Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this amendment would discriminate against any business with more than 25 employees with regard to their ability to collect debts in bankruptcy. Instead of allowing the bankruptcy process to proceed fairly, this amendment would prevent businesses with more than 25 employees from being paid a single penny until smaller businesses were paid in full. It is an improper way to proceed in bankruptcy. We should not discriminate against anybody and let the process takes its course. I hope our colleagues will vote against this amendment. I move to table the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, legislation entitled the ``Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization Act'' or fittingly abbreviated as the ``TEACH Act,'' which updates the educational use provisions of the copyright law to account for advancements in digital transmission technologies that support distance learning. While distance learning is far from a new concept, there is no ``official'' definition as to what falls under the umbrella of distance learning. There is, however, general agreement that distance education covers the various forms of study at all levels in which students are separated from instructors by time or space. By creating new avenues of communication, technology has paved the way for so-called ``distance learning,'' starting with correspondence courses, and later with instructional broadcasting. Most recently, however, the introduction of online education has revolutionized the world of ``distance learning.'' While the benefits of all forms of distance learning are self-evident, online learning opens unprecedented educational opportunities. With the click of a mouse, students in remote areas are able to access a broad spectrum of courses from the finest institutions and ``chat'' with other students across the country. Distance education, and the use of high technology tools such as the Internet in education, hold great promise for students in states like Utah. Students in remote areas of my state are now able to link up to resources previously only available to those in cities or at prestigious educational institutions. For many Utahns, this means having access to courses or being able to see virtual demonstrations of principles that until now they have only read about. True to its heritage, Utah is a pioneer among states in blazing the trail to the next century, making tomorrow's virtual classrooms a reality today. Fittingly, since it is home to one of the original six universities that pioneered the Internet, the State of Utah and the Utah System of Higher Education, as well as a number of individual universities in the state have consistently been recognized as technology and web-education innovators. Such national recognition reflects, in part, Utah's high-tech industrial base, its learning- oriented population, and the fact that Utah was the first state with a centrally coordinated statewide system for distance learning. In the course of preparing the report that resulted in this legislation, I was pleased to host the Register of Copyrights at a distance education exposition and copyright round table that took place at the nerve center of that system, the Utah Education Network, where we saw many of the exciting technologies being developed and implemented in Utah, by Utahns, to make distance education a reality. At the event in Salt Lake City, Ms. Peters and I dropped in on a live on-line art history class hosted in Orem, that included high school and college students scattered from Alpine in the north to Lake Powell in the south, nearly the length of the state. And the promise of distance education extends far beyond the traditional student, making expanded opportunities available for working parents, senior citizens, and anyone else with a desire to learn. This legislation will make it easier for the teacher who connects with her students online to enhance the learning process by illustrating music appreciation principles with appropriately limited sound recordings or illustrate visual design or story-telling principles with appropriate movie clips. Or she might create wholly new experiences such as making a hypertext poem that links significant words or formal elements to commentary, similar uses in other contexts, or other sources for deeper understanding, all accessible at the click of a mouse. These wholly new interactive educational experiences, or more traditional ones now made available around the students' schedule, will be made more easily and more inexpensively by this legislation. Beyond the legislative safe harbor provided by this legislation, opportunities for students and lifetime learners of all kinds, in all kinds of locations, is limited only by the human imagination and the cooperative creativity of the creators and users of copyrighted works. I hope that creative licensing arrangements will be spurred to make even more exciting opportunities available to students and lifelong learners, and that incentives to create those experiences will continue to encourage innovation in education, art and entertainment online. The possibilities for everyone in the wired world are thrilling to contemplate. While the development of digital technology has fostered the tremendous growth of distance learning in the United States, online education will work only if teachers and students have affordable and convenient access to the highest quality educational materials. In fact, in its recent report, the Web-Based Commission, established by Congress to develop policies to ensure that new technologies will enhance learning, concluded that United States copyright practice presents significant impediments to online education. Additionally, the Web-Based Commission concluded that there are some needed reforms in higher education regulations and statutes. Specifically, the Commission identifies reforms needed in the so-called 12 hour rule, the 50 percent rule and the ban on incentive based compensation. These education recommendations are not included in the legislation I am introducing today. However, I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will pushing for these reforms and leave open the possibility of amending this particular bill or seek other vehicles to include such education reform provisions which will improve delivery of distance education to a wider variety of students. We will be discussing education reforms in the Senate in the coming weeks, and I think it is important that any education reform include the kinds of reforms that will promote the use of high technologies in education, such as the Internet. And I intend to work to have these reforms included in any larger education package considered this year. As part of its mandate under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, which laid the basic copyright rules in a digital environment, the Copyright Office was tasked to study the impact of copyright law on online education and submit recommendations on how to promote distance learning through digital technologies while maintaining an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users of copyrighted works. Without adequate incentives and protections, those who create these materials will be disinclined to make their works available for use in online education. The interests of educators, students, and copyright owners need not be divergent; indeed, I believe they coincide in making the most of this medium. As expected, the Copyright Office has presented us with a detailed and comprehensive study of the copyright issues involved in digital distance education that takes into account a wide range of views expressed by various groups, including copyright owners, educational institutions, technologists, and libraries. As part of its report, the Copyright Office concluded that the current law should be updated to accommodate digital educational technologies. After careful review and consideration of the findings and recommendations presented in the report prepared by the Copyright Office, not to mention my enormous respect for and confidence in the Register of Copyrights, I fully support the Office's recommendation to update the current copyright law in a manner that promotes the use of high technology in education, such as distance learning over the Internet, while maintaining appropriate incentives for authors. While the bill we are introducing today is based on the hard work and expert advice of the Copyright Office, and is therefore, I believe a very good bill, I welcome constructive suggestions from improvements from any interested party as this bill moves through the legislative process. Currently, United States copyright law contains a number of exemptions to copyright owners' rights relating to face-to-face classroom teaching and instructional broadcasts. While these exemptions embody the policy that certain uses of copyrighted works for instructional purposes should be exempt from copyright control, the current exemptions were not drafted with online, interactive digital technologies in mind. As a result, the Copyright Office concluded that the current exemptions related to instructional purposes are probably inapplicable to most advanced digital delivery systems and without a corresponding change, the policy behind the existing law will not be advanced. Drawing from the recommendations made by the Copyright Office, the primary goal of this legislation is simple and straight forward: to promote digital distance learning by permitting certain limited instructional activities to take place without running afoul of the rights of copyright owners. The bill does not limit the bounds of ``fair use'' in the educational context, but provides something of a ``safe harbor'' for online distance education. And nothing limits the possibilities for creative licensing of copyrighted works for even more innovative online educational experiences. While Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act exempts the performance or display of any work in the course of face-to-face teachings, Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act limits these exemptions in cases of instructional broadcasting. Under Section 110(2), while displays of all works are permitted, only performances of nondramatic literary or mystical works are permitted. Thus, an instructor is currently not able to show a movie or perform a play via educational broadcasting. This legislation would amend Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act to create a new set of rules in the digital education world that, in essence, represent a hybrid of the current rules applicable to face-to- face instruction and instructional broadcasting. In doing this, the legislation amends Section 110(2) by expanding the permitted uses currently available for instructional broadcasting in a modest fashion by including the performance of any work not produced primarily for instructional use in reasonable and limited portions. In addition, in order to modernize the statute to account for digital technologies, the legislation amends Section 110(2) by eliminating the requirement of a physical classroom and clarifies that the instructional activities exempted in Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act apply to digital transmissions as well as analog. The legislation also permits a limited right to reproduce and distribute transient copies created as part of the automated process of digital transmissions. Mindful of the new risks involved with digital transmissions, the legislation also creates new safeguards for copyright owners. These include requirements that those invoking the exemptions institute a policy to promote compliance with copyright law and apply technological measures to prevent unauthorized access and uses. Moreover, in order to allow the exempted activities to take place in online education asynchronously, a new amendment to the ephemeral recording exemption is proposed that would permit an instructor to upload a copyrighted work onto a server to be later transmitted to students. Again, extra safeguards are in place to ensure that no additional copies beyond those necessary to the transmission can be made and that the retention of the copy is limited in time. I believe that this legislation is necessary to foster and promote the use of high technology tools, such as the Internet, in education and distance learning, while at the same time maintains a careful balance between copyright owners and users. Through the increasing influence of educational technologies, virtual classrooms are popping up all over the country and what we do not want to do is stand in the way of the development and advancement of innovative technologies that offer new and exciting educational opportunities. I think we all agree that digital distance should be fostered and utilized to the greatest extent possible to deliver instruction to students in ways that could have been possible a few years ago. We live at a point in time when we truly have an opportunity to help shape the future by influencing how technology is used in education so I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this modest update of the copyright law that offers to make more readily available distance education in a digital environment to all of our students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and explanatory section-by-section analysis, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, legislation entitled the ``Technology Education and Copyright Harmonization Act'' or fittingly abbreviated as the ``TEACH Act,'' which updates the educational use provisions of the copyright law to account for advancements in digital transmission technologies that support distance learning. While distance learning is far from a new concept, there is no ``official'' definition as to what falls under the umbrella of distance learning. There is, however, general agreement that distance education covers the various forms of study at all levels in which students are separated from instructors by time or space. By creating new avenues of communication, technology has paved the way for so-called ``distance learning,'' starting with correspondence courses, and later with instructional broadcasting. Most recently, however, the introduction of online education has revolutionized the world of ``distance learning.'' While the benefits of all forms of distance learning are self-evident, online learning opens unprecedented educational opportunities. With the click of a mouse, students in remote areas are able to access a broad spectrum of courses from the finest institutions and ``chat'' with other students across the country. Distance education, and the use of high technology tools such as the Internet in education, hold great promise for students in states like Utah. Students in remote areas of my state are now able to link up to resources previously only available to those in cities or at prestigious educational institutions. For many Utahns, this means having access to courses or being able to see virtual demonstrations of principles that until now they have only read about. True to its heritage, Utah is a pioneer among states in blazing the trail to the next century, making tomorrow's virtual classrooms a reality today. Fittingly, since it is home to one of the original six universities that pioneered the Internet, the State of Utah and the Utah System of Higher Education, as well as a number of individual universities in the state have consistently been recognized as technology and web-education innovators. Such national recognition reflects, in part, Utah's high-tech industrial base, its learning- oriented population, and the fact that Utah was the first state with a centrally coordinated statewide system for distance learning. In the course of preparing the report that resulted in this legislation, I was pleased to host the Register of Copyrights at a distance education exposition and copyright round table that took place at the nerve center of that system, the Utah Education Network, where we saw many of the exciting technologies being developed and implemented in Utah, by Utahns, to make distance education a reality. At the event in Salt Lake City, Ms. Peters and I dropped in on a live on-line art history class hosted in Orem, that included high school and college students scattered from Alpine in the north to Lake Powell in the south, nearly the length of the state. And the promise of distance education extends far beyond the traditional student, making expanded opportunities available for working parents, senior citizens, and anyone else with a desire to learn. This legislation will make it easier for the teacher who connects with her students online to enhance the learning process by illustrating music appreciation principles with appropriately limited sound recordings or illustrate visual design or story-telling principles with appropriate movie clips. Or she might create wholly new experiences such as making a hypertext poem that links significant words or formal elements to commentary, similar uses in other contexts, or other sources for deeper understanding, all accessible at the click of a mouse. These wholly new interactive educational experiences, or more traditional ones now made available around the students' schedule, will be made more easily and more inexpensively by this legislation. Beyond the legislative safe harbor provided by this legislation, opportunities for students and lifetime learners of all kinds, in all kinds of locations, is limited only by the human imagination and the cooperative creativity of the creators and users of copyrighted works. I hope that creative licensing arrangements will be spurred to make even more exciting opportunities available to students and lifelong learners, and that incentives to create those experiences will continue to encourage innovation in education, art and entertainment online. The possibilities for everyone in the wired world are thrilling to contemplate. While the development of digital technology has fostered the tremendous growth of distance learning in the United States, online education will work only if teachers and students have affordable and convenient access to the highest quality educational materials. In fact, in its recent report, the Web-Based Commission, established by Congress to develop policies to ensure that new technologies will enhance learning, concluded that United States copyright practice presents significant impediments to online education. Additionally, the Web-Based Commission concluded that there are some needed reforms in higher education regulations and statutes. Specifically, the Commission identifies reforms needed in the so-called 12 hour rule, the 50 percent rule and the ban on incentive based compensation. These education recommendations are not included in the legislation I am introducing today. However, I want to put my colleagues on notice that I will pushing for these reforms and leave open the possibility of amending this particular bill or seek other vehicles to include such education reform provisions which will improve delivery of distance education to a wider variety of students. We will be discussing education reforms in the Senate in the coming weeks, and I think it is important that any education reform include the kinds of reforms that will promote the use of high technologies in education, such as the Internet. And I intend to work to have these reforms included in any larger education package considered this year. As part of its mandate under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, which laid the basic copyright rules in a digital environment, the Copyright Office was tasked to study the impact of copyright law on online education and submit recommendations on how to promote distance learning through digital technologies while maintaining an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users of copyrighted works. Without adequate incentives and protections, those who create these materials will be disinclined to make their works available for use in online education. The interests of educators, students, and copyright owners need not be divergent; indeed, I believe they coincide in making the most of this medium. As expected, the Copyright Office has presented us with a detailed and comprehensive study of the copyright issues involved in digital distance education that takes into account a wide range of views expressed by various groups, including copyright owners, educational institutions, technologists, and libraries. As part of its report, the Copyright Office concluded that the current law should be updated to accommodate digital educational technologies. After careful review and consideration of the findings and recommendations presented in the report prepared by the Copyright Office, not to mention my enormous respect for and confidence in the Register of Copyrights, I fully support the Office's recommendation to update the current copyright law in a manner that promotes the use of high technology in education, such as distance learning over the Internet, while maintaining appropriate incentives for authors. While the bill we are introducing today is based on the hard work and expert advice of the Copyright Office, and is therefore, I believe a very good bill, I welcome constructive suggestions from improvements from any interested party as this bill moves through the legislative process. Currently, United States copyright law contains a number of exemptions to copyright owners' rights relating to face-to-face classroom teaching and instructional broadcasts. While these exemptions embody the policy that certain uses of copyrighted works for instructional purposes should be exempt from copyright control, the current exemptions were not drafted with online, interactive digital technologies in mind. As a result, the Copyright Office concluded that the current exemptions related to instructional purposes are probably inapplicable to most advanced digital delivery systems and without a corresponding change, the policy behind the existing law will not be advanced. Drawing from the recommendations made by the Copyright Office, the primary goal of this legislation is simple and straight forward: to promote digital distance learning by permitting certain limited instructional activities to take place without running afoul of the rights of copyright owners. The bill does not limit the bounds of ``fair use'' in the educational context, but provides something of a ``safe harbor'' for online distance education. And nothing limits the possibilities for creative licensing of copyrighted works for even more innovative online educational experiences. While Section 110(1) of the Copyright Act exempts the performance or display of any work in the course of face-to-face teachings, Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act limits these exemptions in cases of instructional broadcasting. Under Section 110(2), while displays of all works are permitted, only performances of nondramatic literary or mystical works are permitted. Thus, an instructor is currently not able to show a movie or perform a play via educational broadcasting. This legislation would amend Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act to create a new set of rules in the digital education world that, in essence, represent a hybrid of the current rules applicable to face-to- face instruction and instructional broadcasting. In doing this, the legislation amends Section 110(2) by expanding the permitted uses currently available for instructional broadcasting in a modest fashion by including the performance of any work not produced primarily for instructional use in reasonable and limited portions. In addition, in order to modernize the statute to account for digital technologies, the legislation amends Section 110(2) by eliminating the requirement of a physical classroom and clarifies that the instructional activities exempted in Section 110(2) of the Copyright Act apply to digital transmissions as well as analog. The legislation also permits a limited right to reproduce and distribute transient copies created as part of the automated process of digital transmissions. Mindful of the new risks involved with digital transmissions, the legislation also creates new safeguards for copyright owners. These include requirements that those invoking the exemptions institute a policy to promote compliance with copyright law and apply technological measures to prevent unauthorized access and uses. Moreover, in order to allow the exempted activities to take place in online education asynchronously, a new amendment to the ephemeral recording exemption is proposed that would permit an instructor to upload a copyrighted work onto a server to be later transmitted to students. Again, extra safeguards are in place to ensure that no additional copies beyond those necessary to the transmission can be made and that the retention of the copy is limited in time. I believe that this legislation is necessary to foster and promote the use of high technology tools, such as the Internet, in education and distance learning, while at the same time maintains a careful balance between copyright owners and users. Through the increasing influence of educational technologies, virtual classrooms are popping up all over the country and what we do not want to do is stand in the way of the development and advancement of innovative technologies that offer new and exciting educational opportunities. I think we all agree that digital distance should be fostered and utilized to the greatest extent possible to deliver instruction to students in ways that could have been possible a few years ago. We live at a point in time when we truly have an opportunity to help shape the future by influencing how technology is used in education so I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this modest update of the copyright law that offers to make more readily available distance education in a digital environment to all of our students. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and explanatory section-by-section analysis, be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, at 9:30 A.M., on voting technology reform.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7 following the first rollcall vote to conduct a business meeting to consider the Committee's funding resolution and changes to the Committee rules.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, to hear testimony regarding Marginal Rate Reduction.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Business Meeting to adopt the rules of the Committee for the 107th Congress.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2001, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building to hold a forum entitled ``PNTR/ WTO: A Good Deal for U.S. Small Businesses in China?''

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 7, 2001 at 2:00 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, I am pleased that we are proceeding to the consideration of bankruptcy reform legislation. Senator Grassley introduced S. 220 earlier this month, which is precisely the same legislative language that was contained in the conference report passed by the Senate in December by a vote of 70 to 28. That language has been marked up and reported out of the Judiciary Committee. It is that language we are considering today in S. 420, the ``Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001.'' As many of you know, we have been working on the issue of bankruptcy reform for a number of years now. By way of background, both Houses demonstrated overwhelming margins in favor of this legislation in December, but President Clinton pocket-vetoed the legislation and we simply ran out of time in the session to come back and override the veto. So earlier this month, rather than introducing something to serve as a starting point for negotiations, Senator Grassley introduced exactly the language that passed both houses so overwhelmingly in December. This language was the result of a long process of bipartisan negotiations last year that resulted in agreement on over four hundred pages of legislative language, on all but two issues. Although we were prepared to go directly to the Senate floor and complete this unfinished business of the last session, because of complaints by some Democrats on the committee, we held yet another committee hearing on the subject. Even after the hearing, some Democrats on the committee raised additional objections, and that is why we marked up the legislation in committee, instead of moving directly to the Senate floor for its quick consideration. We tried our best to accommodate our colleagues on the other side. I think we did, and I believe they appreciate it. Although some 27 democratic amendments were circulated for the committee markup, I am pleased that our Democratic colleagues ultimately limited their offering of some of the amendments because those of us on the Republican side of the aisle worked very hard to accommodate Democratic concerns with respect to substantive amendments. We accepted several amendments and developed compromise provisions on several others. It is my sincere hope that we can work constructively on the floor without an unnecessary flood of amendments and without undue delay. Again, this legislation was agreed to during bipartisan negotiations last year, with the exception of two provisions, one of which--the issue of the dischargeability of debts relating to violence--we worked in committee to resolve. I am pleased that the bill now includes a reasonable compromise developed by Senator Schumer and me that addresses the concerns of both sides in a fair manner. Let me take this opportunity to thank Senator Schumer for his leadership and hard work on this issue. I am also pleased to have worked with the Ranking Democratic Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to include for the first time privacy protections in bankruptcy. The amendment protects personally identifiable information given by a consumer to a business debtor by adding new privacy protections to the bankruptcy code and by creating a consumer privacy ombudsman to appear before the bankruptcy court. Given that the language we are considering is the Senate-passed conference report with the only changes being ones sought in committee by our Democratic colleagues, I am hopeful that we can all stand by the compromises we reached in good faith last year. I am the first to acknowledge that there are things I would like to see changed in the bill, but I recognize that we all have cooperated and compromised in order to enact this legislation that provides new consumer protections, helps children in need of child support, and makes other necessary reforms to a system that is open to abuse. As we move to consideration of this legislation, I am heartened, but not surprised, by the results of the nationwide voter poll conducted for the Credit Union National Association which indicates broad public support for reforming our bankruptcy system. According to the poll, the vast majority of people believe that individuals who file for bankruptcy should be required to pay back some of their debts if they have the means to do so. This is precisely what the bankruptcy reform legislation is designed to do. The late Erma Bombeck once asked her husband, ``What do you think I'd do if I won a million dollars?'' ``You'd spend $2 million,'' he said. The reason her anecdote is funny is that it rings so true. Many people, even during the best of economic times, do not exercise financial responsibility. The poll also shows that most people think it should be more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy. This finding indicates to me that Americans have had enough. They believe it should be made more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy. Fourteen percent strongly oppose that provision, 14 percent somewhat oppose, 24 percent somewhat favor it, and 40 percent strongly favor, or 64 to 28. So it is a very important thing when you think about it. I have to say that, as I have mentioned the poll shows, most people think it should be more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy. This finding indicates to me that Americans have had enough; they are tired of paying for high rollers who game the current system and its loopholes to get out of paying their fair share. Although this legislation does not make it more difficult for people to file for bankruptcy, it does eliminate some of the opportunities for abuse that exist under the current system. Our current system allows wealthy people to continue to abuse the system at the expense of everyone else. People with high incomes can run up massive debts and then use bankruptcy to get out of honoring them. All of us end up paying for the unscrupulous who abuse the system. In fact, it has been estimated that every American family pays as much as $550 a year in a hidden tax as a result of the actions from these abuses. The bankruptcy reform legislation will help eliminate this hidden tax by implementing a means test to make wealthy people who can repay their debts actually honor them. I suppose we can call this a tax cut for the responsible people in America. There are numerous examples of people who take advantage of loopholes at the expense of everyone else. I recently heard from the President of a credit union in Wisconsin who told me about a young couple who wanted a ``clean financial slate'' before they got married. What did they do? They ran up their credit card purchases. One of them prepaid on a car loan with the credit union to have the other cosigner released. Then, although they were both employed full time, they filed for bankruptcy to wipe out all their debt. The credit union--and its members--had to eat the $3,000 in credit card debt and another couple of hundred dollars on the car. Bankruptcy relief was never meant to allow this kind of abuse. That is a minor story compared to the millions of examples that over the years could be cited. Hard-working Americans, including the members of credit unions nationwide, have been victimized by abusers of the current bankruptcy system long enough. Bankruptcy abuse also hurts our Nation's small businesses. As Thomas Donahue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said recently: Without congressional action, losses from bankruptcy abuses will continue to break the banks, and backs, of the Nation's small businesses and retailers, which work with slim profit margins and an even smaller margin for error. Make no mistake, misrepresentations about this legislation have been running rampant by those who oppose any meaningful bankruptcy reform. Perhaps we can take some comfort in the words of former British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan who said: I have never found, in a long experience of politics, that criticism is ever inhibited by ignorance. Despite the allegations of opponents of reform, the poor are not affected by the means test. The legislation provides a ``safe harbor'' for those who fall below the median income, so they are not subjected to the means test at all. Another misrepresentation I have heard again and again is that this legislation won't let people file for bankruptcy relief when they need it. The fact is, this legislation does not deny anyone access to bankruptcy relief; it just requires those who have the means to repay debts based on their income to do so. It is that simple. Opponents of this legislation have also waged the claim that it somehow hurts women and children. This falsehood is a particularly disturbing one for me to hear because I have had a long history of advocating for children and families in Congress. I have worked tirelessly, provision by provision, to make this legislation dramatically improve the position of children and ex-spouses who are entitled to domestic support. It can be difficult to get the word out when misrepresentations abound about what bankruptcy reform legislation really does. In fact, the bankruptcy legislation will put a stop to letting deadbeat parents use bankruptcy to avoid paying child support. This bill would mean putting an end to paying lawyers ahead of the children who rely on child support. Current bankruptcy law simply is not adequate, and, frankly, I was outraged to learn of the many ways deadbeat parents are manipulating and abusing the current bankruptcy system in order to get out of paying for their domestic support obligations. This bill is a tremendous improvement for children and families over current law. That is why there is such overwhelming support for this legislation from the child support professionals across the country--the very people who go after deadbeats to get children the support they need. I hope those who oppose any reform to our Nation's bankruptcy system will not engage in petty parliamentary tactics and try to encumber it with frivolous amendments. Nevertheless, I am optimistic that this much-needed bankruptcy reform legislation will be signed into law this year. We have a no-nonsense President in the White House who understands the importance of personal responsibility. So let's enact this meaningful bankruptcy reform. As I said last year, the American people have waited long enough for it, and it is time for us to do what really is in the best interest of the people at large. It is time to give this, in effect, tax cut to the millions of people out there who are paying, on the average, an extra $550 a year because of those abusing the system. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will immediately begin debate of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Today, the bill will be open for debate only. As previously announced, there will be no votes during today's session. Amendments are in order on Tuesday, and therefore votes are expected to occur. It is hoped that all action on the bankruptcy bill can be completed prior to adjourning for the week. The Senate may also consider any nominations that become available for action, and I thank all our colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, one of our dear staffers is present who has given a great deal of effort to the Judiciary Committee, and I want to pay her my respects for a few moments. Today is Jeanne Lopatto's last day working in the Senate. She has worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and for me in particular, for the last 18 years and is currently press secretary for the full Judiciary Committee. It is with mixed emotions that I rise to thank her for all the good work she has performed in the past. I give her my best wishes for her future. Gigi is a Capitol Hill success story. She began her career with me as an entry-level assistant, and she has moved up to spearhead the Judiciary Committee press operation, which is a big job and a very important one. As a result of her hard work and dedication, Gigi has earned the respect, admiration, and trust of all of us who have worked with her. Thus, it is with a certain degree of both sadness and pride that I am bidding her farewell. Gigi will be joining our dear friend and former colleague, Spencer Abraham, at the Department of Energy as his spokesperson. In other words, she is going to be speaking for a Cabinet-level official. I think that is a great thing. Our loss--mine in particular--will be unquestionably Secretary Abraham's gain. I know she will have her hands full over there, but she is up to the challenge. If I might be so bold, I want to say that I share the pride of Gigi's great success with her wonderful family. Gigi will be greatly missed here in the Senate, and certainly by me. I think she is going to be missed by the reporters and the press officials who have relied on her on a daily basis. Senate staff on both sides of the aisle are going to miss her, her friends and colleagues on the committee and on my personal staff, and, of course, most of all, I am going to miss her. So let me just say that I am very grateful to Gigi for the service she has given to the Senate and to our country at large and for working with us on the Judiciary Committee, as an essential part of the committee, as somebody who always acted with integrity, decency, honesty, love, and affection for all of us on the committee, regardless how cantankerous that committee is from time to time. She has had a steady hand on the tiller during a lot of really acrimonious debate at times, and she has really done this job as well as it could have been done. We love her, and we are going to miss her. We also wish her well as she proceeds on to even greater and better things, as she views it and as I view it. So, Gigi, we are going to miss you. We all love you and appreciate you and want you to be successful in your next job, which I know you will be. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am joining with my esteemed colleague and chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, in introducing two pieces of legislation that will ensure the full funding of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, Trust Fund. As the original sponsor of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 and the subsequent amendments to the Act, S. 1515 which was enacted last year, I am pleased that this program has provided much needed compassionate compensation to thousands of individuals. And, although many RECA eligible individuals have received compensation, it is now apparent that a funding shortfall exists within the program resulting in hundreds of individuals not receiving their payments. The legislation Senator Domenici and I are introducing today is designed to meet the funding shortfall so that all eligible individuals who are approved for compensation will receive their payment and not an ``IOU'' from the Justice Department. The first bill ensures the timely payment of benefits to eligible persons by providing $84 million to the RECA Trust Fund for fiscal year 2001. The money will be available to the Justice Department to fund the existing claims that have already been processed as well as anticipated claims of the remainder of this fiscal year. The second bill provides for a permanent appropriation to the RECA Trust Fund beginning in fiscal year 2002, and thereafter, such sums as may be necessary to meet the financial obligations of approved claims. Both of these bills are needed in order to pay those individuals who have qualified under the original 1990 Act and the RECA 2000 amendments, as signed into law last July 10, 2000, but who have not received their payment because the fund is currently depleted. Moreover, as a result of the passage of RECA 2000, we have extended compensation to additional deserving citizens who have suffered mightily as a result of the cold war atomic testing programs. In addition, the legislation we are introducing today provides that funding for the RECA trust fund be made through a permanent appropriation. This provision will provide certainty and stability in financing the trust fund and, thereby, ensure eligible individuals receive their compensation. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his commitment to resolving this very difficult problem that many individuals are now facing. It is simply unfair for the federal government to promise compensation to harmed individuals and then tell these same people that there are no federal dollars to pay their claims. This situation is completely unacceptable. I would also like to add, in this context, that within the next few weeks I will be introducing additional legislation that will not only complement the bills introduced today but also provide for necessary refinements and technical changes to improve the administration of the RECA program. I will have more to say about this legislation when it is introduced within the next several weeks. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important measures.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am joining with my esteemed colleague and chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, in introducing two pieces of legislation that will ensure the full funding of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, Trust Fund. As the original sponsor of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990 and the subsequent amendments to the Act, S. 1515 which was enacted last year, I am pleased that this program has provided much needed compassionate compensation to thousands of individuals. And, although many RECA eligible individuals have received compensation, it is now apparent that a funding shortfall exists within the program resulting in hundreds of individuals not receiving their payments. The legislation Senator Domenici and I are introducing today is designed to meet the funding shortfall so that all eligible individuals who are approved for compensation will receive their payment and not an ``IOU'' from the Justice Department. The first bill ensures the timely payment of benefits to eligible persons by providing $84 million to the RECA Trust Fund for fiscal year 2001. The money will be available to the Justice Department to fund the existing claims that have already been processed as well as anticipated claims of the remainder of this fiscal year. The second bill provides for a permanent appropriation to the RECA Trust Fund beginning in fiscal year 2002, and thereafter, such sums as may be necessary to meet the financial obligations of approved claims. Both of these bills are needed in order to pay those individuals who have qualified under the original 1990 Act and the RECA 2000 amendments, as signed into law last July 10, 2000, but who have not received their payment because the fund is currently depleted. Moreover, as a result of the passage of RECA 2000, we have extended compensation to additional deserving citizens who have suffered mightily as a result of the cold war atomic testing programs. In addition, the legislation we are introducing today provides that funding for the RECA trust fund be made through a permanent appropriation. This provision will provide certainty and stability in financing the trust fund and, thereby, ensure eligible individuals receive their compensation. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Domenici, for his commitment to resolving this very difficult problem that many individuals are now facing. It is simply unfair for the federal government to promise compensation to harmed individuals and then tell these same people that there are no federal dollars to pay their claims. This situation is completely unacceptable. I would also like to add, in this context, that within the next few weeks I will be introducing additional legislation that will not only complement the bills introduced today but also provide for necessary refinements and technical changes to improve the administration of the RECA program. I will have more to say about this legislation when it is introduced within the next several weeks. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these important measures.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, legislation that will, for the first time, enable American businesses to obtain international trademark protection with the filing of a single application and the payment of a single fee. For many businesses, a company's trademark is its most valuable asset. This is illustrated now as never before in the growth of the new Internet economy, where so-called ``branding'' is the name of the game and the cornerstone of any business plan. Whether a business is an e- business or a more traditional Main Street storefront, United States trademark law has proven to be a powerful tool for these businesses in protecting their marks against domestic misappropriation. However, as global trading increases and multinational businesses grow, worldwide trademark protection is becoming extremely important and desirable. Unfortunately, achieving similar protection on an international scale has always been a much more difficult task. This difficulty stems in large part from the diversity among national trademark laws, as well as the sometimes prohibitive costs of filing individual registrations and seeking foreign representation in each and every country for which trademark protection is sought. As a result, American businesses, and small businesses in particular, are often forced to pick only a handful of countries in which to seek protection for their brand names and hope for the best in the rest of the world. In the past, Senator Leahy and I have sponsored a number of bills addressing the international protection of intellectual property. In the trademark arena, we strongly supported legislation implementing the Trademark Law Treaty. That treaty serves to streamline the trademark registration process in member countries around the world and to minimize the hurdles faced by American trademark owners in securing international protection of their marks. The legislation we introduce today will build upon those improvements by allowing trademark owners to seek international protection with a single application filed in the English language with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, and with the payment of a single fee. Most important, it paves the way for the USPTO to act as a one-stop shop for international trademark protection without making substantive changes to United States trademark law. Foreign trademark owners must still meet all of the substantive requirements of United States trademark law in order to gain protection in the United States based on an international application filed under the Madrid Protocol. In short, it is a win-win situation for American trademark owners. As my colleagues here know, United States adherence to the Madrid Protocol was stalled for years over administrative provisions-- unrelated to the substance of the Protocol itself--relating to voting rights. Since 1994, the Administration voiced objections to these provisions, which would allow an intergovernmental organization, e.g., the European Union, a vote in certain treaty matters taken before the Assembly, separate and apart from the votes of its member states. Although matters before the Assembly would largely be limited to administrative matters, e.g., those involving formalities and fee changes, the concern expressed has been that these provisions, which appear to violate the democratic principle of one vote for each state, would create an undesirable precedent in future international agreements. While this stumbling block to United States accession to the Protocol has been the subject of much negotiation between the United States and the European Union, I am pleased that a successful resolution on this issue of voting rights has been reached, and I was pleased that the Senate finally received the Administration's request for its advice and consent last year. By passing The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, we will take an important step in making sure that American trademark owners will be able to take full advantage of the benefits of the Protocol as soon as it comes into force with respect to the United States. This is a particularly important measure for American competitiveness, and for the individual businesses in each of our states. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership with respect to this legislation, and I look forward to my colleagues' support for it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with my distinguished colleague, Senator Leahy, legislation that will, for the first time, enable American businesses to obtain international trademark protection with the filing of a single application and the payment of a single fee. For many businesses, a company's trademark is its most valuable asset. This is illustrated now as never before in the growth of the new Internet economy, where so-called ``branding'' is the name of the game and the cornerstone of any business plan. Whether a business is an e- business or a more traditional Main Street storefront, United States trademark law has proven to be a powerful tool for these businesses in protecting their marks against domestic misappropriation. However, as global trading increases and multinational businesses grow, worldwide trademark protection is becoming extremely important and desirable. Unfortunately, achieving similar protection on an international scale has always been a much more difficult task. This difficulty stems in large part from the diversity among national trademark laws, as well as the sometimes prohibitive costs of filing individual registrations and seeking foreign representation in each and every country for which trademark protection is sought. As a result, American businesses, and small businesses in particular, are often forced to pick only a handful of countries in which to seek protection for their brand names and hope for the best in the rest of the world. In the past, Senator Leahy and I have sponsored a number of bills addressing the international protection of intellectual property. In the trademark arena, we strongly supported legislation implementing the Trademark Law Treaty. That treaty serves to streamline the trademark registration process in member countries around the world and to minimize the hurdles faced by American trademark owners in securing international protection of their marks. The legislation we introduce today will build upon those improvements by allowing trademark owners to seek international protection with a single application filed in the English language with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, and with the payment of a single fee. Most important, it paves the way for the USPTO to act as a one-stop shop for international trademark protection without making substantive changes to United States trademark law. Foreign trademark owners must still meet all of the substantive requirements of United States trademark law in order to gain protection in the United States based on an international application filed under the Madrid Protocol. In short, it is a win-win situation for American trademark owners. As my colleagues here know, United States adherence to the Madrid Protocol was stalled for years over administrative provisions-- unrelated to the substance of the Protocol itself--relating to voting rights. Since 1994, the Administration voiced objections to these provisions, which would allow an intergovernmental organization, e.g., the European Union, a vote in certain treaty matters taken before the Assembly, separate and apart from the votes of its member states. Although matters before the Assembly would largely be limited to administrative matters, e.g., those involving formalities and fee changes, the concern expressed has been that these provisions, which appear to violate the democratic principle of one vote for each state, would create an undesirable precedent in future international agreements. While this stumbling block to United States accession to the Protocol has been the subject of much negotiation between the United States and the European Union, I am pleased that a successful resolution on this issue of voting rights has been reached, and I was pleased that the Senate finally received the Administration's request for its advice and consent last year. By passing The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, we will take an important step in making sure that American trademark owners will be able to take full advantage of the benefits of the Protocol as soon as it comes into force with respect to the United States. This is a particularly important measure for American competitiveness, and for the individual businesses in each of our states. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his leadership with respect to this legislation, and I look forward to my colleagues' support for it.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. HATCH. I yield my time as well. We can proceed.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I would like to take a few moments while we are on the subject of copyright law to address the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' long-awaited decision in the Napster case. I have been considering the opinion for the last few days, and it may be some time before all of us grasp its full implications. I believe the Judiciary Committee will need to hold hearings on the decision's possible implications and to get an update on developments in the online music market. I will consult with my ranking member and other interested parties, and will likely look into the matter in the coming weeks. As I have considered the case over the last couple of days, I have been troubled by the possible practical problems that may arise from this decision. I am troubled as a strong supporter and prime author of much of our copyright law and intellectual property rights. By ordering the lower court to impose a preliminary injunction-- before a trial on the merits, mind you--on this service that had developed a community of over 50 million music fans, it could have the effect of shutting down Napster entirely, depriving more than 50 million consumers access to a music service they have enjoyed. The Napster community represents a huge consumer demand for the kind of online music services Napster, rightly or wrongly, has offered and, to date, the major record labels have been unable to satisfy. Now, I understand that the labels have been working hard to get offerings online, and I have seen some projects beginning recently. I have been promised consumer roll-outs this year. But these offerings have been slow in coming and have not been broadly deployed as of yet. I hope deployment will be speeded up to meet the unsatisfied demand that may be caused by interruptions in Napster service as the litigation continues through trial on the merits and appeals. I am longtime advocate of strong intellectual property laws. There is something in our legal system called copyright, and the principle underlying copyright is a sound one. I believe that artists Must be compensated for their creativity. And I believe that Napster as it currently operates, threatens this principle. I authored Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has ensured that, as a general matter, copyright law should apply to the Internet. I am proud of my work in furtherance of that Act. I have mentioned Senator Leahy in particular, and there others as well. Yet, I also believe that the compensation principle underlying copyright can coexist--and has in fact coexisted--with society's evolving technologies for generations. And, in each case this coexistence has benefited both the copyright owner and the consumer, in what you might call an expansion of the pie, in other words. So let's turn to the present controversy. It might be helpful to review some facts. In the span of about one and a half years, Napster has seen its client software downloaded more than 62 million times. Over 8 million people a day log onto the Napster service. At any one time there may be as many as 1.7 million people simultaneously using the service. It is, quite simply, a virtual community of unprecedented reach and scale. It is the most popular application in the history of the Internet and, I have to say, in the history of music. It is also free and, unfortunately, according to the court, it is probably facilitating copyright infringement. The major labels, which account for over 80 percent of the CD's sold in this country, is rightly shaken by the Napster phenomenon. Although the industry saw its sales increase by 4.4 percent in the year 2000, it believes it would have sold more CD's had it not been for Napster. And the district court and Court of Appeals agreed with them. The labels have, as is their right under the laws--many of which I have authored--pursued legal redress through out judicial system. Were I in their shoes, I question whether I would have taken a different course of action. Now the parties have brought their dispute to the point where the erosion of the copyright laws might be the frightening outcome. I am particularly troubled because, if the popular Napster service, which has a relationship with one of the major record companies, Bertelsmann, is shut down, and no licensed online services exist to fill this consumer demand, I fear that this consumer demand will be filled by Napster clones, particularly ones like Gnutella or Freenet, which have no central server, and no central business office with which to negotiate a marketplace licensing arrangement. Such a development would further undermine the position of copyright law online, and the position of artists in the new digital world that the Internet is developing. Furthermore, if past experience is any indication, I would expect that my colleagues, like me, will be contacted by the over 50 million Napster fans who oppose the injunction and fear the demise of Napster. This may prompt a legislative response. I know that people in Congress are weighing various legislative solutions, some intriguing, some troubling and counter to the pubic interest. Some of these responses could strike the important intellectual property rights of artists and copyright owners online entirely, undoing the carefully balanced development I have tried to foster over the years, and possibly harming consumers as well as creators in the long run. I guess my feeling about this Ninth Circuit decision is a gnawing concern that this legal victory for the record labels may prove pyrrhic or short-sighted from a policy perspective. Some have suggested that the labels merely wished to establish a legal precedent and then would be willing to work on negotiating licenses. Well, it seems to me that now might be a good time to get those deals done, for the good of music fans, and for the good of the copyright industries and the artists they represent. I have long been an advocate for strong intellectual property rights protection and enforcement. I have urged the labels and composers and publishers working out synergistic arrangements with online music distributors and Internet technologist that will serve the artists and their audience. Such synergy is possible. I was pleased when Bertelsmann took the initiative in harnessing the consumer demand evidenced by Napster and decided to work cooperatively together to develop a service that would benefit both of them and those they seek to serve, the artists and music fans. I again urge the other major music industry players to take significant steps toward this end, and again, I think now is a good time to do it. I have recently discussed my views with some of the interested parties, and I believe there is some interest in working this out for the benefit of all parties, including consumers and creators. I stand ready, willing and able to try to help them in this matter. Last July, the Committee held its first of two hearings on the subject. At this hearing, I was joined by my colleague and friend, the distinguished ranking member and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. The two of us encouraged a marketplace resolution to the Napster, and the other, digital music controversies. I think working together in the marketplace cooperatively will lead to the best result for all parties, the record labels, the online music services, the artists and the music fans. I hope the focus will be on the latter two. After all, without artists, there is nothing to convey, and without the fans, there is no one to convey it to. I think keeping the focus on the artists and the audience can help the technologists and the copyright industries find a way for all to flourish. And I hope this opportunity is taken before it is lost. I hope this opportunity is taken before it is lost. I wanted to make these remarks on the floor, and I hope we can resolve these problems in a way that benefits artists, consumers, publishers, and others who are interested in this matter. I think if we get together and work this out, it will be in the best interests of everybody. I am prepared to yield my time.

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I will tell everybody I do not intend to use that whole time. I will use part of it. The Ninth Circuit Decision in the Napster case

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today to discuss S. 320, the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act, which I have worked on with my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. We have had a very productive relationship in the Judiciary Committee in the area of high technology and intellectual property. Our bipartisan cooperation has resulted in much good legislation that has helped American consumers and businesses and which has encouraged American innovation and creativity, including greater deployment of the Internet. Some recent examples of our work include the following items: The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, which authorized the carriage of local television stations by satellite carriers, has brought local television to thousands across the country who might not have been able to get it before, and has brought competition in subscription television services to many others who before could only choose the local cable company. The passage last year of a loan guarantee program will help make the benefits of this law more widely available. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act helps guard against fraudulent or pornographic websites that confuse, offend, or defraud unwitting online consumers who go to sites with famous business names only to find that someone else is using that trademarked name in bad faith under false pretenses. This law also helps protect the goodwill of American businesses that could be hurt by the bad faith misuse of their trademarked business name in ways that tarnish their name or undermine consumer confidence in their brands. The American Inventor Protection Act is helping to further serve American innovators with more streamlined procedures at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and better organizing the Office so that it will better serve its customers, American inventors. There are also protections for inventors from unscrupulous businesses that prey on small inventors who are not familiar with the procedures of obtaining a patent. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act updated copyright law for the Internet, while striking a balance necessary to foster technological development and full deployment of the Internet. This law has set the groundwork for entertainment convergence on a single interactive platform where the consumer is king and can set his or her own schedule for news, information, entertainment, communication, and so on. Well, Madam President, this is just a sampling of what we have achieved together. And it is a prelude to what we can do in the future. Today, we are here to discuss S. 320, the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act. S. 320 is a technical corrections bill to clean up some scrivener's errors that have crept into the U.S. Code in the patent, trademark, and copyright laws. We, the sponsors, believe it is to the benefit of smooth functioning of the law to clean up the Code to make it easier to use, and to more accurately reflect Congressional intent. Specifically, the bill corrects typographical errors such as misspellings, dropped or erroneous cross-references or punctuation errors. It also makes consistent the titles of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and its officers. It also clarifies some unclear drafting in the Code on some procedural matters at the USPTO, such as making it clear that if foreign trademark applicants fail to designate a U.S. agent, the USPTO Commissioner is deemed to be that agent for delivery of documents regarding that application; and ensuring that no prior art effect will be given to foreign patents or patent applications unless they are published in English. It makes it easier for small inventors to sit on the USPTO Advisory Committee. These pro- American inventor policies are codified now in the law, but not clearly drafted. This bill makes them clearer. All of these changes make the intellectual property laws of our country easier to use and understand for our constituents who invent, create, innovate and so serve our other citizens. It also makes the law clearer for those who use the inventions and creations of others. I believe there is no controversy about the provisions of this bill, and it clears the way for further Congressional action to foster the growth of our most innovative sector, our intellectual property sector. With regard to that, Senator Leahy and I are releasing today our joint High Technology and Intellectual Property legislative agenda. I would like to mention some of the items on that agenda and discuss some of them briefly. In the Internet Age, many basic questions need to be asked anew about the relationships between the artists and the media companies that market and distribute their product; about the rights of consumers and fans to use works in new ways and the ability of technology companies and other mediators to assist them in those uses; and about the accessibility of works to scholars, students, or others for legitimate purposes. We need to continue to think about how the copyright system applies in the Internet world, where some of the assumptions underpinning traditional copyright law may not be relevant, or need to be applied by a proper analogy. Are there ways to clarify the rights and responsibilities of artists, owners, consumers, and users of copyrighted works? How can we foster the continued convergence of information, entertainment, and communication services on a variety of platforms and devices that will make life more enjoyable and convenient? We need to encourage an open and competitive environment in the production and distribution of content on the Internet. As the Internet's new digital medium continues to grow, we must ensure that consumers are confident that personally identifiable information which they submit electronically are afforded adequate levels of privacy protection. As consumer confidence in the security of their personal and financial information is enhanced, Internet users will be more willing to go online, make purchases over the Internet and generally provide personal information required by businesses and organizations over the Internet. At the same time, we must ensure that any initiatives have the least regulatory effect on the growth of e- commerce and on commercial free speech rights protected by the Constitution. We expect to examine the adequacy of Internet privacy protection and will, where necessary, advance reforms aimed at ensuring greater privacy protection. For example, the Committee expects to examine the following: (1) How are privacy concerns impacting the growth of e-commerce, in the financial services industry, in the insurance industry, in online retailing, etc., and the deployment of new technologies that could further the growth of, and consumer access to, the Internet? (2) Does Congress need to amend criminal or civil rights laws to address consumer electronic privacy concerns? (3) Does U.S. encryption policy negatively affect the growth of e- commerce? (4) What is the impact of the European Union's Internet Privacy Directive on U.S. industry and e-commerce? (5) Can Federal law enforcement, particularly civil rights enforcers, play a larger role in safeguarding the privacy concerns of Internet users? (6) To what extent can web-sites and Government agencies track the Internet activities of individual users and what should be done to ensure greater protection of personally identifiable or financially sensitive data? We would like to work toward reforms that can more fully deploy the Internet to make educational opportunities more widely available to students in remote locations, to life-long learners, and to enhance the educational experience of all students. The Internet can bring new experiences to remote locations. My own home state of Utah has been experimenting with ways to bring the best possible educational experience to learners all across our state, some of whom live in remote rural areas, using wired technology. We would like to see how we can further support efforts to harness the communicative power of the wired world on behalf of students across the country. Science is advancing rapidly and the challenge to the patent system of genetics, biotechnology, and business method patents are daunting. Whole new subject matter areas are being exploited, from patents on business methods from financial services to e-commerce tools on the Internet. Both the complexity and the sheer volume of patent applications are expanding exponentially. Recent Supreme Court decisions have once again posed the question of state government responsibility to respect and protect intellectual property rights. And I believe we need to review the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 to ensure that its balanced goals continue to be met. As many know, that act helped to create the modern generic drug industry. It has been estimated that it has largely saved consumers $10 billion every year since 1984. It is considered one of the most important consumer protection acts in the history of the country. As the assignment of domain names transitions from a single company to a competitive, market-based system, we need to stay vigilant with regard to the significant antitrust and intellectual property ramifications this process holds for American businesses and consumers. We intend to build on our record of strengthening protection for online consumers by protecting the trademarks consumers rely on in cyberspace, while also encouraging the full range of positive interactions the Internet makes possible. I think the Internet can be a place of infinite variety while we continue to allow consumers to rely on brand names they know in the e-commerce context. The world-wide nature of the Internet also heightens the need for the United States to join international efforts to make worldwide intellectual property protection, including that of trademarks, more efficient and effective for Americans. In particular, I hope we can move ahead on the United States accession to the Madrid Protocol. I have always maintained that proper and timely enforcement of federal antitrust laws can foster both competition and innovation, while minimizing the need for government regulation. This is an especially important paradigm for the Internet. We need to carefully think through the antitrust implications of Business-to-Business exchanges. We also need to consider carefully what remedies should be imposed in cases where antitrust violations do occur, notwithstanding the generally dynamic and competitive nature of Internet-related industries. We will also need to review the increasing legal tension in the high technology industry between intellectual property rights and antitrust laws. There has always been a tension here, but in the Internet world, we need to be careful that intellectual property or content power is not leveraged into distribution power, or otherwise used in anticompetitive ways. Furthermore, the Internet poses new questions about the competitive need to protect collections of data in a way that preserves incentives for the creation of databases without unduly hampering the free flow of information in anticompetitive ways. Access to new ``broadband'' technologies is increasingly important for full deployment and enjoyment of the Internet. We will need to consider the countervailing rights and duties of local phone companies and cable companies, either of which may provide broadband services in a local area. Specifically, what rights of access to broadband lines should competitors have, and what right to content should competitive distribution services have? The Internet is a radically new medium not just for commerce, but also for speech, broadcasting and advertising. As we analogize from traditional media such as broadcasting, we need to ask afresh what regulations make sense in this new medium, if any, and how do we cope with different media competing toward largely the same goal, but with differing rules? In summary Madam President, this non-controversial technical corrections bill clears the way for an exciting agenda for the 107th Congress in the Judiciary Committee. I hope we can pass this bill today, and I look forward to working with my colleague from Vermont on this most interesting and ambitious agenda. In fact, I enjoy working with him. We have worked together all these years, and I think maybe we can get more done this year than in the past. Hopefully, we can move these agendas forward in the best interest of all Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we are taking an important step in our effort to rid our nation of drug abuse. There has lately developed a bipartisan consensus that realizes that supply reduction needs to be complemented with demand reduction in our fight to combat drugs. Yes, we must continue our vigilant defense of our borders and our streets against those who make their living by manufacturing and selling these harmful substances. And yes, we must sustain our vigorous law enforcement offensive against these merchants of misery. But the time has come to increase the resources we devote to prevent people from using drugs in the first place and to breaking the cycle of addiction for those whose lives are devastated and consumed by these substances. Only through such a balanced approach can we remove the scourge of drugs from our society. Last session, to stem the maddening increase in methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking in America, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, a bill which I had authored. It was a balanced bill that provided law enforcement with several needed tools to help turn back the tide of methamphetamine proliferation, and it also contained several significant prevention and treatment provisions. In particular, one of the treatment provisions offered an innovative approach to how drug addicted patients can seek and obtain treatment. As science and medicine continue to make significant strides in developing drugs that promise to make treatment more effective, we must pave the way to ensure that these drugs can be administered in an effective manner, Indeed, this provision did exactly that, by creating a decentralized system of treating heroin addicts with a new generation of anti- addiction medications. Mr. President, the Drug Education, Prevention and Treatment Act of 2001, which we introduce today, also embodies this balanced approach. While the bill furthers our law enforcement efforts by increasing penalties for those who involve minors in drug crimes and those who use our public lands for drug manufacturing, the bulk of the legislation advances our prevention and treatment efforts. Before detailing some of these measures, I want to thank my partner on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, as well as my colleagues Senators Biden, DeWine, and Thurmond for cosponsoring this bill. The effort and expertise they have contributed to this bill have helped make it worthy of the support of every member of this body. I am extremely pleased that this bipartisan bill has a friend in the new White House. President Bush has indicated on several occasions, and in the plan he unveiled last fall, that he also believes in a comprehensive drug control strategy. He, too, has stressed treatment as an important component in combating juvenile drug abuse. I look forward to working with the President, as well as with Attorney General Ashcroft, as we combat drug abuse in this country in a bipartisan fashion. This legislation recognizes that we must do more to prevent and treat substance abuse. Such efforts, it is safe to say, will prove well worth it. According to a report recently released by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in 1998, States spent $81.3 billion--fully 13.1 percent of total state spending--on substance abuse and addiction. Only $3 billion of this, however, was spent on prevention and treatment. The remaining $78 billion was spent, in the words of the study's authors, ``to shovel up the wreckage of substance abuse and addiction.'' Remarkably, these staggering numbers do not even include the amount of federal matching funds that states spend, for example, on Medicaid and welfare, or the spending of local governments--which bear most of the law enforcement burden, or private sector costs such as employee health care, lost productivity, and facility security. The report urges us, as policymakers, to reexamine our priorities and shift our attention to drug prevention and treatment. This bill does just that, and, I hasten to add, it does so without undermining in any way our commitment to supply reduction. Indeed, this bill, it can be said, ultimately will help to cut supply by reducing the demand for drugs among those who are the most consistent and addicted users. Whilte this legislation will prove enormously helpful, it is no substitute for what is our most effective tool for preventing drug abuse: good parenting. Demand reduction starts with educating all of America's children about the harmful, destructive nature of drugs, and that education must start at home. According to the 1999 PRIDE survey, students whose parents never or seldom talk to them about drugs are 36.5 percent more likely to use drugs; in contrast, students whose parents talk to them often, or a lot, about drugs are 33.5 percent less likely to use drugs. Parents need to talk seriously to their children about the risks of drug use before they fall prey to peer pressure or drug dealers who want nothing more than to create new addicts. Parents need to stop deluding themselves into believing that moving to the suburbs, away from the temptations and evils of the inner cities, will prevent drug dealers from reaching their children. They need to stop thinking that it is always the other family's kid who is using drugs. Parents, grandparents, priests, pastors, rabbis, teachers, and everyone else involved in a child's life need to take an active role in educating our children about the dangers of drugs. Drug abuse knows no boundaries. It doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, age, or class. It is truly an equal opportunity destroyer. Unless children are prepared with the knowledge and truth of how drugs will ruin their health and future, they are vulnerable to the lies of those who are peddling drugs. Sadly, studies reveal that many children will never have conversations with their parents about drug use. Some children have parents that are addicted to drugs, some have parents who are imprisoned, and some have parents who just don't understand how vital it is for them to talk to their children about drug use. This fact alone represents one important reason why communities and organizations need to be involved in educating both parent and children about the dangers of drug abuse. We need effective education and prevention programs in our schools and communities. Even for children blessed with dedicated, concerned parents, these school- and community-based programs are vitally important. Indeed, according to the 1999 PRIDE survey, students who never or seldom join in community activities are 52.6 percent more likely to use drugs. Additionally, students who report never taking part in gangs are 90.8 percent less likely to use drugs. It is clear that the more children hear the truth about what drug abuse and addiction can do to them, the more likely they will turn their backs on drug use and lead productive lives. To this end, this bill contains significant funding for drug abuse education and prevention programs in our schools and communities. It authorizes grants for school and community-based drug education and prevention programs that have been proven to be effective and research- based. The bill also authorizes funding for the National Institutes of Health to continue its research toward identifying even more effective prevention and treatment programs. Learning how to treat drug addiction effectively is an inextricable component in America's battle to conquer drug abuse. An additional provision authorizes grants to eligible community-based organizations, including youth-serving organizations, faith-based organizations, and other community groups, to provide after-school or out-of-school programs that include a strong character education component. Another important provision authorizes funding for community-based organizations that provide counseling and mentoring services to children who have a parent or guardian that is incarcerated. We want all who can help to be in a position to help, and these drug education and prevention programs seek to get everyone in all communities involved. Mr. President, while I am confident these innovative drug education and prevention programs will help reduce the number of children who decide to use drugs, we also need to ensure that those who are addicted receive treatment. This bill authorizes, therefore, sizeable grants to States to provide residential treatment facilities specifically designed to treat drug-addicted juveniles. It is crucial that drug- addicted children receive treatment while they are young before they ruin their lives and grow up to become hard core addicts, which often leads to criminal behavior. It does without saying that it is important to ensure that violent and repeat offenders are imprisoned and punished for their crimes. However, I believe that there is merit to giving nonviolent offenders, whose crimes are tied directly to their addictions, a chance to enter drug treatment in stead of prison. This bill contains several provisions that will assist States in providing nonviolent, drug- addicted offenders with the opportunity to participate in drug treatment programs in lieu of incarceration. For example, one provision authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to State and local prosecutors for the purpose of developing, implementing, or expanding drug treatment alternatives to prison programs for nonviolent offenders. These programs are administered by prosecutors who determine which offenders are eligible to participate. All eligible offenders who participate are sentenced to, or placed with, a long-term, drug-free residential substance abuse treatment provider. If, however, the offender does not successfully complete treatment, he or she is required to serve a sentence of imprisonment with respect to the underlying crime. This program has been administered effectively by certain district attorneys in New York over the last decade. Last session, I worked hard with Senators Thurmond and Schumer, to get these very programs authorized so that other State and local prosecutors could benefit from this drug alternative to prison program. I look forward to the continuing support of Senators Thurmond and Schumer to ensure that this provision is enacted into law this session. This bill also reauthorizes the drug court program and authorizes juvenile substance abuse courts, both of which provide continuing judicial supervision over nonviolent offenders with substance abuse problems while allowing them to enter treatment programs as an alternative to prison. A high percentage of offenders who otherwise don't qualify for participation in alternatives to prison programs, but nonetheless have serious drug addictions, far too often are released from incarceration without ever receiving treatment. To address this issue, this bill authorizes funding to provide drug treatment services to inmates. This funding will go a long way in ensuring safer neighborhoods and a more productive society once drug addicted offenders are released from incarceration. To further ensure safer neighborhoods, the bill also promotes the successful reintegration of inmates into society by authorizing demonstration projects in the federal and state court systems that incorporate new strategies and programs for alleviating the public safety risk posed by released prisoners. These projects, which establish court-based programs for monitoring the return of offenders into communities, include drug treatment, as well as vocation and basic educational training. Each program uses court sanctions and incentives to encourage positive behavior. Finally, the bill contains a provision that requires the government to consider, on the same basis as other non-governmental organizations, faith-based organizations to provide the assistance under all programs authorized by this bill, as long as the program is implemented in a manner consistent with the first amendment. I am aware of some concerns Senators Leahy and Biden may have with this provision relating to the participation of faith-based organizations, and I am committed to working with them in an effort to address their concerns as the legislation moves through the process. Mr. President, this bill bespeaks a compassionate concern for those who suffer from drug addiction. By passing this bill, we will be telling these people that we have not given up hope for them, especially for our children, that we will offer the means to help them help themselves, and that we will not leave them behind to be preyed upon by those who would make a profit on their misery. Above all, this legislation demonstrates our unwavering commitment to rid our nation of drug abuse. To those who traffic drugs, let there be no mistake about our resolve: we will put you in jail when we catch you, but we will also fight you for the soul of every person you would prey upon. And, in time, we will change them from helpless targets for your poison to productive, responsible members of our society. I invite my colleagues to join us in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we are taking an important step in our effort to rid our nation of drug abuse. There has lately developed a bipartisan consensus that realizes that supply reduction needs to be complemented with demand reduction in our fight to combat drugs. Yes, we must continue our vigilant defense of our borders and our streets against those who make their living by manufacturing and selling these harmful substances. And yes, we must sustain our vigorous law enforcement offensive against these merchants of misery. But the time has come to increase the resources we devote to prevent people from using drugs in the first place and to breaking the cycle of addiction for those whose lives are devastated and consumed by these substances. Only through such a balanced approach can we remove the scourge of drugs from our society. Last session, to stem the maddening increase in methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking in America, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, a bill which I had authored. It was a balanced bill that provided law enforcement with several needed tools to help turn back the tide of methamphetamine proliferation, and it also contained several significant prevention and treatment provisions. In particular, one of the treatment provisions offered an innovative approach to how drug addicted patients can seek and obtain treatment. As science and medicine continue to make significant strides in developing drugs that promise to make treatment more effective, we must pave the way to ensure that these drugs can be administered in an effective manner, Indeed, this provision did exactly that, by creating a decentralized system of treating heroin addicts with a new generation of anti- addiction medications. Mr. President, the Drug Education, Prevention and Treatment Act of 2001, which we introduce today, also embodies this balanced approach. While the bill furthers our law enforcement efforts by increasing penalties for those who involve minors in drug crimes and those who use our public lands for drug manufacturing, the bulk of the legislation advances our prevention and treatment efforts. Before detailing some of these measures, I want to thank my partner on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, as well as my colleagues Senators Biden, DeWine, and Thurmond for cosponsoring this bill. The effort and expertise they have contributed to this bill have helped make it worthy of the support of every member of this body. I am extremely pleased that this bipartisan bill has a friend in the new White House. President Bush has indicated on several occasions, and in the plan he unveiled last fall, that he also believes in a comprehensive drug control strategy. He, too, has stressed treatment as an important component in combating juvenile drug abuse. I look forward to working with the President, as well as with Attorney General Ashcroft, as we combat drug abuse in this country in a bipartisan fashion. This legislation recognizes that we must do more to prevent and treat substance abuse. Such efforts, it is safe to say, will prove well worth it. According to a report recently released by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University in 1998, States spent $81.3 billion--fully 13.1 percent of total state spending--on substance abuse and addiction. Only $3 billion of this, however, was spent on prevention and treatment. The remaining $78 billion was spent, in the words of the study's authors, ``to shovel up the wreckage of substance abuse and addiction.'' Remarkably, these staggering numbers do not even include the amount of federal matching funds that states spend, for example, on Medicaid and welfare, or the spending of local governments--which bear most of the law enforcement burden, or private sector costs such as employee health care, lost productivity, and facility security. The report urges us, as policymakers, to reexamine our priorities and shift our attention to drug prevention and treatment. This bill does just that, and, I hasten to add, it does so without undermining in any way our commitment to supply reduction. Indeed, this bill, it can be said, ultimately will help to cut supply by reducing the demand for drugs among those who are the most consistent and addicted users. Whilte this legislation will prove enormously helpful, it is no substitute for what is our most effective tool for preventing drug abuse: good parenting. Demand reduction starts with educating all of America's children about the harmful, destructive nature of drugs, and that education must start at home. According to the 1999 PRIDE survey, students whose parents never or seldom talk to them about drugs are 36.5 percent more likely to use drugs; in contrast, students whose parents talk to them often, or a lot, about drugs are 33.5 percent less likely to use drugs. Parents need to talk seriously to their children about the risks of drug use before they fall prey to peer pressure or drug dealers who want nothing more than to create new addicts. Parents need to stop deluding themselves into believing that moving to the suburbs, away from the temptations and evils of the inner cities, will prevent drug dealers from reaching their children. They need to stop thinking that it is always the other family's kid who is using drugs. Parents, grandparents, priests, pastors, rabbis, teachers, and everyone else involved in a child's life need to take an active role in educating our children about the dangers of drugs. Drug abuse knows no boundaries. It doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, age, or class. It is truly an equal opportunity destroyer. Unless children are prepared with the knowledge and truth of how drugs will ruin their health and future, they are vulnerable to the lies of those who are peddling drugs. Sadly, studies reveal that many children will never have conversations with their parents about drug use. Some children have parents that are addicted to drugs, some have parents who are imprisoned, and some have parents who just don't understand how vital it is for them to talk to their children about drug use. This fact alone represents one important reason why communities and organizations need to be involved in educating both parent and children about the dangers of drug abuse. We need effective education and prevention programs in our schools and communities. Even for children blessed with dedicated, concerned parents, these school- and community-based programs are vitally important. Indeed, according to the 1999 PRIDE survey, students who never or seldom join in community activities are 52.6 percent more likely to use drugs. Additionally, students who report never taking part in gangs are 90.8 percent less likely to use drugs. It is clear that the more children hear the truth about what drug abuse and addiction can do to them, the more likely they will turn their backs on drug use and lead productive lives. To this end, this bill contains significant funding for drug abuse education and prevention programs in our schools and communities. It authorizes grants for school and community-based drug education and prevention programs that have been proven to be effective and research- based. The bill also authorizes funding for the National Institutes of Health to continue its research toward identifying even more effective prevention and treatment programs. Learning how to treat drug addiction effectively is an inextricable component in America's battle to conquer drug abuse. An additional provision authorizes grants to eligible community-based organizations, including youth-serving organizations, faith-based organizations, and other community groups, to provide after-school or out-of-school programs that include a strong character education component. Another important provision authorizes funding for community-based organizations that provide counseling and mentoring services to children who have a parent or guardian that is incarcerated. We want all who can help to be in a position to help, and these drug education and prevention programs seek to get everyone in all communities involved. Mr. President, while I am confident these innovative drug education and prevention programs will help reduce the number of children who decide to use drugs, we also need to ensure that those who are addicted receive treatment. This bill authorizes, therefore, sizeable grants to States to provide residential treatment facilities specifically designed to treat drug-addicted juveniles. It is crucial that drug- addicted children receive treatment while they are young before they ruin their lives and grow up to become hard core addicts, which often leads to criminal behavior. It does without saying that it is important to ensure that violent and repeat offenders are imprisoned and punished for their crimes. However, I believe that there is merit to giving nonviolent offenders, whose crimes are tied directly to their addictions, a chance to enter drug treatment in stead of prison. This bill contains several provisions that will assist States in providing nonviolent, drug- addicted offenders with the opportunity to participate in drug treatment programs in lieu of incarceration. For example, one provision authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to State and local prosecutors for the purpose of developing, implementing, or expanding drug treatment alternatives to prison programs for nonviolent offenders. These programs are administered by prosecutors who determine which offenders are eligible to participate. All eligible offenders who participate are sentenced to, or placed with, a long-term, drug-free residential substance abuse treatment provider. If, however, the offender does not successfully complete treatment, he or she is required to serve a sentence of imprisonment with respect to the underlying crime. This program has been administered effectively by certain district attorneys in New York over the last decade. Last session, I worked hard with Senators Thurmond and Schumer, to get these very programs authorized so that other State and local prosecutors could benefit from this drug alternative to prison program. I look forward to the continuing support of Senators Thurmond and Schumer to ensure that this provision is enacted into law this session. This bill also reauthorizes the drug court program and authorizes juvenile substance abuse courts, both of which provide continuing judicial supervision over nonviolent offenders with substance abuse problems while allowing them to enter treatment programs as an alternative to prison. A high percentage of offenders who otherwise don't qualify for participation in alternatives to prison programs, but nonetheless have serious drug addictions, far too often are released from incarceration without ever receiving treatment. To address this issue, this bill authorizes funding to provide drug treatment services to inmates. This funding will go a long way in ensuring safer neighborhoods and a more productive society once drug addicted offenders are released from incarceration. To further ensure safer neighborhoods, the bill also promotes the successful reintegration of inmates into society by authorizing demonstration projects in the federal and state court systems that incorporate new strategies and programs for alleviating the public safety risk posed by released prisoners. These projects, which establish court-based programs for monitoring the return of offenders into communities, include drug treatment, as well as vocation and basic educational training. Each program uses court sanctions and incentives to encourage positive behavior. Finally, the bill contains a provision that requires the government to consider, on the same basis as other non-governmental organizations, faith-based organizations to provide the assistance under all programs authorized by this bill, as long as the program is implemented in a manner consistent with the first amendment. I am aware of some concerns Senators Leahy and Biden may have with this provision relating to the participation of faith-based organizations, and I am committed to working with them in an effort to address their concerns as the legislation moves through the process. Mr. President, this bill bespeaks a compassionate concern for those who suffer from drug addiction. By passing this bill, we will be telling these people that we have not given up hope for them, especially for our children, that we will offer the means to help them help themselves, and that we will not leave them behind to be preyed upon by those who would make a profit on their misery. Above all, this legislation demonstrates our unwavering commitment to rid our nation of drug abuse. To those who traffic drugs, let there be no mistake about our resolve: we will put you in jail when we catch you, but we will also fight you for the soul of every person you would prey upon. And, in time, we will change them from helpless targets for your poison to productive, responsible members of our society. I invite my colleagues to join us in this effort. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section summary of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business, with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each.