Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. This is considerably different from Whitewater. I have to say the Whitewater investigation is not completed. As a member of the Whitewater Committee, I have to say that there is an awful lot of undercurrent, an awful lot that is wrong with what went on in that area. There are a lot of unanswered questions. There are documents still to be delivered. There are questions concerning each of the witnesses who have appeared. I think until that is resolved, as was Billy Dale's, I do not think we can make a determination as to whether we should get involved with attorney's fees. Let us assume there is a tremendous injustice at the end of the Whitewater matter. I think you are going to have a rough time making that case with all of what some would call the sleaze factor throughout the Whitewater hearings and proceedings. But let us assume that it turns out to be the same as Billy Dale's and the White House Travel Office employees' acquittal or even a clear-cut set of facts that there really was nothing wrong and nobody did anything wrong. I personally believe that is going to be a hard conclusion to reach after having listened and watched the Whitewater proceedings now for a long time. But let us assume that happens. Yes, I would be interested in righting that wrong as well. In this case, we have come to a conclusion. I think the effective conclusion was when Billy Dale had to go through the litigation and the courtroom proceedings, having been accused of criminal activity, having been indicted and having gone through a jury trial and having a jury of his peers conclude that Billy Dale was an honest man. I think the facts showed he was an honest man throughout this process. I think that is completely distinguishable, at least at this time. Now, if at the end of Whitewater there are those who have been unjustly treated in the same manner who had the same clear vindication that Mr. Dale and his colleagues have, yes, this Senator would want to do what is right there as well. Until it is concluded, I do not see how you can argue that is the same situation. Although I have to tell you, I really believe there is far too much of this stuff going on, these counteraccusations back and forth, and far too many things that are done on a political basis. Frankly, one last thing, since Whitewater--let me just make that point a little bit better, too. I think there is far too much politics played on both sides from time to time. But just to make the point on the Whitewater, I have to say, the subject of Whitewater is the subject of an independent counsel investigation, which Billy Dale's was not, and subjects of an independent counsel investigation will have a right to be compensated for attorney's fees, assuming there is no wrong, if there is no indictment handed down, and that is the way the law is. So there is a protection built in on the Whitewater matter that is not built in on the Billy Dale matter. Be that as it may, my colleague has been a friend of mine for a long time. He knows me, and I know him, and he is my friend. He knows if I think there is an injustice, I do not care about the politics, I am going to try to right that wrong. In this case, I do not think anybody denies there was an injustice. I do not think anybody denies there was a series of wrongs. I do not think anybody denies his reputation and those of his colleagues were besmirched and tarnished by inappropriate action by certain people at the White House and others. I do not think he would deny at all there is no other way to get them reimbursed for this travesty which happened to them other than our doing the right thing and compassionately standing up and saying we are going to reimburse them.

Mr. HATCH. I yield.

Mr. HATCH. That is fine. I will be happy to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about this Billy Dale bill. As everybody knows, Billy Dale was unjustly persecuted. His colleagues were mistreated. The costs to them are unfair. You would think everybody in the Senate would want to immediately rectify all of those wrongs. I hope that our colleagues on the other side will not filibuster this because of their concerns about other legislation that they will have an opportunity to bring up. This is very, very important legislation. It is fair. It will establish a decent resolution to what really has been awful. Let me just give the time line of some of the Travel Office events so that everybody understands, at least to a certain degree, what happened here. On May 19, 1993, the White House fired all seven Travel Office employees. At least two of those individuals first learned about their dismissals on the evening news. Talk about a crass way of doing it. The White House first stated that the firings came as a result of an internal audit revealing financial irregularities in the office. Several months of independent review and oversight hearings uncovered the actual motivation for the firings. Certain people, hoping to advance their own financial interests, attempted to destroy the reputations of the Travel Office employees and take over the Travel Office business of the White House, and, I might add, some indication of the whole Government. These same persons used White House staff members to initiate a baseless criminal investigation by the FBI. It was one of the low ebbs in criminal law enforcement in this country. According to the congressional investigation, certain individuals were responsible for the firings--Catherine Cornelius, a cousin of the President employed at the White House; Harry Thomason, a close personal friend of the President and First Lady; Darnell Martins, Mr. Thomason's business partner; and David Watkins, assistant to the President for management and administration. These were the people primarily responsible for the firings. In December 1992, discussions took place between Ms. Cornelius and World Wide Travel, the agency that served the Clinton-Gore campaign, about the eventual takeover of the White House Travel Office business. In January 1993, Watkins hired Ms. Cornelius. Soon thereafter, the Travel Office began taking calls from Ms. Cornelius as the new head of the Travel Office. In February 1993, Ms. Cornelius provided Watkins with a proposal that would make her a co-director of the White House Travel Office and would hire World Wide Travel as the outside travel specialist. In April and May 1993, Ms. Cornelius began to focus on the Travel Office and with Harry Thomason claimed that there were allegations of corruption within the office. During this time, Ms. Cornelius and Mr. Thomason pushed to have World Wide take over the Travel Office business. In May 1993, employees of the White House counsel's office, Ms. Cornelius, and others met with the FBI regarding the Travel Office. Although the FBI was unsure that enough evidence existed to warrant a criminal investigation, William Kennedy of the White House counsel's office, former partner of the First Lady, informed Bureau agents that a request for an FBI evaluation came from the highest levels. At this time, it was determined that the accounting firm of Peat Marwick would be asked to perform an audit of the Travel Office. On May 14, Peat Marwick's management consultants made their first trip to the White House. On May 17, Mr. Watkins and Mr. McLarty decided to fire the Travel Office staff. Although Mr. Dale offered to retire, Mr. Watkins told him to wait until the review was complete. On May 19, Patsy Thomasson informed Mr. Kennedy that a decision had been made to fire the travel office workers. Kennedy informed the FBI, who warned him that the firings could interfere with their criminal investigation. Kennedy informed the Bureau that the firings would go ahead anyway. That same day, before the bodies were even cold, Mr. Martens called a friend from Air Advantage to have her arrange the Presidential press charters. Meanwhile, Mr. Kennedy instructed Mr. Watkins to delete any reference to the FBI investigation from talking points on the firings. At 10 a.m. that same morning, Watkins informed the travel office employees that they were being fired because a review revealed gross mismanagement in the office. They were initially told that they had 2 hours to pack up, clean out their desks, and leave. Watkins learned that press secretary Dee Dee Myers had publicly disclosed existence of the FBI investigation as well as the Peat Marwick review. Later that same day, Myers gave another press briefing in which she denied that an FBI investigation had taken place. She claimed that the firings were based on the Peat Marwick review. Interestingly, the Peat Marwick review was not finalized until May 21, 1993, 2 days after the firings. The report was dated on May 17, however. The report gave no assurances as to either its completeness or its accuracy. In any event, while the report found certain accounting irregularities, it found no evidence of fraud. In May 1994, the General Accounting Office reported to Congress that while the White House claimed the terminations were based on ``findings of serious financial mismanagement weaknesses, we noted that individuals who had personal and business interests in the travel office created the momentum that ultimately led to the examination of the travel office operations.'' GAO, the General Accounting Office, further noted that ``the public acknowledgment of the criminal investigation had the effect of tarnishing the employees' reputations, and the existence of the criminal investigation caused the employees to retain legal counsel, reportedly at considerable expense.'' Of course, as everyone in this body knows, Mr. Dale was the only travel office employee to be indicted. And it took a jury only 2 days to acquit Mr. Dale after a 13-day trial. There was no reason to indict Mr. Dale. There was no reason to tarnish the reputation of these White House Travel Office employees. There was no reason to brutalize these people the way they were brutalized. And there is no reason for us in this body not to pass this legislation unanimously and to resolve this manner in an honorable, compassionate, reasonable, honest, and decent way. That is what this is all about. This is to right a wrong, or a series of wrongs. It may never fully resolve the tarnishing of the reputations of these people. It may never do that. But at least we can do what we can do at this late date, because of the injustices that were committed at the White House by certain White House employees and whoever those were who were referred to as those at the top of the heap, at ``the highest levels of the White House.'' Frankly, whoever they were, they ought to be ashamed of themselves because in all honesty, these poor people, whose situation we are trying to resolve today, have been very badly damaged. I do not know what it means, by ``the highest levels of the White House,'' but I have carefully stayed away from some of the characterizations that others have given, where there are some facts that would indicate who are at the highest levels of the White House and who were at that particular time. Just so everybody knows about what is going on here, this legislation provides for payment of the legal expenses incurred by Billy Dale, Barney Brasseux, John Dreylinger, Ralph Maughan, John McSweeney, and Gary Wright. The legal expenses are in connection with the wrongful criminal investigation launched against these seven people subsequent to their firings. Though Mr. Dale suffered the greatest financial loss, half a million dollars, the remaining six employees collectively incurred about $200,000 in their own defense. The appropriations bill for the Department of Transportation for fiscal 1994 provided approximately $150,000 in reimbursement of legal fees. This bill would provide the balance. This bill would not provide for compensation of all expenses associated with the investigation into the Travel Office matter, such as legal costs incurred in preparation for appearing before Congress. But it would provide for attorney's fees and costs that resulted from these seven defending themselves against criminal charges. The Travel Office employees will have 120 days after this legislation is enacted make a claim for legal expenses. All legal bills submitted will be reviewed for their appropriateness and any reimbursement will be reduced according to prior Department of Transportation reimbursements. According to independent counsel statutes, attorneys' fees may be reimbursed to individuals confronted with the unique circumstance of being subject to the scrutiny of a Federal investigation. This is not something that the ordinary U.S. citizen is subject to. In the case of the White House Travel Office firings, the staff of the Travel office was investigated by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Internal Revenue Service. But for the fact that they were Federal employees, who were fired by the White House, these individuals would not have been investigated by these agencies. The White House was able to bring the power of Federal law enforcement to bear on otherwise blameless individuals. And people know that they are blameless. Reimbursement of legal fees under independent counsel statutes was designed, at least partially, because of the potential for political abuse of the investigative power of the independent counsel. The White House has the authority to wield tremendous power with respect to Federal investigations. None of the Travel Office employees held prominent posts in the White House, but they became a target of a Federal criminal investigation. These public servants never should have been scrutinized in this way and forced to defend themselves in this manner. Hamilton Jordan, who worked for the Carter administration, is an example of a case in which attorney's fees were reimbursed. Mr. Hamilton Jordan was investigated for charges of cocaine use. After an independent counsel was appointed and the evidence was examined, all charges were dropped. I felt that was a low point in our country's history. In defending himself through this ordeal, Mr. Jordan spent thousands of dollars in legal fees. Since the charges were baseless, Congress provided reimbursement of his legal expenses and related costs. His legal fees were reimbursed, in part, because he was a Federal employee and would not, under ordinary circumstances, be subject to an independent counsel investigation. The circumstances of the Travel Office employees are similar in this respect. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues on the other side are not going to delay this bill. I hope that, as serious and as deeply as they feel about other matters, that they will recognize the injustices that have occurred here and we will all vote 100 to zip to rectify these wrongs that have occurred to these White House people, former White House people. Like I say, we may never be able to make it up to them because of the tarnishing of their reputations that occurred through this process. But we ought to do the best we can, and that is what this bill is all about. It is the right thing to do. It is the appropriate thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do. And I think it is a long overdue thing to do. I do not know anybody on the other side who would vote against this. I do not know anybody on the other side who would differ with what we are trying to do here. This has been a bipartisan effort. Like I say, 350 Members of the House voted for it, only 43 against it. I think it is time for us to do what is right here, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the floor will help us get this done today. I see my colleague would like to speak. I have some other things I want to say on another matter. Is it on this matter?

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

Mr. HATCH. Well, there are two sides to that issue. Thus far, the Judiciary Committee has taken a side that the distinguished Senator from Arkansas does not agree with. The fact is, there is a time to debate that bill. Let us bring the bill up and have a full-fledged debate, and I think everybody will realize there is much merit as to what the Judiciary Committee did. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. What in the world does the Glaxo thing or the Zantac thing have to do with Billy Dale and getting compensation to Billy Dale? Tell me, what in the world does it have to do with this bill that everybody agrees ought to be passed, including the President?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 30 seconds for each of us.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. Sure you are, if you vote against cloture. Keep in mind, if we have cloture, any relevant amendment--this is amendable by any relevant amendment--if we get cloture, you can bring up any relevant amendment you want. Of course, the GATT amendment is not relevant. Any germane amendment, I should say. I am really concerned that my colleagues on the other side are more concerned about partisanship than righting wrongs. Everybody knows that the GATT amendment which the distinguished Senator has tried to pass now for months and which is heartfelt on both sides, is certainly not germane to this bill. It is not relevant to this bill. It certainly would cloud this bill, as would any other amendment. We want to pass a bill that rights this terrific wrong to Billy Dale and to his colleagues.

Mr. HATCH. To resolve that matter, 10-7. That is the appropriate way to debate this. If the Senator disagrees with that bill, the Senator can do so. I think it is telling here that we have a bill which passed the House 350 to 43 that the President said he would sign to right this wrong, that my friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to derail.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, first of all, it is not a wrong. The Senate Judiciary Committee just passed a bill out to resolve that----

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. I am saying that the Senator is already precluded because the trees are filled up. Second, we should just understand here, the reason why the trees were filled is because this is a noncontroversial, bipartisan-supported, I think, 100 to zip vote in the Senate, and some of our colleagues on the other side want to load it up with controversial partisan amendments. Frankly, I would just like to pass the bill and find the right vehicle to bring up the partisan amendments. With regard to the Senator's sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I think he would have to admit would not be binding on anybody, frankly, I think the Senator should take my word that if there are injustices with these people, we will work them out in the future. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I do not want any injustices there any more than I do in the case of Billy Dale. Until the investigation is complete, I think it is untoward for us to try to set up or even mention in a sense-of-the- Senate resolution that we should set up a general fund to take care of these things. We can take care of these things. In the past when we have had injustices, we have come in with special bills like this to resolve them. That is the way they ought to be done. We have not resolved all injustices in the past. I know some that should have been but were not. In this case, this is one everyone admits ought to be adjusted, except for 43 Members of the House of Representatives. I think everybody in the Senate thinks it ought to be adjusted and resolved. I personally want to get this resolved. I hope my colleagues will let us do it. I think, of all the things to filibuster, this should not be it. I can see other heavyweight bills where there is widespread political disagreement when a filibuster is legitimate. I would be the first to say you have every right to do it. On this bill, I think it is unseemly. It smacks of looking like you are trying to protect a White House when we just want to get it over with, or I want to get it over with and right this wrong. By dragging it out, you are saying you are not willing to right a wrong.

Mr. HATCH. Of course, we cannot do that. First of all, there would be somebody in here on every congressional hearing. So we cannot allow that. That is way too broad. Second, you know, our bill does not cover congressional hearings. This Billy Dale hearing does not cover congressional hearings. I am talking about the bipartisan bill of both sides. It does not cover congressional hearings. They are not going to be reimbursed for their attorney fees for that. They are reimbursed for their attorney fees to protect themselves from criminal charges. Frankly, this is not going to reimburse Mr. Dale for everything he has incurred. It certainly is never going to get his reputation back, although I think everybody who knows him and knows what happened probably respects him even more today for having gone through what he did. Let me just make a point here. Even some of the most partisan people in the House were in favor of this bill. A person I have a lot of respect for as one of the more intelligent Democrats in the House is Barney Frank of Massachusetts. This is right out of the Congressional Record during the House debate. He said this: Mr. Speaker, the Congress retains always not the right but the responsibility to make judgments case by case. I think the gentleman from New Mexico has fairly pointed out, should some other individuals come before the Congress and be able to make claims that Congress finds similarly meritorious, they may benefit. I do have to differ a little bit with the argument that says, ``Well, we should not do it for anybody if we cannot do it for everybody.'' Then he goes on to say: Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately rarely can do justice for everyone. I have myself, because I served on the Administrative Law Subcommittee, which dealt with claims on the Immigration Subcommittee, been part of bringing to this floor legislation that made some people whole when other people similarly situated were not made whole. We can never do it all. And I think it would be a mistake to say either we do all of it or we do none of it. Then he goes on to say: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, who I think stated it the best way we can. This neither sets a precedent nor precludes someone. Any new case will be judged on the same merits. There is one of the leading Democrats on the Judiciary Committee in the House, one of the brightest people in the House of Representatives, a person I have worked with ever since he has been here, I have to say, someone who is known as a very intelligent, aggressive, and effective partisan in the Democratic Party, and someone whose liberal credentials I think would match anybody's over here. He made it clear that you just cannot solve every case with one bill. I will just say this to my dear friend from Arkansas. I feel for people who are called before congressional hearings. I do. I wish we never had to call anybody, except to enlighten us and help us pass better legislation. I do think independent counsel are used far too often. I also think that far too often people do have to hire attorneys around here just to make sure they are protected and they have some protection for themselves. I understand that personally. There were very unjust accusations against me where I had to hire attorneys that cost me over $300,000 just to make sure that nobody pulls any dirty tricks on you. Frankly, nobody understands that. Nobody reimbursed me, I have to say. I think there are many, many other Members who have had similar situations where they have been very unjustly treated and where they get stuck with attorney fees. I personally do not like it. I personally think it is wrong. In Whitewater, I think we do have to wait until it is over, at least until we conclude the hearings, and then determine if people are indicted--if they are indicted; if they are not, they are not--and then determine which cases are those where there has been injustice. It has to be on a case-by-case basis. That is my experience in the Judiciary Committee. Otherwise, we would be the fountain of all money here. Now, with respect to your amendment, I note that, No. 1, the Whitewater investigation is not complete. When it is, we can consider whether or not we will compensate people for testifying regarding Whitewater. Your sense-of-the-Senate resolution would set a bad precedent to provide compensation even before the investigation is complete. No. 2, our bill, unlike your sense-of-the-Senate resolution, does not provide compensation, any compensation, for those who might testify before the Congress. It provides compensation in this case for what are legitimate reasons, what are compassionate reasons, what are honest and just reasons, that I think virtually everybody, except 43 Members of the House, would agree with. I think if my colleague would take my word for it, I certainly will try to rectify any injustices that come in the future, whether from Whitewater or others, and I think maybe by remedying some of these things, maybe we can get Members of Congress and other people who are so quick to smear people to not do so much because it will cost the taxpayer occasionally to rectify these wrongs. Frankly, I would like to get rid of the smear tactics in the White House, and sometimes in the Congress, and get down to doing our jobs and doing them modestly, without trying to make political advantage, as some have done--I am not accusing the Senator from Arkansas of doing this--as some have done in times past. I think this is a completely distinguishable thing from Whitewater, even though I understand the distinguished Senator has many friends who have been involved in the investigation and is concerned about them, as I would be if I was their Senator. I think, justly, he is raising these issues so we will be more sensitive about them in the future. I assure my colleagues I will be sensitive about them.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last Wednesday, the Senate passed H.R. 1296, the omnibus parks bill, by unanimous consent. I recognize that this legislation had indeed gone through the mill. However, I am pleased that we reached this agreement and passed this important bill with strong bipartisan support. In particular, I want to express my strong support for one title of this bill, the Snowbasin Land Exchange Act, which was included within the bill. This measure contains provisions that will enable the U.S. Forest Service and the Sun Valley Co. to prepare the Snowbasin Ski Resort, which is located 40 miles north of Salt Lake City, for the major alpine skiing events of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games to be held in Utah. It also concludes a land exchange process that began more than 11 years ago. I want to acknowledge the efforts of Senators Dole and Murkowski, who have worked diligently to forge this package so that this particular measure could pass the Senate and move forward in the legislative process. As my colleagues know, the International Olympic Committee selected Salt Lake City to host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games last June. I was honored to be present in Budapest when this announcement was made. Snowbasin, which is owned by the Sun Valley Co., was identified as the site of six major Olympic downhill and slalom ski events. It was selected due to its magnificent mountain with ideal terrain, elevation, and techincal difficulty for Olympic competition. It is estimated that Olympic racers will reach speeds exceeding 80 miles per hour in the first 5 seconds of competition on the Snowbasin downhill course, a course that has been designed by Bernard Russi of Switzerland, an Olympic medalist and internationally recognized Alpine course designer. In order to accommodate the planned events at Snowbasin, which are estimated to have a television audience of nearly 3 billion people worldwide, major new skiing, visitor, and support facilities will have to be constructed at Snowbasin. Some of these facilities will be constructed on the ski mountain, while other facilities are needed at the base of the mountain. Failure to pass the provisions that are included in this bill for Snowbasin would have greatly jeopardized the success of the 2002 Olympic Games and, in general, sullied the reputation of U.S. Olympic hosts before an international audience. So I appreciate the support of my colleagues for these provisions. My colleagues should understand that this legislation is a land exchange--not a giveaway. The legislation exchanges 1,320 acres of national forest land at the base of Snowbasin to the Sun Valley Co. This transfer will allow development of base facilities that are needed for the Olympics. These facilities include a new access road, the Olympic stadium and gateway, parking, day lodges, restaurants, and other support buildings. These facilities will greatly increase services and amenities to the public during the Olympics. They will also become the nucleus of a world-class competitive venue at Snowbasin in future years. It is altogether consistent with Forest Service policy that base lands at ski areas be privatized for development. As my colleagues are well aware, land exchanges have been routinely utilizied for this purpose. In return for the 1,320 acres, the Forest Service will receive more than 4,100 acres of private lands with outstanding environmental, recreational, and other values. Each of these lands has been identified by Forest Service officials as highly desirable for acquisition to benefit the public and the long-term management purposes of the Forest Service in northern Utah. Some of this acreage is immediately adjacent to Snowbasin; another parcel is on the outskirts of the city of Ogden. In fact, one of the parcels--Lightning Ridge--will open access to thousands of acres of Forest Service land that is currently inaccessible to the public. These are precisely the types of public benefits that should be realized in land exchanges. The new Olympic quality recreational opportunities added at Snowbasin, coupled with major additions to the national forest, clearly make the exchange a win-win for the public. When completed, the land exchange will add over 4 square miles of land to the National Forest System in Utah. Mr. President, there has been considerable discussion on this bill regarding the so-called sufficiency language in the bill that exempts the initial portions of development at Snowbasin from certain Federal environmental laws. Let me discuss this for my colleagues. Once the land exchange is completed, the ski mountain will remain as National Forest System land. In order to prepare the ski mountain for the Olympic events, numerous modifications are needed. These modifications are referred to in the overall development plan for Snowbasin as phase I and relate to the race courses for the competitors as well as needed amenities for the public. These items include new chair lifts, new and expanded courses, helicopter pads for medivac purposes, snowmaking, safety netting, and a mountain restaurant for food and warming purposes. It is estimated that at least three summer construction seasons will be needed to construct these facilities. Moreover, to enable ski competitors to race the mountain prior to the Olympics, and to test the new facilities for safety and other purposes, international skiing events have been scheduled at Snowbasin beginning in 1999. I hope my colleagues can see that we must immediately begin the process of preparing Snowbasin for important Olympic and pre-Olympic events. To accomplish this goal, Congress needs to provide general approval to facilities that need to be constructed on national forest lands at Snowbasin for the Olympics, to put the construction of these facilities on a timetable, and to protect the decisions of the Forest Service during this process from appeals and lawsuits. Without such action, construction of these facilities could be delayed for years. Regrettably, this type of delay is precisely what is currently being experienced at Snowbasin. A 1994 Forest Service decision to allow construction of a small chair lift and new ski run on the mountain has been appealed and litigated and is now before a Federal district court in Salt Lake City. Construction of the lift has already been delayed for 2 years and the matter could remain in the courts well into the future. Therefore, this legislation allows the construction of traditional mountain facilities at Snowbasin that are needed for important Olympic and pre-Olympic events. However, my colleagues should realize that over the years, Snowbasin has been subject to numerous environmental studies and reviews. In fact, in testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management, I displayed a huge stack of these studies. Since 1990, the Forest Service has prepared, among many items, an environmental impact statement and an environmental analysis on base mountain lands at Snowbasin. The public was fully involved in the development of these documents. The Snowbasin master plan, referenced in the legislation, has been developed taking into full account the environmental considerations noted in these studies. Also, the Sun Valley Company has frequently consulted with the Forest Service to ensure that environmental aspects of the land exchange are properly considered. Our legislation directs the Secretary of Agriculture to impose construction and operation conditions on the Sun Valley Co. that are consistent with Forest Service policies to protect forest resources. Further, the Forest Service is empowered to make any changes to the facilities to protect public health and safety, including water quality. I think it is also safe to say that no one would want to visit this area if it were an environmental wreck. There is clearly an economic incentive to doing this the right way. Responsible development of this land is necessary any way you look at it. Also, we learned from testimony provided by the members of the Salt Lake organizing committee that one of the reasons Snowbasin was selected as the site for the Olympic downhill races was to keep Olympic downhill events from being conducted in the environmentally sensitive canyon areas immediately adjacent to Salt Lake City. I am pleased to note that the significant addition of land to the National Forest System resulting from this legislation will be accomplished without having to spend scarce land and water conservation fund dollars. Moreover, our legislation ensures that an equal value exchange in every respect will be conducted, and there will not be a giveaway of any kind to the Sun Valley Company. Instead, the Sun Valley Company will assume the economic risks and costs of preparing Snowbasin to the highest of Olympic standards for the 2002 Winter Games. Mr. President, I again want to extend my sincere thanks to each member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee--all of whom endorsed this legislation. The efforts of Senators Murkowski, Craig, and Bumpers, and my Utah colleague, Senator Bennett, have helped to perfect this bill and move it forward. Again, I want to thank the majority leader for his leadership in solving the impasse that had developed over the earlier version of the omnibus parks bill. Having said that, I must admit my disappointment that one title of the original package, the Utah wilderness bill, has been deleted from the bill. I would have preferred that the Senate adopt this measure as well, but I know a roadblock when I see one. I will continue to work on those provisions that could not be included in this package. However, everyone in this chamber should know that this is a temporary setback for our Utah wilderness bill. Our bill is not dead, as many have said or wished. I am just as committed today as I was during the recent filibuster to see this body pass legislation that resolves this 17-year-old problem that has plagued our State. As I mentioned, Senator Dole has demonstrated tremendous leadership to forge the compromise that allowed the omnibus bill to pass, and his suggestion for a temporary detour around the matter of Utah Wilderness and Sterling Forest enables the other important provisions of the omnibus parks bill to move forward, including the Snowbasin exchange. I commend him for that. Mr. President, Snowbasin will be an electrifying site for the prestigious skiing events of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The huge challenge that Snowbasin will present to the international competitors will be a true test of their Olympic ability. America is fortunate to be selected as the host nation for these games, and Salt Lake City is honored to be the host city. I thank my colleagues for supporting this urgently needed legislation to make these games a reality at Snowbasin. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Utah Governor Mike Leavitt, a resolution from the Ogden City Council, an editorial from the Salt Lake Tribune, and a resolution from the Utah State Legislature--all expressing support for this legislation--be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider S. 1662, the Omnibus Oregon Resources Conservation Act.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on S. 1284, NII Copyright Protection Act of 1995.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Tuesday, May 7, 1996 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting an oversight hearing on the Federal Trade Commission.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for a hearing on NIH reauthorization, during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Committee on the Library be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, beginning at 10 a.m. until business is completed, to receive a report by the General Accounting Office on the Library of Congress.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, May 7, Wednesday, May 8, and Thursday, May 9, 1996, to conduct hearings pursuant to Senate Resolution 120.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission to conduct a hearing Tuesday, May 7, 9:30 a.m., hearing room SD-406, on the GSA Public Buildings Service program request for fiscal year 1997 and on disposal of GSA-held property in Springfield, VA.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to join with many of my friends and colleagues in acknowledging a red letter day. Today is tax freedom day--the day the American family breaks the shackles placed on them by high taxes in this country, the day when Americans can stop working for the Government and start working for themselves. Not until May 7, 1996, do average families actually earn enough money to start paying their own bills instead of the Government's. Not until May 7 do average Americans have after-tax money to pay for their houses. Not until May 7 do average Americans have after-tax money to buy food and clothing for their families. And, never has tax freedom day occurred so late in the year. Look at the calendar: 1996 is more than one-third over. Americans work one- third of the entire year just to support governments. I often wish the big spenders both in Congress and in the executive branch would stop thinking in terms of revenue and start thinking in terms of what revenue really is--taxes. We need to measure this burden and talk about it in personal terms, not just in vague budget-speak. You know, there are folks in America to whom $100 million is a lot of money--not just a mere point one on a computer printout. To help illustrate this problem, I would like to take a closer look at the tax burden of a family from my home State of Utah: A Utah family of four with an estimated median income of $44,871 pays approximately $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 $14,538. This is an effective tax rate of 32.4 percent. Now, while a family income of about $45,000 might sound like quite a bit of money in some parts of the country, I think few people, besides possibly President Clinton, would venture to call this family of four rich. Madam President, as you can see, the tax burden of a family with this income is astronomical. However, the cost of the Federal Government to them does not end with these taxes. In order to accurately estimate the Government's true burden on Utah families, we must also calculate the regulatory costs and their effect on the prices of goods and services. We must factor in the higher interest rates that families must pay as a result of the Federal deficit. In essence, Federal, State, and local taxes on the family are all increased by excessive Federal borrowing. Excessive Federal regulation combined with the increase in interest payments raises the Government's cost by $8,600. Thus, the estimated total of Government costs to this typical Utah family is over $23,000. That is about 52 percent of their income. Utah families deserve better. Every American family deserves better. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 was predicated in large part on the idea that the American public could spend their money more effectively than the Federal Government could spend it. Not only did the Balanced Budget Act contain a bona fide plan for balancing the budget within 7 years, it also contained a number of tax reductions geared to helping American families and to spurring economic growth. A balanced budget is not a new idea. Until the mid-1930's, this Government regularly managed to balance its books every year except in wartime; and, even then, the debt was repaid as soon as possible after the crisis was over. But, in the 1960's, things really got out of hand. Entitlements flourished. And, of course, less and less restraint on spending meant more and more taxation. Big government means big taxes. However, President Clinton chose to veto the Balanced Budget Act. He chose to camouflage his reluctance to cut Government spending and taxes with demagoguery. He claimed that many of the tax cuts in this package were targeted to benefit the rich, regardless of the many studies that demonstrate why this is not true. He claimed that these tax cuts came at the expense of programs intended to aid the poor and the elderly. But, let's be clear about this: budget experts have made it very clear that these programs must be controlled independent of a tax cut package, not because of one. And, let's be clear about something else as well: Balancing the budget should not provide the excuse for not enacting tax cuts. That has been a convenient rationale for those who want to spend and spend. For almost the last half century, Government has spent $1.59 for every new dollar in taxes. Government isn't taxing the American people to eliminate the deficit; it is taxing people in order to spend. In 1993, President Clinton worked hard to push through Congress--by a bare one-vote margin in the House and a tie-breaking vote in the Senate by Vice President Gore--one of the largest tax hikes in history. In 1994, Republican candidates for Congress pledged to cut taxes. In 1995, they delivered. Today, the only thing that stands between the Utah family--as well as millions of other American households--and tax relief is Bill Clinton. One of the most misunderstood items of the tax cut package is the capital gains tax cut. The truth is that a capital gains tax cut is an investment incentive, and every American could gain from this tax reduction. Let me give you the facts, Mr. President. From 1985 to 1992, over 7 million taxpayers had a capital gain each year. And, 62 percent of these returns reporting capital gains came from taxpayers reporting $50,000 or less--$50,000 or less--of adjusted gross income. We are not talking about a millionaire's tax break. Capital gains relief will benefit millions of American taxpayers. Moreover, it is estimated that about 12 million lower and middle- income workers participate in some sort of stock equity plan with their employers. Further, many millions more own investments in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. In fact, 52 percent of the 30.2 million families that own mutual funds report incomes of $50,000 or below, and 80 percent of these families report incomes of $75,000 or below. Thus, capital gains realizations are hardly the exclusive domain of the rich. And these examples do not even touch on the economic benefits--such as new job opportunities--that would result from the unlocking of this estimated $8 trillion of unrealized capital gains that now sit waiting for the right incentive to come along and unleash it. The list of other tax provisions that could reduce the burden of this average Utah family goes on. For instance, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 included an extension of the research and experimentation tax credit. This credit is very important to the research-intensive high technology industries that supply my State with thousands of jobs. It is this type of tax incentive that ensures Americans that high-paying, high-skilled jobs will stay in the United States and not be exported to countries that are more tax-friendly. It is this type of treatment that allows businesses to be competitive and makes the United States an attractive base for many research-related companies. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 also included a $5,000 credit for qualified adoption expenses. As anyone who has tried to adopt knows, adoptions are not cheap. Families that are willing to take a child into their home are often deterred by the initial legal and medical expenses that can easily cost over $20,000. This $5,000 credit would allow the typical Utah family some much-needed relief by allowing them to offset their adoption expenses with a dollar for dollar credit that could be carried forward for up to 5 years. One of the tax provisions that would have provided considerable relief to this same Utah family is the tax credit for children. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995 would have provided a $500 per child credit. Of course, because Utahns have larger than average families, the citizens of our State would have greatly benefited from this provision. But, most American families could benefit from this break as well. The credit would have reduced the tax burden for a family with two children by $1,000. I am sure this Utah family would have a million better ways to use this money. So, how much did President Clinton's veto of the Balanced Budget Act cost this Utah family, consisting of a mother, a father, and two children? Let's see how much: $1,000 in tax credits for children. $217 in marriage penalty corrections; and $5,000, if this family had tried to adopt a child. And since this family would fall into the 15-percent tax bracket, they would have only paid a 7.5-percent tax on any capital gains that year--an additional 7.5-percent cut in their tax burden. President Clinton's veto of the Balanced Budget Act cost this family a minimum of $1,217. And, this figure does not even take into account possible tax savings from capital gains tax rate reductions, the adoption credit, the enhanced IRA provisions, or the increase in the tax credit for health insurance for the self-employed. It also does not take into account the substantial savings that would accrue to this family on mortgage interest, auto loans, student loans, or other private borrowing given that a balanced Federal budget would lower interest rates an estimated 2 percent. Although President Clinton was unwilling to enact the Balanced Budget Act's program of tax relief, he now has the opportunity to repeal at least one of the taxes he placed on the American public in 1993--the 4.3-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. It is remarkable to me that the Clinton administration decried the Balanced Budget Act for its so-called harm to the poor and to seniors-- but exactly who does the White House think is paying the biggest price for this gas tax hike? The gas tax is a particularly regressive tax. Who pays the most? The working poor and those on fixed incomes, that's who. On Friday, the Finance Committee held hearings on the repeal of the 4.3-cents-per-gallon gas tax. Although there is some debate regarding how much of an immediate drop there would be in the price of gas as a result of this repeal, many experts agree that the price of gasoline would be 4.3 cents per gallon less than what it would otherwise be. It is no secret that these excise taxes are passed on to the consumer. So, in observance of tax freedom day, I call upon the President to work with Congress not against it. It is time to for him to put down the veto pen and think about the American family--about this family of four struggling in Utah. It is time to lower the national tax burden and return this money to its rightful owners--American families. The current law is taxing us to death.

Mr. HATCH

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