Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague, and I have to tell you that I remember the days when Majority Leader Mitchell was accusing us of filibustering all the time. He would call up a bill and then he would file cloture that very minute and accuse us of filibustering where there was no intention to filibuster whatsoever. Be that as it may, I think both sides have misused the filibuster from time to time. I think that is one of the points I made--it can be overused. I would still fight to my death to keep it alive, because it makes this the freest legislative body in the world and it is a great protection for the minority. I believe in that because I have been in the minority and I know how tough it is to be in the minority. I have no qualms about saying to the minority leader that it is a tool that he can use. I am just suggesting, citing the minimum wage to show compassion right now is not the same as citing the Billy Dale matter where 100 people here know he and his colleagues were very badly treated. There is not the same bipartisan support for the minimum wage. There is a tremendous set of arguments against the minimum wage. I feel very deeply myself. For instance, it is ridiculous to tell people we have to give them a living wage when, in fact, people who are heads of families who are on the minimum wage have all kinds of other Federal benefits that are added to get them way above the approximately $8,000 or $9,000 the minimum wage gives them, and we are paying for it as taxpayers. So it is not like they are bereft and limited only to whatever the minimum wage is. There is the other argument, and a whole raft of arguments, about loss of youth jobs for especially impoverished youth and uneducated youth; their opportunities for working are gone. We can go into that ad infinitum. There are legitimate arguments against it, and there is a, almost even, set of viewpoints concerning whether it should or should not be enacted. I can live with it one way or the other, to be honest with you, but I think it is a mistake to keep raising the minimum wage and raising all the other social benefits as well and, basically, decreasing youth jobs by the hundreds of thousands. Be that as it may, that is an argument. There is not the same bipartisan belief in the minimum wage that there is in the Billy Dale bill. There are many vehicles whereby the Democrats can raise cane about it and can filibuster with regard to the minimum wage, but this should not be one of them. If the President was against the Billy Dale matter, I could understand it, but he is for it. If the distinguished minority leader was against rectifying the wrongs done to Billy Dale and his associates, then I could understand this, but he is for it. Are the other Democrats against the Billy Dale matter? Of course not. They are for it, and the reason they are is because it is right. I think there are things to raise filibusters about and things to vote against cloture on, and I certainly would fight to my death for the minority's right to do that. But there are also things that are right and wrong, and the wrongs against Billy Dale and the way he was treated by this White House ought to be rectified, and we could do it like that. We can do it by doing what we all know is right and not playing around with his reputation one more day. I find it unseemly that because of the difficulties over the minimum wage that our colleagues on the other side might consider not letting this bill pass and getting it over with and doing what is right. What really makes it unseemly, in my eyes, is that they had the majority for 2 years, between 1992 and 1994. They had the majority. Where was the minimum wage then when they had the majority? Why did they not pass it then? They not only had the Senate, they had the House. Where were all these compassionate minimum wage advocates in those 2 years? Why is it suddenly in a Presidential year that our distinguished friend from Massachusetts comes on, waving his arms, saying, ``Oh, we have to do something about the minimum wage"? Because he knew that 89 percent of the major media in this country who support Clinton were going to get excited and say, ``Oh, Bob Dole looks bad because he is not for minimum wage.'' Come on, the people are not stupid. We know doggone well this is a game to push up from the bottom so those in organized labor can make demands at the top. They know that. It is a game that has been played for years, and one reason we are going to get back into the inflationary cycle if we get suckered into doing that again. But even if the minimum wage is right, if it is so right today, why was it not right between 1992 and 1994? If I am shouting here, I hope they can hear me outside the Chamber. Where were all the Democrats then, these great saviors of the little people? Why, it was not politically a great thing to do then because we would have pointed out how many jobs would be lost for these disadvantaged young people that cannot get that first inception job. History shows that if they get that inception job, it will not be long until they will be making a lot more than the minimum wage. But they have to get the job. I might add, that people who do not get the job stay in poverty and on welfare. It is very insensitive to play politics with the minimum wage. But if it seems important, if it is one of these absolute things that we have to have--I have listened now for weeks to the Senator from Massachusetts and others who are advocates for the minimum wage. It is easy to be advocates, boy, when you have the major media behind you because of the recent polls that show who they do back--90 percent for President Clinton. Where were they, these wonderful Democrats, these wonderful liberals who are so concerned about all the little people out there who think the minimum wage is such a tragedy? Where were they between 1992 and 1994--tell me--when they had control of this body, when they had control of the other body? Where were they? Why all of a sudden in an election year to come out here and play games with the minimum wage? Why would they use that gameplaying to disrupt a bill to correct an absolute legal injustice that all of us admit is a legal injustice caused by White House staff, caused by pure brazen politics, caused by greed of people who supported the President? Why would they want to continue to talk about this for days on end? You would think they would have sense enough to get it over with, especially since the President says, in the most sincere fashion possible, ``You were done wrong, Mr. Dale. And I support the efforts to try and resolve that wrong.'' Let the President retire in dignity from the Billy Dale fiasco. The minimum wage--we can live to fight that another day. But even so--I am not going to call it hypocritical--but where were these wonderful saviors of the minimum wage in 1992, 1993, 1994? In fact, where were they when they took over the Senate in 1986, 1987, 1988? We did pass one then, I guess. But where were they in 1992 and 1994 when they controlled the Senate, they controlled the House? They could have done anything they wanted to do. I guess it was not an election year then. I guess because this President had won the heat was off, and they could wait to take care of these people during an election year so that they could score some political points. That may be a little harsh. I will retract a little bit by saying there are literally those who have never studied economics in this body who really believe that the minimum wage needs to be raised because they really believe that they are going to help people to support their families with that extra 90 cents over 2 years. Give me a break. It will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs for disadvantaged youth who will never get a job after that, who, if they had gotten a minimum wage job because they were not priced out of the marketplace, would go on to make more money, get trained, have the dignity that comes from working, and so forth. It really bothers me that that battle would be used to defeat or to stop or to deter resolving a gross manifest of injustice like what happened to Billy Dale and his companions, which happened from this White House. It really is amazing to me, absolutely amazing. The Democrats on the other side, who are so anxious to do something about the minimum wage, did not do anything in 1993. They did not do anything in 1994. Why? Because they knew it was bad for the country. They knew it was bad for the country. But today raising the minimum wage, they think, is good for Democrats, especially with their help in the media. But you know there are articles starting to come out by those who are thoughtful and reflecting on this, saying, with caution, ``Be cautious with regard to raising the minimum wage. You may cause more problems than you fix.'' Keep in mind for those out there who buy off on this language that you cannot live on whatever the minimum wage is-- $4.25, $4.35 an hour--I agree, you cannot support a family on that. But this country is not uncompassionate. When you add food stamps, and you add the earned- income tax credit, and you add a whole raft of other social spending programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, when you add all kinds of social welfare benefits that they are entitled to under our current budget, nobody who runs a family lives on the minimum wage. The fact of the matter is, they are entitled to these even if they work for the minimum wage. You are talking about an average family income of well over $13,000 a year that is well above what an increase in the minimum wage, this 90-cent increase, would do at $5.25. Where were these people in 1992, 1993, and 1994? Where were they over the last 5 years, if it is so important? Why were they not out here getting it done since they controlled both Houses of Congress, and in 1993 and 1994 controlled the Presidency too? Where were the unions at that time demanding the minimum wage to be increased? I did not hear any real ruffling by the unions or anybody else. The reason was, they know doggone well that increasing the minimum wage is no panacea, that it does not solve the problems. You are still going to have to face the problems. And the best way to do that is straight up, and with opportunity, economic opportunity, not false mandating, further mandates on the backs of the American people. If we had not passed the unfunded mandates bill, I would say, well, maybe there is a better logical argument for the minimum wage. The fact is, we passed it, and this is a mandate on the backs of American business of $1 billion annually. That is something to think about. Why would we do that if we think the unfunded mandates bill is so important, which passed overwhelmingly here in the United States? I could go on and on. But my point is, I hope our colleagues on the other side will think better by tomorrow morning. This ought to pass on a voice vote. I would prefer to have a vote on it just so everybody will know there are 100 Senators who want to right this injustice or the series of injustices and these wrongs and who want to support the President. And in doing so, the President had the guts to stand up and say, ``Yes. The White House did wrong here. And we should rectify this.'' I respect him for that. I think we all should. But if we have a filibuster tomorrow, I am going to have a rough time respecting anybody who participates in that under these circumstances, especially since it passed the House 250 to 43. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am prepared to do that. I believe in comity, and I have worked hard with my colleagues on the other side for comity. There have been innumerable bills where the Democrats have brought up not-relevant amendments throughout this process. What has happened here is they think they have a good political issue in the minimum wage. There will be a vote on the minimum wage before this year is out, there is no question. I do not blame the majority leader, who is acting no differently than the distinguished Senator from South Dakota when he was majority leader. I do not blame the majority leader for wanting to be able to schedule that at the appropriate time, not on every bill. Also, in my whole time in the Senate I do not remember a period of time like the last 2 years where almost everything is filibustered, where it takes a cloture vote to be able to end the debate. I think part of that came because our friends on the other side did not like the Contract With America. They did not want it to succeed. They have a right to fight against it, and they have a right to filibuster against these--but not everything. I have to admit, as somebody who has utilized the filibuster in the past and is known as somebody who can utilize it, I have used it very sparingly, only on major issues where there are clear-cut differences and where it is justified. But we have had a virtual slowdown on everything. Having said that, my colleagues on the other side have a right to do that. I am not going to take that right away. In fact, I would fight to my death for the filibuster rule. It is what makes us different from the House of Representatives. I might also add, I do not know a Senator who wants to go to the House of Representatives. I know a lot of Members of the House who would like to come here, especially Democrats. I have to say I guess Republicans have that desire as well. But to make a long story short, I do not believe that every bill has to be a bill where you cannot debate nonrelevant amendments, but this is one that passed 350 yeas to 43 nays in the House. It is a truly bipartisan bill, one that rights a terrific wrong that the White House basically admits was done, one of which the President said, ``I support it. It is the right thing to do.'' And which I think my friends on the other side ought to accept. Since nobody opposes this, why make this the cause celebre with regard to the minimum wage or any other special interest legislation that either side would like to bring up? Both sides have their peculiar special interests. We all know that. Both sides are sincere on these special desires. But this is one where the President said he would support it. This is one where 350 Members of the House, Democrats and Republicans, said they would support it, and only 43 were against it. This is one where I think 100 Senators will support it, at least I believe 100 Senators would, because I think every Senator here knows this is a terrific injustice. This bill is one that literally will not repair the reputations and the lives of those who went through this horrendous experience but will at least say to the public at large, and to them, that we in the Senate have some consideration for them, we have some compassion, that we care for them, that we are sorry for what happened, and what we can do, we will have done. I happen to have a great deal of friendship for my friend from South Dakota, the Democrat leader on the floor. There is no question that we are close friends. I cannot imagine, knowing him as well as I do, that he would allow his party, his side to be so crass as to filibuster this bill or to even require a cloture vote. This side would be just a voice vote, although I would like to see everybody stand up and vote 100 to zip to support this bill. I really believe--I am just counseling my colleague, whom I care for and he knows it--I really believe it is the right thing. We ought to get it over with, get it done, not spend a lot of time on it, let these people know Democrats and Republicans are together on this and not get involved in the quagmire of the minimum wage or anything else. I know that is going to come up. I know it has to come up. I know our friends in the minority have a right, have many rights, and there will be many tough votes, as the distinguished Senator says, for both sides. That is just the way it is, not only in a normal year but in a Presidential year in particular. But there are some things we should do in a bipartisan way. We should not elevate it to the level of filibuster. We should not elevate it to the level of trying to get one or the other side's own personal preferences, especially when the President supports it. So I am calling on the President. I am calling on my colleagues on the other side. I am calling on my friend, the minority leader, to think this through and let us get this over with and do what is right and give these people a chance to walk away with at least some measure of dignity, even though they will never get their full reputations back in the eyes of some people. They have been scarred for life. The least we can do is try to do some plastic surgery here to make the scars a little less reprehensible to them. I think we all ought to have the compassion to do that. That is all I am asking for. I can live with whatever the minority wants to do. I caution the minority to not do what I have heard might be done and to really think this through and help me, as Judiciary Committee chairman, to get this matter over and done with; get it over for the White House and done. Once it is done, it will not be mentioned again, to my knowledge, on the floor. Just go from there. I just think it makes sense to do that. But I can live with anything. I have been around here a long time, and I have seen a lot of injustices before. But I think, if we delay this and play games with this bill, then we will play games with anything. I think this would be a tremendous, manifest injustice. That is my opinion, but I think it is shared by a wide variety of people on both sides of the aisle. I think really we ought to. There will be plenty of chances on other legislation, there will be plenty of chances to get the will of the minority done. I think, just work with the majority leader. I think it will get done because I guarantee there is going to be a bill on it, but it is going to satisfy both sides if it happens. It is not just going to be a one-sided bill. I think there will be an appropriate time to do that. I just believe, and I think most people who look at this fairly believe, this is not the bill you should be playing games with. Having said that, I respect my dear colleague, I still love and appreciate him, and I know he has a tough job. I know he has to handle his side. But I hope he will urge them to err on the side of caution, err on the side of doing what is right, err on the side of compassion, err on the side of rectifying wrongs that are clear-cut wrongs, err on the side of supporting the President. I think if you do that, you will win a lot of respect from some people who need to respect the minority as much as I do. I just wanted to say those things. I feel deeply about it. I hope my colleague can help me on this.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I, as you know, have made some arguments here that this is a bill that everybody ought to be for. It is to right injustices that were created by certain people at the White House which the President even acknowledges in the sense that he said he would support this legislation. He does support this legislation. He thinks an injustice was done, and he thinks that Billy Dale and the other former employees ought to be reimbursed their legal expenses. The President is behind this. This is not a partisan issue. But I just have been informed that the Democrats on the cloture vote tomorrow are going to vote against cloture on something this bipartisan. Not one of them is going to speak against it. I do not think anybody in this body can speak against this bill. But they are going to filibuster this bill because they cannot add the minimum wage to this bill, or they cannot add any number of other liberal wish lists to this bill. Talk about an unjust situation confounding an unjust situation. I cannot believe that my colleagues are going to do that on the other side. They ought to be the first to say, get this bill through and do it and right this wrong. When I was a Democrat we were concerned about people's feelings. We were concerned about compassion. We were concerned about injustice. We would move heaven and Earth to try to do something about it. But that is one reason I left the party. Politics is more important than anything else, I guess. I am calling on my colleagues on the other side to do something about this. This is a wrong that ought to be righted. This man has been mistreated, and so have his colleagues. His reputation has been smeared and besmirched. And everybody in this body knows it, and everybody in the other body. The other body acted with dispatch and reason and dignity and in a bipartisan way and passed this legislation. We are going to correct the legislation with Senate legislation and send it back. And it will pass overwhelmingly over there. And if we play a two- bit game of not invoking cloture tomorrow I think that is pathetic. I challenge my colleagues to wake up and quit playing politics with stuff like this. There is a place and a time to filibuster. There is a place and a time to bring up the minimum wage. This is not one of them. I would be ashamed not to see this bill just pass right through especially since nobody over there is going to speak against it, or if they are I would like to hear what they have to say because I am prepared to rebut anything they say. And I mean I am really prepared. And they better expect a rough time if somebody came on this floor and said that Billy Dale should not be reimbursed. Where is the compassion the Democrats say they have? Where is the fairness? Where is the care for somebody who has been besmirched, and everybody admits it, who had to go through 2\1/2\ years of being brutalized in a full-fledged criminal trial where it got so bad and his expenses were so high and his family was going down the drain that the fellow was ready to even take a guilty plea or a plea to a minor offense in order to get the doggone ordeal over, which happens from time to time to innocent people. Fortunately, it went to the jury, and in this country, having tried hundreds of jury cases, hundreds of them, I have to tell you, I believe in that jury system. After the O.J. Simpson vote, I was interrogated on that, and I said I will go with the jury. I may have my own opinions, but I am going to go with the jury. In this case there is no question about it, and everybody pretty much admits it. If we are going to play games with this type of stuff--I do not mind my friends on the other side finding fault and hustling against legislation they despise or think is wrong. I do mind it on this legislation. Let me tell you something. There are two sides to the minimum wage. There are two sides to abortion. There are two sides to all these buzz issues. There are not two sides to this issue. There is one side. And I do not know anybody who could rebut it or who would have the temerity to come out here and try to rebut it. So I think it is time to quit playing games with something like this. Surely, the tree was tied up. I was not here, but it was tied up because we did not want any games played on something that will right the injustices of the past like this bill does. I am calling on my colleagues on the other side to give some consideration to not just me as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has tried to work with them in so many ways, but to their own President who said he supports this legislation and get it over with. It is to their advantage to get it over with rather than have to beat this to death over the next few days. I do not want to stand here and just keep pointing out the White House deficiencies on it. I wish to right this wrong, get it over with and then not talk about it anymore. So I am calling on my friends on the other side to give some consideration to the work that some of us are doing. I know they feel deeply about the minimum wage. Some on our side feel deeply on the other side, and there is going to be a battle on minimum wage sooner or later around here. This is just not the right vehicle to bring the complaint about, have someone to bring up their special amendments on this. I think this is the time to do what is right. If the President said he opposed it, OK, I can accept it. But I am calling on the President of the United States to get with it as my friend and the friend of every Democrat over here and to talk to our colleagues on the other side and to say look, fellows, men and women on the Democratic side of the floor, this is something that has to be done and it should not be delayed and it ought to be done now. I am calling on the President of the United States to see that this gets done. I expect to do my very best to get it done, and I hope this rumor that I am hearing is not true. If it is, I have to say that the comity in this body is just breaking down. I do not want to see that happen because there are a few of us who want to see things resolved. A few of us want to resolve some of these problems. Where we have head- butting things where both sides feel very deeply, that is another matter. But on most matters around here we will resolve them, and this matter should not even be in question. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. HATCH. This is one of the most unjust things I have seen in all the time I have been here. It is just a shame that the awesome power of the White House could be utilized in this fashion. I am pleased that the President basically stands behind this bill and will not veto this bill. I am pleased he said he would support this bill. I hope our colleagues on the other side will support it, as I hope our colleagues on our side will support it. There is no reason in this world why we do not rectify this kind of wrong caused by the Federal Government. My only problem is I wonder how many other wrongs like this there are in our system today? I think by and large our system is as honest and good and decent as it can be, but occasionally we do find people who play politics with the law. You should never play politics with criminal laws. People's lives, reputations, their very inner psyches can be completely destroyed when put through these types of embarrassing, despicable approaches. I am very upset about it. I would like to see this passed without event and without a lot of screaming and shouting. It ought to be done in a dignified way. Every one of us in this body ought to be proud to do it and send this message, not only to this White House but future White Houses and future Justice Departments, that we will not tolerate this kind of action in the future. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Christina Rios, of my staff, be given privileges of the floor for the pendency of the debate.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we turn to H.R. 2937. This is a bill to provide for the legal expenses of Billy Dale and other former White House Travel Office employees. Mr. President, today I rise to urge my colleagues to support the pending legislation to reimburse the legal expenses incurred by Billy Dale and the other White House Travel Office employees who were summarily discharged from their jobs on May 19, 1993. This is a bill that I believe remedies the grave miscarriage of justice that resulted in the wrongful investigation and prosecution of Mr. Billy Dale and other former White House Travel Office employees. President Clinton has said that he supports reimbursement of legal fees for Mr. Dale. I take him at his word. I am counting on him to make sure that people on the other side do not delay this bill, that cloture will be invoked tomorrow. It is surprising to me, however, that we are here trying to move this simple measure that the President supports, that had overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, but that some of my Democratic friends continue to seek to derail. It is time to act on this measure and put to rest the years of unnecessary expense and inconvenience suffered by Mr. Billy Dale and his former colleagues of the White House Travel Office. To do anything less, in my opinion, would be to deny justice to those wrongfully prosecuted by the Government. The issue is simple: Mr. Dale served his country, at the pleasure of eight Presidents, as the director of the White House Travel Office. He faithfully served both Democratic and Republican Presidents. He provided years of service that involved the thankless task of ensuring that the national and international media were in a position to cover and report the movements of the President to the public. For that, Mr. Dale and the entire White House Travel Office staff were fired on May 19, 1993, and fired in what really could be nothing less than a surreptitious manner. As if that humiliation were not enough, Mr. Dale was thereafter indicted and prosecuted for embezzlement. On December 1, 1995, after 2\1/2\ years of being investigated by the FBI and IRS and incurring tremendous legal expenses, Mr. Dale was tried before a jury of his peers and, after fewer than 2 hours of deliberation, found not guilty of all charges. The travesty in this story is that the White House Travel Office employees simply got caught in the political crossfire of the new administration. They had served both Democratic and Republican Presidents, but found themselves in jobs that apparently were an impediment to the ambitious money-making schemes of some of the new President's friends. President Clinton certainly had the authority to dismiss the White House Travel Office staff without cause. I do not begrudge the President his right to control White House staff. But subsequent to the firings, the Clinton White House may have felt the need to justify its actions, given the tremendous media interest in this dismissal. Unfortunately, in justifying its own actions, the White House ruined the reputations of Mr. Dale and his colleagues. The White House' actions went well beyond routine termination of jobs at the President's pleasure. What happened is simply unconscionable, and we have to right these wrongs. In May 1993, the Travel Office employees were fired and told to vacate the premises. In fact, two staff members learned of their termination on the nightly news. That is how this White House handled it. In an attempt to justify firing these loyal public servants, the White House met with and urged the FBI to investigate the Travel Office. Usually that is done solely by calling anything they think is wrong to the attention of the Justice Department, who then can, if it is deemed necessary, call in the FBI. That was not the case here. They actually tried to influence the FBI to get involved in what really was a political matter. They used allegations concocted by those who had a vested interest in running the office themselves. Curiously, the FBI helped craft the White House' press release about the firings. The accounting firm Peat Marwick was hired to do an audit of the office. The firm's report, however, did not substantiate the allegations of mismanagement asserted by the White House. The firm found only modest financial irregularities, which are certainly not the same thing as embezzlement. Now, this story would indeed be tragic enough if it ended here. But it does not. The Department of Justice then proceeded to indict Mr. Dale, seemingly without concern for the weakness of its case. The case was so weak that the citizens sitting on the jury who heard all the evidence exonerated Mr. Dale in fewer than 2 hours. For those who have tried a lot of lawsuits, it takes that long to organize the jury. This question of use of the Federal criminal justice system created a situation for Mr. Dale where he had to spend some $500,000, and even considered taking a plea, when he had committed no crime, just to end it--just to end this tremendous fiscal abuse of him and his family. Indeed, after the jury dismissed the allegations, someone leaked the existence of the plea negotiations to the public in an attempt to further discredit Mr. Dale's reputation. The Clinton administration just could not let it end with Mr. Dale's acquittal. It had to take one more swipe at Mr. Dale. Not only are plea negotiations a necessary part of our judicial system, they are intended to remain confidential and are not to be used against a criminal defendant. Mr. Dale likely considered a plea agreement because he was faced with a crushing financial problem and burden, an uncertain future, and wanted to put an end to a trial that had become too much of a strain to his family and reputation. No one should ever have to be put through this. No citizen of this country should be treated in this fashion. I have to say there have been a number of innocent citizens through the years who have had to make pleas just to get the Government off their back because the Government has a never-ending source of funds, where they, of course, can lose their whole lives and their whole life's work. In Mr. Dale's case, that is what was happening. Even so, he was maligned by these leaks after his acquittal. It has now 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 in their lives, and it is time to allow them to have their reputations back. I cannot, in good conscience, sit quiet when I believe an arrogant use of power has taken place. The power of the White House was used to victimize the innocent for a President's political gains. The targeting of dedicated public servants, apparently because they held positions coveted by political profiteers, demand an appropriate response. Although their muddied personal and smeared personal reputations may never be fully restored, it is only just that the Congress do what it can to rectify these wrongs. Accordingly, this bill will make Mr. Dale and the other former White House Travel Office employees whole, at least financially. It will never make up for what they have lost otherwise. But it will financially, by providing for attorney's fees and expenses related to the criminal investigation. This is the very least we can do. After all, we can do nothing to restore their reputations, their dignity, or their faith in this White House. Let me briefly explain to my colleagues what this bill does for the former White House Travel Office employees. This legislation provides for payment of the legal expenses incurred by Billy Dale, Barney Brasseaux, John Dreylinger, Ralph Maughan, John McSweeney, and Gary Wright in connection with the wrongful criminal investigation launched against them subsequent to their firings. Though Mr. Dale suffered the greatest financial losses, the remaining six employees collectively incurred approximately $200,000 in their own defense. These six innocent--let me repeat that, innocent--employees were unjustly dismissed so that rich White House cronies could snap up their jobs. While this bill does not provide for compensation of all expenses associated with the investigation into the Travel Office matters, such as costs incurred while appearing before Congress, it will provide for attorney's fees and costs that resulted from defending themselves against criminal investigations. I thank my colleagues for considering this piece of legislation and, above all, the Members of the House for passing H.R. 2937 with overwhelming bipartisan support. This is an important and long overdue measure. I find it a great breach of trust with the American people that the awesome prosecutorial powers of the Federal Government will be brought to bear on innocent persons for political motives. Even the White House in hindsight recognized that justice in this matter needs to be done. Indeed, when White House spokesman McCurry stated, ``Yes, and he signed it,'' referring to President Clinton's intentions to sign this bill reimbursing Mr. Dale, this was our call to enact this measure. We should all keep this in mind when voting to pass this bill. I strongly urge support for the passage of this legislation. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last Friday, the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of the habeas provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act. To examine this issue, the Court chose the vehicle of Felker versus Turpin, a case in which the prisoner, Ellis Felker, kidnaped, robbed, raped, sodomized, and then killed Evelyn Joy Ludlam, a 19-year-old college student who was working as a waitress. The Court ordered an expedited briefing and argument schedule, with the likely result that the Justices will decide the issues involved by the beginning of July. Mr. President, I ask the Clinton administration, and in particular, its Solicitor General, Drew Days, to vigorously defend the constitutionality of our habeas reform. Habeas reform was the heart and soul of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and it is the only thing in the act that will directly affect the perpetrators of the heinous bombing in Oklahoma. Without habeas reform, those who murdered in Oklahoma, like other convicted murderers throughout our Nation, will be able to use frivolous petitions and appeals to prevent the imposition of their justly deserved punishments. It is a sad day when we in the Senate must ask the Justice Department to vigorously side with the State in a death penalty case. But I am afraid to say that we must because of the Clinton administration's demonstrated reluctance to support habeas reform and the death penalty. Through its Solicitor General, the Clinton administration has failed to support State efforts to impose capital sentences--a 180-degree turnaround from the policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations. For example, in Judiciary Committee hearings led by myself and Senator Thompson, we learned that, during the 1994 Supreme Court term, the Solicitor General under the Clinton administration failed to file even one brief on the side of the State in death penalty cases. As this chart makes clear, this is a sharp drop off from the practice under the Reagan and Bush administrations, when that number was 42.9 percent in 1991 and 37.5 percent in 1992. The Clinton Solicitor General's failure to defend the death penalty is only part of the administration's soft-on-crime litigating positions. In case after case, the Solicitor General has refused to appeal cases in which the lower courts have overruled the Government, have overturned convictions, or have made it difficult to prosecute the defendant. Take, for example, the decision in United States versus Cheely, in which a panel of Carter judges in the ninth circuit struck down the Federal death penalty as unconstitutional. The Clinton administration's Solicitor General refused to appeal that case to the full ninth circuit or to the Supreme Court. When asked by Senator Thompson why no appeal was filed, Drew Days responded that he felt that the case did not raise large enough concerns to justify a rehearing. Another example is the case of United States versus Hamrick. This is the case in which a prisoner sent a mail bomb to a U.S. attorney. Luckily, the bomb did not go off. Unluckily, a panel of judges on the fourth circuit overturned his conviction for assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon because those judges felt the bomb was an incomplete bomb and could not go off. Again, President Clinton's Solicitor General failed to appeal that decision, and the fourth circuit had to sua sponte order a rehearing to reverse that activist decision. I could go on. I could describe the Solicitor General's effort to narrow the Federal child pornography laws. I could describe the Solicitor General's support for lawsuits by prisoners against the Arizona prisons. I could describe the drop-off in the Solicitor General's support for the State in all criminal cases before the Court. I have discussed these cases elsewhere, and I think that the point is clear. If the administration were truly serious about fighting crime, more than 90 percent of which is prosecuted in State court, then it should work harder to toughen the judicially created criminal rules that bind both Federal and State law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts. The Solicitor General's conduct follows the rest of the administration's opposition to habeas reform and the death penalty. For example, on the eve of House debate on the antiterrorism bill, the White House sent emissaries to the Hill to lobby for weakening changes to the habeas reform package. Abner Mikva, the former White House counsel, lobbied to restore the de novo standard of review in habeas petitions, which would allow Federal judges to reopen issues that had been lawfully and correctly resolved years earlier. Before that, the Clinton Justice Department in 1994 lobbied the House for passage of the so-called Racial Justice Act. This provision, in the guise of protecting against race-based discrimination, would have imposed a quota on the imposition of the death penalty. It would have effectively abolished the death penalty. When the Senate refused to accept this death penalty abolition proposal, the Clinton administration issued a directive implementing its substance to require a racial review of all Justice Department death penalty decisions. The weaknesses of the Clinton administration and of the Solicitor General to combat crime and to support the vigorous enforcement of the death penalty concern me in this case. The importance of winning this case cannot be overstated. One of the keys to winning the war on crime is to make clear society's determination to mete out swift, effective justice to those who are found guilty of violating its laws. Our habeas reform bill will prevent murderers from abusing our procedural system to forestall their punishments. Because of my concerns about President Clinton's Solicitor General and the death penalty, let me announce today that I plan to file an amicus brief before the Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of habeas reform. I invite all interested Members of both the Senate and the House to join my brief. We cannot take the chance that the Clinton administration will pull another Cheely.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, before we get into the Billy Dale bill, because it is a very important piece of legislation, as far as I am concerned, I thought I would spend a few minutes, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, talking about habeas corpus reform because of the extraordinary action taken by the Supreme Court last Friday, and then I will launch into the Billy Dale legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I agree with my colleague, the INS should give the issue the attention it deserves. Should my colleague offer such an amendment, I will also be willing to consider supporting the amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is a sad day in the U.S. Senate. Mrs. Bernice Harris, a loyal and hard-working employee in the Russell Coffee Shop, leaves the Senate today after more than three decades of dedicated service. In a body which is divided on many issues, it is safe to say there is total agreement on Bernice. Bernice made the Senate, and in particular the Russell Building, a better place in which to work. Each morning, we could count on seeing Bernice's smiling face and her friendly greeting, undoubtedly helping us get through a hectic day. We will all miss Bernice's unflinching good cheer as well as her unique outlook on life. Bernice has such a wonderful perspective that she never failed to improve my day and many days of many others in the Senate community. So although it's a sad day in the Senate, it is a happy day in the house--the household of Bernice Harris. It is hard for me to relate how much we will miss Bernice. I am sure my colleagues will join with me in wishing Bernice well for her much-deserved retirement.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Clinton administration, as my distinguished colleague just said, opposes the creation of an office for the enforcement of employer sanctions. The Congress should be about cutting the Federal bureaucracy, not adding to it. This bill throws another $100 million of employer sanctions enforcement on top of the $43 million spent in the current year on worksite enforcement. Sanctions have not worked. They are a burden on business, especially small business. They cause discrimination against those who look and sound foreign. The Judiciary Committee struck the office from the bill. Frankly, I urge the rejection of the Bradley amendment for those reasons.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, with regard to the Leahy-Simon amendment, let me say that this amendment is an improvement of the amendment that Senator Leahy offered in the Judiciary Committee, because it will permit for special summary exclusion procedures in extraordinary migration situations. The amendment will remove summary exclusion procedures where they could be problematic. In particular, the amendment removes the summary exclusion procedures for asylum applicants. Those would require that INS officers at points of entry make threshold determinations of how an alien traveled to the United States and whether someone claiming asylum has a credible fear of persecution. This would present a burden to our INS officers at borders, who would now have to become experts in asylum law and would have to perform additional bureaucratic functions. I am also concerned about the harsh consequences that could result to asylum applicants who do have a valid claim but who may not speak English, may not have the necessary proof of their claim with them, and that sort of thing. I also note that the INS has had success with reducing frivolous asylum claims. This provision seems unnecessary at this time and could create burdens on INS border agents, who should be focussing on other matters. This amendment also deletes provisions of the bill providing that an alien using fraudulent documents for entry is excludable and ineligible for withholding of deportation. Many asylum applicants fleeing persecution may have to destroy their documents for various reasons and may have to present fraudulent documents. The bill does provide for an exception for those who have a valid asylum claim. Accordingly, I do not think those provisions of the bill are as problematic. but I think that on the whole the provisions of the amendment are meritorious and I support the amendment. I realize that the terrorism bill that came out of conference included summary exclusion provisions for asylum applicants. That provision was primarily driven by some House Members and, although I did not think it belonged in the terrorism bill, I knew that we would deal with this here on the immigration bill. Accordingly, I do not think it is inconsistent for those who supported the terrorism bill to support the Leahy asylum amendment. Mr. President, I am going to support the Leahy asylum amendment because I think it is the right thing to do. I do like the changes he made. Even though I voted against the amendment in committee, I think the changes make the amendment a good amendment. amendment no. 3790

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the Bradley amendment for a few minutes as well, and I appreciate my colleagues giving me this opportunity. This Congress is supposed to be about reducing the Federal bureaucracy. I must confess that I am perplexed about where the idea for a new Federal bureaucracy is coming from. The administration opposes this provision for a new Office of Enforcement of Employer Sanctions. It argues that this new Office would be duplicative of ongoing programs within the INS and the Office of Special Counsel. In fact, the Attorney General's office suggests that a new office would not only be a waste of money, but make the program even less effective. The employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 [IRCA] have not successfully controlled illegal immigration. That is not simply my opinion, it is a fact. Illegal aliens continue to pour into this country. A cottage industry in counterfeit and fraudulent documents has flourished, and an increasingly lucrative black market in smuggling aliens into this country has thrived. Employer sanctions do not work. If they did, we would not be debating a verification system. If sanctions worked, we would not have the level of concern we presently have about the very issue of illegal immigration. We would not have seen so much television footage of persons illegally crossing our borders by running against traffic on highways in order to defeat vehicular pursuit. We would not have seen a ship ground off of the New Jersey shore a few years ago loaded with aliens to be smuggled into our country. We would not be reading about illegal aliens loaded onto boxcars which are then sealed south of our border on their way north. At the same time, sanctions have had serious adverse consequences. Though unintended, they are still very real. Some employers have engaged in illegal discrimination against Americans who look or sound foreign in order to avoid potential lawsuits, fines, and jail sentences under IRCA's sanctions provisions. Further, the paperwork and related burdens on American businesses--as small as entities with just one employee--impose costs onto the American consumer. In my view, employer sanctions simply are not worth the price of increased employment discrimination and increased burdens on small business. Let us speak for a few moments about the anticivil rights nature of employer sanctions. The easiest way for an employer to avoid sanctions is to refuse to hire those who look or sound different. To be sure, the law penalizes such discrimination. But the law does not always catch up with all the discrimination that occurs. So to place an incentive into the law for discrimination is, I respectfully submit, truly unfortunate. The Comptroller General's testimony before the Judiciary Committee on March 30, 1990, highlighting key issues in GAO's report to Congress on IRCA and the question of discrimination was quite simple and straightforward: He stated that the GAO had found widespread discrimination as a result of IRCA. The GAO said: The results of our survey of a random sample of the Nation's employers shows that an estimated 891,000 employers, 19 percent of the 4.6 million in the population surveyed reported beginning discriminatory practices because of the law. The American people have a right to know these facts, and I think Members of the Senate have a right to know these facts. Notably, in 1994 the AFL-CIO Executive Council called for ``a thorough reexamination of * * * employer sanctions * * * and their effects on workers, as well as the exploration of changes and viable alternatives that will best meet our criteria of fairness and justice for all workers.''

Mr. HATCH. I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute or two because I have heard the arguments about minimum wage for 20 years now. As a matter of fact, when I was chairman of the Labor Committee, or ranking member to the distinguished former chairman, Senator Kennedy, we got into a lot of battles over minimum wage. I come at it maybe from a different perspective. I understand that Senator Kennedy believes he is fighting hard for poor people. I commend him for the efforts he has made through the years to do that. I have a lot of respect for some of the things he has done. On the other hand, I feel that many things he has argued for have been detrimental to poor people. I was raised in an environment where I knew what it was really like to be hungry, to not have quite enough food. We did not have indoor facilities in our home when I was raised in the early years. Gradually, my dad was able to, by fighting and scratching, get us indoor facilities. But I can remember that, as a high school kid, I had to work my way through high school. I did not have a chance. If I could not have earned money going to high school, I do not know that I could have finished. I had to work my way through college and law school. In college, I was a janitor. I earned 65 cents an hour. I was so grateful for that job, I cannot begin to tell you. I was grateful in high school to work in a gas station where I worked very hard. I was captain of the basketball team. I would go to basketball practice, and afterward I would go work in the gas station so that I could buy some of the shoes and clothes that I had to have to be able to just go to school. But I never had the clothes most of the kids in that school district had. As a matter of fact, we lived in the poor end of the borough. There was a very wealthy end of the borough. So I really saw the contrast between those who were wealthy and those who were poor. I have to tell you. Speaking for those who maybe do not have the skills and do not have the opportunities that others had, every time the minimum wage goes up those people are left in the cold. And there are hundreds of thousands of them that are left in the cold because people just simply will not pay the higher minimum wage. They will do without the people, or they will quit their businesses. That happens all over America. You cannot ignore it. It would be far better for us to find other mechanisms than a phony mechanism that raises the floor so that those in the union movement can make higher demands at the top. This has been a fiction for years. If the minimum wage goes up 10 percent or 15 percent, then the unions come in and say, ``We deserve 10 or 15 percent.'' We wonder why we have these intermittent but very sustaining cycles of inflation. It would be far better to do other things for the poor and for those who are at that lower end of the ladder. As we all know, not many total supporters of their households are on minimum wage. For a lot of these kids that take these minimum-wage jobs, it is only a matter of time until with the incentives and with their own desires to get ahead that they can move on, having acquired some skills for jobs that pay more than the minimum wage. That is what really has happened. I do not want to continue this debate because I know that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is very sincere, and I commend him for that. But all the sincerity in the world does not make it necessarily right. I would like to put it in the Record, but at this particular point let me just make a few comments from the Wall Street Journal editorial today. It said: It is true that it's now possible to get a few economists, including a couple of Nobel laureates such as Robert Solow, to stand up in public and advocate a higher minimum wage. This is supposed to reflect a study or two that fetched up no job losses from higher minimums; our own suspicion is that it has much more to do with the intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic Party such economists largely support. As the symposium on this page last week demonstrated, the general consensus of the profession remains firm. James Buchanan, the 1986 laureate for his work on public choice, said it best: ``The inverse relationship between quantity demanded and price is the core proposition in economic science.'' To assert that raising the minimum wage would actually increase employment, he continued, ``becomes equivalent to a denial that there is even minimal scientific content in economics.'' Merton Miller, a 1990 laureate for work on capital markets, asks of the notion that a minimum wage boost is costless, ``Is all this too good to be true? Damn right. But it sure plays well in the opinion polls. I tremble for my profession.'' The fact of the matter is that the article goes on to point out that: The minimum wage, however, points all of the incentives in the wrong direction. Yes, some Republicans have themselves defected for their own personal reasons, and it's conceivable that if the GPO resists, the increase will pass. But so what? It is more important that the Republicans start to assert principles, as they did when they dominated the Congress and the national discussion. That is, they need to get the ball and go back on the offensive. What the public above all wants is for politicians to stand for something, to give voters a clear choice. Our own view is that voters are pretty smart, and can understand the doleful effect of minimum wages if someone starts to explain it to them. If Republicans do this, we predict, they will come back next year with plenty of votes not only to roll back any increase but end the minimum wage charade once and for all. Those are harsh words, but I think they are true and accurate. Frankly, I think we have to get back to the real bill at hand, and that is the illegal immigration bill and get over these side political shows and do what really ought to be done on immigration. And then let us face this problem on the minimum wage up and down with full-fledged debate. And, if that is what it takes, I think we should make the points that I think I personally can make as somebody who did not have much of a chance when I was younger, who had to work at the minimum wage, and who worked for peanuts to be able to go through but gradually was able to work out of it because of the chance I had to have a job to begin with. Frankly, that is what we ought to be more concerned about--the chance to have jobs to begin with, because once these kids start working and learn the value of working and the importance of working and the benefits from working, it is not long until they do not earn whatever the minimum wage is. They make far beyond that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Wall Street Journal article be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. HATCH. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand this has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion and amendments thereto on amendment No. 3744 be temporarily set aside for the consideration of a manager's amendment that I understand has been cleared on both sides.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Gang Violence Act. I am pleased to be joined in this important effort by Senator Feinstein, as well as by Senators Kerry, Harkin, Reid, and D'Amato. Gang violence in many of our communities is reaching frightening levels. Recently, Asipeli Mohi, a 17-year-old Utahn, was tried and convicted of the gang-related beating and shooting death of another teenager, Aaron Chapman. Why was Aaron Chapman murdered? He was wearing red, apparently the color of a rival gang. Ironically, Mr. Chapman was on his way home from attending an antigang benefit concert when he was killed. Before committing this murder, the killer had racked up a record of 5 felonies and 15 misdemeanors in juvenile court. Sadly, this example of senseless gang violence is not an isolated incident in my State or elsewhere. It is a scene replayed daily with disturbing frequency. Gang violence is now common even in places where this would have been unthinkable several years ago. Indeed, many people find it hard to believe that Salt Lake City or Ogden could have such a problem--gangs, they think, are a problem in cities like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, but not in our smaller cities. However, reality is much grimmer. Since 1992, gang activity in Salt Lake City has increased tremendously. For instance, the number of identified gangs has increased 55 percent, from 185 to 288, and the number of gang members has increased 115 percent, from 1,438 to 3,104. The number of gang-related crimes has increased a staggering 388 percent, from 1,741 in 1992 to 8,496 in 1995. In 1995, 174 of these involved drive-by shootings, and in the first quarter of 1996 alone, there were 64 gang-related drive-by shootings. Our problem is severe. Moreover, there is a significant role the Federal Government can play in fighting this battle. I am not one to advocate the unbridled extension of Federal jurisdiction. Indeed, I often think that we have federalized too many crimes. However, in the case of criminal street gangs, which increasingly are moving interstate to commit crimes, there is a very proper role for the Federal Government to play. This bill will strengthen the coordinated, cooperative response of Federal, State, and local law enforcement to criminal street gangs by providing more flexibility to the Federal partners in this effort. Among the important provisions of this bill: This legislation increases the ability of the Federal Government to prosecute criminal street gangs that operate interstate or commit Federal or State gang related crimes, by updating the criminal gang and Travel Act provisions of the Federal criminal code. Under our bill, these laws will cover criminal activities typically engaged in by gangs. Our bill adds a 1- to 10-year sentence for the recruitment of persons into a gang. Importantly, there are even tougher penalties for recruiting a minor into a gang, including a 4-year mandatory minimum sentence. The bill adds the use of a minor in a crime to the list of offenses for which a person can be prosecuted under the Federal racketeering laws, known as RICO. It enhances the penalties for transferring a handgun to a minor, knowing that it will be used in a crime of violence; and adds a new Federal penalty for the use of body armor in the commission of a Federal crime. Finally, the legislation we introduce today adds serious juvenile drug offenses to the list of predicates under the Federal Armed Career Criminal Act, and authorizes $20 million over 5 years to hire Federal prosecutors to crack down on criminal gangs. Mr. President, this legislation is not a panacea for our youth violence crisis. But it is a large and critical step in addressing this issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bill, and urge their support. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate reported by a unanimous vote of 100 yeas to 0 the Health Insurance Reform Act, S. 1028. This legislation is designed to help millions of Americans gain access to health insurance coverage as well as keep their coverage when changing or losing their jobs. Over the past several days, I have received numerous telephone calls and inquiries from across the country regarding the antifraud and abuse provisions which were added to the bill last week. I understand that many of my colleagues in the Senate and House have received similar phone calls. These individuals have expressed concern over the bill's implications for alternative medicine as well as for services provided by nonmedical health care providers. As my colleagues know, the Senate approved on Thursday, April 18, 1996, an amendment by Senators Dole and Roth that contained a substantive new health care antifraud and abuse program. These provisions, now contained under title V of S. 1028, were essentially developed by my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator Cohen. The antifraud and abuse provisions are designed to provide for a more coordinated Federal and State approach in addressing health care fraud and abuse, which is currently costing the Federal Government and private payers billions of dollars a year. This is an issue which has been the subject of numerous congressional hearings in both the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the Special Committee on Aging over the past several years. It is evident there is a need for a more enhanced program to appropriately address the growing and deliberate menace by perpetrators who deliberately scheme to defraud public and private payers of scarce health care dollars. The health care antifraud and abuse provisions are not new to the Senate or the House. In large part, they were formulated from the legislation developed by Senator Cohen, S. 1088, and were, in fact, similar to the provisions included in the Balanced Budget Act as passed by the Congress late last year. Mr. President, I am concerned, however, that the antifraud provisions could have unintended consequences and adversely impact the care provided by health care professionals who utilize alternative therapies, such as herbal treatments, or other nonmedical health care providers. It is certainly not my desire, and based on my discussions, nor the intent of my colleague Senator Cohen who drafted the original antifraud language, that these provisions in any way impede consumers from access to alternative or nonmedical treatment therapies. And, I would add that Senator Cohen and I specifically addressed these concerns in our colloquy on the floor of the Senate last Thursday, April 18, 1996, although I know that many people still have concerns. I want to assure my colleagues in both the Senate and House--and especially those individuals in the alternative and nonmedicine community--that I will continue my efforts to clarify, where necessary, and fine-tune the language as the bill moves to the conference committee.