Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is an important day because this is the day on which we hope we can finally pass this juvenile justice bill. We have had another shooting of students just today at a high school in Georgia. The shooting occurred at 8 a.m. at the Heritage High School and a number of children were wounded. I won't go into the details, but the shooting was exactly a month after the April 20 slaughter at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, where two students killed 13 people before taking their own lives. It is apparent that we have to do something about this, and this bill is a very considered attempt to do exactly that. Now, we are going to have two very crucial amendments this morning. The Smith amendment is first to come up, and this amendment is to resolve the pawn shop issue and the special licensee issue. I commend the distinguished Senator from Oregon and the distinguished Senator from Vermont in particular for their thoughtfulness in trying to resolve this difficulty. We want to do this in a bipartisan way. I surely hope people quit trying to score political points and help to get this bill done. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided.

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

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Idaho.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I understand we now move to the Biden amendment, the last amendment before final passage. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Oklahoma desires.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I recommend to the Senator from Delaware that what we should have done is consider this amendment--that is, the Senator's legislative proposal--on the Department of Justice reauthorization bill, and deal with this issue at that time, but only after hearings to see whether we can resolve some of these problems raised by the Inspector General. The Biden amendment reauthorizes the Clinton administration's COPS Program. This amendment would cost in the neighborhood of $7 billion. It doubles the cost of this bill. I don't oppose more money to hire police and have law enforcement, but we need to ensure flexibility in our grant programs. The Biden amendment does not provide for adequate flexibility. The Congress has provided flexible grants to law enforcement through the local law enforcement block grants. Ironically, the President's budget zeros out funding for the block grant program. Here we are debating a $7 billion amendment. The Department of Justice is proud of this program, but the Department of Justice's Inspector General does not share their view. The Department of Justice's Inspector General found serious mismanagement and inappropriate use of funds. Let me cite a few examples that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma referred to: 20 out of 145 grantees, 14 percent, overestimated salaries and or benefits in their grant application. I won't read all of this, but let me cite just a few more. 74 of 146 grantees, 51 percent, included unallowable costs in claims for reimbursement; 52 out of 67 grantees receiving COPS MORE grants, 78 percent, either could not demonstrate that they redeployed officers or could not demonstrate they had a system in place to track redeployment of officers in community policing; 60 of 147 grantees, 41 percent, showed indications of using Federal funds to supplant local funding, instead of using grant funds to supplement local funding; 83 of 144 grantees, 58 percent, either did not develop a good-faith plan to retain officer positions or said they would not retain the officer at the conclusion of the grant. I believe there are some positive aspects to the COPS Program, but a $7 billion program with serious questions concerning the management of the program and the use of grants by recipients should not pass the Senate with only a 45-minute debate. I want to work with my colleagues on the law enforcement grant programs, but we should not try to do it on this bill. I will work with anyone who wishes to join me, but not on this bill. I plan to move a Department of Justice reauthorization bill later this year. If my colleagues truly wish to work with me, I suggest to them we do this on that authorization bill. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be accepted en bloc and that any statements relating to the amendments be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. With respect to the amendment offered today by Senator Helms, which amends the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, I must say that I support this effort to make our schools gun and drug free. The amendment would require an educational agency that receives federal funds to expel for not less than one year a student determined to be in possession of felonious quantities of illegal drugs. We're talking about quantities that indicate hard-core drug use, or drug trafficking. We're talking about dangerous, and predatory, behavior. We've simply got to get the people who bring these things into our schools out of our schools. Now, I know that some of my colleagues may be concerned with the consequences of turning disruptive students out onto the streets for one year. I assure everyone that I understand that concern and direct their attention to the Alternative Education Grant provision found in the underlying bill. This demonstration grant provides funding to state and local education agencies to set up alternative education in appropriate settings for disruptive or delinquent students. These services are designed to improve the academic and social performance of these students and to improve the safety and learning environment of regular classrooms. This three-year demonstration project will provide alternative education to juveniles in trouble with or at risk of getting in trouble with the law, such as students who are expelled for carrying firearms or drugs to school. I applaud the efforts of Senator Helms for continuing to seek effective ways to curb the spiraling increase in drug abuse among our nation's youth. Anyone familiar with my record on combating illegal drug use knows that I am in favor of stiff penalties designed to deter criminal behavior, and never more so than when we are talking about behavior that harms our school children. I think this amendment, which contains a specific exception to the one-year expulsion rule by allowing the chief administering officer of the local educational agency to modify the expulsion requirement for students on a case-by- case basis, is a measured and principled response to the scourge of drugs in our schools. Like the original Gun Free Schools Act, this amendment is motivated not only by a desire to punish those who bring illegal objects into schools, but also to address the immediate threat to the entire student population created by the presence of those objects. As with guns, felonious quantities--drug-trafficking quantities--of illegal drugs present a direct and serious hazard, both to the individual possessors, and to the other students as well. For this reason, it is appropriate that sanctions be the same in both cases.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 104 submitted earlier by Senators Lott and Daschle.

Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 11 a.m. on Monday, May 24. I further ask that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. I further ask consent that there then be a period of morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or his designee from 11 a.m. to 12 noon, with Senator Conrad in control of 20 minutes of that time; Senator Bennett in control of time between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m.; and Senator Bob Smith in control of the time between 12:30 p.m. and 1 p.m.

Mr. HATCH. I finally ask that at 1 p.m. the Senate immediately begin consideration of calendar No. 114, S. 1059, the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and that the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 93, H.R. 1554. I further ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 247, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be read a third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record. I finally ask unanimous consent that S. 247 then be placed back on the Calendar.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, Senator McCain has an amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate considers legislation that will help provide for greater consumer choice and competition in television services, S. 247, ``The Satellite Home Viewers Improvements Act of 1999.'' The bill before us is a model of bipartisanship and cross-Committee cooperation. The cosponsors of this bill include, first and foremost, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, with whom I have worked closely on this legislation; the majority leader, Senator Lott, and the minority leader, Senator Daschle; the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee's Antitrust Subcommittee, Senators DeWine and Kohl; and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator McCain. We have all worked together with many others of our colleagues to bring this important legislation along on behalf of our constituents. The options consumers have for viewing television entertainment have vastly increased since that fateful day in September 1927 when television inventor and Utah native Philo T. Farnsworth, together with his wife and colleagues, viewed the first television transmission in the Farnsworth's home workshop: a single black line rotated from vertical to horizontal. Both the forms of entertainment and the technologies for delivering that entertainment have proliferated over the 70 years since that day. In the 1940s and 50s, televisions began arriving in an increasing number of homes to pick up entertainment being broadcast into a growing number of cities and towns. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, cable television began offering communities more television choices by initially providing community antenna systems for receiving broadcast television signals, and later by offering new created-for-cable entertainment. The development of cable television made dramatic strides with the enactment of the cable compulsory license in 1976, providing an efficient way of clearing copyright rights for the retransmission of broadcast signals over cable systems. In the 1980s, television viewers began to be able to receive television entertainment with their own home satellite equipment, and the enactment of the Satellite Home Viewer Act in 1988 helped develop a system of providing options for television service to Americans who lived in areas too remote to receive television signals over the air or via cable. Much has changed since the original Satellite Home Viewer Act was adopted in 1988. The Satellite Home Viewer Act was originally intended to ensure that households that could not get television in any other way, traditionally provided through broadcast or cable, would be able to get television signals via satellite. The market and the satellite industry has changed substantially since 1988. Many of the difficulties and controversies associated with the satellite license have been at least partly a product of the satellite business attempting to move from a predominately need-based rural niche service to a full service video delivery competitor in all markets, urban and rural. Now, many market advocates both in and out of Congress are looking to satellite carriers to compete directly with cable companies for viewership, because we believe that an increasingly competitive market is better for consumers both in terms of cost and the diversity of programming available. The bill we consider today will move us toward that kind of robust competition. In short, this bill is focused on changes that we can make this year to move the satellite television industry to the next level, making it a full competitor in the multi-channel video delivery market. It has been said time and again that a major, and perhaps the biggest, impediment to satellite's ability to be a strong competitor to cable is its current inability to provide local broadcast signals to its subscribers. (See, e.g., Business Week (22 Dec. 1997) p. 84.) In fact, marketing research by one firm found that 86 percent of those consumers who consider subscribing to satellite but ultimately do not do so, decide against satellite service because the local television signals are not available. (U.S. Satellite Broadcasting, ``Research Summary for Thomson Electronics,'' Aug. 1997, p. 6.) This problem has been partly technological and partly legal. As we speak, the technological hurdles to satellite retransmission of local broadcast signals are being lowered substantially. Emerging technology is not enabling the satellite industry to begin to offer television viewers their own local programming of news, weather, sports, and entertainment, with digital quality picture and sound. This will mean that viewers in the remoter areas of my large home state of Utah will be able to watch television programming originating in Salt Lake City, rather than New York or California. In fact, one satellite carrier is already providing such a service in Utah. Today, with this bill, we hope to remove the legal impediments to use of this emerging technology to make local retransmission of broadcast signals a reality for all subscribers. The most important result will be that the constituents of all my colleagues will finally have a choice for full service multi-channel video programming: They will be able to choose cable or one of a number of satellite carriers. This should foster an environment of proliferating choice and lowered prices, all to the benefit of consumers, our constituents. To that end, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Improvements Act'' makes the following changes in the copyright law governing satellite television transmissions: It creates a new copyright license which allows satellite carriers to retransmit a local television station to households and businesses throughout that station's local market, just as cable does, and sets a zero copyright rate for providing this service. It extends the satellite compulsory licenses for both local and distant signals, which are now set to expire at the end of the year, until 2004. It cuts the copyright rates paid for distant signals by 30 or 45 percent, depending on the type of signal. It allows consumers to switch from cable to satellite service for network signals without waiting 90-day period now required in the law. It allows for a national Public Broadcasting Service satellite feed. Many of my colleagues in this Chamber will recognize this legislation as substantively identical to a bill reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee last year. It passed the Judiciary Committee this year again with unanimous support. I am pleased with the degree of cooperation and consensus we have been able to forge with respect to this legislation, and I am pleased that we have been able to bring this bill before the Senate for swift consideration and approval. Let me explain how we will proceed. As I have indicated earlier, the bill we have before us is the copyright portion of a comprehensive reform package crafted in conjunction with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee. As the Judiciary Committee has moved forward with consideration of the copyright legislation embodied in S. 247, the Commerce Committee proceeded simultaneously to consider separate legislation introduced by Chairman McCain, S. 303, to address related communications amendments, including important ares such as the must- carry and retransmission consent requirements for satellite carriers upon which the copyright licenses will be conditioned, and the FCC's distant television signal eligibility process. It is our joint intention to combine our respective work product as two titles of the same bill in a way that will clearly delineate the work product of each committee, but combine them in the seamless whole necessary to make the licenses work for consumers and the affected industries. To do that, Chairman McCain will today offer the text of his committee's companion legislation as an amendment to the Judiciary Committee's underlying copyright bill. Upon adoption of this amendment, we will offer a manager's package of technical and conforming amendments to more fully meld the bills into a comprehensive, pro-consumer package that we can offer to the House for their consideration in a conference. I am glad we are taking up this legislation today. We need to act quickly on this legislation. The Satellite Home Viewer Act sunsets at the end of this year, placing at risk the service of many of the 11 million satellite subscribers nationwide. Many of our constituents are confused about the status of satellite service in February and April to as many as 2.5 million subscribers nationally who have been adjudged ineligible for distant signal service under current law. The granting of the local license, together with some resolution of the eligibility rules for distant signals and a more consumer-friendly process, can help bring clarity to these consumers, and greater competition in price and service for all subscription television viewers. I again thank the majority leader for his interest in and leadership with respect to these issues, and the chairman of the Commerce Committee for his collegiality and cooperation in this process. I also thank my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who have worked on this legislation. This bill is a product of a bipartisan effort with Senators Leahy, DeWine, and Kohl, and I have been pleased to work closely with each of them every step of the way. Finally, I thank the Register of Copyrights, Ms. Marybeth Peters, and Bill Roberts of her staff in particular, for their assistance and expertise throughout this process. The Senate process has been a more informed one, and the product of our efforts more sound as a result of their advice and recommendations. In closing, I look forward to our consideration of this important legislation today, and to continued collaboration with my colleagues to help hasten more vigorous competition in the television delivery market and the ever-widening consumer choice that will follow it.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk to the McCain amendment, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I ask for a division vote on the resolution of ratification.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand today with my colleague, Senator Conrad, to introduce legislation aimed at helping companies to develop technologies for cleaner burning fuels. This is important to the people in my home state of Utah where air pollution is one of the top concerns of citizens. I believe that cleaner burning fuels that will reduce emissions is a key element of the solution to this problem. The Biomass and Coal Facilities Extension Act would provide a tool for companies that are stepping into this void and developing clean burning fuels by extending the ``placed in service'' date under section 29 for facilities that produce alternative fuels. Section 29 was originally created to encourage the development of alternative fuels to reduce our dependence on imports and to reduce the environmental impacts of certain fuels. With the enormous reserves of low rank coals and lignite in the United States and around the world, and with the potential for use of biomass and other alternatives, it is particularly important to the American economy and to our environment that new, more environmentally friendly fuels are brought to market both here and in developing nations. Bringing new technologies to market is financially risky. In particular, finding investors to take a new technology from a laboratory table to the marketplace is difficult because working the bugs out of a first-of-a-kind, full-sized plant is a costly undertaking. Incentives to bring new, clean energy technologies to the market in the U.S. are a worthwhile use of the tax code. In 1996, Congress provided sufficient incentives to make the development of alternative fuels a viable pursuit by extending the section 29 ``placed in service'' date for facilities designed to produce energy from biomass or processed coals to July 1, 1998, provided that those facilities were constructed pursuant to a binding contract entered into before January 1, 1997. Many contracts were signed and construction projects started. Then the Administration released its budget in February 1997. It contained a proposal to eliminate the extension granted just one year before, cutting off the section 29 credit for plants not completed by July 1, 1997, which is an impossible deadline to meet for many of these projects. Without the assurance of the section 29 tax credit, financing for these projects dried up. Taxpayers were stranded in contracts, some of which contained significant liquidated damages clauses. As a result of the Administration's proposal, taxpayers essentially lost a significant amount of the extension given them by Congress in 1996. The bill before us would give companies with projects already in progress and contracts signed by January 1, 1997 some additional time to finish these projects. The bill does not extend the contract deadline, allow more projects to be initiated, or change the 2008 deadline for receiving the section 29 tax credit. This bill simply restores some of the time that taxpayers lost in their efforts to develop environmentally friendly fuels under section 29. Bringing new alternative fuel technologies to the market is an important part of our commitment to a cleaner environment and a secure economy. Congress reflected that commitment in our efforts to mitigate some of the financial risk involved in developing this much needed technology in 1996. This bill maintains that commitment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand today with my colleague, Senator Conrad, to introduce legislation aimed at helping companies to develop technologies for cleaner burning fuels. This is important to the people in my home state of Utah where air pollution is one of the top concerns of citizens. I believe that cleaner burning fuels that will reduce emissions is a key element of the solution to this problem. The Biomass and Coal Facilities Extension Act would provide a tool for companies that are stepping into this void and developing clean burning fuels by extending the ``placed in service'' date under section 29 for facilities that produce alternative fuels. Section 29 was originally created to encourage the development of alternative fuels to reduce our dependence on imports and to reduce the environmental impacts of certain fuels. With the enormous reserves of low rank coals and lignite in the United States and around the world, and with the potential for use of biomass and other alternatives, it is particularly important to the American economy and to our environment that new, more environmentally friendly fuels are brought to market both here and in developing nations. Bringing new technologies to market is financially risky. In particular, finding investors to take a new technology from a laboratory table to the marketplace is difficult because working the bugs out of a first-of-a-kind, full-sized plant is a costly undertaking. Incentives to bring new, clean energy technologies to the market in the U.S. are a worthwhile use of the tax code. In 1996, Congress provided sufficient incentives to make the development of alternative fuels a viable pursuit by extending the section 29 ``placed in service'' date for facilities designed to produce energy from biomass or processed coals to July 1, 1998, provided that those facilities were constructed pursuant to a binding contract entered into before January 1, 1997. Many contracts were signed and construction projects started. Then the Administration released its budget in February 1997. It contained a proposal to eliminate the extension granted just one year before, cutting off the section 29 credit for plants not completed by July 1, 1997, which is an impossible deadline to meet for many of these projects. Without the assurance of the section 29 tax credit, financing for these projects dried up. Taxpayers were stranded in contracts, some of which contained significant liquidated damages clauses. As a result of the Administration's proposal, taxpayers essentially lost a significant amount of the extension given them by Congress in 1996. The bill before us would give companies with projects already in progress and contracts signed by January 1, 1997 some additional time to finish these projects. The bill does not extend the contract deadline, allow more projects to be initiated, or change the 2008 deadline for receiving the section 29 tax credit. This bill simply restores some of the time that taxpayers lost in their efforts to develop environmentally friendly fuels under section 29. Bringing new alternative fuel technologies to the market is an important part of our commitment to a cleaner environment and a secure economy. Congress reflected that commitment in our efforts to mitigate some of the financial risk involved in developing this much needed technology in 1996. This bill maintains that commitment. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 19, for purposes of conducting a Full Committee business meeting which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this business meeting is to consider pending calendar business. (See Attached) The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 19, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing on S. 613, that Indian Tribal Economic Development and Contract Encouragement Act of 1999, and S. 614, the Indian Tribal Regulatory Reform and Business Development Act of 1999. The hearing will be held in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.