Orrin Hatch

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I rise today to call on the Senate to send the Dole-Hatch-Simon balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. The time for decision has arrived. We will be voting on it either today or tomorrow. I suspect the vote is set for noon tomorrow. I hope that the Senate will respond to the needs of the American people and pass the balanced budget amendment. Let me initially pay tribute to some of my colleagues who have fought for the passage of this crucial measure. First, let me mention the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois, Paul Simon, the primary Democrat sponsor of this bipartisan amendment. Senator Simon has been a tireless and courageous, active worker on behalf of this amendment in his efforts over the years to secure passage of this amendment. His efforts on this matter, I think, are going to be missed in future Congresses. I have certainly enjoyed working with him. He is sincere. He is dedicated. He knows, unless we put the fiscal discipline into the Constitution, that we are not going to be able to balance this budget within 7 years or at any time in the immediate future. I also have to mention another veteran of the battle for the balanced budget amendment, Senator Strom Thurmond. The senior Senator from South Carolina has been a consistent voice for fiscal responsibility and a staunch supporter of the balanced budget amendment over many years of his service here. We look forward to his continued work on this and other matters in the future. Senator Heflin from Alabama has also been a long-time supporter of this bipartisan measure, who will certainly be missed in future Congresses. I will miss both of these senior Democrats, who have done so much to try to pass the balanced budget amendment. Let me also mention on our side--there are so many that should be mentioned on both sides--but let me mention Senator Larry Craig, of Idaho, who has been a forceful advocate of the amendment and has done the best within his power to try to get the amendment up and of course do everything he can to pass it. And I might also add Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia, who has been a key leader on the team in moving this idea forward. I would also like to especially thank the 11 freshman Republican Senators who joined us at the beginning of this Congress. All of them leapt immediately into this fray in support of the balanced budget amendment when it came up in the very first month of the 104th Congress. They deserve a lot of credit. We only lost this by one vote. We will hear from each of them later, as we did in the first round of debates last year. It is heartening to see new Members so strongly dedicated to the fiscal soundness of our country. These and so many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle have been valiant servants of their country in fighting for a constitutional provision which will protect future generations from the profligacy of the current and past generations. But one stands above them all in his tirelessness, his dedication, in his commitment to providing a better future for our children and grandchildren, an America like the one that he grew up in, fought for, and of course an America that he has served all of his life. He will be leaving us soon and he will be sorely missed in this body, but he will be going on to greater challenges and higher offices in the service of our country. I am, of course, referring to our majority leader, and our leader in this effort on the balanced budget amendment, Senator Robert Dole. Bob Dole has made this a priority and has worked to make a balanced budget amendment the 28th amendment to the Constitution. His efforts on this amendment happen to be consistent with his decades of service on behalf of all Americans and on behalf of future generations. The contrast of his record with that of President Clinton is very clear. President Clinton has fought the balanced budget amendment every step of the way. I would ask, why? The President now says he is for a balanced budget, yet I suggest the opponents of the balanced budget amendment are simply not ready to impose the kind of fiscal discipline on themselves that a constitutional amendment would require. It is tough to stop spending other people's money. Last year, President Clinton succeeded in blocking the balanced budget amendment. He used all the tools at his disposal. He sent out Cabinet officials to argue against the amendment and even against balancing the budget per se. He used the resources of the Federal Government and all the persuasive power of the Presidency to defeat the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Last year, President Clinton won and, in my opinion, the American people lost. The American people will lose again if President Clinton has his way again this year, unless he changes his mind and makes clear his support for this balanced budget amendment, the only one that has a possibility of passing because it already has passed the House of Representatives. The subject matter of the amendment goes to the heart of our Founding Fathers' hope for our constitutional system, a system that would protect individual freedom through limited government. In the later half of this century, however, the intention of the Framers of the Constitution has been betrayed by Congress' inability to control its own spending habits. The size of the Federal leviathan has grown to such an extent that the very liberties of the American people and our future generations are threatened. Since the other body has already given its approval to the amendment it is up to the Senate to follow suit to meet the needs of the American people, 85 percent of whom favor a balanced budget amendment. We need to relegate the spendthrift and tax-happy policies of the past to the dustbin of history. This amendment has broad support in the country and among Democrats and Republicans who believe we need to get the Nation's fiscal house in order so that we can leave a legacy of a strong national economy and a responsible national Government to our children and grandchildren. The problem is our worsening debt crisis. Our Nation is faced with the worsening problem of rising national debt and deficits and the increased Government use of capital that would otherwise be available to the private sector to create jobs and invest in our future. This problem presents risks to our long-term economic growth and endangers the well-being of our elderly, our working people, and especially our children and grandchildren. The debt burden is a mortgage on their future. The debt is fiscal child abuse and it must end. The total national debt now stands at more than $5.1 trillion. That means that every man, woman and child in Utah, and all of our States, has an individual debt burden of more than $19,600. While it took us more than 200 years to acquire our first trillion dollars of debt, we have recently been adding another $1 trillion to our debt about every 5 years. Yet opponents of the balanced budget amendment claim that there is no problem. They point to the marginal slowdown in the growth of the debt in the last year or so as if it suggested that all our problems are solved. Only inside this beltway, in Washington, DC, can people claim that we are on the right track while we add to a debt of more than $5.1 trillion. The President's own 1997 budget predicts that in the year 2000, total Federal debt will be more than $6 trillion. That means a Federal debt of about $23,700 per person. Everybody in this country will have jumped from $19,600 per person that we owe now to $23,700 per person. This would be nearly a tenfold increase in per-capita debt since 1975. When we last debated the balanced budget amendment I gave a daily update on the debt increase as we debated. By the end of the debate my ``debt tracker'' was becoming unwieldy, so I brought down sort of a summary debt tracker to bring us up to date on the debt since we began debate on this amendment in January of last year. As my chart here shows, when we last began our debate in January 1995, we were in debt, as a national debt, $4.81 trillion. Since January 30, 1995 to June 3, 1996, a little over a year, we are now at $5.13 trillion in national debt. We have gone up $320 billion while this President is claiming we are getting the national debt under control and that he is really solving the deficit problems. That is a false claim and there is no question about it. Translated in more understandable terms this means that the cost of delay in passing this important amendment has been more than $1,200 for every man, woman and child in our country. Put another way, over the 15 months that have elapsed since President Clinton helped defeat the balanced budget amendment, the debt has increased on average over $650 million a day; over $27 million an hour, over $450,000 a minute, over $7,500 every second. This is the price of the delay by President Clinton and his allies. That increasing debt is not just numbers on a chart. Over time, the disproportionate burdens imposed on today's children and their children by the continuing pattern of deficits could include some combination of the following: Increased taxes, reduced public welfare benefits, reduced public pensions, reduced expenditures on infrastructure and other public investments, diminished capital formation, decreased job creation, weaker productivity enhancement, and stagnating real wage growth in the private economy, higher interest rates, higher inflation, increased indebtedness to and economic dependence on foreign creditors, increased risk of default on the Federal debt, and, I might add, I think a very strong hit on Social Security--a very strong hit. Because, while we have done nothing to pass a balanced budget amendment, the debt has gone up $320 billion in just the last 15 months, and every time that goes up it reduces the value of every dollar and hits people on Social Security more than anybody else. So, while some are arguing that we have to protect Social Security in the balanced budget amendment, something that should not be written into a constitutional amendment, Social Security is endangered because we are not putting this fiscal discipline into the Constitution and we have now gone 15 months with more danger to Social Security than ever before, where, had we passed this amendment, we would be on the way to balancing the budget by the year 2002 without any obfuscation, without the phony budgets that we commonly see around here, without the smoke and mirrors. We would have to do it. That, in the end, is what will protect Social Security and other pensions of people who are counting on them in our society. Mr. President, one thing became clear during our recent experience in trying to enact the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It is that we need a constitutional amendment. Some Senators argued during our debate last year on Senate Joint Resolution 1 that ``we did not need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget; we know what needs to be done; we should just do it.'' In fact, the President said that in a news clip I saw. He pointed to the media and said, ``Let's just do it.'' That is what they have been saying for 60 years now and why everything is being put in jeopardy as this debt continues to skyrocket, while we continue not to have a balanced budget amendment which would protect us. The trouble with ``just do it,'' is that Congress did it and the President did not. But under a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, the words ``just do it,'' would have authority for both of the elected branches of Government. In the year that has gone by since President Clinton helped defeat the balanced budget amendment, the country has witnessed one of the most contentious budget battles in the history of our Nation. President Clinton was willing to let the Government shut down not once but twice before he finally agreed to work seriously toward balancing the budget. But really what guarantee is there the Federal Government will achieve a balanced budget? And it is not just balancing the budget; it is reducing the national debt as well. When the other side of the aisle controlled Congress, we never even had a serious consideration of this budget plan, we never even looked at it seriously. President Clinton never proposed a balanced budget until he was forced to. The budget that he submitted, when we first debated this amendment last year, had $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. Even our colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognized this as an entirely inadequate approach and rejected it. In fact, the President submitted no fewer than 10 budgets in 1 year in a series of attempts to avoid the tough, but responsible, decision to balance the budget. Can the country afford the risk of having this fight every year? Nothing shows more clearly how difficult it is to move in the right direction than just the last 9 months. Mr. President, we need the balanced budget amendment to lock in the balanced budget rule, or the future of our children will become bleaker and bleaker. This constitutional amendment will help us end Congress' dangerous deficit habit in the way past efforts have not. It will do this by correcting a bias in the present process, which favors ever-increasing levels of Government spending. The balanced budget amendment reduces the spending bias in our present system by ensuring that, under normal circumstances, votes by Congress for increased spending will be accompanied by votes either to reduce other spending programs or to increase taxes to pay for our programs. For the first time since the abandonment of our historical norm of balanced budgets, Congress would be required to cast a politically difficult vote as a precondition to casting a politically attractive vote to increase spending. Mr. President, the Senate should approve the balanced budget amendment. A vote against the amendment is a vote for the old status quo of irresponsible drift into more insurmountable debt than we already have. Sending the balanced budget amendment to the States is the right thing to do for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren, and it will give us back responsible and accountable constitutional Government. I just want to say one more word about Social Security. I do not know of one Senator on either side of the aisle who does not want to protect Social Security. You do not write a protection for any particular item in the budget into the Constitution because that would lock it in and make it very difficult to ever make any changes or reforms that must be made. The fact of the matter is, though, that if we do not pass a balanced budget amendment, Social Security will suffer, because we know by the year 2014, Social Security will start going bankrupt. In fact, many think it is going to start going bankrupt well before then. If we pass a balanced budget amendment, we will have to face these problems, and we will have to face them in a way that will protect those who are on Social Security in ways that, if we do not pass a balanced budget amendment, they will never be protected. People need to know that is what it is. We have had 15 months of our debt going up $320 billion and that cannot help but have an effect on the financial viability of our country, on the financial viability of Social Security, on the financial viability of the whole world. We have to get it under control. The only methodology that I know of that will get us there, and I think most people will agree will get us there, is a balanced budget amendment locked into the Constitution which all of us revere and worship, which all of us will pay attention to, which all of us will honor and are sworn to uphold that will help us to get these spending practices under control. I hope we can pass this balanced budget amendment. I do not have any illusions about it, but we are going to have this vote, and if it does go down again, which everybody expects it to, it will not be the last time we vote on this, we will be back next year and the year after, if that is what it takes, until this amendment is locked in the Constitution and people have to face the music here in Congress. It is about time we did. I yield the floor. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, an administration's law enforcement philosophy manifests itself in many ways. I have spoken several times about soft-on-crime Clinton administration judges. President Clinton has been AWOL--absent without leadership--in the war on drugs. After years of declining use the drug problem is on the rise--on President Clinton's watch. Today, I want to speak about the Clinton coddle-a- convicted-criminal program. The President is responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of convicted criminals incarcerated in State prisons. This is pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, sometimes called CRIPA, an act that I cast the deciding vote on and was prime cosponsor of, along with Senator Birch Bayh, many years ago, in the 1970's. Convicted criminals do have some constitutional rights; 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 many of the rest of us. Mr. President, the Clinton administration has asserted a number of instances where the constitutional rights of some of the most vicious criminals at the Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center, known as Supermax, are allegedly being violated. I cite a letter of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Deval L. Patrick, to Gov. Parris N. Glendening, May 1, 1996. I want to focus on some of these alleged constitutional deprivations, or at least what the Clinton administration calls alleged deprivations of prisoners' rights. I remind colleagues that Supermax was constructed to house inmates who by their own conduct create public safety justification for removal from traditional correctional facilities. Supermax inmates require close custody and a high level of supervision. Among the inmates at Supermax are 105 murderers, 19 rapists, and those who have histories of escape or attempted escape. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues and others who are listening pause and brace themselves for the unconstitutional deprivations to which Maryland is allegedly subjecting these 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. Doesn't your heart just bleed for these murderers and rapists and other criminals? They are getting their food served lukewarm or cold. The Clinton administration makes a Federal case out of it. President Clinton is forcing Maryland taxpayers to defend against this ridiculous constitutional claim. This is the evolving standard of decency in the hands of liberals wielding the vast power of the all-mighty Federal Government. It is an abuse of Federal power on behalf of murderers and rapists; that is, the administration's position in this matter. If you do not believe me, Mr. President, let me read you the relevant paragraph from page 5 of the Clinton administration's May 1 letter: Food served to the prisoners at Supermax is prepared at the penitentiary across the street and brought to Supermax in bulk. At Supermax, the food is placed into individual compartmentalized thermal trays for distribution to the prisoners in their cells. Food placed in the trays is not promptly covered; trays brought to the housing units are not promptly served. As a result, food is served lukewarm or cold. Food must be served at temperatures that conform to accepted health standards. CRIPA, or the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, requires only enforcing the constitutional minimum. Instead, the Clinton administration makes a Federal case out of it, advancing a constitutional right for hardened, convicted murderers and rapists, so vicious and dangerous as to need special supervision, to have their hot food served hot, not lukewarm or cold. This is nothing but a Clinton coddle-a-convicted-criminal approach. I might say a convicted-vicious-criminal approach. The Clinton administration is forcing the taxpayers of Maryland to pay the cost of responding to its ridiculous demand. That is not all. The Clinton administration insists that Maryland provide these killers and rapists 1 hour of out-of-cell time daily. At least five times per week, this out-of-cell activity should occur outdoors, weather permitting. Again, from the letter of Mr. Patrick. 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. Here is how the Clinton administration describes general conditions at Supermax: Inmates at Supermax are subjected to extreme social isolation. Inmates are confined to single person cells 24 hours a day, except for a brief period (less than an hour) every 2 to 3 days when they are permitted, one at a time, out of their cells to shower and walk around a dayroom area. Inmates are not permitted outdoors due to staff shortages. Inmates eat all of their meals in their cells. Food trays are passed through a narrow food port in a cell door, solid except for a vision window. Inmates are not allowed to participate in any prison job opportunities or any other prison recreational or educational programs. No recreational equipment is provided. Inmates in adjoining cells can hear but not see each other. The sole opportunity for socialization occurs during the out-of- cell time, when the inmate released from his cell may socialize with other inmates on his block, who are locked behind their cell doors. They go on to say: Supermax' failure to provide sufficient out-of-cell time on a daily basis as well as its failure to provide any opportunity to go outdoors is unconstitutional, especially given the highly restrictive regimen of daily life at Maryland Supermax. Is it any wonder Supermax inmates are isolated? These prisoners have been removed from traditional maximum security prisons as a result of their own conduct. But the Clinton administration's heart just bleeds for these hardened, convicted criminals. Pity the inmates at Supermax. Joe the murderer does not have enough time to socialize, schmooz, and compare notes with Harry the murderer and rapists Ben and John. Does your heart not just bleed for these criminals, Mr. President? These model citizens do not get to jump on an exercise bike. So let us sue Maryland. Let us establish a constitutional right for convicted murderers and rapists to socialize with one another. Again, I stress, these are not merely maximum security prisoners. These prisoners at Supermax are the worst people in the Maryland prison system. It is true that some courts, including the fourth circuit decision the Clinton administration relies upon, have ruled that ``generally a prisoner must be provided some opportunity to exercise'' under the eighth amendment, but that is in general. Mitchell v. Rice, 954 F.2d 187, 192]. Even the total deprivation of all exercise does not always violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause. According to the cited fourth circuit precedent, there is no per se rule requiring a minimum of exercise time in all cases. The issue turns on the particular circumstances. Moreover, the Clinton administration's misleading reading of fourth circuit precedent favorable to the murderers and rapists of Supermax notwithstanding, the Mitchell versus Rice case does not suggest that there is a constitutional right for these prisoners to go out of doors. Under the circumstances at Supermax; namely, the nature of the dangerous criminals locked up there, and their need for close supervision, the Clinton administration should let Supermax afford these inmates the brief time out of their cells every second or third day that the administration finds constitutionally objectionable. If Maryland correctional authorities want to provide more out of cell time, that should be in their discretion. And I certainly believe the Clinton administration ought to drop its position that these particular murderers, rapists, and other closely supervised criminals, have a constitutional right to fresh air. Many, if not all, of the murderers in this group are lucky to be breathing indoor air at all, which is more than their victims are doing right now, I might add. With respect to hot food, out-of-cell exercise time, and access to fresh air, the Clinton administration is seeking extraconstitutional conveniences and comforts for convicted criminals who do not deserve them. The lesson is this: 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 the prosecutorial policies of an administration, its outlook on the drug problem and how to combat it. And they include the manner in which the constitutional rights of the accused and of convicted criminals are assessed. A more liberal administration such as the incumbent administration will wind up, on balance, softer on crime. A conservative administration will be tougher on crime. And a conservative administration will not abuse its power by trying to coerce States into coddling convicted murderers and rapists. Mr. President, the criminal justice system in this country has not been run very well. We should do everything in our power--the first time people are convicted--for people we really can rehabilitate, whose lives we can change. Rehabilitation is a very important part of this. But, by gosh, we have no room for coddling these convicted murderers and rapists. We have no room for that. And to have this administration start to demand that they coddle these criminals and file lawsuits against States and have the taxpayers pay for the coddling of criminals--I am not just talking about criminals, but the most hardened criminals in America--I think is not only highly unusual with regard to the way I look at things, and I think most people in this country look at things, but it is typical for some of these more liberal thinkers who basically never blame the criminals for what they do, always blame society for not having helped them enough in these formative years. The fact of the matter is, there is a word called ``responsibility.'' We have to start requiring people to be responsible in our society even though they may have come from the wrong side of the tracks. Many people grew up on the other side of the tracks, in extremely difficult circumstances, and overcame those circumstances without turning to crime. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to call on the Senate to send the Dole-Hatch-Simon balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. We will have the opportunity to vote for it again soon. I am hoping that the Senate will respond to the needs of the American people. President Clinton has fought the balanced budget amendment every step of the way, and I would just like to ask, ``Why?'' The President says he is for a balanced budget. Yet, I suggest that the opponents of the balanced budget amendment are simply not ready to impose the kind of fiscal discipline on themselves that a constitutional amendment would require. It is tough to stop spending other peoples' money. Last year he succeeded in blocking the balanced budget amendment. President Clinton won but the American people lost. The American people will lose again if President Clinton has his way this year, if we cannot talk him into helping here. Unless he changes his mind and makes clear his support for the balanced budget amendment we will probably fail one more time. It is important for our country and our children. The subject matter goes to the heart of our Founding Fathers' hope for our constitutional system--a system that would protect individual freedom through limited government. In the latter half of this century, however, the intention of the Framers of the Constitution has been betrayed by Congress' inability to control its own spending habits. The size of the Federal leviathan has grown to such an extent that the very liberties of the American people are threatened. The other body has already given its approval to the amendment, so it is up to the Senate to follow and meet the needs of the American people, 85 percent of whom favor a balanced budget amendment. We need to relegate the spendthrift and tax-happy policies of the past to the dustbin of history. This amendment has broad support in the country and among Democrats and Republicans who believe that we need to get the Nation's fiscal house in order so that we can leave a legacy of a strong national economy and a responsible National Government to our children and grandchildren. Mr. President, our Nation is faced with a worsening problem of rising national debt and deficits and the increased Government use of capital that would otherwise be available to the private sector to create jobs to invest in our future. This problem presents risks to our long-term economic growth and endangers the well-being of our elderly, our working people, and especially our children and grandchildren. The debt burden is a mortgage on their future. The total national debt now stands at more than $5.1 trillion. That means that every man, woman, and child in Utah and all of our States has an individual debt burden of $19,600. While it took us more than 200 years to acquire our first trillion dollars of debt, we have recently been adding another trillion dollars to our debt about every 5 years, and that is shortening as we keep going. Yet, Mr. President, opponents of the balanced budget amendment claim that there is no problem. They point to the marginal slowdown in the growth of the debt in the last year or so as if it suggested that all our problems are solved. Only inside the Washington, DC, beltway can people claim that we are on the right track while we add to a debt of more than $5.1 trillion. The President's own 1997 budget predicts that in the year 2000, total Federal debt will be more than $6 trillion. That means a Federal debt of about $23,700 per person. Every one of us will owe that much when we get to that point. That is, if the President has his way. This would be nearly a tenfold increase in the per capita debt since 1975. When we last debated the balanced budget amendment, I gave a daily update of the debt increase as we debated. By the end of the debate, my ``debt tracker'' was becoming unwieldy, so I have brought down a sort of summary debt tracker to bring us up to date since we began debate on this amendment in January of last year. As my chart shows, when we began debate on the balanced budget amendment, the debt was $4.8 trillion. As of this week, it stands at more than $5.1 trillion. That is an increase of $320 billion in a little over a year. It is absolutely incredible. Translated into more understandable terms, that means that the cost of the delay in passing this important amendment has been more than $1,200 for every man, woman and child in America. Put another way, over the 15 months that have elapsed since President Clinton helped defeat the balanced budget amendment, the debt has increased on average over $650 million of debt, over $27 million an hour, over $450,000 a minute and over $7,500 every second. This is the price of the delay caused by President Clinton and his allies. That increasing debt is not just numbers on a chart. Over time, the disproportionate burdens imposed on today's children and their children by a continuing pattern of deficits could include some combination of the following: increased taxes; reduced public welfare benefits; reduced public pensions; reduced expenditures on infrastructure and other public investments; diminished capital formation; diminished job creation; diminished productivity enhancement; diminished real wage growth in the private economy; higher interest rates; higher inflation; increased indebtedness to and economic dependence on foreign creditors; and an increased risk of default on the Federal debt. This is fiscal child abuse, and it simply must end. Mr. President, if one thing became clear during our recent experience in trying to enact the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, it is that we need a constitutional mandate. Some Senators argued during our debate last year on Senate Joint Resolution 1 that we did not need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. ``We know what needs to be done,'' they said. ``We should just do it.'' The trouble is that Congress did it and the President did not. But under a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, the words ``just do it'' would have authority for both elected branches of the Government, both the executive and the legislative branches. In the year that has gone by since President Clinton helped defeat the balanced budget amendment, the country has witnessed one of the most contentious budget battles in the history of our Nation. President Clinton was willing to let the Government shut down twice before he finally agreed to work seriously toward balancing the budget. But what guarantee is there that the Federal Government will ever achieve a balanced budget? When the other side of the aisle controlled the Congress, we never had serious consideration of a balanced budget plan. President Clinton never proposed a balanced budget until he was forced to. The budget he first submitted when we debated this amendment last year had $200 billion deficits as far as the eye could see. Even our colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognized this as an entirely inadequate approach and rejected it. In fact, the President submitted no fewer than 10 budgets in 1 year and a series of attempts to avoid the tough, but responsible, decision to balance the budget. Nothing shows more clearly how difficult it is to move in the right direction than the last 9 months. Mr. President, we need the balanced budget amendment to lock in the balanced budget rule now, or the future of our children will be bleaker and bleaker. The proposed constitutional amendment will help us end Congress' dangerous deficit habit in the way that past efforts have not. It will do this by correcting a bias that exists in the system, in our present process, which favors ever-increasing levels of Federal Government spending. The balanced budget amendment reduces the spending bias in our present system by ensuring that, under normal circumstances, votes by Congress for increased spending will be accompanied by votes either to reduce other spending programs or to increase taxes to pay for such programs. For the first time since the abandonment of our historical norm of balanced budgets, Congress would be required to cast politically difficult votes--one politically difficult vote a year at least as a precondition to casting a politically attractive vote to increasing spending. Mr. President, the Senate should approve the balanced budget amendment. It is the right thing to do for ourselves and our children and grandchildren, and it will give us back responsible and accountable constitutional Government. If we continue to play around like we have over the last number of years during this administration, with all the mouthing in the world about balancing the budget and all the action in the world not doing so, we are bartering away our future. Look at this growth of a little over a year--$320 billion more in deficits. Yet, they sit down there at the White House and act like everything is going just perfectly, like they are making real headway on the budgetary deficit. When this gets up much over $5.13 trillion into $6 trillion, the interest against the national debt is going to eat us alive. Then the pressure will be to monetize the debt--that is, print dollars like they did in Germany, where it took a wheelbarrow to buy a loaf of bread, so we can pay off our debt with cheap dollars and basically defraud all the people who rely on the valid well-being of the United States. We have to face this. This is the time to do it. I hope our colleagues on the other side will get real on this. Everybody in Washington knows, and I think most people out in the country know, that this argument over Social Security is a false, fallacious and ridiculous argument. We have to do what is right now. I thank my dear colleague from Georgia for leading this matter right now and having people here to speak to this issue. I yield the floor. Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we continue our important quest to free the children of this country from an enormous burden of debt; we can start to free up the Federal Government from the compounding interest payments that threaten our fiscal future. The vote today is a very important one. It shows whether we are determined to balance the budget in a meaningful and attainable way, or whether we want to see business as usual in the Federal Government. Mr. President, the problem of lowering the deficit is not a new one. We got to this point over a period of 40 years. Over the last 30 years, we have seen a clear and uninterrupted trend of increasing deficits. During the 1960's, deficits averaged $6 billion per year. In the 1970's, deficits averaged $36 billion per year. In the 1980's, they climbed to $156 billion per year. It doesn't stop there, in the 1990's, so far, deficits have averaged $259 billion per year. I think there is plenty of blame to share among all the Members of Congress and all the U.S. Presidents during these decades of debt buildup. The Vietnam war, the rise in entitlements, the creation of new agencies and roles of Government--all of these and other factors contributed to the budget mess we are in today. But, today, Mr. President, the question is not so much how we got in the hole, but how we get out. Today, Mr. President, we can only lay blame on those who do not support a plan to balance the budget by the year 2002 and utilizing real numbers. Today, we have an opportunity to begin the process of addressing our deficit head-on and setting our country on the road to a balanced budget. Mr. President, the taxpayers pay for the deficits the Federal Government keeps running up. Every year the hard-working Americans work to pay for our fiscal irresponsibility. But, the hurt from our spending does not stop there. The ones who are going to bear the brunt of this debt are our children and grandchildren. A child born today will pay $187,000 in taxes throughout his or her lifetime just to pay the interest on the debt our annual deficit spending has amassed. This debt amounts to roughly $18,500 per person today with annual interest charges exceeding $2,575 per taxpayer. This is not right. Mr. President, balancing the budget will help to lighten this burden on our families, and most importantly, on our children and grandchildren. It will take a long time to pay off a $4.9 trillion debt. But, by voting on a resolution to balance the budget by 2002, we can at least begin the process. And, we can face the dawn of a new century with a renewed commitment to fiscal responsibility. Mr. President, I think that almost all of us theoretically agree that we must balance the budget. And, clearly, the debate involves setting priorities. But, the real test is one of political will. Not one of us is going to get his or her own way on everything in this budget resolution. But, the larger issue still looms. Are we determined to balance the budget? Are we willing to compromise a little here and there for achievement of a goal that has been eluding us for decades? We must use reliable data. Using rosy estimates and forecasts may make the job of Federal budgeting easier for us and for the President, but it won't work. When I commute to the Hill in the morning, I can estimate that it will take me 5 minutes. But, that estimate won't make me on time. We need to use conservative, real-life estimates of what the economy is going to look like in the future so we adopt reasonable policies to efficiently react to the economic environment of the future. The difference between the Republican budget resolution and the budget submitted by President Clinton is what it gives to the American people. The Republican bill lowers the cost of Government, keeps the Medicare trust fund solvent longer, contains attainable spending control, and allows the American people to keep more of their hard- earned money. Many of my colleagues have complained about the control we put on spending in this legislation. I can only say to them that if we do not do it now, the pain will be even greater later on. What will we tell seniors when their savings are devoured by inflation? What will we tell our kids in just a few years when a greater share of our annual budget is allocated to debt service than to domestic programs such as education or public health? Mr. President, this is where the rubber meets the road. Do we continue to hide behind business as usual, using rosy estimates and gimmicks? Do we front-load spending on all the popular programs in the first few years and back-end all the serious reductions into the last 2 years? That strategy obviously appeals to President Clinton since that is the basic idea in his budget. Personally, I see no virtue in postponing the inevitable. The deficit cancer will not cure itself if we ignore it longer. I, for one, am not willing to leave the future of this country to the status quo. I believe that the most important thing we can do is continue to move down the road to fiscal responsibility. I want to commend Senator Domenici and my colleagues on the Budget Committee. Having served on the Budget Committee, I am well aware of the difficulty in bringing a budget resolution to the Senate floor, let alone one that is honest, straightforward, and gets the job done. I join in supporting this budget resolution. maintaining economic development agency field representatives

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the joint statement of managers that accompanied the conference report to S. 735, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, contained an inadvertent error relating to section 809, assessing and reducing the threat to law enforcement officers from the criminal use of firearms and ammunition. I ask that the correct description of that section be printed in the Record. The material follows: Section 809--Senate recedes to House amendment section 112. This section requires that the Secretary of the Treasury, in conjunction with the Attorney General, conduct a study which assesses the threat to law enforcement officers from the criminal use of firearms and ammunition, and to examine ways in which such threats can be reduced. In particular, the study will examine whether current passive defensive strategies, such as body armor, are adequate to counter the criminal use of firearms against law officers. The study will also comprehensively examine or gather information on the general circumstances, statistics, and data surrounding the killing or injury of law enforcement officers, whether intentionally or accidentally, by various types of firearms, ammunition, types, and calibers. An important component of the study will be to examine the number, the facts, and the circumstances surrounding deaths or serious injuries to officers attributable to projectiles defined as ``armor piercing ammunition'' under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B)(i) and (ii) piercing the protective material of bullet resistant vests or bullet resistant headgear being worn by the officer. Since 1986, federal law has prohibited the sale or manufacture of such ammunition, except for government or law enforcement use. Armor piercing ammunition is defined as a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and is constructed entirely (except for trace elements) of certain hard metals. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 further amended the definition of armor piercing ammunition by establishing a bullet jacket weight test. Recognizing that ammunition used primarily by law-abiding citizens, and that any study of this nature and magnitude has the potential to affect regulatory policy in the future, this section requires that all parties interested in the outcome of the study outcome (including Federal, State, and local officials, non-governmental organizations including all national police organizations, national sporting organizations, and national industry associations with expertise in this area) be consulted on the study contents, methodology, and specific study objectives. The study is due 12 months from the date of enactment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the Senate for its swift action in passing S. 1624, which permanently reauthorizes the Hate Crime Statistics Act. The people of my State of Utah, and of all of our States, have a stake in this legislation, because any of our citizens can fall prey to a hate crime. Every crime, of course, is a terrible event. But the hate crime is of a particularly insidious nature. It splits the individual victim apart from his or her neighbors and community. It isolates the victim because of who he or she is. The hate crime emphasizes the differences, not as the strengths they are in this diverse country, but as a means of dividing American from American. It submerges the common humanity of all peoples. All real Americans condemn these vile crimes without hesitation or reservation. Under the Hate Crime Statistics Act, the Attorney General is required to collect data ``about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. . . .'' The act has resulted in the creation of a Federal data base on bias-motivated criminal acts. In addition, it has served as a catalyst for an FBI effort to train State and local law enforcement officials about hate crimes. Collection of this data can help alert local communities and their law enforcement agencies to any pattern of hate crimes in their neighborhoods. It can also help spur educational efforts aimed at enhancing goodwill in our communities. The Hate Crime Statistics Act has proven its value, and has earned the permanent reauthorization that the Senate has now approved. I wish to commend my friend and distinguished colleague, Senator Simon, for his work on this issue. Without his tireless efforts, there would have been no Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, and no reauthorization of the act this year. I also wish to commend his chief counsel, Susan Kaplan, for her work on this law over several years.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I like almost all Americans, am a fan of professional sports. We all enjoy following the competition on the field and on the hardwood and watching the performances of our favorite players. Even as I make this statement today, my fingers are crossed for the Utah Jazz in this evening's playoff game. But professional sports is not just a game, it is a business, and it is the future of professional sports as a business that my bill, the Professional Sports Protection Act, seeks to address. I am afraid that the current rash of franchise relocations is only the symptom of larger economic trends in professional sports. If these trends are allowed to continue, we will see the same fan disaffection that has occurred in Major League baseball, with the result that professional sports--one of our growing national industries--will suffer. My bill will protect professional sports by permitting the leagues-- the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League--to review and, if necessary block, franchise relocation decisions. Under some interpretations of the antitrust laws, the professional sports leagues may be liable for treble damages for blocking franchise relocations. This prevents leagues from preventing moves that are not in the best long-term economic interests of the sport because they have the threat of billions of dollars in damages hanging over them. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am concerned about sports not just because I am a sports fan, but because I want to make sure that the antitrust laws are properly applied to professional sports-- just as they should be to any other business--to ensure healthy competition and economic growth. I am concerned that the current ambiguous application of the antitrust laws to franchise relocation decisions actually may suppress the healthy competition and economic growth that has characterized professional sports in our nation. My bill will permit leagues to make these franchise relocation decisions-- which seem to me to be, in this case, the decisions of a single joint venture rather than of economic competitors--without fear of antitrust liability. I understand that some fear that the leagues might use their antitrust immunity in franchise relocation as leverage in other, unrelated areas. Some think that the leagues might block a franchise move unless the franchise favors certain policies and decisions in, say, revenue sharing. I have addressed this concern by providing for specific standards that leagues are to consider when reviewing a franchise move. If a league considers a factor that is unrelated to the franchise move, then it will be in violation of the law, and it will not receive antitrust protection. My bill also provides for judicial review of these decisions, with proper deference given to the league's business decisions, to ensure that the league has not used the antitrust immunity to abuse its authority. Let me be clear that this is a narrow bill. It does not contain several provisions that were included in a House bill reported out of the House Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago. In particular, I am opposed to any provisions that would force the sports league to create new expansion franchises to replace teams that relocate. I do not believe that the Federal Government should nationalize professional sports, and I do not believe that it is in the national interest to take such intrusive steps into the internal operations of an industry such as professional sports. My bill intends only to codify what I believe is the proper interpretation of existing antitrust law: that franchise relocation decisions are not violations of the antitrust laws, but instead are the decisions of team owners who are collaborating in the joint venture of a sports league. Some might question why Congress needs to turn to this subject. Shouldn't we concern ourselves in Congress with more important matters? Professional sports is important to our nation. According to some estimates, the professional sports leagues, in the form of Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, and the National Basketball Association, generate more than $5 billion in annual revenues in the United States. There are literally tens of thousands of people whose jobs depend on professional sports. Professional sports is one of America's fastest growing industries, with numerous teams being established in new cities, both in the United States and overseas. Professional sports also generates billions of dollars in revenue for other industries, such as advertising, telecommunications, construction, and sports equipment. And let us not forget the fun and pleasure healthy professional sports leagues bring to millions of fans both in America and abroad. But the improper application of Federal antitrust law to franchise relocation may end the rapid economic growth in professional sports. I have held hearings on this issue, as has my good friend and colleague, Senator Thurmond of South Carolina. According to the league officials, sports agents and businessmen, economists and law professors who testified, a potentially destructive economic dynamic is behind the recent spate of team moves. In order to win games, teams must hire the best players. Because of the salary cap structure in football, for example, the only way to attract the top players is to offer large bonuses and financial incentives. The only way some teams feel they can pay these salaries is to move to new cities, in return for generous stadium revenues and tax packages. This financial imperative is fed by the desire of new, up and coming cities that want the prestige and the financial benefits of having a major sports franchise located in their area. This is ironic because some economic studies indicate that major league teams do not bring a significant economic benefit to their new cities. Congress must address this dynamic because it will injure interests of the industry and of the fans. I was convinced during my hearings that short-sighted franchise relocations eventually will hurt professional sports. Professional sports, after all, is a product that is consumed by all of us, the sports fans. If teams move around too often, the fans will lose their enthusiasm and support for their teams. If the fans lose interest, eventually the overall economic pie created by the sports will begin to decrease. Fewer fans will attend the games or watch them on television; fewer fans will purchase merchandise; fewer children will want to play the sport. We have already seen a similar phenomenon occur in major league baseball. After the strike, which canceled the World Series and shortened the following season, fans began to lose interest in baseball. Much of this was the result of the owners, whose actions against the players during collective bargaining have shown an utter disregard for the best interests of the game and of the fans. The owners were able to engage in their practices in part because they benefit from a judicially created immunity from the antitrust laws that has no basis in the law. Accordingly, I have introduced legislation, which has passed the Judiciary Committee, to remove baseball's antitrust exemption, except in regard to franchise relocation. I intend that this bill will not move forward until the problems in baseball are addressed. Since it appears that the same economic trends are affecting all of the professional sports, then it makes sense to provide the same antitrust standard to all of the leagues. It also makes no sense for the other leagues to operate under the rules of the antitrust laws, while baseball can operate in an anticompetitive fashion free from the rule of law. The antitrust exemption for baseball has been an embarrassing anomaly in antitrust law--one that has led to profound distortions in the sport. In the near future, I will take action to ensure that baseball and the other professional sports leagues receive the same treatment. Either this bill must be merged with my baseball legislation, or baseball legislation must be added to this bill. Either way, the professional sports soon will operate under a uniform antitrust standard. I believe that the time for Congress to act is now. We have already seen several teams move in recent years, and even more moves--the Cleveland NFL franchise to Baltimore being the most noteworthy example--are planned. Professional sports should not be a game of musical chairs, and fans deserve better than to have their loyalties treated with disrespect. As importantly, the sports industry deserves the right to have a say in its destiny. Congress has the chance now to address this problem in its early stages, before even greater dislocation, fan unhappiness, and industry losses, occur. For this reason, Congress should pass the Professional Sports Protection Act in 1996, not years from now when it may be too late.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I like almost all Americans, am a fan of professional sports. We all enjoy following the competition on the field and on the hardwood and watching the performances of our favorite players. Even as I make this statement today, my fingers are crossed for the Utah Jazz in this evening's playoff game. But professional sports is not just a game, it is a business, and it is the future of professional sports as a business that my bill, the Professional Sports Protection Act, seeks to address. I am afraid that the current rash of franchise relocations is only the symptom of larger economic trends in professional sports. If these trends are allowed to continue, we will see the same fan disaffection that has occurred in Major League baseball, with the result that professional sports--one of our growing national industries--will suffer. My bill will protect professional sports by permitting the leagues-- the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League--to review and, if necessary block, franchise relocation decisions. Under some interpretations of the antitrust laws, the professional sports leagues may be liable for treble damages for blocking franchise relocations. This prevents leagues from preventing moves that are not in the best long-term economic interests of the sport because they have the threat of billions of dollars in damages hanging over them. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am concerned about sports not just because I am a sports fan, but because I want to make sure that the antitrust laws are properly applied to professional sports-- just as they should be to any other business--to ensure healthy competition and economic growth. I am concerned that the current ambiguous application of the antitrust laws to franchise relocation decisions actually may suppress the healthy competition and economic growth that has characterized professional sports in our nation. My bill will permit leagues to make these franchise relocation decisions-- which seem to me to be, in this case, the decisions of a single joint venture rather than of economic competitors--without fear of antitrust liability. I understand that some fear that the leagues might use their antitrust immunity in franchise relocation as leverage in other, unrelated areas. Some think that the leagues might block a franchise move unless the franchise favors certain policies and decisions in, say, revenue sharing. I have addressed this concern by providing for specific standards that leagues are to consider when reviewing a franchise move. If a league considers a factor that is unrelated to the franchise move, then it will be in violation of the law, and it will not receive antitrust protection. My bill also provides for judicial review of these decisions, with proper deference given to the league's business decisions, to ensure that the league has not used the antitrust immunity to abuse its authority. Let me be clear that this is a narrow bill. It does not contain several provisions that were included in a House bill reported out of the House Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago. In particular, I am opposed to any provisions that would force the sports league to create new expansion franchises to replace teams that relocate. I do not believe that the Federal Government should nationalize professional sports, and I do not believe that it is in the national interest to take such intrusive steps into the internal operations of an industry such as professional sports. My bill intends only to codify what I believe is the proper interpretation of existing antitrust law: that franchise relocation decisions are not violations of the antitrust laws, but instead are the decisions of team owners who are collaborating in the joint venture of a sports league. Some might question why Congress needs to turn to this subject. Shouldn't we concern ourselves in Congress with more important matters? Professional sports is important to our nation. According to some estimates, the professional sports leagues, in the form of Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, and the National Basketball Association, generate more than $5 billion in annual revenues in the United States. There are literally tens of thousands of people whose jobs depend on professional sports. Professional sports is one of America's fastest growing industries, with numerous teams being established in new cities, both in the United States and overseas. Professional sports also generates billions of dollars in revenue for other industries, such as advertising, telecommunications, construction, and sports equipment. And let us not forget the fun and pleasure healthy professional sports leagues bring to millions of fans both in America and abroad. But the improper application of Federal antitrust law to franchise relocation may end the rapid economic growth in professional sports. I have held hearings on this issue, as has my good friend and colleague, Senator Thurmond of South Carolina. According to the league officials, sports agents and businessmen, economists and law professors who testified, a potentially destructive economic dynamic is behind the recent spate of team moves. In order to win games, teams must hire the best players. Because of the salary cap structure in football, for example, the only way to attract the top players is to offer large bonuses and financial incentives. The only way some teams feel they can pay these salaries is to move to new cities, in return for generous stadium revenues and tax packages. This financial imperative is fed by the desire of new, up and coming cities that want the prestige and the financial benefits of having a major sports franchise located in their area. This is ironic because some economic studies indicate that major league teams do not bring a significant economic benefit to their new cities. Congress must address this dynamic because it will injure interests of the industry and of the fans. I was convinced during my hearings that short-sighted franchise relocations eventually will hurt professional sports. Professional sports, after all, is a product that is consumed by all of us, the sports fans. If teams move around too often, the fans will lose their enthusiasm and support for their teams. If the fans lose interest, eventually the overall economic pie created by the sports will begin to decrease. Fewer fans will attend the games or watch them on television; fewer fans will purchase merchandise; fewer children will want to play the sport. We have already seen a similar phenomenon occur in major league baseball. After the strike, which canceled the World Series and shortened the following season, fans began to lose interest in baseball. Much of this was the result of the owners, whose actions against the players during collective bargaining have shown an utter disregard for the best interests of the game and of the fans. The owners were able to engage in their practices in part because they benefit from a judicially created immunity from the antitrust laws that has no basis in the law. Accordingly, I have introduced legislation, which has passed the Judiciary Committee, to remove baseball's antitrust exemption, except in regard to franchise relocation. I intend that this bill will not move forward until the problems in baseball are addressed. Since it appears that the same economic trends are affecting all of the professional sports, then it makes sense to provide the same antitrust standard to all of the leagues. It also makes no sense for the other leagues to operate under the rules of the antitrust laws, while baseball can operate in an anticompetitive fashion free from the rule of law. The antitrust exemption for baseball has been an embarrassing anomaly in antitrust law--one that has led to profound distortions in the sport. In the near future, I will take action to ensure that baseball and the other professional sports leagues receive the same treatment. Either this bill must be merged with my baseball legislation, or baseball legislation must be added to this bill. Either way, the professional sports soon will operate under a uniform antitrust standard. I believe that the time for Congress to act is now. We have already seen several teams move in recent years, and even more moves--the Cleveland NFL franchise to Baltimore being the most noteworthy example--are planned. Professional sports should not be a game of musical chairs, and fans deserve better than to have their loyalties treated with disrespect. As importantly, the sports industry deserves the right to have a say in its destiny. Congress has the chance now to address this problem in its early stages, before even greater dislocation, fan unhappiness, and industry losses, occur. For this reason, Congress should pass the Professional Sports Protection Act in 1996, not years from now when it may be too late.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On Amendment No. 3971

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank you. I just have a few words to say about the state of affairs on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I was somewhat appalled with the President's press conference, which is clearly as blatantly political a press conference as I believe has ever happened in this town, basically saying that the Republicans are tying up this legislation in the Senate today. How could anybody make that comment when his own side refuses to grant cloture on something as simple, as fair, as decent, as worthwhile, as bipartisan as the Billy Dale bill? And they do it all under the guise that they are not getting what they want on the minimum wage, and then they vote against cloture today knowing that Senator Dole said they can have a vote on their minimum wage. But if they want their vote on minimum wage, we are going to do something about the gas tax, and we are going to do something about the TEAM Act. I have to say I support Senator Dole in his effort to repeal the 4.3- cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline that President Clinton and the Democrats passed back in 1993. While some critics might try to dismiss this bill as an election year gimmick, I believe they are missing the main point. This is about far more than just the 4.3-cent gas tax. The fact is the 1993 tax bill was the largest tax increase in history. We are now paying taxes at the highest rate in history. Yesterday was tax freedom day, signifying how long we have to work just to pay our State and local taxes, and that does not include all the costs of regulatory burdens and other things. As of yesterday, the seventh of May, it took the average American all those months, the first 4 months and 7 days, just to pay their Federal and State taxes. Think about that. The fact is that the President has added the largest tax increase in history. We are paying at the highest tax rates in history, and we are still going into debt phenomenally because the tax increases, like the gas tax, have not gone to fill the pot holes in the roads or to help our highway system or to help States with their peculiar difficulties in highways and roads; those moneys have gone for more social spending, more social welfare spending by none other than Democrats throughout the country. Frankly, they have used the gas tax, which is disproportionately unfair to the poor, disproportionately unfair to the West, disproportionately unfair to rural States, and plowed it all back into their core constituencies right back here, primarily in the East, or in other large major urban areas, rather than using those funds to benefit everybody through road improvements. We are talking about $30 billion here that we are going to repeal. Our colleagues on the other side really do not want that repeal to occur, because that means there is going to be more pressure on them because they will not be able to spend more and more buying votes out there in social spending programs, which has been the route that they have taken to power for most of the last 60 years. It is not right. It is not right. It is not fair. It is disproportionately harmful to the poor. It is disproportionately harmful to the West. It is disproportionately harmful to rural States, and it is time to be fair in this process. Well, that is what the repeal of the gas tax will do. I have to say that this 4.3-cent tax has caused gas prices to go up. It is not the only reason it has caused it to go up, but it is one of the pivotal reasons. Gas taxes would not be as high as they are had it not been for that 4.3 cents added on in 1993. We were told time after time by President Clinton in 1993 that the tax bill would affect only the very wealthiest in our society. Yet, that bill contained at least nine separate new tax hikes on families who are not wealthy--at least nine. The gas tax increase of 4.3 cents per gallon was one of the worst of those. I wish we could repeal all the 1993 tax bill, because it has caused damaged to our economy. Let me get into the 1993 tax increases on the nonrich: No. 1, increase in individual marginal tax rates. That affects the nonrich in the cases of estates and trusts, small businesses, S corporations, and so forth. No question, there has been an increase in marginal tax rates, which always hurts the middle class. No. 2, increase in the percentage of Social Security benefits that are taxable. This happened because of President Clinton. That is not just on the 2 percent rich, it is on many many senior citizens. No. 3, the 4.3-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline. No. 4, the reduction in the compensation limit for qualified retirement plans. This is important. No. 5, reduction in the meals and entertainment expense deduction that has cost an awful lot of damage in the restaurant industry and other industries as well, which used to be stronger because they had that deduction. No. 6, the increase in the withholding rate on supplemental compensation. No. 7, the increase in the recovery period for depreciation of nonresidential real property. No. 8, limitations in moving expense deductions that have cost the middle class. No. 9, increased marriage penalties that have always been very, very unfair. I have to say, the Heritage Foundation, one of our better think tanks here in Washington, although conservative in nature, recently released a study that shows that President Clinton's 1993 tax and budget plan cost the economy $208 billion in lost output from 1993 to 1996. In 1995 alone, our gross domestic product would have grown by $66 billion more than it actually did if these taxes had not been raised. Moreover, there would have been 1.2 million more private-sector jobs created absent the 1993 bill, and those jobs would have meant more revenue to the Treasury, not less. The thing that is mind-boggling is what President Clinton said. Why would he say this during his campaign, and then immediately revoke it by the tax increase? He said: ``I oppose Federal excise gas tax increases.'' Now, why would the President say that if he did not mean it? No sooner does he get elected than he does the exact opposite. That is what Bill Clinton said when he ran for President in 1992: ``I oppose Federal excise gas tax increases.'' But what he did once he was elected was push through the Democrat- controlled Congress a permanent 4.3-cent-per-gallon gas tax hike as part of his overall $268 billion tax increase in 1993, the largest tax increase in history. Not a single Republican in the House or the Senate voted for that tax increase. Just think about it. His gas tax increase affects all Americans, not just the rich. In fact, President Clinton's gas tax hike hits hardest those families least able to afford it. Now, as Senator Dole said today, drivers across America are paying for the President's mistake. President Clinton raised the gas tax hoping to generate $25 billion. That is what the administration represented before the Senate Finance Committee, upon which I sit. But they thought it would generate $25 billion to help fund the President's liberal agenda and social welfare programs, not to fund highway and transportation maintenance, as was historically done with general excise taxes. The President originally wanted to raise the gas taxes even more, proposing a sweeping $73 billion Btu energy tax increase in 1993 that would have raised the price of gas by 7.5 cents per gallon. Senate Republicans, under the leadership of Senator Dole, killed that. I was one of those who worked hard to kill that. We killed Clinton's Btu tax. It should have been killed. It was not fair. It was not fair to the average person, was not fair to society as a whole and, frankly, was not fair in light of the excessive taxes that we are paying today. I might say, voters should not be surprised by the President's gas tax increases. As Governor of Arkansas, President Clinton raised the State gas tax by a total of 10 cents per gallon from 1979 to 1991. He loves to raise taxes. They do it under the guise that they are reducing the deficit, when in fact these taxes have gone for social spending programs. There is no question about it. Let me just say this. The Heritage study also shows that income tax rate increases in the 1993 tax bill delivered only 49 percent of the revenues that the President promised we would have or that were estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to be received by the Treasury. When compared with the jobs that were never created because of this bill, this means we sacrificed 17,600 jobs for every $1 billion in deficit reduction. This is a very high price to pay for deficit reduction that can be achieved in a better way. My Democratic colleagues and the President are quick to defend the 1993 tax bill by pointing out the progress that has been made in the deficit over the last few years. Let me be clear about this. Balancing the budget should not provide the rationale for raising taxes. It is merely an excuse for those who want to continue the tired, old liberal policies of taxing and spending. For almost half of the last century, the Federal Government has spent $1.59 in expenditures for every $1 received through taxes or every new $1 in taxes. Government is not taxing the American people to eliminate the deficit; it is taxing the people in order to continue spending. I do not think anybody really doubts that on either side of the floor. We Republicans have demonstrated that we can balance the budget without increasing taxes. In fact, we balanced the budget while cutting taxes on the American family by providing incentives for new economic growth.

Mr. HATCH. I ask, Who has the floor? Let me say to my distinguished friend and colleague, let me finish making my explanation, and then I will be glad to yield for another question. The fact of the matter is we have an injustice here, a gross injustice, which the Democrats and the Republicans admit is a gross injustice, caused by White House personnel and outside people who were greedy. The President wants this to be done and says he will sign the bill. It is not comparable to everybody who is indicted. Second, I said yesterday that if people are indicted who are unjustly treated like this because of the same circumstances, I would be the first to come to the floor and try to help them. But not everyone who is indicted fits that category. In fact, very few do. I do not know of many White Houses that have shabbily treated former White House staff like this one has. Now, when we find something similar to that, I am happy to fight for it, regardless of their politics or regardless of who they are, regardless of whether I like them or do not. I am willing to go beyond that. I would like to right all injustices and wrongs, but the mere fact that somebody is indicted does not say we should spend taxpayer dollars to help them. We have to look at them as individual cases. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I can say that this is what we have done in the past, what we will do in the future. As I view my job as chairman, it is to right wrongs and to solve injustices. Now, we have the distinguished Senator from Arkansas here yesterday saying we should reimburse all of the people who have appeared before the Whitewater committee. Well, we are not giving Billy Dale reimbursement for attorney's fees in appearing before Congress. Frankly, I do not think you do that until you find out what is the end result of Whitewater, and then maybe we can look at it and see if there are some injustices. I think you will be hard pressed to say there is some injustice that comes even close to what has happened to Billy Dale and his companions. And if we put it to a test and have a vote on it, I think you would find that 100 percent of the people here will vote for it. I think that will be the test.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague. She makes the very good point that we should not just be an open pocket for people who get indicted. In this particular case, I think almost everybody admits we have to right this wrong. It is the appropriate thing to do. There may be others that we will have to treat similarly. I will be at the forefront in trying to do so. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Sure.

Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to yield if the Senator wants me to. President Clinton chose to veto the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, just as in 1993 he turned his back on the American family and vetoed the bill that would have gone a long way toward reversing the tax increases he pushed through in 1993. President Clinton's veto of the Balanced Budget Act cost a family of four a minimum of $1,217 a year. A minimum. For many families, it will cost a lot more than that. That is the average family of four. This figure does not even begin to take into account possible tax savings from capital gains tax rate reductions, the adoption credit, the enhanced IRA provisions or deductions for student loan interest. Can you imagine what it really cost the American family? The least it costs them is $1,217 a year. Also, that does not take into account the substantial savings that would accrue to American families on mortgage interest, auto loans, student loans, other private borrowing, that a balanced Federal budget would mean by lowering interest rates by an estimated 2 percent. Those are economic realities. I am the first to agree this 4.3-cent-per-gallon tax repeal would not solve all of our problems. I agree with that. But it is an important start in reversing the trend toward taxing Americans to death. Frankly, that is what we have seen from this administration in the 4 years that it has been in existence. I said yesterday was tax freedom day. This is the day that the nonpartisan Tax Foundation says that average American workers stop working for the Government and start earning money that they can spend on their families. That was yesterday. You have the first 5 months of this year. Never has tax freedom day occurred so late in the history of this country as it has in 1996. Look at the calendar. And 1996 is more than a third over. Americans work one-third of the entire year just to support the Federal, State and local governments. Just think about it. A family of four in my home State of Utah, with an estimated median income of about $45,000, paid $8,800 in direct and indirect Federal taxes. On top of this outrageous amount, they must also pay over $5,700 in State and local taxes, bringing the total family tax burden to $14,500. This is an effective tax rate for the average family of four of over 32 percent. Think about it. But if we add to this the cost of Federal and State regulations and their effect on the prices of goods and services --and, of course, we have had filibusters against trying to change the regulatory system so we can get some reason into it, so people can live within the system, so we can still regulate in a reasonable and decent way, so we do not have the overbalances that we have today--even so, if you add the cost of Federal and State regulations and the effect they have on the prices of goods and services, along with the added interest, the cost the families must pay because of our failure to balance the Federal budget, the true family tax burden is even much higher than that $14,500, or 32 percent. In fact, these costs are estimated--just these costs alone, these overregulatory costs--at about $8,600 for a family of four in Utah. Thus, the estimated total cost of government to a family of four earning $45,000 a year is over $23,000, better than half of what that family has coming in. This is over half of the typical Utah family's income. So when you talk about repealing the gas tax, I say, let us do it. But I call on the President to go beyond this repeal and let us pass more of the significant tax relief provisions that were included in last year's Balanced Budget Act. Having said that about the gas tax, let me just say a few words about the TEAM bill. Having been in labor, one of the few who really came through the trade union movement, I was a card-carrying union member as a wood, wire, and metal latherer. I worked in building construction trade unions for 10 years. As one who would fight for the right to collective bargain and who has fought for free trade unionists all over the world, I have to say that to allow what Senator Dole has offered to our colleagues on the other side to be stopped--some on the other side do not want to allow employees, workers, if you will, to meet with management, in the best safety interests of the workers and of the companies--is just plain unbelievable. There is only one reason why the folks on this other side take this position. Their biggest single funder of Democratic Party politics in this country happens to be the trade union movement. The trade union movement brings in about $6 billion a year. It is well known in this town that 70 to 80 percent of every dollar in dues that comes in goes to paid political operatives who do nothing but push the liberal agenda in this country. Even something as simple and as reasonable and as decent as allowing workers to meet with their owners and their managers, in the best interests of safety on the job, is being fought against by these folks over here for no other reason than big labor does not want that TEAM Act. Now, why do they not want that TEAM Act? I cannot see one good reason why, except you have to think like they do. They know that the more the employees and the employers get together in meetings and discuss things, the more they find common ground, the better the employees understand the management concerns, and the better the management people understand the employees' concerns, the better they work together. Because of that, the union movement believes they will find there is no need for a union because management will treat the employees fairly, and the employees will treat management fairly. Why pay union dues? That is pretty shortsighted. There are good reasons to have unions. Frankly, unions should not be afraid to compete in a reasonable situation. If they have good programs and they have good policies and they have good approaches, the employees will join them. If they do not, then they are not going to join. That is why the movement dropped from 33 percent of the work force down to 13 percent of the work force today. It is because of being afraid of even allowing employees and employers to get together. Why are they not allowed to get together under current law? You would think reasonable, educated, civilized countries would allow employees and employers to get together and talk about safety and the best interests of both sides. You would think that would be just a given. The reason it is not a given, Mr. President, is because the National Labor Relations Board has been taken over by Clinton appointees who do whatever organized labor within the beltway wants them to do, regardless of whether it is in the best interests of the worker. A few years back, the National Labor Relations Board threw out the right to have teamwork together between management and labor, causing a divide and divisiveness that should not exist, for no other reason than because their largest supporters, the union leaders in Washington, did not like it and were afraid they might lose union members because of a reasonable relationship with management. That is ridiculous. It is not right. It is not fair. That is what the National Labor Relations Board ruled. Now we are stuck with it unless we pass a statute that allows these two interested parties, who ought to be getting along together, who ought to look for common ground, who ought to work together in the best interests of safety, unless we allow them to get together. That is all this is. It is such a simple, small thing, you would think nobody who looks at it objectively and reasonably could disagree. Then we have the President at a press conference indicating we are slowing things down. Gracious, what will he not say if he can say something like that? Is there no argument that he will not make no matter how unjustified it might be? We have had almost 70 filibusters in a little over a year since the Republicans have taken over. I cannot remember ever having anything like that for Republicans when we were in the minority. Now, I will say this: Senator Mitchell had this common habit of coming out here and filing a bill and then filing cloture and accusing us of filibuster when nobody on our side intended to filibuster anyway. In almost every case where there was a reasonable bill, the bill passed or at least was debated. Here we have had a slowdown on almost everything, and for the last number of days because the other side wanted the minimum wage. Senator Dole walks out here and reasonably says, ``We will give it to you and let you have a vote up or down on your bill, on your minimum wage, but we want these two other things that are reasonable--repeal the tax gas in the best interests of our citizens, and we certainly, certainly, want to allow employees to meet with their management leaders in order to work on the workplace concerns of businesses all over America. Employees have every right to talk to their employers and express their concerns. I think these are reasonable requests, and I think the majority leader is being very reasonable. Frankly, I do not understand why we have to continue to put up with the stonewalling that we have on the other side. Now, I cannot remember referring to stonewalling in several years, and I have not seen the word ``stonewalling'' used by the media during the last 2 years, hardly at all. I do not recall a time. I am sure there have to be a few times, but I do not recall. It was a daily drumbeat when the Democrats were in control and the Republicans were fighting for principles they believed in. Here is Senator Dole willing to give the other side an opportunity on the principles that they want to fight for, give them a chance to vote up or down, and all he asks is we have a chance to vote up or down on some of the principles we want to fight for and let the chips fall where they may. That is the right way to do it in this particular case. It may be the right way to do it in many cases. Mr. President, it bothers me that underlying this whole thing, knowing that Senator Dole, our majority leader, is making an effort to try to bring people together, to try to get the matters moving ahead, to do things that give both sides shots at their particular bills, that underlying this whole thing is a deliberate attempt to try to deny Billy Dale and his colleagues, former White House staff, who were just plain treated miserably, unfortunately, dishonestly, by people who got their marching orders from, according to those who testified, the highest levels of the White House, from getting just compensation for the attorney's fees they were unduly charged because of the mistreatment that they suffered at the hands of the White House. It is a bill that I think would pass the U.S. Senate 100-zip. It is being held up for no good reason at all. Now, the ostensible reason was that the Democrats did not have a chance to get a vote on the minimum wage they wanted to amend to the bill. Now Senator Dole has provided them with that opportunity. Why do they not seize that and let Billy Dale get compensated?

Mr. HATCH. If I could finish.

Mr. HATCH. Of course not. The fact of the matter is this is a case that everybody agrees is an egregious example of excessive use of power, and greedy power at that, of the White House, and this is a case where the President himself said we should reimburse them with legal fees.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague. Nobody argues more forcefully for big labor than the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. Although I want to talk about the Billy Dale matter, I do have to say that most of what the Senator has said is pure Washington-inside labor line. The fact is, the NLRB went way beyond where it should have gone and took the rights of individual employees to meet with management to resolve problems that really have nothing to do with collective bargaining. It seems ridiculous to call this antidemocracy. Give me a break. What is antidemocracy is to close shop where 51 out of 100 employees want a union and the other 49 have to comply and have to pay dues and have to be part of the union whether they want to or not. That is not democracy. On the other hand, what is wrong with management and labor being able to get together in teams and make the workplace a safer, better place to work in? I had to say that because I listened to the distinguished Senator. He is eloquent and forceful. He just happens to be wrong. Mr. President, why we are really here this morning is the Billy Dale matter. Billy Dale and his colleagues at the White House were very badly mistreated by greedy people who wanted to take over the White House Travel Office--and I might add, there is some indication that the travel offices of every agency in Government--so they could reap millions, if not billions of dollars of free profits at the expense of these people who had served eight Presidents over a pronounced period of time and had served them well, done a good job, and who Peat Marwick says did it in a reasonable manner. They were mistreated. The law was used against them in an improper way. The FBI was brought in an improper way. I might add, the power of the White House was used against them, the power of the Justice Department was used against them. Virtually everybody who looks at it, especially those who look at it honestly, say this is a set of wrongs that ought to be righted. In the process, their lives happen to be broken because they are now stuck with all kinds of legal fees that would break any common citizen in this country. We want to right that wrong. Yesterday, my colleagues on the other side voted en masse against cloture which would allow this matter to go to a vote. One of the arguments which was superficial and fallacious was they cannot even amend it. Of course they can. After cloture, germane amendments are in order. If they want to bring up a germane amendment to this Billy Dale bill, they are capable of doing so. That is just another false assertion and false approach. I think it is time to do what is right around here. It is time to rectify these wrongs. It is time to do what is the right and compassionate thing. In all honesty, we have not been doing it as we listened to the arguments on the other side as to what should be done. It has been nearly 3 years since the termination of the White House Travel Office employees, and they are still in the unfair position of defending their reputations. It is time to close this chapter on their lives. The targeting of dedicated public servants, apparently because they held positions coveted by political profiteers, demands an appropriate response. Although their tarnished personal reputations may never fully be restored, it is only just that the Congress do what it can to rectify this wrong. This bill will reimburse Travel Office employees for the expenses of defending themselves against these unjust criminal persecutions. I call it ``persecutions'' even though there was a ``prosecution'' of Billy Dale. The argument that invoking cloture will foreclose the option of amendments is nonsense. Germane amendments can still be offered, although I question why anyone would want to delay any further the compensation of these people who have been so unjustly treated. The argument that passing the Billy Dale bill will undermine the likelihood of seeing the Senate vote on the minimum wage increase is equally hollow. In fact, it is superficial and wrong. Only yesterday the majority leader proposed a plan which would ensure a vote on the minimum wage increase this week, and my colleagues on the other side rejected it. My friends on the other side of the aisle should be careful about what they ask for because they might get it. That is what happened yesterday. Here we are today, back on the Billy Dale bill, and their excuse for filibustering is still the minimum wage. Given the political transparency of this filibuster, I hope our colleagues will get together to do the decent and honorable thing and pass this important measure. Let me say, I think it is almost unseemly my friends on the other side are saying we just want the minimum wage bill and you Republicans should not do anything else because we want this and we have a political advantage in talking about it. That is not the way it works around here. Of course, we are able to ask the majority, combined other good bill aspects, to make this bill even more perfect. Frankly, the repeal of the gas tax would do that. It will make it more perfect. The TEAM Act bill would certainly be more fair to employees throughout America, more fair to businesses throughout America, more fair in bringing economic cooperation among them, without interfering with the collective bargaining process. The NLRB is very capable of making sure that management does not abuse that problem. For the life of me, I cannot see one valid or good argument about it. Bringing what happened in Eastern Europe does not necessarily cut the mustard here in America, where we have the most protective labor laws in the world. Rightly so. I have worked with those laws for years, long before I came to the Senate, and, of course, as former ranking member and chairman of the Labor Committee, worked with them during that period of time as well. Mr. President, all of that aside, those are hollow arguments with regard to holding up this bill. I hope my colleagues on the other side are willing to vote for cloture so that we can pass the Billy Dale bill and go on from there, then face the minimum wage, the TEAM Act, gas tax reduction, and go on from there and do what is right. The bottom line is that the minimum wage bill is controversial, should not be attached to a bill that has broad bipartisan support, that the President has said he will sign and support and that will right some tremendous wrongs that need to be righted.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. What is the sense-of-the-Senate resolution?

Mr. HATCH. The tree is filled up.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? The Justice Department leaked his plea arrangements. The Attorney General is appointed by the White House. I am not blaming her. The White House has a certain element of control there. White House officials brought in FBI people. They directed the FBI to investigate this. Frankly, without the White House, this travesty would never have occurred. It was people in the White House who absolutely were wrong. Everybody knows today who brought this about. I have to say, Billy Dale went down the drain financially and reputationwise because of people down at the White House, some of whom have greed on their minds with outside people, who did not care about Billy Dale, did not care who they tramped on. They did not care about this poor little guy who served eight Presidents, and his colleagues, and put them through an untold amount of misery, that he still is suffering from, and has broken them without any justification whatsoever, not any. Even Peat Marwick agrees with that.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator would yield. I do not think we should do it prospectively. I think if we see wrongs, we can right them on the floor. I do not see any reason to have any problem righting this wrong. If there are wrongs that need to be righted in the future, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee I am going to do my best to right them. My colleague knows that is so. I do not care about the politics and who is on whose side. If I think it is wrong, we ought to do it. But I do not think we should do it prospectively for a blanket righting of wrongs without knowing what case it is. This is special legislation, there is no question about it. But, Mr. Dale, Billy Dale, is a special case. He was singled out by the White House for an unjust prosecution, frankly, very unjustly so, wrongly so. I think, since my friend is from Arkansas and is the strongest supporter of the President here, that he would give credibility to even the President's comments that he thinks this ought to be righted, these wrongs ought to be resolved.

Mr. HATCH. Let us make it clear. If Maggie Williams, to use the distinguished Senator's illustration, is not indicted, she is entitled to attorney's fees reimbursement. If she is indicted, she is not. If she is indicted and she is tried in a court of law--and I do not mean to pick on Maggie. The Senator used the illustration. Let us use just a hypothetical. Let us say ``A'' is indicted. They go to the criminal trial, and ``A'' is convicted. We are not going to pay the attorney fees in that situation. But let us say ``A'' is acquitted, then I think it is an appropriate thing for us to come at that time and see what we can do to right the wrongs that were there.