Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just say I compliment my colleagues for the excellent job they have done in coming up with the first 10 bills of this session. I think they are bills that the American people have to be very interested in. There is no question that each and every one is essential for the future of our country. I am very appreciative that so many colleagues are willing to cosponsor and to push these particular bills. Having said that, the No. 1 issue on our agenda is, as it has always been for Republicans and I think some very courageous Democrats as well, S.J. Res. 1, the balanced budget constitutional amendment. Mr. President, this is an amendment that literally could change the future of our country for the better. We are now approaching a $6 trillion deficit. It has been largely accumulated over the last 15 or 20 years. We have had a period of almost 60 years of unbalanced budgets, except on very rare occasions. The Senate and the Hose seem to be institutionally incapable of reaching balanced budget appropriations and budget acts. And I might add, the President is incapable, as well. If you look at the last budgets that the President has submitted, even the one that he called the balanced budget, it was heavily loaded in the rear end of the budget, in the last 2 years, knowing that there is no way in the world that when we ultimately reach 2001 and 2002 that we can actually balance the budget. It has been a phony game. It is time to end that game. It is time to literally strike out for the people of this country and for our children and grandchildren of future generations by getting our fiscal house in order. The only way that many of the now 62 cosponsors, and another 6 who have said to their constituents that they will vote for this amendment, it is the only way we can bring about a fiscal sanity that will reduce taxes, reduce the interest rates of our society, keep the stock market going, protect social security, Medicaid, Medicare, veterans pensions and other matters, by having a strong fiscal economy through the balanced budget amendment. We are very concerned. This is a major, major battle this year. We have 62 cosponsors--all 55 Republicans and 7 courageous Democrats so far. We have another six Democrats who have promised their people at home that they would vote for the balanced budget amendment. Everybody knows this game. Everybody knows there will be some killer amendments trying to defeat this amendment. In the end, everybody knows what the amendment is. It is precisely the same as that found in the House and that which will be brought up in the House. If we are ever going to get this fiscal house in order, this is the way to do it. It is only the first step. Even if both Houses of Congress do pass the balanced budget amendment by the requisite two-thirds vote, the amendment still has to be submitted to the States, and three-quarters of them, or 38 States, have to ratify the amendment. It is a very, very difficult process at best. I just believe this is the year to do it. I hope that everybody will live up to the commitments they have made to their constituents at home. If they do, we will have set this country on a fiscal order path that will be very beneficial for all of our children and grandchildren and future generations. Mr. President. I rise to speak on the Balanced Budget Amendment, which I have just introduced. Last Congress, when the Amendment fell a mere one vote short of passage here in the Senate, I vowed that we would be back to try to pass this amendment and put America back on the course of fiscal responsibility. We are back again and I have brought sixty-one other Senators with me. Every one of the 55 Republicans in the Senate are original co-sponsors, and we are joined by seven strong Democrats. The Balanced Budget Amendment has sixty two original cosponsors. If only five other Senators join us we will have the votes America needs to see the Senate pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. If everyone votes as they said they would before the November election and keeps their promise to their constituents, the Senate will pass the balanced budget amendment. The Balanced Budget Amendment will again be S.J. Res. 1. It is right that it should be, because it is the single most important piece of legislation that will be voted on this Congress. It is that important because if enacted it will change forever the way business is done in Washington. The idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment is not new. Unfortunately, neither is the problem it is designed to solve. About thirty years ago, we got off track and ran a deficit. It was not the first deficit we had ever run, and it was only a small one, nothing to get too worried about. But we never got back on track: we ran another deficit the next year, and again the next year after that, and never got back into balance. In fact, we have run a deficit every year since 1969. And that budget in 1969 was the only balanced budget since 1960. Today, the national debt is estimated to be $5.311 trillion. Last Friday, when we began hearings on S.J. Res 1, the debt was at less than $5.310 trillion. In other words, the debt has already increased by more than $1 billion since the Senate began consideration of the measure last week. Portioned out equally, every man, woman, and child in America owes about $20,000. If the debt were piled into a single stack of pennies, that pile could reach past the Moon, past Mars, and all the way to Jupiter! It is enough money to buy every single automobile ever sold in the United States AND every plane ticket ever sold for travel in the United States. And, Mr. President, the debt continues to grow. If you spent a dollar a second, it would take you over 150,000 years to spend as much as the national debt. But we have managed to accumulate our national debt much faster. This year, we will increase the debt by about $4,500 every second. At this rate it won't be long before we're all going to have to learn what comes after trillion. The reality is that the bridge we are building to the 21st century is awash in debt. I read recently that this year the European Union will be deciding which nations quality to join the new single currency in the first tier. In order to join, nations must satisfy several criteria. One of those criteria is that the nation's total debt must be no greater than sixty percent of that nation's GDP. Well, Mr. President, our debt is about seventy percent of our GDP. Which means if we tried to join the European Union's new currency now, the United States would not qualify. By international standards, we are too far in debt to be trusted financially. This nation faces a future with higher taxes, lower wages, and dramatically reduced world influence if we do not get our spending habits under control. As well, failure to get our national debt under control could prove catastrophic to current and future older Americans. Over the next few weeks, opponents of the balanced budget amendment are going to try to change the subject to a discussion of social security and Medicare. For example, Treasury Secretary Rubin testified before the Judiciary Committee on Friday in opposition to the balanced budget amendment and suggested--no less than eight times during a six page statement--that passage of the balanced budget amendment would result in social security or Medicare checks being stopped. Opponents of the balanced budget amendment want the public to believe that passing the balanced budget amendment and balancing our federal budget threatens the retirement security of older Americans. What they ignore is that Congress simply never will allow social security or Medicare checks to stop. It simply will not happen. Furthermore, they fail to appreciate--or fail to mention--the positive effect the balanced budget amendment would have on the long term stability of social security as well as the retirement investments for most every American. To listen to opponents of the balanced budget amendment, one would think that Americans are counting exclusively on social security for their economic security during retirement when in fact, more and more Americans are relying on Wall Street. A recent PBS Frontline documentary, ``Betting on the Market,'' explains how Americans are increasingly entrusting their long-term retirement savings in Wall Street. There are 34 million households that have invested in the stock market in some form. As financial expert and the best-selling author of ``Smart Money,'' Jim Cramer, points out, if you have a pension, it's likely that it's invested in stocks. If you have a 401K plan, it's probably invested in stocks. Worth magazine's Ken Kurson points out that in 1996, 34 percent of households headed by someone under 25 had some sort of mutual fund. Stock mutual funds represent the biggest chunk of young investor's money. At the same time Americans carry record credit card debt. As financial historian Peter Bernstein points out, the money that people used to put in the stock market was money that they hoped to get rich on. Today, we are investing our blood money--our savings; our nest eggs. America's affection for the markets is demonstrated by Paine Webber's recent announcement that it achieved a fifty percent increase in earnings last quarter. This is all well and good while the Dow Jones Industrial keeps setting new highs--it closed yesterday at 6,843. NASDAQ also reached record levels benefiting from a boost in technology stocks. With more and more Americans relying on mutual funds and stocks-- whether they know it or not--for their retirement, what happens to our retirement security if we experience an economic downturn precipitated by our failure to address our nation's growing debt? What happens if Congress once again demonstrates an unwillingness to pass the balanced budget amendment and take this necessary step towards balancing the budget? With the fortunes of Wall Street effecting the quality of life for more and more future retirees, Congress needs to concern itself with how our growing debt and our willingness to make tough choices will affect Wall Street. Nothing the Congress can do would have a more positive effect on Wall Street and, in turn, the stability of our retirement savings than passing the balanced budget amendment and balancing the budget. More than 250 economists share this view. If my colleagues are concerned with the financial security of current and future older Americans, they will refrain from the wedge politics of Medicare and social security cuts and, instead, support the balanced budget. The fact is that every political incentive in this town is to spend now and let the next guy worry about paying the bill. Fiscal accountability is the enemy of big government. There is only one way to break Washington's addiction to spending other people's money and borrowing from our children to do so: the pressure of a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. I look forward to the debate on this important measure, and I look forward to more fully explaining why I think that only a structural change in our basic charter can restore the fiscal responsibility we seem to have lost over the three or so decades. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Joint Resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I introduce the Civil Justice Fairness Act of 1997. Last Congress, I introduced a similar bill that, had it been enacted, would have granted significant relief from litigation abuses to individuals, consumers, small businesses and others. Unfortunately, given President Clinton's repeated vetoes of litigation reform measures in the 104th Congress, it was clear that we would be unable to enact more broad-reaching civil justice reform. This Congress, I urge my colleagues to revisit the important issue of litigation reform. Product liability reform remains badly needed, as do the more comprehensive reforms of the civil litigation system embodied in my civil justice reform bill, the Civil Justice Fairness Act of 1997. Americans in Utah and every other State overwhelmingly agree that there is a crying need for reform of our civil justice system. They are sick and tired of the abuses of our system, and are fed up with million dollar awards for scratched paint jobs, spilled coffee, and other minor harms. The system fails to deliver justice in far too many cases. Success for plaintiffs can depend more on chance than the merits of the case, and defendants may find themselves forced to settle for significant sums in circumstances in which they have done little or no wrong, simply due to the high litigation costs involved in defending against a weak or frivolous lawsuit. I have gone through the litany of problems with our civil justice system time and time again. They continue to include excessive legal fees and costs, dilatory and sometimes abusive litigation practices, the increasing use of ``junk science'' as evidence, and the risk of unduly large punitive damage awards. The problems with our current civil justice system have resulted in several perverse effects. First, all too often the system fails to accomplish its most important function--to compensate deserving plaintiffs adequately. Second, it imposes unnecessarily high litigation costs on all parties. Those costs are passed along to consumers--in effect, to each and every American--in the form of higher prices for products and services we buy. Those costs can even harm our nation's competitiveness in the global economy. Congress must face these problems and enact meaningful legislation reforming our civil justice system. Reforms are needed to eliminate abuses and procedural problems in litigation, and to restore to the American people a civil justice system deserving of their trust, confidence and support. To achieve this goal, I am introducing civil justice reform legislation. This bill will correct some of the more serious abuses in our present civil justice system through a number of provisions. The legislation will address the problems of excessive punitive damage awards and of multiple punitive damage awards. We all know that punitive damage awards are out of control in this country. Further, the imposition of multiple punitive damages for the same wrongful act raises particular concerns about the fairness of punitive damages and their ability to serve the purposes of punishment and deterrence for which they are intended. The Supreme Court, legal scholars, practicing litigators, and others have acknowledged for years that punitive damages may raise serious constitutional issues. A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court last term finally held that in certain circumstances a punitive damage award may violate due process and provided guidance as to when that would occur. In the case, BMW versus Gore, the Supreme Court acknowledged that excessive punitive damages ``implicate the federal interest in preventing individual states from imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce.'' The decision for the fist time recognizes some outside limits on punitive damage awards. The Court's decision leaves plenty of room for legislative action, and legislative reforms are now needed more than ever to set up the appropriate boundaries. The decision also highlights some of the extreme abuses in our civil justice system. The BMW versus Gore case was brought by a doctor who had purchased a BMW automobile for $40,000 and later discovered that the car had been partially refinished prior to sale. He sued the manufacturer in Alabama State court on a theory of fraud, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The jury found BMW liable for $4,000 in compensatory damages and $4 million in punitive damages. On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reduced the punitive damages award to $2 million--which still represents an astonishing award for such inconsequential harm. In its 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the $2 million punitive damages award was grossly excessive and therefore violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The court remanded the case for further proceedings. The majority opinion set out three guideposts for courts to employ in assessing the constitutional excessiveness of a punitive damages award: the reprehensibility of the conduct being punished, the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages, and the difference between the punitive award and criminal or civil sanctions that could be imposed for comparable conduct. Justice Breyer, in a concurring opinion joined by Justices O'Connor and Souter, emphasized that, although constitutional due process protections generally cover purely procedural protections, the narrow circumstances of the case justified added protections to ensure that legal standards providing for discretion are adequately enforced so as to provide for the ``application of law, rather than a decisionmaker's caprice.'' Congress has a similar responsibility to ensure fairness in the litigation system and the application of law in that system. It is high time for Congress to provide specific guidance to courts on the appropriate level of damage awards, and to address other issues in the civil litigation system. The BMW case also illustrates the potential abuses of the system that can occur through the availability of multiple awards of punitive damages for essentially the same conduct. Under current law, the company can still, in every other state in which it sold one of its vehicles, be sued for punitive damages for the same act. Multiple punitive damage awards can hurt not only defendants but also injured parties. Funds that would otherwise be available to compensate later victims can be wiped out at any early stage by excessive punitive damage awards. A Federal response is critical: if only the one State limits such awards, other States still remain free to impose multiple punitive damages. An important provision in my bill limits these multiple punitive damage awards. I am also today introducing separate legislation that would deal only with the multiple punitive damages problem. In addition to reforming multiple punitive damage awards, my broad civil justice reform legislation addresses general abuses of punitive damages litigation. It includes a heightened standard of proof to ensure that punitive damages are awarded only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the harm suffered was the result of conduct either specifically intended to cause that harm, or carried out with conscious, flagrant indifference to the right or the safety of the claimant. The bill also provides that punitive damages may not be awarded against the seller of a drug or medical device that received pre-market approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Additionally, this legislation would allow a bifurcated trial, at the defendant's request, on the issue of punitive damages and limits the amount of the award to either $250,000 or three times the economic damages suffered by the claimant, whichever is greater. The bill provides a special limit in the cases of small business or individuals; in those cases, punitive damages will be limited to the lesser of $250,000 or three times economic damages. The legislation would also limit a defendant's joint liability for non-economic damages. In any civil case for personal injury, wrongful death, or based upon the principles of comparative fault, a defendant's liability for non-economic loss shall be several only and shall not be joint. The trier of fact will determine the proportional liability of each person, whether or not a party to the action, and enter separate judgments against each defendant. Another provision of this bill would shift costs and attorneys fees in circumstances in which a party has rejected a settlement offer, forcing the litigation to proceed, and then obtain a less favorable judgment. This provision encourages parties to act reasonably, rather than pursue lengthy and costly litigation. It allows a plaintiff or a defendant to be compensated for their reasonable attorneys fees and costs from the point at which the other party rejects a reasonable settlement offer. Another widely reported problem in our civil justice system is abuse in contingency fee cases. This bill encourages attorneys to disclose fully to clients the hours worked and fees paid in all contingency fee cases. The bill calls upon the Attorney General to draft model State legislation requiring such disclosure to clients. It also requires the Attorney General to study possible abuses in the area of contingency fees and, where such abuses are found, to draft model State legislation specifically addressing those problems. This legislation restricts the use of so-called ``junk science'' in the courtroom. This long overdue reform will improve the reliability of expert scientific evidence and permit juries to consider only scientific evidence that is objectively reliable. This legislation includes a provision for health care liability reform. It limits, in any health care liability action, the maximum amount of non-economic damages that may be awarded to a claimant of $250,000. This limit would apply regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought, and regardless of the number of claims or actions brought. To avoid prejudice to any parties, the jury would not be informed about the limitations on non-economic damages. This legislation would also establish a reasonable, uniform statute of limitations for the bringing of health care liability actions. Further, if damages for losses incurred after the date of judgment exceed $100,000, the Court shall allow the parties to have 60 days in which to negotiate an agreement providing for the payment of such damages in a lump sum, periodic payments, or a combination of both. If no agreement is reached, a defendant may elect to pay the damages on a periodic basis. Periodic payments for future damages would terminate in the event of the claimant's return to work, or upon the claimant's death. This is an exception for the portion of such payments allocable to future earnings, which shall be paid to any individual to whom the claimant owed a duty of support immediately prior to death, to the extent required by law at the time of the claimant's death. This legislation also allows states the freedom to experiment with alternative patient compensation systems based upon no-fault principles. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would award grants based on applications by interested states according to enumerated criteria and subject to enumerated reporting requirements. Persons or entities participating in such experimental systems may obtain from the Secretary a waiver from the provisions of this legislation for the duration of the experiment. The Secretary would collect information regarding these experiments and submit an annual report to Congress, including an assessment of the feasibility of implementing no-fault systems, and legislative recommendations, if any. I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at these problems within our civil justice system. I believe this bill addresses these issues in a common sense way, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation. I ask for unanimous consent that a section-by-section description of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to make several brief comments regarding a provision included in the Economic Espionage Act passed yesterday. That legislation included an amendment I offered when this bill first passed the Senate to permit the transfer of Federal defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity from the inadequate facility of St. Elizabeths Hospital to the custody of the Attorney General. Each of the approximately 26 inmates affected by this legislation were confined prior to the enactment of the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984. Since 1984, Federal inmates found not guilty by reason of insanity have been turned over to the custody of the Attorney General for appropriate treatment. This corrective legislation would extend this treatment to the pre-IDRA confinees. St. Elizabeths Hospital is in a state of disrepair. According to press reports, the 70-year-old heating system is unreliable and can leave patients shivering in the cold during the winter months. The hospital staff is completely overwhelmed, and shortages of important antidepressant medicines have been reported by doctors. These conditions should concern us all, and we should seek workable long-term solutions. But, we should deal promptly with current problems. What is particularly troubling is the lack of security at the facility, which is putting the public at risk. There are 26 Federal defendants in the hospital that may be a danger to themselves and others. Among these inmates is John Hinckley, Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Reagan in 1981. According to the Department of Justice, there have already been three known escapes by these inmates in the last 2 years. Fortunately, all of these inmates were recaptured, but not before one of them traveled to North Carolina and allegedly sexually molested two 3-year-old girls before he was found and returned to custody. Sadly, the hospital did not notify the Marshals Service, which is responsible for the security of these inmates, of a single escape. St. Elizabeths Hospital apparently does not have the capability to provide adequately for the security or well-being of these 26 Federal defendants, even though the Federal Government pays $450 per inmate per day, which works out to $164,250 per inmate annually. It is time that the Federal Government take responsibility of these individuals for their own safety and the safety of the general public. This bill transfers these 26 Federal defendants to the custody of the Attorney General. This will allow the defendants to be placed in appropriate Federal Bureau of Prisons medical facilities, for a fraction of the current cost, and to receive care appropriate to their conditions. The Justice Department has estimated that by transferring even half of the 26 patients to Federal medical facilities that the United States would save at least $1.5 million annually. The bill also requires that St. Elizabeth's Hospital provide to the Department of Justice the medical and treatment records for these inmates and bars the hospital from preventing doctors from discussing the inmates' treatment with Department of Justice officials. The hospital has been withholding the records, making it impossible for the Department--which is, after all responsible both for the inmates' well- being and for paying for their upkeep--to make effective decisions. With respect to this records and access provision, I would like to briefly mention another related provision of this legislation. At the request of Senator Leahy, we have included a provision clarifying the effect of the record and access provision on doctor-patient testimonial privileges. This provision is intended to ensure that this legislation in no way alters the current state of the law regarding such testimonial privileges. Where these testimonial privileges currently exist, they will continue to have effect. Where they do not now apply, this legislation does not make them applicable. I do not believe that any doctor-patient privilege is applicable to the treatment of the patients affected by this legislation. Indeed, it would be anomalous if, in a post-adjudication setting, such a privilege did exist. It would frustrate the ability of the government to provide appropriate care and treatment for these patients entrusted to the Government's care as a result of the adjudication. Mr. President, this legislation provides for the safety and well- being of the public and of affected patients in a fiscally responsible manner. I am pleased by its adoption by the Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Department of Justice endorsing this legislation be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Yes. Those criteria are intended to limit the circumstances in which criminal aliens who have been admitted to the Witness Protection Program may be released. The statutory language in new section 236(c)(2) clearly provides that those are additional limits on the Attorney General's release authority. The fact that a criminal alien has been admitted to the program is not alone sufficient to justify releasing that alien. In order to release the alien, the Attorney General must also be satisfied that the alien will not pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property, is likely to appear for any scheduled proceedings, and the Attorney General is required to give due consideration to the severity of the offense committed by the alien.

Mr. HATCH. The conference report provision is intended to limit the conditions for release permitted in the Senate bill to those necessary to serve the purposes the Senate was trying to accomplish. The Senate provisions may have permitted releases under more circumstances than were truly necessary. To begin with, the conference report does not permit the release of criminal aliens for purposes of cooperating with law enforcement unless the alien has been accepted into the Witness Protection Program pursuant to section 3521 of title 18. Nor does the conference report permit the release of criminal aliens for purposes of national security, because it was difficult to imagine a circumstance in which the release of a convicted criminal would serve our national security interests--unless the criminal had been accepted into the Witness Protection Program. Thus, I can assure the Senator from Michigan that the central purpose of the Senate amendments regarding mandatory detention--preventing the release of criminal aliens to further prey on American citizens--is furthered by the conference provision to an even greater degree than the Senate provision.

Mr. HATCH. Yes. The criminal aliens may be released from custody only if the Attorney General has accepted the alien into the Witness Protection Program. That is reflected in the statutory language specifically providing that the release provision applies ``only if'' the Attorney General makes a determination pursuant to section 3521 of title 18, United States Code to accept an alien into the Witness Protection Program.

Mr. HATCH. Let me say first of all that I share the Senator's concern with the procedural abuses under this country's immigration laws that have long been available to criminal aliens. The limitations on 212(c)- type eligibility for criminal aliens in the conference report, which appear in new section 240A(a), is intended to put an end to that. The reason the total bar on 212(c) review for criminal aliens in the Terrorism Act was revised to bar only aggravated felons was that, first, the definition of ``aggravated felony'' has been expanded to encompass most of the deportable crimes under old section 241, for which 212(c) review was barred in the Terrorism Act. Second, there was some concern that there might be certain rare circumstances we had not contemplated, when removal of a particular criminal alien might not be appropriate. For example, an alien with one minor criminal conviction several decades ago, who has clearly reformed and led an exemplary life and made great contributions to this country, we believed ought to retain eligibility for a waiver of deportation or exclusion.

Mr. HATCH. Yes. I would also like to let the Senator from Michigan know how much I appreciate his commitment and dedication on this issue.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct. The extraordinary circumstances necessary for a grant of 212(c) relief should refer to the insignificance of the crime, and to substantial contributions to society made by the alien. To qualify for section 212(c) or analogous relief, despite the existence of a criminal conviction, an alien will have to show substantial benefits this county from granting the relief--not the potential hardship to the alien from not granting relief. I understand your concern that relief under this section will not be so limited, since it has not been so limited in practice in the past. We believed, however, that passage of the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act sufficiently demonstrated the Congress' serious concern about the abuse of section 212(c), that we could expect Immigration Judges to begin using their discretion under section 212(c) more judiciously. As you know, the Terrorism Act eliminated 212(c) relief for virtually any alien who had been convicted of any crime, including some misdemeanors. Several members believed that only by eliminating Immigration Judges' discretion to grant section 212(c) relief to criminal aliens altogether could we prevent section 212(c) from being used to grant relief too freely. The prevailing view was that the Terrorism Act sent a clear message that section 212(c) was being abused, and that Immigration Judges could be expected to respond to that message and take a hard look at 212(c) relief. The partial restoration of section 212(c) relief for aliens who have not committed aggravated felonies will test that theory.

Mr. HATCH. I agree with the Senator. Now that we have restored section 212(c) waivers for a small percentage of criminal aliens we expect Immigration Judges to use their discretion under this new section only in unusual cases involving exceptional immigrants whose criminal records consist only of minor crimes committed many years ago.We expect that to be the case under these new provisions.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to highlight a program that brings a greater comprehension and appreciation of the democratic process to millions of American students from kindergarten through high school: the National Student/Parent Mock Election. The benefits of this fine program cannot be underestimated. Students who have participated in the National Student/Parent Mock Election report that it had a profound effect on them and made them aware of the rights and the responsibilities inherent in their U.S. citizenship. By stressing the importance of voter participation early on, these students gain a greater understanding of the democratic process, particularly the fact that democracy does not happen by itself. It succeeds only if citizens are informed and participate. Many of the ``State Election Headquarters'' which collect the votes from the schools will host spirited mock ``conventions'' complete with student ``delegates'' and ``anchors'' reporting the outcomes of the Presidential and Congressional elections. Taking part in these events gives students a sense of political ownership. Students also see first hand the work and effort that go into a political campaign. State participation in the National Student/Parent Mock Election is crucial. For example, in my own state of Utah, Governor Michael Leavitt has proclaimed October 30 as ``Mock Election Day.'' More than 46,000 Utah students have registered to vote, doubling voter turnouts from the last election. The California Mock Election will employ a formal voter registration procedure so that students can better understand the voting process. Besides voting for the President and 52 Members of the House of Representatives, California students will vote on 3 statewide propositions dealing with clean water, racial discrimination, and the minimum wage. In Kansas, a local public broadcasting station plans to air a live town hall meeting. Candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate will answer questions put to them by schoolchildren. Those who are interested in participating in the Mock Election can call the Mock Election's toll-free number (800-230-3349) and may visit the Mock Election's new Internet Website at http://allpolitics.com. Mr. President, it only makes sense that habits learned young set the course for adult behavior. Through the Student/Parent Mock Election, young people are hopefully beginning a commitment to responsible citizen involvement that they will continue as adults. I commend those individuals who have worked so hard to make the National Student/Parent Mock Election a nationwide success. 1996 National Student/Parent Mock Election

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the bill we are considering today is a substitute offered by Senators Coverdell, Biden and myself to the House-passed Drug-Induced Rape Prevention and Punishment Act, H.R. 4137, authored by my good friend and colleague, Representative Gerry Solomon of New York, chairman of the Rules Committee. It is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on both sides, and is acceptable to the House, so I am hopeful it can quickly win final approval and be sent to the President for signature. Mr. President, it is clear to this member that the Congress must address the horrible problem of date rape before we adjourn for the year. Reports of date rapes appear to be on the rise. These cases are not confined to Rohypnol--other drugs have also been implicated--but many of the instances brought to our attention do involve ``roofies,'' as they are called on the street. These offenses are violent crimes against women. I find the situation deplorable. Our amendment is a strike back at those who would use controlled substances to engage in what can only be considered a most reprehensible crime, to sedate, then violate, unsuspecting women. We must redouble our efforts to discourage and punish illegal behavior that can have such drastic consequences. Accordingly, the bill provides new penalties of up to 20 years imprisonment, and fines in accordance with Title 18, U.S.C., for persons with the intent to commit a crime of violence--including rape-- by distributing any controlled substance to another individual without that person's knowledge. In addition, additional penalties are also imposed with specific reference to flunitrazepam, sold under the trade name Rohypnol. In general, these penalties are equivalent to those of Schedule I controlled substances, which include the possibility of imprisonment up to 20 years for individuals who knowingly or intentionally manufacture, distribute, or dispense one gram of flunitrazepam, or 5 years for 30 milligrams. The bill also enhances penalties for the simple possession or illegal importation of flunitrazepam. Since many versions of this bill have been proposed, I wanted to take this opportunity to review the history of this legislation. As my colleagues are aware, on August 2, Senator Hutchinson and I introduced S. 2040, the Drug-Induced Rape Prevention Act. Our bill was cosponsored by Senators Moseley-Braun and Specter. During consideration of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, Senator Biden offered an amendment to reschedule Rohypnol to schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Senator Coverdell and I--believing that it was inappropriate to reschedule Rohypnol, a drug legally marketed in over 60 countries, to a category defined as ``no medical use,'' offered a substitute amendment to that bill, neither of which had been voted upon when the Senate suspended debate on the Treasury- Postal bill and subsequently folded it into the omnibus appropriations bill. On the topic of reschheduling, it is important for my colleagues to be aware that Rohypnol is not sold legally in the United States. However, it is sold legally overseas. A unilateral effort on the part of the United States to reschedule the drug to the category of ``no medical use'' could negatively affect the legitimate access to this drug oversees. Since schedule I is the most restrictive category, which is reserved for the drugs which have a high potential for abuse, drugs which have no currently accepted medical use in treatment, and drugs for which there is a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, I believe it would be improper for Congress to place Rohypnol in schedule I. The regulations and controls placed on schedule I substances--controls, I might add, which are warranted for drugs which fall into this category--effectively remove these substances from the health care market. The schedule I standards clearly do not apply to Rohypnol, a member of the benzodiazepene class, which generally falls within the less restrictive schedule IV. Congressional rescheduling--an action seldom taken--of this drug would indicate to other countries that the United States believes there is no medical use for Rohypnol. In fact, there are legitimate medical uses for Rohypnol. So, too, are there legitimate medical uses of many other drugs not currently approved for sale in the United States. To make any medically accepted drug a schedule I substance because it is being used illegally would be a troubling precedent for our Nation's health care system. What drugs would be next? What other drugs will be put beyond the reach of doctors and their patients because Congress chose to act hastily? On September 26, the House passed, 421 to 1, H.R. 4137, a compromise bill authored by Representative Solomon, which many of us on this side of the aisle respected for its tough penalties. However, as we encountered with the recently passed bill to curb methamphetamine abuse, certain Senators on the Democratic side refused to clear any bill with mandatory minimum sentences, and thus we were forced to amend the House bill. For the record, I continue to prefer mandatory minimum sentences as a sure deterrent to crime. However, in this case as with the meth bill, I believe it is preferable to yield temporarily on that point in order to get a final agreement before adjournment. The bill we consider today contains the text of the Hatch/Coverdell amendment from September 12, with three provisions taken from the House bill. It includes the House language requiring the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend the sentencing guidelines for offenses involving Rohypnol. It also includes the House provision calling for a study on rescheduling of Rohypnol, and an educational program for police departments on the use of controlled substances in the furtherance of rapes and sexual assaults. The substitute is similar to the House-passed measure, in that it increases penalties for possession of Rohypnol and use of the drug in violent crimes, including rape. It does not, however, reschedule the drug, or impose mandatory minimum sentences. In closing, Mr. President, I must underscore that the intent of our effort is simple: to fortify our arsenal so that law enforcement has the tools it needs to fight the heinous crime of date rape. The Federal Government must show that it will not tolerate the use of any drug to facilitate rape. It is necessary and prudent that the Congress act on this important legislation. I want to thank my colleagues for their work on this important, bipartisan bill. I urge the Senate to pass this important measure. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation which passed be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 3723, the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. This bill makes the theft or unlawful appropriation and conversion of ``proprietary economic information'' a Federal felony. It is an important bill to all of Federal law enforcement, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. In today's technology revolution, the Congress has recognized the need to develop meaningful legislation that has real teeth to stop a burgeoning criminal enterprise. Such enterprise targets the cutting edge research and development of our Nation's industries, often on behalf of a competitor or foreign state. Until now, there has been no meaningful deterrent to such activity. Victims were often forced to resort to State civil remedies as their only redress. I am confident that all of my colleagues will agree that H.R. 3723, a bill which we have crafted and has undergone minor House modification, is a strong and meaningful deterrent to criminals considering engaging in economic espionage. There is one provision in the bill originally passed by the Senate but deleted from the House which requires clarification. The original bill passed by the Senate contained a provision that required Attorney General approval prior to the initiation of a prosecution under this legislation. The bill returned to the Senate by the House deleted this requirement. It was my intent to attach an amendment to this bill, reinserting the prior authorization requirement. After numerous discussions with administration and industry officials, a compromise has been reached which will allow this bill to be passed by the full Senate as approved by the House. We have a letter from the Attorney General which memorializes an agreement we have made concerning this prior authorization requirement. This agreement provides that the Department of Justice shall implement regulations that require that an indictment can be pursued under this legislation only upon the express prior approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General-Criminal Division. This agreement shall remain in effect for a period of 5 years from enactment. During that timeframe, the Attorney General will be required to report to the Senate or House Judiciary Committees, any prosecutions carried out under this bill which did not receive such prior authorization. It shall also subject the U.S. Attorney or Justice Department official authorizing such prosecution, to appropriate disciplinary sanctions. I am confident that the Department of Justice will act in good faith and carry out its terms. I would like to mention three other provisions included in this bill. The first, included as a floor amendment by myself and Senator Kohl, authorizes $100 million in grants to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America to establish clubs in public housing and other distressed areas across the country. The Boys and Girls Clubs have an outstanding track record of reducing crime and drug use in the communities they serve, and this legislation will help them extend their reach into the communities that need them most. Second, I am pleased that this bill included another amendment I offered during Senate consideration, transferring to the Attorney General custody of certain Federal inmates hospitalized at St. Elizabeth's hospital. This provision will ensure that these persons, hospitalized because of not guilty by reason on insanity verdicts in Federal courts, receive appropriate care in safe, secure facilities. Finally, I would like to note that this legislation includes an amended version of technical corrections legislation to fix errors that have, over time, crept into the Federal criminal code. The continued integrity of the criminal laws depends on making these corrections from time to time, and I am pleased that we have addressed this matter here. For these reasons, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to fully support H.R. 3723. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referenced earlier from the Attorney General be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the 104th Congress winds to a close, I wanted to take this opportunity to comment on the demise of the Food and Drug Administration reform legislation. It has been extremely disappointing to me that efforts to prod the FDA into meaningful reform have not been fruitful. It is doubly disappointing because, our colleague, Senator Kassebaum, and her staff have spent countless hours crafting a solid reform bill, a bill that won overwhelming, bipartisan support from the Labor and Human Resources Committee. In remarks before this body earlier this year, I outlined my views on the need for FDA reform and the principles which should be embodied in any reform legislation. I continue to believe that reform of this tiny, but important, agency is sorely needed, reform that will both streamline its operations and preserve its commitment to ensuring the public health. I know that many who have worked on the FDA issues are discouraged, but we can be proud of three significant reforms to food and drug law this year: the first being the drug and device export amendments I authored with Representative Fred Upton; the Delaney clause reform embodied in the pesticide legislation the President recently signed; and the animal drug amendments so long championed by Senator Kassebaum. It seems, therefore, that the revolutionary course we charted for FDA reform at the beginning of the 104th Congress, evolved into a path evolutionary in nature, but still productive nonetheless. Much more remains to be done, and I will continue to work with my colleagues next year to advance the work we started this year. There are many priorities for further action, among them--speeding up generic drug approvals, clarifying how tissue should be regulated, expediting medical device approvals, deficiencies in the foreign inspections program, and rigorous oversight of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act's implementation. Another issue that I would like to see addressed next year is one that has been periodically on the FDA radar screen: the issue of national uniformity in regulation of products that fall within the FDA's purview. In 1987, FDA Commissioner Frank Young, in response to California's Proposition 65, was on the verge of issuing an FDA regulation that would have acted to preempt certain warning statements required by the State of California. In fact, in August of that year, Commissioner Young wrote the Governor of California to underscore his concerns about the potential negative effect of Proposition 65 on ``the interstate marketing of foods, drugs, cosmetics and other products regulated by the FDA.'' Further, Commissioner Young pointed out that ``the agency has adequate procedures for determining their safety and taking necessary regulatory action if problems arise.'' Although ultimately this regulation was not issued, the 1991 Advisory Committee on the Food and Drug Administration, chaired by former FDA Commissioner and Assistant Secretary for Health, Dr. Charles Edwards, examined this issue. The panel recommended that Congress enact legislation, ``that preempts additional and conflicting State requirements for all products subject to FDA regulation.'' The issue of Federal preemption is extremely important for several industries, especially over-the-counter drugs, cosmetics, and foods. I was heartened when the Labor and Human Resources Committee approved Senator Gregg's amendment on national uniformity for over-the-counter drugs during consideration of the FDA reform legislation, S. 1477, but was disappointed that Senator Gregg did not extend the concept further in his amendment. Let us take the cosmetics industry as a case in point. In the United States, the cosmetics sector of the economy represents an estimated $21 billion in annual sales, a significant amount by almost any measure. It consists of over 10 billion individual packages that move through the stream of interstate commerce annually. These include soap, shampoo, mouthwash, and other products that Americans use daily. These hundreds and hundreds of product lines, and thousands and thousands of products are each subject to differing regulation in the various States--even though all must meet the rigorous safety, purity and labeling requirements of Federal law. Given this volume of economic activity, it is imperative that manufacturers be able to react quickly to trends in the marketplace; they must have the ability to move into new product lines and move in to and out of new geographic areas with a minimum--but adequate--level of regulation to ensure the products are not adulterated and are made according to good manufacturing practices. Today, cosmetics manufacturers are competing more and more in a global economy, and are making products consistent with the international harmonization of standards in such large marketing areas as the European Union. A single nationwide system for regulating the safety and labeling of cosmetic products would be a great step in helping that industry move toward the international trends in marketing. At the same time, it would be a more efficient system, since allowing individual States to impose varying labeling requirements inevitably leads to higher prices. In other words, the time has more than come for enactment of a national uniformity law for cosmetic regulation. It is my hope that this issue will be high on our congressional agenda next year. In closing, Mr. President, I want to offer my great respects to Chairman Kassebaum for the hours, weeks and months of time she has devoted to the FDA reform issue. Although I have paid tribute to Senator Kassebaum in separate remarks here, I must reiterate again how much her reputation for equilibrium and fairness have lent to development of an FDA reform proposal which cleared the committee in such a bipartisan fashion. Finally, I must also pay tribute to the lead staffer on FDA issues, Jane Williams, who has worked virtually round-the-clock to try to fashion a good, fair, bipartisan reform bill. Jane more than exceeded that goal, and I think this body should give her some much-deserved recognition. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it has been a real pleasure serving with Jim Exon in the Senate. I have always admired his independence, dedication to his fellow Nebraskans, and his sense of humor. As a small businessman, he brought an important perspective to our consideration of legislation; and as a former Governor, he never forgot about the important role of State governments. On matters ranging from the budget to agriculture, in the minority or in the majority, he demonstrated amazing technical expertise as well as skillful and fair handling of debate. I will miss Senator Exon and wish him the best in all his future plans.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, an administration's crime policies are a web of many factors. They include, for example, the kind of judges a President will appoint. They include an administration's prosecutorial policies and its outlook on the drug problem and how to combat it. And they include the scope and nature of prisoners' rights an administration asserts against State and local government prisons and jails. I have spoken several times about soft on crime Clinton administration judges. President Clinton has been soft on drugs. After years of declining use, the drug problem is on the rise--on President Clinton's watch. And there is no way that he can avoid the criticism. Today, I wish to speak again about the Clinton administration's coddle a convict program. The President is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of convicted criminals and arrestees incarcerated in State and local prisons and jails. This is pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act [CRIPA]. I might add that I was the deciding vote on that act, and was the prime cosponsor, along with Senator Bayh, of that act many years ago. Convicted criminals do have some constitutional rights and we provided for them in that act; but, understandably, those rights are very sharply circumscribed. And, to my mind, the Clinton administration takes a very liberal view of these rights and reads the rights of the accused and of convicted criminals more favorably than the Constitution requires or even permits. On June 4, 1996, I drew the Senate's attention to some of the constitutional violations the Clinton administration claimed the State of Maryland was committing at its Supermax facility. This facility holds the worst of the most vicious criminals in the Maryland State prison system--murderers, rapists, and other hardened criminals. Now, is the Clinton administration citing the State of Maryland because it beats the convicts at Supermax? No. Is the Clinton administration citing Maryland because it tortures or starves these vicious criminals? No. Mr. President, the Clinton administration is citing the State of Maryland, in part, because ``food is served lukewarm or cold'' to these murderers and rapists. This is not all. The Clinton administration insists that Maryland provide these killers and rapists ``one hour of out-of-cell time daily. At least five times per week, this out of cell activity should occur outdoors, weather permitting.'' [Letter of Mr. Patrick, May 1, 1996, to Governor Parris N. Glendening, page 12]. That is right Mr. President, the hardened criminals who are the worst of the worst, who require special supervision, have a constitutional right to fresh air, to go outdoors. This does not represent law and order. This is the coddling of vicious criminals. Mr. President, this coddling campaign does not end at Maryland's Supermax facility. While time does not permit a full airing of this little known Clinton administration campaign, let me share with my colleagues just some of its more egregious outrages. Bear in mind, Mr. President, that certain penal policies may be desirable. But, the Constitution permits criminal prisoners to be afforded much less than the ideal. The Constitution certainly does not require States and localities to adopt model policies, as the Clinton administration seems to be trying to cram down the throats of State and local governments. The Clinton administration sent a June 1, 1995, letter to the Lee County jail in Georgia, a jail which had 27 inmates at the time. Here is one of the unconstitutional conditions the Clinton administration found at this jail: ``Inmates receive only two meals a day, and crackers and soda for `lunch.' They do not receive juice or milk * * *'' [June 1, 1995 letter from Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval L. Patrick to John L. Leach, III; page 3]. Mr. President, doesn't your heart just bleed? The inmates of this county jail do not get juice or milk. So, let us make a Federal case out of it, at least according to the Clinton administration. Let us threaten to sue this Georgia county, let us use the vast power of the Federal Government to ensure that the 27 inmates at this county jail get their juice or milk. I am confident of one thing, though: these crooks must get their cookies during the day. How do I know? Because if they didn't, the Clinton administration would be claiming a violation of their constitutional rights. Moreover, Mr. President, according to the Clinton administration, those arrested and detained for crimes have a constitutional right to wear underwear. You don't believe me, Mr. President? Am I satirizing the Clinton administration policies? Let me quote from the Clinton administration's April 16, 1996 letter to the Virginia Beach, VA city jail. Here is one of the ``conditions [which] violate the constitutional rights of prisoners housed at the jail.'' Let me go into it again. ``* * * [the jail] fails to provide underwear to newly arrested people who are wearing `unacceptable' underwear at the time of their arrest. Unacceptable underwear is defined by [the jail] as any underwear other than all white underwear devoid of any ornamentation or decoration * * *. As a practical matter, this practice results in inmates having no underwear for extended periods of time * * *.'' [April 16, 1996 letter from Mr. Patrick to Mayor Meyera E. Oberndorf, pages 2, 5.] This is ridiculous. Can you imagine it, Mr. President? The Federal Government, led by the Clinton administration, is fighting for the alleged right of inmates to wear underwear, and in the name of the Constitution, no less. Some of these inmates include accused murderers and rapists. James Madison has got to be rolling over in his grave. On October 18, 1993, the Clinton administration listed ``conditions at the [Grenada City, MS] jail [which] violate the constitutional rights of the prisoners confined therein.'' [October 18, 1993 letter from Acting Assistant General Attorney General James P. Turner to Mayor L.D. Boone, page 2]. The Clinton administration noted that its inspection ``revealed that inmates are not provided an exchange of clean linen, such as sheets, blankets, pillows, and pillow cases on a scheduled weekly basis.'' [page 4]. On July 21, 1994, the city signed a consent decree at the Clinton administration's behest, which codifies in a court decree this requirement of weekly linen service. Just weeks later, however, the Constitution changed according to the Clinton administration: ``Prisoners should have a clean clothes and linen exchange at least three times per week.'' [August 3, 1994 letter from Mr. Patrick to Sheriff Robert McCabe, Norfolk, VA city jail, page 8.] Mr. President, I am sure it is sound penal policy to provide clean clothes and linen exchange once or even three times a week. But the Clinton administration has no business imposing its policy preferences as requirements on States and localities under the false guise of enforcing the Constitution. Inmates' clothing and linen have to become awfully wretched before a constitutional violation occurs. This is an extra-constitutional convenience, a Clinton administration coddle, and not the enforcement of the Constitution. The Clinton administration's coddling of criminals does not stop there. The Clinton administration is compelling jails and prisons to ``ensure that no inmate has to sleep on the floor.'' The Clinton administration told the Tulsa County Jail that it must ``[p]rovide all inmates within twenty-four hours of their admission with a bunk and mattress well above the floor.'' [September 13, 1994 letter from Mr. Patrick to Lewis Harris, page 15.] It is certainly preferable to give inmates a bunk to sleep in. But, jail and prison space do not always match the number of criminals and detainees requiring incarceration. The Constitution does not require a bunk for every inmate. Sleeping on a mattress on a floor or on the floor itself may not be convenient, but the Constitution does not require prisons and jails to afford comfortable lodging for every criminal. But just listen to the bleeding heart of the Clinton administration, time and again bringing the full weight of the Federal Government down on the law enforcement systems of our localities and States. On October 26, 1993, the Clinton administration advised the Lee County jail in Mississippi that the jail ``is routinely overcrowded. [Its capacity] is 54, but there were 80 inmates on the first day [of the Justice Department's tour]'' and occasionally the inmate population is about double the jail's capacity. This means ``that some inmates have to sleep on bunks in the day rooms, on mattresses on the floor, and on top of the day room tables * * *.'' That is unconstitutional, according to the Clinton administration. [October 26, 1993 letter from Mr. Turner to Billy Davis, pages 2, 3.] The Clinton administration demanded that the jail ``house[] only an appropriate number of inmates and that none of the inmates sleep on the floor.'' [page 8]. Indeed, Mr. President, take a look at how the Clinton administration handled the Forrest County, MS, jail. The Clinton administration cited the jail because it ``is consistently overcrowded. Although the facility is designed to house 172 inmates * * * [it has] housed up to 242 individuals on a single day. On the day of [the Justice Department's] tour * * * the jail housed 203 inmates. Inmates have slept on mattresses on the floor for the past year.'' [July 6, 1993 letter from Mr. Turner to Lynn Cartlidge, Attachment, page 4]. The Clinton administration, with the full leverage of its resources, prevailed upon the county to enter into a consent decree nearly 2 years later. The consent decree provides that, ``[t]he jail's population shall not exceed the rated capacity of 172 unless temporary conditions exist beyond the control of [the County].'' Even then, the county must do all it can within its control to get the inmate population down to 172 [Consent decree, paragraphs 67-69]. Mr. President, the inmates at Forrest County jail, or any other jail or prison, do not have a constitutional right to be routinely housed at a jail with no overcrowding whatsoever. But the inmates' allies in the Clinton administration have created that right for them. Mr. President, the Clinton administration has also discovered a constitutional right to fresh air for the inmates. According to the Clinton administration, the Lee County, MS, jail's ``installation of individual domestic-type air conditioners did not provide minimum ventilation for the purposes of fresh air supply, air exchange and overall cooling, as indicated by the 91 degrees Fahrenheit temperature and the 75 percent relative humidity in the cell housing areas. * * '' [page 5]. Does that sound like cruel and unusual punishment to you, Mr. President? I know of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Americans who live no better than that. But our prisonors have to be coddled. We have to take good care of them and make sure they all have air conditioning. The Clinton administration has relentlessly fought for the rights of inmates to outdoor exercise and to exercise equipment. It complained to the Onondaga County jail of Syracuse, NY, that, `` `outdoor recreation facilities' consist of only 1 operative basketball hoop and underinflated basketballs [and no other type of equipment.]'' My goodness, here is the Clinton administration's demand on that county jail: ``Existing outside recreation space must be equipped with sufficient sporting/recreation equipment to afford prisoners the opportunity to participate in large muscular activity. [The Jail] must assure that both indoor and outdoor recreation programs exist for prisoners.'' [October 18, 1994 letter from Mr. Patrick to Mr. Nicholas J. Perio, page 14.] I am sure the citizens of New York State and the rest of our States can sleep easier knowing the Nation's jail inmates have this constitutional right to participate in large muscular activity with sufficient sporting and recreation equipment. I am sure we all rest easier knowing that these inmates have a right to indoor and outdoor recreation programs. Mr. President, while the Constitution may require a minimum opportunity for inmates to exercise, there is no constitutional right to exercise out of doors. And there certainly is no constitutional right to exercise equipment and indoor and outdoor recreation programs. Some of these programs may make sense as a matter of policy. I have no particular objection, for example, to outside exercise, which inmates can obtain without exercise equipment. But the Clinton administration has no business imposing these programs on States and localities in the name of the Constitution. The Clinton administration is seeking to constitutionalize its notion of enlightened prison policy and cram it down the throats of our State and local prisons and jails. The Clinton administration cited the Calhoun County, GA, jail for allowing prisoners only 2 hours a week of out of cell exercise, staff availability permitting, and providing no exercise equipment. The Clinton administration demanded that, ``Inmates * * * be provided with exercise outdoors when weather permits, one hour per day, five days per week. Reasonable exercise equipment should be provided.'' [June 1, 1995 letter from Mr. Patrick to Mr. Calvin Schramm, pages 3, 5]. On the same day, the Clinton administration read the Constitution even more expansively when it cited the Lee County jail for exercise violations--the same jail that allegedly violated the Constitution by not providing juice or milk to the inmates. The Lee County jail must provide not 5 days of outdoor exercise, but 7 days a week of outdoor exercise. [page 6]. Let me touch on another Clinton administration coddle. According to the Clinton administration's reading of the Constitution, ``loss of meals must never be used as a punitive measure.'' [April 23, 1996 letter from Mr. Patrick to Mr. John Moore, Coffee County, Commission, GA, page 3.] From time immemorial, parents have sent children to bed without supper as punishment. But, just let a prison or jail try it on a convicted criminal, and they will wind up with the Federal Government on their backs, courtesy of the Clinton administration. Moreover, the Clinton administration objected to a jail's inmate handbook which ``instructs inmates to eat `quickly'. This is contrary to generally accepted correctional practice,'' claims the Clinton administration [page ]. But the Clinton administration has no authority to impose generally accepted correctional practices on State and local governments. It can only remove unconstitutional conditions at state and local prisons and jails. The Clinton administration is seeking, once again, to constitutionalize what it considers to be sound correctional policy. Now, let me read, in its entirety, one of the ``unconstitutional conditions'' found at the Dooly County, GA, jail. This jail has a capacity of 36 inmates: ``Food sanitation is poor. The Jail does not have a kitchen. Food is obtained from a nearby, private establishment. The lunch meal on the day of our tour, tuna fish, was served at approximately 65 degrees Fahrenheit. This is much warmer than food safety standards permit.'' [June 1, 1995 letter of Mr. Patrick to Mr. Wayne West, page 5.] That is it. The serving of that warm tuna fish violated the Constitution. On the same day, the Clinton administration found the following ``conditions at the Mitchell County, GA, jail violate the Constitutional rights of prisoners: ``* * * The food is transported by car in styrofoam or polystyrene containers not designed to maintain proper food temperatures. During our tour, the hot food for the evening meal, which should be served at a minimum of 140 degrees fahrenheit, was served at 115 degrees fahrenheit.'' The Constitution allegedly requires such proper insulation and temperatures for inmates' food. [June 1, 1995 letter from Mr. Patrick to Benjamin Hayward, page 6, 9.] Mr. President, I could go on and on, about the areas just mentioned, as well as additional areas where the Clinton administration seeks to coddle criminals by demanding extra-constitutional privileges for them. Scarce Federal law enforcement resources would be better utilized by focusing on putting more criminals behind bars rather than worrying about whether their tuna fish is too warm once they get there; whether their hot food is lukewarm, or heaven forbid, cold; whether they get juice or milk with their meals; whether they have to sleep on a mattress on the floor rather than a bunk a certain number of inches off the floor; whether they get outdoor exercise, exercise equipment, and recreation programs; and whether they get to wear underwear. And the Clinton administration should stop diverting scarce State and local resources toward defending against, or bowing to, these bleeding- heart concerns. Mr. President, I was the author, along with Birch Bayh, of the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act. I was the deciding vote on that vote. I believe it was in 1978 or 1979. It could have been 1980. It was an important bill. I believe in it. I do not think criminals should have their constitutional rights violated any more than anybody else. But these assertions of the Clinton administration and these demands and these consent decrees and these costs to the taxpayers in those State and local areas are absurd. Frankly, we have to get them out of the pockets and lives of our State and local governments. When they find true constitutional issues, true constitutional wrongs, they ought to right them. But these are not constitutional issues or wrongs that need to be righted, and we have to give the State and local governments some flexibility. We also have to understand that these murderers and rapists and others have committed these crimes and they should not be coddled in the jails of this country. Mr. President, I think we ought to quit making a distortion out of the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act and do what is right. But this is typical of this administration, and I had to make these comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are coming to the end of an interesting Congress. It has been a contentious one. We have had a lot of difficulties among various colleagues here. We have had some awful battles, but by and large it has been a Congress of great capacity, a Congress of great accomplishment. I personally want to express appreciation to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for being able to work together as well as we have and being able to accomplish all the good things we have accomplished. I also want to pay tribute to all of those who are now about to leave the Congress of the United States and in particular, the U.S. Senate. We have had a remarkable group of people serving with us in the U.S. Senate who are leaving this year, and I, for one, will miss each and every one of them. I wish my colleagues the best in the upcoming election.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are coming on to the end of this session. It is a very, very important session. I think we have accomplished a lot in this Congress. We have made changes, seen major changes in how the budget is going to be handled. We now have the President of the United States talking, for the first time--a Democratic President talking for the first time--in 60 years about balancing the budget. I do not think we have any choice in the matter. We have to move toward a balanced budget. But we have to see change in welfare reform. For the first time we have actually done something to entitlement programs. We have certainly passed a whole raft of other bills that are outlined in the newspapers almost on a daily basis. I think people are amazed what a terrific and important Congress this has been. I would like to just take a few minutes this morning to address some of the measures in the omnibus bill before the Senate. One such measure is the vast bulk of the immigration conference report. The American people expect the Federal Government to control our country's borders. We have not yet done so. The American people expect Congress and the President to strengthen the national effort against illegal immigration. Despite the last-minute political gamesmanship of the President, we have included in the omnibus measure provisions dealing with the problem of illegal immigration. This omnibus measure includes the conference report on H.R. 2202, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, with certain modifications to title V of the conference report. The legislative history of the immigration portion of this measure includes the legislative history of H.R. 2202 and S. 1664, with their accompanying committee reports and floor debates and, in addition, a joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference in Report 104-828. The American people should make no mistake about it. There is no thanks owed to President Clinton for this achievement. On August 2, 1996, President Clinton wrote to Speaker Gingrich. Remarkably, he said unequivocally he would veto this bill even with the significantly modified Gallegly provision on public education for illegal aliens, a compromise which was not even yet at that point in final form. Republican conferees removed that provision from the proposed conference report, a draft of which was initially circulated on September 10, 1996. It was the only issue upon which the President said he would veto this bill. The President had 2 weeks before the actual conference to register other objections to the draft conference report. Yet, only after the conference committee met and filed its report did the President interpose final objections related to title V of the conference report, which addresses immigrants' financial responsibilities. The President was apparently willing to shut down the Government or kill the immigration bill on his last-minute demands. The immigration measure in this appropriations bill now contains further concessions to the President. We have finally cleared away the obstructions, and it is my understanding that he no longer has any major objections. This bill is an important bill. It cracks down on illegal immigration. Among other things, it builds up and strengthens the Border Patrol. It authorizes 5,000 new agents and 1,500 new support personnel for the Border Patrol over the next 5 years. This increase basically doubles the size of the Border Patrol. The proposal adds as many as 450 investigators and related personnel to combat illegal alien smuggling into our country over 3 years. The bill provides 300 personnel to investigate those who overstay their visas and thus remain illegally in our country. The conference report requires the Attorney General to establish an automated entry and exit control system to match arriving and departing aliens and to identify visa overstayers. It authorizes acquisition of improved equipment and technology for border control, including helicopters, four-wheel drive vehicles, night vision scopes and sensor units, just to name a few things. The bill adds civil penalties to existing criminal penalties against aliens illegally entering our country. Criminal and civil penalties for document fraud are increased. Criminal penalties against those who smuggle aliens into our country are also increased. High speed flight from an INS checkpoint is a felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment under this bill. The bill makes it illegal to falsely claim American citizenship with the purpose of obtaining any Federal or State benefit or service or for the purpose of voting or registering to vote in any Federal, State or local election. This bill gives the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, wiretap authority in alien smuggling and document fraud cases. The bill broadens the definition of ``aggravated felony'' for purposes of our immigration laws, even beyond the new Terrorism Act, to include crimes of rape and sexual abuse of a minor. It lowers the fine threshold for money laundering from $100,000 to $10,000. It decreases the imprisonment threshold for theft, violence, racketeering, and document fraud from 5 years to 1 year. That is the threshold. The broadened definition of aggravated felony adds new offenses related to gambling, bribery, perjury, revealing the identity of undercover agents, and transporting prostitutes. What does this mean? More criminal aliens will be deportable and fewer will be eligible for waivers of deportation. To assist in the identification and removal of deportable criminal aliens, the bill authorizes the registration of aliens on probation or parole; requires that the criminal alien identification system be used to assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies in identifying and locating removable criminal aliens; and authorizes $5 million per year from 1997 to 2001 for the criminal alien tracking center. The bill also provides that funds under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program may be used for costs of imprisoning criminal aliens in State or local facilities. This bill also provides that the fee for adjustment of status be increased to $1,000 and that at least 80 percent of those fees be spent on enhancing the Immigration and Naturalization Service's capacity to detain criminal aliens and others subject to detention. The bill also authorizes $150 million for detaining and removing deportable and inadmissible aliens. To facilitate legal entry, this measure provides for increased full- time land border inspectors to ensure full staffing of border crossing lanes during peak crossing hours. The bill will result in the establishment of preinspection stations at a limited number of foreign airports. These provisions are desperately needed to stem the tide of illegal immigration. I note that I am not happy with all of the immigration bill's provisions, but I have to say, I do not think anybody is. The vast majority of them, however, are good provisions. But let me give you a couple of illustrations that I am not very happy about. It adds, for example, personnel for the enforcement of employer sanctions. I believe we ought to repeal employer sanctions outright as a costly, counterproductive failure. I cannot help but note that President Clinton has gone much further than even this bill proposes by signing an Executive order penalizing Federal contractors who violate the employer sanctions law. In doing so, he not only throws more good money after bad, he is inadvertently fostering more discrimination against those ethnic minorities in our society who look and sound different from the majority. I am no fan of verification schemes, and I am skeptical that the pilot programs provided for in this bill will be worthwhile. Here again, the President is already using existing authority to implement verification projects, which I do not believe can work on a national scale. Despite my great reluctance, I have agreed to allow the Attorney General to certify to Congress that she cannot comply with the mandatory criminal alien detention provisions of the recently enacted terrorism law, antiterrorism law, thereby obtaining a 1-year grace period which could be extended or can be extended under this bill for 1 additional year on top of that 1-year grace period. The Clinton administration has been tenacious in pleading with Congress to ease this criminal alien detention requirement. I would have preferred that the administration find facilities necessary to implement these provisions. On balance, though, the immigration bill is a very worthy measure, and I am pleased that it has been included in the omnibus spending bill. I ask unanimous consent a statement of legislative history be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. The conference report does include a 1-year time limit, from the time of entering the United States, on filing applications for asylum. Conferees also adopted important exceptions, both for changed circumstances that materially affect an applicant's eligibility for asylum and for extraordinary circumstances that relate to the delay in filing the application. Like my distinguished colleague from Michigan, I too supported the Senate provision, which received overwhelming, bipartisan support in the Senate. In fact, that provision was adopted by an amendment in the Judiciary Committee that passed by unanimous consent. The Senate provisions had established a 1-year time limit only on defensive claims of asylum, that is, those raised for the first time in deportation proceedings, and provided for a good cause exception. Let me say that I share the Senator's concern that we continue to ensure that asylum is available for those with legitimate claims of asylum. The way in which the time limit was rewritten in the conference report--with the two exceptions specified--was intended to provide adequate protections to those with legitimate claims of asylum. I expect that circumstances covered by the Senate's good cause exception will likely be covered by either the changed circumstances exception or the extraordinary circumstances exception contained in the conference report language. The conference report provision represents a compromise in that, unlike the Senate provision, it applies to all claims of asylum, whether raised affirmatively or defensively.

Mr. HATCH. Yes. That exception is intended to deal with circumstances that changed after the applicant entered the United States and that are relevant to the applicant's eligibility for asylum. The changed circumstances provision will deal with situations like those in which the situation in the alien's home country may have changed, the applicant obtains more information about likely retribution he or she might face if the applicant returned home, and other situations that we in Congress may not be able to anticipate at this time.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, the extraordinary circumstances exception applies to reasons that are, quite literally, out of the ordinary and that explain the alien's inability to meet the 1-year deadline. Extraordinary circumstances excusing the delay could include, for instance, physical or mental disability, unsuccessful efforts to seek asylum that failed due to technical defects or errors for which the alien was not responsible, and other extenuating circumstances.

Mr. HATCH. Yes. Like you, I am committed to ensuring that those with legitimate claims of asylum are not returned to persecution, particularly for technical deficiencies. If the time limit is not implemented fairly, or cannot be implemented fairly, I will be prepared to revisit this issue in a later Congress. I would also like to let the Senator from Michigan know how much I appreciate his commitment and dedication on this issue.

Mr. HATCH. I will note, briefly, that the bill modifies the antiterrorism law's provisions on summary exclusion, in order to better assure that those who are bona fide asylees are not erroneously compelled to leave this country. On a related point, the Clinton administration has recently announced its plans to cut refugee admissions next year to 78,000. I oppose this cut. In fiscal year 1995, the level was 110,000. Last year, the level of refugee admissions was set at 90,000. I believe we should set the same level of 90,000 refugee admissions for next year. A further cut is unwarranted, especially with the renewed steps against alien immigration embodied in the bill. Moreover, I think it sends the wrong signal to the world. A Hatch-Biden substitute for my Child Pornography Protection Act, S. 1237, has been included in the omnibus measure. I thank the appropriators on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation in including this important measure in this omnibus bill. The legislative history of the child pornography provisions of this bill includes the legislative history of S. 1237, including the report of the Committee of the Judiciary, Report 104-358. Senators Feinstein and Grassley have important provisions in the child pornography provisions of this measure and I want to thank them, as well as Senator Biden, for their important work on these matters. They have done a very good job, and I have a lot of respect for my colleagues. Child Pornography Prevention Act