Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to support passage of Senate Resolution 180, declaring next week the ``Week Without Violence.'' This week is part of what I hope will be a tremendous public awareness campaign to educate Americans about the threat of violence in our society and to offer alternatives to this grave problem. None of us is immune from the violence in our communities. In rural and urban areas across this country, men, women, and children are at risk. They are at risk not just on the streets, but all too often in their homes or in their schools. I enthusiastically join Senator Bradley and others in supporting this resolution; it calls on Americans to spend a week without committing, condoning, ignoring, or contributing to violence. Teaching people that violence is not acceptable and educating victims of violence to seek out protection will save lives. The issue of violence deserves national attention and demands community involvement. I hope and believe that the focus of the ``Week Without Violence'' will be a small but significant step in decreasing the scourge of violence in our society.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this morning there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 11 a.m. today. At 11, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 927, the Cuba sanctions bill. A cloture motion was filed on the substitute amendment to that bill yesterday, and if an agreement can be reached it is possible that the cloture vote could occur as early as this evening. All Senators are reminded that, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII, all first-degree amendments to the substitute must be filed by 1 p.m. today.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce private relief legislation on behalf of my constituents, Mr. Saeed Rezai, and his wife, Mrs. Julie Rezai. As my colleagues are aware, those immigration cases that warrant private legislation are extremely rare. In fact, it has been nearly 6 years since I last introduced a bill to grant such relief. Indeed, I had hoped that this case would not require congressional intervention. Unfortunately, it is clear that private legislation is the only means remaining to ensure a thorough and comprehensive Justice Department review of a number of specific unresolved questions in Mr. Rezai's case. I wish to take a moment, Mr. President, to provide something by way of background to this somewhat complicated case and to explain the urgency of this legislation. Mr. Rezai first came to the United States in 1986. On June 15, 1991, he married his current wife, Julie, who is a U.S. citizen. Shortly thereafter, she filed an immigrant visa petition on behalf of her husband. Approval of this petition has been blocked, however, by the application of Sec. 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 204(c) precludes the approval of a visa petition for anyone who entered, or conspired to enter, into a fraudulent marriage. The Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] applied this provision in Mr. Rezai's case because his previous marriage ended in divorce before the conditions on his residence were lifted. In deportation proceedings following the divorce, the judge was very careful to mention that there was no proof of false testimony by Mr. Rezai, and he granted voluntary departure rather than ordering deportation because, in his words, Mr. Rezai ``may be eligible for a visa in the future.'' Despite these comments by the immigration judge, the INS has refused to approve Mrs. Rezai's petition. An appeal of this decision is currently pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals [BIA]. In the meantime, Mr. Rezai appealed the initial termination of his lawful permanent resident status in 1990 and the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. In August of this year, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied this appeal and granted him 90 days in which to leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Under current law, there is no provision to postpone Mr. Rezai's deportation pending the BIA's ruling on the current immigrant visa petition filed by his wife. Mr. President, there is no doubt that deportation would be the source of extraordinary hardship to both Mr. and Mrs. Rezai. Throughout all the proceedings of the past 4 years, no one including the INS, has questioned the validity of their current marriage. In fact, the many friends and acquaintances I have heard from have emphatically asserted that their marriage is as strong as any they have seen. Given the prevailing political and cultural climate in Iran, I would not expect that Mrs. Rezai will choose to make her home there. Mr. Rezai's deportation will thus cause either the destruction of their legitimate marriage or the forced removal of a U.S. citizen and her husband to a country unfamiliar to either of them, and in which they have neither friends nor family. It should also be noted that Mr. Rezai has been present in the United States for nearly a decade. During this time he has assimilated to American culture and has become a contributing member of his community. He has been placed in a responsible position of employment as the security field supervisor at Westminster College where he has gained the respect and admiration of both his peers and his superiors. In fact, I have received a letter from the interim president of Westminster College, signed by close to 150 of Mr. Rezai's associates, attesting to his many contributions to the college and the community. This is just one of the many, many letters and phone calls I have received from members of our community. Mr. Rezai's forced departure in light of these considerations would both unduly limit his own opportunities and deprive the community of his continued contributions. Finally, Mr. Rezai's deportation would be a particular hardship to his wife given the fact that she was diagnosed earlier this year with multiple sclerosis [MS]. She was severely ill for some time and was taking a number of medications for her condition. Although Mrs. Rezai's health since the initial diagnosis of MS has improved, her physician has stated that severe symptoms may return at any time and that rapid deterioration could ensue as a result of the stress being placed upon her by her husband's immigration proceedings. Mr. President, I firmly believe that we must think twice before enforcing an action that will result in such severe consequences as the destruction of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage and the endangering of Mrs. Rezai's already fragile health. At a minimum, the outstanding questions regarding the propriety of the denial of Mr. Rezai's current immigrant visa petition need to be addressed. The legislation I am introducing today will ensure that the necessary information is gathered to address these questions, that the Justice Department will conduct a comprehensive review of Mr. Rezai's case in light of this information and that Mr. Rezai's deportation will be stayed pending the outcome of this review.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce private relief legislation on behalf of my constituents, Mr. Saeed Rezai, and his wife, Mrs. Julie Rezai. As my colleagues are aware, those immigration cases that warrant private legislation are extremely rare. In fact, it has been nearly 6 years since I last introduced a bill to grant such relief. Indeed, I had hoped that this case would not require congressional intervention. Unfortunately, it is clear that private legislation is the only means remaining to ensure a thorough and comprehensive Justice Department review of a number of specific unresolved questions in Mr. Rezai's case. I wish to take a moment, Mr. President, to provide something by way of background to this somewhat complicated case and to explain the urgency of this legislation. Mr. Rezai first came to the United States in 1986. On June 15, 1991, he married his current wife, Julie, who is a U.S. citizen. Shortly thereafter, she filed an immigrant visa petition on behalf of her husband. Approval of this petition has been blocked, however, by the application of Sec. 204(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 204(c) precludes the approval of a visa petition for anyone who entered, or conspired to enter, into a fraudulent marriage. The Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] applied this provision in Mr. Rezai's case because his previous marriage ended in divorce before the conditions on his residence were lifted. In deportation proceedings following the divorce, the judge was very careful to mention that there was no proof of false testimony by Mr. Rezai, and he granted voluntary departure rather than ordering deportation because, in his words, Mr. Rezai ``may be eligible for a visa in the future.'' Despite these comments by the immigration judge, the INS has refused to approve Mrs. Rezai's petition. An appeal of this decision is currently pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals [BIA]. In the meantime, Mr. Rezai appealed the initial termination of his lawful permanent resident status in 1990 and the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. In August of this year, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied this appeal and granted him 90 days in which to leave the country voluntarily or be deported. Under current law, there is no provision to postpone Mr. Rezai's deportation pending the BIA's ruling on the current immigrant visa petition filed by his wife. Mr. President, there is no doubt that deportation would be the source of extraordinary hardship to both Mr. and Mrs. Rezai. Throughout all the proceedings of the past 4 years, no one including the INS, has questioned the validity of their current marriage. In fact, the many friends and acquaintances I have heard from have emphatically asserted that their marriage is as strong as any they have seen. Given the prevailing political and cultural climate in Iran, I would not expect that Mrs. Rezai will choose to make her home there. Mr. Rezai's deportation will thus cause either the destruction of their legitimate marriage or the forced removal of a U.S. citizen and her husband to a country unfamiliar to either of them, and in which they have neither friends nor family. It should also be noted that Mr. Rezai has been present in the United States for nearly a decade. During this time he has assimilated to American culture and has become a contributing member of his community. He has been placed in a responsible position of employment as the security field supervisor at Westminster College where he has gained the respect and admiration of both his peers and his superiors. In fact, I have received a letter from the interim president of Westminster College, signed by close to 150 of Mr. Rezai's associates, attesting to his many contributions to the college and the community. This is just one of the many, many letters and phone calls I have received from members of our community. Mr. Rezai's forced departure in light of these considerations would both unduly limit his own opportunities and deprive the community of his continued contributions. Finally, Mr. Rezai's deportation would be a particular hardship to his wife given the fact that she was diagnosed earlier this year with multiple sclerosis [MS]. She was severely ill for some time and was taking a number of medications for her condition. Although Mrs. Rezai's health since the initial diagnosis of MS has improved, her physician has stated that severe symptoms may return at any time and that rapid deterioration could ensue as a result of the stress being placed upon her by her husband's immigration proceedings. Mr. President, I firmly believe that we must think twice before enforcing an action that will result in such severe consequences as the destruction of Mr. and Mrs. Rezai's marriage and the endangering of Mrs. Rezai's already fragile health. At a minimum, the outstanding questions regarding the propriety of the denial of Mr. Rezai's current immigrant visa petition need to be addressed. The legislation I am introducing today will ensure that the necessary information is gathered to address these questions, that the Justice Department will conduct a comprehensive review of Mr. Rezai's case in light of this information and that Mr. Rezai's deportation will be stayed pending the outcome of this review.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is time to speak plainly. To borrow a phrase, President Clinton has been AWOL--absent without leadership--on the drug issue. Our country is badly hurt by his abdication of responsibility. This is the opinion of both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. A little more than 1 year ago, President Clinton signed into law the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In doing so he stated that ``this is the beginning, not the end, of our effort to restore safety and security to the people of our country.'' To commemorate the 1-year anniversary of that measure's enactment, the Clinton administration held several days of media events. Unfortunately, while President Clinton and his aides were celebrating the year-old crime bill, HHS announced that teen drug use almost doubled over the past 2 years. Just as Nero fiddled while Rome burned, the Clinton administration holds media events while seemingly ignoring the evidence of a worsening drug crisis. Let me take you back a few years, to 1992. As a candidate for President, then Mr. Clinton talked tough on drugs, declaring that ``President Bush hasn't fought a real war on crime and drugs * * * [and] I will.'' On the link between drugs and crime, candidate Clinton said ``We have a national problem on our hands that requires a tough national response,'' as reported in the New York Times, March 26, 1993, referring to previous Clinton statements. Since the campaign, however, President Clinton has rarely mentioned the drug issue in a substantive way. He has not made the drug issue a visible crusade. He simply has not led this country against the scourge that is killing our children. Not so long ago, Nancy Reagan led the ``Just Say No'' campaign. That was just one demonstration of committed leadership at the national level. Today, we hear virtually nothing from the White House. We need a campaign to get the President to ``Just Say Something''--and say it loudly and consistently. Through the 1980's and into the early 1990's we saw dramatic reductions in casual drug use--reductions that were won through increased penalties, strong Presidential leadership, and a clear national antidrug message. Casual drug use dropped by more than half between 1977 and 1992 according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Casual cocaine use fell by 79 percent, while monthly cocaine use fell from 2.9 million users in 1988 to 1.3 million in 1992, again, from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Imagine if we had had a 79- percent reduction in teen pregnancy, or AIDS transmission. [[Page S 15070]] The Federal drug control and treatment budget grew from $1.5 to $13 billion under Presidents Reagan and Bush. Beyond the substantial investment of money and materiel, the drug war was fought by engaged Commanders in Chief, who used the bully pulpit to change attitudes. Presidents Reagan and Bush involved themselves in this effort and helped rescue much of a generation. It was in the face of these gains that Mr. Clinton, then candidate for President, said he would do a better job than they. Yet today, after only a few short years, we are rapidly losing ground, as illustrated by this chart. I might say, rather than aggressively fighting this losing trend, the Clinton administration, like a sports franchise on the decline, appears content to celebrate past victories with prior leadership rather than trying to achieve anything of substance. Over the past 2 years, almost every available indicator shows that our gains against drug use have either stopped or reversed. This chart, ``Trends in High School Marijuana Use,'' from the most recent edition of the National High School Survey reported, for the second year in a row, sizable increases in drug use among our Nation's 8th, 10th, and 12th graders. In fact, as this chart illustrates, over the past 2 years, past month use of marijuana is up 110 percent for 8th graders, from 3.7 to 7.8 percent; up 95 percent for 10th graders, from 8.1 to 15.8 percent; and up 60 percent among 12th graders, from 11.9 to 19 percent. Other surveys show similar trends. Last month, HHS released alarming figures showing that marijuana use is up sharply--up 50 percent--among young people. The category of ``recent marijuana use'' was up a staggering 192 percent among 14- to 15-year-olds. Among 12- to 13-year- olds, recent marijuana use was up 137 percent. There are trends in youthful drug use between ages 12 and 17. This troubling data should come as no surprise. It follows last year's discouraging survey, which, as this next chart illustrates, shows the number of youthful, past year marijuana users increased by 450,000 users--up from 1.6 million in 1992 to 2.1 million in the space of just 1 year. As the chart illustrates, in 1994, that number reached 2.9 million. In other words, nearly 1.3 million more kids are smoking pot today than were doing so in 1992. That is astounding. More to the point, this sharp increase in drug use comes on the heels of consistent declines in drug use dating back to 1979. According to substance abuse experts, many of these youthful marijuana users will end up cocaine addicts. Joseph Califano, head of Columbia University's Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, and former Secretary of HEW, estimates that 820,000 of these new youthful marijuana users will eventually try cocaine. Of these 820,000 who try cocaine, Califano estimates that some 58,000 will end up as regular users and addicts. This country does not need another 58,000 cocaine addicts. Prevention messages are not getting through, either. According to a recent survey by Frank Luntz, teens think cigarettes are more dangerous than marijuana. The May 1995 survey by Frank Luntz showed that 82 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds believe cigarettes are either ``somewhat'' or ``very'' dangerous, as compared with 81 percent for marijuana. There are other ominous signs as well: According to a story in USA Today last month, a pending Government study will show an astounding 144-percent increase in overdose deaths nationally due to methamphetamines over the past 2 years.--USA Today, September 7, 1995. Cocaine and heroin prices continue to fall, even as cocaine purity reaches record levels. Emergency room admissions for cocaine overdoses have never been higher. These trends are disastrous. When Senator Dole called attention to these trends in a recent op ed, three Clinton Cabinet Members--Brown, Shalala, and Reno--wrote back to say that ``teenage marijuana use * * * remains far below the record highs of the late 1970's and early 1980's.''--Washington Times, October 6, 1995. In other words, we should not get too upset because today's drug problem is not as bad as it was at its worst point in our Nation's history. Unfortunately, we are sitting on the edge of a major drug catastrophe, and President Clinton's lack of visibility and leadership has not helped. In fact, there have been troubling signs since the earliest days of the administration. In early 1993, respected columnist A.M. Rosenthal described President Clinton's record in developing and promoting a strong antidrug policy as: ``No leadership. No role. No alerting. No policy.''--A.M. Rosenthal, New York Times, March 26, 1993. Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal, the president of the Nation's largest residential treatment organization, Phoenix House, said that developing drug trends should have been ``a big signal to the President and his Cabinet that they've got to pay serious attention to [the drug problem].''--New York Times, July 16, 1993. Back then, I warned this administration that ``the concept of the war against drugs is in danger of being dismantled by its relative silence.'' I warned that certain administration policies were ``tantamount to decriminalizing drugs'' and would have the effect of increasing drug use. Sadly, we critics are being proven right. President Clinton has abandoned many of the drug control efforts undertaken by his immediate predecessors. Indeed, he has even abandoned the moral leadership of the bully pulpit. President Clinton himself rarely speaks out against drug abuse, and he offers little, if any, moral support or leadership to those fighting the drug war in America or abroad. For example, President Clinton has cut Federal interdiction efforts, which have helped check the flow of drugs into our cities, and States, to our children, and, in the past, made the drug trade a risky proposition. Two years ago, he ordered a massive reduction in the interdiction budgets of the Defense Department, Customs Service, and the Coast Guard. Cocaine seizures plummeted. U.S. Customs cocaine seizures in the transit zone dropped 70 percent, while Coast Guard cocaine seizures fell by more than 70 percent. We have just learned that transit-zone interdiction results for the first 6 months of 1995 were even worse than last year. This chart illustrates the decline in transit-zone interdictions--down from 440 kilograms per day in 1992 to 205 kilograms per day in the first 6 months of 1995, even though drug pushing is up. Over the course of a year, the lowered disruption rate, from these figures, in 1992 and even 1993, means that as much as 85 additional tons of cocaine and marijuana could be arriving unimpeded on American streets, and killing our kids. The administration also accepted a one-third cut in resources to attack the cocaine trade in the source and transit countries of South America, and disrupted cooperative efforts with source country governments when it ordered the Unite States military to stop providing radar tracking of drug-trafficking aircraft to Colombia and Peru. The Clinton administration claimed these cuts to interdiction represented a so-called controlled shift. But the shift--in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of almost everybody who studies this--was really a reckless abdication of responsibility. Having gutted our Federal efforts to stop drugs from arriving here, President Clinton has also weakened efforts to deal effectively with them once they hit our streets. Upon taking office, President Clinton promoted the drug czar to Cabinet level, but then slashed the drug czar's staff by 80 percent. The President undercut law enforcement efforts initiated by his predecessors, allowing the DEA to lose 198 drug agents over a 2-year period. The President also proposed a fiscal year 1995 budget that would have cut 621 additional drug enforcement positions from the FBI, the DEA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard. Those cuts were blocked by congressional Republicans, and many Democrats, but they should never have been proposed in the first place. Under President Clinton, Federal drug prosecutions have slipped--down more than 12 percent since 1992, from 25,033 in 1992 to 21,905 in 1995. I have asked, but the Justice Department has no coherent explanation for these declines. [[Page S 15071]] And who could forget President Clinton's Surgeon General, who remarked, memorably, on the need to consider drug legalization. Perhaps A.M. Rosenthal put it best when he wrote in the August 4, 1995, New York Times that: ``Mr. Clinton's leadership has sometimes seemed to us antidrug types as ranging from absent to lackadaisical.'' Mr. President, the Federal Government has a unique responsibility in attacking the drug trade. Only the Federal Government can interdict drugs before they reach our streets, make drug trafficking more difficult, operate overseas, and mount complex multinational investigations. Every kilogram of cocaine or heroin that gets through makes State and local law enforcement's job more difficult and more dangerous. Today, illicit drugs represent one of the greatest threats to America's future. Drugs contribute to a wide range of devastation affecting all Americans, particularly our children and youth. Drugs directly contribute to violent crime and property crime. The break-up of marriages and families can often be linked to drug use, as can lower productivity in the workplace, poor education, and myriad other societal problems. In fact, if drug use returns to the levels of the 1970's in this country, our ability to control health care costs, reform welfare, improve the academic performance of our school-age children, and reduce crime in our housing projects will all be seriously compromised. Indeed, we stand little chance of success in these battles if we lose further ground in the drug war. This Congress must not allow the American people to think that we condone President Clinton's abdication of responsibility. We must not be complicit through our silence. I believe a revitalized war on drugs would include the following elements: First, do more in Latin America: Fighting drugs at the source just makes sense--we ought to be going after the beehive, not just the bees. Foreign programs are cost-effective. For example, our program in Peru cost just $16 million to run last year. It was very effective in some ways. It would be much more if we put some force behind it. Second, we need to beef up interdiction. Interdiction programs are our first line of defense against smugglers. The administration should allow the Department of Defense to spend more than 0.3 percent of its budget currently devoted to drugs. That is the fiscal year 1995 level. The Coast Guard and Customs interdiction assets need to be restored as well. Third, we have to encourage whoever is President of the United States to use the bully pulpit. President Clinton is our President, and I am hopeful that these remarks today will encourage him to use the bully pulpit to fight against this matter. Only the President can give the drug issue the high profile it deserves. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle should encourage the President to speak out on this issue. Fourth, we need to adjust our budget priorities. This country needs to look more closely at our budget priorities. We should consider reprogramming the surplus of the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office--estimated at up to $1.7 billion--into the drug war. This surplus is more than the combined drug budgets of DEA--the Drug Enforcement Administration--and the FBI. The DEA is $801 million and the FBI is $540 million, respectively, in fiscal year 1995. It is more than the total that we spent on interdiction last year. The fiscal year 1995 interdiction spending was $1.29 billion. But the National Reconnaissance Office has up to $1.7 billion and it ought to be redirected into the drug war. Fifth, we ought to make drug dealers pay. The most immediate effect of drug dealing on our local communities is the degradation of the causes in the quality of life. Some States have laws forcing drug dealers to contribute to a local community impact fund. We need to look into the possibility of doing this on the Federal level. Sixth, reject efforts to lower crack penalties. This May the U.S. Sentencing Commission proposed steep reductions in proposed sentences for crack cocaine dealers. It was irresponsible public policy. It had to be blocked. It was blocked by the full Senate on September 29. The Senate must remain firm to prevent unwarranted reductions in drug penalties. Seventh, we have to fund drug treatment programs that work. The Federal Government permits drug addicts to get disability payments from Social Security, known as SSI payments. And in doing so it undercuts tough but effective treatment programs like Phoenix House. Roughly 20,000 addicts were receiving Social Security disability payments in 1990--payments because of their drug addiction. It should surprise no one to hear that 4 years later only 1 percent had recovered and left the rolls. The Social Security disability system is being reformed, but we need to make sure that loopholes like these do not exist in other areas. These are just a few of the things that we think we should be doing. Later this Congress, I plan to invite Members and policy experts to participate in a national drug summit. I want the Congress to examine policy options which will reverse these crushing increases in drug use in our society. I wish to bring national attention to bear on just how bad our situation has become. I want to revitalize the drug war. In coming months, I will be calling upon a number of colleagues to join in this effort. And by working together, I believe we will be able to reclaim lost ground. I do not come to this issue as a beginner. I have actually seen the ravages of drugs. I have seen them destroy families. I have seen young people, with tremendous potential, who literally were geniuses, who could have done anything they wanted to do in society completely gone, their minds gone because of drugs. I have seen murders and maimings and rapes and abuse, children abused because of drugs. I have seen drugs fund the Mafia and other organized crime groups in this country. We have seen a proliferation of drugs on the streets in the greatest city in this world, Washington, DC. It has become a garbage dump of drugs and drug abuse and drug use and drug peddling. You can go down on some of the streets and see them peddling the drugs. It is pathetic that we allow this to continue to exist. It is going to take all of us, but I am prodding the President. We have been friends. I have helped him in many ways up here, and I intend to continue to try to help him when he is right. But I am prodding him here today to get serious about this, to do something about it. Worry a little bit more about our children. Get out there out front and do the things that really the President ought to be doing to let our society and our people know that drug abuse is a wrongful thing; that it is a harmful thing; that it is a life-destroying thing; that whether the life continues or not, it is destroyed, and many lives actually are destroyed, not just the living but people have died because of drugs and drug overdoses, and it is a health matter. We are paying through the nose in emergency rooms across this country in uncompensated care because of this particular malady that has affected our affluent society, and we have to do something about it. There is nobody in our society who should be able to do it better than whoever is President of the United States. I believe with President Clinton's ability to articulate he could do a very good job, and it would help him with the American people if he would. So I am encouraging him to do this today by pointing out the deficiencies that exist and saying let us quit letting them exist. Let us do something about it. And I hope all of us can work together in encouraging him to do so. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Thank you. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senators Specter and Simon, to maintain the Job Corps as a national program. Now I have to say that I understand what the distinguished Senator from Kansas is trying to do and I generally support her on this bill. With regard to Job Corps, I really do not believe it can work unless it is a national program, because much of the Job Corps Program depends upon the in-resident training. People coming to the actual Job Corps centers, living there, many of these kids culturally deprived, economically deprived, child abuse, kids that are in real trouble. This is the only program that works or that we have, in essence, for hard- core unemployed youth, and it does work. It is expensive. On the other hand, not nearly as expensive as if these kids wind up on welfare or wind up in the drug culture or wind up in the criminal culture of our society. As my colleagues know, Utah is the home of two outstanding Job Corps centers. Wever Basin is a conservation center that is consistently rated in the top 10 centers; Clearfield Jobs Corps Center is run under contract by the Management Training Corps of Ogden, UT, which has a long and stellar history of managing Job Corps programs throughout the United States and has been named contractor of the year by the Labor Department. We are very proud of Utah's contribution to the Job Corps Program. The Job Corps itself is unique. It is unlike education and training programs offered under the Job Training Partnership Act which I helped to author, the Carl Perkins Vocational Act, which I also worked on, or any other Federal initiative. First of all, it is geared to those young people who have failed in traditional settings and whose traditional support systems and often their own families have failed them. Second, the Job Corps is primarily, as I said, a residential program. It is designed specifically to get these young people out of the streets, off the streets, and out of harm's way, away from the influences of gangs and drugs and violence. Job Corps centers can provide clean, structured, positive, environments, and they do. For many young people, it makes little sense for them to spend 8 hours a day in a constructive learning situation only to return at 5 p.m. to abusive homes, pressure from unenlightened peers, or the temptations of drugs and alcohol. Frankly, it would be hard for me to support the Job Corps if it were only another job training program. I think I would have great difficulty. I cannot justify $1 billion to duplicate something that States and local governments are already doing. On that score, I think the Senator from Kansas is absolutely right. We need consolidation, and we need more State and local flexibility. We learned during last year's debate on the crime bill we have over 150 separate job training and youth development programs, all having differing sets of regulations, reporting requirements, and so forth. That is a waste of bureaucracy, pure and simple. I want to commend the Labor and Human Resources Committee for putting together this bill to do something about it. This is a commonsense solution to the proliferation of programs and to the needless expenditure of time and resources just to keep up with the paperwork. But the Job Corps is not just another program. Its residential capability makes it different, and I believe the current national administration of Job Corps is necessary to promote both continuity and accountability. For that reason, I support the Specter-Simon amendment. Another reason for supporting this amendment is it deals honestly and forthrightly with some of the legitimate criticisms that have been raised about Job Corps. Again, I commend Senator Kassebaum for holding thorough oversight hearings on the Job Corps. The results of these hearings as well as the reports from the General Accounting Office and the Labor Department inspector general have identified specific areas in which Job Corps must improve. No program should be immune from congressional inquiry. Any program that is doing its job effectively should welcome such hearings. Should this amendment carry, I encourage the Labor Department to continue its scrutiny of the program in its efforts to improve the identified areas. Those of us who support this amendment to maintain Job Corps as a national program need to make it clear that this is not a hands-off Job Corps vote or license for business as usual. On the contrary, if Job Corps remains a national program, it remains subject to national oversight, including continual progress reports by the GAO and the Labor Department inspector general. In this case, however, the way to address these issues is not throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Specter-Simon amendment makes many important reforms in the Job Corps. [[Page S 14964]] For starters, the amendment ties the Job Corps more closely to the integrated job training system being created by S. 143. This only makes sense. Without making Job Corps a State program, we can make sure that Job Corps programs are coordinated with other State and local efforts. We can also utilize the one-stop career centers to make the Job Corps option more available to young people who could benefit from it. Again, I want to thank Senators Specter and Simon for providing more input for State Governors on this amendment. I believe this change will not only solidify cooperation, but will also be an additional check on Job Corps contractors. I am also encouraged by the codification of Job Corps' guidelines concerning behavior by corps members. The zero-tolerance policy on drugs, alcohol, and violence must be strictly enforced. Of course, it means nothing if it is not. By including these provisions in this amendment, we are giving congressional weight to the efforts of the Department of Labor and individual Job Corps contractors and center directors to ensure the state of Job Corps centers. Nothing less than the viability of the residential center concept is at stake. In short, this is a we-mean-business provision. Students who want to turn their lives around should not have to confront the same negative influences in Job Corps as they left on the streets behind them. Finally, the amendment requires the closure of the 10 worst performing centers. We have too many needs and too little money to continue to prop up consistently poor performing centers. The costs of operating Job Corps centers will continue to go up along with everything else. We must make tough decisions about where to make cuts. It seems to me that one obvious place to look is the bottom rung of the performance ladder. While I applaud the efforts DOL made to enforce performance standards, there are still centers that have such a long way to go--that it is more economical to close them than to conserve resources to maintain program quality at other centers. Mr. President, I believe the Specter-Simon amendment is a balanced response to the criticisms that have been raised about the program, as well as desirable of maintaining the Job Corps as a national program. I urge Senators to support the amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to an exemplary citizen from the State of Utah, Walter T. Stewart, and to recognize his extraordinary service to our Nation in World War II. It is my privilege and honor to report that Walter Stewart is being awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, our Nation's second highest military medal, for his extraordinary heroism and gallantry in the most decorated military battle in U.S. history. At that time, he was a 25-year-old pilot with the 330th Bombardment Squadron, 93rd Bombardment Group, based in the North African city of Benghazi, Libya. A dedicated veteran of the air war, Stewart had already flown 30 dangerous bomber missions. Walter Stewart was skilled and he as courageous. Although only a first lieutenant, he was selected as deputy force leader of a large formation of B-24 heavy bombers assigned to attack the Ploesti oil refineries in Nazi-occupied Romania in a massive low-level assault. The target, 1,200 miles in distance from Libya, was so vital to the Third Reich that it was the most heavily defended stronghold in Europe, well exceeding the defenses of Berlin itself. On August 1, 1943, Stewart's combat unit fearlessly spearheaded the enormous on-rush of 176 American heavy bombers over the Romanian countryside. As the attacking force neared its target, murderous antiaircraft fire erupted from a fully alerted and prepared enemy. The 93rd Bombardment Group heroically pressed on in its attack, defying extremely heavy fire from hundreds of enemy guns and cannons. Only minutes from the target, the force leader's bomber and wingman were shot down in flames, and it fell to Lieutenant Stewart to take command at this perilous moment. Under his leadership, the attacking force swept over the target in waves, at roof-top altitude, and inflicted devastating damage upon its. As the lead aircraft, Lieutenant Stewart's B-24 Utah Man, dropped the first bomb on target. Utah Man sustained heavy battle damage and became separated from the rest of the attacking force. Utah Man had been hit with hundreds of shells and bullets, sustained damage to its cockpit instruments, and was heavily leaking fuel. Yet, Lieutenant Stewart skillfully piloted Utah Man over the long and perilous route over rugged alpine mountains and across the Mediterranean Sea back to its home base in North Africa. Lieutenant Stewart's crew suffered no casualties. On that August day in 1943, 310 men of the 93rd Bombardment Group died, 185 were taken prisoner, and 150 were wounded. Fifty-four aircraft never returned. Sadly, that was a fate that eventually befell Utah Man as well. In November 1943, after Water Stewart's reassignment to the United States, Utah [[Page S 14961]] Man and its crewmen would be lost over Bremen, Germany. Lieutenant Stewart's coolness under fire, excellent judgment under pressure, courageous determination to reach the target, and his magnificent and inspiring leadership were of paramount value in the accomplishment of this dangerous mission. His service was such as to reflect great credit upon himself, the crew members of Utah Man, his home State of Utah, the University of Utah--his affinity for his alma mater is reflected in the name of his plane, his church, and his country. Today, Walter Stewart is a highly cherished member of his church and community, an enormously respected businessman and farmer, a former missionary, a musician, the husband of 51 years to his beloved wife Ruth, a devoted father to his 5 children, and a loving grandfather to his 23 grandchildren. Today, as in 1943, Walter Stewart exemplifies the American qualities of courage, hard work, integrity, and faith. I am proud to serve citizens like Walter Stewart in the Senate and proud to call my colleagues attention to this man's distinguished service to our country. I am delighted that he is finally to be awarded this significant military honor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Parliamentary inquiry. Is it appropriate to send up an amendment?

Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent 2 minutes be given to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. HATCH. If my colleagues would forgo so we can pass this--we are all interested in passing it and establishing once and for all that we have to get rid of frivolous prisoner litigation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our colleague from Arizona--I do not know that there is any opposition to it. In fact, I believe we can probably get this accepted by voice vote. I ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Arizona who has been a major mover in this area, whose attorney general was one of the major causes of this legislation be granted, I ask unanimous consent that 4 minutes be granted to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, and 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, and 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Grassley, Brown, and Helms be added as a cosponsors.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need, and I will try to reserve time for the Senator from Nevada. I am pleased to be joined by the majority leader and Senators Reid, Kyl, Abraham, Gramm, Specter, Hutchison, Thurmond, Santorum, and Grassley in offering this amendment. Our amendment is virtually identical to the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, S. 1279, which we introduced yesterday. This landmark legislation will help bring relief to a civil justice system overburdened by frivolous prisoner lawsuits. Jailhouse lawyers with little better to do are tying our courts in knots with the endless flow of frivolous litigation. Our legislation will also help to restore a balance to prison conditions litigation and will ensure that Federal court orders are limited to remedying actual violations of prisoners' rights, not letting prisoners out of jail. It is time to lock the revolving prison door and to put the key safely out of reach of overzealous Federal courts. As of January 1994, 24 corrections agencies reported having court- mandated population caps. Nearly every day, we hear of vicious crimes committed by individuals who really should have been locked up. Not all of these tragedies are the result of court-ordered population caps, of course, but such caps are a part of the problem. While prison conditions that actually violate the Constitution should not be allowed to persist, I believe that the courts have gone too far in micromanaging our Nation's prisons. Our legislation also addresses the flood of frivolous lawsuits brought by inmates. In 1994, over 39,000 lawsuits were filed by inmates in Federal courts, a staggering 15 percent over the number filed the previous year. The vast majority of these suits are completely without merit. Indeed, roughly 94.7 percent are dismissed before the pretrial phase, and only a scant 3.1 percent have enough validity to even reach trial. In my own home State of Utah, 297 inmate suits were filed in Federal courts during 1994, which accounted for 22 percent of all Federal civil cases filed in Utah last year. I should emphasize that these numbers [[Page S 14627]] do not include habeas corpus petitions or other cases challenging the inmate's conviction or sentence. The crushing burden of these frivolous suits makes it difficult for the courts to consider meritorious claims. Indeed, I do not want to prevent inmates from raising legitimate claims. This legislation will not prevent those claims from being raised. The legislation will, however, go far in preventing inmates from abusing the Federal judicial system. In one frivolous case in Utah, for example, an inmate sued demanding that he be issued Reebok or L.A. Gear brand shoes instead of the Converse brand being issued. In another case, an inmate deliberately flooded his cell and then sued the officers who cleaned up the mess because they got his pinochle cards wet. And in a third case, from Utah, a prisoner sued officers after a cell search, claiming that they failed to put his cell back in a fashionable condition, and mixed his clean and dirty clothes. Mr. President, these examples from my State are far from unique. I believe each of my colleagues could report numerous similar examples from their States as well, and we had a number of attorneys general here yesterday who gave us a whole raft of bizarre incidents and litigation. It is time to stop this ridiculous waste of taxpayers' money. The huge costs imposed on State governments to defend against these meritless suits is another kind of crime committed against law-abiding citizens. Mr. President, this legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support from States attorneys general from across the Nation. We believe, with them, that it is time to wrest control of our prisons from the lawyers and the inmates and return that control to competent administrators appointed to look out for society's interests as well as the legitimate needs of prisoners. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I look forward to securing its quick passage by the Senate. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Nevada.

Mr. HATCH. This is the prison litigation reform amendment to do away with frivolous lawsuits. It should not take a lot of time, and if there is a second-degree amendment, we will just have to face that when that happens.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment take a half hour equally divided on both sides.

Mr. HATCH. I ask my colleague if we can do it in a half hour equally divided.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to correct a matter that arose in yesterday's discussion on the nomination of Justice Dennis. As the committee investigation found, a case can be made that Justice Dennis should have recused himself and that he should have notified the committee of the problem. My staff has told me that it communicated these conclusions to interested Senators. But my staff has informed me that it never presented any conclusions to Senators concerning what the committee would have done had it known of the Times-Picayune information before it reported the nomination to the floor. I can appreciate how some might have misinterpreted these findings but I wanted to make the matter clear for the record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Breaux, I rise today to introduce the Qualified Football Coaches Plan Technical Corrections Act of 1995. We are joined in this effort by Senators Lugar, and Cochran. As the title indicates, this bill is a technical correction to ensure the proper qualification of a retirement plan for many of America's college football coaches. All of us in this body are in favor of encouraging retirement saving. However, the retirement plan set up for many of these football coaches is in serious jeopardy. Mr. President, let me explain what brought us to the point we are today on this issue. In 1987, Congress recognized the unique aspects of the coaching profession and passed legislation to permit the American Football Coaches Association [AFCA] to set up and maintain a qualified cash and deferred arrangement under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. The bill amended Title I of ERISA to permit such a plan to be treated as a qualified multiemployer plan. Due to the frequency with which football coaches change jobs, legislation was needed to assist them in maintaining a retirement plan that is adequately portable. In reliance on this legislation, the American Football Coaches Association, which represents over 4,400 college football coaches at 676 schools, sponsored a 401(k) plan for its members that today has over 500 participants. However, on the same day this legislation was passed, Congress was involved in addressing another problem contained in ERISA that was unrelated to the football coaches retirement plan. The problem was an unfavorable Tax Court ruling that held that the ERISA standard regarding employer withdrawals from pension plans, rather than the standard under the Internal [[Page S 14745]] Revenue Code of 1986, applied for purposes of interpreting the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, Congress, in an attempt to reject the holding of the Tax Court as it applied to Title I of ERISA, included a provision stating that Title I and Title IV of ERISA are not appicable in interpreting the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This, of course, had the unintended consequence of deeming the football coaches retirement plan an invalid plan for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. Following the creation of the retirement plan, the coaches association asked the Internal Revenue Service to confirm the tax qualified status of the retirement plan. On three separate occasions, Mr. President, the Internal Revenue Service issued determination letters confirming the tax qualified status of the plan for years 1988, 1989, and 1991. It was not until 1992 that the Internal Revenue Service determined that the 1987 provision invalidates what Congress did in Title I of ERISA to authorize the coaches 401(k) plan. In that year, the IRS changed its position on the exempt status of the coaches' retirement plan and indicated it would revoke the determination letters unless clarifying legislation is passed. The horrible result will be a forced termination of the plan by the end of 1995 which will impose a substantial cost on the football coaches and leave them without a retirement plan. Mr. President, the original enacting legislation in 1987 was a bipartisan effort cosponsored by 34 Members of the Senate and 151 Members in the House. This clarifying legislation is also a bipartisan effort. This bill eliminate the uncertainty that these coaches have been forced to live with since 1988. Mr. President, I have requested the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate the revenue impact of this bill. The Joint Committee concluded that this change is technical in nature and would have no revenue impact. However, I do want to point out that if this change is not made, hundreds of coaches will risk the loss of retirement benefits. This is not the message we should send to those who follow in good faith, the actions of a prior Congress. I wish to commend the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is the right thing to do and is long overdue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Breaux, I rise today to introduce the Qualified Football Coaches Plan Technical Corrections Act of 1995. We are joined in this effort by Senators Lugar, and Cochran. As the title indicates, this bill is a technical correction to ensure the proper qualification of a retirement plan for many of America's college football coaches. All of us in this body are in favor of encouraging retirement saving. However, the retirement plan set up for many of these football coaches is in serious jeopardy. Mr. President, let me explain what brought us to the point we are today on this issue. In 1987, Congress recognized the unique aspects of the coaching profession and passed legislation to permit the American Football Coaches Association [AFCA] to set up and maintain a qualified cash and deferred arrangement under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. The bill amended Title I of ERISA to permit such a plan to be treated as a qualified multiemployer plan. Due to the frequency with which football coaches change jobs, legislation was needed to assist them in maintaining a retirement plan that is adequately portable. In reliance on this legislation, the American Football Coaches Association, which represents over 4,400 college football coaches at 676 schools, sponsored a 401(k) plan for its members that today has over 500 participants. However, on the same day this legislation was passed, Congress was involved in addressing another problem contained in ERISA that was unrelated to the football coaches retirement plan. The problem was an unfavorable Tax Court ruling that held that the ERISA standard regarding employer withdrawals from pension plans, rather than the standard under the Internal [[Page S 14745]] Revenue Code of 1986, applied for purposes of interpreting the Internal Revenue Code. Thus, Congress, in an attempt to reject the holding of the Tax Court as it applied to Title I of ERISA, included a provision stating that Title I and Title IV of ERISA are not appicable in interpreting the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. This, of course, had the unintended consequence of deeming the football coaches retirement plan an invalid plan for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. Following the creation of the retirement plan, the coaches association asked the Internal Revenue Service to confirm the tax qualified status of the retirement plan. On three separate occasions, Mr. President, the Internal Revenue Service issued determination letters confirming the tax qualified status of the plan for years 1988, 1989, and 1991. It was not until 1992 that the Internal Revenue Service determined that the 1987 provision invalidates what Congress did in Title I of ERISA to authorize the coaches 401(k) plan. In that year, the IRS changed its position on the exempt status of the coaches' retirement plan and indicated it would revoke the determination letters unless clarifying legislation is passed. The horrible result will be a forced termination of the plan by the end of 1995 which will impose a substantial cost on the football coaches and leave them without a retirement plan. Mr. President, the original enacting legislation in 1987 was a bipartisan effort cosponsored by 34 Members of the Senate and 151 Members in the House. This clarifying legislation is also a bipartisan effort. This bill eliminate the uncertainty that these coaches have been forced to live with since 1988. Mr. President, I have requested the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate the revenue impact of this bill. The Joint Committee concluded that this change is technical in nature and would have no revenue impact. However, I do want to point out that if this change is not made, hundreds of coaches will risk the loss of retirement benefits. This is not the message we should send to those who follow in good faith, the actions of a prior Congress. I wish to commend the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux, for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It is the right thing to do and is long overdue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator D'Amato, I rise today to introduce the Real Estate Investment Trust Tax Simplification Act of 1995, legislation to simplify and reform the tax law concerning Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs]. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House by Representative E. Clay Shaw, Jr. along with many other Representatives. REITs were designed to allow small investors to invest in large real estate projects that they otherwise could not afford to enter including apartment buildings, office buildings, shopping centers, malls, warehouses, etc. Real Estate Investment Trusts have become a very popular from of investment as indicated by the fact that the market capitalization in the whole industry has risen from $9 billion in 1991 to over $50 billion today. Mr. President, if a REIT properly follows all of the rules, it is not normally taxed at the entity level, but passes through most items of income to the shareholders to report on their own individual tax returns. However, there are many complexities and uncertainties-- minefields, if you will, for the unwary that can inadvertently penalize investors and even the general public in some circumstances. This bill is designed to alleviate these minefields. Let me share with my colleagues an example of one of these minefields. Under the current rules, in order to gain the benefits of REIT taxation, the investment has to be passive in nature. Hence, the normal procedure is for the REIT to buy the underlying property and lease it out to tenants. However, the REIT must be careful not to provide directly to the tenants any services that are not customary in the real estate business. If this rule is violated, severe consequences can follow. For example, under a literal interpretation of the law, if a REIT that operates a retail mall provides wheelchairs to the customers of the retail tenants, or even assist the tenant in moving into it space, the entity's very status as a REIT could be placed in jeopardy. This is ridiculous and needs to be changed. Another unnecessary rule, Mr. President, could conceivably cause an entire community to lost its health care facility. Let me explain. Under the current law, if an operator of a health care facility owned by a REIT defaults on its rent payments to the REIT, that health care facility could be shut down for a long period of time, even though there may be other health care operators willing and able to take over the facility. Why? Because current law basically prohibits the REIT from operating the facility itself and, at the same time, artificially reduces the pool of potential operators that can run the health care facility without causing undue tax problems to the REIT and its owners. This potential problem faces many REITs and many communities inasmuch as REITs currently own about $10 billion of investments in health care facilities around the nation. This bill will eliminate the perverse incentive to shut down such critical facilities in the unfortunate case of foreclosure. Mr. President, this bill also relaxes some of the current law's onerous penalties for failing to perform some record keeping requirements. Currently a REIT could lose its favored tax status simply by failing to send out or receive back shareholder demand letters for the purpose of verifying the fact that no five or fewer parties own controlling interests in the REIT. So, even though the REIT in fact meets this test, Mr. President, simply by failing to have on file sufficient shareholder letters substantiating this fact, all of the REIT shareholders could face the extremely harsh penalty of REIT disqualification and double taxation. Rather than penalizing the REIT so severely for this oversight, Mr. president, this bill would impose a $25,000 penalty for failure to comply with this requirement, if the failure is inadvertent in nature. The penalty would rise to $50,000 in the case of willful noncompliance. I believe my colleagues would agree that this approach makes much more sense that the current rules since it serves as an adequate incentive to keep the appropriate records without causing the unsuspecting, innocent investors severe and unnecessary personal tax penalties. Mr. President, this bill also addresses other problems that are detailed in the summary of the bill that I ask unanimous consent to be included in the Record after my remarks. This bill is not controversial and will have a negligible effect on revenues, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. It is important to note that this bill is endorsed by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, which represents a high percentage of the REIT industry. Whenever we can do things to simplify the tax code without causing substantial [[Page S 14746]] revenue loss or negative policy consequences, we should do it. Mr. President, this is an opportunity for us to do just that in the area of Real Estate Investment Trusts. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in reforming and simplifying the tax law regarding this very difficult and complex area of the law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a detailed summary of its provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I concur in Senator Grassley's analysis of the actions taken by the Appropriations Committee regarding race and gender bias studies. I rise to add that these studies have been ill-conceived, deeply flawed and divisive. In my view, they threaten the independence of the Federal judiciary. In the D.C. Circuit, for instance, the gender bias study was so controversial, and so poorly carried out, that a majority of judges on the D.C. Circuit have formally disavowed the study. [[Page S 14692]] Professor Stephen Thernstrom of Harvard University has investigated these studies and found them to be methodologically biased and flawed. There are to be no funds expended on these studies in the future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I share the concerns of other Senators, including Senators D'Amato and Biden, regarding the DARE program. DARE is a well-managed law enforcement program that is run by DARE America. DARE is very popular with citizens and police officers across the country. Salt Lake City police chief Ruben Ortega says DARE officers ``may be the most visible symbol of drug prevention in our community.'' The DARE program uses police officers to teach students how to resist pressure to experiment with drugs and alcohol. DARE is taught in 60 percent of America's schools, and involves over 20,000 police officers in all 50 States. Unlike some prevention programs, DARE is truly a grassroots program. Most of its assistance comes in the form of in-kind contributions of personnel and supplies. Less than 1 percent of DARE's budget is direct federal money [$1.85 out of $257 million in fiscal year 1995]. DARE needs that direct support, however, to run its five regional training centers. DARE has been around for years, but recent headlines make the need for it especially clear. Tuesday we learned that drug use among young people has almost doubled in the past 2 years. According to former HEW Secretary Joseph Califano, more young people know that cigarettes are harmful than think marijuana is harmful. That kind of alarming statistic argues for renewed diligence in this area.

Mr. HATCH. That is an appropriate amount, in my judgment. The DARE program will also be eligible, I believe, to receive block grant funding under provisions of the Neighborhood Safety Act. I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank my colleague from Texas for his efforts and leadership on this issue, and for his support for law enforcement as well.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that would allow for continued participation by the United States in the International Labor Organization, or the ILO. The report language for this bill recommends prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to pay for U.S. membership in the ILO. This was the position stated in the State Department authorization bill introduced earlier this year. Mr. President, I cannot support U.S. withdrawal from what I believe to be one of the more effective specialized agencies of the United Nations, the ILO. Our amendment is budget neutral--it simply allows that funds appropriated under the international organizations account may be made available for the ILO. I am honored to be joined in this effort by the distinguished Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan. Senator Moynihan probably knows more of the history of the ILO than any individual in this body. My esteemed colleague wrote his dissertation on the ILO 35 years ago. He was the chairman of the hearings held on the five conventions passed since 1988, and was the floor manager for the ratification debates. I have always been grateful that we could work together to strengthen our nation's role in the ILO. I am also pleased to have as cosponsors of this amendment Senators Stevens, Jeffords, Pell, Harkin, Sarbanes. Because the ILO represents one of the most solid collaborations to address international human rights that has ever been institutionalized, support for it has always been bipartisan. But today some are reconsidering the utility of the ILO. Perhaps part of the reason is because it is associated with the U.N., which has done much to earn criticism in recent years. I remind my colleagues, however, that the ILO--and U.S. participation in it--precedes the creation of the United Nations. When the United Nations was formed, the ILO had been around for a quarter of a century. The ILO became the United Nations first specialized agency. The ILO was founded as an organization that would represent governments, labor, and employers in a mission to improve the working conditions of people worldwide. This exceptional international organization works to accomplish these goals by, first, setting international standards in the form of conventions and recommendations that it supervises; second, supporting economic development, including employment creation, through technical assistance programs; third, analyzing workplace problems and issues through research; and fourth, highlighting workplace abuses through public criticism. The ILO is based on a system of compliance: with its conventions, which are similar to treaties, and with its recommendations, which are policy guidelines. It uses persuasion, not confrontation, to effect the improvement of labor standards worldwide. Where it challenges abuses of men, women, or children in the workplace, it operates with what has been referred to as ``the mobilization of shame.'' As such, the ILO is as much a human rights organization as it is an organization to promote labor standards. And this is an important point, Mr. President. It is worthwhile noting that, because it combines technical assistance programs for developing employment and maintaining labor standards with its annual criticisms of abuses of workers, the ILO has been called the most effective human rights organization in the world. Some have questioned the relevance of the ILO in today's world, questioning its structure and role. But five former secretaries of labor--3 from Republican administrations, 2 from Democratic administrations-- [[Page S 14672]] have spoken out recently in favor of continuing support for the ILO. Every secretary of labor has credited the ILO with defending and improving labor conditions worldwide. I believe that the on-going mission of the ILO is more important today than ever before, and that its tripartite approach--involving private sector business and labor representatives alongside governments--is the strength that makes the ILO extremely relevant around the world. Throughout central Europe, for example, we are seeing a remarkable transition from centrally planned economies to democratic marketplaces. If the economic transition falters, we know that political stability will be threatened. But the shift has created an incredible challenge to those societies in terms of accepting new norms of behavior and exchange. We cannot ignore the suspicions that many in the region still hold about capitalism--suspicions driven by old, socialist mentalities or new insecurities as a result of economic dislocation. The ILO's tripartite structure--demonstrating the compatibility and progress that come when governments, labor, and employers work together--provides the best credibility to societies who have previously held antagonistic views toward such voluntary cooperation. This credibility allows the ILO to participate in helping to establish the labor standards in countries where governments may be reluctant, businesses may be suspicious and labor may be exploited. This credibility drawn from its tripartite approach helps secure the economic institutions necessary for these countries to succeed as free- market democracies. In central Europe, the ILO was there during the dark days, and its dedicated support of Solidarity under communism is perhaps its best known case. The historic role the ILO played in supporting Solidarity during its years underground is still credited by international democrats as critical in the triumph of democracy in that country. But its role continues now that these countries have come into the light of freedom and the ILO works to institutionalize the values we believe make the marketplace fair and benign. President Lech Walesa has appealed to the leaders of the Senate to continue their support for the ILO, which President Walesa says ``operates on behalf of all those who have been fighting tyranny around the world.'' I completely agree with President Walesa when he says that ``The future of the ILO without the engagement of your country is difficult to imagine.'' The ILO addresses the most driving dynamic within and among nations today: the relentless need for economic development. Among developing countries in particular, the need for economic development is the single factor that determines whether these countries can maintain social stability and political evolution. And the most important component in economic development is job creation. When nations can't create jobs for their people, poverty and instability result. Over the past decades, nations around the world have recognized that trade promotes growth and employment. Mr. President, I am a strong believer in free trade. For developed nations, trade with the less developed world is increasingly a factor that drives our economies. But we know that amidst our debates on free and open trade remains the concern of competing with low-wage economies, where--and we must concur with the critics of free trade here--the lack of labor standards can contribute to unfair advantages. In this country, we have wrestled and debated over this issue recently during the NAFTA and GATT debates. I am very sympathetic to this criticism, Mr. President. I have always thought that we can take two approaches to this question: We can either restrict our trade with developing nations, which I believe would be extremely counterproductive--both for us and for them. Or we can address the issues of labor practices in a productive way. In addressing the issue of unfair labor practices, we have two approaches. We can seek to force labor standards on trading partners through unilateral confrontation and linkages, which I believe can be counterproductive and could lead to increases in protectionism. Or we can work with these nations to raise their standards. The ILO provides the multilateral forum where we can work with nations to improve labor conditions. It is the only international organization that can serve this critical challenge. Since its inception in 1919, the ILO has set international standards for labor conditions. These standards have been incorporated into national legislation throughout the world, including, for example, our Trade Act of 1974, which uses standards defined by the ILO. I believe that by continuing to support the ILO we have the best mechanism to promote labor standards in the developing world, thereby supporting fair trade. The ILO works for us so that we do not suffer the disadvantages of competing with nations who believe they can continue to abuse their labor populations for profit. Mr. President, I must stress that the ILO has strong labor and business support in this country. The U.S Council for International Business, which is an affiliate of the International Chamber of Commerce and represents U.S. business in the ILO, has been very outspoken about the need for our continued support for the ILO: In a letter it has sent to Members of this body, it has argued, and I quote: ``For American businesses, there are three critical reasons why the United States should continue its participation in the ILO: To support its technical assistance and employment policy activities, which promote job creation, enterprise development, and flexible labor markets, thus reducing protectionism encountered by American companies in developing countries and newly emerging economies. To ensure that American companies continue to have a voice in setting international labor standards that have an impact on their operations and profitability. To promote the rights of workers and oversee adherence to good labor practices, which we believe is an acceptable alternative to using trade sanctions to promote these rights. As the Business Roundtable said in a recent statement to Congress: . . . the United States should upgrade its participation in the ILO . . . rather than seek to address international labor standards in the World Trade Organization. The ILO plays a role in employment creation, institution building, and the promotion of trade. With its research programs, the ILO provides highly technical information on labor and employment trends and issues. With its many programs of technical assistance, the ILO provides on-the-ground programs to help advance labor law, design social security schemes, establish employer associations, and provide industrial retraining. And by promoting its labor standards, the ILO works to ensure that the labor content of the goods and services flowing within and among nations meets minimum standards. Some have argued that such programs are just a taxpayer supported means for imposing labor and social policies on other nations that do not even serve low-skilled workers in the United States. But the ILO does not impose. It offers flexibility in working with other nations under the aim of promoting fully minimally international labor standards. Its goal is to ensure that U.S. industry--and U.S. workers--will not be displaced because other countries gain unfair trade advantages through labor exploitation. Mr. President, the ILO is the voice for freedom of association, freedom from forced labor, equality of treatment in employment, and the elimination of child labor. We should speak with this voice, Mr. President, because the ILO represents our values. We believe in human rights, Mr. President, and we believe that we must work to improve human rights around the world. In promoting human rights, it has always been difficult to achieve the balance between idealistic pronouncements and practical policies. The ILO achieves this balance in practice. [[Page S 14673]] Every year, during its annual conference, the ILO levels its criticism against nations that violate workers' rights. In this year's conference, the governments of Nigeria and Burma were singled out. In the past, Bangladesh, China, Cuba have been criticized for violations. Mr. President, the abuses in these nations are our concerns. The ILO estimates that as many as 200 million children worldwide are working in jobs that are dangerous, unhealthy and inhumane. The ILO has responded with its International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor, for which Congress appropriated $2.1 million grant in 1994. This program has initiated global research to develop a comprehensive statistical rendering of the extent of this problem. But the ILO has gone beyond research to work on implementing solutions: It set standards on minimum age for employment in its Convention No. 138. And it works with other international organizations to address these critical problems. For example: In Pakistan, ILO involvement has contributed to that country abolishing its bonded labor system and discharging all bonded labor from any obligation. The ILO continues to monitor the situation of child labor in that country. In Bangladesh, the ILO recently played a key role in getting government and producers to monitor new regulations limiting the use of children in the carpet industries and providing alternate education programs. This recent development resulted in the U.S. Child Labor Coalition calling off a planned boycott. Mr. President, the abuse of children in the workplace around the world is a concern to most Americans. The ILO is working on solutions. Through most of this country's association with the ILO, it has had bipartisan support. It has had the support of all U.S. Secretaries of Labor since our entry in 1934. It has the support of AFL-CIO. It has the support of the U.S. Council for International Business. How much more bipartisan can you get? Finally, Mr. President, it is important, in this day, to mention budgets. The administration requested $64 million to pay this year's contribution to the ILO. Every Member in this Congress has had to face unpleasant choices about cutting budgets. I do not believe that our international activities should be immune from such considerations. Our international contributions are going to have to be subject to the same fiscal restraints we will be applying to our domestic programs. Following on last week's Foreign Operations bill, where we successfully scaled back some of our international obligations, the figures in this bill clearly represent this hard-headed approach. I am very pleased to note that the ILO has recognized the realities we must face and that, in their June conference, they began to discuss further cost-saving measures to compensate for expected shortfalls. One last assurance for those who are still reticent to support the ILO. The United States is not bound by any of its conventions unless we choose to ratify them. The U.S. cedes none of its sovereignty to the ILO. We bow to no decision, pronouncement, or convention with which we disagree or which are not in our country's interests. But, in fact, the ILO can play a key role in facilitating American values abroad; it is an organization for promoting our values. Mr. President, infusing all our debates these days is how to participate in a post-Cold War world. One of the questions we must face is: how should we work with international organizations? This is an especially critical question, considering the overreliance some hold for multilateral approaches to everything from war-making to peacekeeping. Mr. President, when I think of which international organizations we should support, the answer is simple: Those that promote our values and our goals. The International Labor Organization is such an organization. It promotes our values of fairness and human rights in the work place. It promotes our goals to improve the economic conditions of nations around the world, because it promotes our belief that economic growth is a positive-sum game, and when workers benefit in one part of the world, we all benefit.