Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Carjacking Correction Act of 1996. This bill adds an important clarification to the Federal carjacking statute, which is to provide that a rape committed during a carjacking should be considered a serious bodily injury. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Biden. He has long been a leader in addressing the threat of violence against women, and our partnership in enacting the Violence Against Women Act is evidence of strong bipartisan outrage at every incident of assault or domestic violence. This correction to the law is necessitated by the fact that at least one court has held that under the Federal carjacking statute, rape would not constitute a serious bodily injury. Few crimes are as brutal, vicious, and harmful to the victim than rape. Yet, under this interpretation, the sentencing enhancement for such injury may not be applied to a carjacker who brutally rapes his victim. In my view, Congress should act now to clarify the law in this regard. The bill we introduce today would do this by specifically including rape as serious bodily injury under the statute. I want to thank Representative John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, who brought this matter to my attention and is leading the effort in the House for passage of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support swift passage of this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his leadership in this area, for being willing to get out here and talk about these issues. I have been talking about them for a long time. I am disappointed we have not made more headway, but it certainly has not been for lack of effort on the part of our friend from Georgia. I want to say in all honesty, we have to fight this war. We have to give it everything we have. We have to have leadership at the top. We do not have it right now but we are going to keep this pressure on until we get it, one way or the other. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patrick Murphy, a detailee on my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, our Federal drug policy is at a crossroads. Unfortunately for Americans, drug control is not a national priority for the Clinton administration. For some time now I have been saying that President Clinton has been AWOL--absent without leadership--in the war on drugs. Put another way, the Clinton White House has been MIA in the drug war-- mired in arrogance. Ineffectual leadership and failed Federal policies have combined with ambiguous cultural messages to generate changing attitudes among our young people and sharp, serious increases in youthful drug use. This is painfully evidenced by this chart on my right, which shows that after a 12-year steady decline in drug use by high school seniors, from 1980 to 1992, there has been a sharp increase in such drug use during the last 3 years. As you can see, the decline came from 1980 downhill in every one of these categories, and in every one of the categories since 1992 drug use has started to go up sharply. Even more troubling is that this increase has been uniform as to those who have used drugs in the past month, in the past year, and those children trying drugs for the first time. No one is more responsible for our current dilemma than President Clinton. For more than 3 years, I have taken to the floor of the Senate to warn my colleagues and the Nation about the threat we face due to President Clinton's abdication of leadership in the war on drugs. What also troubles me is that a defeatist outlook in the drug war appears now to be supplemented by a softer attitude tolerating or excusing drug use. The Clinton administration has caused serious damage to this country as a direct result of failed policies and absent leadership in the war on drugs. Indeed, as one more manifestation of the administration's arrogance of power, we now know that the White House strong-armed the Secret Service into granting security passes for at least a dozen persons who had engaged in the recent use of, among other illegal drugs, crack cocaine and hallucinogens. In responding to questions concerning this matter, White House spokesman Mike McCurry disdainfully suggested that prior drug use was no big deal. What a terrible message to send to the country, especially to our young people. Where was President Clinton during this episode? Why didn't he admonish his spokesman? When will someone at the White House acknowledge that drug use is a big deal. To his credit, Mr. McCurry has expressed regret for having been so cavalier; but, it is quite telling that it was the President's spokesman who expressed this attitude of tolerance for drug use. Remember, this is the same President who named the stealth drug czar Lee Brown and Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders, a proponent of legalizing drugs. Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that people who experimented with drugs in their youth are categorically unfit for public service. But we should not make room at the policy table for those who have used drugs even as students and believe that their drug use was not a serious wrong, unfortunate step in their life. Nor should those who still use drugs or have recently done so be given a public trust especially in the White House. It is this mindset which will result in defeat. Both President Reagan and President Bush led from the front on this war, confronting our Nation's drug problems head on with positive results. As a Nation, we were committed to winning the war on drugs, and we were making gains. Since President Clinton has assumed office, his administration's campaign against drugs has been in full retreat, and America is now losing the war. During the Reagan and Bush era, the United States saw dramatic reductions in casual drug use. From 1977 to 1992, casual drug use was more than cut in half. Cocaine use fell by 79 percent, while monthly use fell from 2.9 million users in 1988 to 1.3 million in 1992. Such reductions were achieved not by hollow rhetoric but through sustained, visible use of the bully pulpit, increased quantities, a clear and quantifiable antidrug policy and, most important, strong Presidential leadership. Substantial investment of resources, coupled with the effective use of the bully pulpit, caused a strong reverberation of antidrug sentiment throughout this Nation. From his very first days in office, President Clinton was derailing the effective approaches of prior administrations. Although he promised to ``reinvent our drug control programs,'' and ``move beyond ideological debates,'' the President announced a new approach to drug policy, deemphasizing law enforcement and cutting interdiction. He called his approach a controlled shift. In hindsight, it has been an approach of reckless abdication. The Clinton administration renounced the proven policies of previous administrations and instead oversaw the following: Federal illegal drug caseloads were reduced by 10.3 percent from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 1995; The Governmentwide interdiction budget was cut by 39 percent since 1993; Supply reduction has been put in utter disarray, with a 53 percent drop in our ability to interdict and push back drug shipments in the drug transit zone; Between 1992 and 1994, cocaine seized by the Customs Service and Coast Guard dropped 70 percent and 71 percent, respectively. The National Drug Control Policy staff was cut from 147 to 25, but Congress did restore funding for adequate staffing levels this fiscal year, and with the President's approval finally admitted that they were wrong; The administration's fiscal year 1995 budget proposed to slash 621 drug enforcement positions from the DEA, INS, FBI and Customs Service; From 1992 to 1995, the Drug Enforcement Administration lost 227 agent positions, more than 6 percent of its agent force; President Clinton signed legislation repealing mandatory minimums for some drug traffickers and dealers; And agreed to more than $230 million in cuts to drug education and prevention funds in 1993. It really is no surprise, therefore, that as the administration has turned a blind eye to this problem, drug dealers have flooded our Nation's streets with more illegal drugs and steadily declining prices. For example, as this next chart here reflects, the last several years have seen a dramatic drop in heroin prices. Since 1992, it has dramatically dropped. In fact, you can see it dropped very dramatically there, and then the purity, of course, has been going up. So the drop in heroin prices, combined with the dramatic increase in the purity of such heroin on the streets, has been catastrophic. The conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is clear. Supply is way up on our city streets resulting in more lethal drugs being available to our children at a much cheaper rate. Despite such glaring evidence, the Clinton administration continues to remain silent on addressing this problem. In short, since 1992, the bully pulpit has gathered dust, liberal soft-headed policies have been implemented, and a mentality of tolerance for drugs has taken root. As a result, almost every available indicator today shows the United States is losing our fight against drugs. Let us just consider some of the evidence. First, drugs are cheap and more available. Since 1993, the retail price of cocaine has dropped by more than 10 percent. The price of heroin has plummeted from $1,647 a gram in 1992 to $966 a gram in February 1996. Second, since President Clinton took office, the number of 12- to 17- year-olds using marijuana has almost doubled--2.9 million kids compared with the 1992 level of 1.6 million. According to a most recent University of Michigan study, one in three high school seniors now smokes marijuana, and 48.4 percent of the class of 1995 had tried illegal drugs. You can see why I got so upset when Mr. McCurry made his comments. Now, to his credit, he has basically apologized for those, and I accept his apology. But it should never have happened to begin with. And it is this tolerance in the White House that is causing these problems. It comes through to these kids and to everybody else, it seems to me. Third, the number of cocaine and heroin-related emergency room admissions has jumped to historic levels. In the first half of 1995, cocaine-related emergency room cases were 65 percent above the level in the first half of 1991. Heroin admissions soared 120 percent over this same period of time. Fourth, methamphetamine use has soared with meth-related emergency room admissions in 1995 increasing by more than 320 percent since 1991. And yet, I might add, someone on the other side of the aisle is blocking consideration of a bipartisan Hatch-Biden methamphetamine bill. I urge the President to call off his guardians of gridlock so we can pass this bill that is critical to this country. Fifth, LSD use has reached the highest rate since recordkeeping started in 1975. Fully 11.7 percent of the class of 1995 had tried it at least once. That is mind-boggling. The widespread increase in illegal drug use is not surprising when the relative ease in which these drugs are now brought across our borders is considered. Recent reports indicate that Mexican drug cartels are no longer interested in merely crossing our southern border to peddle their drugs. Ranchers along the Texas and New Mexico border are now finding themselves being forced to sell their border properties to these armed thugs. They are getting plenty of money for it. Why would they pay these exorbitant rates? But people are afraid not to sell to them for fear they will be killed. As a result, a virtual superhighway for illegal drug flow into this country is being created--some say has already been created. We are literally losing ground against drugs. In an effort to call attention to this disturbing development, I will be holding a hearing in the Judiciary Committee this Wednesday on precisely these points: What is happening on our southern border? Due to President Clinton's failure in the drug war, our children are at greater risk, our law enforcement efforts are strained more than ever, and our borders, it appears, are now being bought up by drug smugglers. To his credit, President Clinton named Gen. Barry McCaffrey as his new drug czar. General McCaffrey is a committed man. I have respect for him. But it may be too little too late. Such 11th hour tactics do not obviate one absolute truth: For the last 3 years, in the battle to regain our streets from the plague of illegal drugs, this administration has let our country down. The Nation must have effective moral leadership in this war against drugs. The President has turned back the clock 20 years in the drug war. He has hurt this Nation by his lack of leadership on this issue, and it is time to turn this retreat around. I again call on our President not just to join, but to lead an attack on illegal drugs and their use in this country. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary and a series of excerpts of relevant reports be printed in the Record. They are most informative. I urge my colleagues to read them.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let's face it, since this administration has taken over, there has not been a war on drugs, not a real effort on drugs. They cut the drug czar's office. They have cut interdiction. They have cut facilities in the transit zones. They have not put the moneys where the moneys should go. They are not effectively spending them, and I have accused the President of being AWOL on drugs, or absent without leadership on drugs. I don't think many Democrats or Republicans disagree with that statement. The fact is they have been AWOL on drugs, and there is a cavalier attitude down at the White House: ``So what. Don't all young people use drugs?'' My gosh, all young people don't use drugs, and there are a lot of people who have repented and are now fighting the battle side by side with us. I commend them for having done it. I recommend the people in the White House do the same thing. I have been appalled by what has been happening. Our borders are a sieve. Now we have these drug lords coming in and buying up ranches at exorbitant prices. Ranchers are glad to get out of there because they feel intimidated. They feel they are being mocked. They feel that they are being overrun. They feel that they are going to be murdered. So why not sell out at exorbitant prices and get through it? Let's be honest about it, Federal law enforcement has been under severe strain, just as the technical sophistication of drug trafficking syndicates is reaching new heights. A report prepared by the Judiciary Committee finds that the administration supply reduction policy is in utter disarray, with a 53-percent drop in our ability to interdict and push back drug shipments in the transit zone. The report also finds increases in the purity of drugs and the number of drug-related emergency room admissions of hardcore users. If you look at it, it is a disgrace. I think what the distinguished Senator from Georgia is trying to do is right. He is trying to put money back in, put money where our mouths happen to be and start helping to bolster this administration to do what it should do to begin with. I don't have faith in the administration doing what is right in the drug war, and I don't think others do. By gosh, I think we ought to support the amendment of the Senator from Georgia. I hope people will. I ask unanimous consent that the introduction of a report we did in the Judiciary Committee, entitled ``Losing Ground Against Drugs,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today is July 24--an ordinary day to millions of Americans and 98 percent of this body. But to Utahns, July 24, Pioneer Day, is a big State celebration. Offices and businesses are closed; there are parades and pageants in most Utah communities; and families gather for picnics and games. Mr. President, July 24 was the day in 1847 when Brigham Young stood atop a rise in Emigration Canyon, gazed at the Salt Lake valley below, and announced to the Mormon pioneers who had followed him across the Plains and across the Rocky Mountains that ``This is the Place.'' Today is the 149th anniversary of Pioneer Day. It is a day Utahns celebrate so enthusiastically because it commemorates the determination and faith that brought our ancestors into the place Mormons call Zion. It commemorates the triumph over the hardships inherent in such a journey. It commemorates the sense of community that kept them together as a people. And, it commemorates the fact that the religious persecution suffered by my Mormon ancestors did not achieve its purpose. Prejudice and bigotry may have forced the early members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints out of the Midwest, but the faith could not be killed. Today, Utah stands as a shining example of commerce, the arts, science, and education. It is an example of solid work ethic, sound management, and good stewardship in both public and private arenas. It is also a model of tolerance. All of these blessings and present-day values are manifestations of the character and achievements of the Utah pioneers. That is why today Utah celebrates the ``Days of '47.'' I ask my colleagues to join me and Senator Bennett in observing this seminal event in Utah history.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, after listening to our debate today, it strikes me that the agriculture appropriations bill is really fundamental to the heart of the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] reform initiative that so many of us in the Congress believe is drastically needed. I think that a majority of Americans would be surprised, perhaps even shocked, to learn that the FDA routinely ignores deadlines set forth in the law, deadlines for reviews of products vital to public health such as approvals of new medical devices or generic drugs. The committee, in fact, recognized this disregard of the law and its dramatic impact in its report this year. The committee noted in part: The Committee expects the FDA to meet statutory review times for the review and approval of various food, drug and device applications and petitions . . . Extensive testimony has been presented about how the delay in approval of new drugs and medical devices has hurt American public health because U.S. patients do not have access to the latest technologies. Also, slow approval times are driving research and manufacturing jobs in these industries overseas, where earlier approvals are routinely expected. The committee went on to say: The problem is this agency often disregards its statutory obligation to approve or deny various applications and petitions within specified timeframes. As a result, many applications disappear into FDA for years. For the edification of my colleagues, I want to point out a few examples of statutory mandates which the FDA has failed to meet. Section 409(c)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act stipulates that FDA consideration of food additive petitions must normally be completed within 90 days. The FDA performance is so pathetic in this area that the Department of Health and Human Services fiscal year 1997 budget justifications do not even contain quantification of the backlog in this area. The FDA report merely states, ``The backlog currently includes approximately 300 petitions, with 11 classified as `novel or important.' '' However, a report by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in December 1995 indicated that since 1970 the average time to approval of a direct food additive has been at least 20 months. It is interesting to note that at the time of the House committee's June 22, 1995, hearing on food additives, there were 295 pending food additive petitions. Seven percent of them were filed between 1971 and 1979. The story is not much better for drugs and devices. For human drugs, the mean approval time for new drug applications [NDA's] in 1995 is 25.7 months; that is 428 percent greater than the statutory deadline of 6 months. For animal drugs, the comparable 1995 figure is 39 months, which is 6 times the statutory timeframe of 6 months. For generic animal drugs, the time is 31 months, 5 times the limit of 6 months. For human generic drugs, the average approval time is 34.2 months, an incredible 570 percent greater than the statutory deadline of 6 months. Although the pioneer and generic animal drug approvals exceed their statutory deadlines by substantial amounts, it is puzzling why the agency allocates its resources so that generic animal drugs are approved faster than generic human drugs. Let me turn now to medical devices. Approval of 510(k) applications is running at 137 days on average, which is 47 days beyond the statutory 90-day timeframe. For pre-market approvals, the 1995 statistic is 276 days, which is nearly 100 days beyond the law's 180-day mandate. In perhaps the most blatant disregard of congressional directives, the Appropriations Committee was forced to note this year that the FDA did not even honor the Committee's request for quarterly reports on its plans to refocus resources and make a greater priority completion of ongoing product reviews. Mr. President, I have devoted a good deal of my congressional career to study and advocacy of FDA related issues. I consider FDA to exemplify what is best in government--and, unfortunately, what is worst. This agency can work miracles to protect the public health. This agency can also go off on a tangent, with a bureaucratic, one- way/my-way attitude that rivals none in its ability to obfuscate and circle the wagons. In my experience, FDA responds to much of such criticism by citing that it does not have the resources it needs to do the job. Mr. President, I will take a back seat to no one in my support for adequate funds and facilities for the FDA. As a member of the Labor and Human Resources Committee for 18 years, I fought hard for improved resources for this agency. But, today, the FDA's plaint of inadequate resources is only in part truth--in part it is bunk. The FDA does, in fact, have the resources it needs to accomplish its core mission, such as product review. The Appropriations Committee has worked hard to review the FDA's accounting in great detail and provide them with necessary funding in the bill we consider today. What FDA does not have resources for is to self-generate work or expand its mission. Moreover, the fallacy of the FDA's ``we don't have the resources'' defense can be found in this simple question: ``If you don't have the resources, why don't you request them?'' If the agency is serious about product reviews and can't meet deadlines, then why don't they seek the resources to do the job? Those of us who take a great interest in the FDA have struggled for years to find a method to compel the agency to focus its priorities. We must find a way to discourage them from adopting that infamous kid-in- the-candy-store attitude which has led to an ever-expanding empire at the expense of meeting statutorily mandated deadlines. The FDA never met an issue it didn't like, no matter how small or how large. That is the central issue of the debate on FDA reform. And as I listen to our debate today, I have realized that the will of the FDA follows its resources. With the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, the Congress provided a new source of income for new drug approvals --industry- funded user fees--and suddenly new drug approval times are coming down dramatically. Unfortunately, though, the agency--which during our GATT debate was such a staunch defender of the generic drug industry --seems to have abandoned its commitment to that industry when you look at the budget for next year, which presumes decreases in FTE's for generic drug reviews and increases in product approval times. That is why we are seeing such a bitter debate today over issues such as the Medguide regulations. I think that any objective study of Medguide will show that the FDA has taken an old regulation off the shelves, dusted it off, and attempted to move it forward almost 20 years later. When challenged about the initiative, they have resorted to their public health defense, exhorting their allies in the Senate to throw up the special interest shield, the most common FDA tool to block legislative activities the agency dislikes. If there is such a pressing public health need for the Medguide regulation, then why has it laid dormant for almost 20 years? Perhaps the publicity this debate has engendered is the real answer. But the bottom line is that the FDA must get serious about using its resources more wisely. That would do a lot to restore its credibility with the Congress. Let me turn now to some specifics in the bill we are considering today. The legislation contains three technical amendments to the recently enacted FDA Export Reform and Enhancement Act that the committee included on behalf of Senator Gregg and myself. The purpose of the Export Act is to increase the opportunities for U.S. firms to export their medical products to our trading partners around the world. This new law will result in jobs for Americans and will help keep our country as the leader in developing new medical technologies. Consistent with the intent of the new export law, these technical amendments, included in the Appropriations Committee mark, would make three clarifications. The first is that products which have not been approved in the United States may be imported for further processing, such as sterilization, and then exported. The second change clarifies that FDA-approved insulin, antibiotic drugs, and animal drugs which may be exported, subject to section 801(e)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for other than FDA-approved indications need not also meet the labeling requirements of section 801(f). The final change explains that products exported under section 802 must, consistent with the requirements of section 201(m), include the labeling required by the approving and importing country. Next, I would like to discuss briefly the issue of the patent extension for the drug lodine that is contained in the House companion to this bill. We are all sensitive to the issue of legislating on appropriations bills. We all recognize the need to respect the process by which authorizing committees develop legislation. But given the realities of the legislative calendar, we also know there will be very limited opportunities to pass any new free-standing bills during the remainder of this session. The plain truth of the matter is that between now and adjournment there will be extraordinary pressures to attach amendments to any active legislative vehicles and many of these will be appropriations measures. During consideration of the issue related to pharmaceutical patents and GATT, the Senate Judiciary Committee, at the request of Senator Specter, included a lodine patent extension provision and the bill was approved by the committee on May 2. In response to Senator Pryor's attempt to attach his version of pharmaceutical patent legislation on the Department of Defense authorization bill, S. 1745, I offered the Judiciary Committee compromise legislation, further modified by an amendment by Senator Specter. This amendment, which was adopted on June 27 by a 53-45 vote, also included the lodine amendment. In my view, should it be considered advisable to retain lodine provisions in the agriculture appropriations bill, I believe that the language of the Judiciary Committee compromise amendment, already passed by the full Senate, is preferable to the House-passed language. This is so because some have read the lodine provision adopted by the House to suspend the operation of the Bolar provisions of the Hatch- Waxman Act with respect to this one drug. This is the exception to the general rule against patent infringement that allows generic drug firms--and only generic drug firms--to test and seek FDA regulatory approval for their products prior to the expiration of the patent of the pioneer product. If this is the correct reading of the House language, the effect would be to extend the exclusivity period for lodine for 2 to 5 years beyond the 2 years nominally stated in the amendment. Two years should mean 2 years, not 5 or 7 years. The Senate-passed lodine provision closely parallels the daypro provision signed into law. We should retain this approach with lodine by adopting the Senate language contained in the DOD authorization. I wish to also make a few comments about saccharin. The House bill contains a 5-year extension on the ban to prevent FDA taking saccharin off the market. The Senate bill provides a 1 year extension for saccharin. Unless the Congress acts, the FDA will be compelled to enforce the mindless zero risk standard imposed by the Delaney Clause and ban saccharin. While I believe that this matter should be addressed through the authorization process and that the Delaney Clauses be repealed, in the short term, I believe it prudent to adopt the House's 5-year extension. Let me say again that there are strong arguments to be made that an appropriations bill is not the best mechanism to legislate on such controversial matters as the Delaney Clauses. But some believe that the Delaney Clauses are too controversial to address in a comprehensive fashion when the FDA reform bill is taken up in the next weeks. This raises the question of whether the FDA authorizing statute--the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act--can be said to be truly reformed if the Delaney Clauses are left intact. I know how I come out on that question because I am among those who believe that the Delaney Clauses are among the most illogical, unwarranted laws on the books. In this regard, I must salute our colleagues in the House, who voted last night 417 to 0 to do away with the Delaney provision in the context of pesticide residues. Our colleagues have much to be proud of in their unanimous decision to reject the zero risk stranglehold of Delaney with the new reasonable-certainty-of-no harm test. It seems to me that the Congress should act favorably on the pesticide provision and expeditiously act on the other areas affected by Delaney Clauses: food and color additives and animal drug residues. Frankly, Congress long ago recognized, based on the established science on the issue, that the benefits of saccharin exceed the risk. While saccharin in high doses caused tumors in laboratory animals, FDA recognized that there is no evidence that this product has harmed humans. Despite this, the law would have required FDA to ban the product unless the Congress overrode this particular application of the Delaney Clause. Subsequent to the initial congressional action on this matter in 1977, the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act, this moratorium was extended by Congress 6 more times, many times at my initiative and with bipartisan support. Because, to my knowledge, no evidence has come to light that the risk of saccharin is any greater than previously thought, I see no more reason to ban this product today than existed in 1977. In fact, I understand that more recent studies indicate saccharin does not pose the cancer risk in animals that it was thought to pose 20 years ago. I do see many good reasons to change the Delaney Clause. As a realist, I know that some would be tempted to take to the floor and debate this at length, so I cannot be certain that this battle will be won quickly, or even this year. For that reason, I believe that the 5-year extension in the House bill is preferable to the 1-year provision currently in the Senate bill. In closing, Mr. President, I commend my colleagues, Senators Hatfield, Cochran, Byrd and Bumpers, for their hard work in bringing forward these FDA provisions and also for their diligence in making certain the agency is made more accountable to the public. These are the first, and most important, steps in FDA reform.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Mack and Lieberman in sponsoring legislation designed to spur economic growth in the District of Columbia. The economic circumstances in the District have eroded so significantly that they can no longer be casually dismissed. Failure to act now with investment incentives would cost the District even more in lost financial opportunities--financial opportunities the District, and indeed our entire Nation, cannot afford to miss. Opponents of this legislation may be critical of the special treatment given to the District of Columbia as opposed to other areas of the country. Yet, this should be the greatest city in the world-- east of Salt Lake City. In all seriousness, however, I believe that it is imperative that the Capital of our Nation stand for democracy, economic development, and security. It is difficult for the District of Columbia to represent these qualities when it has become nearly unmanageable and is on the brink of financial ruin. Something must be done to breathe new life into Washington, DC. Otherwise, I've got some ghost towns in Utah I can show you. And, I want to emphasize that we are not talking about an infusion of Federal funds. We are talking about encouraging private sector investment in the city. We are talking about incentives for people to live here. This legislation provides a way to bring both the capital and stability needed to start the healing process. The components included in this bill are specifically designed to revitalize our Nation's Capital. First, the bill would tax all D.C. residents at a flat rate of 15 percent and significantly increase their standard deductions, yet retain both the charitable contribution deduction and the home mortgage deduction. This provision would give the middle class who left because of rising taxes a new incentive to return to the District and once again call it home. In fact, this recovery plan also establishes a $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers for residences purchased within the District of Columbia. These types of incentives would have a real and immediate impact on the District and would help replace the middle-class base that has slowly been eroding. In addition to these provisions, Mr. President, this legislation eliminates the capital gains tax on any investment made within the District of Columbia by residents and greatly reduces it for nonresidents. This part of the bill provides the District access to a tremendous source of capital, otherwise unavailable. Not only would this proposal begin to restore the financial viability of our Nation's capital city, it would also provide a testing ground for studying the effects of the basic principles of fundamental tax reform. Our current system of taxation has been much criticized over the past year and a half, and I agree that steps should be taken toward a fairer, simpler, and more efficient tax system. However, while change may be necessary, it must also be done carefully and deliberately. Initiating a flat tax system in the District of Columbia could give legislators much-needed insight into tax reform on a national scale. Success in the District would result in ideas that could be applied nationwide. Thus, this legislation would benefit the District of Columbia, as well as every citizen of America. Mr. President, this bill is far from perfect. It is a bold idea designed to reverse the fall of a once-great city. Legitimate concerns about the impact of this bill have been raised in recent days by members of the House Ways and Means Committee and other. For one thing, skeptics of this idea worry that the provisions of this bill would give current residents of the District of Columbia a windfall. Other concerns that have been expressed include taxpayers moving into the District for only a short period to take advantage of the benefits of this proposal, then moving out again. Other critics contend that the root of the District's problems is not the lack of money, but poor management of the resources already present and that therefore, an infusion of new money and new residents would not change things significantly. I agree that the bill we are sponsoring today will not, by itself, solve all of the problems of the District of Columbia. I also agree that much work needs to be done in further crafting this bill as it goes through the legislative process to ensure that concerns about loopholes and unintended benefits are met. And, I also completely agree that the citizens of the District of Columbia must hold its elected leaders accountable for waste and mismanagement. It is important, however, that the general concepts of this bill are put before the Congress. This bill is certainly not set in stone, and I would anticipate that many Members of Congress and outside groups will have a number of good ideas on how it can be improved. My goal is that Congress start taking a serious look at ways to solve the problems of our Nation's capital. One of these ways must include expanding the local economy and, therefore, the local tax base. And, serious problems often require bold solutions. Washington, DC is the capital of the United States of America. Every day there are buses of people who come to view the monuments, study the historical treasures, and participate in their Federal Government. Every day there are people from foreign nations who may get their first and, in some cases, only taste of America from visiting our capital. Unfortunately, a city rife with pot holes, dilapidated police cars, and drug dealers and prostitutes openly offering their wares is not the impression of our country most Americans wish to leave with visitors from foreign countries, let alone tolerate themselves. I quote Washington Post columnist James Glassman when I say that it is time to act courageously and adopt a proposal that could help save this city. I urge my colleagues to become actively involved in the debate and in searching for ways to revitalize and reinvigorate a city that is as important to Floridians as it is to Utahns, as important to Californians as to Pennsylvanians. I urge my colleagues to join us in this bold effort to jump start both the economy and civic pride of the District of Columbia.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Mack and Lieberman in sponsoring legislation designed to spur economic growth in the District of Columbia. The economic circumstances in the District have eroded so significantly that they can no longer be casually dismissed. Failure to act now with investment incentives would cost the District even more in lost financial opportunities--financial opportunities the District, and indeed our entire Nation, cannot afford to miss. Opponents of this legislation may be critical of the special treatment given to the District of Columbia as opposed to other areas of the country. Yet, this should be the greatest city in the world-- east of Salt Lake City. In all seriousness, however, I believe that it is imperative that the Capital of our Nation stand for democracy, economic development, and security. It is difficult for the District of Columbia to represent these qualities when it has become nearly unmanageable and is on the brink of financial ruin. Something must be done to breathe new life into Washington, DC. Otherwise, I've got some ghost towns in Utah I can show you. And, I want to emphasize that we are not talking about an infusion of Federal funds. We are talking about encouraging private sector investment in the city. We are talking about incentives for people to live here. This legislation provides a way to bring both the capital and stability needed to start the healing process. The components included in this bill are specifically designed to revitalize our Nation's Capital. First, the bill would tax all D.C. residents at a flat rate of 15 percent and significantly increase their standard deductions, yet retain both the charitable contribution deduction and the home mortgage deduction. This provision would give the middle class who left because of rising taxes a new incentive to return to the District and once again call it home. In fact, this recovery plan also establishes a $5,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers for residences purchased within the District of Columbia. These types of incentives would have a real and immediate impact on the District and would help replace the middle-class base that has slowly been eroding. In addition to these provisions, Mr. President, this legislation eliminates the capital gains tax on any investment made within the District of Columbia by residents and greatly reduces it for nonresidents. This part of the bill provides the District access to a tremendous source of capital, otherwise unavailable. Not only would this proposal begin to restore the financial viability of our Nation's capital city, it would also provide a testing ground for studying the effects of the basic principles of fundamental tax reform. Our current system of taxation has been much criticized over the past year and a half, and I agree that steps should be taken toward a fairer, simpler, and more efficient tax system. However, while change may be necessary, it must also be done carefully and deliberately. Initiating a flat tax system in the District of Columbia could give legislators much-needed insight into tax reform on a national scale. Success in the District would result in ideas that could be applied nationwide. Thus, this legislation would benefit the District of Columbia, as well as every citizen of America. Mr. President, this bill is far from perfect. It is a bold idea designed to reverse the fall of a once-great city. Legitimate concerns about the impact of this bill have been raised in recent days by members of the House Ways and Means Committee and other. For one thing, skeptics of this idea worry that the provisions of this bill would give current residents of the District of Columbia a windfall. Other concerns that have been expressed include taxpayers moving into the District for only a short period to take advantage of the benefits of this proposal, then moving out again. Other critics contend that the root of the District's problems is not the lack of money, but poor management of the resources already present and that therefore, an infusion of new money and new residents would not change things significantly. I agree that the bill we are sponsoring today will not, by itself, solve all of the problems of the District of Columbia. I also agree that much work needs to be done in further crafting this bill as it goes through the legislative process to ensure that concerns about loopholes and unintended benefits are met. And, I also completely agree that the citizens of the District of Columbia must hold its elected leaders accountable for waste and mismanagement. It is important, however, that the general concepts of this bill are put before the Congress. This bill is certainly not set in stone, and I would anticipate that many Members of Congress and outside groups will have a number of good ideas on how it can be improved. My goal is that Congress start taking a serious look at ways to solve the problems of our Nation's capital. One of these ways must include expanding the local economy and, therefore, the local tax base. And, serious problems often require bold solutions. Washington, DC is the capital of the United States of America. Every day there are buses of people who come to view the monuments, study the historical treasures, and participate in their Federal Government. Every day there are people from foreign nations who may get their first and, in some cases, only taste of America from visiting our capital. Unfortunately, a city rife with pot holes, dilapidated police cars, and drug dealers and prostitutes openly offering their wares is not the impression of our country most Americans wish to leave with visitors from foreign countries, let alone tolerate themselves. I quote Washington Post columnist James Glassman when I say that it is time to act courageously and adopt a proposal that could help save this city. I urge my colleagues to become actively involved in the debate and in searching for ways to revitalize and reinvigorate a city that is as important to Floridians as it is to Utahns, as important to Californians as to Pennsylvanians. I urge my colleagues to join us in this bold effort to jump start both the economy and civic pride of the District of Columbia.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, three times in the last year we have stood on this floor to debate welfare reform. The first time, the bill passed the Senate by a large bipartisan majority, 87 to 12. Yet, the President has vetoed it. He has since vetoed welfare reform legislation twice more. Today, we are standing here again. We have yet again passed legislation to reform a failed and broken welfare system, a system which has dragged the most vulnerable of our population into a pit of dependency. We must stop this cycle. We must give these families the hope and help they deserve. This legislation would do just that. This legislation reforms the old system into a new one. This legislation will take a system of degrading, esteem depleting handouts and transform it into a transitional system of support that helps families gain work experience, training, and self-sufficiency. This bill creates a system that gives beneficiaries a leg up and not a shove down. In watching the Olympic long-distance cycling event a few nights ago, my heart went out to those athletes who had trained so hard, but who had hit ``the wall,'' that point in an endurance contest when the goal seems overwhelming and when it seems impossible to take another step or pedal another foot. Mr. President, many of our welfare recipients under our current system have faced the wall. Our current system is one that simply encourages dependence; an individual's self-esteem is shattered; when a better life seems beyond reach; and it becomes easier to quit and accept the help of others. This legislation will help American families climb over the wall of poverty. It will build self-confidence and hope for the future on a foundation of work and accomplishment. Yet, Mr. President, welfare recipients are not the only ones who have hit the proverbial wall with our welfare system. The taxpayers have hit it too. Frankly, while they are a compassionate people, while they want to help those who are less fortunate, they also want to see personal responsibility and individual effort restored as a quid pro quo to receiving help. Americans have become frustrated that the increasing billions of dollars we spend on the war on poverty is not reducing poverty. It is not building strong families. It is just not working. Mr. President, the legislation before us today would create a transitional system. One that stresses temporary assistance and not a permanent handout. It requires that beneficiaries go to work and get the training and educational skills they need to get and keep a job. No longer will beneficiaries be able to get something for nothing. This system will give them the help they need to get into a job and move into self-sufficiency. Mr. President, this bill gives the States the flexibility they need to design the best systems they can to address their unique mix of economic climate, beneficiary characteristics, and resources available. The Federal Government cannot be responsive to local conditions but the States can. This bill moves the decisionmaking and system design authority to the States where it belongs. It doesn't simply leave Federal funds on the stump as some have suggested. States are required to submit their plans and live up to them. They must serve their needy populations and provide them the resources necessary to move them into jobs and self- sufficiency. This legislation is the fourth time the Senate has passed welfare reform legislation. This is yet another chance for the President to honor his pledge to ``reform welfare as we know it.'' It is another chance for all of us to throw over a system that provides no real hope, no real help, no real progress. American low-income families deserve more and so do the American taxpayers.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is simple. It directs the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to devote sufficient resources to making sure that generic drug applications are reviewed within the statutory deadline, which is 180 days. Many of my colleagues may be surprised to know that the FDA is not meeting this deadline. In fact, it has fallen woefully short of meeting the law's requirement. It is obvious to me that the Senate has learned one thing from our extensive debate on GATT and pharmaceutical patents over the past 8 months. We all want to do what we can to speed less-costly pharmaceutical products to the marketplace. And that is the goal of our amendment. There are two compelling points I want to leave with Members of this body. The first is that FDA resources devoted to review of generic drugs are insufficient, and are dwindling from an alltime high in 1993. The second is that the FDA's actual review time for generic drugs is increasing, even while their estimates of that review time would have us believe the time is falling. Let me elaborate. On the first point, the FDA estimates that they will devote 390 full- time equivalents [FTE's] to generic drug review in fiscal year 1997, which is down from the fiscal year 1996 estimate of 397 FTE's. It is also down from the actual number of 396 FTE's in fiscal year 1995 and 432 FTE's in fiscal year 1994. As a matter of fact, statistics provided by the FDA itself indicate that there has been a build up over the past decade from 227 FTE's devoted to generic drug reviews in fiscal year 1986, steadily increasing to the all-time high of 448 FTE's in fiscal year 1993, and now declining each year. Perhaps not coincidentally, the start of the decline was the exact time when the Prescription Drug User Fee Act [PDUFA] was enacted, the law which guaranteed subsidization of innovator drug reviews through new user fees. Those fees were not applied to generic drug reviews. On the second point, I would like to note that there is a substantial gap between the FDA's estimates of how long it will take them to review generic drugs and the actual review time. For 2 recent years for which I have statistics supplied by the FDA, there has been a large discrepancy between the time FDA thinks it will need to review generic drug applications and the actual review time. In fiscal year 1995, for example the FDA told the Appropriations Committee it would take an average of 24 months to review generic drug applications; in fact, it took 34.2 months. The next year, the current fiscal year, even though the FDA had not come close to meeting its target from the year before, FDA estimated that the approval time would fall--to an average of 20 months. In fact, the current estimates are that it is taking an average of 30 months. What is really astonishing is that the law mandates a 6-month review time. Instead of seeking the resources to meet that statutory deadline, the FDA has been seeking to expand its regulatory purview, by dusting off old regulations such as ``Medguide'' or starting new initiatives such as tobacco, each of which undoubtedly requires new funding. While the FDA blindly rushes to make a case for both initiatives, only part of which is compelling from a public health perspective, I find it intriguing that the Agency has chosen to ignore a statutory mandate on the one hand while it voluntarily seeks to expand its purview on the other. What is particularly compelling is that, as the review times for generic drugs increased, the review times for innovator drugs has decreased dramatically. It is now about 24 months on average; the median is estimated at 17.5 months. And so we find ourselves in the ironic position that review times for new drugs--both actual and projected--is shorter than the review time for the generic copies, a position I find untenable. Mr. President, generic drugs represent a very cost-effective means of controlling health care expenditures. Any delay in sending these drugs to market increases costs to patients, who may end up paying more for pharmaceuticals, and it increases costs to taxpayers through Government-funded programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. It is clear to me that the FDA should be giving generic drug applications more attention, not less. That is the motivation for the amendment we offer today, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to today to speak a few words in remembrance of Thomas R. Burke, whose recent, tragic death at the young age of 57 has robbed America of one of its leading health care policymakers. Many of us in this body remember Tom Burke for his outstanding work at the Department of Health and Human Services. Indeed, I first came to know Tom over a decade ago during the confirmation process for one of the great HHS Secretaries of all time, Dr. Otis Bowen. I quickly came to admire Tom's forthright style, which some may have called gruff. But everyone respected Tom for his vigor, honesty, and impact. In the early 1980's, Tom served as the staff director of the Advisory Council on Social Security, chaired by Dr. Bowen. When Dr. Bowen joined the Reagan administration as Secretary of Health and Human Services in 1985, he made a wise decision and chose Tom Burke as Chief of Staff of the 110,000 employee department. This was a significant honor and great responsibility--and Tom didn't let Dr. Bowen down. He stood as ``Doc's'' top-most advocate, defender, and protector, until President Reagan left office. While many remember Tom for the Medicare catastrophic legislation, which I will discuss in a moment, Tom must be remembered for his many, many other accomplishments at HHS, including initiatives to: Strengthen patient-outcomes and medical effectiveness research; launch a public awareness campaign against alcohol abuse; propose reforms in the medical liability system; and, undertake managerial changes to elevate the Indian Health Service and rejuvenate the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service. Tom Burke worked diligently on behalf of our Nation's seniors in the area of catastrophic health insurance. While we know that this legislation proved to be controversial, there is one aspect of this issue about which there can be no disagreement: Tom Burke worked hard to accomplish what he thought was in the best interest of the American public. Indeed, the record must reflect that the original Bowen-Burke proposal was a much, much more modest proposal than that which the Congress ultimately expanded, approved and repealed. I remember well the initial idea which Tom had such a large hand in bringing to the forefront of public debate. It was a small add-on to the amount seniors pay for Medicare, under $5 a month, in exchange for which seniors would have the peace of mind of knowing they had unlimited hospitalization coverage. Unfortunately, this was not the provision which became law. Tom was widely recognized by his peers for these accomplishments, a fact recognized by the special awards he received from Secretary Bowen and Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. Tom Burke had a long career in public service. In addition to his work at HHS, Tom was a member of the Green Berets and also became Director of Health Policy Analysis for the Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs at the Department of Defense. These two assignments served him well in his later Government service. Mr. President, after Tom's untimely passing, a number of us who worked closely with him wanted to express our admiration of his service to the government and of his achievements in health care policy. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the statements of two of this body's most distinguished health care leaders--now retired--Senator Dave Durenberger, and Senator George Mitchell, be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one of the things I remember fondly about Tom is that his measure of a man's judgment was often to look up and question, Is he a long-ball hitter? Judging Tom by his own measure, we all must conclude he could hit the home run ball. More important than his many professional achievements, Tom Burke was a good family man. I want to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to his wife, Sharon; daughters, Rosemary, Heather, and Kerry; and, son, Brendan. Although the love of a husband and father can never be replaced, with God's help and strength, his family will make it through this trying time. It seems to me that far too often in this institution we get so engrossed in partisan and policy battles that we forget that ultimately it is people that matter. In losing Tom Burke we have lost a good public servant and a good man. We will all miss him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1965, a bipartisan bill to combat the methamphetamine epidemic, a serious and growing public health problem which poses a special threat to our Nation's youth who are abusing the drug in record numbers. According to the latest information from the Drug Enforcement Administration, 50 percent of the methamphetamine consumed in the United States is illegally imported. The other 50 percent is manufactured illegally in the United States in clandestine labs. Accordingly, any national strategy to combat methamphetamine must target both the source of import and these clandestine labs. Methamphetamine presents a unique problem in the fight against illegal drugs. It is not grown, but is manufactured from other chemicals, virtually all of which are legally used for other purposes. Clandestine methamphetamine laboratories manufacture methamphetamine from chemicals with legitimate medical uses. Two of the most common precursor drugs--ephedrine and pseudoephedrine--are common ingredients in cold and cough preparations. Other precursor chemicals include iodine, often used in iodized salt; red phosphorous, often used in the production of matches; and hydrochloric acid, used for a variety of chemical purposes. In addition, methamphetamine distribution has become a major target of opportunity for sophisticated drug trafficking rings, including vicious, poly-drug organizations in Mexico who have beaten well-trodden paths into the United States. Willing European suppliers provide them with tons of ephedrine, the precursor drug used to manufacture the illegal meth. These Mexican methamphetamine traffickers are organized--and they do not hesitate to use extreme violence. They showed their true colors when they murdered DEA special agent Richard Fass in Glendale, AZ, in June 1994--just 1 day before he was to be transferred to a new assignment. Any legislative solution to the meth crisis must, by necessity, balance the need to stem this illegal tide of methamphetamine into the United States against the need to ensure access to precursor chemicals which have legitimate medical uses and upon which millions of Americans rely. Mr. President, methamphetamine has wreaked havoc across America, especially on communities in the Southwest. And, unfortunately, it is spreading east. It has entered the intermountain west, especially Utah, and is beginning to be seen throughout the rest of the country as well. An indication of the magnitude of this problem is the fact that methamphetamine emergency room cases are up 256 percent over the 1991 levels, according to the latest information from the Drug Abuse Warning Network. In 1994, the last year that data were available, there were 17,400 methamphetamine-related emergency visits. In California, methamphetamine seizures are up 518 percent over the 1991 level. In Utah, we had 56 lab seizures in 1995, up from 13 in 1994. From January through June of this year we have already had 37 lab seizures. Utah has ranked in the top three States in the number of methamphetamine lab seizures for the past 2 years, an alarming trend. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Utah has experienced the second greatest increase in methamphetamine-related admissions in the entire country--a 133-percent increase in admissions between 1992 and 1993. But statistics don't tell the whole story. This crisis is more than numbers, it involves real people suffering real problems. Let me show you examples of the people behind those numbers. One of these people is Russell Ray Thompson. After a long day of drinking alcohol and injecting methamphetamine, Thompson shot an unarmed female friend six times with a rifle, leaving her two orphaned children to live with their grandparents. Another is Connie Richens, from Vernal, UT. As Ms. Richens was preparing to meet her husband at a bowling alley, two men forced themselves into her apartment and slashed her throat four times. Uinta County sheriff's deputies found powdered methamphetamine a few feet from her dead body. Methamphetamine is a killer. It kills those who abuse it, as well as innocent bystanders. It is the latest outrage perpetrated on American society by those who deal in drugs. We must put a stop to this terrible problem. At this point, I would like to summarize the major provisions in S. 1965. The first title contains measures to stop the importation of methamphetamine and precursor chemicals into the United States. We have included a long-arm provision, which imposes a maximum 10-year penalty on the manufacture outside the United States of a list I chemical-- which is a chemical that is used to manufacture a controlled substance--with intent to import it into this country. The second title contains several provisions to control the manufacture of methamphetamine in clandestine labs. It includes an important provision to permit the seizure and forfeiture of list I chemicals that are involved in illegal trafficking. Another provision increases penalties for the manufacture and possession of equipment used to make controlled substances. These provisions will not only impact the manufacture of methamphetamine, but other drugs illegally manufactured as well. After a great deal of work with the Department of Justice, Senator Biden, and the DEA, I have also included a provision that will allow the Attorney General to commence a civil action for appropriate relief to shut down the production and sale of listed chemicals by individuals or companies that knowingly sell precursor agents for the purpose of the illegal manufacture of a controlled substance. I believe that these provisions are important, as they give law enforcement additional authority to stop the flow of these precursor substances that are diverted for the manufacture of illegal controlled substances and to shut down clandestine labs. This bill gives the law enforcement community the muscle it needs to fight trafficking in methamphetamine and its precursor drugs. In addition to the provisions I have already outlined, the third title increases penalties for trafficking in methamphetamine and list I precursor chemicals, enhances penalties for the dangerous handling of controlled substances, allows the Government to seek restitution for the clean up of the clandestine laboratory sites from those who created the contamination, and allows for the seizure of the modes of transportation of illegal methamphetamine and list I chemicals. In developing these provisions, we were cognizant of the fact that the DEA and the administration have stated that one important way to stop meth abuse is to increase the penalties for illegal importation of precursor chemicals. This will reduce the number of domestic, clandestine methamphetamine labs which, in turn, will decrease the availability of this dangerous drug, improve the safety of our neighborhoods, and eliminate a source of environmental damage. It is an unfortunate consequence of enhanced domestic penalties that some of the domestic labs may relocate to Central and South America. It is my hope that the provisions in this bill requiring additional coordination between the United States and these countries will allow for the development of an international strategy that will combat this problem too. In particular, fighting this problem effectively is going to require improved cooperation from Mexico. I believe that Congress stands ready to support the administration in international efforts to stem the flow of drugs into the United States. The fourth title cracks down hard on the ability of rogue companies to sell large amounts of precursor chemicals that are diverted to clandestine labs. Provisions in this title limit the package size that precursor drugs may be sold in at the retail level, and require the product to be packaged in blister packs when technically feasible. Mr. President, this title contains carefully drafted provisions that balance the need to crack down on precursor chemicals against the need to maintain the availability of drugs such as pseudoephedrine for legitimate purposes. I recognize the need to take measures to decrease the availability of the precursor list I chemicals for diversion to clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. However, in so doing, we must not restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to use common remedies for colds and allergies, or subject sales of such legal products to onerous recordkeeping at the retail level. It is no secret that I have been critical of the DEA's proposed regulations in this area. The provisions included in S. 1965, I believe, will achieve our common goal without the negative side effects of the proposed regulations. In fact, I believe that our provisions with regard to the sale of the precursor chemicals pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine go much farther in preventing the diversion of these products while maintaining their access for legitimate uses. In this bill we lower the single transaction threshold for pseudoephedrine--containing products from 1,000 grams to 24 grams. Our bill also allows the Attorney General to lower this single--transaction limit further, as necessary to prevent the diversion of products to meth labs. That provision was inserted to meet the concerns of Senator Feinstein and others who believe that retail sales are a significant source of precursor drugs for clandestine labs. Some of my colleagues may have seen an article this morning in USA Today, which leaves one with the impression that retail cough and cold preparations are a significant source of precursor drugs. I have spent a great deal of time studying this issue, consulting extensively with the DEA and State and local law enforcement officials in Utah. I remain unconvinced that legitimate products purchased at the retail level are a significant source of precursor drugs for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Nevertheless, I have included several provisions in this title that will limit the potential diversion of legitimate products at the retail level to methamphetamine labs. When this legislation is enacted, I will continue to monitor this situation very closely. If the data show that retail products containing pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine are contributing to the methamphetamine problems, I pledge to revisit this issue next Congress. In addition, we have strict reporting and recordkeeping provisions for those companies that sell ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine by mail. These provisions - which go far beyond what DEA has proposed to date--will shut down loopholes in current law that allow these products to get to the meth labs. This bill gets tough on those who divert legitimate products to clandestine methamphetamine labs. I would have it no other way. In anticipation of questions regarding this provision, I want to underscore that the bill does not apply to dietary supplement products in any way. Finally, an important title of our legislation improves and expands existing education and research activities related to methamphetamine and other drug abuse. This approach, I feel, is key to the success of a comprehensive drug control policy. Increased emphasis on research, prevention, and treatment go hand in hand with efforts to reduce supply. Consequently, our bill creates a methamphetamine interagency working group to design, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive methamphetamine education and prevention program. It requires public health monitoring programs to monitor methamphetamine abuse in the United States. In addition, the legislation calls for a methamphetamine national advisory panel to develop a program to educate distributors of precursor chemicals and supplies to decrease the likelihood of diversion of these products to clandestine laboratories, and creates a suspicious orders task force to improve the reporting of suspicious orders and sales of list I chemicals. In closing, Mr. President, I want to make clear that the legislation we introduce today represents a consensus position based on literally hundreds of hours of consultations with representatives of Federal, State, and local law enforcement, as well as substance abuse prevention and treatment experts and representatives of manufacturers of legitimate products containing the precursor chemicals. In particular, I want to recognize the input from the Drug Enforcement Agency and Department of Justice, who have been instrumental in the development of a bill that we all can support. I want to thank Senator Biden for his leadership role in developing this bill and for his willingness to move forward in a bipartisan way so that we can take steps toward addressing this important public health problem this session. In addition, I want to recognize the significant contributions of Senator Wyden, who early on indicated his interest in working with me to develop a bipartisan bill, and Senators Specter, DeWine, Ashcroft, and Harkin. Finally, I must also recognize the efforts of Senators Feinstein, Grassley, and Kyl. They have contributed significant time and energy to bringing this issue before Congress and are strong advocates for legislation to deal with this problem. The bill that my colleagues and I rise to introduce today represents a bipartisan, comprehensive response to control the methamphetamine abuse problem in our country. We still have a few issues to work out as this bill moves forward, but I am confident that we can quickly address any remaining areas of concern, so that we can pass this bill this session. Methamphetamine abuse is a growing threat to the public health of this country. I hope that the Senate can move quickly to pass this bill so we can enact a comprehensive program to stop this problem in its tracks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1965, a bipartisan bill to combat the methamphetamine epidemic, a serious and growing public health problem which poses a special threat to our Nation's youth who are abusing the drug in record numbers. According to the latest information from the Drug Enforcement Administration, 50 percent of the methamphetamine consumed in the United States is illegally imported. The other 50 percent is manufactured illegally in the United States in clandestine labs. Accordingly, any national strategy to combat methamphetamine must target both the source of import and these clandestine labs. Methamphetamine presents a unique problem in the fight against illegal drugs. It is not grown, but is manufactured from other chemicals, virtually all of which are legally used for other purposes. Clandestine methamphetamine laboratories manufacture methamphetamine from chemicals with legitimate medical uses. Two of the most common precursor drugs--ephedrine and pseudoephedrine--are common ingredients in cold and cough preparations. Other precursor chemicals include iodine, often used in iodized salt; red phosphorous, often used in the production of matches; and hydrochloric acid, used for a variety of chemical purposes. In addition, methamphetamine distribution has become a major target of opportunity for sophisticated drug trafficking rings, including vicious, poly-drug organizations in Mexico who have beaten well-trodden paths into the United States. Willing European suppliers provide them with tons of ephedrine, the precursor drug used to manufacture the illegal meth. These Mexican methamphetamine traffickers are organized--and they do not hesitate to use extreme violence. They showed their true colors when they murdered DEA special agent Richard Fass in Glendale, AZ, in June 1994--just 1 day before he was to be transferred to a new assignment. Any legislative solution to the meth crisis must, by necessity, balance the need to stem this illegal tide of methamphetamine into the United States against the need to ensure access to precursor chemicals which have legitimate medical uses and upon which millions of Americans rely. Mr. President, methamphetamine has wreaked havoc across America, especially on communities in the Southwest. And, unfortunately, it is spreading east. It has entered the intermountain west, especially Utah, and is beginning to be seen throughout the rest of the country as well. An indication of the magnitude of this problem is the fact that methamphetamine emergency room cases are up 256 percent over the 1991 levels, according to the latest information from the Drug Abuse Warning Network. In 1994, the last year that data were available, there were 17,400 methamphetamine-related emergency visits. In California, methamphetamine seizures are up 518 percent over the 1991 level. In Utah, we had 56 lab seizures in 1995, up from 13 in 1994. From January through June of this year we have already had 37 lab seizures. Utah has ranked in the top three States in the number of methamphetamine lab seizures for the past 2 years, an alarming trend. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Utah has experienced the second greatest increase in methamphetamine-related admissions in the entire country--a 133-percent increase in admissions between 1992 and 1993. But statistics don't tell the whole story. This crisis is more than numbers, it involves real people suffering real problems. Let me show you examples of the people behind those numbers. One of these people is Russell Ray Thompson. After a long day of drinking alcohol and injecting methamphetamine, Thompson shot an unarmed female friend six times with a rifle, leaving her two orphaned children to live with their grandparents. Another is Connie Richens, from Vernal, UT. As Ms. Richens was preparing to meet her husband at a bowling alley, two men forced themselves into her apartment and slashed her throat four times. Uinta County sheriff's deputies found powdered methamphetamine a few feet from her dead body. Methamphetamine is a killer. It kills those who abuse it, as well as innocent bystanders. It is the latest outrage perpetrated on American society by those who deal in drugs. We must put a stop to this terrible problem. At this point, I would like to summarize the major provisions in S. 1965. The first title contains measures to stop the importation of methamphetamine and precursor chemicals into the United States. We have included a long-arm provision, which imposes a maximum 10-year penalty on the manufacture outside the United States of a list I chemical-- which is a chemical that is used to manufacture a controlled substance--with intent to import it into this country. The second title contains several provisions to control the manufacture of methamphetamine in clandestine labs. It includes an important provision to permit the seizure and forfeiture of list I chemicals that are involved in illegal trafficking. Another provision increases penalties for the manufacture and possession of equipment used to make controlled substances. These provisions will not only impact the manufacture of methamphetamine, but other drugs illegally manufactured as well. After a great deal of work with the Department of Justice, Senator Biden, and the DEA, I have also included a provision that will allow the Attorney General to commence a civil action for appropriate relief to shut down the production and sale of listed chemicals by individuals or companies that knowingly sell precursor agents for the purpose of the illegal manufacture of a controlled substance. I believe that these provisions are important, as they give law enforcement additional authority to stop the flow of these precursor substances that are diverted for the manufacture of illegal controlled substances and to shut down clandestine labs. This bill gives the law enforcement community the muscle it needs to fight trafficking in methamphetamine and its precursor drugs. In addition to the provisions I have already outlined, the third title increases penalties for trafficking in methamphetamine and list I precursor chemicals, enhances penalties for the dangerous handling of controlled substances, allows the Government to seek restitution for the clean up of the clandestine laboratory sites from those who created the contamination, and allows for the seizure of the modes of transportation of illegal methamphetamine and list I chemicals. In developing these provisions, we were cognizant of the fact that the DEA and the administration have stated that one important way to stop meth abuse is to increase the penalties for illegal importation of precursor chemicals. This will reduce the number of domestic, clandestine methamphetamine labs which, in turn, will decrease the availability of this dangerous drug, improve the safety of our neighborhoods, and eliminate a source of environmental damage. It is an unfortunate consequence of enhanced domestic penalties that some of the domestic labs may relocate to Central and South America. It is my hope that the provisions in this bill requiring additional coordination between the United States and these countries will allow for the development of an international strategy that will combat this problem too. In particular, fighting this problem effectively is going to require improved cooperation from Mexico. I believe that Congress stands ready to support the administration in international efforts to stem the flow of drugs into the United States. The fourth title cracks down hard on the ability of rogue companies to sell large amounts of precursor chemicals that are diverted to clandestine labs. Provisions in this title limit the package size that precursor drugs may be sold in at the retail level, and require the product to be packaged in blister packs when technically feasible. Mr. President, this title contains carefully drafted provisions that balance the need to crack down on precursor chemicals against the need to maintain the availability of drugs such as pseudoephedrine for legitimate purposes. I recognize the need to take measures to decrease the availability of the precursor list I chemicals for diversion to clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. However, in so doing, we must not restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to use common remedies for colds and allergies, or subject sales of such legal products to onerous recordkeeping at the retail level. It is no secret that I have been critical of the DEA's proposed regulations in this area. The provisions included in S. 1965, I believe, will achieve our common goal without the negative side effects of the proposed regulations. In fact, I believe that our provisions with regard to the sale of the precursor chemicals pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine go much farther in preventing the diversion of these products while maintaining their access for legitimate uses. In this bill we lower the single transaction threshold for pseudoephedrine--containing products from 1,000 grams to 24 grams. Our bill also allows the Attorney General to lower this single--transaction limit further, as necessary to prevent the diversion of products to meth labs. That provision was inserted to meet the concerns of Senator Feinstein and others who believe that retail sales are a significant source of precursor drugs for clandestine labs. Some of my colleagues may have seen an article this morning in USA Today, which leaves one with the impression that retail cough and cold preparations are a significant source of precursor drugs. I have spent a great deal of time studying this issue, consulting extensively with the DEA and State and local law enforcement officials in Utah. I remain unconvinced that legitimate products purchased at the retail level are a significant source of precursor drugs for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Nevertheless, I have included several provisions in this title that will limit the potential diversion of legitimate products at the retail level to methamphetamine labs. When this legislation is enacted, I will continue to monitor this situation very closely. If the data show that retail products containing pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine are contributing to the methamphetamine problems, I pledge to revisit this issue next Congress. In addition, we have strict reporting and recordkeeping provisions for those companies that sell ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine by mail. These provisions - which go far beyond what DEA has proposed to date--will shut down loopholes in current law that allow these products to get to the meth labs. This bill gets tough on those who divert legitimate products to clandestine methamphetamine labs. I would have it no other way. In anticipation of questions regarding this provision, I want to underscore that the bill does not apply to dietary supplement products in any way. Finally, an important title of our legislation improves and expands existing education and research activities related to methamphetamine and other drug abuse. This approach, I feel, is key to the success of a comprehensive drug control policy. Increased emphasis on research, prevention, and treatment go hand in hand with efforts to reduce supply. Consequently, our bill creates a methamphetamine interagency working group to design, implement, and evaluate a comprehensive methamphetamine education and prevention program. It requires public health monitoring programs to monitor methamphetamine abuse in the United States. In addition, the legislation calls for a methamphetamine national advisory panel to develop a program to educate distributors of precursor chemicals and supplies to decrease the likelihood of diversion of these products to clandestine laboratories, and creates a suspicious orders task force to improve the reporting of suspicious orders and sales of list I chemicals. In closing, Mr. President, I want to make clear that the legislation we introduce today represents a consensus position based on literally hundreds of hours of consultations with representatives of Federal, State, and local law enforcement, as well as substance abuse prevention and treatment experts and representatives of manufacturers of legitimate products containing the precursor chemicals. In particular, I want to recognize the input from the Drug Enforcement Agency and Department of Justice, who have been instrumental in the development of a bill that we all can support. I want to thank Senator Biden for his leadership role in developing this bill and for his willingness to move forward in a bipartisan way so that we can take steps toward addressing this important public health problem this session. In addition, I want to recognize the significant contributions of Senator Wyden, who early on indicated his interest in working with me to develop a bipartisan bill, and Senators Specter, DeWine, Ashcroft, and Harkin. Finally, I must also recognize the efforts of Senators Feinstein, Grassley, and Kyl. They have contributed significant time and energy to bringing this issue before Congress and are strong advocates for legislation to deal with this problem. The bill that my colleagues and I rise to introduce today represents a bipartisan, comprehensive response to control the methamphetamine abuse problem in our country. We still have a few issues to work out as this bill moves forward, but I am confident that we can quickly address any remaining areas of concern, so that we can pass this bill this session. Methamphetamine abuse is a growing threat to the public health of this country. I hope that the Senate can move quickly to pass this bill so we can enact a comprehensive program to stop this problem in its tracks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a new version of the Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1996. This bill is a narrower version of the bill introduced as S. 605, on March 23, 1995. Americans everywhere are losing their fundamental right to property. They cannot build homes, farm land, clear ditches or cut firebreaks in property that clearly belongs to them. Often, this property has been in their family for years. The Omnibus Property Rights Act is the proper vehicle to vindicate property rights and limit arbitrary actions by Federal bureaucrats. The criticisms of S. 605, in my view, are vastly overblown. But, in a good faith effort to address concerns raised by critics of the original bill, I am introducing this revised version. This version will: First, narrow the definition of property to include only real property, including fixtures on land, such as crops, timber, and mining interests, and water rights; Second, increase the threshold amount that property or a portion of property need be diminished in value before compensation for a taking be sought from 33 to 50 percent; Third, expressly exempt civil rights laws from the bill's purview, including those protecting persons with disabilities; Fourth, remove the takings regulatory reform ``look back'' provision from the bill by striking all of section 404, this in an effort to address the fear that any and all agency review provisions are too burdensome; and Fifth, amend the owner's consent to enter land provision to allow for nonconsensual agency access to private land pursuant to criminal law enforcement and emergency access exceptions. In addressing the bill oponent's claims by making these significant changes, I would like to say once again that our critics' real problem is not with the overall bill, but with the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1992, the Supreme Court held in Lucas versus South Carolina Coastal Council that restrictions on property use based on ``background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance'' need not be compensated. Common law nuisance is either the use of property that harms or interferes with another's property or that injures public health, safety, or morals. This common law exemption for compensation has been codified literally in this bill as a ``nuisance exception.'' All we did in our bill was to codify the ``law of the land.'' The bill codifies and clarifies recent Supreme Court standards as to what constitutes a ``taking'' of private property and ameliorates the arbitrary nature of court and administrative proceedings. What this bill does is to limit big government's ability to regulate and control private property without paying innocent or nonpolluting property holders compensation. Currently, the Federal Government and agency bureaucrats are able to shift the cost of public regulation to individual property owners. The Omnibus Property Rights Act helps to take away this arbitrary free ride. The bill helps secure and protect private property rights guaranteed by the takings clause of the fifth amendment of our Constitution, which the Supreme Court in Armstrong versus United States (1960) determined is ``to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens, which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by public as a whole.'' In adopting the Supreme Court's recent Lucas holding, the Omnibus Property Rights bill provides that only innocent property holders are to be compensated for government takings. Those that misuse their property to pollute or to harm public health and safety are not entitled to compensation under the bill's nuisance provision. Property owners remain subject to the same laws and regulations as everyone else. Only if government cannot demonstrate that their use of property amounts to a harm recognized as common law nuisance will a property holder be compensated under this bill. What could be fairer than this? What about those Federal statutes, named by opponents of the Omnibus bill, that might not fall under the nuisance exception? Will enforcement of those statutes, designed to protect the public, diminish the value of property and require compensation? The answer is no: property holders are subject to the same general laws and regulations as everyone else. Only where enforcement of regulatory schemes amounts to a taking under current law, and arbitrarily singles out property holders to their detriment by requiring them, through reduced property values, to fund programs that should be paid out of the public treasury, will property holders be compensated. Moreover, even in these limited circumstances, the Federal Government can still regulate by paying compensation when it takes property. Current law--even without this bill--recognizes that justice and fairness require the government to pay for the property it takes. Thus, contrary to the bill's critics and the administration, if the Omnibus Property Rights Act is enacted into law, the sky will not fall. In reality, the Federal bureaucracy has a poor record in protecting the right of the American public to use and own property. That is why we need a vehicle--such as this bill--to force the government by statute to heed the public's rights. Indeed, the omnibus bill includes provisions that require Federal agencies to account for the costs of taking property when formulating policy, and it provides for a more efficient administrative remedy for property owners who seek compensation. It also allows for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to encourage quicker settlements of takings claims. For cases that go to Federal court under the bill, the bill codifies recent Supreme Court decisions and clarifies the law in regulatory takings cases. Because the bill provides for clearer, bright-line rules of liability, it will lead to lower costs overall, as both agencies and property owners become fully aware of the limits of the government's power to take property. Importantly, the codification of bright-line rules will ameliorate the ad hoc and arbitrary nature of takings jurisprudence. I ask my colleagues to support this bill and breathe life into the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1955, a bill to establish a National Center for Pain Research within the National Institutes of Health. This is legislation that I have developed working closely with Senators Harkin and Faircloth. S. 1955 is also cosponsored by Senators Bennett, Inouye, Thurmond, Simon, Pressler and DeWine. Pain is a condition that each of us experiences throughout our lives. Millions of individuals suffer from pain, sometimes chronic and often needlessly. Yet, there is insufficient knowledge about the basic mechanisms of pain, relatively few resources dedicated to the development and evaluation of pain treatment modalities, and inadequate transfer of new knowledge and information to health care professionals. To show the magnitude of the problem, I will cite several statistics. Studies show that four in five Americans will have low back pain at some point in their lives. Nearly one in six Americans suffers from some form of arthritis, a very painful condition. In fact, according to the American Chronic Pain Association, pain is a part of the daily lives of one in three Americans. These painful conditions are not only common, they are also expensive. A recent survey has shown that absences from work due to pain totaled 50 million days in 1995, accounting for billions of dollars in lost wages for sick days or medical and disability payments. Mr. President, with an appropriation of $12 billion a year, you would think that the NIH would be devoting a substantial amount of funding toward a medical condition which is so prevalent. In fact, I was shocked to learn that such is not the case. According to statistics provided to me by the agency, NIH is spending only $54 million per year on pain-related research, only one-half of one percent. And that number is down almost 10 percent from the previous year. To take one example, acute back pain, a serious condition which will affect about 80 percent of all Americans sometime in their lives, is alone responsible for a $40-billion-a-year drain on the U.S. economy. Yet, NIH reports that it currently funds only $2.5 million of research into this area. My study of this issue has led me to conclude there is another serious problem associated with our Government campaign against pain. Pain research is spread across many of the Institutes, yet there is little coordination of these research activities to make sure these resources are effectively used. Mr. President, this is not to say that NIH has neglected pain research. In fact, I want to make clear that NIH deserves high marks for its significant contributions in the field of pain research. NIH scientists have been integral in the cataloging of neurotransmitters and have been the key to improved understanding of the process of nociception. This basic science research has allowed for the development of several new drugs to treat pain. I want to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Harold Varmus, NIH Director, and Dr. Harold Slavkin, NIDR Director, for their continued support of a most impressive program within the National Institute of Dental Research. The NIDR's Intramural Pain Research Program, operated through the Neurobiology and Anesthesiology Branch [NAB] of NIDR, exemplifies the high quality of pain research that I hope can be multiplied with enactment of this bill. The NAB has trained almost 100 basic and clinical science pain researchers around the world, many of who have become deans of dental and medical schools, department chairs and successful grantees of many NIH Institutes. In fact, the American Pain Society has recently awarded two major research medals to two NAB investigators in recognition of their collaborative basic and clinical science research on neuropathic pain. The National Center for Pain Research Act of 1996 will allow us to build on the successful pain research activities currently underway at the NIH. This bill will improve integration of pain-related research within NIH, establish a national agenda for pain research, and expand the utilization of interdisciplinary pain research teams. Specifically, it will, first, establish a Center for Pain Research within NIH. The purpose of this Center is to improve the quality of life of individuals suffering from pain by fostering clinical and basic science research into the causes of and effective treatments for pain; second, authorize the Center to coordinate pain research throughout the Institutes at NIH, as well as fund priority pain-related research through its own research budget; third, create an advisory board that will be made up of experts in pain research and pain management from a wide variety of health care disciplines, including physicians who practice pain management, psychology, physical medicine and rehabilitative services, nursing, dentistry, and chiropractic health care professionals; and fourth, establish six regional pain research centers to facilitate and enhance pain-related research, training, education, and related activities to be carried out by the Center. In addition to increasing our knowledge about pain, it is important to disseminate information about advances made in the pain research. Through pioneering research supported by the NIH, we have already made great strides in increasing our knowledge of pain and in treating painful conditions. However, the treatment of patients suffering from painful conditions remains woefully inadequate. Too many of our health professionals lack specific training in pain management. With adequate pain control, much of the suffering from painful conditions can be prevented or greatly attenuated. Sadly, pain control is a significant problem for patients with cancer. A statement from the National Cancer Institute indicated that, ``the under treatment of pain and other symptoms of cancer is a serious and neglected public health problem.'' With 1 million new cases of cancer diagnosed each year, this problem cannot be ignored. Additional studies have shown that pain associated with cancer is most frequently under treated in the elderly and children--two of our most vulnerable populations. The need for a national movement to help these individuals is illustrated by the fact that cancer pain can be virtually abolished in approximately 90 percent of patients by the intelligent use of drugs. This bill has widespread support from organizations representing the providers of pain management, pain researchers, and the people they serve. These organizations include: American Academy of Pain Management, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Chiropractic Association, American Chronic Pain Association, American Pain Society, Arthritis Foundation, Back Pain Association of America, Endometriosis Association, Interstitial Cystitis Association, National Chronic Pain Outreach Association, National Committee on the Treatment of Intractable Pain, Pain Research Group of the University of Wisconsin, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome Association of America, American Cancer Society, Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, and the Vulvar Pain Foundation. In closing, I would like to thank the chiropractic community for bringing this issue to the forefront of public attention. The chiropractic profession, through its ability to effectively treat many painful conditions--including low back pain, headaches and neck pain-- has been on the leading edge of pain management for years. They have joined their colleagues in the health professions in initiating and developing this important legislation and our bill recognizes the substantial role chiropractors play in the pain treatment community. I would also like to thank the contributions of the American Pain Society, which represents the interdisciplinary pain management research and care community. They also have actively participated in the development of this legislation. Mr. President, the creation of the Center for Pain Research will facilitate the discovery of new treatments for painful conditions afflicting almost all of our fellow Americans. This bill also makes certain that these discoveries reach the people who now suffer from needless pain as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support creation of a Center for Pain Research within the National Institutes of Health. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Omnibus Patent Act of 1996. The purposes of this bill are: First, to rationalize the way intellectual property policy is formulated; second, to provide for more efficient administration of the patent, trademark, and copyright systems; third, to save the U.S. taxpayers' money by making the patent, trademark, and copyright systems self-funding; fourth, to discourage gaming the patent system while ensuring against loss of patent term and theft of American inventiveness; fifth, to protect the rights of prior users of inventions which are later patented by another; sixth, to increase the liability of patents by allowing third parties more meaningful participation in the reexamination process; seventh, to make certain that American provisional applications are given the same weight as other countries' provisional applications in other countries' courts; eighth, to make technical corrections in the plant patent provisions of the Patent Act; ninth, to require the Federal Government to pay a successful plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees in a suit for the taking of a patent; and tenth, to allow for the filing of patent and trademark documents by electronic medium. U.S. Intellectual Property Organization Intellectual property normally signifies patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Intellectual property is of vital importance not only to continued progress in science and the arts but also to the economy. A vast array of industries depend on intellectual property. From the chemical, electrical, biotechnological, and manufacturing industries to books, movies, music, and computer software and hardware. Indeed, trademark is important to all businesses, period. Intellectual property industries also contribute mightily to our balance of trade. American-produced software, for example, accounts for 70 percent of the world market. U.S. recorded music constitutes approximately 60 percent of the international market, with annual foreign sales totaling in excess of $12 billion. Together, U.S. copyright industries accounted for an estimated $45.8 billion in foreign sales in 1993, an 11.7 percent increase over 1992 sales figures. The remarkable overall performance of these industries continues to manifest itself in their tremendous rate of growth. For example, between 1991 and 1993, core copyright industries grew at twice the annual rate of the U.S. economy, while the rate of employment growth in these industries outpaced the rate of employment growth in the Nation's economy as a whole by nearly 4 to 1 between 1988 and 1993. Keep in mind that these figures do not even begin to take into account the significant trade benefits attributable to the ever- expanding world market for patented American inventions and products enjoying U.S. trademark or trade secret protection. While these benefits are more difficult to quantify, we need only to look at such American companies as DuPont, Ford, General Electric, IBM, Kodak, Motorola, Monsanto, Palaroid, Xerox, and countless others whose development was founded in large part on U.S. patent protection to realize the utility of strong intellectual property protection to our Nation's economy and our international predominance in creative industries. Because intellectual property protection is so essential to our economy, intellectual property policy must be given a high priority, and because our markets are becoming increasingly global, international intellectual property policy will inevitably loom larger. In some instances, domestic policy will be affected by international developments. For example, as a direct result of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], the basic U.S. patent term of 17 years from issuance was changed to 20 years from filing. I certainly don't advocate a slavish following of foreign models. Whatever is one's view of what international policy should be, however, the fact remains that international policy will have a great impact on domestic intellectual property policy. These developments argue for better coordination between international and domestic intellectual property policymaking. Currently, there is no official agency in the U.S. Government centralizing intellectual property policy formulation. Indeed, not only are there two government entities that deal with intellectual property--the Patent and Trademark Office [PTO] and the Copyright Office--but they are in different branches. The PTO is in the executive branch, while the Copyright Office is in the legislative branch of the Government. The conduct of international affairs has constitutionally been delegated to the executive branch. Because the international aspects of intellectual property will increasingly affect domestic intellectual property policy, it is appropriate that intellectual property policy should be initially formulated in the executive branch. Thus, the bill I am introducing today creates a U.S. Intellectual Property Organization [USIPO] in the executive branch. By centering the initial formulation of intellectual property policy in the executive branch, my bill not only predicts a trend but reflects the current reality. Despite the fact that there is no official intellectual property office, international and domestic intellectual property policy for the current administration is originating largely from the Patent and Trademark Office. Despite its name, the PTO is heavily involved in copyright policy as well. For example, the current negotiations for a Protocol and a New Instrument for the Berne Convention, the world's premiere copyright treaty, are being led by PTO personnel. In addition, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks chaired the working group that drafted the original version of the National Information Infrastructure Copyright Protection Act. This de facto intellectual property office is unlikely to disappear regardless of the outcome of the Presidential elections because it simply makes sense. My bill makes it official. I want to make clear that this restructuring of intellectual property policy is not motivated by dissatisfaction with the performance of the Copyright Office. I have the highest respect for the Register of Copyrights, Ms. Marybeth Peters, and I have always found her advice and that of her staff to be extremely helpful. Indeed, on a number of occasions, I have modified my legislation after listening to her wise counsel. This, however, does not detract from the fact that I believe that there would be an improvement in formulating and coordinating intellectual property policy if the Copyright Office were located within the USIPO, as I have proposed. Under current practice, the role of the Copyright Office in international policy formulation has diminished. Under this bill, with the elimination of the bifurcation of intellectual property policy between the legislative and the executive branches, it is likely that its role would be enhanced. In formulating copyright policy, the Commissioner of Intellectual Property would naturally turn to the Copyright Office subdivision of the USIPO for assistance and advice. In addition to policymaking, the PTO administers the system which grants patents and registers trademarks. The Copyright Office registers copyrights and oversees adjudication incident to the compulsory licenses. Under my bill, these administrative functions would continue under the umbrella of the USIPO. The bill provides for three subdivisions within the USIPO: the Patent Office, the Trademark Office, and the Copyright Office. Each Office is responsible for the administration of its own system. Each Office controls its own budget and its management structure and procedures. Each Office must generate its own revenue. The efficiency of the Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Offices will be enhanced by the status of the USIPO as a Government corporation, as proposed in my bill. This status allows the USIPO and its subdivisions to function without the bureaucratic restraints that bedevil much of the Federal Government. The personnel problems of the Copyright Office illustrate this point. As a part of the Library of Congress, the Copyright Office is subject to the rigid complexity and great delay which characterize the Library's hiring policy. For example, the Copyright Office has been unable to fill the position of General Counsel for several years. A management review of the Library of Congress prepared for the General Accounting Office [GAO] by Booz, Allen and Hamilton notes in its May 7, 1996 report that the median time for hiring a replacement worker is 177 days, much longer than for other Government agencies. Currently, the Library utilizes a 30-step hiring process with multiple hand-offs. The report levels many other criticisms at the Library of Congress' management, but time does not permit me to detail them here. For purposes of this legislation, however, the most important conclusion was that ``[t]here is little operational reason for housing the copyright function at the Library of Congress.'' Although I concur in this conclusion, I am sensitive to the concern of the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, about the importance for the collection of the Library of the deposits made incident to copyright registrations. This bill makes no change in the deposit requirement, and it makes the Librarian of Congress a member ex officio of the Management Advisory Board of the Copyright Office to insure that this very important matter is given the attention it deserves. This legislation also simplifies and streamlines the adjudication that takes place under the auspices of the Copyright Office regarding compulsory licenses. Currently, the Copyright Office oversees the work of ad hoc arbitration panels, called Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels [CARPs], which engage in rate setting and distribution proceedings as provided by the Copyright Act for certain compulsory licenses. I was an original cosponsor of the legislation that created them, and I had great hopes that they would be less costly than the Copyright Royalty Tribunal [CRT] that they replaced. Recent experience with distribution proceedings under the cable compulsory license, however, have proved otherwise. Whereas the last annual budget of the CRT was nearly $1 million for all rate setting and distribution, the cable distribution alone has to date exceeded $700,000 under the CARPs, and it is still not concluded. This bill returns to the tried and true method of administrative adjudication, namely, decisions rendered by administrative law judges subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. This solution is a natural one for a government body in the executive branch, although in the legislative branch this solution was always problematic under Buckley versus Valeo. Indeed, because of separation of powers constitutional concerns, the ultimate authority in the current CARP system is the Librarian of Congress, not the Register of Copyrights, because the Librarian is a Presidential appointee. Currently, whenever the Copyright Office is tasked with an executive- type function, the constitutional question arises. This concern discourages utilization of the Copyright Office from playing a more significant role in copyright matters. This issue has arisen, for example, in discussions about instituting virtual magistrates in the Copyright Office to render quick decisions on on-line service provider liability and on fair use. In sum, my bill vests primary responsibility for intellectual property policy in the head of the USIPO, the Commissioner of Intellectual Property and primary responsibility for administration of the patent, trademark, and copyright systems in the respective Commissioners of Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights. The corporate form of the USIPO inoculates the Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Offices as much as possible from the bureaucratic sclerosis that infects many Federal agencies. Although I considered making the USIPO an independent agency in the executive branch, this bill links the USIPO to the Secretary of Commerce by providing that the Commissioner of Intellectual Property, the head of the USIPO, will be the policy advisor of the Secretary regarding intellectual property matters. The parties interested in patents, copyrights, and trademarks support having close access to the President by having the chief intellectual policy advisor directly linked to a cabinet officer. The Secretary of Commerce is a logical choice. The PTO, which today has the major role in intellectual property policy as such is in the Department of Commerce. I do not believe, however, that the USIPO necessarily belongs there. Mr. President, although the creation of the USIPO may be the most dramatic part of this bill, it also contains several important changes to substantive patent law that will, taken as a whole, dramatically improve our patent system. With the adoption of the GATT provisions in 1994, the United States changed the manner in which it calculated the duration of patent terms. Under the old rule, utility patents lasted for 17 years after the grant of the patent. The new rule under the legislation implementing GATT is that these patents last for 20 years from the time the patent application is filed. In addition to harmonizing American patent terms with those of our major trading partners, this change solved the problem of submarine patents. A submarine patent is not a military secret. Rather, it is a colloquial way to describe a legal but unscrupulous strategy to game the system and unfairly extend a patent term. Submarine patenting is when an applicant purposefully delays the final granting of his permit by filing a series of amendments and delaying motions. Since, under the old system, the term did not start until the patent was granted, no time was lost. And since patent applications are secret in the United States until a patent is actually granted, no one knows that the patent application is pending. Thus, competitors continue to spend precious research and development dollars on technology that has already been developed. When a competitor finally does develop the same technology, the submarine applicant springs his trap. He stops delaying his application and it is finally approved. Then, he sues his competitor for infringing on his patent. Thus, he maximizes his own patent term while tricking his competitors into wasting their money. Mr. President, submarine patents are terribly inefficient. Because of them, the availability of new technology is delayed and instead of moving to new and better research, companies are fooled into throwing away time and money on technology that already exists. By changing the manner in which we calculate the patent term to 20 years from filing, we eliminated the submarine problem. Under the current rule, if an applicant delays his own application, it simply shortens the time he will have after the actual granting of the patent. Thus, we have eliminated this unscrupulous, inefficient practice by removing its benefits. Unfortunately, the change in term calculation potentially creates a new problem. Under the new system, if the Patent Office takes a long time to approve a patent, the delay comes out of the patent term, thus punishing the patent holder for the PTO's delay. This is not right. The question we face now, Mr. President, is how to fix this new problem. Some have suggested combining the old 17 years from granting system with the new 20 years from filing and giving the patent holder whichever is longer. But that approach leads to uncertainty in the length of a patent term and even worse, resurrects the submarine patent problem by giving benefits to an applicant who purposefully delays his own application. I believe that titles II and III of the Omnibus Patent Act of 1996 solve the administrative delay dilemma without recreating old problems. Early Publication Title II of the bill provides for the early publication of patent applications. It would require the Patent Office to publish pending applications 18 months after the application was filed. An exception to this rule is made for applications filed only in the United States. Those applications will be published 18 months after filing or 3 months after the office issues its first response on the application, whichever is later. By publishing early, competitors are put on notice that someone has already beaten them to the invention and thus allowing them to stop spending money researching that same invention. The claims that early publication will allow foreign competitors to steal American technology are simply not true. To start with, between 75 and 80 percent of patent applications filed in the United States are also filed abroad where 18 month publication is the rule. Further, I have provided in my bill for delayed publication of applications only submitted in the United States to protect them from competitors. Additionally, once an application is published, title II grants the applicant provisional rights, that is, legal protection for his invention. Thus, while it is true that someone could break the law and steal the invention, that is true under current law and will always be true. And the early publication provision will result in publication only 2 or 3 months before the granting of most patents, so there is little additional time for would-be pirates to steal the invention. Patent Term Restoration Title III deals directly with the administrative delay problem by restoring to the patent holder any part of the term that is lost due to undue administrative delay. This title is very similar to a bill I introduced earlier this Congress, S. 1540. Some concerns were raised about that bill because it left the decision of what was an undue delay to the Commissioner of the PTO. I took those concerns to heart and adopted the provision that appears in H.R. 3460, Congressman Moorhead's Omnibus Patent bill, giving clear deadlines for the Patent Office to act. Any delay beyond those deadlines is considered undue delay and will be restored to the Patent term. Thus, title III solves the administrative delay problem in a clear, predictable, and objective manner. Prior Domestic Commercial Use Title IV deals with people who independently invent something and use it in commercial sale but who never patent their invention. Specifically, this title provides rights to a person who has commercially sold an invention more than 1 year before that invention was patented by another person. Anyone in this situation will be permitted to continue to sell his product without being forced to pay a royalty to the patent holder. This basic fairness measure is aimed at protecting the innocent inventor who chooses to use trade secret protection instead of pursuing a patent and who has expended enough time and money to begin commercial sale of the invention. It also serves as an incentive for those who wish to seek a patent to seek it quickly, thus reducing the time during which others may acquire prior user rights. The incentives of this title will improve the efficiency of our patent system by protecting ongoing business concerns and encouraging swift prosecution of patent applications. Patent Reexamination Reform Title V provides for a greater role for third parties in patent re- examination proceedings. It is taken almost verbatim from my free- standing re-examination bill, S. 1070. Nothing is more basic to an effective system of patent protection than a reliable examination process. Without the high level of faith that the PTO has earned, respect for existing patents would fall away and innovation would be discouraged for fear of a lack of protection for new inventions. In the information age, however, it is increasingly difficult for the PTO to keep track of all the prior art that exists. It does the best job it can, but inevitably someone misses something and grants a patent that should not be granted. This is the problem that Title V addresses. Title V allows third-parties to raise a challenge to an existing patent and to participate in the re-examination process in a meaningful way. Thus, the expertise of the patent examiner is supplemented by the knowledge and resources of third-parties who may have information not known to the patent examiner. Through this joint effort, we maximize the flow of information, increase the reliability of patents, and thereby increase the strength of the American patent system. Provisional Applications for Patents Title VI is comprised of miscellaneous provisions. First, it fixes a matter of a rather technical nature. Some foreign courts have interpreted American provisional applications in a way that would not preserve their filing priority. This title amends section 115 of title 35 of the United States Code to clarify that if a provisional application is converted into a nonprovisional application within 12 months of filing, that it stands as a full patent application, with the date of filing of the provisional application as the date of priority. If no request is made within 12 months, the provisional application is considered abandoned. This clarification will make certain that American provisional applications are given the same weight as other countries' provisional applications in other countries' courts. Plant Patents Title VI also makes two fairly technical corrections to the plant patent statute. First, the ban on tuber propagated plants is removed. This depression-era ban was included for fear of limiting the food supply. Obviously, this is no longer a concern. Second, the plant patent statute is amended to include parts of plants. This closes a loophole that foreign growers have used to import the fruit or flowers of patented plants without paying a royalty because the entire plant was not being sold. Attorney's Fees for Takings of Patents Title VI has an additional provision that requires the Federal Government to pay a successful plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees in a suit for the taking of a patent. This is only fair as the nature of both patent litigation and takings litigation is long and expensive. In many cases the award that is finally won is reduced dramatically when attorney's fees are factored in. This provision allows a successful plaintiff to truly be made whole. Electronic Filing Last, this title also allows for the filing of patent and trademark documents by electronic medium. Mr. President, I have already mentioned H.R. 3460, Congressman Moorhead's omnibus patent bill. H.R. 3460 provides for restructuring of the Patent and Trademark Office and deals with virtually all of the substantive patent issues that are in my bill, and in a similar way. The most significant difference is that my bill restructures all of intellectual property policymaking and administration by the Federal Government. If we are going to restructure patents and trademarks, I believe that copyright policymaking and administration cannot be ignored. H.R. 3460 has been reported out of the House Committee on the Judiciary and is awaiting floor action. I hope for swift action by the Senate on the bill I am introducing today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce S. 1955, a bill to establish a National Center for Pain Research within the National Institutes of Health. This is legislation that I have developed working closely with Senators Harkin and Faircloth. S. 1955 is also cosponsored by Senators Bennett, Inouye, Thurmond, Simon, Pressler and DeWine. Pain is a condition that each of us experiences throughout our lives. Millions of individuals suffer from pain, sometimes chronic and often needlessly. Yet, there is insufficient knowledge about the basic mechanisms of pain, relatively few resources dedicated to the development and evaluation of pain treatment modalities, and inadequate transfer of new knowledge and information to health care professionals. To show the magnitude of the problem, I will cite several statistics. Studies show that four in five Americans will have low back pain at some point in their lives. Nearly one in six Americans suffers from some form of arthritis, a very painful condition. In fact, according to the American Chronic Pain Association, pain is a part of the daily lives of one in three Americans. These painful conditions are not only common, they are also expensive. A recent survey has shown that absences from work due to pain totaled 50 million days in 1995, accounting for billions of dollars in lost wages for sick days or medical and disability payments. Mr. President, with an appropriation of $12 billion a year, you would think that the NIH would be devoting a substantial amount of funding toward a medical condition which is so prevalent. In fact, I was shocked to learn that such is not the case. According to statistics provided to me by the agency, NIH is spending only $54 million per year on pain-related research, only one-half of one percent. And that number is down almost 10 percent from the previous year. To take one example, acute back pain, a serious condition which will affect about 80 percent of all Americans sometime in their lives, is alone responsible for a $40-billion-a-year drain on the U.S. economy. Yet, NIH reports that it currently funds only $2.5 million of research into this area. My study of this issue has led me to conclude there is another serious problem associated with our Government campaign against pain. Pain research is spread across many of the Institutes, yet there is little coordination of these research activities to make sure these resources are effectively used. Mr. President, this is not to say that NIH has neglected pain research. In fact, I want to make clear that NIH deserves high marks for its significant contributions in the field of pain research. NIH scientists have been integral in the cataloging of neurotransmitters and have been the key to improved understanding of the process of nociception. This basic science research has allowed for the development of several new drugs to treat pain. I want to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Harold Varmus, NIH Director, and Dr. Harold Slavkin, NIDR Director, for their continued support of a most impressive program within the National Institute of Dental Research. The NIDR's Intramural Pain Research Program, operated through the Neurobiology and Anesthesiology Branch [NAB] of NIDR, exemplifies the high quality of pain research that I hope can be multiplied with enactment of this bill. The NAB has trained almost 100 basic and clinical science pain researchers around the world, many of who have become deans of dental and medical schools, department chairs and successful grantees of many NIH Institutes. In fact, the American Pain Society has recently awarded two major research medals to two NAB investigators in recognition of their collaborative basic and clinical science research on neuropathic pain. The National Center for Pain Research Act of 1996 will allow us to build on the successful pain research activities currently underway at the NIH. This bill will improve integration of pain-related research within NIH, establish a national agenda for pain research, and expand the utilization of interdisciplinary pain research teams. Specifically, it will, first, establish a Center for Pain Research within NIH. The purpose of this Center is to improve the quality of life of individuals suffering from pain by fostering clinical and basic science research into the causes of and effective treatments for pain; second, authorize the Center to coordinate pain research throughout the Institutes at NIH, as well as fund priority pain-related research through its own research budget; third, create an advisory board that will be made up of experts in pain research and pain management from a wide variety of health care disciplines, including physicians who practice pain management, psychology, physical medicine and rehabilitative services, nursing, dentistry, and chiropractic health care professionals; and fourth, establish six regional pain research centers to facilitate and enhance pain-related research, training, education, and related activities to be carried out by the Center. In addition to increasing our knowledge about pain, it is important to disseminate information about advances made in the pain research. Through pioneering research supported by the NIH, we have already made great strides in increasing our knowledge of pain and in treating painful conditions. However, the treatment of patients suffering from painful conditions remains woefully inadequate. Too many of our health professionals lack specific training in pain management. With adequate pain control, much of the suffering from painful conditions can be prevented or greatly attenuated. Sadly, pain control is a significant problem for patients with cancer. A statement from the National Cancer Institute indicated that, ``the under treatment of pain and other symptoms of cancer is a serious and neglected public health problem.'' With 1 million new cases of cancer diagnosed each year, this problem cannot be ignored. Additional studies have shown that pain associated with cancer is most frequently under treated in the elderly and children--two of our most vulnerable populations. The need for a national movement to help these individuals is illustrated by the fact that cancer pain can be virtually abolished in approximately 90 percent of patients by the intelligent use of drugs. This bill has widespread support from organizations representing the providers of pain management, pain researchers, and the people they serve. These organizations include: American Academy of Pain Management, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Chiropractic Association, American Chronic Pain Association, American Pain Society, Arthritis Foundation, Back Pain Association of America, Endometriosis Association, Interstitial Cystitis Association, National Chronic Pain Outreach Association, National Committee on the Treatment of Intractable Pain, Pain Research Group of the University of Wisconsin, Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome Association of America, American Cancer Society, Sickle Cell Disease Association of America, and the Vulvar Pain Foundation. In closing, I would like to thank the chiropractic community for bringing this issue to the forefront of public attention. The chiropractic profession, through its ability to effectively treat many painful conditions--including low back pain, headaches and neck pain-- has been on the leading edge of pain management for years. They have joined their colleagues in the health professions in initiating and developing this important legislation and our bill recognizes the substantial role chiropractors play in the pain treatment community. I would also like to thank the contributions of the American Pain Society, which represents the interdisciplinary pain management research and care community. They also have actively participated in the development of this legislation. Mr. President, the creation of the Center for Pain Research will facilitate the discovery of new treatments for painful conditions afflicting almost all of our fellow Americans. This bill also makes certain that these discoveries reach the people who now suffer from needless pain as soon as possible. I urge my colleagues to support creation of a Center for Pain Research within the National Institutes of Health. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be placed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a new version of the Omnibus Property Rights Act of 1996. This bill is a narrower version of the bill introduced as S. 605, on March 23, 1995. Americans everywhere are losing their fundamental right to property. They cannot build homes, farm land, clear ditches or cut firebreaks in property that clearly belongs to them. Often, this property has been in their family for years. The Omnibus Property Rights Act is the proper vehicle to vindicate property rights and limit arbitrary actions by Federal bureaucrats. The criticisms of S. 605, in my view, are vastly overblown. But, in a good faith effort to address concerns raised by critics of the original bill, I am introducing this revised version. This version will: First, narrow the definition of property to include only real property, including fixtures on land, such as crops, timber, and mining interests, and water rights; Second, increase the threshold amount that property or a portion of property need be diminished in value before compensation for a taking be sought from 33 to 50 percent; Third, expressly exempt civil rights laws from the bill's purview, including those protecting persons with disabilities; Fourth, remove the takings regulatory reform ``look back'' provision from the bill by striking all of section 404, this in an effort to address the fear that any and all agency review provisions are too burdensome; and Fifth, amend the owner's consent to enter land provision to allow for nonconsensual agency access to private land pursuant to criminal law enforcement and emergency access exceptions. In addressing the bill oponent's claims by making these significant changes, I would like to say once again that our critics' real problem is not with the overall bill, but with the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1992, the Supreme Court held in Lucas versus South Carolina Coastal Council that restrictions on property use based on ``background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance'' need not be compensated. Common law nuisance is either the use of property that harms or interferes with another's property or that injures public health, safety, or morals. This common law exemption for compensation has been codified literally in this bill as a ``nuisance exception.'' All we did in our bill was to codify the ``law of the land.'' The bill codifies and clarifies recent Supreme Court standards as to what constitutes a ``taking'' of private property and ameliorates the arbitrary nature of court and administrative proceedings. What this bill does is to limit big government's ability to regulate and control private property without paying innocent or nonpolluting property holders compensation. Currently, the Federal Government and agency bureaucrats are able to shift the cost of public regulation to individual property owners. The Omnibus Property Rights Act helps to take away this arbitrary free ride. The bill helps secure and protect private property rights guaranteed by the takings clause of the fifth amendment of our Constitution, which the Supreme Court in Armstrong versus United States (1960) determined is ``to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens, which in all fairness and justice, should be borne by public as a whole.'' In adopting the Supreme Court's recent Lucas holding, the Omnibus Property Rights bill provides that only innocent property holders are to be compensated for government takings. Those that misuse their property to pollute or to harm public health and safety are not entitled to compensation under the bill's nuisance provision. Property owners remain subject to the same laws and regulations as everyone else. Only if government cannot demonstrate that their use of property amounts to a harm recognized as common law nuisance will a property holder be compensated under this bill. What could be fairer than this? What about those Federal statutes, named by opponents of the Omnibus bill, that might not fall under the nuisance exception? Will enforcement of those statutes, designed to protect the public, diminish the value of property and require compensation? The answer is no: property holders are subject to the same general laws and regulations as everyone else. Only where enforcement of regulatory schemes amounts to a taking under current law, and arbitrarily singles out property holders to their detriment by requiring them, through reduced property values, to fund programs that should be paid out of the public treasury, will property holders be compensated. Moreover, even in these limited circumstances, the Federal Government can still regulate by paying compensation when it takes property. Current law--even without this bill--recognizes that justice and fairness require the government to pay for the property it takes. Thus, contrary to the bill's critics and the administration, if the Omnibus Property Rights Act is enacted into law, the sky will not fall. In reality, the Federal bureaucracy has a poor record in protecting the right of the American public to use and own property. That is why we need a vehicle--such as this bill--to force the government by statute to heed the public's rights. Indeed, the omnibus bill includes provisions that require Federal agencies to account for the costs of taking property when formulating policy, and it provides for a more efficient administrative remedy for property owners who seek compensation. It also allows for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to encourage quicker settlements of takings claims. For cases that go to Federal court under the bill, the bill codifies recent Supreme Court decisions and clarifies the law in regulatory takings cases. Because the bill provides for clearer, bright-line rules of liability, it will lead to lower costs overall, as both agencies and property owners become fully aware of the limits of the government's power to take property. Importantly, the codification of bright-line rules will ameliorate the ad hoc and arbitrary nature of takings jurisprudence. I ask my colleagues to support this bill and breathe life into the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Omnibus Patent Act of 1996. The purposes of this bill are: First, to rationalize the way intellectual property policy is formulated; second, to provide for more efficient administration of the patent, trademark, and copyright systems; third, to save the U.S. taxpayers' money by making the patent, trademark, and copyright systems self-funding; fourth, to discourage gaming the patent system while ensuring against loss of patent term and theft of American inventiveness; fifth, to protect the rights of prior users of inventions which are later patented by another; sixth, to increase the liability of patents by allowing third parties more meaningful participation in the reexamination process; seventh, to make certain that American provisional applications are given the same weight as other countries' provisional applications in other countries' courts; eighth, to make technical corrections in the plant patent provisions of the Patent Act; ninth, to require the Federal Government to pay a successful plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees in a suit for the taking of a patent; and tenth, to allow for the filing of patent and trademark documents by electronic medium. U.S. Intellectual Property Organization Intellectual property normally signifies patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Intellectual property is of vital importance not only to continued progress in science and the arts but also to the economy. A vast array of industries depend on intellectual property. From the chemical, electrical, biotechnological, and manufacturing industries to books, movies, music, and computer software and hardware. Indeed, trademark is important to all businesses, period. Intellectual property industries also contribute mightily to our balance of trade. American-produced software, for example, accounts for 70 percent of the world market. U.S. recorded music constitutes approximately 60 percent of the international market, with annual foreign sales totaling in excess of $12 billion. Together, U.S. copyright industries accounted for an estimated $45.8 billion in foreign sales in 1993, an 11.7 percent increase over 1992 sales figures. The remarkable overall performance of these industries continues to manifest itself in their tremendous rate of growth. For example, between 1991 and 1993, core copyright industries grew at twice the annual rate of the U.S. economy, while the rate of employment growth in these industries outpaced the rate of employment growth in the Nation's economy as a whole by nearly 4 to 1 between 1988 and 1993. Keep in mind that these figures do not even begin to take into account the significant trade benefits attributable to the ever- expanding world market for patented American inventions and products enjoying U.S. trademark or trade secret protection. While these benefits are more difficult to quantify, we need only to look at such American companies as DuPont, Ford, General Electric, IBM, Kodak, Motorola, Monsanto, Palaroid, Xerox, and countless others whose development was founded in large part on U.S. patent protection to realize the utility of strong intellectual property protection to our Nation's economy and our international predominance in creative industries. Because intellectual property protection is so essential to our economy, intellectual property policy must be given a high priority, and because our markets are becoming increasingly global, international intellectual property policy will inevitably loom larger. In some instances, domestic policy will be affected by international developments. For example, as a direct result of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], the basic U.S. patent term of 17 years from issuance was changed to 20 years from filing. I certainly don't advocate a slavish following of foreign models. Whatever is one's view of what international policy should be, however, the fact remains that international policy will have a great impact on domestic intellectual property policy. These developments argue for better coordination between international and domestic intellectual property policymaking. Currently, there is no official agency in the U.S. Government centralizing intellectual property policy formulation. Indeed, not only are there two government entities that deal with intellectual property--the Patent and Trademark Office [PTO] and the Copyright Office--but they are in different branches. The PTO is in the executive branch, while the Copyright Office is in the legislative branch of the Government. The conduct of international affairs has constitutionally been delegated to the executive branch. Because the international aspects of intellectual property will increasingly affect domestic intellectual property policy, it is appropriate that intellectual property policy should be initially formulated in the executive branch. Thus, the bill I am introducing today creates a U.S. Intellectual Property Organization [USIPO] in the executive branch. By centering the initial formulation of intellectual property policy in the executive branch, my bill not only predicts a trend but reflects the current reality. Despite the fact that there is no official intellectual property office, international and domestic intellectual property policy for the current administration is originating largely from the Patent and Trademark Office. Despite its name, the PTO is heavily involved in copyright policy as well. For example, the current negotiations for a Protocol and a New Instrument for the Berne Convention, the world's premiere copyright treaty, are being led by PTO personnel. In addition, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks chaired the working group that drafted the original version of the National Information Infrastructure Copyright Protection Act. This de facto intellectual property office is unlikely to disappear regardless of the outcome of the Presidential elections because it simply makes sense. My bill makes it official. I want to make clear that this restructuring of intellectual property policy is not motivated by dissatisfaction with the performance of the Copyright Office. I have the highest respect for the Register of Copyrights, Ms. Marybeth Peters, and I have always found her advice and that of her staff to be extremely helpful. Indeed, on a number of occasions, I have modified my legislation after listening to her wise counsel. This, however, does not detract from the fact that I believe that there would be an improvement in formulating and coordinating intellectual property policy if the Copyright Office were located within the USIPO, as I have proposed. Under current practice, the role of the Copyright Office in international policy formulation has diminished. Under this bill, with the elimination of the bifurcation of intellectual property policy between the legislative and the executive branches, it is likely that its role would be enhanced. In formulating copyright policy, the Commissioner of Intellectual Property would naturally turn to the Copyright Office subdivision of the USIPO for assistance and advice. In addition to policymaking, the PTO administers the system which grants patents and registers trademarks. The Copyright Office registers copyrights and oversees adjudication incident to the compulsory licenses. Under my bill, these administrative functions would continue under the umbrella of the USIPO. The bill provides for three subdivisions within the USIPO: the Patent Office, the Trademark Office, and the Copyright Office. Each Office is responsible for the administration of its own system. Each Office controls its own budget and its management structure and procedures. Each Office must generate its own revenue. The efficiency of the Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Offices will be enhanced by the status of the USIPO as a Government corporation, as proposed in my bill. This status allows the USIPO and its subdivisions to function without the bureaucratic restraints that bedevil much of the Federal Government. The personnel problems of the Copyright Office illustrate this point. As a part of the Library of Congress, the Copyright Office is subject to the rigid complexity and great delay which characterize the Library's hiring policy. For example, the Copyright Office has been unable to fill the position of General Counsel for several years. A management review of the Library of Congress prepared for the General Accounting Office [GAO] by Booz, Allen and Hamilton notes in its May 7, 1996 report that the median time for hiring a replacement worker is 177 days, much longer than for other Government agencies. Currently, the Library utilizes a 30-step hiring process with multiple hand-offs. The report levels many other criticisms at the Library of Congress' management, but time does not permit me to detail them here. For purposes of this legislation, however, the most important conclusion was that ``[t]here is little operational reason for housing the copyright function at the Library of Congress.'' Although I concur in this conclusion, I am sensitive to the concern of the Librarian of Congress, Dr. James Billington, about the importance for the collection of the Library of the deposits made incident to copyright registrations. This bill makes no change in the deposit requirement, and it makes the Librarian of Congress a member ex officio of the Management Advisory Board of the Copyright Office to insure that this very important matter is given the attention it deserves. This legislation also simplifies and streamlines the adjudication that takes place under the auspices of the Copyright Office regarding compulsory licenses. Currently, the Copyright Office oversees the work of ad hoc arbitration panels, called Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels [CARPs], which engage in rate setting and distribution proceedings as provided by the Copyright Act for certain compulsory licenses. I was an original cosponsor of the legislation that created them, and I had great hopes that they would be less costly than the Copyright Royalty Tribunal [CRT] that they replaced. Recent experience with distribution proceedings under the cable compulsory license, however, have proved otherwise. Whereas the last annual budget of the CRT was nearly $1 million for all rate setting and distribution, the cable distribution alone has to date exceeded $700,000 under the CARPs, and it is still not concluded. This bill returns to the tried and true method of administrative adjudication, namely, decisions rendered by administrative law judges subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. This solution is a natural one for a government body in the executive branch, although in the legislative branch this solution was always problematic under Buckley versus Valeo. Indeed, because of separation of powers constitutional concerns, the ultimate authority in the current CARP system is the Librarian of Congress, not the Register of Copyrights, because the Librarian is a Presidential appointee. Currently, whenever the Copyright Office is tasked with an executive- type function, the constitutional question arises. This concern discourages utilization of the Copyright Office from playing a more significant role in copyright matters. This issue has arisen, for example, in discussions about instituting virtual magistrates in the Copyright Office to render quick decisions on on-line service provider liability and on fair use. In sum, my bill vests primary responsibility for intellectual property policy in the head of the USIPO, the Commissioner of Intellectual Property and primary responsibility for administration of the patent, trademark, and copyright systems in the respective Commissioners of Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights. The corporate form of the USIPO inoculates the Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Offices as much as possible from the bureaucratic sclerosis that infects many Federal agencies. Although I considered making the USIPO an independent agency in the executive branch, this bill links the USIPO to the Secretary of Commerce by providing that the Commissioner of Intellectual Property, the head of the USIPO, will be the policy advisor of the Secretary regarding intellectual property matters. The parties interested in patents, copyrights, and trademarks support having close access to the President by having the chief intellectual policy advisor directly linked to a cabinet officer. The Secretary of Commerce is a logical choice. The PTO, which today has the major role in intellectual property policy as such is in the Department of Commerce. I do not believe, however, that the USIPO necessarily belongs there. Mr. President, although the creation of the USIPO may be the most dramatic part of this bill, it also contains several important changes to substantive patent law that will, taken as a whole, dramatically improve our patent system. With the adoption of the GATT provisions in 1994, the United States changed the manner in which it calculated the duration of patent terms. Under the old rule, utility patents lasted for 17 years after the grant of the patent. The new rule under the legislation implementing GATT is that these patents last for 20 years from the time the patent application is filed. In addition to harmonizing American patent terms with those of our major trading partners, this change solved the problem of submarine patents. A submarine patent is not a military secret. Rather, it is a colloquial way to describe a legal but unscrupulous strategy to game the system and unfairly extend a patent term. Submarine patenting is when an applicant purposefully delays the final granting of his permit by filing a series of amendments and delaying motions. Since, under the old system, the term did not start until the patent was granted, no time was lost. And since patent applications are secret in the United States until a patent is actually granted, no one knows that the patent application is pending. Thus, competitors continue to spend precious research and development dollars on technology that has already been developed. When a competitor finally does develop the same technology, the submarine applicant springs his trap. He stops delaying his application and it is finally approved. Then, he sues his competitor for infringing on his patent. Thus, he maximizes his own patent term while tricking his competitors into wasting their money. Mr. President, submarine patents are terribly inefficient. Because of them, the availability of new technology is delayed and instead of moving to new and better research, companies are fooled into throwing away time and money on technology that already exists. By changing the manner in which we calculate the patent term to 20 years from filing, we eliminated the submarine problem. Under the current rule, if an applicant delays his own application, it simply shortens the time he will have after the actual granting of the patent. Thus, we have eliminated this unscrupulous, inefficient practice by removing its benefits. Unfortunately, the change in term calculation potentially creates a new problem. Under the new system, if the Patent Office takes a long time to approve a patent, the delay comes out of the patent term, thus punishing the patent holder for the PTO's delay. This is not right. The question we face now, Mr. President, is how to fix this new problem. Some have suggested combining the old 17 years from granting system with the new 20 years from filing and giving the patent holder whichever is longer. But that approach leads to uncertainty in the length of a patent term and even worse, resurrects the submarine patent problem by giving benefits to an applicant who purposefully delays his own application. I believe that titles II and III of the Omnibus Patent Act of 1996 solve the administrative delay dilemma without recreating old problems. Early Publication Title II of the bill provides for the early publication of patent applications. It would require the Patent Office to publish pending applications 18 months after the application was filed. An exception to this rule is made for applications filed only in the United States. Those applications will be published 18 months after filing or 3 months after the office issues its first response on the application, whichever is later. By publishing early, competitors are put on notice that someone has already beaten them to the invention and thus allowing them to stop spending money researching that same invention. The claims that early publication will allow foreign competitors to steal American technology are simply not true. To start with, between 75 and 80 percent of patent applications filed in the United States are also filed abroad where 18 month publication is the rule. Further, I have provided in my bill for delayed publication of applications only submitted in the United States to protect them from competitors. Additionally, once an application is published, title II grants the applicant provisional rights, that is, legal protection for his invention. Thus, while it is true that someone could break the law and steal the invention, that is true under current law and will always be true. And the early publication provision will result in publication only 2 or 3 months before the granting of most patents, so there is little additional time for would-be pirates to steal the invention. Patent Term Restoration Title III deals directly with the administrative delay problem by restoring to the patent holder any part of the term that is lost due to undue administrative delay. This title is very similar to a bill I introduced earlier this Congress, S. 1540. Some concerns were raised about that bill because it left the decision of what was an undue delay to the Commissioner of the PTO. I took those concerns to heart and adopted the provision that appears in H.R. 3460, Congressman Moorhead's Omnibus Patent bill, giving clear deadlines for the Patent Office to act. Any delay beyond those deadlines is considered undue delay and will be restored to the Patent term. Thus, title III solves the administrative delay problem in a clear, predictable, and objective manner. Prior Domestic Commercial Use Title IV deals with people who independently invent something and use it in commercial sale but who never patent their invention. Specifically, this title provides rights to a person who has commercially sold an invention more than 1 year before that invention was patented by another person. Anyone in this situation will be permitted to continue to sell his product without being forced to pay a royalty to the patent holder. This basic fairness measure is aimed at protecting the innocent inventor who chooses to use trade secret protection instead of pursuing a patent and who has expended enough time and money to begin commercial sale of the invention. It also serves as an incentive for those who wish to seek a patent to seek it quickly, thus reducing the time during which others may acquire prior user rights. The incentives of this title will improve the efficiency of our patent system by protecting ongoing business concerns and encouraging swift prosecution of patent applications. Patent Reexamination Reform Title V provides for a greater role for third parties in patent re- examination proceedings. It is taken almost verbatim from my free- standing re-examination bill, S. 1070. Nothing is more basic to an effective system of patent protection than a reliable examination process. Without the high level of faith that the PTO has earned, respect for existing patents would fall away and innovation would be discouraged for fear of a lack of protection for new inventions. In the information age, however, it is increasingly difficult for the PTO to keep track of all the prior art that exists. It does the best job it can, but inevitably someone misses something and grants a patent that should not be granted. This is the problem that Title V addresses. Title V allows third-parties to raise a challenge to an existing patent and to participate in the re-examination process in a meaningful way. Thus, the expertise of the patent examiner is supplemented by the knowledge and resources of third-parties who may have information not known to the patent examiner. Through this joint effort, we maximize the flow of information, increase the reliability of patents, and thereby increase the strength of the American patent system. Provisional Applications for Patents Title VI is comprised of miscellaneous provisions. First, it fixes a matter of a rather technical nature. Some foreign courts have interpreted American provisional applications in a way that would not preserve their filing priority. This title amends section 115 of title 35 of the United States Code to clarify that if a provisional application is converted into a nonprovisional application within 12 months of filing, that it stands as a full patent application, with the date of filing of the provisional application as the date of priority. If no request is made within 12 months, the provisional application is considered abandoned. This clarification will make certain that American provisional applications are given the same weight as other countries' provisional applications in other countries' courts. Plant Patents Title VI also makes two fairly technical corrections to the plant patent statute. First, the ban on tuber propagated plants is removed. This depression-era ban was included for fear of limiting the food supply. Obviously, this is no longer a concern. Second, the plant patent statute is amended to include parts of plants. This closes a loophole that foreign growers have used to import the fruit or flowers of patented plants without paying a royalty because the entire plant was not being sold. Attorney's Fees for Takings of Patents Title VI has an additional provision that requires the Federal Government to pay a successful plaintiff's reasonable attorney's fees in a suit for the taking of a patent. This is only fair as the nature of both patent litigation and takings litigation is long and expensive. In many cases the award that is finally won is reduced dramatically when attorney's fees are factored in. This provision allows a successful plaintiff to truly be made whole. Electronic Filing Last, this title also allows for the filing of patent and trademark documents by electronic medium. Mr. President, I have already mentioned H.R. 3460, Congressman Moorhead's omnibus patent bill. H.R. 3460 provides for restructuring of the Patent and Trademark Office and deals with virtually all of the substantive patent issues that are in my bill, and in a similar way. The most significant difference is that my bill restructures all of intellectual property policymaking and administration by the Federal Government. If we are going to restructure patents and trademarks, I believe that copyright policymaking and administration cannot be ignored. H.R. 3460 has been reported out of the House Committee on the Judiciary and is awaiting floor action. I hope for swift action by the Senate on the bill I am introducing today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. The minority leader is my friend. He knows that. I care for him. He is a very fine person. I have to tell you that I do not think anybody can come to the floor and say the White House in this instance did not do an injustice here; that they did not try to use the force of Government, the FBI, the Justice Department, and others to take apart a very, very good person, and others working with him who have worked for both Republican and Democrat administrations and to do it to take care of their own people. I have to correct the record with regard to that. I do not think anybody doubts that. It is pretty much admitted. Even the President said he would sign this bill. That was not easy for him because he was in essence saying that he recognized that this is terrifically wrong and that his people in the White House did it. This is what happened, on May 19, 1993 the White House fired all seven of these people. At least two of the individuals learned of their dismissal in the evening news that night. That is how they learned about it. The White House first stated that the firings came as a result of an internal audit revealing financial irregularities in the office. Several months of independent review and oversight hearings uncovered the actual motivation for the firings. Certain people in the White House and outside of the White House --friends of this President hoping to advance their own financial interests--attempted to destroy the reputations of the Travel Office employees and take over the Travel Office business. This issue is not going away nor am I going to let it go away. It ought to be resolved. I am willing to say that the President has done what is right here in saying he will sign this bill. These same persons who did this to these seven Travel Office people used the White House staff members to initiate a baseless criminal investigation by the FBI. That is outrageous. If somebody in a Republican White House had done that, the fuss and furor would never end. We have tried just to resolve this problem in a dignified, reasonable way, and do it by paying their attorneys' fees that they incurred just for this unjust criminal investigation and trial. According to the congressional investigation, certain individuals in the White House and outside of the White House were responsible for these firings. Catherine Cornelius, a cousin of the President, employed at the White House, Harry Thomason, a personal friend of the President and First Lady, Darnell Martens, Mr. Thomason's business partner, and David Watkins, again--how often does he surface--assistant to the President for management and administration, these are the people who shoved it to these time-honored employees. In December 1992, discussions took place between Miss Cornelius and World Wide Travel--a very appropriate name--the agency that served the Clinton-Gore campaign, about the eventual takeover of the White House Travel Office business. In January 1993, Watkins hired Miss Cornelius--keep in mind, that is the cousin of the President--and soon thereafter, after he hired Miss Cornelius, the Travel Office began taking calls for Miss Cornelius as the new head of the Travel Office. In February 1993, Miss Cornelius provided Watkins with a proposal that would make her, the President's cousin, codirector of the White House Travel Office and would hire World Wide Travel, the Clinton-Gore campaign travel group, as the outside travel specialists. In April and May of 1993, Cornelius began to focus on the Travel Office and, with Harry Thomason, claimed that there were allegations of corruption within the office. During this time, Miss Cornelius and Mr. Thomason pushed that World Wide Travel take over the Travel Office business of the White House and other offices in Government. In mid-May 1993, employees of the White House counsel's office, Miss Cornelius and others, met with the FBI regarding the Travel Office. Although the FBI was unsure that there was any evidence, or certainly enough evidence in existence to warrant a criminal investigation, William Kennedy, whose name constantly surfaces, former law partner of the First Lady's at the Rose Law Firm, who was then at the White House counsel's office, informed FBI bureau agents that a request for an FBI evaluation came from the highest levels of the White House. At this time, they determined that Peat Marwick and Mitchell, the accounting firm, would be asked to perform an audit of the Travel Office. On May 14, Peat Marwick's management consultants made their first trip to the White House. On May 17, Mr. Watkins and Mr. McLarty decided to fire the Travel Office staff. Although Mr. Dale offered to retire, Mr. Watkins told him to wait until the review was complete. On May 19, Patsy Thomasson informed Mr. Kennedy that a decision had been made to fire the Travel Office workers and employees. Kennedy informed the FBI, who warned him that the firings could interfere with their criminal investigation, Kennedy informed the bureau that the firings would go ahead anyway. That same day, before the bodies were even cold, Mr. Martens called a friend from Air Advantage to have her arrange the Presidential press charters. Meanwhile, Mr. Kennedy then instructed Mr. Watkins to delete any reference to the FBI investigation from talking points on the firings. At 10 a.m. that morning, that very same morning, Watkins informed the Travel Office employees that they were fired because a review revealed gross mismanagement in the office. They were initially told that after all these years of service to this country, service to the White House, both Democrat and Republican administrations, that they had 2 hours to pack up their desks and leave. Watkins learned that Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers had publicly disclosed existence of the FBI investigation as well as the Peat Marwick review. Later that same day, Myers gave another press briefing in which she denied that an FBI investigation had taken place. She had been warned. She knew that what they had done was wrong. She claimed that the firings were based on the Peat Marwick review. Interestingly, the Peat Marwick review was not finalized until May 21, 1993, 2 days after the firings. The report was dated on the 17th, however. So you can see what we are dealing with here. The report gave no assurances as to either its completeness or its accuracy. In any event, while the report found certain accounting irregularities, it found no--none--evidence of fraud. In May 1994, the General Accounting Office reported to Congress that while the White House claimed the terminations were based on ``findings of serious financial management weaknesses, we noted that the individuals who had personal and business interests in the Travel Office created the momentum that ultimately led to the examination of the Travel Office operations.'' The General Accounting Office further noted that ``the public acknowledgement of the criminal investigation had the effect of tarnishing the employees' ''--that is s apostrophe-- ``reputations and the existence of the criminal investigation caused the employees to retain legal counsel, reportedly at considerable expense.'' Of course, as everybody in this body knows, Mr. Dale was the only Travel Office employee to be indicted, and it took a jury only 2 hours to acquit Mr. Dale after a lengthy 13-day trial. Mr. President, I sat on the Whitewater Committee. I have to say I was absolutely amazed at the improprieties and the wrongdoing and the other things that were really brought out. It was just a layer all across that event. Even so, it was very difficult to understand because there was just one thing after another, and I think people in this country are very mixed up about the Whitewater matter. They feel something is wrong, but it is so convoluted and complex, so filled with what some people call ``the sleaze factor'' that it is very difficult to point to any particular huge bubble in that sleaze. But one thing everybody in this country does understand and one thing that is not going to go away, certainly not until these people are reimbursed for their legal fees, will be the Billy Dale and the White House Travel Office matter. In all honesty, I do not think anybody knows that there was a tremendous arrogance of power in the White House that really brought about this improper action and these unjustified actions, what really were offensive actions in misusing the FBI and other forces of law enforcement to indict and prosecute a really fine man that everybody today feels somewhat guilty about. Let me tell you something. This is an appropriate case and one of the few that I can cite in the history of the country where the right thing to do is to reimburse these people for these reasonable costs. In all honesty, they have had even more legal fees because they have had to appear up here on Capitol Hill. My amendment however, would just correct the matter and make it very clear that the only reimbursement for attorneys fees that they can get through this legislation, the only reimbursement will be for what happened in that limited period of time when they were criminally prosecuted and unjustly persecuted, and I am using that word selectively, unjustly persecuted because of White House actions. I do not care whether it is a Republican White House or a Democrat White House; we ought to all be concerned about doing what is right for these people. In this case, it was a Democrat White House. This issue is not going to go away. We are still searching to get to the bottom of it. That is how the whole Filegate thing has come to pass. That is how we now find two political operatives, people who throughout their political careers have done opposition research, have spent their time trying to even sling mud at their own Democrat Presidential candidates--who were entrusted with the most sensitive, secret, FBI files pertaining to people who had patriotically served the White House for years and years, young people who no longer are going to go back, or certainly nobody expected them to go back but who believe to this day now that somebody, somewhere, especially since the reports of Mr. Marceca taking computer disks home with Filegate information on people, they are concerned that someday, sometime in the future when they want to serve the Government again some of these secret things that were in those files will be brought forth to smear them and their lives. I happen to know a lot about FBI files because, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, somebody who has been on that committee for 20 years, we review these judgeship files all the time. Some of the best judges on the bench today during their younger years did things that were not quite right. Some of them abused drugs. Some of them had problems with alcohol. Some of them did things that, really, you would find reprehensible today and would stop them from holding these positions. But they, in the intervening years, straightened out their lives, repented, did the things that were right, and we confirmed them because it is what they are today that counts. But if somebody got hold of these files, which contain written down-- a bit like Mr. Aldrich's book--everything that is said, whether it is true or not, by people who have axes to grind, by people who are dishonest, by people who hate the nominee, by people who just plain are misinformed, if some of those matters came out, they could destroy the lives of some of these eminent people today who are doing terrific jobs, deserve our acclaim, deserve our support, and who, literally, are among the greatest people in our society today. All of us are sinners in the sense that all of us fall short of the glory of God. These files show that in many ways. Frankly, nobody to this day knows just what was taken out of those sensitive files. What we do know is that two people who had absolutely no qualifications, no credentials whatsoever, no training whatsoever, who were known to do opposition research--which is what politicians do, sometimes, to find out all they can about the other side; generally, it is called dirt digging--these people who were known to do this were placed in charge of that office, and one of them ordered up all these files that now are approaching almost 900 files. People thought it was only 307 at first, but now it is up to 900 files, and it may be more than that. We have no absolute way of knowing. We do not know what was taken out of those files, but we do know there were pink slips put in some of the files that indicate the guts had been taken out and been used somewhere in the White House, and then the testimony was they put the guts back in and pulled the pink slip out. So we do not know how many of those files were copied. We do not know how many of them were on Mr. Marceca's computer disk that he took home from the office, this low-level employee. We do not know any of that. What we do know is this. Senator DeConcini, at a very appropriate time here, was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. His top staffer in charge of security on that committee, and thus one of the top experts in the whole country on how you keep these files secure, conducted an investigation of the White House Security Office and found its operations seriously inadequate. Senator DeConcini wrote to the White House, telling them they better fix up this problem of security at the White House over FBI files and recommended they get somebody other than Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca to take care of these matters and to get some people there who are trained in that area. As I understand it, Lloyd Cutler--for whom I have a lot of respect, who is certainly a brilliant White House counsel--agreed with the letter 2 years before all this surfaced, and still nothing was done. Now, we do not know who in the world hired Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Marceca, other than Mr. Stephanopoulos said, ``Well, it was Vincent Foster.'' Vincent Foster is no longer with us, tragically; tragically, now deceased. It is easy to blame somebody who is deceased, who cannot speak for himself. But we know there are others there who had something to do with hiring these two yo-yos and putting them in charge of these sensitive files. That is what is involved here. The only way all of that came out was because when the excellent chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Congressman Clinger, demanded papers that the White House refused to give, throwing up executive privilege. They refused to give those papers. Finally he forced them into giving 1,000 of 3,000 pages that clearly were not covered by executive privilege. The White House tried to hold back on him. And, lo and behold, looming up out of all of those names was the name of Billy Dale, that for which they were looking, to see how badly treated this man and his associates were. Frankly, that is how this has all arisen. But it is not only Billy Dale, but all kinds of other former White House heavyweight Republicans, as well as many others who were not. People all over the country are now asking, when is this all going to end? When is the Federal Government going to quit being the all-seeing eye into the backgrounds and personal matters of its citizens? How can we protect ourselves from a ``1984''-type government that noses into everything that we do or have done? All of that came out of the Billy Dale matter. To my colleagues on the other side, I am going to give them just a little bit of advice. I am not used to giving them advice, but I will. This is one you would not want to play around with. This is one that, it seems to me, would be well to pass. Do what is right and get rid of it. I think the White House, my friends on the other side and everybody else will be much better off if we do. If this is not resolved and resolved quite soon, I have to admit, this is never going to end, because it is a mess. It is wrong. I, for one, am very, very upset about it. I hope my friends on the other side will see the clarity of getting rid of this matter and going on to the business of the U.S. Senate. I hope we will not have any more desires to have nongermane amendments after we have gone through this fiasco of the minimum wage, which was ostensibly the reason for holding up the Billy Dale matter. If they have germane amendments, let us face them. Bring them out here, we will debate them, we will vote on them, and whoever wins, wins; whoever loses, loses. And we will pass this bill and do what is right, and, hopefully, when the President signs it, it will put it to bed. That is what I would like to do. I know I have taken a little longer than I care to take on this, but this is something I feel very deeply about. I have gotten acquainted with Billy Dale through the hearing process and so forth. He is a very fine man. He did not deserve what happened to him. We should do what is right in rectifying this wrong that started in the White House, which misused the criminal process to abuse and persecute and, ultimately, prosecute this man at a huge cost, probably the cost of losing his whole estate under the circumstances. So I apologize to my colleagues for taking so much time. I do feel deeply about this. I know my friend from Hawaii and others have important business to go ahead with. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. HATCH. Will my colleague yield on that point?

Mr. HATCH. I think it is unprecedented. Talk about unprecedented. It is unprecedented for the White House to order the investigation, which is what happened here.