to Congress by March 1, 1999. I have spent a great deal of time talking with my constituents in Utah, and I have found that one thing which matters very much to them is the ability to choose the health care which suits them the best. Clearly, one of the most significant and dramatic changes to Medicare will be the new Medicare Choice Program. Under this new program, Medicare beneficiaries will have the opportunity to choose from a variety of private health care plan options that best suits their needs and preferences. Such plans could include newly created provider sponsored organizations operated by health care providers as well as medical savings accounts combined with a qualified high-deductible policy. Utah providers have urged for several years that we change the law to allow them the ability to band together and form provider networks, locally based linkages of physicians and hospitals who will treat Medicare patients. That change will finally be made. As a strong supporter of MSA's, I am delighted the bill contains this provision even though it is a demonstration that is capped at 390,000 enrollees and sunsets on December 31, 2002. Nevertheless, it is an important first step that I believe will be a resounding success and reauthorized beyond the 2002 deadline. This is an important change in Medicare which, since its inception in 1965, has traditionally been structured as a fee-for-service plan. The Senate recognizes that beneficiaries want more choice in the manner in which they receive health care. With the introduction of managed care into the private sector, seniors are increasingly interested in participating in managed care plans which offer greater benefits such as prescription drugs and eye and hearing care. The conference report we are passing today will give seniors that choice. But it will do so without jeopardizing anyone's right or desire to remain in the traditional fee-for-service program. Moreover, we have incorporated protections and safeguards to ensure that those seniors who choose to participate in a managed care plan will have the necessary consumer protections such as access to emergency services 24 hours a day as well as appropriate appeals and grievance procedures. Another key interest of Utahns is the necessity of providing cost- effective, high-quality care for our seniors and disabled who must avail themselves of either nursing home care or home health services. I am particularly delighted the report contains important and necessary changes in the manner in which the Federal Government finances skilled nursing home and home health care services. I have long advocated for the establishment of a prospective payment system, or PPS as it is referred to, for home health and skilled nursing care. I have introduced legislation--S. 913, the Home Health Care Prospective Payment Act of 1997 and S. 914, the Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective Payment Act of 1997--to accomplish this objective. The major components of that legislation are contained in the conference agreement we will approve today. The implementation of a PPS will help address the extraordinary escalation in program costs associated with home health and nursing care. These two programs are the fastest growing components of Medicare and efforts are necessary to address program growth without jeopardizing quality or access to care. Accordingly, I am delighted the report before us today incorporates many of the provisions in my bills including the implementation of a prospective payment system. With respect to the $5 copayment for home health care services originally contained in the Senate bill, I am pleased the final conference report does not contain this provision. While I recognize the need to place controls on utilization, I believe the most cost- effective approach is through a prospective payment system which we now have in place. The legislation will also provide Medicare beneficiaries with new and enhanced health care benefits. I am particularly pleased that annual mammography screening, screening for prostate and colorectal cancer, diabetes self-management, and expansion of immunizations will be phased in and available to beneficiaries. In this regard, I am especially pleased that the conference report contains a provision I raised in the Finance Committee to eliminate the x-ray requirement as a condition of Medicare coverage for chiropractic services. Affording seniors greater access to chiropractic services will not only result in reduced Medicare expenditures, in the context of total program costs, but will also reduce needless back surgery for countless senior citizens. Mr. President, I would like to turn now to another provision, the need for which was brought to my attention by Ms. Michelle Newport, a Christian Scientist in Salt Lake City, UT. Under several provisions of Medicare and Medicaid law, reimbursement has been authorized for literally decades for nonmedical hospital and skilled nursing facility services provided in sanitoria operated by the First Church of Christ, Scientist. The need for reexamination of these statutory provisions was pointed out when the current law was challenged successfully last year in the case of Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD) versus Vladeck. In this case, a Minnesota district court held that the law and their accompanying regulations violate the establishment clause of the Constitution as an inpermissible sectarian preference. Pursuant to that court decision, the Secretary was enjoined from further implementation; however through the efforts of a number of Members of Congress who disagreed with this ruling, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde, Senator Kennedy, and myself, the court's injunction has been stayed until August 1997. The provision included in the bill we are considering today is intended to address our concern over that ruling. It has been drafted to be sect neutral. It replaces existing law by providing for reimbursement of nursing services to individuals who decline conventional coverage due to sincerely held religious beliefs. The provision sets up conditions for coverage of religious nonmedical health care institutions under the Medicare and Medicaid Programs, with new mechanisms to ensure cost-control of the benefit. I want to thank Senator Roth and Chairman Archer, and especially their staffs, for their hard work in crafting a provision which meets the twin concerns of cost-control and constitutionality. I would also like to pay special recognition to Gioia Bonmartini of the Finance Committee staff, and Dean Rosen of the Ways and Means Committee staff, who worked so hard to make certain an acceptable provision was included in the conference agreement. With respect to the delivery of health care in rural America, I am pleased the report contains provisions I sponsored in the Senate to increase the level of Medicare managed care payments for rural areas of the country. The report provides a minimum payment amount of $367 in 1998 that will be updated annually by the growth in Medicare fee-for- service payments. Implementation of this provision, although extremely technical in nature, has been a key objective of Utah's managed care community, which will now have the incentives to develop and offer managed care plans in more rural communities. Before I close my discussion of the health care provisions contained within this legislation, I want to take a few moments to address one of the most important components of the conference agreement, the new child health initiative. As my colleagues are aware, Senator Kennedy and I introduced the Child Health Insurance and Lower Deficit Act [CHILD] on April 8. Now, only 114 days later, we are giving final approval to a substantial new program which is very similar to the Hatch/Kennedy bill. The CHILD bills, S. 525 and S. 526, proposed a program which is extremely similar to that which is contained in the conference agreement we are considering today. The CHILD bills, as with the conference agreement, proposed a State-run block grant program to provide health insurance services to low-income children. The program was to be financed by a cigarette excise tax. Eligibility is to be determined by the States, cost-sharing is limited for the lowest income, and coverage cannot be provided to those who are currently eligible for Medicaid, all provisions contained within our legislation. It is no secret to Members of this body that the United States has a deplorable record in making certain that our Nation's most vulnerable, our children, have access to health care services. By many estimates, over 10 million of our children are uninsured. That is a situation which must be corrected, and I am pleased, indeed thrilled, that the conference agreement contains this new program. At this point, I would like to insert a summary of the new provisions for the edification of my colleagues. Funding level: Provides $24 billion in the first 5 years, and $24 billion in the next 5 years. Note: the funding levels add up to $39.65 billion over the next 10 years because certain Medicaid costs have been taken off the top. Tobacco tax: Program starts in fiscal year 1998. It is financed in part through a tobacco excise tax increase. There is no increase in the first 2 years. For the next 2 years, there is a 10 cents/pack increase. In the fifth year, fiscal year 2002, and thereafter, the tax is increased by 15 cents/ pack. Use of funds: Funds can be used for State block grants, or expanded Medicaid, or both. Funding can be provided for community-based health delivery systems, such as Community Health Centers. The funds cannot be used for any other purpose than those enunciated in the bill. Funding distribution: Funds are distributed by a formula which is initially based on the number of low-income uninsured children in the State and in subsequent years blended with the number of children in the State. There is a geographical adjustment for the costs of providing services. No State will get less than $2 million/year. Funds are made available for 3 years, and unused funds can be redistributed among other States. Medicaid: If a State chooses to insure new children not now eligible for Medicaid under Medicaid, they may receive increased Federal matching equal to 30 percent of the State share, with an 85 percent cap on the Federal contribution. Secretarial approval of plan: A detailed process is laid out for submission of the State plan, or amendments thereto. Secretarial approval is deemed unless she notifies the State within 90 days that it is disapproved. Eligibility: States determine eligibility. Generally, children can be covered up to age 19 and at 200 percent of Federal poverty level. However, States which currently are at that coverage level may expand their programs up to 250 percent of FPL. Covered children cannot be eligible for Medicaid now and cannot be covered now under group health plans. State responsibility: States must show they are: (1) trying to cover Medicaid eligibles first; (2) not substituting the new plan for current group health plan coverage; (3) covering Indian eligibles. States will be required to enunciate strategic objectives and performance goals, submit an annual report, and be subject to regular evaluations as to effectiveness of the plan. Benefits package: States must provide coverage which is either equivalent to a benchmark package or a equivalent to a benchmark-equivalent package, and they can provide even more from a long list of services, which includes transportation costs, mental health, home care and dental. The benchmark package is either: (1) FEHBP-equivalent coverage, which is Blue Cross/Blue Shield standard option for a preferred provider organization; or (2) a plan generally made available to State employees; or (3) the largest commercial, non- Medicaid HMO in the State. The benchmark equivalent package: (1) Is actuarially equivalent to one of the benchmark plans; and (2) covers the following basic services: Inpatient/ outpatient; Physicians surgical and medical; Lab and x ray; Well-baby and well-child care; including immunizations. The State may also get approval from the Secretary to offer other coverage. Current non-Medicaid State plans in New York, Florida and Pennsylvania are grandfathered in. Cost-sharing: The amounts must be published in the State plan, and imposed under a public schedule. Variations based on family income should not disadvantage lower income families. No cost-sharing for preventive services. If the child has income below 150 percent of Federal poverty level [FPL], the State may not impose a premium above that which would have been charged under Medicaid, and any deductible or other cost-sharing must be nominal, as in Medicaid. Maintenance of effort: States cannot change their Medicaid eligibility standards in effect as of June 1, 1997. Abortion: Abortion coverage is specifically precluded, except for rape, incest or life of the mother cases. Mr. President, I am extremely proud of this legislation. I think that a number of important modifications have been made to the final conference agreement, changes which improve the measure and which will give the States the flexibility they need to operate the program in a most efficient manner. I will say, though, that I am disappointed at the Congressional Budget Office's estimates that the bill will only cover 3.4 million children, 1.38 million of whom were previously insured. It is no secret that I have been critical of the CBO's earlier estimates which I felt were too low in terms of children covered. I still believe this is the case, and am hopeful that with the flexibility provisions added for the Governors we will be able to cover even more children. As many have noted, this will be the most important new program to help our Nation's children since enactment of the Medicaid Program over 30 years ago. I am extremely proud to have played a role in its development. For not only will the bill help provide children with the health insurance they need, it will play the dual role of discouraging them from smoking or using other tobacco products, by increasing the tobacco excise tax. During this debate, which was often contentious, I asked my colleagues, ``Who do you want to help, Joe camel or Joey?'' Sometimes it didn't seem clear. But at long last, the Camel is losing, and that is a tremendous benefit for public health. I do want to take this opportunity to thank those who united behind this effort, and especially the six Republicans who joined me in drafting the original child health legislation: Senators Jeffords, Stevens, Snowe, Collins, Campbell, and Smith. I also want to pay especial tribute to two Senators who were extremely supportive along the way, Senators DeWine and D'Amato, who played a crucial role in supporting this legislation when support was sorely needed. It is important to note the tremendous leadership role that Senator Lott played in making certain this provision was incorporated in the final agreement. He is a true friend of our Nation's children. Finance Committee Chairman Roth must also be praised for his dedication to children's health and toward working out a compromise with the House, and his capable staff Dennis Smith and Julie James deserve especial recognition, as does Howard Cohen of the House Commerce Committee staff. Of course, no list would be complete without mentioning Senator Chafee, who did so much to advance this debate by pointing out the need to maintain a strong Medicaid Program and make certain it is enhanced as we expand children's health funding. Strong partners in this cause are Senator Daschle, who stood up for children's health when his national leaders would not, and Senator Moynihan, who played a crucial role on the Finance Committee. Senator Rockefeller, again, must be noted for his dedication to this cause, and for assuming a strong voice of reason role when cooler heads did not prevail. And finally, I must pay tribute to my partner in this legislation, Senator Kennedy. He is the most aggressive and successful legislator I know. And I am proud that when we can unite on a bill, everyone knows it will be a very good bill. Because the products of our legislative liaison always represent the center. Mr. President, in adopting this legislation today, we are representing our constituents, the large majority of which time and time again have signaled they want to do more for children's health. That day is here. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to vote for this important tax bill. I, again, want to express my appreciation, love, and respect for the distinguished chairman of this committee and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Roth and Senator Moynihan, and the concomitant leaders in the Ways and Means Committee in the House.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation proposed by the Clinton administration to implement two important treaties that were adopted last December by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Leahy, the distinguished Senator for Tennessee, Sen. Thompson, and the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, Sen. Kohl, join me as original cosponsors. I strongly support adoption of the treaties, and I am introducing this bill on behalf of the Administration as an essential step in that process. I believe that the Administration's bill provides an excellent starting point for the debate on exactly what must be changed in U.S. law in order to comply with the treaties. The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO performances and Phonograms Treaty--completed after years of intense lobbying by the United States government--will update international copyright law for the digital age and ensure the protection of American creative products abroad. I want to commend Secretary of Commerce Bill Daley, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Bruce Lehman, and their staffs for their efforts in moving this important issue forward, and I welcome the opportunity to work with them during the legislative process. The United States leads the world in the production of creative works and high-technology products--including software, movies, recordings, music, books, video games, and information. Copyright industries represent nearly 6% of the U.S. gross domestic product, and nearly 5% of U.S. employment. Yet American companies lose $18-20 billion every year due to international piracy of copyrighted works. The film industry alone estimates its annual losses due to counterfeiting in excess of $2.3 billion, even though full-length motion pictures are not yet available on the Internet. The recording industry estimates that it looses more than $1.2 billion each year due to piracy, with seizures of bootleg CDS up some 1,300 percent in 1995. These figures will only continue to grow with the recent technological developments that permit creative products to be pirated and distributed globally with the touch of a button, significantly weakening international protection for the copyrighted works that are such a critical part of this country's economic backbone and costing the U.S. economy exports and jobs. The WIPO treaties will raise the minimum standards for copyright protection worldwide, providing the U.S. with the tools it needs to combat international piracy. But the treaties will be meaningless unless they are ratified by a large number of countries. It is therefore up to the United States to demonstrate leadership on this issue by ratifying and implementing the treaties promptly. Swift U.S. action will encourage global implementation of the WIPO treaties, and will signal U.S. determination to curb the threat that international piracy poses to U.S. jobs and the economy. This bill takes the approach that the substantive protections in U.S. copyright law already meet the standards of the new WIPO treaties, and therefore very few changes to U.S. law are necessary in order to implement the treaties. In addition to minimal technical amendments, the treaties require signatory countries to provide legal protections against the circumvention of certain technologies that copyright owners use to protect their works and to guard against the alteration or falsification of identifying data known as copyright management information (CMI). This ``minimalist'' bill is the product of much hard work by the Administration, and represents many months of negotiations among interested parties, including software companies, computer manufacturers, and the copyright community. This bill is a compromise; it does not represent any group's ``wish list'' for WIPO implementing legislation. The Administration has tried to craft a bill that addresses only those issues required by the treaties without altering the substantive protections and exceptions provided under U.S. copyright law or injecting extraneous issues into the treaty process. The Administration has tried to preserve the delicate balance that U.S. law already strikes between copyright owners and users, since the WIPO treaties were not intended to upset that balance. I urge my colleagues to give this legislation serious consideration. The Judiciary Committee will begin hearings on this bill shortly. I would like to see the treaties go into effect this year, and I will try hard to meet this goal. However, the late date on which the Administration has submitted the legislation may render this goal unachievable. In any event, we must act promptly to ratify and implement the WIPO treaties in order to demonstrate leadership on international copyright protection, so that the WIPO treaties can be implemented globally and so that further theft of our nation's most valuable creative products may be prevented. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just take a moment to discuss the important issue of the funding of the Patent and Trademark Office [PTO] that is contained in the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill that the Senate will vote on later today. As my colleagues know, Mr. President, the PTO has been entirely funded by user fees for several years now. Not one cent of general taxpayer money goes to the operation of that vital office. Thus, it is my belief that all the money generated by the user fees should be available for use by the PTO. Unfortunately, in the last few years, increasingly large amounts of money have been diverted from the PTO. The patent surcharge, which was instituted to make the PTO self-funding, has been the target of this diversion. That is why I was very pleased when the surcharge, which is scheduled to expire after fiscal year 1998, was not renewed. I had advocated that it not be renewed and, with the support of Senators Domenici and Lautenberg, the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, it was not. In addition to the surcharge, this bill contains new PTO funding issues. First, the bill set aside $20 million to fund an office called the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Policy, should such an office be created. This office does not yet exist but is advocated by the administration, which seeks to add it to my Omnibus Patent Act, S. 507. I am negotiating with the administration with regard to the possible creation of such an office. But one thing seems clear: if that office is created, it will not need a budget of $20 million. Thus, I cosponsored an effort by Senator Lautenberg to reduce that amount. I want to thank both Senator Lautenberg for his efforts and Senator Gregg for agreeing to modify that provision. Instead of $20 million, the bill now sets aside an amount up to 2 percent of the PTO budget. That is a maximum of about $14 million. That is a more realistic number, and, I suspect that, should the office be created, it would not even need that much. The second new issue raised by this legislation deals not with the surcharge, but with the base fees. In the past, the PTO has been permitted to collect and spend whatever amount of base fees is generated in a given year. This is logical, since increased filings will increase work for the PTO but also generate more money with which to do that work. But this bill sets a cap on the base fees that PTO may not exceed, regardless of how much they collect. This is of serious concern to me, Mr. President, as it risks leaving the PTO with an increased workload but with insufficient funds to conduct proper patent examinations and trademark registrations. The House Appropriations Committee did not set a similar cap. Rather, the House has continued the standard practice of allowing the PTO to spend whatever the base fees happen to generate. Mr. President, the language in the Senate version risks leaving the PTO unable to perform its vital task of protecting the work of Utahns and all other American inventors. I urge the conference committee to adopt the House language and not impose a new cap on the Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. President, I led the fight for the balanced budget amendment. In balancing the budget, it is unjust to force American inventors to bear a greater burden than the ordinary taxpayer.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, once more we are engaging in the increasingly repetitive argument over whether the U.S. Senate should support one of our country's most valuable tools of foreign policy--the National Endowment for Democracy. The Senate subcommittee zeroed out the administration request for $30 million for the Endowment, although the House of Representatives granted it full funding. Today, Senators Lugar and others are offering an amendment that will restore the Senate's support for full funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Mr. President, I've been in this body for the entire history of the National Endowment for Democracy, and I make no reservations about my wholehearted support for this organization. My colleagues know I was an original supporter of the NED, and I am a stronger supporter today than I was then. President Reagan clearly summarized the NED's mission when he stated at its inception: The objective I propose is quite simple to state: to foster the infrastructure of democracy--the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities--which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means. I believe that mission statement is as relevant to our goals today as it was in 1982, when the National Endowment for Democracy was founded. And I find it illogical and disingenuous that some argue that the Endowment is a cold war institution which, because we have won the cold war, is no longer relevant. Many appear to agree with me. In a September 1995 letter to our congressional leadership, seven former Secretaries of State said: During this period of international change and uncertainty, the work of the NED continues to be an important bipartisan but non-governmental contributor to democratic reform and freedom. It appears that a few still believe, illogically, that because the NED was engaged in fighting for democracy during the cold war, it is no longer relevant. This reasoning is unsound, based on facts of the past, and realities of the present. First, the past. The NED did have some high-profile involvement with organizations such as Solidarity, which were critical in loosening Moscow's grip on its captive nations. I applaud the NED for that, as I applaud the many other organizations, such as the International Labor Office and other great anti-communists such as Irving Brown, who worked with us to undermine Soviet totalitarian control. But anyone who believes that the cold war was the central or only focus of the NED may not have all the facts. It is a fact, for example, that during the early days of the National Endowment for Democracy, approximately half of NED's funds were directed toward Latin America. The 1980's, you will recall, Mr. President, was the decade when democracy swept across the Latin American continent. The people of Latin America, and their brave democratic leaders, deserve the credit for this. But it was the wisdom of U.S. foreign policy--and the participation from the NED--that provided important diplomatic and practical support. Second, the present. The obvious fact is, Mr. President, that support for democracy remains a necessary goal of U.S. foreign policy. Students of history know that democracies are less likely to try to settle their internal and external conflicts with a resort to violence. Observers of current affairs recognize that, while democracy continues to spread, many parts of the world are in desperate need for further democratic development. It is no coincidence indeed that many of these areas are areas where U.S. foreign policy goals are and will be challenged. To believe that supporting democracy was a need solely of the cold war is a notion that ignores the basic reality that the world remains full of nations where democracy needs support. And where democracy advances, the risk of conflict that could require a U.S. response declines. That is why a number of my friends--Jack Kemp, Steve Forbes, Bill Bennett, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Vin Weber, and Lamar Alexander--have circulated a letter from their organization, Empower America, which I would like to quote: NED helps brave people around the world who are engaged in difficult struggles for freedom. These are America's natural friends. Resisting the enemies of freedom, they need our continual solidarity. A case in point is China, where the Endowment supports various pro-democracy networks as well as the democracy movements in Tibet and Hong Kong . . . China is but one example of how NED, which works in over 90 countries, is as relevant to the post-Cold War world as it was in the struggle against Soviet totalitarianism. Examples could be cited from other difficult situations, from Burma to Cuba, from the Balkans to the Middle East. The kind of political assistance NED provides is not foreign aid. NED is more than a program; it is an instrument for transmitting in a peaceful way American democratic values to a world that looks to us to maintain our leadership role. NED works to expand human freedom and helps people help themselves. It promotes American values and interests. It is realistic and idealistic at the same time. It internationalist in the best sense of that term. It is truly our kind of program. Mr. President, among my friends at Empower America, you will not find one person who believes the United States should be the world's policeman. Most of these individuals are very skeptical--like me--about some of this country's recent unilateral as well as multilateral deployments. But none of these individuals believes that the $30 million spent on the National Endowment for Democracy is anything but a completely worthwhile expenditure that supports our national interests by supporting the spread of democracy around the world. The cold war is over, Mr. President, and we won it. We won it with a strong defense posture, with a policy of engagement in Latin America, Afghanistan, and central Europe. And we won it by standing with democrats around the world. Despite the end of the cold war, there are many democratic movements that need our support. As the Empower America letter said: ``. . . the brave people around the world who are engaged in difficult struggles for freedom . . . these are America's natural friends.'' I wish that we could do more for these friends of America, Mr. President. But the reality of foreign affairs has always been limited by the need to prioritize limited resources. In my view, an expenditure of $30 million to support the many activities of the NED throughout the world may be one of the most cost-effective investments we make in the support of American's interests overseas. The critics of the NED should review the Endowment's materials. For example, this body has spent a large amount of time debating how we should relate to the rising power of authoritarian China. While we debate the value of sanctions or engagement, who in this body suggests that the support for local elections in China that is conducted by NED with the International Republican Institute is anything but an enormously positive development? Who suggests that NED-supported Chinese activists who monitor and report on the repression of dissidents must not be continued--so that lawmakers around the world can know the truth when we debate complicated issues of engaging China? Who believes that Harry Wu's research foundation--dedicated to monitoring the abhorrent use of prison labor--should not be supported, so that we know how China abuses our trade relations? Who believes, Mr. President, that the many programs promoting open press, reasoned democratic debate and the rule of law that NED supports throughout the Arab world are not supporting America's goals in that region? Can anyone who is aware of America's uncertain relations with the Islamic world declare that it is not in our interest to promote democratic values there? Mr. President, I've cited a few examples and endorsements from prominent U.S. foreign policymakers--Republican and Democrat--but I'd like to close my remarks by quoting Martin Lee, who my colleagues surely recognize as Hong Kong's voice of democracy. As we know, the reversion to the People's Republic of China opens a new--and uncertain--page in the recent history of democracy in Hong Kong. Martin Lee recently wrote a letter to my colleague, Senator Mack. Members of this body know that Senator Mack has devoted a large amount of his time to the difficult process of Hong Kong's reversion, and he is one of the leaders who will increase his attentions to the former British colony now that July 1 has past. Martin Lee wrote: In Hong Kong and elsewhere in Asia and around the world, the struggle to preserve democracy, political freedom and the rule of law is far from being won. But by supporting key human rights organizations which work for development of democracy and the preservation of the rule of law and human rights in Hong Kong, the Endowment's work in Hong Kong has had profound effect at a critical time. During what I realize is a time of shrinking budgets, I cannot think of better value for money than the National Endowment for Democracy. Mr. President, Martin Lee is correct: ``The struggle to preserve democracy, political freedom and the rule of law is far from being won.'' What a sorry signal the United States would be giving democrats struggling around the world if we ended our support for the National Endowment for Democracy. What a shortsighted notion it would be to save $30 million by abandoning our support for an organization that promotes our political values around the world. I urge my colleagues to support full funding for the National Endowment for Democracy. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the appropriations provision effecting a split of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and to respectively oppose the amendment offered by my colleague from California. Splitting the ninth circuit is appropriate at this time for three principal reasons: First, its size. The ninth circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits. Indeed, the ninth circuit is larger than the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th circuits combined. The population of the States comprising the ninth circuit is 49,358,941, almost one-fifth of the Nation's population. The size of the circuit also has an effect on the caseloads of the judges of the circuit. The ninth circuit's caseload in recent years has been in excess of 7,000 cases a year, far and away more than in any other circuit. The second reason to support this proposal is a function of the first. The ninth circuit's size also negatively impacts the internal consistency of law within the circuit. There are currently 28 seats on the ninth circuit, and many who are claiming that Congress should significantly add to that number at least 10 more seats--so, 38 seats. A circuit comprised of so many judges is entirely unmanageable and undermines important considerations of judicial economy, efficiency and collegiality. Because the circuit is so large its judges cannot sit together to hear cases en banc as do other circuits, and accordingly the court has lost the necessary sense of judicial collegiality, and coherence of its circuit-wide case law. I would venture that there are as many contradictory rules of law within the ninth circuit as there are within all the other circuits combined. This has, I believe, contributed to a trend by which some ninth circuit judges feel totally free to disregard precedent, be it circuit precedent or even the Supreme Court's rulings. Just this past term, the ninth circuit had an astounding reversal rate of 95 percent before the Supreme Court. Twenty-eight of 29 cases were reversed. And the usual rate is no less than 75 percent of their cases are reversed. One ninth circuit judge has expressed chagrin at this regrettable situation, explaining that ``the circuit is too large and has too many cases--making it impossible to keep abreast of ninth circuit decisions.'' The third cost of having such a large circuit is the resulting delay in having cases decided. The ninth circuit is, in fact, one of the slowest in turning around case decisions from the time of filing. And, because of its size, some cases, especially high-profile ones, appear to be subject to manipulation. These important considerations have persuaded me that the ninth circuit should be split. And, I am happy to report that I believe some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, from States within the ninth circuit, will vote against the present amendment, and support the split provided for in the present bill. And finally, I would like to say a word about the way in which this proposed split has come to the floor. Some argue that a significant development like splitting a judicial circuit should not arise in the context of an appropriations bill--that the committee of jurisdiction, in this case the Judiciary Committee, should have the opportunity to review and comment about this proposal. I could not agree more with the proposition that this is a serious matter, deserving serious consideration. I point out, however, that the Judiciary Committee has indeed examined the advisability of splitting the ninth circuit. In just the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the subject, hearing from judges of the circuit and others knowledgeable about the implications of a split. After that hearing, the committee reported out a bill that, in many regards, is similar to the one before the Senate today. Accordingly, I am confident that the Senate has before it today a well-considered and desperately needed proposal to divide the ninth circuit. This is a proposal that serves the interests of judicial efficiency, stable case law, and equal justice for Americans within the ninth circuit. With all due respect, therefore, I must take exception to the proposed commission my colleague from California is now offering by way of an amendment. I think the time for a split of the ninth circuit is now. I believe we have studied the matter thoroughly, and that there is no need for further hearings or a commission. Frankly, I would expect that, were we in fact to proceed with another commission, it would simply make a recommendation similar to the Hruska report of nearly 25 years ago--namely, to divide the State of California. I don't have any doubt in my mind that that is what a future commission will decide, because if you want to get population equality, you are going to have to divide California. This does not do that, in deference to the Governor of California and, I might add, the two Senators from California, and to the various Congresspeople from California. And I might add, should this amendment succeed--the amendment of the distinguished Senator from California--and a commission be created that ultimately recommends splitting California, I may well be compelled, as will others in this body, to support that split and finally put this matter to rest. So this is dangerous stuff to be playing around with because I believe that there will be a split of California if you go the commission route. Now, while I recognize that many are greatly concerned about the prospect of dividing the State of California, I have to tell everybody today that this is pretty certain to result if this amendment is enacted. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment offered by my colleague from California. I believe, in the best interests of all concerned, this is an adequate and reasonable response. And, frankly, we have given States within the total area to be divided their right to choose which circuit they will belong to. I think that is an appropriate, reasonable, decent way to proceed. Otherwise, we are just delaying this another 2, 3 years, and we will come up with another split of California, which will be vigorously fought against by Members of the California delegation in both the House and Senate, and we will wind up right back where we are, or California will be split. If it is split, I think it would be to the disadvantage of California, as I view it. I hope our colleagues will vote down this amendment, as well- intentioned as it is, and will vote for this split, because it would be a split that would, I think, bring about collegiality, and it will bring about a better functioning two circuits, and it will give the States who want the split a chance to have their own circuit, where they can work together in the best interests of their States. If California continues to be the most reversible set of judges in the Nation, then they will have to live with that. Then everybody will know exactly who are the people that are doing this, who are the judicial activists, the ones undermining the judicial system, and are really causing California the pain, struggles, and difficulties that come from an out-of-control, judicially activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I yield the floor. Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Meth abuse, unfortunately, is also rapidly becoming one of our top public health threats. According to the latest data released by SAMHSA in its ``Drug Abuse Warning Network'' report released last week the number of children aged 12 to 17 who have had to go to emergency rooms due to meth use increased well over 200 percent between 1993 and 1995 alone. The number of deaths associated with meth has also increased dramatically. From 1989 to 1994, methamphetamine accounted for 80 percent or more of clandestine lab seizures by the DEA. Clandestine lab crackdowns are at an alltime high, and many more are going undetected. Mobile labs in rural areas of Utah, including numerous locations in Ogden, Provo, and the St. George area are making meth with virtual impunity. Local law enforcement does not have the manpower, resources, or technical expertise to cover such vast areas in a truly meaningful fashion. Federal law enforcement, most principally the Drug Enforcement Administration, has agents specially trained in the areas of methamphetamine lab take downs, but the number of such specialists is extremely limited, and certainly is of insufficient numbers to be any sort of meaningful presence in Utah, as well as the rest of the Rocky Mountains. I am deeply concerned about the Methamphetamine problem in Utah, as well as the rest of the Nation. In my State, distribution by Mexican traffickers has been expanded by using networks established in the cocaine, heroin, and marijuana trades. Wholesale distribution is typically organized into networks in major metropolitan areas, to include Salt Lake City. Utah has 2,500 isolated noncontrolled airstrips which provide a convenient means for drug smugglers to transfer methamphetamine to vehicles for shipment throughout the United States. Also, there are over 65 public airports throughout the State that are not manned on a 24-hour basis, but can be lit from a plane by using the plane's radio tuned to a specific frequency. Major highway systems such as I-15, I-70, and I-80 serve to interconnect Mexico with Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming which allows Utah to be an ideal transshipment point to major markets on the west coast, as well as Minneapolis, Chicago, Detroit, and other Midwestern areas. It also results in such illegal drugs being readily accessible throughout Utah. According to the DEA, methamphetamine seizures nationwide in 1996 were the highest in over a decade. Not easily dissuaded, particularly when such large profits can be made, Mexican traffickers have begun obtaining the necessary precursor chemicals for methamphetamine from sources in Europe, China, and India. These precursor chemicals needed to manufacture methamphetamine drugs are available in Utah and have contributed to the increased consumption of the drug. Further, ephedrine tablets are purchased in large quantities and then converted to methamphetamine. For these reasons I believe that it is imperative that this Congress provide the necessary resources to the DEA to engage in a meaningful methamphetamine initiative. I fully support the Appropriations Committee's report to S. 1022 that recommends that $16,500,000 of the funds appropriated to the DEA be used to fund a methamphetamine initiative, to include an additional 90 agents and 21 support personnel who will be tasked with implementing a broad approach for attacking methamphetamine abuse in this country. I strongly encourage that some of these funds be applied to funding DEA agents with particularized methamphetamine training be stationed in Utah to combat this ever growing threat in my State, and to prevent the methamphetamine lab activities in Utah from continuing to harm other States throughout this Nation.

Mr. HATCH. He is just yielding to me. But I absolutely agree with you. I absolutely agree with you. Let me tell you, during this last cold war time, I had a lot to do with the ILO when I was chairman of the Labor Committee and ranking member there, and ever since, when our tripartite organization--Government, labor and business--saved this country and countries all around this world from the tyranny of totalitarianism, right at the ILO. I can remember one trip I made over there because Irving Brown called me. He was the head of our delegation. He was the International Vice President of the AFL-CIO, and in my opinion the strongest anti- Communist in the world at the time. He stopped the Communists from taking over the French docks. He went into Paris before the end of the Second World War--one of the most heroic figures I ever met in my life. And he led our delegation with the full support of labor, business, and Government, year after year. He died here a few years ago. I went to his memorial service here. But I know what the ILO has meant to this country and what it has meant to free trade unionism around the world and what it has meant to freedom. I have to tell you, if we have this provision continue in this bill, since all three of these organizations, the WHO, the ILO, and the agricultural organization, we are behind in payments to them, it would mean it would have to come down to choosing one of them that they would delete. I can tell you right now, the one, probably the weakest that would be deleted, would be the ILO. I have to tell you, that preserves free trade unionism around the world, it protects freedom around the world, and, I have to tell you, quells disruptions and problems all over the world. It helps us all over the world to spread democracy. I don't want to see that happen, and I think the distinguished Senator from Maryland has brought up a very, very good point here. I call my colleagues' attention to it. I am grateful he has yielded to me for these few remarks. I hope they have been helpful to my colleagues on both sides, but I have been there, I know how important this is. I believe this is not the thing to do, to have that particular language left in there as it is. So I support my colleague from Maryland.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for taking what I believe is a necessary and meaningful step to turn the tide on a growing epidemic in this country, methamphetamine abuse. Although originally confined principally to the Southwest, including my home State of Utah, this epidemic is now moving East. Congress needs to take action to stop meth abuse.

Mr. HATCH. Will my colleague yield for a second?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Yes.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is growing awareness of the huge potential savings to consumers and taxpayers from the prompt approval of generic drugs, a fact which was one of the reasons that Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984. That statute created a legal structure that benefits both consumers and the generic industry while providing strong incentives for continued investment by the brand companies in research and development. Unfortunately, the success of the act has been limited by the inability of the Food and Drug Administration to comply with its statutory mandate to approve generic drug applications within 180 days. In fact, generic drug approvals now are taking an average of approximately 23 months, nearly four times the statutory requirement, and the number of personnel at the agency responsible for this mission has been significantly reduced. This latter fact is especially troubling since the personnel levels in several administrative areas have grown significantly. The Appropriations Committee has taken action to address this failure. Last year, the committee directed the FDA to expend sufficient resources to ensure compliance with its statutory mandates. This year, the committee has further directed the agency to provide the relevant congressional committees 90 days after the beginning of the fiscal year with a plan that explains how the agency will meet the statutory review time for generic drug applications. The House Appropriations Committee, apparently losing patience with the FDA, included an extra million dollars in the fiscal 1998 bill for the express purpose of increasing the speed of generic drug reviews. The committee report noted that health care costs have increased to extraordinary levels and that the timely approval of generic drugs could save billions of dollars. The committee also reports that FDA costs related to administrative functions were excessive, pointing out that expenditures for the Office of the Commissioner in fiscal year 1997 far exceeded total expenditures for the offices of the Secretary and all the Under and Assistant Secretaries at the Department of Agriculture. It is my strong desire that the conference will give serious consideration to the House Committee's direction of funds for generic drug approvals. It is obvious that if the FDA complies with its statutory mandates, patients will be the winners, especially in terms of the tremendous savings that consumers could reap if generic competitors are sent to market more quickly. Mr. President, this seemingly small and perhaps even insignificant corner of the Federal budget has the potential to help every family in our country by reducing the cost that we all must pay for life-saving pharmaceutical products, and I hope the conferees will give it serious weight. In closing, I want to commend you, Chairman Cochran, for the splendid job you have done in crafting this legislation, and pay particular commendation to Rebecca Davies of your staff, who is indeed such an asset to the committee. Northeast Dairy Compact

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be considered as morning business.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is a unique privilege and distinct honor for me to recognize, today, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the Mormon Pioneers in the Valley of the Great Salt Lake on July 24, 1847. It was spring, by the calendar, in late March of the year 1846, as some 3,000 people in 400 wagons struggled west across the rolling hills of Iowa, through snow and drizzling rain. The muddy track was nearly impassable as they lumbered on, far behind schedule and nearing exhaustion. Behind them lay the last few villages of organized territory; before them, the great unknown. Somewhere, over the horizon, beyond the sheltering forests and the waving grasslands, lay the Rocky Mountains. Previous maps showed the way into the wilderness, while scouting reports told of the romantic landscape ahead: Black clouds of buffalo sweeping across the prairie swells, great rivers and snow- capped peaks, the endless sky, and the lonely stars. Most of these wagons had never been this far West; perhaps a few had reached Missouri--Independence or Clay County. But that was no comfort. Few people in this wagon train cared to think much of Missouri--where the stench of massacre and betrayal had but recently overwhelmed the sweet scent of fresh gardens and new-mown hay. Now, as history repeated itself, their last refuge--their beautiful Nauvoo--was besieged by hateful mobs, and there seemed no other solution than to flee, yet again. These wagons were the vanguard; hundreds were on the road behind them, and thousands more, gathered on the banks of the Mississippi, were making ready to follow. Barely 26 years before, young Joseph Smith, by his own account, had entered the woods near his father's farm to pray, when ``Suddenly, a light descended, brighter far than noonday Sun, and a shining, glorious pillar o'er him fell, around him shone, while appeared two heav'nly beings, God the Father and the Son.'' Now, scarcely grown to the fulness of his prophetic calling, this towering leader lay dead in a martyr's grave, and the faithful who had responded to the restored Gospel entrusted to him were scattered and driven, with only one hope, expressed in the hymn that would become their inspiration and epitaph: ``We'll find the place, which God for us prepared, far away in the West, where none shall come to hurt, or make afraid. There, the Saints will be blessed.'' They came from everywhere, these honored pioneers--New England, Old England, the lands of the North--wherever believers could spread the word. Some were already crusty pioneers--the likes of Daniel Boone or the Green Mountain boys --whose ancestors had settled the Tidewater counties or landed at Plymouth Rock. Others had only recently left the coal mines of Wales and the sweatshops of Manchester to take their first draught of fresh air in the New World. A few were professionals, who could doctor, or teach, or play music to ease the rigors of the trail; many were artisans--carpenters, wheelwrights, shoemakers--whose skills were sorely needed. But for all their skills and preparations, far too few were ready for the bone-deep weariness, the numbing cold, or birthing in the open air. Critics might say that they brought their misery upon themselves-- through blind faith and foolhardy dreams. Such was the litany of those who mobbed and burned and killed without mercy. Yet the saints were moved by a destiny their detractors could not have understood. It came from the lips of their fallen prophet: I prophesied that the Saints would continue to suffer much affliction * * *, many would apostatize, others would be put to death by our persecutors or lose their lives in consequence of exposure or disease, and some of you will live to go and assist in making settlements and build cities, and see the Saints become a mighty people in the midst of the Rocky Mountains. As summer came to western Iowa the vanguard paused to build and plant for those who would follow, and, thus further delayed, found it necessary to spend the winter of 1846-47 on the banks of the Missouri, upriver from Council Bluffs, in Indian territory. Here, at winter quarters, they gathered and regrouped. On the 7th of April 1847, the advance company, led by Brigham Young, was once more on the move, followed in June by approximately 1,500 people organized after the Biblical model as the ``Camp of Israel.'' By July 21, after nearly 4 months on the trail, a scouting party reached the Valley of the Great Salt Lake, followed on the 22d by the main body of the advanced company. Two days later, Brigham Young himself reached the foothills at the edge of the Great Basin. Surveying the valley before him, as if in a vision, he finally spoke the now-famous words of approbation: ``This is the right place. Drive on.'' Over the next 150 years, the vision was verified and the prophecy fulfilled. Upward of 70,000 people crossed the plains in wagons and handcarts. Many a journey started from Liverpool where the faithful from throughout Europe embarked for Zion, fulfilling, as they believed, the words of the prophet Isaiah: And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths * * *. Six thousand died along the way. Some lost heart and turned back, or shrank before the daunting task of taming the harsh land and moved on to the greener pastures of Oregon and California. But more than 300 settlements in Utah and surrounding States, as well as colonies in Canada and Mexico, testify to the courage and determination of that vast majority who persevered. Today, the desert blossoms with the fruits of their labor, while their descendants continue to build upon their firm foundation. A yearlong celebration, with the theme ``Faith in Every Footstep,'' is now in progress to honor their memory. Well-wishers and admirers in towns and cities along the trail and throughout the world have joined with Latter-day Saints in commemorating this milestone of human history--with the dedication of buildings and monuments in hallowed places, with theater and music, historical displays, and a vivid reenactment of the trek itself. It has been, and continues to be, a joyful celebration, as befits the memory of those whose sacrifice has indeed given birth to ``a mighty people.'' Mr. President, I would like to add my tribute by quoting the words of a Mormon hymn which reflects--I think, appropriately--the joy and the guiding faith of those marvelous Saints who, 150 years ago, put their fate in the hands of God and turned their faces West: The Spirit of God like a fire is burning! The latter-day glory begins to come forth; The visions and blessings of old are returning, And angels are coming to visit the earth. We'll sing and we'll shout with the armies of heaven, Hosanna, hosanna to God and the Lamb! Let glory to them in the highest be given, Henceforth and forever, Amen and amen. Mr. President, my forebears were part of these pioneers who came across this vast territory, who suffered untold privations. My great- great-grandfather was killed by a mob. I have to say that when they came to Utah, they followed the leadership of Brigham Young and went wherever they were told to go. They believed in what they believed. They had faith in what they had faith in. And they lived up to the principles that literally made Utah such a great State and much of the West greater than it would have been. So I am very grateful for these pioneers. I am grateful for those who made that commemorative trip this year and have gone through the deprivations and privations to show just a little bit what some of these early pioneers had gone through. Last but not least, a number of them expressed themselves and said that this experience of going on that pioneer trek, walking it, riding in covered wagons, riding horses, and pulling handcarts was one of the greatest experiences of their lives. Unfortunately, it wasn't perhaps the greatest experience for our early forebears, the pioneers, because of the many travails and problems they had. These trails they had to break themselves, in many respects, and they did it and I am grateful for it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Colorado be willing to add a Hatch amendment on national media campaign?

Mr. HATCH. Yes, in addition to the judges' compensation.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today that we are finally voting on the nomination of Mr. Eric Holder, nominated to serve as Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Holder was reported out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously on June 24. I support Mr. Holder for this position, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of his confirmation. This is a position which is vitally important to the efficient and effective management of the Justice Department, as well as to this committee and its many dealings with the Department. The Deputy Attorney General plays a critical role in the day-to-day oversight, management, and administration of the Justice Department, typically handling the Department's most important and sensitive matters. The deputy has ultimate responsibility for the office of the Solicitor General, who represents the United States before the Supreme Court, as well as all of the Department's civil and criminal divisions, including, for example, the civil rights, tax and antitrust divisions, the criminal division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and all U.S. attorneys. In short, a broad array of policy and law-enforcement decisions that are critical not just to our legal system but to the Nation as a whole, ultimately pass through the Deputy Attorney General. Mr. Holder comes to us with a distinguished record in the law and in the administration of justice. After graduating from Columbia Law School in 1976, he served for 12 years as a prosecutor in the public integrity section of Justice Department's Criminal Division, after which he served for 5 years as a associate judge for the District of Columbia Superior Court. Since 1993, Mr. Holder has served as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, our Nation's largest U.S. Attorney's Office, which employs over 300 attorneys and prosecutes over 10,000 cases each year. I believe these positions provide especially useful experience for a person who would serve as Deputy Attorney General. I would like to emphasize how important it is to the Senate and the Judiciary Committee in particular, on both sides of the aisle, to have a close and cooperative working relationship with the Deputy Attorney General. I believe that one of the Department's greatest assets over the past several years has been its former deputy, Jamie Gorelick, who successfully fostered and maintained a cooperative, honest, and responsive relationship with this committee. I cannot overestimate how valuable this relationship has been in the virtually daily interactions between the committee and the Department, and I am hopeful, and confident, that Eric Holder will, like his predecessor, work closely with the committee to ensure that the Department maintains the highest level of professionalism and independence in its commitment to enforcing our Nation's laws. I have spoken with Mr. Holder on numerous occasions since his nomination, and am struck that, in addition to being eminently qualified for this position, he is a candid, forthright individual of character and integrity who will be a positive force in steering the Justice Department and in seeing to it that our laws our faithfully and impartially enforced. The Nation expects and deserves nothing less, and I believe they will get as much from Mr. Holder. While I have often given Attorney General Reno due credit for the fine work and accomplishments of the Justice Department, not the least of which is the recent trial and conviction of Timothy McVeigh, the Department, like any large agency, also has its share of problems, many of which fall on the Deputy Attorney General's desk. Moreover, the Department has been, and inevitably will be, the subject of some rather intense political pressure, and, quite frankly, I am somewhat disturbed by a growing sense that, in a number of instances, there is at least the appearance that political pressures may have won out over the fair and impartial enforcement of the law. After a rather public display by the White House of its displeasure that the Attorney General had previously sought the appointment of four independent counsels, we now see the Attorney General steadfastly refusing to appoint an independent counsel to conduct the campaign finance investigation--the one case where an independent counsel is most called for to ensure public confidence in the investigation and the Department itself. And, after the Attorney General expressly adopted one interpretation of the independent counsel statute, and I challenged that interpretation, we now receive a letter explaining that she has, notwithstanding statements to the contrary, been applying the same standard I articulated. The Justice Department issues bizarre statements seeking to put particular spins on information disclosed by Chairman Thompson in connection with the campaign fundraising hearings. The Justice Department has filed briefs taking rather dubious positions in politically sensitive cases, including its appeal brief in the litigation over California's proposition 209, and its very recent brief defending Mrs. Clinton's invocation of a governmental attorney client privilege in response to independent counsel Starr's request for certain documents. And the FBI Director is in the position of refusing to brief the White House on national security matters because of its pending investigation. While each of these instances, standing alone, might have a legitimate explanation, taken together they create an appearance that politics is influencing what should be a neutral, independent enforcement of our Nation's laws. Public confidence in our legal system, and in our Government itself, demands nothing short of this. Mr. Holder has given me his commitment to maintaining his own independent judgment, and to seeing to it that the law is fairly and impartially interpreted and enforced as it should be, even when doing so may lead to results that are not politically expedient. That commitment will be as important as ever for the Department as it faces numerous challenges in the coming years. I believe Mr. Holder will remain true to his word, and urge my colleagues to support him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. On both nominees.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time. I ask unanimous consent that upon the completion of debate or the yielding back of time on the Klein nomination, we proceed to a rollcall vote on the nomination and then, after that vote we proceed to vote on Executive Calendar No. 139, the nomination of Eric Holder to be Deputy Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, do I understand the other side is willing to yield back the remainder of their time and we are prepared to yield back the remainder of our time?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I must say I find some irony in the criticisms I am hearing today regarding Mr. Klein's efforts to implement the Telecommunications Act. In essence, it is being suggested that Mr. Klein's interpretation of the Act would permit local Bell companies to enter the long distance market prematurely, or too easily. In fact, however, Mr. Klein has weighed in against Bell entry into long distance in the 2 applications that have, to date, come before him--that is, the SBC and Ameritech applications. So it is curious to me that, while Mr. Klein's only actions in this regard have been contrary to the Bells, his confirmation is being opposed on the ground that he is being too lax on the Bells. This puzzles me. But the broader point here is that Mr. Klein has demonstrated a studied, fair approach to interpreting the law, as a general matter. I may well disagree with particular decisions Mr. Klein makes, but I am persuaded he will make a top-flight antitrust chief. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this nomination.