Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his kind remarks about me. I want to mention what a great service he has done on the Judiciary Committee helping with this bill. He is one of the truly knowledgeable people in this area. I express my regard for him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my fellow Senators for unanimously supporting the passage of S. 486, the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999. This bill, introduced by Senator Ashcroft and amended in committee to include provisions from bills that I and Senator Grassley had introduced, passed by acclamation in the Judiciary Committee earlier this year and represents a significant bipartisan effort to combat the scourge of methamphetamine. With this bill we are arming our communities with responsible, innovative enforcement tools designed to curb the manufacturing and trafficking of this most destructive drug. I want to take a moment to highlight some of the provisions in this bill that will assist Federal, State, and local law enforcement in their efforts against drug traffickers: (1) The bill bolsters the DEA's ability to combat the manufacturing and trafficking of methamphetamine by authorizing the creation of satellite offices and the hiring of additional agents to assist State and local law enforcement officials. More than any other illicit drug, methamphetamine manufacturers and traffickers operate in small towns and rural areas. And, unfortunately, rural law enforcement agencies often are overwhelmed and in dire need of the DEA's expertise in conducting methamphetamine investigations. (2) The bill will assist State and local officials in handling the dangerous toxic waste left behind by methamphetamine labs. (3) Another section of the bill will help prevent the manufacture of methamphetamine by prohibiting the dissemination of drug ``recipes'' on the Internet. (4) The bill amends the Federal antidrug paraphernalia statute to clarify that the ban includes Internet advertising for the sale of controlled substances and drug paraphernalia. (5) To counter the dangers that manufacturing drugs like methamphetamine inflict on human life and on the environment, the bill imposes stiffer penalties on manufacturers of all illegal drugs when their actions create a substantial risk of harm to human life or to the environment. (6) The bill also works to keep all drugs away from children and to punish severely those who prey on our children, especially while at school away from their parents. The bill does this by increasing the penalties for distributing illegal drugs to minors and for distributing illegal drugs near schools and other locations frequented by juveniles. (7) Finally, the bill increases penalties for manufacturing and trafficking the drug amphetamine, a lesser-known, but no-less dangerous drug than methamphetamine. Other than for a slight difference in potency, amphetamine is manufactured, sold, and used in the same manner as methamphetamine. Moreover, amphetamine labs pose the same dangers as methamphetamine labs. Not surprisingly, every law enforcement officer with whom I have spoken agreed that the penalties for amphetamine should be the same as those for methamphetamine. For these reasons, the bill equalizes the punishment for manufacturing and trafficking the two drugs. In addition to these law enforcement tools, the bill establishes and funds prevention measures and a creative new treatment program for helping those trapped in drug addiction. Specifically, it contains provisions from S. 324, the ``Drug Addiction Treatment Act,'' which I and my good friend Senator Levin introduced earlier this session. These provisions undoubtedly will usher in a new generation of drug treatments. Senators Levin, Biden, and Moynihan, as well as my colleague in the House, Chairman Bliley, and experts at the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, deserve special thanks for their bipartisan efforts in developing this new treatment paradigm. While we know that vigorous law enforcement is the key to defeating those who manufacture and sell drugs, we must also embrace proven prevention and treatment programs that hold out the promise of turning Americans away from drug use. Mr. President, as I stated on the floor just last week, the timeliness of this bill cannot be overstated. According to a report prepared by the Community Epidemiology Work Group, which is part of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, methamphetamine abuse levels ``remain high . . . and there is strong evidence to suggest this drug will continue to be a problem in west coast areas and to spread to other areas of the United States.'' This threat is real and immediate, and the numbers are telling. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration the number of labs cleaned up by the Administration has almost doubled each year since 1995. Last year, more than 5,500 amphetamine and methamphetamine labs were seized by DEA and State and local law enforcement officials, and millions of dollars were spent on cleaning up the pollutants and toxins created and left behind by operators of these labs. In Utah alone, there were 266 lab seizures last year, a number which elevated Utah to the unenviable position of being ranked third in the nation for highest per capita clandestine lab seizures. Mr. President, this bill furnishes the means for our ongoing battle against those who manufacture and sell illicit drugs. Perhaps even more important, this bill underscores our unwavering commitment to win this battle. Let there be no misunderstanding; we will not throw up our hands and surrender our streets to those who sell misery and destruction. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we will defeat this plague. I again thank my colleagues for joining with me in this effort.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take just a few minutes in these final hours of the First Session of the 106th Congress to comment on several legislative initiatives I authored this year, and which I am pleased to say have either passed or were substantially incorporated into other bills that were approved and will be sent to the President. One of the most important issues for my state of Utah is the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Amendments of 1999, S. 1515, which I introduced earlier. I am delighted that the Senate passed this important legislation earlier today. This bill will guarantee that our government provides fair compensation to the thousands of individuals adversely affected by the mining of uranium and from fallout during the testing of nuclear weapons in the early post-war years. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell; the distinguished Senate Minority Leader, Senator Tom Daschle; Senator Jeff Bingaman; and Senator Pete Domenici all joined me in introducing this legislation, and I appreciate their support. In 1990, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210) was enacted in law. RECA, which I was proud to sponsor, required the federal government to compensate those who were harmed by the radioactive fallout from atomic testing. Administered through the Department of Justice, RECA has been responsible for compensating approximately 6,000 individuals for their injuries. Since the passage of the 1990 law, I have been continuously monitoring the implementation of the RECA program. Quite candidly, I have been disturbed over numerous reports from my Utah constituents about the difficulty they have encountered when they have attempted to file claims with the Department of Justice. I introduced S. 1515 in response to their concerns. This bill honors our nation's commitment to the thousands of individuals who were victims of radiation exposure while supporting our country's national defense. I believe we have an obligation to care for those who were injured, especially since, at the time, they were not adequately warned about the potential health hazards involved with their work. Another issue which many of my constituents contacted me about over the past year was the Medicare provisions contained in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act (BBA) and the impact of these provisions on health care providers and Medicare beneficiaries. I am pleased that the House has given its approval to the Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP Adjustment Act of 1999 which is now ready for Senate consideration and passage today. This important measure will help to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries can continue to receive high-quality, accessible health care. Overall, the bill increases payments for nursing homes, hospitals, home health agencies, managed care plans, and other Medicare providers. It will also increase payments for rehabilitative therapy services, and longer coverage of immunosuppresive drugs. Over $27 billion in legislative restorations are contained in this package for the next 10 years. Clearly we now know that there were unintended consequences as a result of the reimbursement provisions contained in the BBA. Many of the changes provided for in the BBA resulted in far more severe reductions in spending tham we projected in 1997. As a result, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies and hospitals have been particularly hard hit from these changes in the Medicare law. In 1997, Medicare was in a serious financial condition and was projected to go bankrupt in the year 2001. The changes we made in 1997 saved Medicare from financial insolvency and have resulted in extending the program's solvency until 2015. Nevertheless, the reductions we enacted in 1997 created a serious situation for many health care providers who simply are not being adequately reimbursed for the level and quality of care they were providing. This situation is particularly evident in the nursing home industry. Many skilled nursing facilities, or SNFs, are now facing bankruptcy because the current prospective payment system, which was enacted as part of the BBA, does not adequately compensate for the costs of care to medically complex patients. As a result, I introduced the Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act of 1999, S. 1500, which was designed to provide immediate financial relief to nursing homes who care for medically complex patients. The Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, was the principal cosponsor of this important legislation. And I would like to take this opportunity now to thank him for the extraordinary effort he made in helping to have major provisions of our bill incorporated into the final conference agreement on the BBA Restorations bill. Moreover, I want to thank the other 44 Senators who cosponsored S. 1500 and who lent their support in helping to move this issue to conference. This is an important victory for Medicare beneficiaries who depend on nursing home care. As we have seen over the past several years, those beneficiaries with medically complex conditions were having difficulty in gaining access to nursing home facilities, or SNFs, because many SNFs simply did not want to accept these patients due to the low reimbursement levels paid by Medicare. The current prospective payment system is flawed. It does not accurately account for the costs of these patients with complex conditions. The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has acknowledged that the system needs to be corrected. Under the provisions of the BBA Restoration bill we are passing today, reimbursement rates are increased by 20% for 15 payment categories, or the Resource Utilization Groups--RUGs--beginning in April 2000. These increases are temporary until HCFA has fine-tuned the PPS and made adjustments to reflect a more accurate cost for these payment categories. Moreover, after the temporary increases have expired, all payment categories will be increased by 4% in fiscal year 2001 and 2002. These provisions will provide immediate increases of $1.4 billion to nursing home facilities to care for these high-cost patients. In addition, the bill also gives nursing homes the option to elect to be paid at the full federal rate for SNF PPS which will provide an additional $700 million to the nursing community. I would also add that I am pleased the conference report includes a provision to provide a two-year moratorium on the physical/speech therapy and occupational therapy caps that were enacted as part of the BBA. As we all well know, these arbitrary caps have resulted in considerable pain and difficulty for thousands of Medicare beneficiaries who have met and exceeded the therapy caps. I joined my colleague and good friend, Senator Grassley, as a cosponsor of this important legislation, and I want to commend him for his leadership in getting this bill incorporated into the final BBA Restoration conference report. There are many other important features of this bill that are included in the conference report agreement and, clearly, these provisions will do a great deal to health restore needed Medicare funding to providers. Overall, $2.7 billion is restored to SNFs under this legislation. The bottomline is all of this is ensuring that Medicare beneficiaries have access to quality health care. We need to keep that promise and I believe we have done that through the passage of this legislation today. With respect to other providers, I would briefly add that the bill contains funding for home health agencies as well. The bill will ease the administrative requirements on home health agencies as well as delay the 15 percent reduction in reimbursement rate for one year. This reduction was to have taken effect on October 2000 but will now be delayed for one year until October 1, 2001. I have worked very closely with my home health agencies in my state who were extremely concerned over the impact of the 15% reduction next year. I am pleased to tell them that we have addressed their concerns by delaying this reduction for another year. I think this time will give us an opportunity to focus on this provision to determine what other adjustments, if any, may be required in the future. Overall, the bill adds $1.3 billion back into the home health care component of Medicare. So I believe we have taken some significant steps to ensure that home health care agencies will be able to operate without the threat of increased Medicare reductions on their bottomline. We have also taken steps to help hospitals and teaching hospitals with over $7 billion in Medicare restorations. These increases will help to smooth the transition to the PPS for outpatient services--an issue that was brought to my attention by practically every hospital administrator in my state. On the separate, but equally important issue of children's graduate medical education funding, I am especially pleased that the House has passed legislation that will authorize, for the first time, a new program to provide children's hospitals with direct and indirect graduate medical education funding. Independent children's hospitals, including Primary Children's Hospital in Salt Lake City, receive very little Medicare graduate medical education funding (GME). This is because they treat very few Medicare patients, only children with end stage renal disease, and thus do not benefit from federal GME support through Medicare. I cosponsored this legislation in the Senate which passed earlier this year. The measure has now cleared the House and will soon be sent to the President who is expected to sign the measure into law very soon. Moreover, $40 million is contained in the appropriation's bill that will serve as an excellent foundation on which to provide assistance to children's hospitals. I am also pleased that provisions from S. 1626, the Medicare Patient Access to Technology Act, were included in the BBA Restoration measure. These important provisions guarantee senior citizens access to the best medical technology and pharmaceuticals. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries do not always have access to the most innovative treatments because Medicare reimbursement rates are inadequate. And I just don't think that it's fair to older Americans. My provisions contained in the restoration bill change this by allowing more reasonable Medicare reimbursements for these therapies. Take, John Rapp, my constituent from Salt Lake City, Utah. Mr. Rapp, who is 71 years old, was diagnosed with prostate cancer last May. He was presented with a series of treatment options and decided to have BRACHY therapy because it was minimally invasive, he could receive it as an outpatient and it had fewer complications than radical surgery. This new innovative therapy implants radioactive seeds in the prostate gland in order to kill cancer cells. The success rate of this therapy has been overwhelming. So, what's the problem? Without my legislation, services such as BRACHY therapy would not be available in the hospital outpatient setting to future Medicare patients due to the way the outpatient prospective payment system is being designed. Life saving services such as BRACHY therapy would be reimbursed at significantly lower- reimbursement rates, from approximately about $10,000 to $1500, and, therefore, it would not be cost-effective for hospitals to offer this service. Fortunately, the provisions included in the omnibus spending bill change all of that--innovative treatments, such as BRACHY therapy, will now be available to future prostate cancer patients. We must get the newest technology, to seniors as quickly as possible. Government bureaucracy should not stand in the way of seniors receiving the best care available. We must put Medicare patients first, not government bureaucracy. That is why my legislation is necessary and I am so pleased that it was included in the Medicare package. Finally, I am pleased that this package also addressed the serious concerns of the community health centers. The community health centers community came to us because there were concerns about the financial hardship that the Balanced Budget Act would have imposed on these health centers and their patients. I worked hard with Finance Committee Chairman Roth, Senator Grassley, and Senator Baucus to resolve this important issue. I believe that the conference committee came up with a good solution, however, I intend to monitor this situation closely over the next couple of years. Mr. President, there are numerous other provisions in this restoration package that I will not take the time to comment on now, but they are equally important. I want to commend the leadership in the Senate and House for working to put together this important measure that will clearly help millions of Medicare beneficiaries throughout the country.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to report on the success that the Senate has enjoyed this session in performing its constitutional advice and consent duties with respect to judicial nominees. The Judiciary Committee and the Senate have maintained a low vacancy rate in the federal Judiciary, reached an agreement to have votes on certain controversial nominees, and maintained a fair and principled confirmations process. At the end of the last Congress, the Judiciary Committee and the Senate had reduced the number of vacancies in the federal Judiciary to 50--the lowest vacancy level since the expansion of the Judiciary in 1990. Indeed, in his January 1999 report on the state of the federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Rehnquist applauded the work of the Senate in bringing the vacancy number to such a low level, stating: ``I am pleased to report on the progress made in 1998 by the Senate and the President in the appointment and confirmation of judges to the federal bench. . . .'' This session, despite partisan rhetoric, the Senate has maintained a low vacancy rate. The Judiciary Committee reported 42 judicial nominees, and the full Senate confirmed 34 of these--a number comparable to the average of 39 confirmations for the first sessions of the past 5 Congresses when vacancy rates were generally much higher. In total, the Senate has confirmed 338 of President Clinton's judicial nominees since he took office in 1993. In addition, the Committee reported 22 Executive Branch nominees to the Senate floor this Session. The Senate has confirmed all of these nominees, bringing the total number of confirmations for President Clinton's non- judicial nominees for which the Committee has jurisdiction to 277 since 1993. After all of these confirmations, we have reduced the number of judicial vacancies to 56--very close to the lowest number of vacancies since the expansion of the Judiciary in 1990. Indeed, the number of vacancies at the end of this Session of Congress is 7 less than the 63 vacancies that existed when Congress adjourned in 1994 when Bill Clinton was President and the Democrats controlled the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, we were able to create 9 new district court judgeships for a few districts in which the caseloads are very high. In addition, the Committee reported two controversial nominees-- Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez--to the Senate floor this Session. And Senator Lott worked in a bipartisan manner with Senator Daschle to reach an agreement to vote on these controversial nominees and other nominees by March 15, 2000. A controversial nominee will, of course, move more slowly than other nominees because it takes longer to garner a consensus to support such a nominee. And, depending on the nature of the controversy, the Committee may have to conduct an even more exacting examination of that nominee's credentials and respect for the rule of law. Nonetheless, a controversial nominee will be treated with the utmost respect and fairness The more controversial a nominee, however, the more crucial the support of the nominee's home state senators and home state grass roots organizations. It was deeply disturbing that earlier this year some implied or expressly alleged that the Senate's treatment of certain nominees differed based on their race or gender. Indeed, a so-called independent group claimed that the Senate treated female and minorities nominees less favorably than white male nominees. After a flurry of rhetoric, however, the facts began to surface. First, the so-called independent group--Citizens for Independent Courts--was discovered to have prepared its report with the assistance of the Democratic, but not Republican, Judiciary Committee staff. Second, a close review of the report revealed that for noncontroversial nominees who were confirmed, there was little if any difference between the timing of confirmation for minority nominees and nonminority nominees in 1997 and 1998. Only when the President appointed a controversial female or minority nominee who was not confirmed did a disparity arise. Third, in 1991 and 1992, when George Bush was President, the Democratically controlled Senate confirmed female and minority nominees at a far slower pace than white male nominees. Fourth, this year, over 50% of the nominees that the Judiciary Committee reported to the full Senate have been women and minorities. Finally, even the Democratic former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Joe Biden, stated publicly that the process by which the committee, under my chairmanship, examines and approve judicial nominees ``has not a single thing to do with gender or race.'' As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I take the constitutional duties of advice and consent and the responsibility for maintaining the institutional dignity of the Senate very seriously. Although the President has occasionally nominated controversial candidates, under my tenure as chairman, not one nominee has suffered a public attack on his, or her, character by this committee. Not one nominee has had his, or her, confidential background information leaked to the public by a member of this committee. And not one nominee has been examined for anything other than his, or her, integrity, competence, temperament, and respect for the rule of law. The Senate has conducted the confirmations process in a fair and principled manner, and the process has worked well. As the first session of the 106th Congress comes to an end, the federal Judiciary is once again sufficiently staffed to perform its function under Article III of the Constitution. Senator Lott, and the Senate as a whole, are to be commended.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, enough is enough. Hard-working American people are being denied common-sense legislation that they overwhelmingly support, because some on the Democratic side are insisting on votes relating to the politically charged issues of abortions and guns. At some point, I would hope that this will stop, and we can move ahead with the people's agenda, instead of trying to win political points. We have been on the bankruptcy bill for two weeks now. The Democrats demanded the ability to have votes on other politically motivated, non- relevant issues. We debated and had a vote on minimum wage. We have agreed to or voted on 31 Democrat amendments. These are amendments in addition to the Grassley-Torricelli package amendment which included numerous other provisions insisted upon by the Democrats. This is a fair, bipartisan bill, drafted jointly by Senators Grassley, Torricelli, Biden and Sessions. This legislation was developed in a fair and inclusive manner. With the more than 31 amendments, plus additional amendments jointly developed by Republicans and Democrats, such as the Grassley-Torricelli healthcare amendment, the Hatch-Torricelli domestic and child support amendment, the Hatch- Dodd amendment on protecting educational savings accounts, among many others, this is a much improved bill that provides unprecedented consumer protections, while preserving the bankruptcy system for those who truly need it. What also is included in this bill are unprecedented consumer disclosures that are not even bankruptcy related, but are banking law amendments which Senators Torricelli and Grassley have taken the leadership to develop, and I commend them for that. Mr. President, throughout the process of consideration of this bill, at both the drafting stage, at the Committee level, and here on the floor, we have worked hard to address any concerns any member has with the bill. Senators Grassley, Lott and I have been more than patient and cooperative. It is apparent, however, that efforts were underway to defeat this important legislation this year by insisting on extraneous political agenda items, regardless of all the progress we made. We are open to further debate. But this bill, which the Minority had said would only take two days to complete, was on the floor for two weeks. They did not agree to a time limit for debate, but it is now clear why that was. I hope we can get the cooperation of the Minority to drop their remaining politically-motivated items and pass legislation early next year that provides meaningful and much-needed reform to the bankruptcy system. Rampant bankruptcy filings are a big problem, and last year over 1.4 million Americans filed for bankruptcy. In the same year, about $45 billion in consumer debt was erased in personal bankruptcies. Under current law, families who do not file for bankruptcy are unfairly having to subsidize those who do. This is our opportunity to do something about it. I would hope that my colleagues would take the time over these next few months and consider the desires of the American public. Let's do what is right and pass this important legislation early next year. Thank you.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as the Senate finishes its consideration of the last in a package of four very important intellectual property related ``high-tech'' bills that Senate Leahy and I introduced earlier this year. Three of those bills--the ``Trademark Amendments Act of 1999,'' the ``Patent Fee Integrity and Innovation Protection Act of 1999,'' and a Copyright Act technical corrections bill--were passed by the House and Senate and signed into law in August of this year. The fourth of those bills--the ``Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act'' (S. 1257)--was passed by the House with an amendment and returned to the Senate. Each of these bills is designed to promote the continued growth of vital sectors of the American economy and to protect the interests and investment of the entrepreneurs, authors, and innovators who fuel their growth. Technology continues to be the driving force in the American economy today, and American technology is setting new standards for the global economy, from semiconductor chip technology, to computer software, Internet and telecommunications technology, to leading pharmaceutical and genetic research. In my own state of Utah, these information technology industries contribute in excess of $7 billion each year to the State's economy and pay wages that average 66 percent higher than the state average. Their performance has placed Utah among the world's top ten technology centers according to Newsweek Magazine. Similar success is seen in areas across the country, with the U.S. being home to seven of the world's top ten technology centers and with American creative industries now surpassing all other export sectors in foreign sales and exports. Underlying all of these technologies are the intellectual property rights that serve to promote creativity and innovation by safeguarding the investment, effort, and goodwill of those who venture into these fast-paced and volatile fields. Strong intellectual property protections are particularly critical in the global high-tech environment where electronic piracy is so easy, so cheap, and yet so potentially devastating to intellectual property owners--many of which are small entrepreneurial enterprises. In Utah, 65 percent of these companies have fewer than 25 employees, and a majority have annual revenues of less than $1 million. Intellectual property is the lifeblood of these companies, and even a single instance of piracy could drive them out of business. What's more, without adequate international protection, these companies would simply be unable to compete in the global marketplace. That is why we enacted a number of measures last year to provide enhanced protection for intellectual property in the new global, high- tech environment. For example, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) implemented two new World Intellectual property Organization Treaties setting new global standards for copyright protection in the digital environment. We also paved the way for new growth in online commerce by providing a copyright framework in which the Internet and other new technologies can flourish. The ``Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act'' builds upon those protections by raising the Copyright Act's limit on statutory damages to make it more costly to engage in cyber- piracy and copyright theft. Section 504(c) of the Copyright Act provides for the award of statutory damages at the plaintiff's election in order to provide greater security for owners, who often find it difficult to prove actual damages in infringement cases--particularly in the electronic environment--and to provide greater deterrence for would-be infringers. The current provision caps statutory damages at $20,000 ($100,000 in cases of willful infringement), which reflects figures set in statute in 1988 when the United States joined the Berne Convention. The combination of more than a decade of inflation and revolutionary changes in technology have rendered those figures largely inadequate to achieve their aims. The bill before us updates these statutory damage provisions to account for both these factors. Under the bill, the cap on statutory damages is increased by 50 percent, from $20,000 to $30,000, and the minimum is similarly increased from $500 to $750. For cases of willful infringement, the cap is raised to $150,000. This will not mean that a court must impose the full amount of damages in any given case, or even that it will be more likely to do so. In most cases, courts attempt to do justice by fixing the statutory damages at a level that approximates actual damages and defendant's profits. What this bill does is give courts wider discretion to award damages that are commensurate with the harm caused and the gravity of the offense. At the same time, the bill preserves provisions of the current law allowing the court to reduce the award of statutory damages to as little as $200 in cases of innocent infringement and requiring the court to remit damages in certain cases involving nonprofit educational institutions, libraries, archives, or public broadcasting entities. The House of Representatives amend the bill to include an amendment to the ``No Electronic Theft (NET) Act.'' The NET Act--enacted to curb digital piracy by expanding criminal copyright infringement to include certain electronic infringements done without an intent to profit-- directed the U.S. Sentencing Commission to revise the sentencing guidelines for crimes against intellectual property to ensure that the applicable guideline range is sufficiently stringent to deter such crimes and to provide for consideration of the retail value and quantity of the infringed upon items with respect to which the crime against intellectual property was committed. This directive, and its specificity, reflected the concern on the part of Congress that the existing guidelines' reliance on the value of the infringing items (i.e., the street value of a bootlegged video) both underestimates the true economic harm inflicted on copyright owners and results in penalties that are so disproportionately low that U.S. attorneys are simply unwilling to prosecute such cases. Despite Congress' directive, the old guidelines remain in place unamended. The result is that today, nearly two years later, there has been only one case brought under the NET Act, and electronic piracy continues as a significant and growing concern. The House amendment to S. 1257 would revise the outstanding NET Act directive to require the Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines to provide an enhancement based upon the retail price of the legitimate items that are infringed upon and the quantity of the infringing items, as well as to require the Commission to act within a set time. While the proposed revision is consistent with Congress' intent to strengthen the sentencing guidelines applicable to intellectual property-related crimes and to better reflect the economic harm in cases of electronic piracy, there was some concern that the amended guidelines would overstate economic harm or have other unintended consequences with respect to infringements not involving digital reproductions. The amendment Senator Leahy and I are offering today--which is the result of many hours of discussions and the subject of widespread agreement--will leave the existing NET Act directive unchanged, but will require the Commission to act on that directive within the later of 120 days from the bill's enactment or 120 days from the first date on which there are sufficient voting members of the Sentencing Commission to constitute a quorum. I expect that the Sentencing Commission will move expeditiously once its commissioners are in place to complete revision of the applicable sentencing guidelines as directed by the NET ACT, and that it will do so in a manner that is consistent with Congress' intent to provide improved deterrence in this area. In sum, this bill is an important high-tech measure that will spur creativity and enhance protection for American copyrighted works at home and abroad. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his assistance, cooperation, and leadership in this process, and I look forward to the Senate swiftly passing this bill with the Hatch-Leahy Amendment.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Appropriations conference report before us contains most of the text of the Conference Report accompanying H.R. 1554, a reform of the Satellite Home Viewers Act. In addition to Satellite Home Viewers Improvement Act, this legislation contains two other major intellectual property bills, a major reform of the patent system and a bill to protect against the growing problem of ``cybersquatting,'' whereby the valuable names of businesses and individuals are registered by others in bad faith to either trade on those names or damage their value. These three pieces of legislation are major reforms that help American consumers and American businesses. I will briefly discuss these reforms in turn. As the Chairman of the Conference Committee and sponsor of the original Senate copyright legislation underlying the Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act, I am delighted that the conferees have been able to put together a comprehensive package of consumer-friendly reforms for satellite viewers. The bill reflects an enormous effort on the part of members and their staffs on both sides of Congress from both parties, and represents a major advance in copyright and communications law. The world of video communication has changed enormously since television began some 70 years ago in the small home workshop of inventor and Utah native Philo T. Farnsworth, who, together with his wife and colleagues, viewed the first television transmission: a single black line that rotated from vertical to horizontal. At the risk of offending those who may disagree, I think TV programming has greatly improved since the Farnsworths' rotating black line. Since that day in the Farnsworths' workshop, television viewers have benefitted from steady advances in technology that have brought increased access to an ever more diversified range of programming choices. The television industry has progressed from one or two over-the-air broadcast stations, to a full range of broadcast networks delivering local and syndicated national programming, to cable television delivering both broadcast and made-for-cable programming. And in the past decade, satellite carriers, delivering to customers with both large and, increasingly, small dishes are emerging as new and potent competitors in the television delivery business. The legislation before us today will--for the first time --allow satellite carriers to provide local subscribers with their local television signals. This means every television viewer in Utah can have access to Utah news, weather, sports, and other locally-relevant programming, as well as national network programming. Emerging technology now makes this possible, and our bill will make it legal. The bill also reduces the copyright fees that are passed along to subscribers. As a result, eligible viewers in parts of Utah unserved by over-the-air television will enjoy access to network stations at lower prices. Let me illustrate some of the benefits of this legislation for Utah and for Utahns. Similar benefits can accrue across the country if this legislation is fully utilized. Many areas of Utah are unserved by over- the-air television or even by cable systems. Satellite service has been the only television option for many Utahns. Up until the passage of this conference report, these Utahns were able to get network stations, but usually from cities outside of Utah, such as New York or Los Angeles. And, those Utahns who had satellite dishes but lived in areas which did receive local television over-the-air could not legally get any network television programming using their satellite dishes, but had to get them with an off-air antenna or by cable. Under the provisions of this conference report, every Utahn will be able to get local network programming, which includes both national network shows like ``ER'' and ``The X-Files'' and local news, weather, sports, and public affairs programming. And those people who live in the so-called ``white areas'' that are unserved by local television can get local programming from Salt Lake City, as well as keep their distant signals if they wish to. Making Utah information and entertainment available to all Utahns is a great benefit to us as a state, and helps bind us together as a community. And in 2002, the satellite carriers will be required to carry all the local television stations, just like cable. This means that viewers will have the same range of local programming as they have come to expect from cable, and that the viewers, rather than satellite carriers, will be able to choose which local stations to watch. Making local television signals available to all Utahns, and citizens of similar communities across the country, is the most important reason for this legislation. But there are many other benefits to consumers: copyright rates for satellite signals are cut almost in half, and the local signals are free. The Federal Communications Commission will work to ensure that eligibility decisions for distant network signals are clearer and prompter. Some satellite subscribers have expressed frustration that they do not get prompt responses from local television stations to distant signal eligibility waiver requests, although the situation is better in Utah than in some other places. To remedy the problem, we included a provision that says if a subscriber asks a local station for a waiver to allow them to get distant network signals, this conference report requires a response in 30 days or the waiver is deemed approved. There was a provision in the previous law that required cable subscribers to wait 90 days after unhooking their cable before they could get satellite service. We removed that waiting period so that Utahns who want to switch from cable can do so immediately. We heard from the owners of recreational vehicles that they wanted to be able to put satellite dishes on their RV's when they go camping or traveling. In this bill, we allow RV owners who comply with certain documentation requirements to get satellite service. So Utahns do not need to leave their satellite service behind when they travel. The same rules would apply to long-haul truckers. Recent lawsuits enforcing the distant signal eligibility rules under the copyright act have put many satellite subscribers in danger of losing their distant network signal service. Let me be clear that I do not condone or support what appears to have been law-breaking by the satellite carriers. But I am concerned about subscribers being caught in the middle, especially those who are not clearly served by over-the- air television from their local broadcasters. So, in this legislation, we protect the eligibility for satellite service received by current subscribers have who do not get a city-grade or Grade A signal. In this way, we can protect those subscribers who may have been misled about their eligibility and who may be in an area that is not clearly served, so that they will not be out their investment. With regard to the signal intensity rules that make up the eligibility standard for distant signals, we have asked the FCC to give us their best judgment about how we should reform the law, so that we can have their best input before we consider any further major reforms on this issue. I have talked about the benefits that will accrue to satellite subscribers if the satellite carriers take full advantage of these copyright license reforms. But the benefits are not just limited to satellite subscribers. There will be benefits to cable subscribers, too, that will come from a satellite industry equipped to compete with cable head on in the market. Satellite service consistently ranks high on consumer surveys for service satisfaction. It has a vast array of channels for viewers to choose from. As I mentioned earlier, the growth of the satellite television business has been phenomenal, even without the ability to deliver local television stations. Recent consumer surveys indicate that 85 percent of respondents said that the lack of local signals is the reason why consumers who considered buying satellite service decided not to. Imagine the growth in this industry now that they will be able to compete with cable with the offering of local programming. What does this all mean for cable subscribers? One of the reasons why many believe cable is rated low on customer satisfaction is that it usually does not have a real competitor. Many local cable systems know its customers have nowhere else to go, so they do not exert themselves as much to please the customer as they might with a competitor. Armed with local signals, as well as the rest of the benefits satellite offers, there should be a new spark of competition in those areas where local satellite service is available. That will lead to lower prices, increased choices, and happy customers for both satellite and cable, and all television viewers. Today we are also considering a patent reform package which contains the most significant reforms to our nation's patent code in half a century. This bill, which Senator Leahy and I introduced as the ``American Inventors Protection Act,'' is one of the most important high-tech reform measures to come before this body. It is widely supported by an overwhelming majority of members on both sides of the aisle, by the Administration, and by a broad coalition of industry, small businesses, and American inventors. Its consideration here today is imminently appropriate on the eve of a new millennium in which America's ability to compete and the strength of our economy will depend on the strength of the patent system and the protections it affords. Intellectual property, and patents in particular, are among our nation's greatest assets. From semiconductor chip technology, to computer software, to biotechnology, to Internet and telecommunications technology, the United States remains the undisputed world-leader in technological innovation. In fact, according to Newsweek Magazine, the United States is home to seven of the world's top ten technology centers, which includes my own state of Utah. Moreover, American creative industries now surpass all other export sectors in foreign sales and exports. As the Internet, electronic commerce, and new innovative technologies increasingly drive the growth of our economy, the strength of our patent system and its ability to respond to the challenges of new technology and global competition will be more important than ever. This bill will enable our patent system to meet these challenges and to protect American inventors and American competitiveness into the next century. As many of my colleagues know, this bill is a compromise bill that reflects years of discussion and extensive efforts to reach agreement on all sides. Since first introducing this bill as an omnibus measure in the 104th Congress, we have literally engaged in countless hours of discussions and adopted over 100 amendments to this bill in order to forge a consensus on a package of responsible patent reforms. The Senate made significant progress toward consensus in the last Congress when the Judiciary Committee reached several key compromises to strengthen the bill's protections for small businesses and independent inventors. I was pleased to see those efforts continued in the House this year, where the supporters and former opponents of the bill agreed to sit down and work through their differences in an effort to produce a constructive patent reform bill. As a result of these cooperative efforts in the House and Senate, the bill before us now enjoys overwhelming bipartisan, bicameral support, and it is now endorsed by the most vocal opponents of earlier reform measures. This broad support is reflected in the several votes that have already occurred on this measure this year. The House has passed this bill three times this year, including by a 376-43 vote on the bill as stand alone measure in August and by a 411-8 vote on the bill as part of the conference report on the ``Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act.'' The Senate Judiciary Committee also passed the bill by an 18-0 roll call vote earlier this month. Having touched upon some of the compromises that have brought people together on this bill, let me take just a minute to highlight what this bill will do for American inventors. 1. The bill protects against fraudulent invention promoters which prey upon novice inventors. 2. It reduces patent fees for only the second time in history, saving American inventors an estimated $30 million each year. The bill will also ensure that patent fees are not used to subsidize trademark operations and will require the PTO to study alternative fee structures to encourage maximum participation by small inventors. 3. It protects American companies and their workers from patent infringement suits as a result of recent policy changes that have allowed patents to begin to issue on internal business methods that were previously thought to be unpatentable and which have been used under trade secret protection. 4. It guarantees that every diligent inventor with a patentable invention will receive at least 17 years of patent protection (which is what they would have received pre-GATT); most will receive a great deal more. 5. It allows American inventors and innovators to see foreign technology at least 12 months earlier than today, while allowing American inventors to maintain protections of existing law that allow them to keep their inventions secret during patent pendency. It also gives American inventors new protections by given them provisional rights during the pendency of internationally published applications. 6. It creates a new optional administrative procedure in the Patent and Trademark Office to reduce litigation costs for patent owners and to allow members of the public to participate in testing the validity of patents, all while fully protecting patent holders against repetitive challenges. 7. It restructures the Patent and Trademark Office to eliminate red tape and provide greater oversight by the American inventing community, especially by small businesses and independent inventors. 8. It protects our national security by requiring the PTO to maintain a program with the Office of Personnel Management to identify national security positions at the PTO and by protecting strategic information from disclosure. 9. Finally, it restricts the ability of the PTO Commissioner to exchange U.S. patent data with certain foreign nations. In short, this is one of the most important technology-related bills to come before Congress in recent memory. It has been years in the making and reflects the input of many, many people from all sides. The time to act on this package of reforms has clearly come, and I am pleased that the Senate is finally taking this measure up. I am also pleased that the Senate will complete action on the ``Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act'' and send that legislation to the President. In short, this is another key high-tech bill that will curb the harmful practice of ``cybersquatting''--a term used to refer to the deliberate and bad-faith registration of Internet domain names in violation of the rights of trademark owners. Cybersquatting is a very serious threat to consumers and the future growth of electronic commerce. For example, we heard testimony in the Judiciary Committee of consumer fraud being perpetrated by the registrant of the ``attphonecard.com'' and ``attcallingcard.com'' domain names, who set up Internet sites purporting to sell calling cards and soliciting personally identifying information, including credit card numbers. Sammy Sosa had his name cybersquatted and used for a website that implied his endorsement of the products being sold. There are countless other similar examples of so-called ``dot-con'' artists who prey on consumer confusion and trade on the goodwill of others. The fact is that if consumers cannot rely on brand-names online as they do in the world of bricks and mortar store-fronts, few will be willing to engage in e-commerce. Those who do will bear substantial risks of being confused or even deceived. Few Internet users would buy a car, fill a prescription, or even shop for books online if you they cannot be sure who they are dealing with. This legislation will go a long way to ensure this sort of online brand-name protection for consumers. At the same time, the bill carefully balances these interests of consumers and trademark owners with the interests of Internet users and others who would make fair or otherwise lawful uses of trademarked names in cyberspace. As with trademark cybersquatting, cybersquatting of personal names poses similar threats to consumers and e-commerce in that it causes confusion as to the source or sponsorship of goods or services, including confusion as to the sponsorship or affiliation of websites bearing individuals' names. In addition, more and more people are being harmed by people who register other peoples names and hold them out for sale for huge sums or money or use them for various nefarious purposes. I am particularly troubled at the prospect of what someone might do with websites bearing the name of such people as Mother Teresa, which I understand are currently being offered for $7 million by a cybersquatter. For this reason, I was pleased that the House amendments to the Senate bill clarified that famous names that enjoy service mark status, such as celebrity actors and very likely Mother Teresa, are included. As I have said, however, this bill should not be just about protecting celebrities. I am thus pleased that the legislation in this conference report goes further to protect those whose names don't meet the relatively high threshold of a famous mark, but who are nonetheless targeted by cybersquatters. For example, ESPN has reported that a number of cybersquatters have targeted the names of high-school athletes in anticipation that they may some day become famous. Earlier versions of the House and Senate bills would not have protected these individuals, but this legislation will. Furthermore, this bill directs the Commerce Department to report to Congress on ways to better protect personal names against cybersquatting and to work in conjunction with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to include personal name disputes in the ICANN dispute resolution policy. This a key measure to promote electronic commerce and to protect consumers and individuals online. While I recognize the global nature of the cybersquatting problem, I believe this legislation is an important start to a worldwide solution--as evidenced by the fact that the latest ICANN dispute resolution policy reflects a number of the policies embodied in the Senate bill. I appreciate Senator Abraham's effort to move this bill through Congress, and I am pleased we will pass it today. These are important intellectual property reforms that are helpful to American consumers and American businesses. They are the product of the hard work of many people. Mr. President, I would like to thank many people who have worked hard to get this conference report agreed to and passed. First, let me thank and personally congratulate each of my colleagues on the Conference Committee for their diligent work in achieving this goal, especially my distinguished Ranking Member and original co-sponsor Senator Leahy, as well as Chairman McCain, and Senators Thurmond, Stevens, DeWine, Hollings, and Kohl, all of whom made important contributions. On the House side, I extend my gratitude and congratulations to Chairman Hyde and Chairman Bliley and to Representatives Coble, Tauzin, Goodlatte, Oxley, Dingell, Conyers, Markey, Berman, and Boucher. Of course, this successful result is also the product of tireless efforts by our capable staffs, who have worked through many late nights and weekends, to make this successful resolution possible. Among the many Senate staff members who have made critical contributions are Manus Cooney, Shawn Bentley, and Troy Dow of my staff; Bruce Cohen, Ed Barron, Beryl Howell of Senator Leahy's staff; and from the other Senate conferees, Mitch Rose, Pete Belvin, Maureen McLaughlin, Paula Ford, Al Mottur, Gary Malphrus, Jim Hippe, Pete Levitas, Jon Leibowitz, John Schwantes, and many others on the Senate side. Let me congratulate each of them on their work. Tony Coe of Senate Legislative Counsel and Bill Roberts of the Copyright Office both put in many long hours to provide technical assistance. I know I speak for all of the Senate conferees in expressing my gratitude to all these first-rate staff members, as well as to the fine staff on the House side. The leadership staff from both houses, particularly Jim Sartucci and Renee Bennett from Senator Lott's staff and Doug Farry from Representative Armey's office were key liaisons in this process. On patent reform, let me note my very sincere appreciation to the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, with whom I have worked for the better part of three Congresses to bring about these important reforms. His leadership on the Democratic side has been a key part to getting this bill done. I want to also recognize the extraordinary efforts of our House colleagues on this bill. Chairman Coble, who is the bill's primary sponsor in the House, along with the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Congressman Berman, as well as Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Conyers, have all dedicated tremendous time and effort over the last four years to moving this legislation forward. Their able leadership is reflected in the support this bill received in the House. But I want to mention in particular Congressman Rohrabacher and Congressman Campbell who in years past had led the opposition in the House to this bill. It is because of their efforts to work cooperatively with the proponents of this legislation in the House to craft a package of truly responsible reforms on behalf of American inventors that we have a bill before us today. I want to recognize them for their leadership, and for their good faith both in the House and in the Senate this year. Finally, with respect to cybersquatting legislation, I want to again commend the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, for his sponsorship of this legislation, as well as the Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, with whom I have again worked hand in hand to bring this bill to final passage. All of these people and others were instrumental in the success of this legislation, but let me express an especially warm thanks to Senator Leahy, with whom I have worked closely on these and so many other intellectual property matters, and to the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens. We worked particularly closely in the satellite reform conference, and he played a unique and crucial role in the ultimate passage of this package of important intellectual property legislation. I thank him for his leadership and his steadfast support. And let me single out the efforts of Mitch Rose of Senator Stevens' staff who worked along with my staff and Steve Cortese of Senator Stevens' Appropriations Committee staff, under Senator Stevens' leadership, to ensure that these important intellectual property matters were ultimately enacted into law despite the difficulties encountered in the process. They are superb public servants and they work for one of the finest members of this August body with whom I have had the pleasure of working. Finally, let me mention Bruce Cohen, Ed Barron, and Beryl Howell of Senator Leahy's staff, who, along with Senator Leahy, work with me and my staff with exceptional cooperation on intellectual property matters. We have had a particularly productive relationship on these important matters, and I look forward to continuing that relationship. On my own staff, I express my appreciation for the work of Shawn Bentley and Troy Dow, who have labored long and hard to successfully enact this legislation, and I thank their families for their support of their efforts on behalf of American innovators, creators, and consumers. Finally, let me thank my Chief Counsel, Manus Cooney, for overseeing all of this fine work, and putting in countless hours of strenuous effort to ensure its completion. He is a consummate leader, and I thank him for his stellar service. I ask unanimous consent that the statements of Senators Leahy, DeWine, and Kohl, followed by a number of colloquies between myself and a number of different senators on diverse matters included in the satellite conference report, be included in the Record at this point as though read, together with supporting documents, and I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, the Senator's assessment is correct. The conferees included the CPB list-sharing language in the bill because of concerns related to CPB's unique status. This provision should in no way be interpreted as precedent for restrictions on list sharing by other non- profit organizations that may receive federal funds.

Mr. HATCH. That is correct.

Mr. HATCH. I would be happy to.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator from California for her remarks and appreciate her support for this important legislation. I agree that Congress must closely monitor the effectiveness and fairness of the new reexamination procedure. I also believe it would be very useful to obtain the interim report she mentioned in a timely fashion and look forward to continuing to work with her on this issue. cpb list sharing provision

Mr. HATCH. I think the Senator from Vermont. And I would clarify one other point relating to a minor modification we made to the definition of ``unserved household'' in the distant signal satellite statutory license found in section 119 of Title 17 of the United States Code. The conferees decided to add the word ``stationary'' to the phrase ``conventional outdoor rooftop receiving antenna'' in Section 119(d)(10) of the Copyright Act. As the Chairman of the Conference Committee and of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over copyright matters, I should make clear that this change should not require any alteration in the methods used by the courts to enforce the ``unserved household'' limitation of Section 119. The new language states only that the antenna is to be ``stationary''; it does not state that the antenna is to be misoriented (i.e., pointed away from the station in question). Any interpretation that assumed misorientation would be inconsistent with the basic premise of the definition of ``unserved household,'' which defines that term in relation to an individual TV station rather than to all network affiliates in a market--and speaks to whether a household ``cannot'' receive a Grade B intensity signal from a particular station. If a household can receive a signal of Grade B intensity with a properly oriented stationary conventional antenna, it is not ``unserved'' within the meaning of Section 119. In addition, if station towers are located in different directions, conventional over-the-air antennas can be designed so as to point towards the different towers without requiring the antenna to be moved. And reading the definition of ``unserved household'' to assume misoriented antennas would mean that the ``unserved household'' limitation had no fixed meaning, since there are countless different ways in which an antenna can be misoriented, but only one way to be correctly oriented, as the Commission's rules make clear. With that clarification, I yield the floor. patent reform legislation

Mr. HATCH. I also received such a letter from the Register. And along the same lines, I have received a letter on this issue from one of America's most distinguished copyright scholars, Professor Arthur Miller of Harvard Law School. Professor Miller's interpretation of the scope of eligibility for these compulsory licenses under current law appears to be very similar to the Register's, and his letter also underscores the point I was making earlier, that there is no legal significance to the fact that this legislation omits certain technical amendments to the definition of ``cable system'' and ``satellite carrier'' that appeared in earlier versions of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. The Copyright Office studied this issue exhaustively in 1997 and came to the same conclusion which I have just stated. In fact, in undertaking the study, the Copyright Office asked the fundamental question whether a statutory license should be created for the Internet. The underlying assumption of the question was that there was not, and never was, a statutory license applicable to the Internet. In response, there was little or no comment challenging that assumption. And I would point out that valid exercises of the Office's statutory authority to interpret the provisions of these compulsory licensing schemes are binding on the courts.

Mr. HATCH. In reply to that question, I would say that certainly under current law, Internet and similar digital online communications services are not, and have never been, eligible to claim the cable or satellite compulsory licenses created by sections 111 or 119 of the Copyright Act. To my knowledge, no court, administrative agency, or authoritative commentator has ever held or even intimated to the contrary.

Mr. HATCH. I would point out that none of this is affected by the fact that in any earlier version of this legislation, there were technical amendments that would have affected these definitions. Those particular amendments do not appear in this legislation, and neither their inclusion in the earlier version nor their omission here has any legal significance. Would the Senate from Vermont agree with that statement?

Mr. HATCH. The Senator is correct. In other words, if a facility qualified as a ``cable system'' under section 111(f) prior the enactment of this measure, it should also qualify after enactment. Conversely, if a facility did not meet the definition of ``cable system'' before this measure was enacted, it still would not meet that definition after enactment, and therefore the operations of that facility could not rely upon the cable compulsory license established by section 111. And an entity which was not entitled to claim the section 119 compulsory license because it did not meet the definition of a ``satellite carrier'' prior to enactment of the measure before us would be in exactly the same position after enactment, that is, it could not claim the satellite compulsory license under section 119.

Mr. HATCH. I am glad to yield to my friend from Vermont.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the measure before us contains some technical amendments to various provisions of the Copyright Act, including sections 111 and 119, which deal with the cable and satellite compulsory licenses, respectively. It is important to emphasize that these technical amendments make no change whatsoever in the key definitional provisions of these two compulsory licenses. Section 111(f) defines ``cable systems,'' and section 119(d)(6) defines ``satellite carrier.'' Neither of these definitions is changed by the measure before us.

Mr. HATCH. Yes, it is also my understanding that the low power station on Channel 17 in New York City should not be precluded from the Class A license due to Section 5008(f)(7)(ii). The interference that is currently permitted by the Commission is intended to continue. Is this also your understanding Senator Moynihan?

Mr. HATCH. Yes, the Senator from Alaska is correct; that was the intent of the conferees. And, I appreciate the Senators concerns and pledge to work with him to ensure that when the FCC promulgates these rules, the C-Band industry is exempt and C-Band consumers are protected.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Today, the Senate adopted a significant measure against date rape and other heinous crimes associated with abusing certain types of drugs. I want to make a few comments on this bill, S. 1561, which addresses the abuse of the dangerous drug GHB which has been used to commit date rape and other crimes. As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am proud that it was a member of our Committee, Senator Spencer Abraham, who introduced and has played the key leadership role in Senate passage of S. 1561, The Samantha Reid and Hillory J. Farias Date Rape Prohibition Act of 1999.'' I am also proud that other members of the Judiciary Committee, Senators DeWine, Feinstein, and Grassley have joined Senator Abraham in co-sponsoring this legislation. It is only through the hard work and insistence of Senator Abraham that this bill will pass the Senate today. I also want to commend his able staff, especially Lee Otis and Chase Hutto, who have spent considerable time and effort in improving this legislation. Their efforts were in the best tradition of staff of the United States Senate. I also want to thank my friend on the other side of the aisle, Senator Biden, who has long been in the forefront of controlled substances and other drug abuse issues. I must also recognize the efforts of Ms. Marcia Lee of his staff for her diligence and creativity in developing this language. I must also recognize the efforts of Chairmen Thomas Bliley and Fred Upton for their work in developing and sheparding the House companion to S. 1561, H.R. 2310, through that body. In this regard, I must mention the efforts of John Manthei of the House Commerce Committee as well as Ms. Jane Williams of Rep. Upton's staff. Both of them deserve recognition for their dedication to passing this bill. S. 1561 is concerned with the proper regulation of gamma hydrobutyric acid, the chemical known on the street as GHB which has both hateful and hopeful uses. On one hand, many families across America have suffered due to abuse of this agent which has been used to lull unsuspecting women into a date-rape situation and has even resulted in death through overdose. On the other hand, GHB holds unprecedented promise to those one-quarter million Americans suffering from extreme sleep disorders such as cataplexy and narcolepsy. Cataplexy is a debilitating condition suffered by some 70,000 Americans that results in an inability of the muscles to function. Narcolepsy, which attacks 170,000 Americans, causes a person suddenly and unpredictably to fall asleep. Neither of these terrible diseases have an effective treatment today. As author of the 1984 Orphan Drug Act which creates incentives for private sector drug firms to investigate treatments for rare diseases, I am particularly sensitive to the needs of families suffering from low-prevalence conditions. We need to do everything we can to get academic researchers and the pharmaceutical industry to find cures for the hundreds of currently untreatable rare diseases. The problem for policymakers, both in the Congress and at the DEA, is how to encourage the use of the medically promising uses of GHB while discouraging and outlawing the illicit uses such as date rape. While there are no known cases of diversion of this drug from the on- going and highly promising clinical trials of GHB as a treatment for cataplexy and narcolepsy, the problem of GHB abuse demands our attention. According to DEA, hospital and law enforcement officials have reported about 5,500 cases of GHB abuse, including 49 deaths. Aggregate statistics, as alarming as they may be, cannot convey the absolute upheaval that GHB abuse can cause for an individual and a family. Senator Abraham has told me the story about the untimely death of a bright and vivacious 15-year-old young woman from Michigan, Samantha Reid. She went to a small gathering of friends, was given a drink from a soft drink bottle laced with GHB, and died. Samantha did nothing wrong. Her mother, Judi Clark, did nothing wrong. Unfortunately, this tragedy has struck this family. Four young men have been charged under Michigan law for involuntary manslaughter and poisoning. But, given the prevalence and, as the Reid case highlights, the potential severity of GHB abuse, it seems clear-- and both public health and law enforcement officials agree on this-- that this chemical warrants regulation under the Controlled Substances Act. That's exactly what S. 1561 and its House companion accomplish. Some may raise a question about whether the federal Controlled Substances Act failed to operate in a fashion that could have prevented deaths or sexual assaults through abuse of GHB. Although there have been reports of substantial GHB abuse for several years now, I do not know why the Attorney General and Secretary of Health and Human Services have been unable to resolve the matters that have precluded this drug from being scheduled through the normal procedures under the Controlled Substances Act. I don't know why it took until September of 1997 for the DEA to request FDA to analyze the medical and scientific matters relating to GHB. I don't know why it took until May 19, 1999 to get a response to this request. I don't know why DEA has not acted in the last six months to bring this matter to a conclusion through administrative means. It should not take an act of Congress to schedule a dangerous drug under the Controlled Substances Act. I do know that part of the unjustifiable delay in the scheduling of GHB stemmed from the fact that there is a difference of opinion between DEA and FDA about how to schedule this drug. But that answer is not good enough. It is simply inadequate to tell a mother of a child like Samantha Reid, a promising young woman with her whole life ahead of her, that the system ``just takes time'' because two bureaucracies disagreed about how something so serious should be handled. This situation points out that a significant breakdown in the system has occurred with respect to the scheduling of GHB. It behooves the Congress to deliberate more over ways to make the key agencies, DEA and FDA, be more responsive in the future, rather than be forced to do their jobs for them. The lesson of GHB should not be to teach the agencies to wait for Congressional action whenever the bureaucracy cannot act. Let me just say that as a general matter I do not favor legislative scheduling or rescheduling. By statute, the responsibility for scheduling is delegated to the experts at DOJ and HHS. The world is turned upside down when DOJ informs Congress, as if did on May 3, 1999, that: ``DOJ believes that it is appropriate for Congress to schedule GHB at this time.'' By any measure, a fair reading of the Controlled Substances Act places the primary responsibility for regulating dangerous drugs upon law enforcement and public health experts at the appropriate federal agencies. I do have a concern about Congress legislating on the safety and efficacy of individual drug products, especially before clinical testing or introduction into commerce commences. Nor should we allow the Congress to be placed in the position of making technical, scientific and law enforcement judgment whenever an individual drug product with an actual or potential legitimate medicinal use is determined by experts to warrant the application of the CSA. I am firmly behind efforts to stop so-called ``date rapes,''; this is a despicable crime and the Federal Government should take action to make sure it does not occur. While I wholeheartedly applaud the efforts of the House to strike a blow against abuse of GHB, I am concerned about Congress getting directly involved in the scheduling process as the House mandated in adopting H.R. 2130. In this regard, it was my strong sense that rather than for Congress to legislatively schedule GHB, it would have more impact to amend the statute and direct DEA to implement the Surgeon General's recommendations that were issued back on May 19, 1999. I will not take the time today to consider the full implications of a policy of legislative rescheduling. I do plan in the future to re- examine the scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act. At this point, let me elaborate further on some of the issues I have raised. Subsections (b) and (c) of section 201 of the Controlled Substances Act identify eight criteria that must be taken into account in scheduling a drug. With respect to scheduling a drug, these factors are: (1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse. (2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known. (3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance. (4) Its history and current pattern of abuse. (5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse. (6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health. (7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability. (8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this title. The statute proscribes that. The recommendations of the Secretary (of Health and Human Services) to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substances. This is the section of the law which appears not to have functioned optimally in the case of GHB. We can, and should, do better in anticipating and combating the next GHB. To a large degree, the legislation we adopt today implements the May 19, 1999 HHS recommendations and the accompanying ``Eight Factor Analysis Report'' that take into account both the illicit abuse of GHB as well as the highly promising legitimate uses of this substance. While I believe that the language worked out by Senators Abraham and Biden, Chairman Bliley, Chairman McCollum, and the DEA, is preferable to the earlier versions of the bill, I remain troubled by some aspects of how the current statute has worked and may work in the future. First, I am troubled that if we place promising pharmaceutical candidates such as GHB into Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act we undermine its integrity of the CSA and will discourage the legitimate, potential life-saving uses of such compounds. According to the statute, one of the three requirements of schedule I is that there is ``no accepted medical use'' in the United States. But the May 19, 1999 HHS recommendation has already found that the cataplexy product has cleared this hurdle: . . . the abuse potential of GHB, when used under an authorized research protocol, is consistent with substances typically controlled under Schedule IV . . . An authorized formulation of GHB is far enough along in the development process to meet the standard under Schedule II of a drug or substance having a ``currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.'' Under these circumstances, HHS recommends placing authorized formulations of GHB in Schedule

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the next quorum call the time be divided for each side equally.

Mr. HATCH. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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