Rod Grams

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I will also keep my statement very short. Mr. President, I also strongly support Senator Lugar's amendment to include the Enhancement of Trade, Security and Human Rights through Sanctions Reform Act to the agriculture appropriations. Consistent with our commitment yesterday to help American farmers, I believe this is the appropriate time to consider this important amendment that will help us think about the consequences of unilateral sanctions before they are imposed, either by the Congress or by the President. As you have heard, this amendment does not prohibit the Congress or the administration from imposing Unilateral sanctions, but it forces us to think before we act. It is easy to look like we are combatting various problems such as human rights abuses, religious persecution, nuclear proliferation, child labor, etcetera, by imposing unilateral sanctions. But it is not so easy to determine the negative effect they will have. It is my opinion that unilateral sanctions do not work. They do not force countries to adopt our policies, or our standards. Therefore, they wind up doing nothing but hurting our American farmers and workers who lose export opportunities to the affected nations. Senator Lugar's amendment, which I have also cosponsored in its bill form, establishes procedures by which we can analyze the impact of the sanctions--first, whether they----

Mr. GRAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. GRAMS. Thank you very much. I rise this evening to strongly support the amendment by Senators Dodd, Warner, Roberts, Hagel, and myself, which would exclude food and medicine sales from existing trade sanctions. As one who has growing concern about the use of unilateral sanctions to accomplish various foreign policy and other goals, I am very pleased tonight that we are considering this very important measure. Food and medicine should not be used as a weapon in our disputes with leaders of other countries. As we have seen repeatedly, and as we have heard repeatedly on the floor of the Senate here tonight, withholding food and medicine does nothing but hurt the people whom we are trying to help in these countries. The leaders, such as Fidel Castro, are always going to have access to these necessities. They are going to get the food, the shelter, the medicine, the care that they need. But inclusion of food and medicine in embargoes or in sanctions only makes the choices fewer for the residents of those countries and the prices higher for the average citizen. I simply do not believe that anyone in this body can tell me this is a prudent policy in any country of the world. As just referred to here a few moments ago, somehow we are blaming the U.S. Senate or the United States for the problems in countries such as Cuba. We do not blame the United States for the bad economy. We know that that is Cuba's problem. That is Fidel Castro's making and his problem. But we are here tonight trying only to address the needs of the peoples of those countries and do it in a very humanitarian way, and not to use food and medicine as a weapon in our foreign policy arsenal. It was also said by the Senator from Florida just a few moments ago-- he said that we should have held hearings on a bill like this, that we should not be writing this kind of an amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate tonight. But I think he knows very well that Senator Dodd and I, for many weeks, tried to schedule hearings. I am the subcommittee chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction in the Banking Committee over this bill. We requested numerous times--we held meetings with opponents of this legislation trying to get a time when we could hold the hearing to bring out the concerns and to help write legislation and bring it out to the floor of the Senate. Those who are opponents of this bill are not only opposed to it tonight, but they have been opposed to it and would not allow us--now, I do not know how often that happens, but the opportunity to even hold a hearing was blocked. There have been many, many, many other attempts and meetings to try to hold a hearing on this very bill, this very amendment, and to try to work out the differences that we might have. But for those who will say that food and medicine can still be donated as well under these embargoes, I respond by stating that the licensing process that donators have to go through is so time-consuming and it is so cumbersome that it simply is a process that does not work. What has resulted is fewer donations. Improving the distribution system is not going to work as well. We need the certainty of free market sales, unencumbered by Government regulations or dictation and direction. Certainly, we do not need the Congress to be involved in implementing food and medicine distribution in any countries, as has been suggested here in the past. We need to help our farmers and medical supply companies preserve their excellent reputations globally. Why earn them the reputation again of being an unreliable supplier by continuing to include them in our sanctions? American farmers are still suffering from the effects of the Russian grain embargo from the late 1970s. As we heard, they got the reputation of being unreliable suppliers. And it hurt the farm economy for many, many years following that. You have heard the statistic often in the past few days--over 60 sanctions have been imposed by this Congress and by this administration. They are based on the laws that we have passed. They target some 70 countries, and the numbers affect from one-third to two- thirds of the world's population. It is no wonder that our agricultural producers and most of the business community have united to oppose these unilateral sanctions. Why would other countries consider us reliable suppliers in the future if we continue to have this kind of a record, to hurt ourselves, to hurt our economy, to hurt our jobs, and not to accomplish the goals we have? If these sanctions, or these unilateral sanctions, could produce the very type of reforms that we were asking or that we thought should be made, I think everybody in this Senate would line up behind it and vote for it tonight. But over 30 years we have seen that these types of sanctions and embargoes just do not work. All they do is have the exact opposite effect of hurting our farmers, our businesses, our jobs, our economy, and they also do not provide the type of health and humanitarian relief to the people of these countries suffering under these types of regimes. Why would other countries consider us reliable suppliers in the future if we continue this kind of record? Right now we have pending, just pending, 26 unilateral sanctions--unilateral, just the United States, nobody else coming into this. When we talk about the Iraq sanctions and how we have lifted and allowed them to sell oil to meet some of their needs with food and medicine, that was a world community effort that put pressure to allow this to happen. We cannot get our allies to support this type of sanctions or embargo. The world community doesn't support it. Many in the Senate do not support it. There are 11 other bills that could target an unlimited number of countries, as well. One is the pending religious persecution sanctions bill which alone targets over another 100 countries. Now, in my judgment, sanctions will only accomplish their intended goal if they are applied, again, multilaterally. Anything short of that is bound to fail. The only result, then, again, is that our farmers, our workers, are going to suffer, not the leaders. Fidel Castro is not going to suffer. Fidel Castro is not going to move out of that office one day sooner because of these sanctions. In fact, he has probably stayed in office much too long because of this type of action. This is an important amendment which follows the commitment that we made yesterday, and that is to try to help our farmers and other businesses expand markets abroad. I urge my colleagues to strongly support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, which includes essential funding to support our American farmers, the most competitive farmers in the world. It is imperative that the Agriculture Appropriations be passed out of the Senate quickly, as our farmers will be forced to pay dearly for any delays. The bill includes vital funding for scab research. This is an essential project to counter what has become a major threat to wheat and barley farmers. The bill includes many other important bio-genetic projects as well. Long-term basic research is fundamental and must remain a priority. This bill also continues the crucial tools to help our farmers promote their commodities at home and throughout the world. The bill funds the Foreign Agricultural Service, which is a necessary component in successfully identifying and reaching foreign markets. The Service coordinates the formulation of trade policies and programs with the goal of enhancing world markets for U.S. agricultural products. Included are the CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program; the PL-480; the Export Enhancement Program; the Market Access Program, and others. The bill also includes full funding of the Federal Crop Insurance program, the major risk management tool to come out of Freedom to Farm. Today we will debate several amendments that are being touted as a remedy to the current farm crisis that some states in the Upper Midwest, including Minnesota, are currently facing. I do not want to downplay the problems faced by Northern Minnesota farmers. Farmers are hurting, but we must look for the best ways to help them promote long-term solutions rather than take a costly political approach. There are multiple factors which have contributed to and exacerbated the current circumstances facing many of our Upper Midwest farmers. They include the Asian financial crisis, plant diseases, and surpluses accompanied by low commodity prices. The combined effect has been enough to put some farmers out of business, despite the fact that the Market Transition Payments in the FAIR Act have provided our producers with a much greater safety net than the deficiency payments they would have received under the old program. The current crisis cries out for an immediate answer--a quick-fix. Scrap the intent of the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act, some of my colleagues are suggesting, and go back to the old-style, government-directed farm policy we fought so hard to change. Surely it is heart-wrenching to watch our neighbors lose their livelihoods, but is the approach of the Minority amendments the right one? Will it help farmers in the long run? I do not think so. These proposals will not alleviate the problems. That much should be obvious. These are serious problems and require serious legislative proposals What the situation demands is more deliberate, long-range attention. Furthermore, these proposals like a serious misdiagnosis exacerbate the problem, not only for farming generations to come but for the very farmers they would supposedly serve. One amendment would be to extend the loan rates in order to allow farmers the discretion of waiting for higher prices. Sadly, this looks like a sure-fire method to lower commodity prices even further. Extending the loan for an additional six months would give a farmer incentive to hold onto the remainder of last year's crop, while at the same time pulling in a new harvest--most likely a very large harvest. The effects are obvious--an increased amount of grain on the market, which pushes prices down. There are other costs to this approach. Grain storage and transportation issues continue to play a role in the overall problem. Extending the loan rate will only make matters worse in that farmers who hold onto their grain longer must have a place to store it, taking up more space in the elevators. There must also be enough rail cars to ship it. This also drives prices down. Another ill-fated proposal would raise the cap on government market loan rates. Again, we must beware of proposals--like extending the loan rates--that would influence the market in such a way as to create market distortions. That is just what this proposal would do. It would create more commodity than the market could stand without devaluing it. If loan caps are lifted, it tends to encourage a rational farmer to withhold grain from the market, leading to more government-owned grain. This also drives prices down. Yet another proposal would authorize $500 million in payments to farmers who have suffered repeated crop failures. But we decided to avoid these types of measures in favor of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, and similar risk management measures included in the Freedom to Farm Act. And certainly $500 million spread over a number of hard- hit states is not going to be enough to make a real difference for farmers, even over the short-term. The better alternative is to continue to improve the FCIP. It is not difficult to put these band-aid proposals into perspective. What is hard is the fact that they are being billed as steps that would immediately help individuals who have supposedly been hurt by Freedom to Farm, giving them false hope for relief--a magic elixir for suffering farmers that won't work. With the benefits of Freedom to Farm we agreed to accept the kind of market cycles other industries suffer. When the cycle turns down, we must look at the best way to reverse the downward cycle through sound government policies. We must continue our efforts to seek new markets for our agriculture products, and to seek alternative uses for them as well. We can replenish the IMF, pass Fast Track negotiating authority, pursue unfair trade practices, and continue MFN for China. We can oppose unilateral sanctions. As Chairman of the International Finance Subcommittee of the Banking Committee, I worked with Senator Hagel to pass the replenishment of the IMF in the Senate. I regret it is still held up on the House side. Without this kind of multilateral assistance, we cannot provide the assistance needed to address the kind of crises we face in Asia, Russia and many other areas. I urge the Administration to work out the differences we have surrounding this issue in the House so we can continue this kind of crucial assistance. Fast Track negotiating authority is necessary to pursue new trade agreements with other nations that will improve access for agriculture and other products. While the Administration indicated it would pursue this authority this year, that appears to no longer be a priority this year. Yet, this authority would open markets to relieve some of the commodity pricing pressure in the Upper Midwest. I have joined Senator Hagel and others today in requesting Senator Lott to bring up Fast Track this year as one of our top priorities. Continuing MFN for China is another top priority of mine as well as the agricultural community. China is a major market for the United States, now, and even more in the future. Those who want to hold agriculture hostage to solving many unrelated problems in China are very shortsighted. Not only do we risk United States exports in the short term, but the long term as well as the United States earns the reputation of an unreliable supplier. Engagement through trade and contact with the Chinese leaders and people is what gains us progress on human rights, religious persecution and other issues--not cutting off those relations. Mr. President, I was pleased we passed the Farmer Relief Act last week to exclude agriculture products from India-Pakistan sanctions. We should have gone further to provide waiver authority and exclude all the economic sanctions, but that battle will be fought another day. It is clear to me that agriculture sales should not be included in any sanction, and I will continue to support efforts to eliminate agriculture from current sanctions as well as to prevent our farmers from being targeted in these largely political battles. Farmers still painfully recall the Russian grain embargo and other unilateral sanctions that continue to shut off important markets. Cutting off agriculture sales only hurts the people of the targeted country--not the government we aim to punish. I am a co-sponsor of the Dodd bill to remove agriculture sales from current Cuba unilateral sanctions. The same arguments we make against other agriculture sanctions apply here as well. It is time to make this humanitarian, important change in the embargo. I also am a co-sponsor of the Africa trade bill which I believe will help our farmers in the long term as we work to expand trade opportunities in that continent. All of these current and pending sanctions--61 current and many pending--cry out for passage of the Lugar Sanctions Reform Bill, which I have co-sponsored. This will ensure that not only will we have a sound basis to ensure that sanctions will have their desired effect before we pass them, but also that they do not impose a higher cost to our economy than we can bear. This legislation should be noncontroversial, and it should be passed immediately. Mr. President, I am convinced that pursuing trade policies that open markets, not close them, will go a very long way in bringing higher prices to farmers in my state and others. I challenge my colleagues who have supported legislation to close markets abroad to take a closer look at what they are doing and support American agriculture on these important issues. Mr. President, in passing Freedom to Farm, Congress recognized that agriculture policy in this country must emphasize business acumen and individual freedom--the principles that have made our economy sound today. And we must provide the means necessary to realize the potential of such a plan. The Agriculture Appropriations bill continues to provide the means. I urge my colleagues to stay the course and resist the short-sighted, politically motivated, market-distortion mechanisms that the Minority amendments would offer. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2271--the Property Rights Implementation Act of 1998. As a landowner, businessman, and Senator, I have long been concerned that the imposition of too many regulations adversely impact individuals and businesses. For too long, bureaucrats have exercised broad authority over local citizens and oftentimes trampled on their constitutional rights. It is time to bring even more comprehensive protections of property rights to the Senate floor for debate and a vote, and S. 2271 provides those missing or abused protections. I am proud to say that I joined many of my colleagues last year in co-sponsoring S. 1204, Senator Coverdell's Property Owners Access to Justice Act of 1997. That bipartisan legislation--very similar to that which we are debating today--simplified access to the federal courts for private property owners whose rights may have been deprived by government actions. As we all know, the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides our nation's citizens with certain protections against the taking of their property. In cases where a taking is required, the Constitution ensures that the property owner is provided just compensation. Unfortunately, that is almost never the case and I doubt anyone in this chamber would claim the contrary. In the name of the ``public good,'' governments often either take property or deem it unusable for virtually any productive purposes. Too often, property owners are then left with a worthless piece of land for which there is no use or little resale value. Property owners are then forced to navigate their way through a maze of bureaucratic red tape and unending local and state roadblocks in fighting any unjust action. They are forced to exhaust any and all state or local remedies prior to having their claim heard in federal court. Because most property owners do not have the resources or the time to fight a taxpayer-subsidized army of lawyers and hurdles, they merely give up--unafforded their constitutional rights. I am aware that the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and a whole host of State Attorneys General are opposed to S. 2271--but why? Because S. 2271 may actually force them to consider the rights of property owners before taking action. If the property in question is truly needed for the public good, then they should use eminent domain and acquire the property rather than leaving the owner holding the bag. It is important to remember several points regarding S. 2271. First, S. 2271 does not circumvent local governments. Property owners must attempt to work through local procedures and be denied at least twice prior to seeking federal court action. S. 2271 does not preempt local zoning. Any use of the land by the property owner must be consistent with local zoning requirements--if not, S. 2271 does not apply. Additionally, S. 2271 does not require compensation or remove the burden to proof from the property owner in proving harm or the justification for compensation. Similar legislation--authorzied by Congressman Gallegly--was introduced in the House last year. It quickly gathered the support of 237 co-sponsors and passed the House last October by a vote of 248 to 178. Likewise, S. 1204 was introduced in the Senate last September with Senators Landrieu and Dorgan as cosponsors. Both bills received significant bi-partisan support upon introduction and throughout the legislative process. Mr. President, it is time we provide property owners with certainty. It is time we provide property owners with avenues for action. And it is time we provide property owners with the rights guaranteed them under our Constitution. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the cloture petition for S. 2271.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to say ``thank you'' to a most diverse collection of government employees, unified by many factors but most of all, a commitment to service. Thank you for the professionalism that you display which has allowed us to come to expect value, reliability, and uniformity from one of the world's largest businesses. Who are these employees? They're truck drivers, engineers, janitors, accountants, detectives, customer service personnel, and letter carriers. They're United States Postal Employees. The United States Postal Service is a business with an unusual pedigree, even though we commonly recognize the ``post office'' as a traditional government entity. Yet while its origins can be traced to the origins of our country, the Postal Service as we know it today is only 27 years old. USPS went through an extensive revamping in the late 1960s and early 70s. The Post Office Department was removed from the President's Cabinet and converted into a non-profit government corporation. The result was an effective elimination of politicians from the management of postal affairs. Congress passed the Postal Reorganization Act which created the new United States Postal Service on July 1, 1971. This month, we recognize an organization able to modernize, while maintaining the fundamental unifying factors required of such a massive global organization. USPS has a unique set of privileges and responsibilities which serve to ensure uniform service and stable prices for mail delivery throughout the United States. The Chair of the USPS Board of Governors announced in late June that there would be no postal rate increase for 1998. The next rate increase will take effect January 10, 1999. At that time the price of a First-Class letter will increase by one penny, to 33 cents. USPS last increased rates on January 1, 1995. When the new rates take effect next year, it will be the second straight rate adjustment below inflation, in effect cutting the real cost of a First-Class stamp by seven percent since 1995. That makes the cost of a First-Class letter among the lowest in the industrialized world--a feat managed without taxpayer subsidies. In Japan, the cost of a First-Class letter is $.57, in Great Britain it is $.42 and in Germany it is $.62. Yet the success of USPS in its ability to reorganize, modernize, and compete in a global marketplace is due to each individual postal employee, because that's what comprises successful business operations--great employees.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 374, S. Con. Res. 30.

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution, as amended, be agreed to. I further ask unanimous consent that an amendment at the desk to the preamble be agreed to, and the preamble, as amended, be agreed to. And I finally ask that the title amendment be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the concurrent resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to the resolution be agreed to.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, if there is no further business the come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth.

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

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, July 13. I further ask that when the Senate reconvenes on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the routine requests through the morning hour be granted and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 2 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. GRAMS. I further ask unanimous consent that following morning business, the Senate begin debate on the motion to proceed to S. 2271, the property rights bill, until 5:45 p.m., with the time equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Also, Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, I ask unanimous consent to adjust the allocation to the Appropriations Committee made under S. Res. 209 with the changes that I now send to the desk.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 423, S. Res. 237.

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to, en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Collections of Information Antipiracy Act.'' This legislation is similar to H.R. 2652, legislation already passed unanimously by our colleagues in the House of Representatives on May 19 of this year that is currently pending before the Judiciary Committee. My legislation presents a much-needed Federal, legislative protection for databases. It is a fair and balanced bill that recognizes the need for database owners to receive adequate legal protection that provides them the incentives necessary to continue investing in database production. The bill also acknowledges that users must continue to have access to timely and innovative database products and services. America produces and uses some 65 percent of the world's databases. Our database industry spans an enormous range of products and services--from collection of information about antidotes to poisons, to valuable collections of business and financial data, to databases of medical procedures and practice guidelines used to assure reliable and effective patient care. These companies have been pioneers in offering innovative and easily accessible databases in any number of formats that meet consumer needs. The myriad of databases produced in the United States are used by the business community, researchers, educators, government officials, and citizens to gain knowledge and make decisions that affect every aspect of our lives. Yet, despite technological innovations, creating and offering databases in the marketplace is neither cheap nor easy. Not only must database owners expend substantial resources on the collection of data, they must also maintain and distribute these information products, while continually updating them and responding to the demands of their customers. Many American jobs depend on a healthy, vibrant U.S. database industry. These companies employ thousands of editors, researchers, and others. They invest millions of dollars in hardware and software to manage these large masses of information. Despite the enormous value of these databases to our economy and society, American database owners are under a dual threat. On the one hand, after a 1991 Supreme Court decision, it is increasingly unclear whether most databases are adequately protected from piracy by U.S. copyright law. Lower courts since 1991 have handed down several decisions that have diminished the number and types of databases that are protected under the compilation copyright provisions in the 1976 Copyright Act. In addition, these decisions have stated that even if databases as a whole may qualify for this limited copyright protection, the facts contained in them are freely available for the taking and re-use by others--including competing database producers --without authorization or compensation. Although database producers do have means other than a new Federal law to seek protection, none has proven adequate, as is evidenced in the study completed by the U.S. Copyright Office last August. Contract law, for example, binds only the parties to the contract and in any case varies from State to State and it also varies from country to country. Technological protections are beginning to appear and are slowly being implemented in the online world, but they offer no protection to databases that are produced in other formats. Some States have adopted doctrines of misappropriation; however, these legal protections are far from being uniform and offer no solace to database producers in States where such legal safeguards are not in place. The European Union has begun implementing a new directive protecting databases in their own countries, but only those produced in the European Union or in countries that offer comparable protections. This law clearly is designed to disadvantage database owners not located in an EU country. Great Britain, Germany, Spain, and most Scandinavian nations have already made changes in their own laws to implement the EU directive, and also a European official recently predicted that within a few years, as many as 35 of our trading partners in Europe and the Russian Federation will have similar laws in place. Unless the United States passes a law that is comparable to that now governing Europe, more and more American database owners may feel the need to move some or all of their operations overseas in an effort, to thwart potential piracy of their products and services by unscrupulous competitors or vendors. As I mentioned previously, Mr. President, American database producers are anxious to continue producing valuable databases for worldwide use. However, the technologies present in today's world that allow for easy copying and redistribution of information threaten a producer's ability to continue receiving a fair return on the tremendous investments required to produce quality databases. Coupled with the inadequacy of U.S. law to protect investment in databases and the threat posed by the EU directive, it is clear to me that Congress--and more importantly, the Senate--must act quickly if we are to preserve the American lead in database production and use. The ``Collections of Information Antipiracy Act'' offers a solution to the threats faced by American database owners by helping to provide the right to stop harmful practices that affect the marketplace for that database. This legislation uses Congress' powers under the Commerce clause of the Constitution to protect only those databases used in commerce. Protection is limited to those databases whose owners have invested substantial monetary or other resources in gathering, organizing, or maintaining a collection of information. It contains a definition of what constitutes a protected collection that is broad enough to offer effective protection to the wide range of products and services that would benefit from a new Federal law. This legislation also contains numerous and important exceptions to the protections granted. For example, it makes clear that databases may be used for legitimate purposes of verification and news reporting. It offers special exceptions to nonprofit users, such as researchers, scientists, and educators. The bill also states clearly that no one is precluded from gathering the same facts contained on one database owner's product and creating another database--but again, as long as those facts are not stolen from the original database owner. Finally, the bill recognizes the importance of unfettered public access to Government databases by specifically denying protection to any database created by a governmental entity--whether Federal, State, or local--or any database that a Government agency seeks to have created and distributed under an exclusive licensing arrangement. Mr. President, the concepts that lie behind the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, and many of its specific provisions, have been debated for more than 2 years now. The House-passed bill now before the Senate Judiciary Committee was the subject of two hearings that included witnesses from nearly every affected community--both producers and users of databases. Indeed, the bill I introduce today is a much-improved version of the legislation first introduced in the House, and many provisions have been added that strike a fair balance between the needs of database producers for adequate protection and the also requirements that users have fair access to these private-sector products and services. There should be no fear that database producers will exert extraordinary control over their products and services. But, this legislation contains not only a special savings clause preserving our antitrust laws, but it also specifies low penalties against any nonprofit user who may run afoul of this new law. In closing, Mr. President, I am convinced it is time for this body to act to protect the interests of database owners and users in the United States. The bill I am introducing today represents a reasonable and fair means of doing so, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in working during these few remaining days of the 105th Congress to consider and pass this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

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

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Grams pertaining to the introduction of S. 2291 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Collections of Information Antipiracy Act.'' This legislation is similar to H.R. 2652, legislation already passed unanimously by our colleagues in the House of Representatives on May 19 of this year that is currently pending before the Judiciary Committee. My legislation presents a much-needed Federal, legislative protection for databases. It is a fair and balanced bill that recognizes the need for database owners to receive adequate legal protection that provides them the incentives necessary to continue investing in database production. The bill also acknowledges that users must continue to have access to timely and innovative database products and services. America produces and uses some 65 percent of the world's databases. Our database industry spans an enormous range of products and services--from collection of information about antidotes to poisons, to valuable collections of business and financial data, to databases of medical procedures and practice guidelines used to assure reliable and effective patient care. These companies have been pioneers in offering innovative and easily accessible databases in any number of formats that meet consumer needs. The myriad of databases produced in the United States are used by the business community, researchers, educators, government officials, and citizens to gain knowledge and make decisions that affect every aspect of our lives. Yet, despite technological innovations, creating and offering databases in the marketplace is neither cheap nor easy. Not only must database owners expend substantial resources on the collection of data, they must also maintain and distribute these information products, while continually updating them and responding to the demands of their customers. Many American jobs depend on a healthy, vibrant U.S. database industry. These companies employ thousands of editors, researchers, and others. They invest millions of dollars in hardware and software to manage these large masses of information. Despite the enormous value of these databases to our economy and society, American database owners are under a dual threat. On the one hand, after a 1991 Supreme Court decision, it is increasingly unclear whether most databases are adequately protected from piracy by U.S. copyright law. Lower courts since 1991 have handed down several decisions that have diminished the number and types of databases that are protected under the compilation copyright provisions in the 1976 Copyright Act. In addition, these decisions have stated that even if databases as a whole may qualify for this limited copyright protection, the facts contained in them are freely available for the taking and re-use by others--including competing database producers --without authorization or compensation. Although database producers do have means other than a new Federal law to seek protection, none has proven adequate, as is evidenced in the study completed by the U.S. Copyright Office last August. Contract law, for example, binds only the parties to the contract and in any case varies from State to State and it also varies from country to country. Technological protections are beginning to appear and are slowly being implemented in the online world, but they offer no protection to databases that are produced in other formats. Some States have adopted doctrines of misappropriation; however, these legal protections are far from being uniform and offer no solace to database producers in States where such legal safeguards are not in place. The European Union has begun implementing a new directive protecting databases in their own countries, but only those produced in the European Union or in countries that offer comparable protections. This law clearly is designed to disadvantage database owners not located in an EU country. Great Britain, Germany, Spain, and most Scandinavian nations have already made changes in their own laws to implement the EU directive, and also a European official recently predicted that within a few years, as many as 35 of our trading partners in Europe and the Russian Federation will have similar laws in place. Unless the United States passes a law that is comparable to that now governing Europe, more and more American database owners may feel the need to move some or all of their operations overseas in an effort, to thwart potential piracy of their products and services by unscrupulous competitors or vendors. As I mentioned previously, Mr. President, American database producers are anxious to continue producing valuable databases for worldwide use. However, the technologies present in today's world that allow for easy copying and redistribution of information threaten a producer's ability to continue receiving a fair return on the tremendous investments required to produce quality databases. Coupled with the inadequacy of U.S. law to protect investment in databases and the threat posed by the EU directive, it is clear to me that Congress--and more importantly, the Senate--must act quickly if we are to preserve the American lead in database production and use. The ``Collections of Information Antipiracy Act'' offers a solution to the threats faced by American database owners by helping to provide the right to stop harmful practices that affect the marketplace for that database. This legislation uses Congress' powers under the Commerce clause of the Constitution to protect only those databases used in commerce. Protection is limited to those databases whose owners have invested substantial monetary or other resources in gathering, organizing, or maintaining a collection of information. It contains a definition of what constitutes a protected collection that is broad enough to offer effective protection to the wide range of products and services that would benefit from a new Federal law. This legislation also contains numerous and important exceptions to the protections granted. For example, it makes clear that databases may be used for legitimate purposes of verification and news reporting. It offers special exceptions to nonprofit users, such as researchers, scientists, and educators. The bill also states clearly that no one is precluded from gathering the same facts contained on one database owner's product and creating another database--but again, as long as those facts are not stolen from the original database owner. Finally, the bill recognizes the importance of unfettered public access to Government databases by specifically denying protection to any database created by a governmental entity--whether Federal, State, or local--or any database that a Government agency seeks to have created and distributed under an exclusive licensing arrangement. Mr. President, the concepts that lie behind the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act, and many of its specific provisions, have been debated for more than 2 years now. The House-passed bill now before the Senate Judiciary Committee was the subject of two hearings that included witnesses from nearly every affected community--both producers and users of databases. Indeed, the bill I introduce today is a much-improved version of the legislation first introduced in the House, and many provisions have been added that strike a fair balance between the needs of database producers for adequate protection and the also requirements that users have fair access to these private-sector products and services. There should be no fear that database producers will exert extraordinary control over their products and services. But, this legislation contains not only a special savings clause preserving our antitrust laws, but it also specifies low penalties against any nonprofit user who may run afoul of this new law. In closing, Mr. President, I am convinced it is time for this body to act to protect the interests of database owners and users in the United States. The bill I am introducing today represents a reasonable and fair means of doing so, and I urge my colleagues to join with me in working during these few remaining days of the 105th Congress to consider and pass this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. GRAMS

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, when the Senate reconvenes on Monday at 12 noon, there will be a period of morning business until 2 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will begin debate on the motion to proceed to the property rights bill. At 5:45 p.m., under a previous order, the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the property rights bill. Following that vote, the Senate could consider any other legislative or executive items that may be cleared for action. For the remainder of next week, the Senate will attempt to complete action on the property rights bill and, hopefully, finish several appropriations bills. As a reminder, on Wednesday, July 15, at 10 a.m., there will be a joint meeting of Congress to receive an address from the President of Romania.