Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I must begin by confessing my disappointment that the minority would refuse to avoid a filibuster of one of the nominees of its own administration, when the record of this Senate so dramatically proves the deference this Senate has shown to this administration's judicial nominees. But that is what has just happened this evening, and in the face of this blatant double standard by the minority, I will only say that I will continue to work in good faith to secure a vote on the merits on the President's nomination of Ted Stewart to be a Federal district court judge. When I speak of the traditional deference the Senate has shown to the executive in matters of Federal judicial nominations, I believe I speak with considerable experience. Since the time I was first sworn into the Senate in 1977, I have participated in and witnessed the confirmation of 1,159 judges and Justices, and have voted in favor of almost all of them. I have personally presided over the confirmation of 321 of President Clinton's judicial appointments. This accounts for almost a quarter of the entire Federal judiciary. And this session alone, I have held 4 judicial confirmation hearings, and reported 24 nominees out of committee. This evening's cloture vote concerns me all the more because I had publicly stated, in response to some of my colleagues' concerns about moving forward with other judicial nominations, that we would hold another hearing in this month of September, yet another in October, and, if the Senate continued in session throughout November, that it had been my hope to hold yet another hearing during that time. With these plans, we would have been on track to equal or exceed the historical average for first-session judicial confirmations by the Senate. And so I find it incredible that this distinguished body resorted to the unfounded criticism that we are not doing as much as we should to fill the ranks of the Federal judiciary. And now, in light of today's vote on cloture, we shall have to reexamine the best way to move forward on judicial nominees so that we eliminate the double standard that has been applied tonight. To take a step back, and apply some perspective to the matter at hand, I want to emphasize that I have made every effort to promote a fair nominations process, recognizing the defference a President is traditionally accorded in nominating judges akin to his political philosophy. I have done as much notwithstanding the sometime heated criticism of interest groups opposed to President Clinton's nominations. Even nominees attacked by interest groups as liberal and controversial have received my support in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. In fact, since I have been chairman, I have never voted against any of the 31 Clinton judicial nominations for whom there has been a roll call vote. I have supported these nominees not because I agreed with their philosophies, but because I have always believed that the judicial nominations process should be as free from politics as possible. But let me offer some specifics. I have supported getting out of committee controversial nominees such as Judge William Fletcher, Judge Richard Paez, Judge Lynn Adelman, and Marsha Berzon, even though I would not have nominated them had I been President. Rather, so long as a nominee is qualified and capable of serving with integrity in a position, and I have his/her assurance that they will follow precedent, I believe they deserve to be confirmed. Judge Fletcher, Judge Paez, and Ms. Berzon were opposed by a number of conservative organizations; yet, I supported their report by the committee to the floor. Now, Mr. Stewart is being unduly attacked by liberal groups. In this same spirit of bipartisanship with which I have supported this administration's nominees, it had been and continues to be my hope that the Democrats would support the nomination of Ted Stewart. I ultimately want this body to recognize that, in the same manner that I have been fair to this administration's nominees in the face of severe opposition, trust must be placed in the judgment of home State senators for a nominee whose jurisdiction would be confined wholly to that senator's State. So now, as I expect we will soon be considering Ted Stewart, I will ask you to extend your deference to President Clinton's choice and the Judiciary Committee's ranking member's support, but also to extend your trust to the judgment of both senators from Utah. Ted is a good, honorable person, who has been deemed qualified for a position as District judge of the District of Utah and who will make a wonderful District Court Judge. I urge the Democrats to stop playing politics with this nomination and allow a vote expeditiously. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record pertinent charts.

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be divided equally.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's kind remarks. I support Mr. Stewart's nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same, and not to filibuster any nominee, let alone this nominee. I am pleased, with regard to the judicial nominations that have been voted on so far this session--and there have been well over 300 since this President became President--that no one on our side, to my knowledge, has threatened to filibuster any of these judges. I think that is the way to proceed. I think it is a travesty if we ever start getting into a game of filibustering judges. I have to admit that my colleagues on the other side attempted to do that on a number of occasions during the Reagan and Bush years. They always backed off, but maybe they did because they realized there were enough votes to stop a filibuster against Federal judges. I think it is a travesty if we treat this third branch of government with such disregard that we filibuster judges. I also have appreciated the comments of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, who stated on this floor in the past: I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported. . . . The Republican leadership, the Democratic President, the Republican chairman, and the Democratic ranking member of the Judiciary Committee all support Mr. Stewart's nomination. The nomination should not be filibustered. As I understand it, the only reason there would be a filibuster is because some Senators want their judges up. They have no real reason to filibuster Mr. Stewart. The only way I could ever see a filibuster would be justified is if a nominee is so absolutely unqualified to sit on the Federal bench that the only way to stop that person is a filibuster. I can understand it under those circumstances. Even then, I would question whether that should be done. If a person is so unqualified, we ought to be able to beat that person on the floor. Even when I opposed a nominee of the current President, I voted for cloture to stop the filibuster of that nominee. That was for Lee Sarokin. We are dealing with a coequal branch of government. We are dealing with some of the most important nominations the President, whoever that President may be, will make. We are also dealing, hopefully, with good faith on both sides of the floor. For years, I thought our colleagues on the other side did some reprehensible things with regard to Reagan and Bush judges--very few, but it was serious. By and large, the vast majority of them were put through without any real fuss or bother even though my colleagues on the other side, had they been President, would not have appointed very many of those judges. We have to show the same good faith on our side, it seems to me. And unless you have an overwhelming case, then certainly I don't see any reason for anybody filibustering judges. I hope that we never get into that. Let's make our case if we have disagreement, and then vote. And I reach this conclusion after having been part of this process for over 20 years now and always trying to be fair, whoever is the President of the United States and whoever the nominees are. It is important to not filibuster judicial nominees on the floor of the Senate. The fight over a nomination has to occur between honest people in the White House and honest people up here. And that is where the battles are. When they get this far, generally most of them should be approved. There are some we still have problems with in the Judiciary Committee, but that is our job to look at them. It is our job to look into their background. It is our job to screen these candidates. We have had judicial nominees withdraw after we have approved them in the Judiciary Committee because something has come up to disturb their nomination. This was generally handled between the White House, the Senate, and the nominee. That is the way it should work. We must remember that these are among the most important nominations that any President can make and that the Senate can ever work on. We should not play politics with them. I have really worked hard on the Judiciary Committee to try to not allow politics. It is no secret that there are some on the right who decry the fact that I have put through Clinton judges. Some of them don't want any Clinton judges put through --some just because they are liberal. If we get to the point where we deny people a chance to serve because they are liberal or conservative, I think we will be in real trouble. Politics should not be played with judicial nominees. President Clinton did win this Presidency. He has a right to nominate these people, and we have an obligation to confirm them if they are qualified. In every case where we have confirmed them, they are qualified, even though there may be some questions in the minds of some. In the case of Ted Steward, we have examined the whole record. The President has examined the whole record. The President and I and Senator Bennett agree that Mr. Stewart is qualified to serve as an Article III, judgeship in Utah. The Judiciary Committee reported Mr. Steward's nomination favorably to the floor. Now we have the unusual situation of a Democratic President and Republican Chairman and Democratic Ranking Member agreeing on a nomination, but certain Democratic Senators who really don't oppose Ted Steward's nomination want to hold the nomination hostage in order to get other judges up. The majority leader said he will try to do so in good faith, but he must consult with 54 other Senators on our side. There is some angst on at least the background of two of the 9th Circuit Court judges on the part of some on our side. I could not disagree more with the threat of filibuster here. Unless there is an overwhelming case to be made against a judge that he or she is unqualified or will not respect the limited role which Article III prescribes for a judge, there should be no filibuster. Mr. Steward is definitely qualified and will certainly respect the limited role that Article III provides for a federal judge. He will be a credit to the federal bench in Utah and throughout the country. In sum, Mr. President, I oppose filibusters of judicial nominees as a general matter and I support Mr. Stewart's nomination in this specific case. I would like to see these three judges go through today because we put them through the Judiciary Committee. I would like to see all of those on the list have an opportunity to be voted up or down. I will work to try to do that. On the other hand, I understand the problems of the majority leader and I hope my colleagues on the other side do. I hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will not hold up the business of the Senate to play politics with Ted Stewart's nomination. I have to say that I think we do a great injustice if we do not support this nomination. Having said all of that, let me conclude by saying I have been willing to and have enjoyed working with my distinguished friend from Vermont. He has done a good job as the Democrat leader on the committee. I just have to say that I hope he can clear his side on these matters and that we can get them through because I intend to put more judges out from the committee and to move forward with as much dispatch as I can. Earlier, when I said there was some angst concerning the background of some Ninth Circuit nominees, I was referring to their legal background and some of the matters that came before the committee. Be that as it may, I was really referring to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which seems to be out of whack with the rest of the country. It is reversed virtually all the time by the Supreme Court. There is a great deal of concern that Ninth Circuit court has become so activist that it is a detriment to the Federal judicial system. Some on our side believe that to put any additional activists on that court would be a travesty and would be wrong. I am concerned about that, too. All I can say is that it is important we work together to try to get these nominees through, both in the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate. Should we be fortunate enough to have a Republican President next time, I hope our colleagues on the other side will treat our nominees as fairly as I certainly did and the Senate Republicans as a whole treated the Democrat nominees who have been brought before the committee. We are going to keep working on them, and we will do the best we can to get as many of them through as we can. Thus far, I am proud of the record we have. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to comment briefly on the status of the youth violence bill conference. Conferees from the House and Senate had planned to meet later today to complete consideration of the conference report. Last night, conference staff met jointly with Administration officials. And discussions on firearms and culture related issues are moving forward. Chairman Hyde felt that his talks with Mr. Conyers are going very well. Accordingly, I felt we should keep working. however, my hope and plan is to meet next week so we can complete action on this bill this month. I also want to comment briefly on why this bill is so important. Too many violent crimes involve juveniles. According to the Justice Department, the number of juvenile arrests for violent crime, including crimes committed with a firearm, exceeds 1988 levels by 48 percent. Our youth violence problem is a compel problems that demand comprehensive solution. Our legislation makes our schools safer; it empowers parents; it recognizes the importance of prevention; and it emphasize the need for enforcement and getting tough on violent criminals. Part of any comprehensive solution to deal with crime must be a commitment to enforcing the laws on the books. Actions speak louder than words, whether we're talking about how the government deals with gun offenders or how it deals with terrorists. I am deeply saddened by the news out of Texas concerning a crazed gunman's senseless, hate-for-religion rampage at a Forth Worth church which left seven innocent people dead and many others wounded. My prayers go out to the victims and their families and my energies will be all the more dedicated towards trying to reach a consensus on the youth violence bill. This event--and others like it in recent months-- have energized a well-deserved and beneficial debate about the criminal use of firearms. Limiting criminal access to firearms, beefing up prosecutions, and responding to a popular culture which glamorizes firearms violence should all be parts of our response. But as I just noted, violent crime--violent juvenile crime, in particular--is a complex problem which deserves a comprehensive response. In today's Washington Post, which appropriately reports on the Texas shooting on its front page, is buried an article about how a Maryland juvenile court judge released from custody--over the objections of prosecutors--a 16-year-old, confessed violent sex offender who had been sent to Maryland's maximum security prison. He was released because the he was not receiving ``individualized counseling.''--Washington Post, Sept. 16, 1999, B-7. According to the article, the judge's view is that the purpose of the juvenile justice system is to ``rehabilitate rather than punish young offenders.'' The teenager in question--whose identity has been protected, by the way--was one of six teenagers who, in March of last year, lured a 15-year-old girl from a bus stop to a vacant apartment where they took turns raping, sodomizing, and beating her for three hours. Three teenagers who participated in the rape were sentenced to life but this offender has been set free by a soft-headed juvenile justice system. According to the article, this violent sex- offender (whose fellow offenders are serving life-terms) will live with his relatives in near-by Prince George's County and will be enrolling in High Point High School. Where's the greatest threat to the public? Ask the parents of High Point High School this question. The greatest threat to the public is from criminals who are set free by a soft-headed justice system, be they rapists or terrorists. And criminals who commit crimes but are not prosecuted are left free to commit more crimes. yesterday, I released a report reported entitled ``Crimes Committed With Firearms--A report for Parent, Prosecutors, and Policy Markers.'' Our report found that over 90% of criminals age 18 to 24 who had an substantial arrest record prior to being imprisoned are rearrested within three years for a felony or serious misdemeanor. I mention this article and our report to illustrate, as I have said repeatedly, that this is a complex problem which demands a comprehensive solution. Simply passing more laws which get printed in DOJ's law books but which go unenforced will not nothing to fight violent crime, let alone violent juvenile crime. And legislation which fails to make meaningful reforms which promotes juvenile accountability and juvenile record disclosure--as the Hatch-Sessions bill does--will prove to be a hollow accomplishment. In closing, we must do all we can to come together and resolve our differences and reach consensus. When I hear members drawing lines in the sand over specific provisions in the youth violence bill, I get concerned because it tells me that the politics of party are trumping the obligation to lead and do what's right. That is what I intend to do in this juvenile justice conference. I hope we have the cooperation of everybody on both sides. I hope the rumors that some want to play this as a political matter are not true. I think we need to pass a juvenile justice bill this year, and we need to do the very best we can do in doing that. I intend to get that done, and I thank all those who cooperate in helping to get it done. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I support the PILT amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill, which increases payments to counties in lieu of taxes. I have worked closely with my good friend and colleague, Senator Abraham, in crafting this amendment, and I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Senator from Michigan for his efforts in this regard. Senator Abraham has consistently shown a sensitivity to and an understanding of the needs of rural Americans, especially those living in communities surrounded by public lands. Most of my colleagues understand, by now, that 70 percent of my home state is either owned or controlled by the federal government. I believe that Utah's public lands stand out for their grandeur and unique beauty. Many of our Senate colleagues and staff members have visited these areas to hike, fish, ski, or mountain bike. No one loves these public lands more than the citizens who live among them. But, for the local citizens, these lands can be both a blessing and a curse. For a number of Utah counties, as much as 90 percent of their lands are federally owned, which means they cannot generate tax revenue from these lands. Where once public lands were a source of jobs and opportunity for rural America, these lands have increasingly been restricted to single- use activities, such as hiking, biking, or river running. Utah certainly provides excellent opportunities for these types of activities, and we welcome visitors from all over the world. But, we shouldn't forget, Mr. President, that these visitors come with needs: they need roads to travel on, someone to put out their fires, law enforcement to keep them safe, someone to collect their trash, someone to come find them when they are lost, and someone to transport them to safety when they are hurt. Mr. President, the obligation to fulfill these needs falls on local county governments. With every new wilderness area, monument, or recreation area, county revenues shrink along with taxable economic activity; yet the influx of needy visitors increases. The services counties provide are not money makers. To the contrary, they exact a tremendous cost on rural governments. The puny revenue local governments raise with their stunted tax base will never cover the costs of providing primary services to visitors over the entire area of their county. For this reason, Congress implemented the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program--known as PILT--which compensates rural counties for some of these services. The problem is that this program has been funded at less than half the authorized level, and this has caused serious hardship for our counties. This amendment, we hope, will be the first installment in an overall plan to bring the PILT program to full funding. With small increases to PILT every year, our counties will eventually be made whole. We are not talking about a huge amount of money. We are talking $15 million in FY 2000. Last year Senator Abraham and I were able to raise funding for PILT to $124 million, but this amount was cut back to $120 million in Conference. I hope that this year, we can maintain a strong increase in PILT funding. If your child gets lost in Arches National Park, it will be a Grand County search and rescue team that will mobilize to find him. If you fall and break your ankle on the trail in Dixie National Forest, it will be a Garfield County helicopter and paramedics who will get you off the mountain and to the hospital. When you leave Zion National Park, it will be a Washington county solid waste truck that picks up your garbage. If someone should start a fire while camping in the Wasatch National Forest, the Wasatch County firefighters will be there to put it out. Our rural governments do all this whether we pay them or not. But it is obviously unfair not to compensate them for it. Mr. President, I believe we should stop treating our rural governments as though they were unpaid chambermaids to the rest of the nation. Our rural areas don't mind providing services to tourists who come to enjoy public lands, but they deserve to be justly compensated by the owners of the land, the taxpayers, for the basic services they provide. I urge my colleagues to support the PILT amendment.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about S. 28, the Four Corners Interpretive Center Act. I was very pleased that the Senate saw fit to pass this bill by voice vote on September 9, 1999, and I fully expect that this legislation will pass the House and be sent to the President during this Congress. This legislation could not have passed without the strong support of its cosponsors, Senators Allard, Bennett, Bingaman, Campbell, and Domenici. Chairman Ben Nighthorse Campbell and the staff of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee deserve special praise for going the extra mile in shepherding this proposal through the committee with speed and professionalism. The Four Corners Interpretive Center Act will benefit the Four Corner states, the Navajo Nation, and Ute Mountain Ute tribe, and especially the throngs of visitors who make the special effort to visit the remote Four Corners region, the only location where the corners of four states converge. A quarter million tourists visit the Four Corners each year, only to find that there are no utilities, no permanent restrooms, no running water, no telephones, and no vending stations for their convenience. Additionally, the Four Corners National Monument has unique historical, cultural, and environmental significance. The absence of any educational exhibits to help visitors appreciate the area is a wasted opportunity. The interpretive center authorized by this bill will enable all Americans who come to this area to learn about the ancient home of the Anasazi people as well as the area's geography, plant and animal species. The objective of S. 28 is simple: to aid in the construction and maintenance of an interpretive center at the Four Corners National Monument. The bill calls for a cooperative agreement among the Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute tribe, affected local governments, and the four corners states to be approved by the Interior Department. Matching funds from each of the four states would also be required. Arizona has already committed funds. This is the type of intergovernmental partnership that has worked well on a variety of other projects throughout the country, and it is an appropriate model for the interpretive center. Again, I want to thank my colleagues in the Senate for passing this important legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, recently a handful of environmentalists have called for the draining of Lake Powell and the decommissioning of the Glen Canyon Dam. As the second largest man-made lake in the country, Lake Powell provides critically important water storage for the states of the Colorado River basin--the driest region in the United States. As many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle already know, Mr. President, draining Lake Powell is unsupportable. This amendment puts this issue to rest once and for all. This legislation simply prohibits the federal government from taking any action to drain Lake Powell or to decommission the Glen Canyon Dam without Congressional approval.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate the support of the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee in this matter which is of great concern to my constituents. Mr. President, this amendment in no way gives assent to the Secretary of the Interior or any other government official to decommission other water projects without Congressional approval. Any effort by the administration to decommission a Bureau of Reclamation project without the approval of Congress or of those most affected by the action, in my view, would be unsupportable. regarding the institute of museum and library services

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair and my colleague from Georgia. On January 24, 1975, during a busy lunch hour, an explosion ripped through the historic Fraunces Tavern in New York City, killing four people and injuring 55 others. On August 3, 1977, during the morning rush hour, a powerful bomb was detonated in a busy New York office building, killing one man and injuring several others. Credit for both these bombings was proudly taken by a terrorist organization calling themselves the FALN, an acronym from a Spanish title meaning the Armed Forces for Puerto Rican National Liberation. In March of 1980, armed members of the FALN entered the Carter- Mondale campaign headquarters, bound and gagged women and men inside, and held them at gunpoint as they ransacked the offices. The FALN took credit for bombings and incendiary attacks in New York City, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., attacks which took place in department stores, office buildings, restaurants, even a women's restroom. In all, the FALN has been linked to over 150 bombings, attempted bombings, incendiary attacks, kidnappings, and bomb threats, which have resulted in the death of at least six people and the injury of at least 70 others. On August 11, 1999, President Clinton, who up to this point had commuted only three sentences since becoming President, offered clemency to 16 members of the FALN. This to me, was shocking. And quite frankly, I think I am joined by a vast majority of Americans in my failure to understand why the President, who has spoke out so boldly in opposition to domestic terrorism in recent years, has taken this action. In subsequent spinning, the White House has pointed out that the 16 offered clemency were not convicted of the actual attacks that killed or maimed people. But many of these 16 were involved in building bombs, and in storing and transporting explosives, incendiary materials, and weapons. In one raid alone involving the terrorists President Clinton has released, law enforcement recovered 24 pounds of dynamite, 24 blasting caps, weapons, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, as well as disguises and false identifications. The administration argues that none of these people were ``directly'' involved with activities that hurt people. But these people, to the contrary, were convicted of conspiring to commit acts of terrorism. According to former Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Devaney, several of the FALN terrorists were captured in a van full of weapons and others were videotaped making bombs that they planned to use at military institutions. It is only because of the good work of law enforcement that these terrorists were caught and convicted before these deadly devices were used to take additional innocent human lives. Osama bin Laden is on the FBI's Most Wanted List for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism. According to the administration's logic, he too should be let go, if captured, because he was not directly involved in acts of terrorism, although we all know he has been funding the terrorist acts. The administration also argues that these prisoners received longer sentences than they would have under the sentencing guidelines. Well, there are thousands of people in jail who were sentenced before the guidelines. Does each of them deserve to have their sentences reduced? The President will have to pick up the pace of clemency offers if he is to right all these so-called wrongs in the 15 months left in his term. This whole episode raises a number of questions about this administration's approach to law enforcement and the rule of law in general. Were the normal procedures followed in the processing of clemency opinions? What set these 16 prisoners apart from the more than 4,000 who have petitioned this President for clemency, or the other tens of thousands serving time across the country? What prompted the President to make this offer of clemency? Who recommended it? On what basis was it granted? Whatever the administration's arguments, the bottom line is that the President's ill-considered offer of clemency has now been accepted by 12 of the 16 FALN members, many of whom are now back on the streets. These are people who have been convicted of very serious offenses involving sedition, firearms, explosives, and threats of violence. The FALN has claimed responsibility for past bombings that have killed and maimed American citizens. I personally pray that no one else will get hurt. This is yet another example of this administration sending the wrong message to criminals, be they foreign spies, gun offenders, or, in this case, terrorists. In this case, it appears President Clinton put the interests of these convicted criminals ahead of the interests of victims, the law enforcement community, and the public. I think we need to know: Did the Justice Department do its job? There are substantial questions as to whether the normal process was followed in this case. Reportedly, the President made his clemency offer over the strong objections of prosecutors, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the victims of crime. In the Wall Street Journal today, Mr. Howard Safir, the New York City police commissioner, asserts that: In my 26 years as a Justice Department official, I have never heard of a clemency report being delivered to the President over the strenuous objections of these agencies. The Department of Justice and the Attorney General apparently did not even take a formal position on the matter, even though the Department's own rules require doing so. Here we have another example of what people suspect: The Attorney General is asleep at the switch while the White House runs the Justice Department. As chairman of the Senate committee with oversight of the Department of Justice, I have requested copies of all relevant documents, including the Department's memo to the White House. Even our colleague, Senator Schumer from New York, believes we should have these documents. But so far the Department has refused to turn over anything. The White House and the Justice Department are hiding behind their tired, old ploy of ``studying'' whether to assert executive privilege. If the President has confidence that his decision was a just one, then he ought to be willing to hold it up to public scrutiny. There may be a legitimate argument that executive privilege applies to some materials. There is no legitimate reason, however, not to allow the Justice Department witnesses to appear before Senator Coverdell's hearing this morning about the current status and activities of the FALN. Nor is there any legitimate reason to refuse to allow the Pardon Attorney to testify at my hearing tomorrow about how the clemency process works. Are the White House and the Justice Department studying or are they stonewalling? At the Judiciary Committee hearing tomorrow, we will hear from the law enforcement community and the victims who have been affected by this grant of clemency. I have invited representatives of the FBI and the Justice Department's Pardon Attorney's Office. I hope the White House and the Department of Justice will allow them to testify. The American people deserve to hear this testimony, and I think the White House and the Justice Department should not be stonewalling this type of investigation by the appropriate branch of Government called the Congress of the United States. I believe our entire Nation is being victimized by terrorism. A bomb at the World Trade Center, the Oklahoma City Federal Building, or a U.S. Embassy abroad has an effect on all of us. This clemency deal is an insult to every American citizen. This clemency deal is not humanitarian. It is not just. Exactly what is this? A weak moment? Political favoritism? Another foreign policy miscalculation by this administration? I will tell you what it is. It is plain and simple. It is wrong. That is what it is. I urge my colleagues to support the Coverdell resolution so that the Senate will be on record as opposing the President's decision to grant clemency. We cannot send mixed messages with regard to terrorism. One of the major problems this country is going to face in the future --as will every free country--will be acts of terrorism by people just like these FALN terrorists who put their own beliefs above doing justice and what right in society. If the United States continues to show that type of soft-headedness with regard to terrorist activities and terrorists themselves, then we are going to reap a whirlwind in this country, and we will see more acts of terrorism in this country than we ever thought possible. I can say with impunity that there are better than 1,500 known terrorists and terrorist organizations in the United States of America today. Frankly, there are a lot more than that. Thus far, the administration, prior to this act, has done a pretty good job of offsetting terrorist activities in this country, mainly because of the FBI and its good work. I am suggesting that we get on top of this. The President should be ashamed for doing what he has done. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, the President's ill-considered offer of clemency has now been accepted by 12 of the 16 FALN members, many of whom are now back on the street. These are people who have been convicted of very serious offenses involving sedition, firearms, explosives, and threats of violence. The FALN has claimed responsibility for past bombings that have killed and maimed American citizens. I pray that no one else gets hurt. This is yet another example of this Administration sending the wrong message to criminals--be they foreign spies, gun offenders, or--in this case--terrorists. In this case, it appears President Clinton put the interests of these convicted criminals ahead of the interests of victims, the law enforcement community, and the public. I think we need to know: Did Attorney General Janet Reno do her job? Media reports suggest that--notwithstanding the strong opposition of prosecutors, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the victims of crime, the Department of Justice and the Attorney General apparently did not take a formal position on the matter even though the Department's own rules require doing so. Here we have another example of what people suspect: The Attorney General is asleep at the switch while the White House runs the Justice Department. As Chairman of the Senate Committee with oversight of the Department of Justice, I have requested copies of all relevant documents, including the Department's memo to the White House. Even our colleague Senator Schumer believes we should have these documents. But, so far, the Department has refused to turn over anything. The Department and the Attorney General are hiding behind their tired, old ploy of studying whether to assert executive privilege. If the President has confidence that his decision was a just one, then he ought to be willing to hold it up to public scrutiny. I will hold a hearing on the matter next Wednesday, September 15, at which time we will hear from the law enforcement community and those negatively affected by this grant of clemency. I believe, Madam President, that our entire nation is victimized by terrorism. A bomb at the World Trade Center, the Oklahoma City Federal Building, or a U.S. embassy abroad has an effect on all of us. This clemency deal is an insult to every American citizen. This clemency deal is not humanitarian; it is not just. Exactly what is this? A weak moment? Political favoritism? Another foreign policy miscalculation? I'll tell you what it is--it is wrong. Cloture Motion

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today along with the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and other colleagues in introducing the ``Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act of 1999.'' This bill will help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries will continue to have access to vitally needed nursing home care services. When Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the BBA, we created a new prospective payment system (PPS) for skilled nursing facilities (SNF). While the industry generally supported the SNF PPS, there clearly have been some unintended consequences as a result of the implementation the new payment system which is now beginning to affect patient care. We have an obligation to Medicare beneficiaries, and particularly those in nursing homes as well as those who need to gain admission to nursing homes, to correct this problem. This legislation is designed specifically to address the problem with patient access to nursing home care. The measure we are introducing today is designed to address two significant problems that have occurred as a result of the implementation of the PPS. First, the bill provides additional monies to care for the so-called high-acuity SNF patients who require non-therapy ancillary services for conditions such as cancer, hip fracture, and stroke. Second, with respect to the market basket update, the bill closes the gap between the inaccurate inflation market basket estimate and the actual cost increases between fiscal years 1995 and 1998. It is my understanding that both solutions could be easily implemented by HCFA. Mr. President, let me focus more specifically on each of the two provisions. With respect to non-therapy ancillary care, the bill proposes to add- on additional monies under the federal per diem rate for 15 categories of care. We are now finding that high-acuity and medically complex patients are being shortchanged because the current case-mix system does not accurately measure or account for patients with high medical complexities which utilize greater ancillary services. HCFA has even acknowledged that they do not have accurate data to properly compensate for such non-therapy ancillary care. According to HCFA, they believe that more accurate data reflecting the case-mix for sicker patients should be available in 2001. Unfortunately, we now know that beneficiaries are having difficulty receiving non-therapy ancillary care today. For some, waiting 2 years for the HCFA data is simply not an option. Accordingly, the ``Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act'' will provide interim relief until HCFA has developed more complete and accurate data. The bill provides additional funds for 15 RUS III categories, or the so-called resource utilization groups. These RUGS were chosen because they represent categories of services that closely match the diagnoses for high-acuity patients. Such additional funds would only be provided for a two-year period, or less, until the Secretary of Health and Human Services has corrected the data to properly reflect the costs of non-therapy ancillary care. It is my understanding that HCFA believes they can implement a new case mix methodology within this time frame. In response to concerns expressed to me by HCFA over Y2K problems and the difficulty of any systems' changes at this point in the PPS implementation, my bill provides for a simple, temporary add-on federal dollars to the federal per diem component. Based on informal comments from HCFA officials, the bill should be easy for the agency to implement in time to have an immediate positive impact on patient care. The second feature in our bill attempts to close the gap between the inflation adjuster--the market basket update--and the actual cost increases. Recent data are now showing that HCFA's market basket increase is well below actual inflation costs for nursing home care. When Congress passed the BBA, the year 1995 was chosen as the base year for future inflation adjustments because it provided the most recent set of complete cost reporting data for PPS implementation. HCFA was charged with developing a market basket of nursing home goods and services to trend forward to 1998, which was when PPS was implemented. Unfortunately, it appears that HCFA has underestimated the market basket index by not considering the cost of nursing home services. In addition, the statute requires the inflation adjuster to be market basket minus one, which only makes the estimate worse. Evidence is now available to illustrate that the market basket estimate is inadequate to properly compensate for nursing home care. In 1996, HCFA's market basket increase was approximately 2.7 percent, while data now indicates that the actual cost increase was approximately 10.5 percent. Preliminary 1997 cost data reflect similar differences between the HCFA market basket index and the actual change in costs experienced by nursing facilities. My legislation provides easily implemented relief to nursing homes which are being short changed by inadequate market basket estimates. The bill eliminates the ``minus one'' from the inflation adjuster for 1996, 1997, and 1998, thereby providing a one-percent increase of the index over three years, compounded. While there may need to be further modification to the actual market basket, this straightforward legislative solution enables HCFA to implement this provision immediately. This solution will provide meaningful and practical relief to nursing homes so they can continue to provide quality care for the more medically complex Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, many nursing homes are on the verge of filing for bankruptcy and others may be closing their doors due to various PPS implementation problems. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries are finding themselves on long waiting lists to be admitted to a skilled nursing facility. Others are remaining in hospitals for extended stays, while they wait for nursing home availability. The ``Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act'' is a common sense solution to address these very real problems. It provides two solutions that HCFA can implement today without being mired in Year 2000 compliance efforts. I would add that I am pleased that the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, has indicated his interest in moving a bipartisan BBA technical bill following the August recess. I have written to Senator Roth asking him to carefully review our skilled nursing facility bill as he develops a BBA technical corrections bill over the next several weeks. I strongly believe this bill serves as a viable option on which to address the PPS problem that so many nursing homes are facing today. I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I want to express my thanks to my colleague and good friend, Senator Domenici, for his valued help in developing the bill with me as well as to the many others Senators who have joined us today as cosponsors.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the community and Open Spaces Bonds Act (COSB). This bill provides assistance to our local communities in their continuous efforts to improve the quality of life through flexible, zero-cost financing options for protecting open spaces. As the acreage of open space in this country continues to decline, we find ourselves in a battle of time against widespread urban sprawl. The American citizens have spoken out, demanding that this body take the action necessary to protect the remaining open spaces and outdoor recreational opportunities that they have enjoyed since the founding of this great nation. The America Farmland Trust estimates that we have been losing farmland at approximately 3,000 acres per day since 1970. This growth is not only damaging to the agricultural industry, but all those who wish to enjoy this nations natural bounties. I believe it is our obligation to respond to and remedy this situation. For this reason, I would like to thank my colleague Senator Baucus for taking the initiative in proposing legislation that provides incentives to those private land owning citizens who wish to protect our valuable open spaces. Our proposal makes available up to $1.9 billion annually for five years in bonding authority to state, local, and tribal governments. This voluntary approach allows the local community to lead the charge in projects that will improve the quality of life of its citizens, while the Federal government simply plays a supporting role. I think that is the way to do it. These community based projects will be supported through proceeds from the sales of the bonds. The issuers would repay the principal at the end of 15 years, but the Federal government would pay the issuers' interest or borrowing costs through the tax credit during that period. As an incentive, the holder of the bond would get an annual tax credit equal to the corporate average AA bond rating, as posted by the Treasury, multiplied by the face amount of the bond. This bill will spur even greater innovation than we already see at the local level in dealing with growth and urban sprawl issues. The flexibility of this proposal creates many opportunities in an often limiting system to raise funding for land purchases. We simply want to give communities a system that is entirely local driven, unlike that currently offered by the Federal government. The most dynamic aspect of this bill is that it restores to local governments the power to influence the future of their communities. The Community Open Space Bonds Act can help respond to the need to protecting our beautiful lands and precious water supply, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join in this fight against the raging war of time. Action must be taken now, so that our children will enjoy the natural wonders we have come to love.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I note today that the international community had a successful first conference on reconstructing Kosovo and southeastern Europe. Nearly 40 leaders met in Sarajevo last weekend. The presence of most of these heads of state, including President Clinton's commendable appearance, demonstrates that the international community will not shirk from the responsibility of rebuilding Kosovo from the inhumane devastation visited upon it by the ultranationalist brutes still in power in Belgrade. The people of Kosovo have suffered nearly unspeakable brutality, and it is entirely appropriate that the international community--which invested a great deal in forcing the Serbian military, paramilitary, and other gangsters out of Kosovo--now recognizes that long-term stability will not be created until immediate humanitarian needs, as well as medium-term goals of building a functioning economy, establishing institutions to devise and protect the rule of law, and ejecting the ultranationalists in Belgrade, are met. It is also appropriate, Mr. President, that the European powers shoulder the majority of this cost, as the U.S. shouldered the majority of Operation Allied Force. When we look at the humanitarian response to the crisis in Kosovo, we must note with appreciation the participation of nongovernmental organizations around the world who rushed to aid the Kosovar victims. The American Red Cross, for example, has been involved in the Balkans since 1993--more proof that Milosovic has been wreaking havoc in the region for years. Doctors Without Borders has been addressing a myriad of public health problems and responding to injuries. These are just two organizations who have responded to the overwhelming needs of these people. Prominent among these groups were the aid organizations of most of the world's religions. Again, to name only a few, Catholic Relief Services just last week shipped more than 1400 metric tons of food. It has contributed other supplies and volunteers as well. The Catholic Relief Services have also taken on the project of rebuilding the schools. Church World Services, the relief arm of a consortium of protestant denominations, has shipped tents, food, bedding, and other supplies. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, affiliated with the United Jewish Appeal, in addition to food and shelter supplies, has activitied its medical registry of volunteer doctors and nurses to operate clinics in the refugee areas of Albania and Macedonia. And I would like to highlight the significant efforts by my own church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In my address to the assembled members of our church last April, President Gordon B. Hinckley said, ``At this moment, our hearts reach out to the suffering people of Kosovo.'' He set in motion our church's efforts to help relieve that suffering. The Church's initial response to the crisis was timely. On Tuesday, April 6, specific plans were approved to ship family food boxes on a chartered air cargo plane. That night, over 300 Church members in Salt Lake City packed 3,000 boxes with food to feed a family of four for one to two weeks. On Wednesday, the food boxes were loaded on the cargo plane arriving in Macedonia on Friday. Refugee families began receiving the food boxes on Saturday, April 10. A second chartered air cargo plane was sent to Macedonia two weeks later with 26,000 family hygiene kits, 14,000 pounds of soap and 600 additional food boxes. Other shipments containing blankets, food, and clothing have been distributed to refugees in Macedonia. Also, blankets, food,and clothing have been consigned to the American Red Cross. More hygiene kits have been assembled by Latter-day Saints in Germany, England, California, and Utah for shipment to refugees in June. Student and teacher educational supply kits have been provided to refugee camps in Macedonia. Fresh fruits, vegetables and bread are being purchased locally by the Church in Macedonia and Albania and distributed to refugee camps and host families. The Church has sent volunteer couples to Macedonia and Albania to coordinate distribution of humanitarian assistance. A third volunteer couple with experience in the helping professions will go to Albania for 3-6 months to assist refugee and host families with social- emotional needs. To date, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has provided the following humanitarian aid to Kosovar refugees: Food--133,000 pounds shipped, plus cash donations of $400,000 for local purchases; Clothing and shoes--2 million pounds, soap--166,000 pounds, school kits and educational supplies--4,000 pounds; Family hygiene kits--52,000, blankets--28,000; and Cash contributions to the German Red Cross and the Mother Teresa Soceity--$110,000 Once all currently planned shipments are completed, the value of assistance rendered by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will total approximately $5.2 million. The Church stands ready to evaluate and respond to future needs as circumstances may require and resources allow. The Mormon Church today has as many adherents overseas as there are in this country. It is a global church. Its presence abroad contributes to an awareness of the need for public health, literacy, and development in other nations. But, more than that, it contributes to a greater understanding among nations and cultures. The people of my state--not only LDS members--have always demonstrated a willingness to pitch in where there is need. Their contributions are obvious at home. But, we do not mention enough that their charitable spirit extends regularly to less fortunate people around the world. While Utahans are fiscally conservative people and are not tolerant of the financial waste perpetrated in Washington, they are also generous people. I am pleased to highlight their support for the Kosovar relief effort. It is a tribute to America's generous spirit and sense of goodness that all of these organizations have mobilized to assist people suffering half a world away. There is no doubt that, despite the overwhelming challenge, these organization will collectively make the difference in the lives of these displaced Kosovar refugees and will provide hop for their future.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Army Specialist T. Bruce Cluff of Washington, Utah. Specialist Cluff was one of five American soldiers from the 204th Military Intelligence Battalion stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, who perished when their U.S. Army surveillance plane crashed in the rugged mountains of Colombia while conducting a routine counter narcotics mission in conjunction with the Colombian government. I am deeply saddened by the loss of this fine young man while in the service of our country. This is a greater tragedy by the fact that Specialist Cluff leaves behind a wife, Meggin, and two young children, Maciah and Ryker, with another child yet to be born. My heart and my prayers go out to them as well as to their extended family. I also acknowledge and extend my sympathies to the families of the other four American soldiers who perished in the crash. I especially hope that Meggin Cluff, her children, and the other families of these soldiers will feel the immense gratitude that we have for the sacrifice of their loved ones. Indeed, Specialist T. Bruce Cluff and his crew mates are heroes, as are all of the men and women of our armed forces who everyday unselfishly put life and limb at risk to defend our great nation. Specialist Cluff and his Army unit were engaged in a different type of war. Illegal drug trafficking has become the scourge of our society, and we are determined to stop this practice at its very roots. The men and women of our armed forces assisting in these offshore interdiction efforts will not be deterred by the tragic loss of this aircrew. In fact, I suspect they and their families will be all the more motivated to continue the ``war'' against drug trafficking. We should all take due notice of the costs associated with this effort, including the first loss of military lives. We should be unrelenting in our opposition to and our pursuit and prosecution of traffickers as well as pushers of dangerous drugs. May God bless the memories of Specialist Cluff and his fellow crew members, and give comfort and peace to their families. And may we remember and continue to defend the principles for which these brave young people fought and died for. We owe that commitment to them, to their families, and to those who will continue their work.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate considers legislation to address the serious threats to American consumers, businesses, and the future of electronic commerce, which derive from the deliberate, bad- faith, and abusive registration of Internet domain names in violation of the rights of trademark owners. For the Net-savvy, this burgeoning form of cyber-abuse is known as ``cybersquatting.'' For the average consumer, it is simply fraud, deception, and the bad-faith trading on the goodwill of others. Our trademark laws have long recognized the communicative value of brand name identifiers, which serve as the primary indicators of source, quality, and authenticity in the minds of consumers. These laws prohibit the unauthorized uses of other people's marks because such uses lead to consumer confusion, undermine the goodwill and communicative value of the brand names they rely on, and erode consumer confidence in the marketplace generally. Such problems of brand-name abuse and consumer confusion are particularly acute in the online environment, where traditional indicators of source, quality, and authenticity give way to domain names and digital storefronts that take little more than Internet access and rudimentary computer skills to erect. In many cases, the domain name that takes consumers to an Internet site and the graphical interface that greets them when they get there are the only indications of source and authenticity, and legitimate and illegitimate sites may be indistinguishable to online consumers. Despite the protections of existing trademark law, cyber-pirates and online bad actors are increasingly taking advantage of the novelty of the Internet and the online vulnerabilities of trademark owners to deceive and defraud consumers and to hijack the valuable trademarks of American businesses. In some cases these bad actors register the well- known marks of others as domain names with the intent to extract sizeable payments from the rightful trademark owner in exchange for relinquishing the rights to the name in cyberspace. In others they use the domain name to divert unsuspecting Internet users to their own sites, which are often pornographic sites or competitors' sites that prey on consumer confusion. Still others use the domain name to engage in counterfeiting activities or for other fraudulent or nefarious purposes. In considering this legislation, the Judiciary Committee has seen examples of many such abuses. For example, we heard testimony 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. We also heard examples of counterfeit goods and non-genuine Porsche parts being sold on a number of the more than 300 web sites found using domain names bearing Porsche's name. The risks posed to consumers by these so-called ``dot.con'' artists continue to escalate as more people go online to buy things like pharmaceuticals, financial services, and even groceries. I was also surprised to learn that the ``dosney.com'' domain was being used for a hard-core pornography website--a fact that was brought to the attention of the Walt Disney Company by the parent of a child who mistakenly arrived at that site when looking for Disney's main page. In a similar case, a 12-year old California boy was denied privileges at his school when he entered ``zelda.com'' in a web browser at his school library, looking for a site he expected to be affiliated with the popular computer game of the same name, but ended up at a pornography site. Young children are not the only victims of this sort of abuse. Recently the Intel Corporation had the ``pentium3.com'' domain snatched up by a cybersquatter who used it to post pornographic images of celebrities and offered to sell the domain name to the highest bidder. The Committee also heard numerous examples of online bad actors using domain names to engage in unfair competition. For example, one domain name registrant used the name ``wwwcarpoint.com,'' without a period following the ``www,'' to drive consumers who are looking for Microsoft's popular Carpoint car buying service to a competitor's site offering similar services. Other bad actors don't even bother to offer competing services, opting instead to register multiple domain names to interfere with companies' ability to use their own trademarks online. For example, the Committee was told that Warner Bros. was asked to pay $350,000 for the rights to the names ``warner-records.com,'' ``warner- bros-records.com,'' ``warner-pictures.com,'' ``warner-bros-pictures'', and ``warnerpictures.com.'' It is time for Congress to take a closer look at these abuses and to respond with appropriate legislation. The bill the Senate considers today will address these problems by clarifying the rights of trademark owners with respect to cybersquatting, by providing clear deterrence to prevent such bad faith and abusive conduct, and by providing adequate remedies for trademark owners in those cases where it does occur. And while the bill provides many important protections for trademark owners, it is important to note that the bill we are considering today reflects the text of a substitute amendment that Senator Leahy and I offered in the Judiciary Committee to carefully balance the rights of trademark owners with the interests of Internet users. The text is substantively identical to the legislation that Senator Leahy and I introduced as S. 1461, with Senators Abraham, Torricelli, DeWine, Kohl, and Schumer as cosponsors. In short, it represents a balanced approach that will protect American consumers and the businesses that drive our economy while at the same time preserving the rights of Internet users to engage in protected expression online and to make lawful uses of others' trademarks in cyberspace. Let me take just a minute to explain some of the changes that are reflected in the bill as it has been reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee. While the current bill shares the goals of, and has some similarity to, the bill as introduced, it differs in a number of substantial respects. First, like the legislation introduced by Senator Abraham, this bill allows trademark owners to recover statutory damages in cybersquatting cases, both to deter wrongful conduct and to provide adequate remedies for trademark owners who seek to enforce their rights in court. The reported bill goes beyond simply stating the remedy, however, and sets forth a substantive cause of action, based in trademark law, to define the wrongful conduct sought to be deterred and to fill in the gaps and uncertainties of current trademark law with respect to cybersquatting. Under the bill as reported, the abusive conduct that is made actionable is appropriately limited to bad faith registrations of others' marks by persons who seek to profit unfairly from the goodwill associated therewith. In addition, the reported bill balances the property interests of trademark owners with the interests of Internet users who would make fair use of others' marks or otherwise engage in protected speech online. The reported bill also limits the definition of domain name identifier to exclude such things as screen names, file names, and other identifiers not assigned by a domain name registrar or registry. It also omits criminal penalties found in Senator Abraham's original legislation. Second, the reported bill provides for in rem jurisdiction, which allows a mark owner to seek the forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer of an infringing domain name by filing an in rem action against the name itself, where the domain name violates the mark owner's substantive trademark rights and where the mark owner has satisfied the court that it has exercised due diligence in trying to locate the owner of the domain name but is unable to do so. A significant problem faced by trademark owners in the fight against cybersquatting is the fact that many cybersquatters register domain names under aliases or otherwise provide false information in their registration applications in order to avoid identification and service of process by the mark owner. The bill, as reported, will alleviate this difficulty, while protecting the notions of fair play and substantial justice, by enabling a mark owner to seek an injunction against the infringing property in those cases where, after due diligence, a mark owner is unable to proceed against the domain name registrant because the registrant has provided false contact information and is otherwise not to be found. Additionally, some have suggested that dissidents or others who are online incognito for similar legitimate reasons might give false information to protect themselves and have suggested the need to preserve a degree of anonymity on the Internet particularly for this reason. Allowing a trademark owner to proceed against the domain names themselves, provided they are, in fact, infringing or diluting under the Trademark Act, decreases the need for trademark owners to join the hunt to chase down and root out these dissidents or others seeking anonymity on the Net. The approach in this bill is a good compromise, which provides meaningful protection to trademark owners while balancing the interests of privacy and anonymity on the Internet. Third, like the original Abraham bill, the substitute amendment encourages domain name registrars and registries to work with trademark owners to prevent cybersquatting by providing a limited exemption from liability for domain name registrars and registries that suspend, cancel, or transfer domain names pursuant to a court order or in the implementation of a reasonable policy prohibiting cybersquatting. The bill goes further, however, in order to protect the rights of domain name registrants against overreaching trademark owners. Under the reported bill, a trademark owner who knowingly and materially misrepresents to the domain name registrar or registry that a domain name is infringing is liable to the domain name registrant for damages resulting from the suspension, cancellation, or transfer of the domain name. In addition, the court may award injunctive relief to the domain name registrant by ordering the reactivation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name back to the domain name registrant. Finally, the bill also promotes the continued ease and efficiency users of the current registration system enjoy by codifying current case law limiting the secondary liability of domain name registrars and registries for the act of registration of a domain name. Finally, the reported bill includes an explicit savings clause making clear that the bill does not affect traditional trademark defenses, such as fair use, or a person's first amendment rights, and it ensures that any new remedies created by the bill will apply prospectively only. In addition, the Senate is considering today an amendment I am offering with Senator Leahy to make three additional clarifications. First, our amendment will clarify that the prohibited ``uses'' of domain names contemplated by the bill are limited to uses by the domain name registrant or his authorized licensee and do not include uses by others, such as in hypertext links, directory publishing, or search engines. Second, our amendment clarifies that, like the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, uses of names that dilute the marks of others are actionable only where the mark that is harmed has achieved the status of a ``famous'' mark. As reported by the Committee, the bill does not distinguish between famous and non-famous marks. I supported this outcome because I believe the bill should provide protection to all mark owners against the deliberate, bad-faith dilution of their marks by cybersquatters--particularly given the proliferation of small startups that are driving the growth of electronic commerce on the Internet. Nevertheless, in the interest of moving the bill forward to provide much needed protection to trademark owners in a timely fashion and to build more closely on the pattern set by established law, I agreed to support an amendment limiting the scope of the bill to famous marks in the dilution context. Thus, our amendment clarifies that, like substantive trademark law generally, uses of others' marks in a way that causes a likelihood of consumer confusion is actionable whether or not the mark is famous, but like under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, dilutive uses of others' marks is actionable only if the mark is famous. Finally, our amendment clarifies that a domain name registrant whose name is suspended in an extra-judicial dispute resolution procedure can seek a declaratory judgment that his use of the name was, in fact, lawful under the Trademark Act. This clarification is consistent with other provisions of the reported bill that seek to protect domain name registrants against overreaching trademark owners. Let me say in conclusion that this is an important piece of legislation that will promote the growth of online commerce by protecting consumers and providing clarity in the law for trademark owners in cyberspace. It is a balanced bill that protects the rights of Internet users and the interests of all Americans in free speech and protected uses of trademarked names for such things as parody, comment, criticism, comparative advertising, news reporting, etc. It reflects many hours of discussions with senators and affected parties on all sides. Let me thank Senator Leahy for his work in crafting this particular measure, as well as Senator Abraham for his cooperation in this effort, and all the other cosponsors of the bill and the substitute amendment adopted by the Judiciary Committee last week. I look forward to my colleagues' support of this measure and to working with them to get this important bill promoting e-commerce and online consumer protection through the Senate and enacted into law.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today along with the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and other colleagues in introducing the ``Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act of 1999.'' This bill will help ensure that Medicare beneficiaries will continue to have access to vitally needed nursing home care services. When Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the BBA, we created a new prospective payment system (PPS) for skilled nursing facilities (SNF). While the industry generally supported the SNF PPS, there clearly have been some unintended consequences as a result of the implementation the new payment system which is now beginning to affect patient care. We have an obligation to Medicare beneficiaries, and particularly those in nursing homes as well as those who need to gain admission to nursing homes, to correct this problem. This legislation is designed specifically to address the problem with patient access to nursing home care. The measure we are introducing today is designed to address two significant problems that have occurred as a result of the implementation of the PPS. First, the bill provides additional monies to care for the so-called high-acuity SNF patients who require non-therapy ancillary services for conditions such as cancer, hip fracture, and stroke. Second, with respect to the market basket update, the bill closes the gap between the inaccurate inflation market basket estimate and the actual cost increases between fiscal years 1995 and 1998. It is my understanding that both solutions could be easily implemented by HCFA. Mr. President, let me focus more specifically on each of the two provisions. With respect to non-therapy ancillary care, the bill proposes to add- on additional monies under the federal per diem rate for 15 categories of care. We are now finding that high-acuity and medically complex patients are being shortchanged because the current case-mix system does not accurately measure or account for patients with high medical complexities which utilize greater ancillary services. HCFA has even acknowledged that they do not have accurate data to properly compensate for such non-therapy ancillary care. According to HCFA, they believe that more accurate data reflecting the case-mix for sicker patients should be available in 2001. Unfortunately, we now know that beneficiaries are having difficulty receiving non-therapy ancillary care today. For some, waiting 2 years for the HCFA data is simply not an option. Accordingly, the ``Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act'' will provide interim relief until HCFA has developed more complete and accurate data. The bill provides additional funds for 15 RUS III categories, or the so-called resource utilization groups. These RUGS were chosen because they represent categories of services that closely match the diagnoses for high-acuity patients. Such additional funds would only be provided for a two-year period, or less, until the Secretary of Health and Human Services has corrected the data to properly reflect the costs of non-therapy ancillary care. It is my understanding that HCFA believes they can implement a new case mix methodology within this time frame. In response to concerns expressed to me by HCFA over Y2K problems and the difficulty of any systems' changes at this point in the PPS implementation, my bill provides for a simple, temporary add-on federal dollars to the federal per diem component. Based on informal comments from HCFA officials, the bill should be easy for the agency to implement in time to have an immediate positive impact on patient care. The second feature in our bill attempts to close the gap between the inflation adjuster--the market basket update--and the actual cost increases. Recent data are now showing that HCFA's market basket increase is well below actual inflation costs for nursing home care. When Congress passed the BBA, the year 1995 was chosen as the base year for future inflation adjustments because it provided the most recent set of complete cost reporting data for PPS implementation. HCFA was charged with developing a market basket of nursing home goods and services to trend forward to 1998, which was when PPS was implemented. Unfortunately, it appears that HCFA has underestimated the market basket index by not considering the cost of nursing home services. In addition, the statute requires the inflation adjuster to be market basket minus one, which only makes the estimate worse. Evidence is now available to illustrate that the market basket estimate is inadequate to properly compensate for nursing home care. In 1996, HCFA's market basket increase was approximately 2.7 percent, while data now indicates that the actual cost increase was approximately 10.5 percent. Preliminary 1997 cost data reflect similar differences between the HCFA market basket index and the actual change in costs experienced by nursing facilities. My legislation provides easily implemented relief to nursing homes which are being short changed by inadequate market basket estimates. The bill eliminates the ``minus one'' from the inflation adjuster for 1996, 1997, and 1998, thereby providing a one-percent increase of the index over three years, compounded. While there may need to be further modification to the actual market basket, this straightforward legislative solution enables HCFA to implement this provision immediately. This solution will provide meaningful and practical relief to nursing homes so they can continue to provide quality care for the more medically complex Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. President, many nursing homes are on the verge of filing for bankruptcy and others may be closing their doors due to various PPS implementation problems. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries are finding themselves on long waiting lists to be admitted to a skilled nursing facility. Others are remaining in hospitals for extended stays, while they wait for nursing home availability. The ``Medicare Beneficiary Access to Quality Nursing Home Care Act'' is a common sense solution to address these very real problems. It provides two solutions that HCFA can implement today without being mired in Year 2000 compliance efforts. I would add that I am pleased that the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, has indicated his interest in moving a bipartisan BBA technical bill following the August recess. I have written to Senator Roth asking him to carefully review our skilled nursing facility bill as he develops a BBA technical corrections bill over the next several weeks. I strongly believe this bill serves as a viable option on which to address the PPS problem that so many nursing homes are facing today. I ask unanimous consent that the complete text of the bill be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I want to express my thanks to my colleague and good friend, Senator Domenici, for his valued help in developing the bill with me as well as to the many others Senators who have joined us today as cosponsors.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today we are considering a bill to return a portion of the surplus that is projected to be $2.9 trillion over the next ten years. This bill represents a balanced package that takes into account the problems as well as sharing in the good times. The bill will provide fiscally responsible tax relief over the next ten years while reducing the public debt and still save the $1.9 trillion Social Security surplus. Many of my colleagues have argued that $792 billion in tax cuts is too much--that we should save this money for Medicare and other spending. I strongly disagree. It is important that we not forget those who are responsible for the surplus--hard-working, over-paying taxpayers. After all, what is a surplus--it is excess revenues over the amount needed to fund government operations. The $2.9 trillion surplus is large enough to balance our priorities. This Conference Report shows that we can provide meaningful tax cuts, provide for Medicare reform, and reserve the Social Security surplus. I also marvel at how much we have recently heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about debt reduction. I never knew the depth of their convictions on this, particularly since they fought the balanced budget amendment so hard. The balanced budget amendment would have once and for all imposed spending restraints on Congress. The majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued vigorously against such constitutional restraints, implying that they wanted unlimited access to the government checkbook. In my view, if we have a surplus, and we do not have a tax cut, the temptation of Congress to spend that surplus will be too great. I made this point many times during debate on the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and I will make it again. If we have a surplus, this money will burn a hole in Congress' pocket. This conference report provides tax cuts for everyone by cutting tax rates 1% across-the-board. This may not sound like much, but it represents real tax cuts for each and every taxpayer. In addition, couples filing married returns will see their marriage penalty eliminated. It is sending the wrong signal to American taxpayers when a couple in Utah faces a higher tax bill when they marry than they do as singles. The bill also helps our families struggling to finance a quality education for themselves and their children. The bill also addresses the need for enhanced retirement security. It makes IRAs more widely available and improves retirement systems to increase access, simplify the rules, increase portability and provide small business incentives. We have all heard about the challenge that providing adequate health care that is facing American families. This bill provides meaningful help for those who are struggling with the costs of insurance. This bill also contains provisions that would help keep economic growth strong. There is a package of international tax relief that provides simplification and helps American companies which have operations overseas remain competitive and continue to grow. The expiring tax credits are extended. I am disappointed that the research and experimentation tax credit was not made permanent. I still believe that our American research engine would be helped significantly by relieving the uncertainty that a sunsetted credit imposes. Nevertheless, the 5-year extension in this bill is a step in the right direction. I hope that we can revisit this issue in the future and provide for a permanent tax credit for research and experimentation. This conference report contains some important improvements over the Senate bill. I am particularly heartened to see the full repeal of the estate tax and capital gains tax relief as part of this bill. The ``death tax'' is unfair and inefficient. For every dollar that we collect, roughly 65 cents is spent complying and collecting this tax. This is the wrong way to use up our resources. This bill also accelerates the capital gains tax rate cuts we passed in 1997. In addition, it will shorten the required holding period of assets from 5 years to 1. This will provide significant simplification for those taxpayers struggling to determine which capital gains rate applies and how long they have held their assets. This is true simplification and real relief. And, let's make no mistake: these tax changes will benefit more Americans than just the wealthy. These estate tax and capital gains tax provisions will benefit every American who owns a home, business, or family farm. It will benefit the increasing number of Americans who are investors in mutual funds and other securities. It is easy for us to get lost in the debate over numbers and how we should spend the surplus. However, we must keep in mind who sent us the revenue that created the surplus. We are talking about families struggling to make ends meet, provide an educations for their children, or save for their retirement. They are the family funning the corner grocery store or landscaping business. They are bus drivers, day care providers, carpenters, and students. This conference report is a balanced tax cut package that provides relief for middle class taxpayers. It gives American families a well- deserved tax break, simplifies the tax code, and provides pro-growth incentives to help keep the economy strong and growing. This $792 billion bill is the biggest tax cut since the Ronald Reagan presidency. Yet, it still represents a rebate of only one-quarter of the surplus dollars that the federal government has collected. I hope that the President can agree that we owe the American taxpayers that much and sign this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to the proposed amendment that would effectively extend the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and open the door to the creation of additional interstate dairy compacts. I urge my colleagues to vote against the cloture motion. These interstate compacts would allow states to form alliances that would create economic barriers and foster economic warfare between the states. First, I want to commend my colleagues for their efforts on behalf of their states. In particular, Senator Jeffords has been a forceful advocate for dairy compacts. But although I share the concerns of my colleagues for the future of all American farmers, we cannot authorize interstate compacts that would encourage activities which are contrary to the constitutional principle of establishing and maintaining a national free market for the products of all citizens. To date, only one dairy compact, the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact, has been authorized by Congress. It initially passed as an amendment in conference to the 1996 farm bill, after the Senate had stripped the compact language out of the bill on the Senate floor. The compact authorization was for 2 years only, but was extended last year, until October 1, 1999, by an amendment to appropriations legislation. Since the creation of this compact, a number of state legislatures have authorized the creation of new interstate dairy compacts. And today, once again, an amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill has been introduced that would extend the life of the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact and possibly lead in conference to the authorization of a Southern Compact. The Framers of the Constitution intended the compact clause to help preserve national unity by prohibiting States from entering into interstate compacts without congressional approval. See Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893). Like the commerce clause, the compact clause prevents States from joining forces to the detriment of the national interest. It is true that the overwhelming majority of compacts serve benign purposes that are not intended to insulate States from competition or to harm the national economy, or otherwise adversely affect the national interest. Indeed, Congress has approved hundreds of interstate compacts. These compacts have facilitated nationally beneficial projects such as the development of highway, railroad, and subway transportation, the construction of bridges, the allocation of water-control rights, the establishment of boundary lines, and protection against forest fires. These are precisely the type of agreements the compact clause was intended to facilitate. The proposed dairy compacts, however, would frustrate, rather than facilitate, free trade among the States. In essence, dairy compacts prohibit interstate competition by preventing non-compact dairy farmers from freely setting the price for their dairy goods sold in compact states. These compacts represent economic protectionism, pure and simple. Indeed, this is an attempt by a group of states to dictate to the rest of the country's dairy farmers the terms under which they can sell their goods into compact regions. It is unimaginable that the Senate would vote to embrace a form of economic protectionism that flies in the face of the Constitutional principle of a free market society. As the Supreme Court stated in H.P. Hood v. DuMond, 336 U.S. 525, 529 (1949): . . . our system, fostered by the Commerce Clause, is that every farmer and every craftsman shall be encouraged to produce by the certainty that he will have free access to every market in the Nation, that no home embargoes will withhold his exports, and no foreign state will by customs duties or regulations exclude them. Likewise, every consumer may look to the free competition from every producing area in the Nation to protect him from exploitation by any. Such was the vision of the Founders . . . If we continue to approve dairy compacts, that vision will be forsaken. And, if we continue down this road, I ask my colleagues: ``what's next?'' Will we be asked to protect the poultry industry? Why not protect regional software or Internet companies? If the logic behind these dairy compacts is that states or regions should be allowed to collude to raise artificially the price of dairy products to protect farmers and producers at the expense of the consumer, then why not give certain states or regions the right to collude to raise artificially the prices of other goods and services? Because AOL employs so many people in Maryland and Virginia, shouldn't those two states be permitted to agree to prevent any company from offering Internet access to consumers in Maryland or Virginia at a price below that offered by AOL? The minimum price could be justified by stating its purpose is to protect the jobs created by AOL in these states. Certainly, the argument would go, the purpose is not to eliminate competition--that is just an unfortunate circumstance of protecting an industry that contributes significantly to the states' economies. This hypothetical may sound farfetched, but it is not. The logic is the same: ``We need to protect our state's industries regardless of the effects on competition or consumers.'' No, my colleagues, we simply cannot start down the road of protecting one region's industries against others, regardless of how significant an industry may be to one state's interests. We cannot elevate one region's concerns over the nation's interest in ensuring a stable, free market that thrives on competition. A vote against these compacts is not a vote against dairy farmers. All of the Senators who are opposed to these compacts, myself included, sympathize with the plight of so many of America's farmers who are struggling to stay in business, but we cannot solve this problem by pitting one industry against consumers, or one region against the nation. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I cannot support dairy compacts that allow states to collude to thwart competition, the results of which ultimately harm America's consumers. I urge my colleagues to vote against the dairy compact amendment which would allow less efficient producers in one region of the country to exclude lower priced dairy goods from other regions in an effort to protect their farmers and producers at the expense of consumers. This is not the type of agreements the founders envisioned interstate compacts would facilitate--indeed, it is exactly the type they feared.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this Friday, on the campus of Brigham Young University, in Provo, Utah, the family, friends, former associates and successors of Leland M. Perry will gather to honor his quiet but substantial contributions to the dynamic growth and greatness that characterizes BYU. Leland Perry, who marks his 98th birthday on August 23, and who still lives in Provo, was the director of the physical plant at BYU from April 1947 to July 1957, when he and his late wife, McNone Perry, set their vocations aside for several years to organize and preside over the West Spanish American Mission of the LDS Church. Afterward, Mr. Perry went on to head the physical plant at Ricks College in Idaho, which is also an institution in the system of higher education affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, during that college's explosive building program. From there, he was appointed director of all physical plants in the LDS Church's higher education system, except BYU, until he retired in the mid 1960s. Leland Perry directed BYU's physical plant during a time when the university was beginning an era of enormous growth; and, from the account I have heard, it is clear that he played an important role during that critical period. One especially noteworthy example typifies his vital contributions. In 1955, he learned about a new concept for heating widely spread, isolated buildings, in a more efficient and less costly way, using pressurized water, which was heated to levels much higher than the boiling point, and combined with a method of forced circulation. Until then, steam was commonly used in such settings, delivered through pipes from a central heating plant. Heat engineering was still a young science, so he took it upon himself to learn all he could about this new technique. He then advocated its use in modernizing the BYU physical plant. Leland Perry did such a good job in mastering the concept and then in explaining and advocating the system that his idea was accepted, and BYU because the first university in the United States to install and use it campus-wide. Since then, virtually all other campuses of any size have followed BYU's lead, savings untold millions of dollars for American colleges and universities--and for students--nationwide. At the dedication ceremony for the new system in 1957 former BYU President William F. Edwards said, ``Leland caught the vision of a new idea and had the courage to promote the idea.'' The physical plant of any major facility or complex of buildings is easy to take for granted. We tend not to notice the pipes and the boilers and the controls unless they break down. But they are the structural bones and the circulatory system that make our buildings useful, comfortable, and practical. I might mention that I was a student at BYU during Leland's tenure as plant manager. I confess that I did not fully appreciate at the time that there was heat in the library, the classrooms and in the dorms because of Leland Perry. Leland Perry, like many Utahns, is truly a pioneer. With humility and dedication, he has made the vocation of caring for Utah's physical plant a calling. And, he led the way through the last half of this century and created the standards applied to his successors who will lead us into the next century. I want to join my fellow Utahns and fellow Cougars in commending Leland Perry for his years of service and in wishing him a happy 98th birthday.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct. Millions of Americans live in areas that are not in compliance with air quality standards. The increased motor vehicle traffic anticipated in the four county Wasatch front in my home state of Utah will certainly push us toward non-attainment compliance problems. Promoting the increased use of alternative fuel vehicles is a viable option available to help Utah achieve our clean air objectives. Alternative fuel vehicles represent the cleanest vehicles in the world. Market-based incentives will help encourage the use of such vehicles. I am very pleased to be part of this effort with my colleagues from the Finance Committee and am looking into getting a natural gas car of my own at this very moment.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1456

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today, along with my colleague, the Ranking Member on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to introduce legislation that will address a growing problem for consumers and American businesses online. At issue is the deliberate, bad-faith, and abusive registration of Internet domain names in violation of the rights of trademark owners. for the Net-savy, this burgeoning form of cyber-abuse is known as ``cybersquatting.'' for the average consumer, it is basically fraud, deception, and the bad-faith trading on the goodwill of others. Whatever you call it, it is an issue that has a great impact on American consumers and the brand names they rely on as indications of source, quality, and authenticity. As anyone who has walked down the aisle in the grocery store knows, trademarks serve as the primary indicators of source, quality, and authenticity in the minds of consumers. How else do you explain the price disparity between various brands of toothpaste, laundry detergent, or even canned beans. These brand names are valuable in that they convey to the consumer reliable information regarding the source and quality of goods and services, thereby facilitating commerce and spurring confidence in the marketplace. Unauthorized uses of others' marks undercuts the market by eroding consumer confidence and the communicative value of the brand names we all rely on. For that very reason, Congress has enacted a number of statutes addressing the problems of trademark infringement, false advertising and unfair competition, trademark dilution, and trademark counterfeiting. Doing so has helped protect American businesses and, more importantly perhaps, American consumers. As we are seeing with increased frequency, the problems of brand-name abuse and consumer confusion are particularly acute in the online environment. The fact is that a consumer in a ``brick and mortar'' world has the luxury of a variety of additional indicators of source and quality aside from a brand name. For example, when one walks in to the local consumer electronics retailer, he is fairly certain with whom he is dealing, and he can often tell by looking at the products and even the storefront itself whether or not he is dealing with a reputable establishment. These protections are largely absent in the electronic world, where anyone with Internet access and minimal computer knowledge can set up a storefront online. In many cases what consumers see when they log on to a site is their only indication of source and authenticity, and legitimate and illegitimate sites may be indistinguishable in cyberspace. In fact, a well-known trademark in a domain name may be the primary source indicator for the online consumer. So it a bad actor is using that name, rather than the trademark owner, an online consumer is at serious risk of being defrauded, or at the very least confused. The result, as with other forms of trademark violations, is the erosion of consumer confidence in brand name identifiers and in electronic commerce generally. Last week the Judiciary Committee heard testimony of a number of examples of consumer confusion on the Internet stemming from abusive domain name registrations. For example, Anne Chasser, President of the International Trademark Association, testified that a cybersquatter had registered the domain names ``attphonecard.com'' and ``attcallingcard.com'' and used those names to establish sites purporting to sell calling cards and soliciting personally identifying information, including credit card numbers. Chris Young, President of Cyveillance, Inc.--a company founded specifically to assist trademark owners police their marks online--testified that a cybersquatter had registered the name ``dellspares.com'' and was purporting to sell Dell products online, when in fact Dell does not authorize online resellers to market its products. We heard similar testimony of an offshore cybersquatter selling web-hosting services under the name ``bellatlantics.com''. And Greg Phillips, a Salt Lake City trademark practitioner that represents Porsche in protecting their famous trademark against what is now more than 300 instances of cybersquatting, testified of several examples where bad actors have registered Porsche marks to sell counterfeit goods and non-genuine Porsche parts. Consider also the child who in a ``hunt-and-peck'' manner mistakenly typed in the domain for ``dosney.com'', looking for the rich and family-friendly content of Disney's home page, only to wind up staring at a page of hard-core pornography because someone snatched up the ``dosney'' domain in anticipation that just such a mistake would be made. In a similar case, a 12-year-old California boy was denied privileges at his school when he entered ``zelda.com'' in a web browser at his school library, looking for a site he expected to be affiliated with the computer game of the same name, but ended up at a pornography site. In addition to these types of direct harm to consumers, cybersquatting harms American businesses and the goodwill value associated with their names. In part this is a result of the fact that in each case of consumer confusion there is a case of brand-name misappropriation and an erosion of goodwill. But, even absent consumer confusion, there are many many cases of cybersquatters who appropriate brand names with the sole intent of extorting money from the lawful mark owner, of precluding evenhanded competition, or even very simply of harming the goodwill of the mark. For example, a couple of years ago a small Canadian company with a single shareholder and a couple of dozen domain names demanded that Umbro International, Inc., which markets and distributes soccer equipment, pay $50,000 to its sole shareholder, $50,000 to a charity, and provide a lifetime supply of soccer equipment in order for it to relinquish the ``umbro.com'' name. Warner Bros. was reportedly asked to pay $350,000 for the rights to the names ``warner-records.com'', ``warner-bros-records.com'', ``warner-pictures.com'', ``warner-bros- pictures'', and ``warnerpictures.com''. And Intel Corporation was forced to deal with a cybersquatter who registered the ``pentium3.com'' domain and used it to post pornographic images of celebrities. It is time for Congress to take a closer look at these abuses and to respond with appropriate legislation. In the 104th Congress, Senator Leahy and I sponsored the ``Federal Trademark Dilution Act,'' which has proved useful in assisting the owners of famous trademarks to police online uses of their marks that dilute their distinctive quality. Unfortunately, the economics of litigation have resulted in a situation where it is often more cost-effective to simply ``pay off'' a cybersquatter rather than pursue costly litigation with little hope of anything more than an injunction against the offender. And cybersquatters are becoming more sophisticated and more creative in evading what good case law has developed under the dilution statute. The bill I am introducing today with the Senator from Vermont is designed to address these problems head on by clarifying the rights of trademark owners online with respect to cybersquatting, by providing clear deterrence to prevent such bad faith and abusive conduct, and by providing adequate remedies for trademark owners in those cases where it does occur. While the bill shares the goals of, and has some similarity to, legislation introduced earlier by Senator Abraham, it differs in a number of substantial respects. First, like Senator Abraham's legislation, our bill allows trademark owners to recover statutory damages in cybersquatting cases, both to deter wrongful conduct and to provide adequate remedies for trademark owners who seek to enforce their rights in court. Our bill goes beyond simply stating the remedy, however, and sets forth a substantive cause of action, based in trademark law, to define the wrongful conduct sought to be deterred and to fill in the gaps and uncertainties of current trademark law with respect to cybersquatting. Under our bill, the abusive conduct that is made actionable is appropriately limited to bad faith registrations of others' marks by persons who seek to profit unfairly from the goodwill associated therewith. In addition, the bill balances the property interests of trademark owners with the interests of Internet users who would make fair use of others' marks or otherwise engage in protected speech online. Our bill also limits the definition of domain name identifier to exclude such things as screen names, file names, and other identifiers not assigned by a domain name registrar or registry. it also omits criminal penalties found in Senator Abraham's earlier legislation. Second, our bill provides for in rem jurisdiction, which allows a mark owner to seek the forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer of an infringing domain name by filing an in rem action against the name itself, where the mark owner has satisfied the court that it has exercised due diligence in trying to locate the owner of the domain name but is unable to do so. A significant problem faced by trademark owners in the fight against cybersquatting is the fact that many cybersquatters register domain names under aliases or otherwise provide false information in their registration applications in order to avoid identification and service of process by the mark owner. Our bill will alleviate this difficulty, while protecting the notions of fair play and substantial justice, by enabling a mark owner to seek an injunction against the infringing property in those cases where, after due diligence, a mark owner is unable to proceed against the domain name registrant because the registrant has provided false contact information and is otherwise not to be found. Additionally, some have suggested that dissidents and others who are online incognito for legitimate reasons might give false information to protect themselves and have suggested the need to preserve a degree of anonymity on the Internet particularly for this reason. Allowing a trademark owner to proceed against the domain names themselves, provided they are, in fact, infringing or diluting under the Trademark Act, decreases the need for trademark owners to join the hunt to chase down and root out these dissidents or others seeking anonymity on the Net. The approach in our bill is a good compromise, which provides meaningful protection to trademark owners while balancing the interests of privacy and anonymity on the Internet. Third, like the Abraham bill, our bill encourages domain name registrars and registries to work with trademark owners to prevent cybersquatting by providing a limited exemption from liability for domain name registrars and registries that suspend, cancel, or transfer domain names pursuant to a court order or in the implementation of a reasonable policy prohibiting the registration of infringing domain names. Our bill goes further, however, in order to protect the rights of domain name registrants against overreaching trademark owners. Under our bill, a trademark owner who knowingly and materially misrepresents to the domain name registrar or registry that a domain name is infringing is liable to the domain name registrant for damages resulting from the suspension, cancellation, or transfer of the domain name. Our bill also promotes the continued ease and efficiency users of the current registration system enjoy by codifying current case law limiting the secondary liability of domain name registrars and registries for the act of registration of a domain name. Finally, our bill includes an explicit savings clause making clear that the bill does not affect traditional trademark defenses, such as fair use, or a person's first amendment rights, and it ensures that any new remedies created by the bill will apply prospectively only. Mr. President, this bill is an important piece of legislation that will promote the growth of online commerce by protecting consumers and providing clarity in the law for trademark owners in cyberspace. It is a balanced bill that protects the rights of Internet users and the interests of all Americans in free speech and protected uses of trademarked names for such things as parody, comment, criticism, comparative advertising, news reporting, etc. It reflects many hours of discussions with senators and affected parties on all sides. I want to thank Senator Leahy for his cooperation in crafting this particular measure, and also Senator Abraham for his cooperation in this effort. I expect that the substance of this bill will be offered as a Committee substitute to Senator Abraham's legislation when the Judiciary Committee turns to that bill tomorrow, and I look forward to broad bipartisan support at that time. I similarly look forward to working with my other colleagues here in the Senate to report this bill favorably to the House, and I urge their support in this regard. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by- section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we stand here today to celebrate good news. This country is now facing the longest peacetime expansion in its history; the economy is growing; and the federal government is predicted to be running a surplus of $2.9 trillion over the next 10 years. The news is not all good. We are facing some pressing problems as well. The world is seeing a shift in demographics. The impending retirement of the baby boom generation affects the workplace, retirement policy, and entitlement spending. Most notably, both the Social Security system and Medicare are in financial trouble and need substantive reform. Public debt and the interest payments that go with it are continuing to grow. These issues cannot be ignored because of a strong economy and good times. The bill before us today represents a balanced package that takes into account the problems as well as sharing in the good times. The bill will provide fiscally responsible tax relief over the next ten years while reducing the public debt $200 billion more than the President's budget and still save the $1.9 trillion Social Security surplus. We all agree that the Social Security surplus should be reserved for the Social Security system. That is not the debate. The big debate here today is how do we best handle the non-Social Security surplus in the federal budget. Many of my colleagues have argued that this bill is too large--that $792 billion is too much. They argue that we should save this money for Medicare and other spending. I strongly disagree. It is important that we not forget those who are responsible for the surplus--hard-working, over-paying taxpayers. After all, what is a surplus--it is excess revenues over the amount needed to fund government operations. Taxes in this country are at their highest levels since World War II. American families have seen the percentage of their personal income that goes to pay taxes grow from 23 percent in 1990 to 26%. The average taxpayer from Utah, or any other state in America, will pay nearly $7,000 more in taxes over the next 10 years than the federal government needs, excluding the Social Security program. This is where the surplus is coming from--individual taxpayers who are turning over their hard- earned wages to pay taxes. It is only fair that we return this surplus to the rightful owners. After all, we would expect the electric or power company to rebate an overpayment, we should be able to expect the same from the federal government. The $2.9 trillion surplus is large enough to balance our priorities. The Taxpayer Refund Act shows that we can provide meaningful tax cuts, provide for Medicare reform, and reserve the Social Security surplus. The Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 provides a tax refund for everyone who pays taxes by cutting the 15% tax rate and putting more middle class taxpayers into lowest income bracket. 98 million taxpayers, 80 million with annual income under $75,000 would get a tax cut. In addition, 19 million two-earner families filing married returns will see their marriage penalty eliminated. It is sending the wrong signal to American taxpayers when a couple with two incomes in Utah faces a higher tax bill when they marry than they do as singles. The bill also addresses the need for enhanced retirement security through enhanced employer plans and expanded IRAs. The demographics of the American workforce are changing and our pension laws must adapt to meet these new realities. By improving retirement systems to increase access, simplify the rules, increase portability and provide small business incentives, we help employers design and offer pension plans to meet the needs of today's employees. Another important enhancement to our retirement security is making tax-preferred savings more widely available through expanded IRAs. This is particularly true for those without employer-provided pension and middle income taxpayers. In 1994, the median income of families owning an IRA was $48,600--hardly wealthy by any measure. This bill would make it easier for people to increase their savings for retirement. This tax bill helps our families struggling to finance a quality education for themselves and their children through tax-free treatment for participants in college savings or prepaid tuition plans and recipients of employer-provided educational assistance. The bill would also expand the student loan interest deduction. This is real relief that will help make education more affordable. There are important provisions relating to school construction in this bill. The need for more resources and innovative ideas to address the issue of school construction and rehabilitation is reaching crisis proportions. My home state of Utah is expected to build 10-15 new schools a year. In the Jordan school district alone, 6 schools are currently under construction. In addition, Utah will spend $350 million a year in new repairs. This bill would reduce the burden on small school bond issuers in complying with cumbersome arbitrage rebate rules and will allow school districts to engage in public-private partnerships. The reduction in the cost and time of school construction projects will result in more schools being built. We have all heard about the challenge that providing adequate health care that is facing the American families. The Taxpayer Refund Act provides meaningful help for those who are struggling with the costs of insurance through tax benefits for the self-employed, employees not covered by employer plans, and consumers of long-term care insurance. There is also an additional personal exemption for care-givers. The bill also contains provisions that would help keep the economy growth strong. There is a package of international tax relief that provides simplification and helps American companies which have operations overseas remain competitive and continue to grow. The expiring tax credits are extended for five years and the research and experimentation tax credit is made permanent. This tax credit enhances and encourages the development of new technologies and products. This is the only way the U.S. can maintain its leadership in the high-tech world of today into the next millennium. This is very important to future economic growth. It has been said that innovation is the leading factor driving increased productivity and job creation. Innovation predominantly derives from the private sector research and development which are encouraged by the tax credit. This bill is not perfect, however, and there are some things that I would like to change. For instance, the bill does provide some relief from the estate tax by cuts in the top estate tax rate and an exemption that rises to $1.5 million per estate. This will provide tax relief for estates of all sizes. However, I strongly believe that we should go even further and repeal this tax altogether. The ``death tax'' is unfair and inefficient. For every dollar that we collect, roughly 65 cents is spent complying and collecting this tax. This is the wrong way to use up our resources. I know that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have labeled this a tax on the wealthy. They are wrong. The wealthy hire lawyers and advisers to create trusts and do estate planning to minimize the amount of tax they will pay. It is the small business owners and family farmers that are hit the hardest by this tax. We must find a way to remove this crushing burden from their backs. Another important area that is not addressed in this bill is the capital gains tax rate. This too has often been labeled as a tax cut for the rich. This is not true. Million of Americans are becoming investors. They purchase stock and mutual funds directly or they invest directly through stock options, employee stock ownership plans or 401(k)s. Roughly half of American households now have some sort of stock ownership, and the number grows every year. A recent DRI study has shown that the 1997 capital gains tax rate cuts contributed to the strong economic growth we have experienced in the last couple of years. Cutting the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent reduced the cost of capital, increased business investment and contributed to the increase in stock prices. We need to continue along the same path and continue to reduce the capital gains rates. It is easy to get lost in the debate over numbers and how we should spend the surplus. But we must remember who sent us the revenue that created the surplus. We are talking about families struggling to make ends meet, provide an education for their children, or save for their retirement. They are the family running the corner grocery store or landscaping business. They are bus drivers, day care providers, carpenters and students. They work 3 hours a day on average just to pay their taxes. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1999 is a balanced tax cut package that provides relief for middle class taxpayers. It gives American families a well-deserved tax break, simplifies the tax code, and provides pro- growth incentives to help keep the economy strong and growing. This $792 billion bill is the biggest tax cut since the Ronald Reagan presidency. Yet, it still represents a rebate of only one quarter of the surplus dollars that the federal government has collected. We owe the American taxpayers that much.