Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is little doubt that serious problems exist within our Nation's judicial system, especially in the way that interstate class action lawsuits are handled and administered in local courtrooms across this country. Increasingly, parties to class actions have taken to forum shopping to pick sympathetic local courts where, more and more often, plaintiffs are offered coupon settlements and lawyers are awarded enormous fees. According to recent studies, while Federal class action filings over the past 10 years have increased over 300 percent, class action filings in State courts have increased over 1,000 percent. However, interstate class actions involve more citizens in more States, more money, and more interstate commerce ramifications than any other type of civil litigation. They are the paradigm of what our Framers envisioned when they invented Federal diversity jurisdiction, as reflected in Article III of the Constitution. These State court statistics are even more troubling in light of the fact that many State courts have crushing caseloads and far fewer resources available to them than their Federal counterparts to manage these important and complex cases. The primary reason that interstate class actions have remained in State court despite their complex nature is because it is relatively easy for plaintiffs' class attorneys to defeat both the statutory ``complete diversity'' requirement by adding non-diverse parties and the $75,000 ``amount in controversy'' requirement by aggregating individual claims to be less than this amount. Interestingly, the ``complete diversity'' requirement was adopted by Congress in the late 1700s, well before the development of modern class action lawsuits. Simply put, the Class Action Fairness Act would allow Federal courts to adjudicate class actions where the collective amount in controversy is more than $2 million, and where any member of the class of plaintiffs is from a different State than any defendant. This means that many State class actions may be removed to Federal court. Nonetheless, the bill does not extend Federal jurisdiction to encompass intrastate class actions, where the claims are governed primarily by the laws of the State in which the case is filed and the majority of the plaintiffs and the primary defendants are citizens of that State. So there is no federalism issue here. All the bill does is to protect constitutionally mandated diversity jurisdiction--``suits between Citizens of different States.'' I am aware that there are those that say that the bill would ``flood'' Federal courts. But, again, according to Article III of the Constitution and our Founding fathers, these cases belong in Federal court. Critics making the judicial overload argument also ignore the fact that this bill does not require that interstate class actions be heard in Federal courts. It simply provides the option for either side. In jurisdictions where the State courts provide a relatively level playing field, there is no reason to believe that all class actions will be removed to Federal court. I should also point out that this bill would not prohibit any class action from being filed. It is merely a process or procedural bill. It simply determines the court in which interstate class actions with significant national implications should be adjudicated--that is, in Federal court. I urge my colleagues to adopt this common-sense legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, there is little doubt that serious problems exist within our Nation's judicial system, especially in the way that interstate class action lawsuits are handled and administered in local courtrooms across this country. Increasingly, parties to class actions have taken to forum shopping to pick sympathetic local courts where, more and more often, plaintiffs are offered coupon settlements and lawyers are awarded enormous fees. According to recent studies, while Federal class action filings over the past 10 years have increased over 300 percent, class action filings in State courts have increased over 1,000 percent. However, interstate class actions involve more citizens in more States, more money, and more interstate commerce ramifications than any other type of civil litigation. They are the paradigm of what our Framers envisioned when they invented Federal diversity jurisdiction, as reflected in Article III of the Constitution. These State court statistics are even more troubling in light of the fact that many State courts have crushing caseloads and far fewer resources available to them than their Federal counterparts to manage these important and complex cases. The primary reason that interstate class actions have remained in State court despite their complex nature is because it is relatively easy for plaintiffs' class attorneys to defeat both the statutory ``complete diversity'' requirement by adding non-diverse parties and the $75,000 ``amount in controversy'' requirement by aggregating individual claims to be less than this amount. Interestingly, the ``complete diversity'' requirement was adopted by Congress in the late 1700s, well before the development of modern class action lawsuits. Simply put, the Class Action Fairness Act would allow Federal courts to adjudicate class actions where the collective amount in controversy is more than $2 million, and where any member of the class of plaintiffs is from a different State than any defendant. This means that many State class actions may be removed to Federal court. Nonetheless, the bill does not extend Federal jurisdiction to encompass intrastate class actions, where the claims are governed primarily by the laws of the State in which the case is filed and the majority of the plaintiffs and the primary defendants are citizens of that State. So there is no federalism issue here. All the bill does is to protect constitutionally mandated diversity jurisdiction--``suits between Citizens of different States.'' I am aware that there are those that say that the bill would ``flood'' Federal courts. But, again, according to Article III of the Constitution and our Founding fathers, these cases belong in Federal court. Critics making the judicial overload argument also ignore the fact that this bill does not require that interstate class actions be heard in Federal courts. It simply provides the option for either side. In jurisdictions where the State courts provide a relatively level playing field, there is no reason to believe that all class actions will be removed to Federal court. I should also point out that this bill would not prohibit any class action from being filed. It is merely a process or procedural bill. It simply determines the court in which interstate class actions with significant national implications should be adjudicated--that is, in Federal court. I urge my colleagues to adopt this common-sense legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to voice my support for the nomination of Edith Brown Clement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She has made a well-respected name for herself both as a litigator and as a Federal district court judge. Judge Clement graduated from Tulane University School of Law in 1972. After graduation, she accepted a clerkship with U.S. District Judge H.W. Christenberry in the Eastern District of Louisiana. At the culmination of her clerkship, Judge Clement began a 16 year career as a litigator, eventually becoming a partner at the New Orleans firm of Jones, Walker. As a practitioner, she developed an expertise in admiralty and maritime law, and litigated a multitude of complex and nuanced cases. In 1991, President G.H.W. Bush nominated Judge Clement to be a Federal district judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana--the same court for which she had served as a law clerk more than 15 years earlier. As a judge, she has written extensively on admiralty law as well as issues of general interest to practitioners. I must note that although Judge Clement's confirmation hearing was held on October 4, she was still receiving written questions from Judiciary Committee members nearly 1 month later. In fact, she received a lengthy set of questions from one member on November 1, the same date her nomination was voted out of committee. Judge Clement nevertheless cooperated fully and answered the questions promptly. I wish to commend her and the Department of Justice for their efforts in complying with the requests of committee members. During her tenure, Judge Clement has served with honor and distinction. She has proven herself to be exceptionally qualified for a position on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I praise President Bush for recognizing that fact by nominating her to serve on that court. I wholeheartedly support Judge Clement's nomination, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate has had both the honor and the pleasure of considering the nominations of several extremely well- qualified individuals to serve as Federal judges. Although I was unable to be here due to an unavoidable scheduling conflict, I am pleased that last night the Senate confirmed Larry R. Hicks to be a Federal district judge for the District of Nevada. He earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Nevada at Reno and a law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law before going to work in 1968 as a Deputy District Attorney in Washoe county, NV. Three years later, he became the Chief Criminal Deputy District Attorney. In 1975, Mr. Hicks was elected the District Attorney for Washoe County, where he gained extensive experience in litigating murder, robbery, and other major felony trials. He remained in that position until 1979. Since that time, Mr. Hicks has been a partner in a private law firm in Reno. He has been chairman of the firm's litigation section since 1985. Mr. Hicks has also served as a settlement judge since 1998 for the Nevada Supreme Court. He has compiled an excellent track record, having successfully achieved settlement in all but 5 of the 40 cases assigned to him. I am also please that Christina Armijo was confirmed today to be a Federal district judge for the District of New Mexico. She earned both her Bachelor of Arts degree and her Juris Doctor degree from the University of New Mexico. After 3 years of practicing law for Sandoval County Legal Services, she started her own private practice in her hometown of Las Vegas, NM. Her practice consisted not only of general civil and administrative law, but also included long-term contracts to defend felony criminal cases as a public defender, litigate child abuse cases on behalf of New Mexico, and serve as a Due Process Hearing Officer for the state Department of Education. After 18 years of private practice, Judge Armijo was appointed to serve on the New Mexico Court of Appeals in early 1996. She was elected to a full 8-year term later that year. In her almost 6 years on the bench, none of her decisions has been reversed. We now have the opportunity to consider the nomination of Karon Owen Bowdre to be a Federal district judge for the Northern District of Alabama. She received her bachelor's degree cum laude from Samford University and graduated cum laude from the Cumberland School of Law in 1981, where she was associate editor of the Cumberland Law Review and a member of the Moot Court Board. After graduation from law school, Professor Bowdre served as judicial law clerk in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and then practiced with a private law firm in Birmingham, AL. She handled numerous trials in State and Federal court, primarily involving insurance, product liability, medical malpractice, fraud and bad faith, and discrimination cases. Since 1990, Professor Bowdre has taught at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University. We are also considering the nomination of Stephen P. Friot to serve on the Federal bench in the Western District of Oklahoma. While attending the University of Oklahoma College of Law, Mr. Friot was a member of the Order of the Barrister, and was the recipient of the Law Day Moot Court Award and the United States Law Week Award. Upon graduation in 1972, he joined a private law firm, and has spent the past 29 years practicing civil trial and appellate law in Oklahoma City. In the last 10 years, Mr. Friot has tried cases involving employment law, product liability, aviation product liability, title insurance, slander of title, interference with contract rights, ground water pollution, real property covenants, insurance marketing practices, partnership law, and healthcare law. He has been listed as one of the ``Best Lawyers in America'' for Business Litigation since 1989. I have every confidence that these nominees will serve the United States with honor and distinction. I want to thank Senator Leahy for moving their nominations, and Senator Schumer for chairing their confirmation hearing. I fully support the nominations of these candidates, and urge my colleagues to do so as well. I must note, however, that one nominee for the Federal appellate court, Edith Brown Clement, had her hearing before these nominees, on October 4, and was voted out of committee on the same date as these nominees. She is exceedingly well-qualified for the Fifth Circuit, having served as a Federal district court judge for the past decade. I look forward to the Senate's prompt consideration of her nomination as well. I must also note that at least one committee member submitted written questions to these nominees on October 30, a mere 2 days before the committee was scheduled to consider their nominations. Another committee member waited until November 1 to submit questions to one of these nominees. This was nearly one month after the nominee's October 4 confirmation hearing, and despite the fact that it was announced at her hearing that the record would remain open for only 1 week. I am concerned that the practice of submitting additional questions to nominees long after their confirmation hearings is becoming a tool to delay consideration of their nominations. I urge my colleagues to give these nominees a fair shot at confirmation by submitting their questions in a timely fashion. I would also like to respond to remarks made yesterday regarding the Senate's pace of confirming judges. The short answer is that the confirmation of 16 judges when there are 102 vacancies in the Federal judiciary is nothing to brag about. And despite the fact that the Senate has confirmed only 4 Federal appellate court judges this year, the Judiciary Committee refuses to hold any more hearings on appellate court nominees. This pace pales in comparison when you consider that we held hearings on 14 appellate nominees in 1998, 12 appellate nominees in 1995, and 10 appellate nominees in 1999. Another point that was made yesterday was the number of nominees whose paperwork was not complete. By my count, the ABA has not submitted ratings on 11 pending nominees. Five of these nominations have been pending for more than 8 weeks. Another has been pending more than 6 weeks. This is despite the ABA's pledge to submit its ratings within 35 days at the least. It seems to me that even if the Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee are willing to give the ABA a preferential role in evaluating judicial nominees, even where the Constitution does not, they should not allow the ABA to hold judges hostage by failing to submit timely ratings. In sum, we need to take a hard look at the number of judges we have confirmed in light of the astronomical number of vacancies on the Federal judiciary, and judge our progress on confirmations by that standard. The fact remains that the pace of vacancies has exceeded the pace of judicial confirmations. We in the Senate must do our part to address the real and serious vacancy crisis that threatens to clog our nation's Federal courts and deny the administration of justice to American citizens. We can only do this by speeding up the pace of confirmations before the end of this session.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as the Senate is about to adopt H.R. 3061, the Labor-Health and Human Services Appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2002, I would like to express my strong support and gratitude to Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their willingness to include an amendment to H.R. 3061 on a matter that is very important to my home State of Utah. The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, was signed into law in 1990 and has provided compensation to thousands of individuals, both workers and civilians, who were exposed to harmful radiation as a result of the government's nuclear testing decades ago. Some of these individuals worked in uranium mines; many drove the trucks which transported uranium ore; and many more happened to live downwind from a nuclear test site. The RECA law was amended last year by S. 1515, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000. The legislation, which was signed into law last July, expanded the list of illnesses and classes of individuals who may be compensated under the RECA program. Recognizing that it is more effective, cost-beneficial, and indeed compassionate, to identify and treat at the earliest stages individuals who may have been exposed to harmful radiation, RECA 2000 also authorized a grant program for education, prevention, and early detection of radiogenic cancers and diseases. These grants would be provided through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration and would be used to screen individuals for cancer, provide education programs for detection, prevention and treatment of radiogenic cancers. The grants could also be used to give medical treatment to those individuals who have been diagnosed with radiogenic cancers and illnesses. My amendment appropriates $5 million to HRSA for programs associated with RECA. Of that amount, $4 million will be used for the screening and prevention program I have just mentioned, which is codified under section 417C of the Public Health Service Act. In addition, my amendment provides $1 million so the Department of Health and Human Services may contract with the National Research Council in order to review the most recent scientific information related to radiation exposure and associated cancers and illnesses. The study would also make recommendations as to whether there are additional cancers or illnesses associated with radiation exposure that should be compensated under the RECA program. Finally, the study would review whether other classes of individuals or additional geographic areas should be included under the RECA program. These recommendations by the National Research Council must be completed by June 30, 2003 and will be submitted to the Senate Committees on Appropriations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and Judiciary for review. The report also will be submitted to the House Committees on Appropriations; Energy and Commerce; and Judiciary. I am pleased that this amendment has been cosponsored by both Senators Reid and Domenici. I have also worked closely with Senate Majority Leader Daschle, Senator Bingaman, Senator Campbell, and Senator Johnson on the RECA program. All of us have constituents who have been impacted by radiation exposure and all of us want to do everything we possibly can to be helpful to them. I have met with many RECA claimants in my State. It does not take long to see the pain and suffering they have endured over the years. This is pain and suffering, I might add, that have taken a toll on their lives and the lives of their families as well. Most of these individuals are now retired; they live on modest incomes and fear their declining health will only exacerbate their limited family finances. Many have lost fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers due to radiation exposure. We cannot forget these brave Americans. It is for these reasons that this amendment is so important--it will not only provide valuable assistance to those who have been exposed to radiation exposure, it will also review current data to ensure that all of those who have been impacted will be adequately compensated. I cannot tell you how many times I have talked to constituents who don't understand why their cancer is not currently covered under the RECA law. They don't understand why living in one county allows RECA compensation but living in another county, sometimes as close as three miles away, prohibits them from being compensated as a RECA victim. I want to make sure we are using the best science possible to provide answers to these important questions. The National Research Council recommendations will help answer these questions to the best of our ability based on all current scientific data. Again, I wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues who serve on the Appropriations Committee, especially Senator Harkin and Senator Specter, for recognizing the importance of this issue. Through this amendment, we are acknowledging the plight of these Americans and letting them know that we in the Congress truly care about their welfare.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am delighted to support, enthusiastically, the Landrieu-Cochran amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment. I believe this is a balanced and bipartisan amendment. I am especially pleased that this amendment represents a change in the way the title I formula is funded. My State of Utah has been socked by this formula for years. Correcting the title I formula has long been a priority of mine and this amendment is a good step in the right direction. This amendment would direct Federal funds to go out to States using the degree to which States equalize resources among their school districts as a proxy for their commitment to education. This so-called ``equity provision'' of the Education Finance Incentive Grant section of the title I formula rewards states that have a policy of fairly distributing resources among school districts. I have been beating a steady drum relative to this issue for years. As many of my colleagues know, wealthy school districts can afford to provide more resources to their schools than can poorer school districts. This sends an incredibly bad signal to students in so much as it can appear that wealthy students have access to scholastic resources such as computers and up-to-date science labs which may be unavailable to students from less affluent areas. We should work to eliminate what has been called this ``Savage Inequality'' between more wealthy and less wealthy school districts. I believe that support for the equity provision of this formula sends a strong signal to these students that the Congress deems it a priority for States to find a way to eliminate this barrier to academic progress. I am very proud that my State of Utah has had a policy of equalizing resources among school districts for decades. A majority of States have either been taken to court or been threatened with lawsuits over the issue of equalized resources among school districts. This amendment would assist States which currently are being compelled to address this issue. As a conservative, I am pleased that the equity provision does not mandate to States how they should achieve a more equitable school funding strategy, it merely rewards them when they do achieve a more equitable school funding strategy. I am also pleased that this amendment would establish an alternative proxy for determining a State's commitment to education. Currently, the only measure of a State's commitment to education has been its per- pupil expenditure. That measure unfairly evaluates a State like Utah's commitment to education. Utah has a relatively low tax-base and the highest percentage of school aged children. This means that based on the per-pupil expenditure, Utah ranks relatively low. But the per-pupil expenditure is only one measure to judge a State's commitment to education. It makes sense as a matter of good policy to have a variety of measures to establish a State's commitment to education. This amendment moves us soundly in that direction. Funding for the Education Finance Incentive Grant program is good policy. It just makes sense. I am pleased to support the Landrieu- Cochran amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the Salt Lake Urban Search and Rescue Team, also called Utah Task Force One, UTTF-1 . The outstanding men and women of the Task Force were called upon to serve their nation when 62 members made the grim trip to New York City on September 18, 2001, to search for survivors and bodies in the World Trade Center rubble. The Salt Lake County Fire Department, the Salt Lake City Fire Department, and the Rocky Mountain Rescue Dogs made up this response force. UTTF-1 is one of only 28 task force teams nationwide participating in the National USAR, Urban Search and Rescue, Response System. UTTF-1 deployed to New York with specialized firefighters, search dogs and handlers, two physicians and structural engineers. The team spent 9 days working 12-hour shifts in intolerable conditions and under tremendous strain. They experienced things that would turn lesser men and women to despair. Yet these brave individuals soldiered on without complaint or regard for themselves. In essence, they got the job done. We cannot even begin to imagine the tasks they were asked to perform, but we can give our humble thanks for their determination and courage. The frustration they shared in finding no one alive and the grief they felt as they recovered the bodies of many victims of the terrorist attack--including a New York City firefighter--are beyond words. They faced the incredible devastation and unspeakable smell with the character and composure of real heroes. And we must not forget the families and friends of the task force members. They carried the burden of seeing their loved ones go into a situation that was not only physically dangerous but also emotionally unsettling. These families and friends were also the ones to welcome home the team and comfort them in the aftermath of what was a horrific and heartbreaking experience. Lastly, we give thanks to the rescue dogs who worked so hard and shared the same dangers and frustrations as their handlers. I believe a sign at a U.S. Public Health Service veterinary clinic serving the rescue dogs during the New York disaster said it best, ``For man's best friend, who is fighting men's worst enemy. God bless you.'' The members of Utah Task Force One reflect all that is great about America. They are strong; they are brave; and they are resilient. I take exceptional pride in submitting each one of their names to be recorded in the Congressional Record for posterity. Mr. President, here are 62 American Patriots listed by rank, name, and department: Battalion Chief, Stanley, Dennis, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Battalion Chief, Stroud, Roger, D., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Battalion Chief, Johnson, Jeff, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Assistant Chief, Collins, Scott, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Captain, Riley, Mike, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Deputy Chief, Littleford, Larry B., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Captain, Lund, Jens, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Firefighter, Harp, Michael W., Salt Lake City Fire Department; K-9 Handler, Hackmeister, Nancy, Rocky Mountain Rescue Dogs; K-9 Handler, Richards, Dave, Rocky Mountain Rescue Dogs; K-9 Handler, Flood, Mary, Rocky Mountain Rescue Dogs; K-9 Handler, Perks, Dave, Rocky Mountain Rescue Dogs; Firefighter, Case, R. Bryan, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Captain, Baldwin, J. Clair, Salt Lake City Fire Department; Captain, McBride, Scott, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Captain, Ulibarri, Mike, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Captain, Dixon, David H., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Firefighter, Russell, Wade, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Instructor, Shields, Jon, Utah Valley State College; Paramedic, Clark, Jeffrey A., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Paramedic, Tallon, Tevor J., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Paramedic, Silverthorne, Robert R., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Captain, Darger, Brent, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Paramedic, Schaugaard, Steven, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Paramedic, Halligan, Steven Salt, Lake County Fire Department; Engineer, Russell, Ron, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Firefighter, Fox, Michael S., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Paramedic, Outzen, Craig, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Captain, De Journett, Charles, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Engineer, Cage, Chris, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Paramedic, Harmer, Jacob, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Paramedic, Bone, Merrill L., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Paramedic, Morell, Brad J, Salt Lake City Fire Department; Firefighter, Glagola, Nicholas P., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Paramedic, Vialpando, David T., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Paramedic, Black, Rick G., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Paramedic, Taylor, Matthew A., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Paramedic, Hambleton, Matt, Salt Lake City Fire Department; Captain, Pilcher, Robin, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Firefighter, Widdison, Anthony, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Doctor, Joyce, Stephen, University of Utah Medical Center; Doctor, Dixon, Lester, St. Marks Hospital; Captain, Cooper, Catherine, Salt Lake City Fire Department; Paramedic, Homen, Jack, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Paramedic, DeGering, James, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Paramedic, Tuttle, Dick L., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Battalion Chief, Bogle, Tom, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Paramedic, Jensen, Michael L., Salt Lake County Fire Department; HazMat, Robinson, Zachary, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Paramedic, Greensides, Michael, Salt Lake County Fire Department; HazMat, Mecham, Clint, Salt Lake County Fire Department; HazMat, Wall, Ron, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Communications Technician, Garcia, Ted, Private Citizen; Communications Technician, Neal, Joel, Private Citizen; HazMat, Bevan, Keith, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Captain, Rice, Doug, Salt Lake County Fire Department; Firefighter, Gish, Daniel, Salt Lake City Fire Department; Firefighter, Endemano III, Edward W., Salt Lake City Fire Department; Captain, Haakenson, Roy Salt, Lake County Fire Department; Captain, Gaulke, Brian, Salt Lake City Fire Department; Contractor, McQuarry, Mel; and Contractor, Hansen, Ross.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, last week during consideration of the Agriculture Appropriations bill, the Senate adopted an amendment Chairman Tom Harkin and I authored which will provide $1 million to the Food and Drug Administration for enforcement of three important consumer protection provisions of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, DSHEA. Those provisions relate to the requirement that the dietary supplements be adequately labeled as to their ingredients and the proportion of each ingredient contained within, that statements of nutritional support (so-called ``structure/ function'' claims) must be truthful and non-misleading, and that manufacturers be able to substantiate the claims they make. These are very important protections we included in DSHEA so that consumers have the assurance that the products they buy are accurately labeled. In the seven years since the Congress passed this law unanimously, there have been sporadic reports that products are being sold that are not properly labeled. Indeed, the Senate Aging Committee held a hearing last month during which it was shown that there have been problems with appropriate enforcement of DSHEA. It is my strong contention that the law is completely adequate to deal with these problems, as FDA Commissioner Jane Henney advised the Congress on more than one occasion. However, it is obvious to me that enforcement has not been the priority it should be at HHS and FDA. Accordingly, I rise to offer an amendment which will provide the General Counsel with an additional $500,000 for legal support for enforcement of the labeling provisions of DSHEA. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Chairman Harkin. This is part of our on-going initiative to make certain that consumers have access to safe dietary supplements and information about those products. This amendment we offer today will complement the amendment we adopted last week. The increased funding for the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition will be used for investigations and compliance activities in the field. The funds contained within the amendment we are offering today will be used to support any legal activities which might arise from field enforcement. Let me emphasize my strong belief that the majority of dietary supplements are of great benefit to consumers who wish to maintain or improve their healthy lives. However, consumers need the assurance that the products they buy are safe and accurately labeled, and it is time for the FDA to place a greater priority on enforcement against the few bad actors that are casting a large shadow over the industry. Our amendment will help the government place a renewed emphasis on removing illegal products from the marketplace. This will be a great benefit to American consumers. Before I close, let me mention one other provision of our amendment. The 1994 law called upon the FDA to develop Good Manufacturing Practice, GMP, guidelines for dietary supplements. GMPs are the primary enforcement tool whereby government inspectors ensure that all food products, including dietary supplements, are manufactured according to rigorous quality control standards, including appropriate labeling, sanitation, purity and records-keeping. Although HHS published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule-Making in early 1997, to date the agency has not published the Notice of Proposed Rule-Making which is necessary to being finalization of the GMPs. Senator Harkin and I have called, written and implored the Office of Management and Budget, HHS, and FDA to issue these regulations. To date, we have not been successful, although it is our understanding that the NPRM was about to be published in the final days of the Clinton Administration. I am not aware of what the NPRM will contain. Perhaps it will be a good document. Perhaps I will disagree with it vehemently. I cannot say. What I can say is that the NPRM must be published and available for comment before we can move to finalize the GMPs for dietary supplements. For that reason, the amendment we are offering today expresses the sense of the Senate that the Administration release this regulation within 15 days after the bill is enacted. It should not require an act of Congress for this regulation to be issued, and I still remain hopeful that the NPRM will be published in the next few days so that we may continue the long-delayed process of finalizing the regulation. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, shortly after the September 11 attack on America, the President of the United States asked Congress to pass legislation that would provide our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they needed to wage war on the terrorists in our midst. These tools represent the domestic complement to the weapons our military currently is bringing to bear on the terrorists' associates overseas. At the same time, the President asked that, in crafting these tools, we remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional freedoms of all Americans--certainly of all law-abiding Americans. After several weeks of negotiations with Chairman Leahy, the House of Representatives, and the administration, we have developed bipartisan consensus legislation that will accomplish both of these goals. It enhances our ability to find, track, monitor, and prosecute terrorists operating here in the U.S. without in any way undermining civil liberties. We can never know whether these tools would have prevented the attack on America, but, as the Attorney General has said, it is certain that without these tools we did not stop the vicious acts of last month. I personally believe that if these tools had been in law--and we have been trying to get them there for years--we would have caught those terrorists. If these tools could help us now to track down the perpetrators--if they will help us in our continued pursuit of terrorists--then we should not hesitate to enact these measures into law. God willing, the legislation we pass today will enhance our abilities to protect and prevent the American people from ever again being violated as we were on September 11. This legislation truly represents the product of intense, yet bipartisan, negotiations. Senator Leahy and I carried out a painstaking review of the antiterrorism proposal submitted by the administration. There have been several hearings on this legislation in the Senate--not just this year, but in prior years--on some of the provisions and features that we have in here, including discussions during the enactment of the 1996 Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act, called the Dole-Hatch bill. We have heard from countless experts and advocates on all sides of this issue in this debate. Of late, we have also worked closely with Chairman Sensenbrenner in the House, Mr. Conyers, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, and others in our effort to complete legislation that could receive near unanimous approval and support in the Congress. Although I do not expect every Senator to vote in favor of this legislation, Senator Leahy and I have worked tirelessly to accommodate every concern. While Members ultimately may differ on some of these proposals, I know we all share the same overriding concern, and that is protecting our country from further harm. The bill before us, which I hope we will pass today, differs in several respects from the legislation we passed in the Senate 2 weeks ago. These changes result from negotiations with our House counterparts, and some of the changes are certainly not objectionable. For example, we have included language requiring prosecutors to notify Federal courts when they have disclosed grand jury information to other Federal agencies for national security purposes. Also, the bill includes a provision requiring law enforcement to provide detailed reports concerning their use of the FBI's so-called Carnivore computer surveillance system. These changes will properly encourage the law enforcement community to use these tools responsibly. Unfortunately, not all of the changes are welcome. For instance, our effort to mitigate the unforeseen problems created by a change in the law governing the discipline of Federal prosecutors was rebuffed by the House of Representatives. As a result, Federal prosecutors will continue to be hampered by the myriad and often contradictory State bar rules, and sometimes very politicized State bar rules. Even more alarming, Federal law enforcement authorities in the State of Oregon will continue to be prohibited from engaging in legitimate undercover activity--even undercover activity designed to infiltrate a terrorist cell. That is ridiculous. Nevertheless, we could not get our House counterparts to resolve that problem. Another troublesome change concerns the 4-year sunset provision. As my colleagues know, the legislation that passed the Senate 2 weeks ago by a vote of 96-1 did not contain a sunset. This omission was intentional and wise. In my opinion, a sunset will undermine the effectiveness of the tools we are creating here and send the wrong message to the American public that somehow these tools are extraordinary. One hardly understands the need to sunset legislation that both provides critically necessary tools and protects our civil liberties. Furthermore, as the Attorney General stated, how can we sunset these tools when we know full well that the terrorists will not sunset their evil intentions? I sincerely hope we undertake a thorough review and further extend the legislation once the 4-year period expires. At least, we will have 4 years of effective law enforcement against terrorism that we currently do not have. Despite these provisions, the legislation before us today deserves unanimous support. The core provisions of the legislation we passed in the Senate 2 weeks ago remain firmly in place. For instance, in the future, our law enforcement and intelligence communities will be able to share information and cooperate fully in protecting our Nation against terrorist attacks. Our laws relating to electronic surveillance also will be updated. Electronic surveillance conducted under the supervision of a Federal judge happens to be one of the most powerful tools at the disposal of our law enforcement community. We now know that e-mail, cellular telephones, and the Internet have been the principal tools used by terrorists to coordinate their attacks, and our law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been hamstrung by laws that were enacted long before the advent of these technologies. This bill will modernize our laws so our law enforcement agencies can deal with the world as it is, rather than with the world as it existed 20 years ago. Also, the legislation retains the compromise immigration proposals that I negotiated with Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kyl, Senator Brownback, and also Senator Feinstein, who has played a significant role. She and Senator Kyl have both played significant roles leading up to this particular bill, and over the last 5 years in particular. We have worked hard to craft language that allows the Attorney General to be proactive, rather than reactive, without sacrificing the civil liberties of noncitizens. In total, the amendments made by this legislation to the Immigration and Nationality Act reflect, and account for, the complex and often mutating nature of terrorist groups by expanding the class of inadmissible and deportable aliens and providing a workable mechanism by which the Attorney General may take into custody suspected alien terrorists. Further, the legislation breaks down some of the barriers that have in the past prevented the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the FBI, and others from effectively communicating with each other. If we are to fight terrorism, we cannot allow terrorists, or those who support terrorists, to enter or to remain in our country. Finally, the bill provides the administration with powerful tools to attack the financial infrastructure of terrorism. For instance, the legislation expands the President's authority to freeze the assets of terrorists and terrorist organizations and provides for the eventual seizure of such assets. These financial tools will give our Government the ability to choke off the financing that these dangerous organizations need in order to survive. The legislation provides numerous other tools--too many to mention here--to aid our war against terrorism. Many of these were added at the request of our Senate colleagues, and I commend all of them for their input. Before I yield the floor, I must take a moment to acknowledge the hard work by my staff, the staff of Senator Leahy, and the representatives of the administration, from the White House and the Justice Department and elsewhere, who were involved in the negotiation of this bill. These people have engaged in discussions literally around the clock over the 6 weeks to produce this legislation. So I thank everybody who has worked on this legislation. This is a major anticrime, antiterrorism bill. It is probably the most important bill we will enact this year, certainly with regard to national security and terrorism. I thank everybody involved, and I will make further remarks about that later in the debate. With that, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. May I make a few comments before?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. president, I also ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we wind down the debate and move to final passage, I want to continue my acknowledgment of those who worked so hard and were instrumental in getting this legislation enacted. I start again by expressing my gratitude to Senators Kyl and Feinstein for their efforts. No Senators have worked harder over the past few years in such a bipartisan manner on terrorist missions. They have both done an excellent job. Also, Senators Bob Graham and Shelby, who cosponsored this legislation, deserve credit for significant contributions. In the Intelligence Committee, of course, Senator Sarbanes and Senator Phil Gramm are to be praised for the money laundering provisions of the package. They developed that in this bill. I credit the hard work of other fellow members of the Judiciary Committee; in particular, Senators Biden and Schumer, who have devoted their energy to several of these proposals. Their assistance was instrumental in shaping this final product. Next, I thank my dedicated staff and my chief counsel and staff director, Makan Delrahim, who has been instrumental in putting this bill together. I also thank my crime policy counsels on the Judiciary Committee: Jeff Taylor, whose background as a federal prosecutor was crucial in crafting the many technical provisions of this legislation, as well as Stuart Nash, another former federal prosecutor, and Leah Belaire, each of whom has brought invaluable expertise to this process; my lead immigration counsel, Dustin Pead, and our tireless legislative assistant, Brigham Cannon, each has provided critical assistance. I am also grateful to Elizabeth Maier on Senator Kyl's staff, David Neal on Senator Brownback's staff, and Esther Olavarria on Senator Kennedy's staff, for their input on the immigration provisions. I also extend our thanks to Sharon Prost, my former chief counsel who recently was appointed by President Bush to serve as a Federal appellate judge, for her wise counsel on this legislation. In addition, I personally thank our Chairman, Senator Leahy. I reserve that until the end. His staff deserve a lot of credit and I personally thank them for their long hard hours. I thank personally his chief counsel and staff director, Bruce Cohen, and other members of his staff: Beryl Howell, Julie Katzman, Ed Barron, Ed Pagano, Tim Lynch, David James, and John Eliff, each of whose expertise I personally found invaluable. I am grateful to them for the many long hours they devoted to drafting this bill and helping ensure that our final product has strong bipartisan support. I enjoyed working with them and I certainly always enjoy working with Senator Leahy and appreciate the good things we were able to do. The Department of Justice has been of great assistance to us in putting this bill together. In particular, I would like to thank Attorney General John Ashcroft and his Deputy Larry Thompson for their wise counsel, their leadership, and their quick response to our many questions and concerns. Michael Chertoff, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division was a frequent participant in our meetings, as was Assistant Attorneys General Dan Bryant and Viet Dinh. Justice Department lawyers Jennifer Newstead, John Yoo, John Elwood, Pat O'Brien, and Carl Thorsen were also important and valuable participants in this process. The White House Counsel and Congressional Liaison staff provided essential contributions at all stages of this process. Judge Al Gonzales, the White House Counsel, provided key guidance with the help of his gifted staff, including Deputy White House Counsel Tim Flanagan and Associate Counsels Courtney Elwood, Brett Kavanaugh, and Brad Berenson. The White House Congressional Liaison office, together with the Vice President's office, worked nonstop to keep this process moving forward and were critically responsive to any requests the Senate had. Nick Calio, Ziad Ojakli, and Heather Wingate with the White House, and Nancy Dorn and Candy Wolff with the Vice President's office, deserve our gratitude for all the assistance they have given us. Finally, Mr. President, I must recognize the diligence and invaluable assistance provided by leadership staff on both sides of the aisle. Mark Childress and Andrea Larue with Majority Leader Daschle's office, and David Hoppe, Sharon Soderstrom, and John Mashburn with Senator Lott's office, all deserve our collective thanks. These dedicated professionals selflessly gave up their nights and weekends to facilitate passage of this final product. Also, I take special pride in thanking Stewart Verdery, who now works for Senator Nickles but previously worked on my Judiciary Committee staff, for his cooperation and assistance in this process. As we close debate on this legislation, I would like to note that the fundamental obligation of government is to protect our citizens from harm and every member of this Senate, by virtue of the sworn oath of the office we hold, must do everything in his or her power to ensure that the heinous attacks of September 11 are never repeated. We must never forget the more than 5,000 innocent men, women, and children who lost their lives on American soil some 6 weeks ago. I am grateful that I have been able to work on this matter with the distinguished Senator from Vermont. I am grateful we have been able to pull together, in a relatively short period of time, an antiterrorism bill that really is going to make a difference in all our lives. So I urge my colleagues' support for this important legislation, thank my colleagues for all their help. Mr. President. The Department of Justice has prepared an excellent and precise analysis of the legislation, with which I fully agree. I ask unanimous consent that the analysis be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the time be divided equally between the distinguished chairman and myself. How much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. I yield the Senator as much time as he requires.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. HATCH. I think it came down to a jurisdictional argument. That is my opinion. We understand that around here, but we are trying to solve terrorism now. The Senator's point is a very good point. My main reason for interrupting him at this point is to commend him and tell him I will do everything in my power to get that passed. I think it is critical that the other 15 percent be made mandatory, that they have to comply, because most of the airlines comply on a voluntary basis. I am sorry to interrupt the Senator. I reserve my time.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, I commend the Senator. I think he is absolutely right. We had it in the Senate bill. It was a worthwhile provision that I think we need to include later, since we can't do it on this bill at this point. I will support him in every way possible to get this done in the future. I commend the Senator for bringing this to the attention of this body because I have to say the House absolutely would not permit us to put that in the bill.

Mr. HATCH. I rise to address briefly a couple of the points made by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. First, what he called a ``sneak and peek'' search warrant, these warrants are already used throughout the United States, throughout our whole country. The bill simply codifies and clarifies the practice making certain that only a Federal court, not an agent or prosecutor, can authorize such a warrant. Let me be clear. Courts already allow warrants under our fourth amendment. It is totally constitutional. It has been held so almost from the beginning of this country; some will say from the beginning of this country. Together with Senator Leahy, we carefully drafted a provision that standardizes this widely accepted practice. Second, to respond to the suggestion that the legislation is not properly mindful of our constitutional liberties--my friend from Wisconsin talks theoretically about maybe the loss of some civil liberties--I would like to talk concretely about the loss of liberty of almost 6,000 people because of the terrorist acts on September 11. I am a little bit more concerned right now about their loss of life. I am even more concerned now that they have lost their lives that thousands of other Americans don't lose their lives because we fail to act and fail to give law enforcement the tools that are essential. It is a nice thing to talk about theory. But we have to talk about reality. We have written this bill so the constitutional realities are that the Constitution is not infringed upon and civil liberties are not infringed upon except to the extent that the Constitution permits law enforcement to correct difficulties. Yes, I think we must protect the Constitution, and that has been at the top of my list all through my 25 years in the Congress. This bill does just that. Nothing in this bill undermines constitutional liberty. Nothing in this bill comes remotely close to the Alien and Sedition Act, which, of course, was held to be unconstitutional, or the internment of Japanese prisoners of war, which was a disgrace--there is no question about it, but at that point it was held to be constitutional--or the other outrages that have occurred in the past that were mentioned by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. The tools we are promoting in this legislation have been carefully crafted to protect civil liberties. In addition to protecting civil liberties, give law enforcement the tools they need so we, to the extent we possibly can, will be able to protect our citizens from events and actions such as happened on September 11 of this year. Thousands of Americans died that day, thousands. That is real. We have been told there may be some other actions taken by terrorists. That may be real. To the extent that may be real, we sure want to make sure our law enforcement people, within the constraints of the Constitution, have the optimum law enforcement tools they need to do the job. As the past few weeks have made clear, these terrorists still have a gun pointed at the heads of all the American people. Under such circumstances, it is our sworn duty to do everything in our power, within the bounds of the Constitution, to protect and defend our people. That is what this bill does. The Senator from Wisconsin worries about the ``possible'' loss of civil liberties. That is laudable. But I am more concerned about the actual loss of the thousands of lives that have been lost and the potential of other lives that may be lost because we don't give law enforcement the tools they need. This bill protects us, to the extent that we possibly can, against further attacks such as occurred on September 11 and many, many other potential attacks as well. I think most people in this country would be outraged to know that various agencies of Government, the intelligence community, and law enforcement community, under current law--until this bill is passed-- cannot exchange information that might help interdict and stop terrorism. People are outraged when they hear this. And they ought to be. The fact is that that is the situation. I know the heads of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department have said that: Unless we can share this information, we cannot pick up the people who are terrorists, whom we need to stop, in time to stop them. I think they would be outraged to know that, under title III, you cannot electronically surveil a terrorist unless there is some underlying criminal predicate. In many cases, there is no underlying criminal predicate, so you can't do to terrorists what we can do for health care fraud, or for sexual exploitation of children, or for the Mafia, or for drug dealers. People would be amazed to know we treat terrorism with kid gloves in the current criminal code. This bill stops that. I think most people would be amazed to know that pen register trap-and-trace devices are not permitted against terrorists under provisions of the law today. You can't get the numbers called out of the phone and you can't get the numbers called into the phone. That is what that means. This bill remedies that so we can get these numbers and do what has to be done. I think most people are shocked to find out that you can't electronically surveil the terrorists. You have to go after the phone, and then you have to get a warrant in every jurisdiction where that phone shows up. Terrorists don't pay any attention to those antiquated laws. They just buy 10 cell phones, talk for a while, and throw it out the window. We have to be able to track terrorists. Under current law, we cannot do that with the efficiency that needs to be used here. I don't see any civil liberties violated there, but I see some of them protected. I think of the civil liberties of those approximately 6,000 people who lost their lives, and potentially many others if we don't give law enforcement the tools they need to do the job. That is what this bill does. I will have more to say, perhaps, on this later. I wanted to make these particular points. I am happy to retain the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Let me add one point. Many of us were disturbed over reports that Olympic athletes or prospective Olympic athletes became disqualified after they took ``banned substances" which were alleged to have been dietary supplements that contained substances not listed on the bottle. I have no way of verifying those reports. What I can say is this. The International Olympic Committee sets the rules for what products may be taken by athletes. This is not a matter of U.S. law. If the IOC wanted to ban orange juice, it is perfectly within its rights. But, obviously, athletes--as with all consumers--should be able to rest assured that they know what they are ingesting. I was dismayed to read last week that the I.O.C. warned athletes to avoid dietary supplements because of what it called ``lax quality control and labeling.'' This is a situation that should not be occurring, and our amendment today will help rectify that situation. The law is not inadequate in this area. It provides consumers with the assurance that they will know what they are buying. As the Senator from Iowa just said, amendments to U.S. law made by DSHEA make explicit that dietary supplement containers must be labeled accurately as to their contents. The principal way that the FDA enforces this provision is through its Good Manufacturing Practice standards, or ``GMPs,'' which FDA inspectors use to make certain that manufacturing plants adhere to rigid guidelines for safe and sanitary processing of foods, including dietary supplements.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield? Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment as well, and just wanted to follow up with a few comments on what Senator Harkin has just said. Seven years ago, my colleague from Iowa and I joined with then- Representative Bill Richardson to enact this law, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, that set up a rational, consumer- friendly framework for the regulation of dietary supplements. Our colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, joined us in this effort as the original cosponsor of our bill. Since that time, dietary supplements are being integrated more and more into mainstream medicine, a fact of which I am proud. By any measure, a majority of Americans regularly rely on dietary supplements to enhance and maintain their healthy lifestyles. A study by Prevention Magazine last year found that approximately 151 million consumers currently take dietary supplement products. A study this year found that the most common reason consumers use these vitamins, minerals, herbs and amino acids is for overall health and general well- being. I am aware that an April, 2001, study from the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism demonstrated that vitamin D and calcium supplementation plays an important role in reducing systolic blood pressure and maintaining thyroid hormone levels. In addition, a January, 2001 Lancet article showed that patients with knee osteo-arthritis who took glucosamine supplements reduced painful and often disabling symptoms. Not only are dietary supplements an essential component of a healthy lifestyle, I believe, but they represent a vital industry in our country as well. In my home state of Utah, the dietary supplement industry has grown to an estimated $2 billion in annual sales; and one estimate I have seen places the national level at $12 billion. I thank the Senator for allowing me to add those compelling facts. We have become increasingly alarmed over reports that unsafe or mislabeled dietary supplement products are being marketed. We have also been concerned about the increasing use of so-called ``performance-enhancing products'' by our youth. Many of these products are being marketed as dietary supplements, although it is not clear they fall within the legal definition of dietary supplement. I think the Aging Committee, under the very capable leadership of Senators John Breaux and Larry Craig, did us all a great service in pointing up some of the areas where we need improvement.

Mr. HATCH. The FDA simply has to get serious about enforcing this law. We cannot allow the very few products of poor quality to cast a negative shadow over the rest of the industry, which is so law-abiding. Before I yield the floor, I want to recognize the great efforts of my partner in this endeavor--Senator Harkin. I am appreciative of his hard work here, and the fact that we can count on him for non-partisan leadership on behalf of both his constituents and the American consumers.

Mr. HATCH. There is a reason that over two-thirds of both the House and Senate cosponsored our legislation, and that reason is quite simple: Many of us recall FDA's efforts to classify vitamins as over-the- counter drugs if they exceeded 150 percent of the Recommended Daily Allowance, an effort which would have rendered 200 milligrams of vitamin C a drug. Congress rejected that with the Proxmire amendment in 1976. More recently, many of us recall FDA's efforts to ban the supplement black currant oil by saying it was an unsafe food additive. The FDA's logic was that the black current oil was added to a food--the gelatin capsule in which it was contained. The Seventh Circuit rejected this logic, terming the FDA's scheme ``Alice in Wonderland.'' The First Circuit also described FDA's approach as ``nonsensical.'' It was nonsensical, and we are all grateful that wiser heads have prevailed since. So, let me make clear that the intent of our amendment is not to forearm the FDA so it can embark on another of these fairy-tale journeys, but rather to help it take enforcement actions against those who are clearly violative of three aspects of the law: whether products are accurately labeled; whether claims are truthful and non-misleading; and whether claims are substantiated.

Mr. HATCH. I did a little research on this, and I found some information which may be of interest to my colleague, since he is the very capable chair of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee. It might interest my colleagues to learn that the FDA, the government's most important consumer protection agency since it regulates over one-quarter of each dollar in goods sold, is severely at a disadvantage when its funding is compared to its sister public health agencies. For the past three fiscal years, the FDA's appropriation has grown an average of 6.9 percent. By comparison, the Centers for Disease Control's appropriation has grown an average of 12.5 percent; in fact, it grew 15.5 percent between fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001. The National Institutes of Health's budget has grown an average of 14.5 percent.

Mr. HATCH. I want to add my strong concern about this as well. I don't know what else we can do to free up these regulations. They are an essential consumer protection of the law and they should be allowed to go into effect. Another concern we have heard is that there are products on the market that are making false or misleading claims. That could be true for any product regulated by the FDA, be it a drug, a cosmetic, a food, or a medical device. In fact, I recall vividly the 1993 hearing that the Labor and Human Resources Committee held on dietary supplements. Then-Commissioner David Kessler came up and testified for the FDA. He spread out a table- full of products he believed made non-truthful claims. The reason I remember this so well was that I was so angry the Commissioner had brought this ``show and tell'' display to the Congress rather than take action against the products. The question I asked him then remains operative today. If the FDA thinks there are products on the market that are inaccurately labeled, then why doesn't it remove them from the market?