Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is fitting that, as we conclude the 105th Congress, we can add to our long list of accomplishments the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This bill has been in the works throughout this Congress and is a fine example of the legislative results we can achieve through long, thoughtful study and debate. I would like to compliment the numerous members and their staffs who have worked on this bill since its inception. Senator Specter introduced the first version of this bill last year. Senator Lugar and Senator Lieberman worked diligently to develop that initial draft. And Senator Nickles took the final drafts and brought the bill to the version we will vote on today. Numerous compromises were made, but the lasting product of this body rarely passes without such compromising, and again I wish to compliment all the senators who so assiduously developed the bill I expect will pass overwhelmingly this morning. There is a conceptual problem whenever we seek to apply serious diplomatic and economic sanctions to worldwide problems. On the one hand, you risk over 70 cases of unintended consequences. I use that number because recent estimates are that at least 70 nations violate, abuse or proscribe outright religious freedom. One legislative solution mandating tangible and serious sanctions applied to over 70 cases can have a myriad of consequences we don't intend. On the other hand, a mere resolution of disapproval of such behavior appears weak, and can give the signal that the Congress is strong on denunciation, but weak on action. Mr. President, one of my favorite quotes on geopolitics comes from the British historian Paul Johnson, who wrote in his magisterial history of the blood-soaked 20th century, Modern Times, that ``it is of the essence of geopolitics to be able to distinguish between different degrees of evil.'' Of course, evil is evil. But, it takes sophisticated legislating to address it in a geopolitically sound way, and I believe that this current bill has succeeded in doing that. By the detailed and considered list of incremental actions directed of the President, and by the selective waiver authorities, we have, in the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, a piece of legislation that is both substantive and flexible. It conscientiously fulfills the Congress's intent to act against one of the most hideous violations of human rights, persecution based on faith. We could not ignore the moral imperative to act, Mr. President. It would be impossible now to list all of the egregious abuses of this fundamental right that are occurring today, and I fear that to select a few examples risks suggesting other, unmentioned, abuses are less objectionable. Nor would it be accurate to suggest that abuses of religion occur merely in totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. The renowned human rights organization Freedom House recently reported that the number of democracies in the world has grown over the past ten years from 66 democracies to 117. This is a remarkable accomplishment and bodes well for global political trends. But we should not believe this trend is irreversible, nor should we assume that all of the new democracies are well-established in their institutions. While democratic development is required to further the protection of individual rights, including the right to conscience and faith, certain democratic regimes around the world still constrain complete freedom of religion. There is a relation, however, between the degree of abuse of the right to individual faith and authoritarian regimes, because it mostly is in authoritarian regimes do you the horrific abuses--torture, imprisonment, execution and disappearance--that are most disturbing to Americans. That is why all of us gathered today to support this bill must redouble our efforts to maintain a strong commitment to the development and expansion of democracy as a pillar of American foreign policy. Mr. President, I take my own Mormon faith seriously; and, because of my faith, I am acutely aware of the historical suffering of an intolerant society. Perhaps that is what makes me more attuned to the sufferings of the faithful--of all the great religions--around the world. Perhaps it is because I am a conservative, who simply believes in a life based on faith, family and country, with faith underpinning the values of family and country. But it is probably because I am an American, a proud citizen of a country where we have so developed a rule of law that enshrines the individual right to belief that we are the envy of freedom-seeking people around the world and the enemies of those regimes too insecure, too primitive, and, in some cases, too barbaric to countenance this most fundamental freedom. Mr. President, I have traveled a great deal in this world, and I have met many leaders. I have met communists who believed, and believers who countenanced oppression of other faiths. The varieties of personal faith and its expressions are countless, but the fundamental political right to personal conscience is indivisible, and universally desired. This bill before demonstrates that the United States Congress, and all its members with all their faiths, believe that the pursuit of this political right must be a conscious, vocal, activist, and determined part of our foreign policy. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, what this legislation will accomplish is straightforward. If a person is able to repay their debts, they will be required to do so. We must restore personal responsibility to the bankruptcy system. If we do not, every family in America, many of whom struggle to make ends meet, will continue to shoulder the financial burden of those who abuse the system. It always has been my view that individuals should take personal responsibility for their debts, and repay them to the extent possible. Under the present system, it is too easy for debtors who have the ability to repay some of what they owe to file for chapter 7 bankruptcy. Under chapter 7, debtors can liquidate their assets and discharge all debt, while protecting certain assets from liquidation, irrespective of their income. Mr. President, I believe that the complete extinguishing of debt should be reserved for debtors who truly cannot repay them. Mr. President, let's think about this problem in fundamental terms. Let's say that somebody owes you money, and is perfectly able to pay you back However, this person finds a clever way under Federal law to avoid paying you. That would be wrong--it would be unfair. Yet, we are allowing this to happen every day in our bankruptcy courts. We have a system woefully in need of reform. The bankruptcy system was never intended to be a means for people who are perfectly able to repay their debts to get out of paying them. It was designed to be a last resort for people who truly need it. What our bill does is allow those who truly need bankruptcy relief to have it, but requires those who can repay their debts to do so. This is not a novel concept. It is basic fairness. Americans agree that bankruptcy should be based on need. As this chart demonstrates, 87 percent believe that an individual who files for bankruptcy should be required to repay as much of their debt as they are able to and then be allowed to extinguish the rest. Yet, as stated in the Wall Street Journal (Nov. 8, 1996) bankruptcy protection laws give an alarming number of ``obscure, but perfectly legal places for anyone to hide assets.'' For instance, one Virginian multimillionaire incurred massive debt, but under State law was entitled to keep certain household goods, farm equipment, and ``one horse.'' This particular individual opted to keep a $640,000 race horse. This bill does a number of things to make ti harder for people who can repay their debts to avoid doing so by using loopholes in the present bankruptcy system. It provides a needs-based means test approach to bankruptcy, under which debtors who can repay some of their debts are required to do so. It contains new measures to protect against fraud in bankruptcy, such as a requirement that debtors supply income tax returns and pay stubs, audits of bankruptcy cases, and limits on repeat bankruptcy filings. Mr. President, I am amazed to hear critics of this legislation make the argument that his report does not protect consumers. As recently as yesterday, I read that an opponent of this legislation said, ``The Republican conferees stripped out every significant consumer protection in the Senate bill, and to add insult to injury, repealed existing consumer protections in the law.'' How, Mr. President, does this bill ``repeal existing consumer protections?'' Further, I challenge anyone who would make such an unfounded claim to compare the House bill, which passed with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 306 to 118, with this balanced conference legislation, and tell me there are no new significant consumer protections. Let's get beyond the politics. Let's stop with the unfounded criticisms of this legislation, and look at what it really gives to consumers: A debtor's bill of rights with disclosure requirements for debtor lawyers who advertise. This provision is designed to protect consumers from ``bankruptcy mills'' that are out to make money without regard to consumers. This provision will protect unwary consumers from being lured into bankruptcy without knowing what they are getting into and without knowing their alternatives. Credit counseling for debtors before they file for bankruptcy, so that they may be able to avoid bankruptcy altogether. New consumers protections with regard to reaffirmations. Every debtor who reaffirms unsecured debt will have the opportunity to appear before a judge. And, a new heightened standard is required in the review of each of these agreements to make sure debtors are not coerced into making them. New reaffirmation disclosure requirements. Even it a debtor is represented by counsel, the creditor must give new disclosures to the debtor with regard to the debtor's rights. New penalties for pressuring debtors after discharge. A $1,000 penalty plus actual damages and attorneys fees if a creditor violates the post-discharge injunction. New penalties for abusive reaffirmation practices: Another $1,000 penalty on top of actual damages and attorneys fees if a debtor is injured by a creditor's failure to follow the procedures for a reaffirmation agreement. New penalties for refusal to credit the payment plan properly--again, $1,000 plus actual damages and attorneys fees when the creditor refuses to credit payments under a plan. New protection for debtors from unjustified motions for dismissal in the form of liability for the debtor's attorneys fees and costs. New penalties for creditors who fail to negotiate. If a creditor unreasonably refuses a good faith offer to settle before bankruptcy for 60 cents on the dollar, the court can decrease the creditor's claim by up to 20 percent. New penalties for violating the automatic stay--including actual damages and attorneys fees. New protections from credit card cancellation. A credit card company is prohibited from terminating a customer's account solely because the debtor has not incurred finance charges on the account. New credit card warnings and disclosures, including new initial disclosures, new periodic statement disclosures and new annual disclosures about the reality of paying off a balance by making only the minimum payment. A new study on disclosures for closed and open end credit secured by the debtor's house, to be conducted by the Federal Reserve Board, with authority to issue new disclosure regulations. A new Fed study on the sufficiency of current consumer protections on debit card liability and the authority to issue new disclosure regulations. A report from the comptroller general within 1 year on whether there are excessive extensions of credit to college students. And, the bill makes extensive reform to the bankruptcy laws in order to protect our children. The bill ensures that bankruptcy cannot be used by deadbeat dads to avoid paying child support and alimony obligations. The obligation to pay child support and alimony is moved to a first priority status under this legislation, as opposed to its current place at seventh in line, behind bankruptcy lawyers and other special interest. With this new law, debtors who owe child support will have to keep paying it when they file for bankruptcy, and they cannot obtain a discharge until they bring their child support and alimony obligations current. Also, if a debtor pays child support right before filing for bankruptcy, the child support payment can't be taken away from the kids. The National Association of Attorneys General has told me that they ``applaud the provisions * * * that improve the tr4atment of domestic support obligations by ensuring that the spouse and children will continue to be able to collect support payments they are owed during the bankruptcy case and that debtors will not obtain a discharge until they have met their obligations to their spouse and children.'' The attorneys general go on to say that ``these are much needed additions to current law, and we strongly support these changes.'' the National Child Support Enforcement Association has also written to me in support of these improvements to bankruptcy law because of the need ``to strengthen and clarify the rights of separated families during and following bankruptcy proceedings.'' In addition, this bill protects our children's educations. With this legislation, postsecondary education accounts will be protected in bankruptcy up to $50,000 per child or $100,000 in the aggregate. This bill also provides new and important protections for retirement savings. The AARP has stated, ``The accumulation and preservation of retirement funds * * * represents an important national goal.'' The AARP believes--and I agree with them--that retirement savings should be more uniformly protected, and that ``Shielding retirement funds would reduce the likelihood that legitimate petitioners will be impoverished later in life.'' Under this bill, retirement plan assets are categorically untouchable by creditors, even if State exemptions are otherwise claimed. Furthermore, this legislation keeps drunk drivers from using bankruptcy to get out of paying their victims the judgments they owe them. I simply can't believe that opponents of this legislation can say with a straight face that this legislation doesn't help the American people. About $40 billion in consumer debt will be erased this year in personal bankruptcies. Let me put this figure in perspective. $40 billion is enough to fund the entire U.S. Department of Transportation for a year, or to provide Pell grants to 13 million needy college students. It has been estimated that bankruptcies cost every American family about $400 per year. Apparently, critics of this legislation are content to throw this money away. But where I come from, $400 a family means something. It buys 5 weeks worth of groceries, 20 tanks of gas, 10 pairs of shoes for a grade school child, or more than a year's supply of diapers. Are opponents of this bill really comfortable with the status quo? Are they willing to throw away all of the important new consumer protections we have worked for in this bill? Are they willing to have retirement savings and educational savings exposed to the claims of creditors in bankruptcy? Are they willing to continue to let deadbeat dads use the U.S. bankruptcy system to get off the hook for child support? Are they willing to let drunk drivers use bankruptcy to get out of paying their victims? The only conclusion we can reach is that opponents of this legislation simply never wanted to see bankruptcy reform at all. Apparently, they are content to do nothing to curb the record increases in bankruptcy filings. They are willing to allow people to continue to ``game'' the bankruptcy system at the expense of honest, hardworking Americans. And, they are happy to sit idly by and do nothing when they see a $400 hidden bankruptcy tax imposed on every American family year after year. It is my sincere hope my colleagues will not derail this bill just to make a political statement, and instead vote their conscience on the substance, and support this bill. I am also hopeful that the President and his advisors will recognize the importance of this bill to the economy and to all consumers. In conclusion, Mr. President, I have heard these arguments from my colleagues on the other side that this process has not been a good process and all of their consumer protection items have been taken out of this bill. Look, I negotiated with the House on this, and we had to do it in a very intensive, tight framework. It was a very difficult thing to do. Let me go down through some of the new consumer protections that are in this bill, because nothing could be farther from the truth than for them to come out here and indicate there are no consumer protections. No. 1, we have a Debtor Bill of Rights in this bill, credit counseling; we have judicial review of reaffirmation; we have reaffirmation of disclosure requirements; we have penalties for pressuring debtors after discharge; we have penalties for abusive reaffirmation; we have penalties for refusal to credit payments; we have protections from unjustified motions; and penalties for failure to negotiate. This is all for the protection of consumers. Penalties for violating automatic stays, protection from credit card cancellations, credit card warnings and disclosures that we require, rules and study on disclosures, over 100 percent mortgage credit study; we have a study on debit card liability; we have a college student and credit card study. All of this is important, meaning we are going to continue to revisit this and do all of the things we can to do what is right here. We have child support protected, education savings protected, retirement savings protected; we have drunk-driving judgments are going to get paid. Now, there are a lot of consumer protections here. Look at this: ``Americans agree bankruptcy should be based on need.'' An individual who files for bankruptcy should be able to wipe out all their debt regardless of their ability to repay that debt. That is 10 percent of the people. The ``DK refused,'' 4 percent. An individual who files for bankruptcy should be required to pay as much of their debt as they are able to and then be able to wipe out the rest. Eighty-seven percent fit in that category. What does that mean to the American taxpayers and the real consumers in this country and everybody else who is paying for this ungodly process? About $40 billion in consumer debt will be erased this year in personal bankruptcy. First, $40 billion would fund the entire U.S. Department of Transportation for 1 year; second, provide Pell grants to 13 million needy college-bound students; third, ``The Flawed System Costs Every American Household $400.'' Just think about that. Last but not least, ``Bankruptcies Cost American Families $400 a Year.'' That $400 could buy a family of four 5 weeks of groceries, 20 tanks of unleaded gasoline 10 pairs of shoes for the average grade-school child, and more than 1 year's worth of disposable diapers. There is a lot we have done here. Is it perfect? No, because we have two bodies here that have to get together. I would also like to express any disappointment that despite hours and hours and numerous meetings between Democrats and Republicans, some say that the process was not fair or somehow excluded Democrat participation. I lived through years and years of Democrat control of this body, and the other body, and I have to tell you, they were not nearly as fair in most conferences as we have been here in trying to accommodate Democrats--when many did not want to. So we have tried to do it. I think it is just really very phony to go otherwise. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Three. Three minutes. Go ahead.

Mr. HATCH. Could the Senator do it in 2?

Mr. HATCH. how much time would the Senator want?

Mr. HATCH. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for this legislation to exchange school trust lands located in Utah to the federal government. This timely piece of legislation has the full support of the Utah delegation, the Governor of Utah, and the Clinton administration, as well as the PTA and local educators from across our state. It is, in some small measure, the result of the unfortunate situation created several years ago when President Clinton created the Grand Staircase Escalante Monument that withdrew hundreds of thousands of additional Utah school trust lands from benefitting Utah s school children. This bill represents the largest land exchange in the history of Utah. I commend the President for being willing to do this, the Secretary of the Interior for being willing to do this, and others on the floor, including my colleague, Senator Bennett, the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Murkowski, and the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers. Without their leadership and support, this legislation would not have been possible. I want to express that appreciation. This is a momentous day for the State of Utah that will leave a lasting legacy for our school children. This bill passed the House of Representatives in July and was approved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources last month. I am pleased the full Senate will consider it today and send it to the President. I and all the citizens of Utah have looked forward anxiously to this day, which has been a long time coming. When Utah became a state in 1896, Congress designated a portion of each township in the state to be set aside as School Trust Land which would be used to generate revenue for Utah's schools. The patchwork layout of these school trust lands across the state has historically created management difficulties between federal and state governments. As new national parks, forests, and monuments are designated, the school lands are often enveloped within them. This has the effect of closing off development of these lands and, therefore, any revenue they might produce for the school land trust fund. As of 1995, over 200,000 acres of school trust land, called inholdings, were isolated this way. As I mentioned, President Clinton doubled this amount with his designation of the Grand Staircase- Escalante Monument in 1996. At the time of the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante Monument, President Clinton gave numerous assurances that Utah's school children would not be hurt by this designation. H.R. 3830 represents the partial fulfillment of these promises. The Utah Schools and Lands Exchange Act is the culmination of long and careful deliberations between Governor Leavitt and Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt. As a result of this thorough and delicate planning, the act enjoys broad support from environmentalists, private landowners, educators, legislators, and the Administration. The bill exchanges approximately 350,000 acres of school trust lands located in Utah monuments, recreation areas, national parks, and forests to the Federal Government. To provide equitable compensation for these lands, Utah will receive cash, lands, mineral rights, coal deposits, and other Federal properties. I assure my colleagues that this is a fair and equitable exchange of assets. The land received by the Federal Government, totaling 376,739 acres of land and 65,853 acres of mineral rights, includes school trust areas that are similar in nature to the surrounding blocks of federal lands. By transferring these areas to the federal government, the land will fall under federal protection and management. Consolidation of these lands will be beneficial because land ownership will be harmonized, precious natural resources will be preserved and protected, and the American public will gain access to previously isolated areas. A number of priceless natural landmarks will come under the protection of the federal government as a result of this bill. These include: Eye of the Whale Arch, located in Arches National Park; ancient Native American ruins and the Jacob Hamblin Arch of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area; several hundred-foot red rock cliffs located within the Grand Staircase Escalante Monument; and the high mountain alpine area in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest known as Franklin Basin. Other natural wonders safeguarded through the exchange include: ancient Native American rock art panels in Dinosaur National Monument and unique geologic formations of the Waterpocket Fold within Capitol Reef National Park. Mr. President, H.R. 3830 addresses many land management problems which have plagued Utah for decades. Specifically, this measure helps solve a problem suffered by all states, such as Utah, having large tracts of federally owned or controlled land --that is, the starvation and lack of funding for our school systems which traditionally depend on property taxes for funding. The trust land system, developed by Congress in the 19th century during the period of westward expansion, was an attempt to offset the losses from the Federal Government's desire to protect certain lands. We are pleased that, after 2 years, the Clinton administration has delivered on this commitment. I especially want to commend Utah Governor Mike Leavitt for undertaking the task of painstaking identification of lands for exchange and for conducting these negotiations with the Interior Department. His determination and dedication to initiating this process cannot be understated. I also want to recognize the efforts of Utah's educators, parents, and school board members, who kept this issue on the front burner. Their dedication to resolving this serious funding helped drive these negotiations and ensure that nothing got bogged down. In short, land is land; but we needed to keep our eye on the ball, and that is our children. Again, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Bennett, for his efforts on this bill. I know he shares my feeling of joy that this bill is finally coming to fruition. It means a great deal to improving education in our State, and I appreciate my colleagues' support. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Controlled Substances Civil Penalty Reform Act of 1998,'' S. 2600, legislation I have been developing for some months working in conjunction with Senator Gregg and the Appropriations Committee, our House colleague, Bill McCollum, and other interested parties including the Drug Enforcement Administration, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and the National Wholesale Druggists Association. This is a ``good government'' bill, legislation which I intend to correct a situation which has proven to be of great concern to America's drug stores, the wholesale community which supplies them, and America's consumers. As a House hearing amply documented last month, there have been a number of cases in which the Drug Enforcement Administration has imposed large fines for small, record-keeping errors committed by those the agency regulates, primarily drug stores and their suppliers. The DEA has a critical mission to combat diversion of controlled substances. This is of great national significance, and the agency should zealously pursue to the limits of the law those who traffic in illicit drugs. That being said, there is a difference between going after drug dealers and examining the records kept by legitimate wholesalers and pharmacies. Overzealously throwing the book at above-board businesses, who are doing so much to help America's consumers, for relatively minor record-keeping violations is not warranted. In 1997, these fines, which may be assessed at up to $25,000 per violation, totaled a substantial $12 million. But given the nature of some of the minor deficiencies, which I am advised are sometimes for trivial matters such as incorrect zip codes, the question must be raised whether this particular enforcement activity is operating more life a hidden tax or user fees than a meaningful deterrent to drug diversion. In short, S. 2600 amends the Controlled Substances Act in three important ways. First, it adds a negligence standard to current law, so that the government must prove that the record-keeping violation was due to a negligent act, rather than an unintended mistake or omission, prior to any fines being imposed. Second, it lowers the ceiling on these fines from ``up to $25,000'' per violation, to ``up to $10,000'' per violation. The third provision adds a number of needed standards that the Attorney General must consider before any fine is imposed. These include: whether diversion actually occurred; whether actual harm to the public resulted from the diversion; whether the violations were intentional or negligent in nature; whether the violations were a first time offense; the time intervals between inspections where no, or any serious, violations were found; whether the violations were multiple occurrences of the same type of violation; whether and to what extent financial profits may have resulted from the diversion; and the financial capacity of registrants to pay the fines assessed. Finally, my proposal makes clear that in determining whether to assess a penalty, the Attorney General may take into account whether the violator has taken immediate and effective corrective action, including demonstrating the existence of compliance procedures, in order to reduce the potential for any future violations. The Attorney General may also follow informal procedures such as sending one or more warning letters to the violator, as she determines appropriate. Mr. President, I recognize that our time is short for the remainder of this session. However, given Senator Gregg's significant interest in this issue, and the abundant work that Representative McCollum and I have devoted to this issue this year, I am hopeful this needed reform is something we can accomplish before we adjourn.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me assure my friend from Ohio that I have spoken to our colleagues on the House side, Congressmen Hyde and Coble, and we have agreed to work together to introduce and seek passage of database protection legislation early next year. I will continue to work with the Senator from Ohio and our Senate and House colleagues and address this issue early next year.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the wining days of a Congress, so many important measures need attention that the significance of individual bills is often not appreciated. This is even more true for a bill that has copyright as its subject matter, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the conference report which passed the Senate today by unanimous consent. But the DMCA is one of the most important bills passed this session, as the distinguished majority leader stated yesterday. ``Digital Millennium'' may seem grandiose, but in fact it accurately describes the purpose of the bill--to set copyright law up to meet the promise and the challenge of the digital world in the new millennium. Digital ``world'' is appropriate here, because the Internet has made it possible for information--including valuable American copyrighted works--to flow around the globe in a matter of hours, and Internet end users can receive copies of movies, music, software, video games and literary and graphic works that are as good as the originals. Indeed, the initial impetus for the DMCA was the implementation of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties on copyright and on performances and phonorecords. The WIPO treaties and the DMCA will protect the property rights of Americans in their work as they move in the global, digital marketplace, and, by doing so, continue to encourage the creation of new works to inspire and delight us and to improve the quality of our lives. In addition to securing copyright in the global, digital environment, the DMCA also clarifies the liability of on-line and Internet service providers--OSPs and ISPs--for copyright infringement liability. The OSPs and ISPs needed more certainty in this area in order to attract the substantial investments necessary to continue the expansion and upgrading of the Internet. The final component of the DMCA is the Vessel Hull Design Protection, Act (VHDPA). This legislation was not part of the Senate-passed version of the DMCA; rather, it was accepted by the Senate conferees in deference to the House of Representatives. Although I support the idea of industrial design protection as a legal regime outside of patent law, I appreciate how controversial it is, and I think that the Senate should act circumspectly. Furthermore, I am concerned that this bill is not like traditional industrial design protection in that the VHDPA protects the functionality of vessel hulls, not only its aesthetic aspects. But because the VHDPA is limited only to boat hulls, I felt that I could acquiesce in including it in the conference report as a limited experiment in design protection. In order to make it truly experimental, I suggested, and the conferees adopted, modifications that ``sunset'' the bill two years after enactment and that require two studies of its effect. Therefore, in the future, we will be able to re- evaluate the Act, and we will have the benefit of two studies--both of them conducted jointly by the Register of Copyrights and the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks--to help us make the right decision. In the nearer future--early in the next session--I intend to focus my attention on database protection legislation. The House bill on this issue, which was attached by the House to the WIPO implementation legislation, was a good start toward tackling the problem of database piracy. It was quite controversial, however, so I asked the parties to sit down with me to work out a compromise bill, so that disagreements on database protection would not jeopardize the DMCA. This effort resulted in a bill draft that attempted to accommodate the diverging interests. The scientific research community, in particular, favored my approach because it allayed many of their fears that recognizing a property right in databases would hamper scientific research. Neither the House bill nor my proposal was accepted by the conferees, but I am determined to work on this issue in the next Congress. Indeed, I intend to introduce a bill based on my proposal, have a hearing on database protection, and move database legislation as quickly as possible. We need to encourage the substantial investment of money, time and labor that it takes to gather and organize information and at the same time address the reasonable concerns of information users. In our global, high tech era, information will be the coin of the realm, and I see database protection as the next step in moving the law into the digital millennium. In closing, I would like to recognize the many people who brought this bill to a successful conclusion. First, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, who was of invaluable assistance in getting this important piece of legislation passed. Two other distinguished colleagues, Senator Storm Thurmond and Senator John Ashcroft, participated in the refining process that made the DMCA a better bill. Second, I want to thank the House conferees, especially Congressman Henry Hyde, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Howard Coble, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, and Congressman Tom Bliley, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee for their willingness to consider the Senate's views objectively and dispassionately. They too wanted to get this done, and it was the spirit of cooperation on both sides that produced this admirable result. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the hard work done by the Senate and House staffs. There were so many who worked on this bill that it would take a column of the Congressional Record to list them. But I would like to mention just a few. Manus Cooney, the staff director and chief counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the staff pilot for the DMCA. He was ably assisted by Edward Damich, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of the Committee, and Staff Assistant Troy Dow. Senator Thurmond was ably assisted in the conference committee by his Judiciary Committee Counsel, Garry Malphus. Bruce Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director of the Judiciary Committee, Beryl Howell, Minority General Counsel, and Marla Grossman, Minority Counsel, provided invaluable assistance on all levels. We had superb cooperation from the minority, and the DMCA is truly a bipartisan bill. Turning to the House side, I want to express my appreciation for the contributions of Mitch Glazier, Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, Debra Laman, Counsel of the Subcommittee, Robert Raben, Minority Counsel of the Subcommittee, Justin Lilley, General Counsel of the Commerce Committee, and Andrew Levin, Minority Counsel of that Committee. Mr. President, this bill, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, is one of the most important bills in this whole Congress. It has taken a tremendous amount of effort from all of us to be able to put this together. It is going to make a difference in so many ways--in the protection of copyrighted works, in digital communication and otherwise--throughout the world, that I feel very, very happy to be able to say that this is being enacted into law at this particular point. I would like to state my agreement with certain important points that Senator Leahy made in his remarks about Section 1201(k), ``Certain Analog Devices and Certain Technological Measures.'' The Senator emphasized that that section establishes requirements only for analog videocassette recorders, analog videocassette camcorders and professional analog videocassette recorders. It is also my understanding that the intent of the conferees is that these provisions apply only to analog video recording devices. In addition, because innovation and technological development thrive in unregulated environments, this section should not be misconstrued as providing any impetus or precedent for regulating or otherwise dictating to the computer software industry technological standards. I agree fully with the assessment of the conferees that technology develops best and most rapidly in response to marketplace forces. For these reasons, this section applies to analog technologies only, and it is entirely without prejudice to digital technologies. Let me just say that I am disappointed that we were not able to include database protection in this bill this year. There are so many people who would like to have that done, on the floor and in the business world and elsewhere, but we were unable to get it done because of objections and because of some dissent. But I would like to put everybody on notice that, shortly after we get back next year, I will file a database protection bill. I believe my colleague from Vermont will join me in this. That, hopefully, will be a bill that everybody can support, because it is absolutely critical that we get this done. It will be one of the highest orders of priority that we will have on the Senate Judiciary Committee next year. It was one of the things that I feel disappointed we were unable to get done on this particular bill. It just could not be done at this time. I know there are people who are disappointed, but we will get it done next year--we will do everything we can to get it done, and I hope we can call upon industry and everyone else interested in this issue throughout the country to help us in this matter. I hope our colleagues will, because it is very, very important. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the conference report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the conference report be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Will my colleague yield for 1 other minute? I promised I would yield to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. HATCH. As I understand, the conference report has been agreed to. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the bill (H.R. 2281) amend title 17, United States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and Performance and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend, the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as my colleague well knows, I have facilitated a number of meetings with interested parties from all sides of this issue to try to work out a consensus bill. Obviously more work needs to be done to pass a bill that is acceptable to all sides. This is an important issue, and I think everyone understands that. The Senator from Ohio has my assurance that I will continue to work with him on this issue.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. How much time does the distinguished Senator from Washington desire? I yield 5 minutes or such time as he needs to the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the nomination of Professor William Fletcher, nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am pleased that the U.S. Senate is finally fully considering this nominee. Mr. Fletcher was first nominated during the 104th Congress on December 21, 1995. I do regret the fact that his nomination has languished for as long as it has, but I would like to comment on some of the obstacles that have hindered this nomination. First, all nominees to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals got bound up within the difficulties we were having with deciding whether or not to divide the Ninth Circuit. Once we established a commission to look into this matter, we have been able to process nominees to that court. Second, some had concerns--legitimate concerns--that Professor Fletcher's mother, Betty Fletcher, currently serves as a judge on the Ninth Circuit. There is a statute that appears to prevent two people, closely related by blood or marriage, from serving on the same court. Now, the Justice Department said that only applies to people less than the judiciary, but that was pure bunk as far as I was concerned. The statute is pretty clear. Yes, it is an old statute, but it is clear and it is a matter of great concern to me. To ensure compliance with that law--or to the best of my ability to make sure that this law is complied with, Judge Betty Fletcher has agreed to take senior status upon her son's confirmation, and Senator Kyl has introduced legislation, which passed the Senate last night, which I support, that will clarify the applicability of the so-called antinepotism statute. Just to say a little bit on that statute, it seems to me that it is very logical that we should not place persons of such close consanguinity on the same court that overviews 50 million people. Surely we can find people other than sons of mothers on the court. So Senator Kyl has made a splendid effort to try to resolve this matter. He indicated in our Judiciary Committee this morning that, as a matter of principle, he would have to vote against Professor Fletcher because he feels that the statute does apply. I tried to resolve it by chatting with Judge Betty Fletcher who has agreed to take senior status upon her son's confirmation. Now that these obstacles have been removed, I am pleased that we are voting on Mr. Fletcher and would like to express my considered view that he should be confirmed. I am the first to say that I may not agree with all of Professor Fletcher's views on Federal courts and procedure, the separation of powers, or constitutional interpretation. But the question is not whether I agree with all of his views, or whether a Republican President would or would not nominate such a candidate. The President is entitled to have his nominees confirmed, provided that the nominee is well qualified and will abide by the appropriate limitations on Federal judges. I recognize that this is especially important for nominees to the Ninth Circuit and concur wholeheartedly with those of my colleagues who believe that the Ninth Circuit has literally gone out of control. I agree with the distinguished Senator from Alabama that that circuit is out of line and out of control. It is often reversed. It has a 75 percent reversal rate over the last number of decades because of these activist judges on that bench. But Professor Fletcher has personally assured me that he would follow precedent, that he would interpret and enforce the law, not make laws from the bench. I believe Professor Fletcher is a man of honor and integrity and that he will live up to his word and, in fact, I hope Professor Fletcher, who is an expert on civil procedure, can actually help rein in some of the more radical forces on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Professor Fletcher clearly is highly qualified. He is a graduate of the Yale Law School, he clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, and is considered an eminent legal scholar. That consideration is justified. Although some of his writings may push the envelope of established legal thinking, as often happens in the case of professors of law, we should recognize that this is the role of academics. I made that point during the Bork nomination when my colleagues on the other side were finding fault with many of the positions that Judge Bork had taken in some of his writings, many of which he repudiated later, but all of which were provocative and intended to create debate on the respective subjects. In short, I believe Professor Fletcher is within the mainstream of American legal thought just as several Republican nominees such as Antonin Scalia, Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner, and Ralph Winter were when they were nominated, and this body should confirm him today. I hope my colleagues will confirm Professor Fletcher. Today the Judiciary Committee voted out 15 judicial nominees and 4 U.S. attorneys. This year we have held hearings for 111 out of 127 nominees. If all of the judges who are now pending on the Senate floor are confirmed, as I expect they will be, we will end this Congress having confirmed 106 judges, resulting in a vacancy rate of 5.4 percent. This will be the lowest vacancy rate since the judiciary was expanded in 1990. Also, over 50 percent of the judges confirmed this year, to date, by this Republican Senate have been women and/or minorities. Given the fact that over the last five Congresses the average number of article III judges confirmed is 96, I think this Republican majority has done very well to this point, and will continue to do so. Can we do better? Always. I am sure we can. And we will certainly try to do better during this coming year, and I intend to do better during the coming year. At this particular point, we are concerned about Professor William Fletcher, who I believe is highly qualified for this job. Even though I don't agree with him on everything that he believes, or everything that he has taught, the fact of the matter is he is qualified, he is a decent man, and he should be confirmed here today. Although Professor Fletcher's nomination has taken quite a while to be brought up for a vote, I do not think anyone can fairly criticize the work the Judiciary Committee has done this year, especially during the last few weeks of this session. On Tuesday of this week, Senator Specter chaired a hearing for 11 nominees. Nine of those 11 nominees were received by the Committee only within the last month. I am told that, according to the Department of Justice, the hearing Senator Specter chaired broke a record for the most nominees on a single hearing. To date, the Republican Senate has already confirmed 80 judges. And today, that number will rise to 84, if Professor Fletcher and the other judges that will be brought up for a vote are confirmed--as I wholly expect they will. As I stated earlier, if all of the nominees now pending on the Senate floor are confirmed, the Senate will adjourn having confirmed 106 Article III judges. Again, this will leave a judicial vacancy rate of only 5.6 percent. Keep in mind that the Clinton administration is on record as having stated that a vacancy rate of just over 7 percent is considered virtual full employment of the Federal judiciary. I do not think anyone can legitimately argue that the Judiciary Committee has not done its job well. Yes, there have been some controversial Clinton nominees that have moved slowly or not at all, but sometimes nominees come to the Committee with problems that prevent their nominations from going forth. I am pleased to say that although some thought the problems relating to Professor Fletcher's nomination could not be worked out, they ultimately have been. I fully expect that Professor Fletcher will be confirmed today and I will vote for him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the ``Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1998''. With me, sponsoring this important legislation are: Senator Dodd, Senator Ascroft, Senator Lieberman, Senator Sessions and Senator Torricelli. Asbestos litigation is a national crisis. Today, state and federal courts are overwhelmed by up to 150,000 asbestos lawsuits. Over 30,000 new suits are added to the dockets annually. Unfortunately, those that are truly sick with asbestosis and various asbestos-related cancers and illnesses spend years in court before receiving any compensation, and then lose 60% of that compensation to attorneys' fees and other costs. The best available data show that on average asbestos suits take 31 months to reach resolution, compared to 18 months for other product liability suits. One cause of this extraordinary delay in compensation is the large number of lawsuits filed by those who, without any symptoms or signs of asbestos-related illness, bring suits for future medical monitoring and fear of cancer. In a lottery-like system, juries award enormous compensation and outrageous punitive damages to non-impaired plaintiffs, while others in identical cases or with actual illness receive little or no compensation. Excessive Damage awards, along with the transaction costs associated with the lawsuits, deplete the financial resources of defendant companies and lead them to file for bankruptcy. As legal and financial resources are tied up and exhausted, it is increasingly unclear whether those who are truly inflicted with asbestos-caused diseases will be able to recover anything at all in the years ahead. Courts have tried unsuccessfully to cope with and alleviate the problems associated with the more than half a million asbestos cases. The major parties involved attempted to compromise on a fair and equitable solution that included prompt compensation. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned one such compromise, known as the Amchem or Georgine agreement, on civil procedural rule grounds but found the settlement to be ``arguably a brilliant partial solution.'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the Supreme Court, upheld the Appellate decision and stated, ``[t]he argument is sensibly made that a nationwide administrative claims processing regime would provide the most secure, fair and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure. Congress, however, has not adopted such a solution.'' The Court accurately recognized that Congress is the most appropriate body to resolve the asbestos crisis. That is what we intend to do by introducing this important legislation. Mr. President, by virtue of the hundreds of thousands of cases that already have been litigated in the court system, the legal and scientific issues relating to asbestos litigation have been thoroughly explored and punishments have been exacted on defendant companies. Recognizing the potential dangers of asbestos exposure, we have seen asbestos consumption in the United States drop to historic lows since peak consumption in the early 1970's. These factors along with the recent court decisions demonstrate that the asbestos litigation issue is now ripe for a legislative solution. The bill that I introduce today will correct the asbestos litigation crisis problems. It is crafted to reflect as closely as possible the original settlement agreed to by the involved parties in the Amchem settlement. This bill will eliminate the asbestos litigation burden in the courts, get fair compensation for those who currently are sick, and enable the businesses to manage their liabilities in order to ensure that compensation will be available for future claimants. It is important to note that no tax-payer money will fund this bill. It will be entirely funded by asbestos defendants. Specifically, the bill reforms asbestos litigation in the judicial system by establishing a national claims facility to provide fair and prompt compensation for persons suffering from asbestos-associated illnesses. Eligibility for compensation will be determined by objective predetermined criteria. The legislation provides for alternative dispute resolution and allows plaintiffs who go through the system without resolving their claims through the claims facility to use the tort system. Again no taxpayer dollars will fund this facility or any part of this program. I have carefully crafted this legislation so that it is at least as favorable--and, in many cases, more favorable--to claimants as the original Amchem settlement. As this bill makes its way through the legislative process, I look forward to working with my colleagues to further refine the language in order to achieve the maximum public benefit from this legislation. Mr. DODD: Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the ``Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1998.'' This legislation would expedite the provision of financial compensation to the victims of asbestos exposure by establishing a nationwide administrative system to hear and adjudicate their claims. Mr. President, millions of American workers have been exposed to asbestos on the job. Tragically, many have contracted asbestos-related illness, which can be devastating and deadly. Others will surely become similarly afflicted. These individuals--who have or will become terribly ill due to no fault to their own--deserve swift and fair compensation to help meet the costs of health care, lost income, and other economic and non-economic losses. Unfortunately, many victims of asbestos exposure are not receiving the efficient and just treatment they deserve from our legal system. Indeed, it can be said that the current asbestos litigation system is in a state of crisis. Today, more than 150,000 lawsuits clog the state and federal courts. In 1996 alone, more than 36,000 new suits were filed. Those who have been injured by asbestos exposure must often wait years for compensation. And when that compensation finally arrives, it is often eaten up by attorneys' fees and other transaction costs. In the early 1990's, an effort was made to improve the management of federal asbestos litigation. Cases were consolidated, and a settlement to resolve them administratively was agreed to between defendant companies and plaintiffs' attorneys. This settlement also obtained the backing of the Building and Construction Trades Union of the AFL-CIO. Regrettably, the settlement was overturned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996. Though the Court termed the settlement ``arguably a brilliant partial solution,'' it found that the class of people created by the settlement--namely, those exposed to asbestos--was too large and varied to be certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. In its decision, the Court effectively invited the Congress to provide for the existence of such a settlement as a fair and efficient way to resolve asbestos litigation claims. Hence this bill. In simple terms, it codifies the settlement reached between companies and the representatives of workers who were exposed to asbestos on the job. It would establish a body to review claims by those who believe that they have become ill due to exposure to asbestos. It would provide workers with mediation and binding arbitration to promote the fair and swift settlement of their claims. It would allow plaintiffs to seek additional compensation if their non- malignant disease later developed into cancer. And it would limit attorneys' fees so as to ensure that a claimant receives a just portion of any settlement amount. All in all, Mr. President, this is a good bill. I commend Senator Hatch for his leadership in crafting it. However, it is not a perfect bill. My office has received comments on the bill from representatives of a number of parties affected by asbestos litigation. I hope and expect that those comments will be given the consideration that they deserve by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate as this legislation moves forward, as I hope it will early in the 106th Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the ``Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1998''. With me, sponsoring this important legislation are: Senator Dodd, Senator Ascroft, Senator Lieberman, Senator Sessions and Senator Torricelli. Asbestos litigation is a national crisis. Today, state and federal courts are overwhelmed by up to 150,000 asbestos lawsuits. Over 30,000 new suits are added to the dockets annually. Unfortunately, those that are truly sick with asbestosis and various asbestos-related cancers and illnesses spend years in court before receiving any compensation, and then lose 60% of that compensation to attorneys' fees and other costs. The best available data show that on average asbestos suits take 31 months to reach resolution, compared to 18 months for other product liability suits. One cause of this extraordinary delay in compensation is the large number of lawsuits filed by those who, without any symptoms or signs of asbestos-related illness, bring suits for future medical monitoring and fear of cancer. In a lottery-like system, juries award enormous compensation and outrageous punitive damages to non-impaired plaintiffs, while others in identical cases or with actual illness receive little or no compensation. Excessive Damage awards, along with the transaction costs associated with the lawsuits, deplete the financial resources of defendant companies and lead them to file for bankruptcy. As legal and financial resources are tied up and exhausted, it is increasingly unclear whether those who are truly inflicted with asbestos-caused diseases will be able to recover anything at all in the years ahead. Courts have tried unsuccessfully to cope with and alleviate the problems associated with the more than half a million asbestos cases. The major parties involved attempted to compromise on a fair and equitable solution that included prompt compensation. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned one such compromise, known as the Amchem or Georgine agreement, on civil procedural rule grounds but found the settlement to be ``arguably a brilliant partial solution.'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the Supreme Court, upheld the Appellate decision and stated, ``[t]he argument is sensibly made that a nationwide administrative claims processing regime would provide the most secure, fair and efficient means of compensating victims of asbestos exposure. Congress, however, has not adopted such a solution.'' The Court accurately recognized that Congress is the most appropriate body to resolve the asbestos crisis. That is what we intend to do by introducing this important legislation. Mr. President, by virtue of the hundreds of thousands of cases that already have been litigated in the court system, the legal and scientific issues relating to asbestos litigation have been thoroughly explored and punishments have been exacted on defendant companies. Recognizing the potential dangers of asbestos exposure, we have seen asbestos consumption in the United States drop to historic lows since peak consumption in the early 1970's. These factors along with the recent court decisions demonstrate that the asbestos litigation issue is now ripe for a legislative solution. The bill that I introduce today will correct the asbestos litigation crisis problems. It is crafted to reflect as closely as possible the original settlement agreed to by the involved parties in the Amchem settlement. This bill will eliminate the asbestos litigation burden in the courts, get fair compensation for those who currently are sick, and enable the businesses to manage their liabilities in order to ensure that compensation will be available for future claimants. It is important to note that no tax-payer money will fund this bill. It will be entirely funded by asbestos defendants. Specifically, the bill reforms asbestos litigation in the judicial system by establishing a national claims facility to provide fair and prompt compensation for persons suffering from asbestos-associated illnesses. Eligibility for compensation will be determined by objective predetermined criteria. The legislation provides for alternative dispute resolution and allows plaintiffs who go through the system without resolving their claims through the claims facility to use the tort system. Again no taxpayer dollars will fund this facility or any part of this program. I have carefully crafted this legislation so that it is at least as favorable--and, in many cases, more favorable--to claimants as the original Amchem settlement. As this bill makes its way through the legislative process, I look forward to working with my colleagues to further refine the language in order to achieve the maximum public benefit from this legislation. Mr. DODD: Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Hatch, to introduce the ``Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1998.'' This legislation would expedite the provision of financial compensation to the victims of asbestos exposure by establishing a nationwide administrative system to hear and adjudicate their claims. Mr. President, millions of American workers have been exposed to asbestos on the job. Tragically, many have contracted asbestos-related illness, which can be devastating and deadly. Others will surely become similarly afflicted. These individuals--who have or will become terribly ill due to no fault to their own--deserve swift and fair compensation to help meet the costs of health care, lost income, and other economic and non-economic losses. Unfortunately, many victims of asbestos exposure are not receiving the efficient and just treatment they deserve from our legal system. Indeed, it can be said that the current asbestos litigation system is in a state of crisis. Today, more than 150,000 lawsuits clog the state and federal courts. In 1996 alone, more than 36,000 new suits were filed. Those who have been injured by asbestos exposure must often wait years for compensation. And when that compensation finally arrives, it is often eaten up by attorneys' fees and other transaction costs. In the early 1990's, an effort was made to improve the management of federal asbestos litigation. Cases were consolidated, and a settlement to resolve them administratively was agreed to between defendant companies and plaintiffs' attorneys. This settlement also obtained the backing of the Building and Construction Trades Union of the AFL-CIO. Regrettably, the settlement was overturned by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 1996. Though the Court termed the settlement ``arguably a brilliant partial solution,'' it found that the class of people created by the settlement--namely, those exposed to asbestos--was too large and varied to be certified pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. In its decision, the Court effectively invited the Congress to provide for the existence of such a settlement as a fair and efficient way to resolve asbestos litigation claims. Hence this bill. In simple terms, it codifies the settlement reached between companies and the representatives of workers who were exposed to asbestos on the job. It would establish a body to review claims by those who believe that they have become ill due to exposure to asbestos. It would provide workers with mediation and binding arbitration to promote the fair and swift settlement of their claims. It would allow plaintiffs to seek additional compensation if their non- malignant disease later developed into cancer. And it would limit attorneys' fees so as to ensure that a claimant receives a just portion of any settlement amount. All in all, Mr. President, this is a good bill. I commend Senator Hatch for his leadership in crafting it. However, it is not a perfect bill. My office has received comments on the bill from representatives of a number of parties affected by asbestos litigation. I hope and expect that those comments will be given the consideration that they deserve by the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate as this legislation moves forward, as I hope it will early in the 106th Congress.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to offer my congratulations to the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), which is now celebrating its 25th anniversary. For over a quarter of a century, the members of CRN have been working to enhance the public's health by promoting wise dietary choices and the appropriate use of nutritional supplements. CRN's work with federal legislators and policy makers has helped to ensure that consumers have access to a variety of quality nutritional products and to accurate information about the health benefits of these products. Over 100 million Americans are using dietary supplements daily. There is ample--and growing--scientific evidence that dietary supplements can help promote good health. To cite but one example, for many years, we have known that use of folic acid during pregnancy can reduce the risk of birth defects. Now it appears it can help prevent heart disease as well. One of the most significant achievements of which I have been a part, as a Senator for the last 22 years, has been the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994. I worked closely with the CRN in passing this bill, and I am extremely grateful to them for their insights and expertise, which were integral to the success of this endeavor. I am pleased to have had such a positive relationship with CRN and look forward to working with this fine Association for many years in the future to help Americans live healthier lives. Again, my congratulations to the Council for Responsible Nutrition.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce to my colleagues Reverend Allen Novotny. He is our guest Chaplain today and I hope some of you will take the time to introduce yourself. Fr. Novotny is the President of Gonzaga College High School, a Jesuit high school for boys located only a few blocks away from the Capitol. In 1821, the Jesuits founded Gonzaga which operates in the tradition of teaching and learning established by the founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius of Loyola. Throughout our nation's history--through the Civil War, the Great Depression, the World Wars, and the civil rights movement, Gonzaga has maintained its commitment to teaching and learning in the heart of Washington's inner-city, on a street it shares with leaders of business and government, on a block where it ministers to and comforts the least fortunate of society. It is both ironic and appropriate that Gonzaga be situated just a few blocks from our nation's Capitol Building. Gonzaga, like so much of the United States, is a melting pot. Gonzaga combines the largest minority population of any Jesuit High School in the United States with one of the lowest tuitions in the Washington area. Gonzaga is a realized mission of social and economic diversity that offers all who attend the school a glimpse of the full life spectrum. Gonzaga combines service to the community--taking the form of service projects both in the U.S. and abroad, student-assisted tutoring for underprivileged children, and an on-campus, student-assisted McKenna Center & Food Wagon homeless shelter--with top academics and athletics. Gonzaga is, in other words, a complete educational experience. I hope my colleagues will take the time to learn more about Gonzaga's special character. Gonzaga has served the Washington community well and, under the steady leadership of Fr. Novotny, I believe it will continue to do so.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce today a bill to amend title 36 of the U.S. Code, to codify certain laws related to patriotic and national organizations that were enacted after the cut-off date for the title 36 codification recently enacted by Public Law 105-225. The bill makes technical corrections in title 36 and repeals obsolete and unnecessary provisions.