Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to submit for the Record the statement of the distinguished President of the Philippines, Fidel V. Ramos, on the topic of ``Regional Cooperation and Economic Development in the Philippines.'' President Ramos delivered the statement last month as part of the First Hawaiian Lecture Series at the East West Center in Honolulu. The presentation was part of the ongoing efforts of the East West Center to provide a badly needed platform for prominent government and business leaders to comment on relations in the Asia- Pacific region. In this endeavor, the East West Center, Mr. President, has no equals. For the past 25 years it has been the nerve center for bringing together opinion leaders, as is evident from President Ramos' presence. Mr. President, I offer President Ramos' speech as a matter of great interest to the Members of this body. We need to know what our best friends think of our foreign policy. Clearly, the Philippines, and President Ramos especially, are good friends, good partners, and strong allies of the United States. In his statement, President Ramos makes an observation regarding the direction of U.S. foreign policy that should not be ignored. In a few words, he tells us not to trust old conventions or concepts that are out of place in the post-cold-war environment. Instead, he says, and I quote: The United States must redefine its concept of national security in economic and cultural terms. Like the rest of us, America's place in the future world will be determined just as much by the creativity of its workpeople and the daring of its entrepreneurs as by the devastating power of its weapons. Since virtually all of its trade deficit comes from its East Asian commerce, the United States is looking for a new sense of fairness in its economic relationships with the Asia-Pacific region. Over the past 30 years, the U.S. security umbrella--and the rich U.S. market--have enabled East Asia to prosper. Now American leaders argue that Americans must see their country as sharing in this prosperity--if American taxpayers are to continue supporting their country's continued security engagement in the region. We of the Philippines have no problem at all with this proposition--particularly since we do not regard economic competition as a winner-take-all or zero-sum contest. In the economic competition, everybody wins--and even the relative ``loser'' ends up richer than when he started. I have selected this passage from the text of the speech because it characterizes what I perceive to be the attitude of our Asian-Pacific partners toward expanded trade. I agree with President Ramos: There is a new post-cold-war competition. We, the United States, cannot afford to distance ourselves from regional and global participation any more than we had assumed the heavy burden of regional and global security during the cold war. Economic competition, like trade, tightens relationships, fosters cultural understanding, and generally produces all winners, even though there may be short-term losses. President Ramos knows what he's talking about. The trade ties between our countries are strong, with the Philippines ranking as our 26th largest export market. In addition, the U.S. stock of foreign investment in that country stands at nearly $2 billion. Although this investment has been in manufacturing and banking in the past, the restoration of such former United States military installations as Subic Bay to the Philippines has opened still newer, mutual trade opportunities. Today, U.S. cargo shippers are developing major staging and warehousing facilities there, contributing to our increased trade position in the region. The Philippines is emerging as a reliable place for Americans to do business. In July 1991, the Government set in motion a major program for the reduction, restructuring, and simplification of tariffs. Its government procurement program does not discriminate against foreign bidders. The Philippines has excised from its books preferential rates for export financing for domestic companies and is a signatory to the GATT Subsidies Code. After some disagreements with the United States on intellectual property protection, the Philippines is drafting new legislation on trademarks, copyrights, and patents that promise to be world class. The importance of the Philippines intellectual property changes should not be underestimated. The country is largely dependent on imported technology. Today, much of that comes in the form of computer disks, tapes, and other media with embedded software. This software provides computer-based routines for manufacturing, education, medical, and other applications of technology essential to national growth. Indeed, much of this software comes from my own State of Utah. Without appropriate protection of their property, exporters of technology would be very reluctant to market it abroad. While there are some deficiencies remaining in the country's trade statutes, we should commend the Philippines for their rate of progress in the past 5 years alone. Clearly, the pace at which the Philippines is entering the world trade arena will establish it as a competitive and worthy partner of which all fair trade countries will want to take notice. For these and the reasons stated earlier, I commend the balance of President Ramos' remarks to the Record and ask unanimous consent that the entire speech be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for this legislation being introduced today by my good friend from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, regarding rights-of-way granted under revised statute [R.S.] 2477. This issue is of extreme and critical importance to my State, and this legislation is necessary to resolve, once and for all, the current situation that has clouded these rights since 1976. I want to congratulate Senator Murkowski for his leadership to bring the matter of claims made pursuant to R.S. 2477 to a close. I have worked closely with him to draft this proposal that meets the needs of all claimants in the various States, especially Alaska and Utah, where the overwhelming majority of R.S. 2477 claims are located. Mr. President, since 1976, when R.S. 2477 was repealed with passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act [FLPMA], State and local governments have had to wage constant battle with the Federal Government as to what constitutes a valid R.S. 2477 claim as well as what the scope of that claim is once it is determined valid under this statute. In Utah, this battle has been raging for quite some time. And, this firestorm is quickly spreading throughout the West. The controversial and highly publicized Burr Trail case in Garfield County, Utah, which has been litigated during the past decade, has brought this issue to the forefront. Nearly every county in UT, as well as many others in the West, has identified numerous R.S. 2477 rights-of-way claims. These local governments are justifiably concerned that the validation process of each claim may require enduring the same financial and legal burdens as the Burr Trail case, especially considering that more than 10,000 claims have been identified in Utah alone. There has to be a better solution than the current system, which is what my colleagues from Alaska, Senators Murkowski and Stevens, and my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, and I have been fighting for during the past few years. At issue here is what constitutes a right-of-way as authorized by Congress in 1866. R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are thoroughfares, cart paths, one lane dirt roads, small log bridges over streams or ravines, and other roads that time and necessity have created in our western States. These rights-of-way, which traverse Federal lands--and we are obviously not using the term highway in the modern sense--have been an integral part of the rural American landscape for over 100 years. These rights-of-ways constitute an important part of the infrastructure of the Western States. I would ask my colleagues to think of this issue this way: suppose your front yard belonged to someone else--the Federal Government, for example--and the gravel driveway through the front yard was the only way to get to your house from the street. If you do not have complete authorization to maintain, improve, and keep open this driveway, then access to your home and possessions is eliminated. You would have to haul your groceries to your front door from the street. A simple illustration, perhaps, but one that shows the importance of these R.S. 2477 rights-of-way to the people in the West. These rights-of-ways were accepted before 1976 and, like your driveway, have been used continuously for decades as an integral part of the West's transportation systems. The Senate should take appropriate action to protect the well-being of western and Utah communities. Our legislation proposes to resolve the current controversies surrounding R.S. 2477 rights-of-way in several ways. It would provide a method of relief that many of us in the West have been pursuing for several years, namely that the designation of rights-of-way claims made pursuant to this authority should be determined under State law. The validity of these rights-of-way should be determined at the local level, and not by Congress, the U.S. Department of Interior, or the U.S. Department of Transportation. At the same time, the process for submitting claims under R.S. 2477 should be as simple as possible consistent with legal requirements. A system for determining the validity of such claims should be designed to promptly resolve outstanding R.S. 2477 claims. Our bill creates such a process and places the burden of proof of each claim squarely on the shoulders of the Federal Government. Without this process, I envision a Federal system under which resolutions of such claims will become tremendously bogged down with no substantial resolution to this issue. My colleagues may ask that if these rights-of-way have existed for 100 years, why is this legislation necessary? Last August, the Clinton administration and Secretary Babbitt proposed regulations to settle this issue. These regulations would require a complete abandonment by State and local governments of R.S. 2477 rights-of-way claims and a total rejection of any evidence that documents the existence [[Page S 17532]] and historic use of these rights-of-ways from 1866 up to 1976. They would allow the Secretary to determine whether or not a right-of-way existed prior to 1976 which, in my opinion is nothing more than asking State and local governments to abrogate their responsibilities as the owners of these rights-of-ways. We in the West are unwilling to do that. The Secretary's regulations are evidence that the task of achieving a solution that protects the intent and scope of the original statute while preserving the infrastructure of rural communities must involve Congress. As far as I am concerned, we are beyond a regulatory fix on this subject, particularly in light of the regulatory proposal put forward by the Clinton administration. Fortunately, Congress has included language in next year's Interior appropriations bill that prohibits the implementation of these misguided regulations. Basically, our legislation will ensure that: First, the intent and scope behind the original statute are consistent with the intent and scope underlying congressional passage of FLPMA; second, the congressional intent regarding the interpretation of R.S. 2477 in accordance with State law is preserved; third, the large body of settled, well-established, and well-documented Federal and State case law and agency regulatory determinations is adhered to, and fourth, the trust and respect for State and local governments, which hold these rights and are entitled to exercise their powers within the sphere of their authority without Federal intervention are restored. Mr. President, this matter is critical to communities and citizens in the rural West. In many cases, these roads are the only routes to farms and ranches; they provide necessary access for schoolbuses, emergency vehicles, and mail delivery. The Interior Department regulations would significantly confound transportation in the Western States, jeopardizing the livelihoods of many citizens and possibly their health and safety as well. Some claim that R.S. 2477 rights-of-way are nothing more than dirt tracks in the wilderness with no meaningful history, whose only value to rural counties arises from the hope of stopping the creation of wilderness areas. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one is suggesting that we turn these rights-of-way into six-lane lighted highways with filling stations, billboards, and fast food restaurants. Although, I am confident in saying today that I expect those opposed to this legislation to initiate a campaign of misinformation, dishonest facts, and outright untruths about the impact of our bill. They will paint a picture of our bill as authorizing the construction of paved roads through wilderness areas, native American trust lands, and national parks. They will employ these scare tactics, like they have on other public land measures now before Congress, to mislead the public and the media into believing an array of bulldozers, graders, and other road building vehicles are ready to begin an assault on the Nation's most pristine areas. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. If the right-of-way exists, then the scope and the attributes of that right must be protected from the local entity with jurisdiction. We are not--I repeat, not--authorizing the construction of roads over public lands where no right-of-way exists. Our bill provides the Secretary of Interior considerable latitude to express his position on each and every claim that is submitted and why these claims may or may not be valid. I do not like to be so forthcoming in this way, but after witnessing the misinformation campaign being waged against our Utah wilderness bill, I want to prepare my colleagues for what is coming. I would ask that they carefully confer with those of us who have thousands of these claims in our States so as to fully recognize the importance of this matter to our citizens. There is no pressing environmental reason to change the R.S. 2477 rules other than to make Federal land more pristine than it has been since the pioneers settled in the West. I urge the Senate to support adoption of this legislation during this Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, we are trying to accommodate Members around here. And there is no use kidding, I am very upset about this point of order. This is not going to be the last time we mention it either. But I want to accommodate everybody around here. We ought to have at least a 2-hour debate on the thing because it is not easy to explain, but it is easy to understand. I have to tell you that I think even my colleagues on the other side might understand. But the fact of the matter is that this point of order is wrong. I personally feel very badly about it because what we are doing here is we are allowing the rule of reason in some areas and not allowing it in others. It is very unfair, it does not work right. We are happy to enhance bureaucracy but we are not happy to enhance individuality. I think we can clarify it for anybody in just a few minutes. But we want to accommodate those who want to get out of here and, frankly, I think we can put a lot of what we have to say into the Record. Let me address this point of order against antitrust rules relating to provider-sponsored organizations--PSO's, if you will--and health care groups [[Page S 17317]] that contract with them to provide Medicare services. These provisions would grant antitrust relief to these two different entities by subjecting their conduct to the rule of reason, rather than the per se illegal rule. Let me be clear about what this language would do. This is not an antitrust exemption. Under the rule of reason, the conduct of the PSO's and their subcontracting health care groups will not be legal if it is designed to fix prices, divide markets, or exclude competitors. Instead, their conduct will be illegal if it is anticompetitive, but if it is competitive, leads to efficiency, and produces lower prices for health care, it will survive antitrust challenge, as it should. This provision that we are about to strike out of here is one of the few that really saves an awful lot of money in health care and flies in the face of bureaucratizing the process, which I thought we defeated last year. We believe that this reform--which is necessary only because the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have overzealously enforced the antitrust laws--is central to the savings we anticipate in our Medicare reforms. Right now, because of these enforcement policies, groups of doctors cannot form, decide on a fee schedule, and negotiate with anyone over providing health care services, if this is knocked out. This knocks out of the market a potentially new class of competitors with low overhead and little or no bureaucracy, who can make these other groups bring prices down. The Congressional Budget Office scored the savings to be generated by the House and Senate Medicare reform bills at between $34.2 billion and $50.4 billion over 7 years. CBO did not break out how much of this savings was attributable to the creation of health care provider groups that could contract with PSO's, and the importance of the antitrust reform needed to encourage the groups to form. The CBO noted the creation of PSO's in these groups would have an impact on Medicare outlays and that is all that is needed to meet the express language of the Byrd rule. Further, since this bill is creating two whole new classes of competitors in the Medicare market, and the antitrust provisions are critical to encouraging their formation, it is clear that these provisions are critical to producing the billions of dollars in savings we are counting on for innovation and competition. I do not think that anyone can seriously contend that these provisions have no budgetary impact. The second argument that one might raise against these provisions is that they are somehow incidental to reconciliation. This aspect of the Byrd rule is designed to prevent the addition of provisions that have nothing to do with the budget. The antitrust provisions clearly satisfy the Byrd rule. The rule has nothing to do with the larger changes in all antitrust law. In fact, it does not change antitrust law at all, only the administration's enforcement. More importantly, the antitrust provisions are expressly limited only to conduct that is necessary to provide health care services under Medicare contract or plan. It has no application outside of the Medicare context, and any attempt to use information gained in Medicare context beyond the limits of that program--what some people call a leakage or seepage problem--would be illegal. Any conduct occurring in the Medicare context that is just a sham for price fixing or boycotting would still be illegal under the rule of reason. I suggest that those who would use the Byrd rule to stop these provisions are not concerned, Madam President, about budgetary impact or incidental provisions. Instead, they are interested in suppressing competition in the health care market and reducing Medicare costs. We should be frank. The status quo helps large hospitals and insurance companies and HMO's. These antitrust provisions that are in this bill that they are trying to rule out of order may cut down on their profit margins by introducing whole new classes of health care providers into the marketplace. New market actors will spur competition efficiency and lower costs. When we are fighting to find ways to reduce Government costs and the Government's tax burden, why turn away an attractive mechanism to make the markets work better and to reduce the budget? The fact is per se illegal activity will still be illegal. These entities would have to live within the rule of reason. If they do not and they do not increase competition, increase efficiency, and reduce costs, then they are not going to be able to function, and they should not be. The fact of the matter is that this point of order is wrong, and I hope that we will vote to waive the point of order.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I permitted to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to today to introduce legislation to enhance the tax administration cooperation between the Federal Government and the States. In particular, this bill would provide for more efficient cooperation between the U.S. Treasury and the various State tax agencies in the collection of unpaid taxes. Representative Andrew Jacobs has introduced similar legislation in the House as H.R 757. Mr. President let me explain how the law currently stands on this issue, why the bill is needed, and what this bill do. Currently, the Federal Government maintains a program that allows for a Federal tax refund to be withheld from a taxpayer if he or she has a past due Federal debt. Debts that are eligible for offset under this program include prior year tax debts, child support, student loans, VA housing payments, and others. The refund is used to offset the past due debt. Many States have similar programs to apply State tax refunds against other States debts of a taxpayer. Under current law, the Internal Review Service [IRS] has the authority to levy or to seize State income tax refunds to satisfy Federal tax debts of taxpayers in the 41 States that have a broad-based individual income tax. Further, the IRS has the authority to enter into reciprocal agreements with State taxing authorities to more efficiently collect tax revenues. One are of cooperative agreement between the IRS and the States in the authority under current law to offset taxpayers' Federal tax debts with a State tax refund. In other words, pursuant to these agreements, if a taxpayer owes a tax liability to the Federal Government and, at the same time, is due a refund from the State taxing authority, that State can withhold the refund allow it to be offset against the past due Federal debt. Currently, there are 31 States and the District of Columbia that have voluntarily agreed to sign cooperative agreements to allow the IRS to satisfy Federal liabilities with State refunds. In 1993, the States offset about $61 million in debts on behalf of the IRS under these agreements. Curiously, there is no authority under current law that allows the IRS to enter into additional agreements that would provide for a program to offset State tax debts with Federal tax refunds. Yet, allowing such agreements would save both the Federal Government and the States millions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year. Mr. President, under this bill the Treasury would be granted the authority to enter into agreements with State tax agencies to offset State tax debts with Federal tax refunds. The effect of this legislation would be better tax compliance and the payment of delinquent tax debts. The bill provides that taxpayers who are due a Federal tax refund and also have a past due legally enforceable debt to a State taxing authority would have 60 days notice to satisfy the past due State debt before the IRS is authorized to release the Federal refund to satisfy the State tax debt. Mr. President, I am aware that there have been no formal hearings in the Senate on this issue. I also understand that the chairman of the Committee on Finance may have some technical concerns with the administration of this legislation. This is understandable. Technical agreements between the Federal Government and the various States can be complex. I am open to comments and suggestions on the implementation of this new authority. I look forward to working with the Senate Finance Committee on this issue. However, I want to get a bill introduced in the Senate to begin the formal discussions on how we can best satisfy the problems that arise when a taxpayer is due a Federal tax refund while at the same time owing a State taxing authority delinquent taxes. I want to inform my colleagues that I am aware that the opportunity may arise for States to offset so-called source taxes under the provisions of this bill. I am supportive of legislation to eliminate source taxes. It is not my intention to allow the proposed refund offset program to be used for the purposes of collecting these source taxes. To my understanding, the State of California has conceded on this issue and is also a strong supporter of this bill. If the source tax language is dropped from the budget reconciliation bill not pending before the Congress, then I am willing to modify the bill to prevent States from this offset program for the collection of sources taxes. Mr. President, we are entering a more advanced era of computer technology. We should help facilitate the most efficient methods of collecting and administering Federal and State tax revenues. Allowing the Treasury to enter into reciprocal agreements with State moves us closer to this goal. The Nation's Governors have asked for this and I think we should help them in this area. The Federation of Tax Administrators estimates that this program would allow the States to recover between $150 and $200 million in tax debts. in addition, the Joint Committee has scored H.R. 757 to raise $8 million in additional tax revenues over 5 years.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to today to introduce legislation to enhance the tax administration cooperation between the Federal Government and the States. In particular, this bill would provide for more efficient cooperation between the U.S. Treasury and the various State tax agencies in the collection of unpaid taxes. Representative Andrew Jacobs has introduced similar legislation in the House as H.R 757. Mr. President let me explain how the law currently stands on this issue, why the bill is needed, and what this bill do. Currently, the Federal Government maintains a program that allows for a Federal tax refund to be withheld from a taxpayer if he or she has a past due Federal debt. Debts that are eligible for offset under this program include prior year tax debts, child support, student loans, VA housing payments, and others. The refund is used to offset the past due debt. Many States have similar programs to apply State tax refunds against other States debts of a taxpayer. Under current law, the Internal Review Service [IRS] has the authority to levy or to seize State income tax refunds to satisfy Federal tax debts of taxpayers in the 41 States that have a broad-based individual income tax. Further, the IRS has the authority to enter into reciprocal agreements with State taxing authorities to more efficiently collect tax revenues. One are of cooperative agreement between the IRS and the States in the authority under current law to offset taxpayers' Federal tax debts with a State tax refund. In other words, pursuant to these agreements, if a taxpayer owes a tax liability to the Federal Government and, at the same time, is due a refund from the State taxing authority, that State can withhold the refund allow it to be offset against the past due Federal debt. Currently, there are 31 States and the District of Columbia that have voluntarily agreed to sign cooperative agreements to allow the IRS to satisfy Federal liabilities with State refunds. In 1993, the States offset about $61 million in debts on behalf of the IRS under these agreements. Curiously, there is no authority under current law that allows the IRS to enter into additional agreements that would provide for a program to offset State tax debts with Federal tax refunds. Yet, allowing such agreements would save both the Federal Government and the States millions of dollars in lost tax revenue each year. Mr. President, under this bill the Treasury would be granted the authority to enter into agreements with State tax agencies to offset State tax debts with Federal tax refunds. The effect of this legislation would be better tax compliance and the payment of delinquent tax debts. The bill provides that taxpayers who are due a Federal tax refund and also have a past due legally enforceable debt to a State taxing authority would have 60 days notice to satisfy the past due State debt before the IRS is authorized to release the Federal refund to satisfy the State tax debt. Mr. President, I am aware that there have been no formal hearings in the Senate on this issue. I also understand that the chairman of the Committee on Finance may have some technical concerns with the administration of this legislation. This is understandable. Technical agreements between the Federal Government and the various States can be complex. I am open to comments and suggestions on the implementation of this new authority. I look forward to working with the Senate Finance Committee on this issue. However, I want to get a bill introduced in the Senate to begin the formal discussions on how we can best satisfy the problems that arise when a taxpayer is due a Federal tax refund while at the same time owing a State taxing authority delinquent taxes. I want to inform my colleagues that I am aware that the opportunity may arise for States to offset so-called source taxes under the provisions of this bill. I am supportive of legislation to eliminate source taxes. It is not my intention to allow the proposed refund offset program to be used for the purposes of collecting these source taxes. To my understanding, the State of California has conceded on this issue and is also a strong supporter of this bill. If the source tax language is dropped from the budget reconciliation bill not pending before the Congress, then I am willing to modify the bill to prevent States from this offset program for the collection of sources taxes. Mr. President, we are entering a more advanced era of computer technology. We should help facilitate the most efficient methods of collecting and administering Federal and State tax revenues. Allowing the Treasury to enter into reciprocal agreements with State moves us closer to this goal. The Nation's Governors have asked for this and I think we should help them in this area. The Federation of Tax Administrators estimates that this program would allow the States to recover between $150 and $200 million in tax debts. in addition, the Joint Committee has scored H.R. 757 to raise $8 million in additional tax revenues over 5 years.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, tonight is the 57th anniversary of a horrible event. In Germany, 57 years ago this evening, it was ``the night of broken glass''--Kristallnacht--when throughout Nazi Germany, Jews were killed and Jewish cultural and business sites were destroyed in an organized campaign by the Nazi state. In a little under 2 days, many Jews were murdered, and 30,000 were arrested by the Nazi authorities, sent to swell the growing populations of Dachau, Buchenwald, and the other camps already built. On the night of Kristallnacht, over 1,000 synagogues were destroyed, and their sacred texts were burned and defiled. Jewish businesses around the country were sacked. Cemeteries were desecrated. Homes were burned. The police and fire departments were instructed not to intervene. Kristallnacht marked an escalation in kind of the Nazi persecution. It came barely 6 weeks after the infamous Munich conference, which produced the chilling declaration of peace in our time. After Kristallnacht, the world could no longer ignore the behavior of this evil regime. President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, 5 days later: The news of the past few days in Germany has deeply shocked public opinion in the United States * * * I, myself, could scarcely believe that such things could occur in 20th century civilization. But within a week of Kristallnacht, Jews were banned from the German school system. Within a month, Jews were being banned from public places. The Holocaust, as it would come to be known, was fully underway. Within less than a decade, this conflagration of historic proportions would result in the systematic murders of 6 million European Jews. While it represented the nadir of anti-Semitism in our modern age, the destruction spawned by the Nazis' racial hatred consumed many more millions of others, including Poles, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, and persons with physical and mental disabilities. Mr. President, 57 years after Kristallnacht, we are fortunate to still have survivors of the Holocaust among us. There are still some neighborhoods in this country where, tonight, survivors and their families commemorate the night of broken glass by burning candles in the windows. These flames are in memory of those who suffered the Holocaust. These flickers in the windows are the testaments of the survivors. Mr. President, I worry about the memory of the Holocaust when the survivors will no longer be here. With each passing year, we have fewer survivors among us. Mr. President, as the decades have passed from the dark era of the Holocaust, I have been greatly troubled by the increase in pronouncements by those who willfully disbelieve the existence of the Holocaust. These ``Holocaust deniers,'' as they have come to be known, present us with a troubling specter. They threaten our collective memory with lies, distortions, and half-truths to challenge the reality of the Holocaust. One of America's preeminent scholars of this phenomenon, Dr. Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University, has written: While Holocaust denial is not a new phenomenon, it has increased in scope and intensity since the mid-1970's. It is important to understand that deniers do not work in a vacuum. Part of their success can be traced to an intellectual climate that has made its mark in the scholarly world during the past two decades. The deniers are plying their trade at a time when much of history seems up for grabs and attacks on the Western rationalist tradition have become commonplace. Sadly, this erosion in the intellectual climate has infected our popular culture. Today, in addition to the pseudo-scholarly venues the Holocaust deniers have created, they have managed to present their injurious views on high school campuses, in the media, and, in a few cases, in the political process. Mr. President, we are fortunate, for many reasons, that we live in a free and democratic society, and one of those reasons is that freedom preserves the ability of the scholar to study historical truth. An open society such as ours allows the student of history to apply methods of historical scrutiny and verification without bias or distortion, and thus to openly determine historical fact. I must stress, Mr. President, that the same principles of an open and democratic society also allow for the holding of unpopular opinions, however factually incorrect or hurtful to others. A free society must protect the opinions of all, Mr. President, and that includes the contrarians and solipsists. If you choose to believe the Earth is flat, that is your right in this society. Our freedom of expression is wide, but falsehoods must be answered with the truth. Denying the Holocaust is absurd. Holocaust denial may be animated by ignorance and solipsism, but we cannot avoid the fact that it is often motivated by anti-Semitism and hatred. We must recognize that many of those who promote Holocaust denial do so not out of an innocent but willful ignorance, but do so to promote political agendas, anti-Semitism and hatred. We must deplore, in the words of the scholar Kenneth Stern ``anti- Semitism masquerading as objective scholarly inquiry.'' That is why I am introducing this resolution today, along with several of my colleagues, which ``deplores persistent, ongoing and malicious efforts by some persons of this country and abroad to deny the historical reality of the Holocaust.'' This resolution also praises the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum for its essential work in honoring the memory of all the victims of the Holocaust, and teaching ``all who are willing to learn profoundly compelling and universally resonant moral lessons.'' Mr. President, as the last generation of Holocaust survivors fades from our midst, we are left with a chasm, a generational divide between the primary witnesses and the rest of us, who must carry their witness. Into that chasm the Holocaust deniers may throw their malicious lies. It is our responsibility that we close that chasm with a dedication to promoting scholarship about the Holocaust. We must cultivate the history of the Holocaust in order to preserve our memory and to reinforce the lessons we learn from such horrors. We must strengthen our younger generation's weakening grasp on history. A free and democratic society must be supported by an informed populace. And an informed populace requires a knowledge of history. As individuals with amnesia suffer degrees of disorientation, a society separated from history is bereft of its shared experience with the world. Mr. President, we must recognize the crucial role played by education in preserving the memory of the Holocaust. In 1980, the U.S. Congress assumed this responsibility when we chartered the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Since its opening in 1993, the Museum has played a signal role in teaching the history of the Holocaust. So powerful has the museum's message been that in it has been operating beyond capacity since its opening. Of the more than 2 million visitors each year, 80 percent have traveled more than 100 miles to visit this awesome place. As of today, 5.3 million have visited this remarkable institution, a number four times greater than expected. People come to witness and to learn. More than 11,000 scholars and university students, more than 700 members of the media and museum community, and more than 14,500 survivors have used the museum's research institute. Through its connections to the information superhighway, 50,000 inquiries [[Page S 16854]] come every week. Requests for teaching materials have come from every State in our Nation. Over 400,000 students from around the country came in school groups this year. Mr. President, the success of the Museum demonstrates our country's interest in studying the Holocaust. It is most reassuring to note, indeed, that the desire to learn the moral lessons of the Holocaust dwarf the messages of hate perpetuated by the Holocaust deniers. Mr. President, I wish to close with two more quotes. Again from Professor Lipstadt: Holocaust denial . . . is not an assault on the history of one particular group. Though denial of the Holocaust may be an attack on the history of the annihilation of the Jews, at its core it poses a threat to all who believe that knowledge and memory are among the keystones of our civilization. Just as the Holocaust was not a tragedy of the Jews but a tragedy of civilization in which the victims were Jews, so too denial of the Holocaust is not a threat just to Jewish history but a threat to all who believe in the ultimate power of reason. It repudiates reasoned discussion the way the Holocaust repudiated civilized values. It is undeniably a form of anti- Semitism, and such it constitutes an attack on the most basic values of a reasoned society. Like any form of prejudice, it is irrational animus that cannot be countered with normal forces of investigation, argument, and debate. And now, from an article by the current executive director of the Holocaust Memorial Museum, Dr. Walter Reich, who wrote a few years ago: The devastating truth about the Holocaust is that it was a fact, not a dream. And the devastating truth about the Holocaust deniers is that they will go on using whatever falsehoods they can muster, and taking advantage of whatever vulnerabilities in an audience they can find, to argue, with skill and evil intent, that the Holocaust never happened. By being vigilant to these arguments we can all fight this second murder of the Jews--fight it, and weep not only for the victims' mortality but also for the fragility, and mortality, of memory. Mr. President, we are nearing the end of a bloody century, littered with so many man-made catastrophes that it invites a numbing relativism. Today, on ``the night of broken glass,'' let the legacy of the victims strengthen our memories and sharpen our consciences to remain ever vigilant to the profoundly compelling and universally resonant moral lessons of the Holocaust. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator from New Hampshire yield some time to me?

Mr. HATCH. I thank my dear friend. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have inquired of my view toward referring the pending bill to the Judiciary Committee. I have no objection to the full Senate taking up H.R. 1833 at this time, and I intend to vote against this motion. The Senate over the years has conducted a lot of hearings on the subject of abortion. The other body has done the same. There is nothing unique about this bill except its approach toward what really amounts to third trimester abortions, something that I have trouble understanding why anybody would fight. I remind my colleagues that on February 10, 1964, the other body overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a sweeping landmark civil rights bill--one that I would have voted for had I been here at the time. Then-Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield placed the bill on the Senate Calendar, just like this one was. A motion was made to refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee. The Senate rejected the motion. Why? Because it was sincerely believed that such a referral would kill a landmark civil rights bill. Today, the strategy for killing the pending measure is the same--send it to the committee. As a matter of procedure, if the Senate could take up the sweeping Civil Rights Act of 1964 directly from the Senate Calendar, it can today do the same with a bill that addresses one aspect of the whole abortion issue. [[Page S 16798]] My present purpose in mentioning the procedural precedent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is not to engage in a comparison of the rights at stake then and the ones at stake in the Chamber today. I understand that there are strong views on both sides of the underlying issue. I respect those who disagree with my views on this issue. But many of us believe that the rights of the unborn present important enough issues to justify a procedure allowing the Senate to vote up and down on the merits of H.R. 1833. There is, indeed, Senate precedent for doing so if the cause is urgent enough. I believe the cause is sufficiently urgent, and I ask my colleagues to keep in mind we are talking about one particular abortion procedure that kills the fetus in the most heinous way by sucking the brain out of the baby. It is hard for me to understand why anybody would fight this bill. We are not even talking about the entire framework of abortion rights here, but just one procedure. Let me also say that if I had my way, we would abolish all late-term abortions except to save the life of the mother. There are between 14,000 and 20,000 of those abortions a year. I think morally it is very difficult to justify that type of a thing. One final thing. As the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I must correct a legal misunderstanding being expressed here. The Clinton administration and other opponents of this bill claim that this bill is unconstitutional because it permits a doctor to justify a partial-birth abortion only as an affirmative defense to a prosecution. The fact that the bill provides the exception required by the case law in an affirmative defense does not unduly burden the right to an abortion. Many of our constitutional rights arise only as an affirmative defense. Many of the protections of the Bill of Rights--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of petition, the right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to grand jury, the right against double jeopardy, the right against self-incrimination, the right to a speedy trial, the right to indictment, the right to assistance of counsel--sometimes can only be raised as a defense to a prosecution. Indeed, any of us may be innocent of a crime and prosecuted and make our claim of innocence only as a defense in court. To claim that the right to an abortion is not protected by an affirmative defense demeans the explicit protections of the Bill of Rights, and it raises abortion above any right mentioned in the Constitution.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that I be given another 1 minute.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield 5 minutes, I will try to conserve that.

Mr. HATCH. Accordingly, I will vote against the motion to commit to the Judiciary Committee this bill that I believe is fully legal under the true meaning of the Constitution and under the Supreme Court's current abortion jurisprudence. To me it is amoral, except to save the life of the mother, to kill these infants in this way. We are talking about children after 20 weeks in the mother's womb, most of whom are capable of living outside the womb. We are not talking about when the spirit comes into the body or any of the other questions that have arisen concerning the abortion issue. We are talking about fully developed children. Now, I can understand both sides of the abortion issue. I know how sincere are those who are on the other side. But on this issue I have trouble understanding the logic that they are using. I know my colleague from Pennsylvania is sincere in his motion here today, but I do not see any reason why we need to go to that motion. I think we ought to face it, and vote up or down. Everybody understands this issue. We ought to face it right here and now. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, an assassin's gun silenced a great man this weekend. When Yitzhak Rabin fell on Saturday in Tel Aviv, his family lost a husband and father; Israel lost a great patriot; America lost a great friend and ally; and, the world lost a brave soldier for peace. I wish to extend my heartfelt sympathy and prayers to the Rabin family. I know that the people of Utah and all the people of our Nation share with them this deep grief over the violent loss of Prime Minister Rabin. Yitzhak Rabin was one of the outstanding figures of the modern Jewish State. Born in the land he loved, he made history throughout his life, as a soldier, general, ambassador, Minister of Defense, and--twice-- Prime Minister. History will regard him as the brave, sometimes lonely, figure who fought fiercely and brilliantly to secure his beloved Israel, and as the leader who tried to bring his nation into an era of peace. His greatest campaign remains unfinished. We cannot now say what the outcome of the peace process will be. We could not predict the outcome 1 month ago, with so many elements of the process uncertain, as we could not predict that we would never be able to greet our friend Yitzhak Rabin again. What we can say is that we stand with Israel today in grief, and we join the millions around the world who mourn the loss of a great peacemaker. The pursuit of peace is dangerous. Here in Washington, not even 1 month ago, Prime Minister Rabin said, at the signing of the latest in the autonomy accords with the Palestinians: Today we are more sober. We are gladdened by the potential for reconciliation, but we are also wary of the dangers that lurk on every side. Yitzhak Rabin led the life of a hero. As a soldier, he faced battle time and again and, as he often recalled, he saw many people die around him. Having spent over two decades with the defense forces of Israel, he knew the cost of war. Peace would exact a higher personal cost from Prime Minister Rabin. He knew the risks of peace, but because he was a brave man, a hero, he spent the last years of his life trying to build a lasting peace in that violent part of the world. He led the peace process because he truly believed the peoples of the region truly wanted peace. He also led the peace process because he knew the great cost that the nation of Israel paid to wage violence against its domestic and foreign opponents. Minutes before he was shot, Prime Minister Rabin said Violence erodes the basis of Israeli democracy. . . It is not the way of the state of Israel. Mr. President, Yitzhak Rabin knew that Israel is a land of laws. It is a land where the people rule democratically. That is one of the reasons our country has always been able to stand by our closest ally in that region, the only democracy in the Middle East. No assassin's bullet will change that. We will grieve for the loss of Yitzhak Rabin. And we will grieve for what this loss means for the people of Israel, and for the peace-loving peoples of the Middle East. But we need not grieve for the State of Israel, whose strength Prime Minister Rabin built but whose democratic institutions will not change due to the violence of one hate-filled individual. Let us honor the memory of Yitzhak Rabin today. Let us honor this great warrior, who died engaged in the greatest battle of his life: the battle for peace. And in honor of his memory, let us rededicate ourselves to a real peace in the Middle East.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I need the full 15 minutes. I will be happy to yield 1 minute. I yield a minute to the Senator from Minnesota

Mr. HATCH. I would like to finish my other statement. I would like to shift. I just had to make that comment because I hear this all the time, and I get kind of tired of it.

Mr. HATCH. This would have been an interesting debate for me too. I have to say that with the debate around here this has been studied, and it has been unbelievable. We had all the same bizarre and extreme claims with regard to the caribou up there, and now we have more caribou and more wildlife than ever before. Alaska is just such a vast place. Maybe it is time we started thinking about the country, and about how we can stay independent and have national security.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the past month there has been much discussion about penalties for crack cocaine and about whether we should lower them. Of course, on Tuesday, President Clinton signed legislation preventing reduced sentences for crack cocaine from taking effect. That was the responsible course of action to take, and he should be commended for taking it. So I was disturbed to read, in Saturday's New York Times that: * * * in Miami, some Federal prosecutors say they have chosen not to charge some crack suspects because they believe the punishment they will face is unduly harsh. [NY Times, October 28, 1995] I am sure most Senators will agree that those who violate the law must be vigorously prosecuted. Congress enacts the laws and penalties, and the Justice Department enforces them. I have written to the Attorney General asking whether there is any evidence that crack prosecutions--or any other type of prosecutions--are being foregone because Federal prosecutors feel the penalties are too harsh. The Times's unattributed statement is also troubling in light of the fact [[Page S 16561]] that Federal drug prosecutions have slipped more than 12 percent since 1992--from 25,033 in 1992 to 21,905 in 1995. I want to take a couple of minutes to reinforce the reasons why this body voted unanimously to block reductions in crack sentences, especially since the Washington Post has been attacking President Clinton for signing the legislation [President Clinton and Crack, November 2, 1995]. Some basics: penalties for crack are currently two to six times higher than for a comparable quantity of powder cocaine--not 100 times longer as some have imagined. Crack use is associated with the explosion in the most horrifying cases of child abuse in recent years. And while drug addiction has long been a path to prostitution, crack has created what on the street is called the ``freak house'' phenomenon, where female crack addicts gather to trade sex for their next $5 piece of crack. Crack dealers are notorious for their remorseless killings. Crack is a much more powerful psychoactive agent than powder cocaine. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the typical dealer is caught selling 109 grams of crack--the equivalent of 3,000 rocks. The Sentencing Commission tells us that crack defendants are more likely to have carried a weapon than other traffickers, and are more likely to have had an extensive criminal record at the time of arrest. No one, to my knowledge, disputes these basic facts. No one claims that those who are convicted are innocent. It is true that some low-level crack dealers are being arrested. Yet, very few Federal crack defendants are low-level, youthful, and nonviolent. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, of the 3,430 crack defendants convicted in 1994, there were just 51 youthful, small- time crack offenders with no prior criminal history and no weapons involvement. In other words, despite all the rhetoric, just 1 crack defendant out of 67 qualifies as youthful, nonviolent, and low-level. Incidentally, under the so-called safety valve provision of last year's Crime Act, cases similar to the 51 are now eligible for specially lenient sentences. We have a situation where, unfortunately, opponents of the sentencing regime are dismissing the facts. That is regrettable, especially so since the victims of the crack trade are so overwhelmingly concentrated among the minority residents of our inner cities. For a blunt assessment of crack's effects in the inner city, listen to T. Willard Fair, president and CEO of the Urban League of Greater Miami: [Crack dealers] sell death to my community. They undermine the peace and harmony of my community by virtue of what they choose to do. Crack is not the only problem we are facing, of course. Today, a major national survey is being released by PRIDE--a parents' group headquartered in Atlanta. PRIDE has found dramatic increases in drug use among kids. Cocaine is up. Hallucinogens are up. Marijuana use is up 111 percent in grades 6-8. It is up 67 percent in grades 9-12. One in three high school seniors now smokes marijuana. This confirms reporting from other sources that in 1994, the number of high-school kids smoking pot hit 2.9 million--nearly 1.3 million more than in 1992. This chart shows the fruits of our newly permissive attitude toward drugs. Among 9-12th graders, marijuana use is up for the 3d straight year, from 16.4 percent of students back in the 1991-92 school year to 28.2 percent of students. Like many of my colleagues, I am also concerned at the Clinton administration's misguided policy of focusing on hard-core drug addicts--people who are very difficult to rehabilitate. I am not saying we should not, but our limited funds ought to be going to these first-time youthful offenders that we have a chance of rehabilitating, not for people who we have virtually no chance of rehabilitating. One key indicator of the success or failure of such a policy is the number of emergency room admissions, because many emergency room cases involve addicts and burned-out users. There is a survey instrument that studies such cases, and many Members of Congress will have heard of it--the Drug Abuse Warning Network, better known as DAWN. Members may be surprised to learn that the numbers for DAWN have been unaccountably late this year. That is right: The numbers for the first half of 1994, which should have been released months ago, are now sixteen months old. In past years, these numbers have always been released in April. The 1993 numbers were released on April 11, 1994. The 1992 numbers were released on April 23, 1993. The 1991 numbers were released on December 18 of the same year--less than 5 months after the survey data had been collected. It is my understanding that the administration had planned to finally release this data on Friday. It is further my understanding that the data will show a large upswing in the use of cocaine and methamphetamine. Unfortunately, the American people will have to wait a few more days for this information. You see, the administration has postponed the release of this data until next Tuesday, which just so happens to be the day elections are being held in Virginia, New Jersey, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In other words, to get past the election, or at least that is what it appears to be. Voters in these states will not learn of this evidence of failed leadership until after election day. What does this tell the American people about the Clinton Administration's drug policy? And why do we have to wait 16 months for this information when we know from past experience that we can get it in less than 5? It is intolerable that the Congress has to wait over a year for vital information on the present state of our drug problem. The administration is aware of the seriousness of this problem. According to the Attorney General: The latest surveys confirm that despite some recent gains, drug use in the United States is clearly on the upswing once again. The social consequences--of drug use--cannot be reduced of affected by enforcement efforts until our society changes its more tolerant attitude toward drugs. . . . Mr. President, the Attorney General called it exactly right. We are not going to get anywhere on this problem until we start to change attitudes again. The job of changing attitudes belongs to all of us in positions of national leadership. It also belongs to the President. I have previously indicated that I think President Clinton is AWOL-- absent without leadership--in the war on drugs. Senator Dole and Senator Grassley have already been vocal on this issue, on the need to bring national attention to bear on just how bad the situation has become. We need to revitalize the drug war. In coming months, I will be calling on a number of my colleagues to join in this effort. I am concerned. By working together, I believe we can reclaim this lost ground. Just look at this chart, ``Rate of Youthful Marijuana Use.'' And we all know that once they start using marijuana, many of them will start trying harder drugs like cocaine, ultimately heroin, and so on. In grades 9 through 12, the PRIDE survey shows that we had a low here at 16.4 percent in 1991 and 1992, and from that day on it has gone up to where it is 28.2 percent. Keep in mind, almost all these kids, a high percentage of these kids are going to try harder drugs because they think it is a fun thing to do after trying marijuana. Marijuana use is up, and it means the other harder drug usage will be up as well. I wonder what this particular DAWN survey will say, but we will not have the privilege of knowing it until after the election this year. We have a number of very important elections coming on that Tuesday. No matter which way you look at it, you have to be alarmed by this problem of more and more kids grades 9 to 12 using marijuana every year since 1992. Frankly, there is not much leadership in trying to stop them from doing so. Mr. President, I am concerned about these problems. I hope the administration is concerned. It is about time that they get concerned about these problems. We have to do what is right here. We have to do what is right, and do what is in the best interests of our kids and of our grandchildren and the future of our country. We have to start getting very, very tough on drug use in this country. [[Page S 16562]] And for us and this administration to take the limited funds that are available, and use them for hard-core drug addicts, instead of these kids that need the help now that have a chance of being rehabilitated, I think, is basically immoral. If we have enough money left over, sure, I am willing to throw it down the drain by trying to help the hard-core drug addicts as well. And occasionally you will get one that will do a little bit better in treatment, but it is almost none who come through that process who are hard-core drug addicts. It is very, very uphill. Frankly, with the limited funds we have, we ought to be using them to help those kids who need it and are likely to quit using drugs after the rehabilitation period starts. Mr. President, I hope that the President and others will do more about this issue. We have all got to do more about this issue, and I am going to continue to speak out until I see some changes in this administration and some changes in our government as a whole. I hope that we will all cooperate in trying do this because this is not a Republican/Democrat thing and not a pro-administration, anti- administration thing. These are facts that have to be brought out. Hopefully the administration just does not understand, and once they do, will start doing more about it. And hopefully the President will use his bully pulpit to start fighting these things that are destroying America, financing crime and murders throughout this society, and killing our kids and their futures well into the future. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to effectuate a land exchange at the Snowbasin Ski Resort located east of Ogden, Utah. Senators Craig, Bennett, and Burns are cosponsoring this legislation. Basically, the intent of this legislation is simple. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange 1,320 acres of federally owned land within Utah's Cache National Forest for lands of approximately equal value owned by the Sun Valley Company, which owns the Snowbasin Ski Resort. Snowbasin is located 30 miles north of Salt Lake City and has been open for skiing since the early 1940s. It is one of the world's greatest areas for snow and winter sports as evidenced by the recent decision by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to have Salt Lake City host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. It is precisely because of the IOC's decision that this legislation is necessary. In 1985, a year after it purchased financially plagued Snowbasin, the Sun Valley Company, recognized as an enviromentally sensitive manager of its recreational lands, asked the Forest Service to exchange 2,500 areas of land to improve the resort's base facilities and infrastructure. This request was initially reduced to 1,320. Five years later, after conducting an environmental impact statement and extensive studies and public reviews, the Forest Service decided to exchange approximately 700 acres. At the same time, the Forest Service reached the conclusions that the future success of Snowbasin requires private ownership of lands at the base of the ski area and that a land exchange was consistent with the priorities established in the 1985 Wasatch- Cache Land and Reserve Management Plan. Unfortunately, since 1990 and despite the diligent efforts of both the Forest Service and the Sun Valley Company, little progress has occurred toward the exchange. I will not take the time to detail these difficulties. However, my colleagues should know that the land exchange process has been long, tedious, and very costly to all parties, particularly to Snowbasin. Last June, Salt Lake City was selected as the site for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Due to its rugged mountain terrain, gradient and technical difficulty, Snowbasin has been identified as the venue for all Downhill, Combined Downhill, and Super G events for men and women. These highly popular races traditionally attract some of the largest Olympic audiences. The snail's pace with which the exchange process has been moving has many people associated with Snowbasin and the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee, including myself, worried that Snowbasin will not be sufficiently prepared to handle the Olympic skiing events and their accompanying crowds. I am sure my colleagues can appreciate what it requires for a community to prepare a venue to host any Olympic event. In the case of Snowbasin, these pre-2002 activities include the installation of chairlifts, construction of a connector road, fencing and safety netting, additional ski runs, maintenance buildings, new spectator and service areas, parking lot expansion, restrooms and other items identified in Phase 1 of the Sun Valley Company's Master Plan for Snowbasin. These activities must be done in the near future and can be more effectively and environmentally accomplished if done on private property. In exchange for the forested acreage, the Sun Valley Company will convey four major parcels to the Forest Service that have been previously identified by the Forest Service as desirable for acquisition. These parcels are specifically listed in our legislation, and their combined acreage exceeds 4,000 acres. Obviously, this land possesses outstanding recreational, wildlife, mountain, and access values for public use and enjoyment. The values of the Federal and non- federal lands involved in this exchange will be determined by utilizing nationally recognized appraisal standards. Mr. President, we in Utah are overjoyed that the eyes of the world will be upon us, upon our mountains, and upon the ``Greatest Snow on Earth.'' At the same time, there is serious concern whether the facilities to support the Olympics can be constructed, tested for safety, and become fully operational by 2002, especially when considering it will take three summer seasons to complete the development of Phase 1 of the Snowbasin Master Plan. Pursuit of a land exchange at Snowbasin through the administrative process, and possibly the courts, does not alleviate this concern and only exacerbates the problems of timing and uncertainty. Legislative action on Snowbasin places control of this matter with the Congress, rather than the courts, and will ensure that all aspects of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games are in their proper place once the world focuses on Salt Lake City. I urge my colleagues to carefully review this legislation and the reasons why it is crucial that this proposal be adopted during the 104th Congress. I look forward to working with them to achieve this goal.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to effectuate a land exchange at the Snowbasin Ski Resort located east of Ogden, Utah. Senators Craig, Bennett, and Burns are cosponsoring this legislation. Basically, the intent of this legislation is simple. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange 1,320 acres of federally owned land within Utah's Cache National Forest for lands of approximately equal value owned by the Sun Valley Company, which owns the Snowbasin Ski Resort. Snowbasin is located 30 miles north of Salt Lake City and has been open for skiing since the early 1940s. It is one of the world's greatest areas for snow and winter sports as evidenced by the recent decision by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to have Salt Lake City host the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. It is precisely because of the IOC's decision that this legislation is necessary. In 1985, a year after it purchased financially plagued Snowbasin, the Sun Valley Company, recognized as an enviromentally sensitive manager of its recreational lands, asked the Forest Service to exchange 2,500 areas of land to improve the resort's base facilities and infrastructure. This request was initially reduced to 1,320. Five years later, after conducting an environmental impact statement and extensive studies and public reviews, the Forest Service decided to exchange approximately 700 acres. At the same time, the Forest Service reached the conclusions that the future success of Snowbasin requires private ownership of lands at the base of the ski area and that a land exchange was consistent with the priorities established in the 1985 Wasatch- Cache Land and Reserve Management Plan. Unfortunately, since 1990 and despite the diligent efforts of both the Forest Service and the Sun Valley Company, little progress has occurred toward the exchange. I will not take the time to detail these difficulties. However, my colleagues should know that the land exchange process has been long, tedious, and very costly to all parties, particularly to Snowbasin. Last June, Salt Lake City was selected as the site for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Due to its rugged mountain terrain, gradient and technical difficulty, Snowbasin has been identified as the venue for all Downhill, Combined Downhill, and Super G events for men and women. These highly popular races traditionally attract some of the largest Olympic audiences. The snail's pace with which the exchange process has been moving has many people associated with Snowbasin and the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee, including myself, worried that Snowbasin will not be sufficiently prepared to handle the Olympic skiing events and their accompanying crowds. I am sure my colleagues can appreciate what it requires for a community to prepare a venue to host any Olympic event. In the case of Snowbasin, these pre-2002 activities include the installation of chairlifts, construction of a connector road, fencing and safety netting, additional ski runs, maintenance buildings, new spectator and service areas, parking lot expansion, restrooms and other items identified in Phase 1 of the Sun Valley Company's Master Plan for Snowbasin. These activities must be done in the near future and can be more effectively and environmentally accomplished if done on private property. In exchange for the forested acreage, the Sun Valley Company will convey four major parcels to the Forest Service that have been previously identified by the Forest Service as desirable for acquisition. These parcels are specifically listed in our legislation, and their combined acreage exceeds 4,000 acres. Obviously, this land possesses outstanding recreational, wildlife, mountain, and access values for public use and enjoyment. The values of the Federal and non- federal lands involved in this exchange will be determined by utilizing nationally recognized appraisal standards. Mr. President, we in Utah are overjoyed that the eyes of the world will be upon us, upon our mountains, and upon the ``Greatest Snow on Earth.'' At the same time, there is serious concern whether the facilities to support the Olympics can be constructed, tested for safety, and become fully operational by 2002, especially when considering it will take three summer seasons to complete the development of Phase 1 of the Snowbasin Master Plan. Pursuit of a land exchange at Snowbasin through the administrative process, and possibly the courts, does not alleviate this concern and only exacerbates the problems of timing and uncertainty. Legislative action on Snowbasin places control of this matter with the Congress, rather than the courts, and will ensure that all aspects of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games are in their proper place once the world focuses on Salt Lake City. I urge my colleagues to carefully review this legislation and the reasons why it is crucial that this proposal be adopted during the 104th Congress. I look forward to working with them to achieve this goal.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. president, I hope that our colleague, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, shares many of the concerns that we have expressed. I would respectfully ask that he take a careful look at the alternative incremental credit in the House package when the bill goes to conference. Bipartisan Capital Gains

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand the concerns of my friend and colleague from Connecticut and am sympathetic to his position. This provision is an important one and is the right thing to do. A home is often the biggest and most significant investment that most families ever make. It is only fair that an economic loss on that investment be treated the same as economic losses on other investments. This is especially so since we tax the gain from a sale of that home. Like Senator Lieberman, I urge the chairman and the conferees to adopt this provision when it is considered in conference. amendment no. 297

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a bipartisan effort to extend the tax credit for research and development projects engaged in by American industry. I want to commend the chairman of the Finance Committee for his excellent leadership on this measure because I wholeheartedly believe that this program is critical to the future of our economy. We are the world leader in research and development, and I believe that technology is the engine for economic growth. This measure helps keep our competitive advantage on the world R&D market. The bill before us today extends the R&E tax credit for 20 months, retroactive to July 1, 1995. Ideally, we wanted to extend the credit permanently and thus remove the uncertainty that has characterized the credit in recent years. Unfortunately, due to limited resources, we have had to go with a temporary extension instead. However, this is still a significant step forward, and I am glad to be a part of this effort. I want to express my concern for the companies engaged in significant research and development activity in the United States that are unable to qualify for the current credit. Several of my colleagues share this concern, and I would now like to engage Senator Baucus from Montana and Senator Lieberman from Connecticut on this [[Page S 16063]] point. We support extending the R&E tax credit for another 20 months. We also support providing those companies that currently do not qualify for the R&E credit, and that are engaged in significant R&D activity, with an elective alternative incremental research credit [AIRC], as provided in the House tax bill. I look forward to my colleagues' remarks on this point.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, while we are considering the manager's amendment to S. 1357, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, I want to take this opportunity to comment on the health provisions contained within the bill and on some of the changes made therein. First of all, I know there is a great deal of consternation about the impact of the reductions in spending growth for Medicare and Medicaid contained within this bill. Medicare and Medicaid have been tremendously successful programs by anyone's measure, providing life-saving and life-sustaining services to literally millions of persons over the last three decades. These programs need to be continued. What we cannot continue, though, is the high rate of growth in these entitlement programs. This growth, quite simply, is contributing significantly to the deficit situation which is bankrupting our country. Mr. President, there is no disagreement on either of these points. As I see it, the question before us today is not whether to act but, rather, how to act. The question is not ``Why?,'' as some assert, but rather the more critical ``Who, what where, when, and how?'' we bring these programs under fiscal control while preserving vital services for the people who need them. It is clear that we are poised to act on a bill with very far- reaching ramifications. This is not a responsibility I take lightly. Indeed, the prospect of reforming programs which have become such an integral part of America's health care delivery infrastructure over the past 30 years is a daunting one. The implications are enormous-- enormous for all participants in the health care system, be it patients or those who provide services to patients. Consider how intertwined the Medicare and Medicaid programs have become with our health care delivery system. A whole generation of facilities has been built based on funding from the Federal Government. A whole generation of health care professionals has been trained with funding from the Federal Government, with many academic health institutions continuing to rely heavily upon Medicare graduate medical education funds for their viability. Facilities providing care to the underserved in both rural and urban areas count on Medicare revenues to keep from closing their doors. And, coverage policy in many private health care plans and our military health care system have been designed around Medicare policy. Viewed from another perspective, more than a generation of Americans has come to rely on the vital services provided under Medicare and Medicaid. This is true for our seniors and disabled who are eligible for Medicare, and for the pregnant women and children, the aged, the blind, and the disabled who receive services under Medicaid. The prospect of the reforming this system can be threatening to all I have mentioned, because it represents a change, a change from the norm we have all come to accept. But I ask you to consider how different the America of 1995 is from the America of 1965. The health care of today is very different from that of 30 years ago. We have come a long way. Life expectancy has improved dramatically thanks to the fruits of medical research and technology. Fee-for-service medicine is no longer the only option for delivery of services. But we have paid a heavy price for those improvements. Continued increases in health care costs run rampant have fueled the deficit, and have priced health care out of the reach of many, with a concomitant impact on the Medicaid roles and the States' ability to provide services. I implore my colleagues to see the changes in this bill today as an opportunity to make the system better and more responsive to our national needs, needs which extend beyond health care services to, indeed, the health of our country as a whole. The deficit situation cannot be ignored any longer. It is unfair to our children, and to their parents and grandparents. The alternative to change is foreboding. The costs of these entitlement programs is running out of sight, endangering the future viability of the programs as well as the Federal and State budgets. By all recognition, Medicare's hospitalization trust fund could go bankrupt, starting as early as next year. The work of the Medicare [[Page S 16077]] Trustees, reinforced by testimony the Finance Committee heard from the former Chief Actuary of Medicare, Guy King, indicates that we will need at least $165 billion for the hospitalization fund alone to stave off bankruptcy by 2002. Payment for physician services under Medicare, funded 68.5 percent from tax revenues, is rising in double digits. Medicaid spending also remains troublesome. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Federal share of Medicare will grow over 10 percent a year between now and 2002, about three times the projected rate of inflation. The changes made in S. 1357 are a good start to resolve these problems. For Medicare, the bill provides greater opportunity for seniors and the disabled to participate in innovative coordinated care programs, many offering the possibility of benefits beyond the traditional Medicare package such as preventive services, eyeglasses, and prescription drugs. It is clear that the health care marketplace has been undergoing dramatic changes over the last several years and that further changes will occur. As new types of provider organizations and reimbursement practices have evolved over recent years, many observers note that the traditional doctor-patient relationship is being redefined. There are complex and novel issues presented by the introduction of many new nonphysician decisionmakers in the care of patients. Tensions often are apparent between the twin goals of providing high quality care and providing this care at reasonable costs. That became evident in our consideration of S. 1357, as we struggled to make certain that the bill afforded Medicare beneficiaries the opportunity to participate more in the medical marketplace, while still maintaining a marketplace which allows doctors, nurses and other health care professionals to continue to practice traditional medicine. There is no doubt that coordinated care offers abundant opportunities for our citizens, including those who participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, to receive quality health care services in the most cost-effective setting. On the other hand, as we enter this new era in which managed care becomes the norm, it is imperative that the overriding goal be to save lives, not dollars. What I am saying is that managed care is an important option in the health care delivery continuum, but so is traditional medicine. Fee-for-service medicine must be maintained as an option for patients who are more comfortable with that kind of care, as well as for providers who do not wish to join the managed care environment. One of the major innovations in this reconciliation bill is that it will encourage the further participation of Medicare enrollees in managed care plans. A key feature of the legislation is that it allows individuals to choose the type of health care delivery system which best meets their needs. This bill allows American citizens, not the Federal Government, the freedom to make this choice. I think it critical that Medicare beneficiaries be allowed to choose the provider of their choice, if this is important to them. In fact, the bill contains a provision I authored which will make certain that beneficiaries are provided with the information they need to gauge whether the Choice plan they contemplate joining allows them this freedom. At the same time, I do not think it is fair for the Congress to require that all plans mandate this option, since participants in Medicare do have flexibility under the current bill. I also want to note, in turn, that health care providers will face individual choices with respect to which type of health care delivery system best meets their career plans. Some will prefer a managed care environment, while others will not. They, too, must have the freedom to make that choice. And that freedom must not be in name only. For some time, I have been concerned that we are destroying the incentives providers have to practice good medicine in America. Liability concerns, cost constraints, regulations which impede technology development, change in medical education reimbursement--all these can have a stifling effect on the ability of health care professionals to be satisfied with the work environment. That is one reason I was so pleased about the House inclusion of a medical liability reform proposal. Medical liability reform is something I have been fighting for for some time, and I am pleased at the House action. We had a good deal of debate about this ``creative tension'' in the health care delivery system during development of the physician service network (PSN) provision contained in this bill. Doctors and hospitals were rightly concerned that because of time-consuming state certification requirements, they would not have the ability to form networks to compete as providers under the new choice plans. On the other hand, insurers were equally concerned that we not create a system which put them on an uneven footing, by allowing certain organizations to escape the solvency requirements and antitrust requirements in current law. The challenge we face is to find the right balance between two competing interests--our intention to provide seniors with real health care choices, especially in rural areas, and our interest in making sure that those who provide that care have the incentives to do so, but to do so with accountability. I am satisfied that the bill before us meets these goals, but I will be monitoring its implementation carefully to see that it continues to measure up. The bill before us today also provides beneficiaries with the option of establishing medical savings accounts, something I have long favored. Under the proposed legislation, Medicare recipients would have new options, including the choice to remain in the traditional Medicare program, enroll in a health maintenance organization or select a high- deductible health insurance plan with a Medical Savings Account [MSA]. I support the MSA provisions in the pending bill and hope they will remain in the final measure as signed into law. MSA's are personal, individual accounts used to pay for routine and preventive health care and are combined with high-deductible, catastrophic health insurance that pays for major expenses. Beneficiaries pay all medical bills up to the deductible with the MSA and out-of-pocket funds. Catastrophic insurance pays all expenses above the deductible. Among the benefits of MSA's for seniors will be that they will have first-dollar coverage for such services as primary and preventive care, in contrast to Medicare, which has deductibles and copayments. Seniors could use their MSA's for items not covered by Medicare, such as eyeglasses and prescription drugs. In addition, patients would have incentives to make prudent choices because they would have a larger voice in deciding how their health care dollars were spent. Medical Savings Accounts incorporate sound economics while encouraging individual responsibility and choice. Mr. President, I want to point out that, contrary to many reports, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act does not cut Medicare spending. It does not reduce benefits. It does not breech our contract on Medicare. And contrary to the assertions of many, Medicare spending will increase each year under this budget. It will rise from $181 billion this year, to $277 billion on fiscal year 2002, a $96 billion or 53 percent increase. Expressed differently, Medicare benefits will increase from an average of $4,800 per person this year, to $6,700 in fiscal year 2002, hardly a cut. For Medicaid, S. 1357 allows a 5 percent rate of growth over the next 7 years, with the program rising from $157 billion this year to about $220 billion in 2002. I don't believe this increase of 40 percent can be termed a ``cut'', either. Many of my constituents have visited with me, offering both praise and criticism about the provisions in this bill. On a positive note, I have received much positive feedback about the provisions in this bill which inject a greater measure of private market competition in Medicare. I have received warm endorsement of the provisions in the bill which allow the States to tailor [[Page S 16078]] their Medicaid programs to their own individual needs. In particular, many in my home state are pleased about the opportunity to work cooperatively together with our Governor to craft a Medicaid program which meets the needs of Utahns, not the needs of those in states across the Nation. I have been troubled for some time about the inflexibility of the Medicaid program, and the innumerable, burdensome requirements placed on the programs at the Federal level. This has served to drive up costs, as well as to hamstring innovators such as our Governor, Mike Leavitt, who have some wonderfully creative ideas on how to deliver services in a cost-efficient manner. I recall the story Governor Leavitt related to me about the Medicaid waiver he was trying to submit to the Health Care Financing Administration. Utah had determined that it could provide services to more citizens if it restricted the dental benefit to children and adult emergencies. HCFA turned him down cold. Later, at a briefing with my staff, HCFA said they had not turned any states down on coverage requests such as this. When queried, they admitted that they had told the state not even to submit the request, because it would be turned down. This bureaucratic gamesmanship is a prime example of why Utah should not have to seek approval from Washington of its State Medicaid plan. The changes made in this bill, which will allow Utah to design its own coverage program without a federal waiver--with continued coverage for the aged, disabled, and pregnant women and children--are in important step and a needed step. That being said, I want to acknowledge openly and frankly my understanding of the tremendous unease the prospects of major change cast upon our citizenry. This is a natural reaction to change. I make the pledge that if we receive evidence that these reforms are not working, I will do everything I can to seek an immediate legislative solution in this Chamber. I want to make that perfectly clear. I, too, am not completely satisfied with each and every provision, as I will discuss in a moment. I am hopeful that in the conference we can improve these provisions. But first of all, I want to discuss how the changes in this bill affect Native Americans. This is a subject in which I have a great interest.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I share the concerns expressed by the majority leader regarding the need to repeal Section 956A and the application of the PFIC rules to CFC's in connection with intangible assets. I would also like to express my concern about the problem of the overlap between subpart F and the PFIC provisions in general. I look forward to working together with the leader to correct all of these problems in the conference report on this bill. These provisions have the effect of hindering competitiveness of U.S. multinationals and distorting investment decisions that properly should be governed by economic considerations alone. Thus, they put at risk U.S.-based jobs. The 956A and PFIC rules have an especially harsh effect on research- intensive companies, which tend to accumulate capital before making major investments. As a result, I am particularly concerned that research activities may be moved overseas in order to avoid the impact of these rules. I believe this Nation may gradually lose its competitive edge in the technology field if through ill-conceived tax rules we provide incentives for this technology to be developed and owned outside the United States. As you know, technology industries are very important to my State of Utah, and I am concerned about Tax Code [[Page S 16087]] provisions that have the effect of causing those industries to move their high-paying jobs out of the United States. For that reason, I would like to ask the leader's support for addressing in conference a problem that has arisen because of a narrow and ill-conceived IRS interpretation of the foreign sales corporation (FSC) provisions as they apply to exports of software, which I fear could also result in the movement of software development jobs overseas. The FSC rules were enacted to address competitive disadvantages faced by U.S. exporters vis-a-vis exports from other countries that have more favorable tax systems, particularly those that effectively exempt export sales from home country tax. The goal of the FSC provisions was to remove an incentive to move manufacturing and production jobs out of the United States. Unfortunately, a narrow IRS interpretation of these rules could preclude exports of software copyrights from qualifying for export treatment under the FSC rules when those exports are accompanied by a right to reproduce the software overseas. I am very concerned because software companies are already examining opportunities to move high-paying software development jobs overseas where highly skilled labor is available at much lower wages. FSC benefits help offset higher U.S. labor costs by providing benefits on the export of products developed in the United States. I believe it is very important to clarify these rules to reflect the Congress' intent with respect to software, not only to protect U.S. software development jobs, but also to preserve ownership of this technology in the United States. The narrow IRS interpretation of the application of the FSC rules to software was included in 1987 temporary and proposed regulations, which were never finalized. The Treasury Department has broad authority under current law to implement congressional intent by providing that a copyright on software qualifies as export property even if the software is accompanied by a right to reproduce. I believe that the Treasury Department should take action on its regulations to so provide this result. However, Treasury has indicated that it prefers congressional action to resolve this issue. In any event, 8 years is too long to wait for Treasury to take action on its temporary regulations, especially given the fact that the software industry regularly receives solicitations to move their software development to other countries, such as Ireland and India. Therefore, I hope that the majority leader will support legislative clarification of this issue in the context of international tax simplification measures that will be considered by the conference committee. This clarification of the FSC rules is an important simplification measure because it will implement the intent of Congress and help taxpayers and the IRS avoid years of litigation over the current regulations and help to avert complicated restructuring activities.