Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Immediately after the consent order.

Mr. HATCH. Especially being interrupted and accommodating colleagues on the other side. I would like to finish.

Mr. HATCH. Following Senator Mikulski?

Mr. HATCH. I have a little bit more. It could be as long as a half hour.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Senate's confirmation of Dr. Samuel Bodman as our new Secretary of Energy. I believe Dr. Bodman will bring considerable skill to the position of Secretary of Energy. Dr. Bodman's distinguished career speaks for itself. In the private sector, he excelled as a professor at MIT, president of an investment company, and chairman and CEO of a worldwide industrial company. In these positions, he gained a great deal of knowledge in financial markets and the impact energy and technology has on those markets. He further proved his capabilities in his service as Deputy Secretary of Commerce and Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. There is no question that Dr. Bodman is qualified to assume this important position. As a Nation, we are far too dependent on foreign sources of energy and must work to increase our energy independence. While I support domestic oil production, I also believe that we must continue to develop alternative sources of energy in the United States. In my home State, Utah State University is working with the Department of Energy to that end. I was pleased that the Department of Energy recently awarded Utah State University a grant to further the university's studies into alternative energy research and development programs. Such programs are essential to ensure we can meet our Nation's future energy needs, and I admire the university for being at the forefront on this issue. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Bodman, and I look forward to working with him on the compelling energy issues facing our Nation. While there will certainly be challenges to overcome as we work to shape our energy policy and increase our energy independence, I am confident that Dr. Bodman will serve admirably in the position.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on February 1, 2005, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on death benefits and services available to survivors of military personnel and legislative proposals to enhance these benefits.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 10 a.m., on pending Committee business.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing on Iraq.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a Business Meeting.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the nomination of R. James Nicholson to be Secretary of Veterans Affairs. At the outset, I would like to thank Mr. Nicholson's predecessor, Anthony Principi, for his service to our Nation's veterans. John Furgess, the National Commander for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, said it best when he described Mr. Principi's service to our country. He said that Secretary Principi: is a true veterans' advocate . . . [who] constantly challenged his staff to improve their services to America's 25 million veterans, and his work to address the needs and concerns of today's newest generation of veterans who are fighting the War on Terrorism typifies his vision and leadership. Secretary Principi wore his compassion and commitment to veterans on his sleeve . . . We applaud him for his service to our country and wish him and his family the best of futures. He will be missed but not forgotten. Let me turn now to express my admiration and appreciation for the President's choice in nominating Ambassador Nicholson to lead our Nation as it strives to support the veterans who have served so tirelessly on behalf of our country. I know Jim Nicholson to be an intelligent, articulate, and decent man. As a veteran of some distinction himself, he has an excellent appreciation for the issues the Department faces. And, as an accomplished executive, he is incredibly well-suited to lead this large and important agency. These are trying times for our Nation's veterans. As the Vietnam war era veterans begin to retire in greater numbers and our veterans from the war on terrorism return, our Nation must reaffirm its commitment to those who have placed everything on the line for the cause of freedom. I believe that Ambassador Nicholson is an excellent choice to lead our Nation's effort to maintain the sacred covenants between the Nation and its veterans. A man from humble beginnings, Ambassador Nicholson rose to graduate from West Point and become an Army Ranger who served his country during the Vietnam war. During that conflict, he proved his courage in battle and earned the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Vietnamese Cross for Gallantry, two air medals, and, of course, the Combat Infantry Badge. His service to his country did not end there. He went on to serve for 22 years as an Army Reservist, retiring with the rank of colonel. Along the way he received a master's degree in public policy from Columbia University and a law degree from the University of Denver. In Denver, he established a reputation as a highly qualified attorney specializing in real estate, municipal finance and zoning law before becoming a highly successful residential real estate developer. However, his call to service did not end with his years of military service, Ambassador Nicholson entered politics and was elected chairman of the Republican National Committee. His tenure secured him a reputation as a person of the highest ethics and his current position as Ambassador to the Holy See has been a success. I feel quite confident that those same skills that made Ambassador Nicholson a successful businessman and ambassador will ensure that our veterans receive the support and care they deserve while maximizing the efficiency of this Department. Therefore, Mr. President, I hope that I will be joined by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and quickly confirm Ambassador Nicholson to this vital post.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as everybody around here knows, I strongly support the nomination of Governor Mike Leavitt for Secretary of Health and Human Services. I urge my colleagues to confirm Governor Leavitt so that he may start his work as quickly as possible. I have known Governor Mike Leavitt for a long time, almost 30 years, and have worked very closely with him on many health issues, not just local and State health issues but national health issues as well. Governor Leavitt has a distinguished record. He is highly qualified for this job. He is bright, energetic, dedicated, and fair--all of the qualities necessary for this important position. I say with all respect to those who have gone before him, I can think of no better candidate for Secretary of Health and Human Services or no better nominee than Mike Leavitt. Having said that, I compliment his predecessor, Governor Tommy Thompson. To have two great Governors in a row running HHS is a credit to this administration and to the country at large. Governor Thompson has done a terrific job at HHS under very difficult circumstances. It is almost an unmanageable entity because it is so large and so important and covers so much of the wealth and costs of this Nation. Governor Thompson deserves a great deal of credit. He was a great Governor, but so was Mike Leavitt. Between the two of them, we will have a continuity that will be very beneficial to all of us. Governor Leavitt has devoted much of his life to public service, first in Utah and more recently in Washington. He is a smart decisionmaker, a tireless worker, and a successful manager and executive. He is fair. He is knowledgeable about health care. He is a decent family man. The bottom line: He will get the job done. As Governor of Utah, Governor Leavitt was a strong leader on issues familiar to this body: welfare reform, health care delivery, and, of course, Medicaid. During a difficult financial time for our State of Utah, Governor Leavitt was able to create a fiscally responsible budget and at the same time provide important services to lower income Utah citizens of all ages. While Congress was working on the 1997 Child Health Insurance Program legislation, a bill that I was the prime sponsor of, I talked to Governor Leavitt frequently to get his perspective as a leader in the National Governors Association. At first he was not very enamored with the Hatch-Kennedy bill. On the other hand, I told him the final bill was not going to be exactly that bill, which was written a little more moderately than I thought it should be. I also wanted the States to have more authority and power with the CHIP program, which was more in sync with Governor Leavitt's thinking. During that time he provided me with valuable insight and has continued to do so as the program has grown. I would be remiss if I did not also cite Governor Leavitt's great work in providing health care coverage to not only CHIP-eligible children but to lower income adults of our State as well through innovative new State health care insurance programs like the Primary Care Network. In addition, Governor Leavitt implemented several new and innovative approaches to serving the poor. Governor Leavitt's administration was one of the first to implement a philosophy of universal engagement wherein every candidate to receive State assistance was assessed and a plan to help these individuals become self-sufficient was created. This proved to be an enormously valuable tool to helping the disadvantaged get the assistance they needed to return to the job market as soon as possible. As in many aspects of his life as a public servant, Mike Leavitt is a visionary who cares deeply about people, exactly the type of a person we want in this position. Finally, Governor Leavitt has been a strong supporter of the Utah Head Start Program. For many children, the Head Start Program is their first and only exposure to education and health services. There are many examples of how the Utah Head Start Program has made a dramatic difference. Let me cite a couple for my colleagues. One little girl from Utah was handed a book on her first day in the program and literally did not know how to open the book. Another child was diagnosed with a brain tumor through the Utah Head Start screening process. Surgery was successfully performed, and he returned to the program and did extremely well. Governor Leavitt has had firsthand experience at overseeing this program and therefore brings an important perspective to HHS on why Head Start needs to be continued and even strengthened. On a personal note, I emphasize to my colleagues that Mike Leavitt is a fair man. I know him very well. He will look at all sides of an issue before making a policy decision, and my colleagues can count on the result to be the right decision. His record as both the Governor of Utah and as Administrator of EPA proves this, and he will continue to be a great leader when he becomes Secretary of HHS. I can promise my colleagues he will be an excellent leader for the programs we all support--Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, welfare and community health centers, just to make a few. Importantly, we can count on Mike Leavitt, along with the Administrator for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mark McClellan, to work closely with our committee on the difficult task of fully implementing the Medicare prescription drug program next January. I might add that the jurisdiction of a Secretary of Health and Human Services is quite broad, it not only includes CMS, which handles Medicaid and Medicare among other programs, but it also includes the Food and Drug Administration and many other different programs within that department. In my opinion, the FDA is the single most important consumer agency in the world. The FDA handles upwards of 25 percent of all consumer products in America, and the agency does an extraordinary job. However, there is more and more pressure on FDA every year to try to have a fail-safe system where no deleterious results can occur from pharmaceutical innovations. There is no way that can ever be, but I believe that FDA does as good of a job as possible. In fact, my FDA Revitalization Act, authorized the creation of a central campus in the Washington, DC, area to house all FDA employees in this greater area who are now scattered over more than 30 different facilities, which can be very inconvenient and nonproductive. In December 2003, we dedicated the first building on the White Oak campus, which is where the full FDA campus will be built with state-of-the-art equipment and state-of-the- art facilities. Individuals who want to work in this area will be given an opportunity to work under the best of circumstances. One of Governor Leavitt's responsibilities as Secretary will be to continue with this centralization, complete with a totally computerized and digital FDA campus, created so that we can be even more efficient at FDA. It is my hope that this centralized campus will shorten the length of time it takes to ensure the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs. I will close with one anecdote related to me the other day. After attending several briefings with the Secretary designate, an FDA official stated: At our first briefing, Governor Leavitt was good. At the second meeting, he was excellent. At the last briefing, he was teaching us. Now, that is the kind of a man Mike Leavitt is. He will be a great Secretary. With pride and admiration, I strongly support my fellow Utahan Governor Mike Leavitt's nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Let us get him confirmed and on the job as soon as possible. I have no doubt that will occur. I am very grateful to those who are willing to support Governor Leavitt, and I suspect that everybody in this body will do so. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand today to give my strong support for President Bush's choice to be our next Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleeza Rice. I believe that Dr. Rice will be a superb diplomat to lead the State Department, while remaining one of the President's principal confidantes and advisers on the challenges to our national security that we will face in the difficult years before us. Indeed, not since President Nixon nominated his National Security Advisor, Dr. Henry Kissinger, to the same post, has an administration seen the same continuity in assigning a key foreign policy advisor to the more public role of principal diplomat. I was pleased that Chairman Lugar and Ranking Minority Member Biden expeditiously moved Dr. Rice's nomination out of their committee last week. I am disappointed that we could not hold this vote last week. At a time when this Nation is at war, procedural delays on a position as important as the Secretary of State would appear to inhibit the conduct of our foreign policy and would have been of great concern to me and my constituents in Utah, where the sense of fair play is strong, but the duty to a Nation at war is even stronger. Yes, I certainly recognize the prerogatives of the Senate for thorough and critical debate. I will listen carefully to the debate today and tomorrow and see if I hear anything that is worthy of delaying this important nomination so critical to the national security efforts of the administration. I will listen for arguments I have not heard before, on the Senate floor or the campaign trail, and I will be open to all the insights that come from arguments never made before, and relevant to this nomination. But I know that I represent the vast majority of all Utahns when I say that confirming a President's Secretary of State while we are at war, while the President is preparing an aggressive diplomacy that will begin with a trip to Europe to meet with key allies next month, is a matter the Senate should take expeditiously. We are at war, in Iraq and around the world. Utah's sons and daughters are paying the price, nobly and selflessly sacrificing for their duty, and in too many cases, with their lives. For those who wish to debate Iraq policy--and I am the first to recognize that spirited and substantive debate is essential for these grave matters--we have all the opportunities to do so before us, and we should avail ourselves of these opportunities. Many today may use the confirmation process of Dr. Rice to criticize or review Iraq policy. We should confirm Dr. Rice and then continue to debate this subject, as we have done so over the past years. Because I wish a speedy confirmation for Dr. Rice, I will keep my comments about Iraq to a minimum. My statements of support for the President's policies and my arguments for that support are a matter of record. I will add to that record in the coming weeks, months and years. For now, I will leave it to this observation. This Sunday the Iraqi people, amidst great insecurity but with even greater resolve, will go to vote to choose their National Assembly, one that will write a constitution and set the next elections. Depending on which polls you see, between 67 percent and 84 percent of the Iraqi people want this opportunity to vote this coming Sunday, despite the perils many face every day. To see the ideology they are so resoundingly rejecting, I direct my colleagues to the long statement by Abu al-Zarqawi released 4 days ago. It is a statement of extremist, Islamic fascism: In the most explicit manner possible, for 9 pages, it lists all the reasons why the Islamic fascists reject democracy, declaring ``fierce war on this malicious ideology'' democracy. That is what we are against. And that is what the majority of the Iraqi people utterly reject. And I believe that America's interest--once again--is to stand against the fascists who have declared war on democracy. We are well aware of Dr. Rice's resume and experience. Her academic credentials are remarkable, and her professional experience extensive. She was a senior professional at the National Security Council under the first President Bush, where she worked on Soviet affairs and was directly involved in our policy of supporting a peaceful reunification of Germany at the end of the Cold War. I believe that the successful reunification of Germany was the most successful aspect of the first President Bush's foreign policy, often overlooked because of all of the tumult during those crucial years when Soviet communism collapsed. Dr. Rice's involvement in that policy at that crucial time in Europe's history demonstrates her experience at shepherding a critical transition between an authoritarian model and a democratic one. While one should not analogize between German reunification and Iraq's transition today, one can look at Dr. Rice's experience and understand why the current President Bush chose her first to be his National Security Adviser during her first term and now has the confidence to make her America's top diplomat. In the last 4 years Dr. Rice has been at the center of this administration's foreign policy. That that policy was a target of legitimate criticism during the past presidential campaign, as well as during the last 2 days of hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is to be expected. The candidates presented their distinctively different worldviews throughout last year's campaign, during a difficult war that rages still, and the public made its choice. In the United States Senate, it is our responsibility to debate, honestly, candidly and critically, all aspects of our Nation's foreign policy. My only admonition to my colleagues is that this debate be constructive, that it illuminate rather calumniate, and that, when in disagreement, it provide alternatives. Yes, it is legitimate to review the rationales for war, the flaws in intelligence and the faults in rhetoric. I believe Republicans have been quite candid and forthright about doing so. The chairmen and chairwoman of the Senate Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence and Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committees have all had hearings, conducted investigations and released reports critical in various degrees of the conduct and implementation of various administration policies. That is as it should be, and, for most of us, and certainly for me, it does not detract from our support for the administration's foreign policy at a critical time in this Nation's history. Partisan critics of this administration have perpetuated about its foreign policy a myth that has morphed into a meme: And that is that this administration has failed at diplomacy. This specious belief that diplomacy can neutralize the dangers and the threats to the international community is puzzling to me. It is a variant of a theme in American foreign policy, deriving from the Wilsonian belief that a League of Nations to which we submit our sovereign responsibilities can prevent conflict. I, and Dr. Rice, do not subscribe to this view, so overwhelmingly proved wanting into the historical laboratory that was the 20th century. And yet this meme parroted so often by many in the Democratic party-- that this administration has not conducted a robust diplomacy--is false, simply false. No President more regularly addressed the General Assembly in the history of the United Nations than did the current President Bush. He spoke honestly and, to me, compellingly about that body's many trounced-upon resolutions. He cajoled and he listened and he waited, but at no time did this President suggest that the United Nations or any ally would be in a position to veto the actions we deemed necessary to protect our national security. No President would ever do so. And while we failed to get Security Council support for our invasion of Iraq as President Clinton failed before he belatedly led the attack on Serbia over Kosovo--this President leads a global war on terrorism where most of the nations of the world are cooperating with us, in one form or another, through intelligence sharing, law enforcement cooperation, or any of a number of multilateral initiatives. Disagree with the President's foreign policy if you wish, criticize, if you must, but do not suggest that such a global effort can occur without sustained and successful diplomacy. Credit for the diplomacy for the first term of this administration must go to those who formulated the policy, the President and Dr. Rice and the rest of the national security team, and to the man who led the State Department, Secretary Colin Powell. To this day, the standard for dignity and graciousness has been set by Secretary Powell, who once again took the call from his country and served it with honor, diligence and character. Secretary Powell assembled a strong team at the Department, and he represented this Nation in a way that made every one of us proud. Dr. Rice knows that, as she assumes this important position, she follows a decent and serious diplomat and a dedicated servant. I have no doubt that she will meet the standard. Dr. Rice will assume the responsibility of Secretary of State while we are at war, with global terrorism and with an insurgency in Iraq that every day puts in stark contrast the darkness of the past dictatorship against the light of a hopeful democracy. These next 2 years, I expect, will be some of the most difficult years in this Nation's foreign policy. We will continue to need the experience and wisdom of Dr. Rice as she serves this administration in a new role. That role, as the Secretary of State, will have outstanding challenges. Dr. Rice will need to advance further cooperation of a multinational coalition in the war on terrorism; she will have to renew a push for more international support for a more effective political and economic reconstruction of Iraq; she will need to strengthen U.S. support for counterproliferation initiatives in Europe and Asia; and she will need to maintain U.S. leadership in the fight against poverty and disease. She can count on me for support as she assumes these huge and historic responsibilities. In her testimony, Dr. Rice has conceded that our public diplomacy needs serious reconsideration. Many cite ongoing and growing dissatisfaction among international audiences regarding the United States. I would caution Dr. Rice against overemphasizing this reality as she redesigns our public diplomacy. The U.S. is a source of resentment and disparagement among many audiences throughout the world, but many of those audiences are contaminated by the propaganda of their own autocratic regimes. Today, more people still want to immigrate to this country than any other nation in the world, and more people take inspiration in the institutions that protect and promote our freedoms, be it our Constitution or our free press or our culture of openness. I have long been a strong supporter of public diplomacy. Today's challenges are not only to rebut the ever-growing sophistication of the biases and distortions that compete in global media, but to continue to find new ways to promote the American message and the American story. The days of United States Information Service libraries are over, but cultural exchange programs, in particular visitor programs to this country, must continue and, in my opinion, should grow. I will help Dr. Rice in any way that I can to reinvigorate our public diplomacy. In the last few years, I believe the State Department has failed to grasp the value of culture of lawfulness programs. These programs use education ministries to advance core primary and secondary curricula on anticorruption lessons. It is impossible to advance the rule of law, which is a fundamental goal of bringing stability in regions we cannot afford to lose to anarchy or criminality, without the local population learning the value of clean government. We have seen success with such programs in Italy, Mexico, Colombia and other countries, and yet I have seen no enthusiasm from the State Department in making these programs an essential aspect of all our foreign assistance planning. Perhaps that is because these programs are so inexpensive, and there is still the bias against programs that don't require billions of taxpayer funds; perhaps the Department does not yet understand the potential for these programs, despite the clear affirmation of the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs, who has spoken eloquently in favor of such programs. I am heartened by Dr. Rice's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, she asserted that ``we are joining with developing nations to fight corruption, instill the rule of law, and create a culture of transparency.'' She has my support, and I am going to ask Dr. Rice to study the experience and potential of these culture of lawfulness programs and work with me and other Members of Congress to integrate them into our foreign assistance plans. I will work with Dr. Rice in every way that I can to make her mission a success. Because the mission of the Department of State is to work to manage conflicts so that they do not erupt into violence and war. In a world where we can not control so many factors beyond our shores, we need the very best diplomacy to be constantly working our alliances, presenting our policies and engaging those who would challenge our security. Dr. Condoleeza Rice has 25 years of experience in advancing the national security of this nation. She has 4 years as the principal advisor to President Bush, as he has charted a foreign policy that has responded to global terror and taken on the most destabilizing regime in the Middle East. She has the knowledge and character and experience of one who can lead this country in our diplomacy around the world. Dr. Rice has my strong support.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with my colleagues, Senators Feinstein, Grassley, Kyl, and Cornyn, a comprehensive bipartisan bill to increase gang prosecution and prevention efforts. The bill I introduce today is identical to S. 1735 that was favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 108th Congress. This legislation, ``The Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of 2005,'' authorizes approximately $650 million over the next five years to support law enforcement and efforts to prevent youngsters from joining gangs. Of that, $450 million would be used to support Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts against violent gangs, and $200 million would be used for intervention and prevention programs for at- risk youth. The bill increases funding for the Federal prosecutors and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents needed to conduct coordinated enforcement efforts against violent gangs. This bill also creates new criminal gang prosecution offenses, enhances existing gang and violent crime penalties to deter and punish illegal street gangs, enacts violent crime reforms needed to prosecute effectively gang members, and implements a limited reform of the juvenile justice system to facilitate Federal prosecution of 16- and 17-year-old gang members who commit serious violent felonies. The problem of gang violence in America is not a new one, nor is it a problem that is limited to major urban areas. Once thought to be only a problem in our Nation's largest cities, gangs have invaded smaller communities. Gangs in Salt Lake County result in significant measure from the influence of gangs existing in Los Angeles and Chicago, but with local mutations. Constituents frequently mention to me their extreme concern about gang violence in Utah. According to the Salt Lake Area Gang Project, a multi-jurisdictional task force created in 1989 to fight gang crime in the Salt Lake area, there are at least 250 identified gangs in Utah with over 3,500 members. In Utah, there are street gangs that are ethnically oriented, such as Hispanic gangs, as well as those affiliated with gangs from other cities, such as the Crips and Bloods, Folks and People, motorcycle gangs, Straight Edge gangs, Animal Liberation Front, Skinheads, Varrio Loco Town, Oquirrh Shadow Boys, Salt Lake Posse, and the list goes on. Some of these gangs are racist; some are extremist. And what I find particularly troubling is that over one-third of the total gang membership is made up of juveniles. Thus, these crimes have a particular impact on youths. Gangs now resemble organized crime syndicates which readily engage in gun violence, illegal gun trafficking, illegal drug trafficking and other serious crimes. All too often we read in the headlines about gruesome and tragic stories of rival gang members gunned down, innocent bystanders--adults, teenagers and children--caught in the cross fire of gangland shootings, and family members crying out in grief as they lose loved ones to the gang wars plaguing our communities. Recent studies confirm that gang violence is an increasing problem in all of our communities. Based on the latest available National Youth Gang Survey, it is now estimated that there are more than 25,000 gangs, and over 750,000 gang members who are active in more than 3,000 jurisdictions across the United States. The most current reports indicate that in 2002 alone, after five years of decline, gang membership has spiked nationwide. I have been--and remain--committed to supporting Federal, State and local task forces as a model for effective gang enforcement strategies. Working together, these task forces have demonstrated that they can make a difference in the community. In Salt Lake City, the Metro Gang Multi-Jurisdiction Task Force stands out as a critical player in fighting gang violence in Salt Lake City. We need to reassure outstanding organizations like this that there will be adequate resources available to expand and fund these critical task force operations to fight gang violence. In my study of this problem, it has become clear that the government needs to work with communities to meet this problem head-on and defeat it. If we really want to reduce gang violence, we must ensure that law enforcement has adequate resources and legal tools, and that our communities have the ability to implement proven intervention and prevention strategies, so that gang members who are removed from the community are not simply replaced by the next generation of new gang members. In closing, I want to commend my colleagues--Senators Feinstein, Grassley, Kyl and Cornyn. They have worked very closely with me as we considered these issues last Congress and I look forward to working with them and others as we proceed this year. I urge my colleagues to join with us in promptly passing this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. This important legislation consists of a package of smaller intellectual property bills that the House and Senate have been working to enact since last Congress. This legislation passed the Senate not once, but twice, during the waning days of the last Congress. Unfortunately, though, it was doomed by a non-germane amendment unrelated to intellectual property law. My hope is that we can work together this Congress to avoid this type of pitfall, and I commit to work with other members to do so. Before beginning my substantive discussion of the bill, I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Leahy, Cornyn, and Feinstein for their ongoing efforts on this legislation. Just as it was last year, this legislation is a group effort, and I want to take care to recognize the contributions and their excellent work along with that of Representatives Sensenbrenner, Smith, Berman, and Conyers in the House. Before going into a title-by-title discussion of the bill, I would like to express my particular support for the Family Movie Act, which has been included in this legislation. Chairman Lamar Smith and I worked on this bill last Congress. It's important legislation both to parents who want the ability to use new technologies to help shield their families from inappropriate content as well as the technology companies, such as ClearPlay in my home State of Utah, that are working to develop these technologies. The Family Movie Act will give parents more say over what their children see, without limiting the creative control of directors and movie studios. Title I of this Act, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005, (the ART Act), contains a slightly modified version of S. 1932, authored by Senators Cornyn and Feinstein in the 108th Congress. This bill will close two significant gaps in our copyright laws that are feeding some of the piracy now rampant on the Internet. First, it criminalizes attempts to record movies off of theater screens. These camcorded copies of new movies now appear on filesharing networks almost contemporaneously with the theatrical release of a film. Several States have already taken steps to criminalize this activity, but providing a uniform Federal law--instead of a patchwork of State criminal statutes--will assist law enforcement officials in combating the theft and redistribution of valuable intellectual property embodied in newly-released motion pictures. Second, the bill will create a pre-registration system that will permit criminal penalties and statutory-damage awards. This will also provide a tool for law enforcement officials combating the growing problem of music and movies being distributed on filesharing networks and circulating on the Internet before they are even released. Obviously, the increasingly frequent situation of copyrighted works being distributed illegally via the Internet before they are even made available for sale to the public severely undercuts the ability of copyright holders to receive fair and adequate compensation for their works. Title II of this Act, the Family Movie Act of 2005 (the FMA), resolves some ongoing disputes about the legality of so-called ``jump- and-skip'' technologies that companies like Clearplay in my home State of Utah have developed to permit family-friendly viewing of films that may contain objectionable content. The FMA creates a narrowly defined safe-harbor clarifying that distributors of such technologies will not face liability for copyright or trademark infringement, provided that they comply with the requirements of the Act. I have been working with my colleagues in the Senate and several leaders in the House-- including, most importantly Chairmen Smith and Sensenbrenner--for the past couple of years to resolve this issue. The FMA will help to end aggressive litigation threatening the viability of small companies like Clearplay which are busy creating innovative technologies for consumers that allow them to tailor their home viewing experience to their own individual or family preferences. The Family Movie Act creates a new exemption in section 110(11) of the Copyright Act for skipping and muting audio and video content in motion pictures during performances of an authorized copy of the motion picture taking place in the course of a private viewing in a household. The version passed last year by the House explicitly excluded from the scope of the new copyright exemption so-called ``ad-skipping'' technologies that make changes, deletions, or additions to commercial advertisements or to network or station promotional announcements that would otherwise be displayed before, during, or after the performance of the motion picture. This provision was included on the House floor to address the concerns of some Members who were concerned that a court might misread the new section 110(11) exemption to apply to ``ad- skipping''' cases, such as in the recent litigation involving ReplayTV. In the Senate, however, some expressed concern that the inclusion of such explicit language could create unwanted inferences with respect to the merits of the legal positions at the heart of recent ``ad- skipping'' litigation. Those issues remain unsettled in the courts, and it was never the intent of this legislation to resolve or affect those issues in any way. Indeed, the Copyright Act contains literally scores of similar exemptions, and none of those exemptions have been or should be construed to imply anything about the legality of conduct falling outside their scope. As a result, the Copyright Office has now confirmed that such an explicit exclusion is unnecessary to achieve the desired outcome, which is to avoid application of this new exemption in potential future cases involving ad-skipping devices. In order to avoid unnecessary controversy, the Senate bill omits the exclusionary language with the understanding that doing so does not in any way change the scope of the bill. That this change in no way affects the scope of the exemption is clear when considering that the new section 110(11) exemption protects the ``making imperceptible . . . limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture. . . .'' An advertisement, under the Copyright Act, is itself a ``motion picture,'' and thus a product or service that enables the skipping of an entire advertisement, in any media, would be beyond the scope of the exemption. Moreover, the phrase ``limited portions'' is intended to refer to portions that are both quantitatively and qualitatively insubstantial in relation to the work as a whole. Where any substantial part of a complete work, such as a commercial advertisement, is made imperceptible, the new section 110(11) exemption would not apply. The limited scope of this exemption does not, however, imply or show that such conduct or a technology that enables such conduct would be infringing. This legislation does not in any way deal with that issue. It means simply that such conduct and products enabling such conduct are not immunized from liability by this exemption. This bill also differs from the version passed by the House last year in that it adds two ``savings clauses.'' The copyright savings clause makes clear that there should be no spillover effect from the passage of this law: that is, nothing shall be construed to have any effect on rights, defenses, or limitations on rights granted under title 17, other than those explicitly provided for in the new section 110(11) exemption. The trademark savings clause clarifies that no inference can be drawn that a person or company who fails to qualify for the exemption from trademark infringement found in this provision is therefore liable for trademark infringement. Title III of this Act, the National Film Preservation Act of 2004, will reauthorize the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation. These entities have worked successfully to recognize and preserve historically or culturally significant films--often by providing the grants and expertise that enable local historical societies to protect and preserve historically significant films for the local communities for which they are most important. This fine work will ensure that the history of the 20th century will be preserved and available to future generations. As a conservative Senator from a socially conservative state, I occasionally take a few swings at the movie industry for the quality and content of the motion pictures they are currently creating, but I will note for the record that I commend efforts to ensure that important artistic, cultural, and historically significant films are preserved for future generations. I commend my friend from Vermont for his perseverance in reauthorizing Federal funds to continue this important effort. Title IV of this act, the ``Preservation of Orphan Works Act,'' also ensures the preservation of valuable historic records by correcting a technical error that unnecessarily narrows a limitation on the copyright law applicable to librarians and archivists. This will strengthen the ability of librarians and archivists to better meet the needs of both researchers and ordinary individuals and will result in greater accessibility of important works. I applaud my colleague in the House--Representative Howard Berman of California--for his efforts on this bill and am pleased to see it included in this Senate package. Just to conclude, I will again thank Ranking Democratic Member Leahy, Senator Cornyn, Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Smith, as well as Mr. Conyers and Mr. Berman for their bicameral, bipartisan approach to these bills and to intellectual property issues generally. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to yield for a question from the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend, the Senator from Texas, for that reminder. I would certainly have no objection to entering our previous colloquy into the Record again and ask unanimous consent that it appear after our remarks.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Section 102 of the ART Act establishes a new provision of Title 18 entitled, ``Unauthorized Recording of Motion Pictures in a Motion Picture Exhibition Facility.'' I ask Senator Cornyn, what is the purpose of this provision?

Mr. HATCH. I have heard it said that this bill could be used against a salesperson or a customer at stores such as Best Buy or Circuit City if he or she were to point a video camera at a television screen showing a movie. Is this cause for concern?

Mr. HATCH. Does the Senator from California agree with your colleague from Texas?

Mr. HATCH. I have also heard some say that this statute could be used to prosecute someone for camcording a DVD at his home. Is this a fair concern?

Mr. HATCH. Do the users of hearing aids, cell phones or similar devices have anything to fear from this statute?

Mr. HATCH. It appears that there is no fair use exception to this provision. Is that correct?

Mr. HATCH. Does the Senator from Texas agree?

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to yield for a question from the distinguished Senator from Texas.

Mr. HATCH. My cosponsor, Senator Cornyn, raises an important point. While we removed the ``ad-skipping'' language from the statute to avoid this unnecessary controversy, you are absolutely correct that this does not in any way change the scope of the bill. The bill protects the ``making imperceptible . . . limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture . . .'' An advertisement, under the Copyright Act, is itself a ``motion picture,'' and thus a product or service that enables the skipping of an entire advertisement, in any media, would be beyond the scope of the exemption. Moreover, the phrase ``limited portions'' is intended to refer to portions that are both quantitatively and qualitatively insubstantial in relation to the work as a whole. Where any substantial part of a complete work, such as a commercial advertisement, is made imperceptible, the new section 110(11) exemption would not apply. The limited scope of this exemption does not, however, imply or show that such a product would be infringing. This legislation does not in any way deal with that issue. It means simply that such a product is not immunized from liability by this exemption.