Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I am very concerned about this and a whole raft of other amendments as well. First of all, I think we need to examine the context in which this amendment is being debated. If the members of this body succumb to the temptation to ``pile on'', to ``out-tobacco'' Big Tobacco--and that is surely where we are headed--we will guarantee that the tobacco companies are not part of the equation. Why should we care about this? Tobacco causes cancer and a panoply of other serious diseases. The companies have known this for literally decades; they have known nicotine makes their products addictive. They have continued to market their products, and to target their marketing plans and their advertising to children. That being said, I implore my colleagues to recognize that if the tobacco companies are not part of the equation, then we will not have a meaningful bill that can work. It is as simple as that. Last June 20, the tobacco companies agreed voluntarily to make payments which will range up to $368.5 billion over the next 25 years. They freely chose to make those payments, payments which will help Congress fund a new War on Tobacco, in exchange for certain changes in the law, such as a more predictable litigation environment. In order to devise a bill which is workable and which will not be litigated for years, we have to respect the legal boundaries imposed by our Constitution, that great document upon which our Country was founded. Constitutional scholars have examined the provisions incorporated in the Commerce bill, and have found them to be lacking. For example, public health experts have testified before our Committee that advertising restrictions are an important weapon in any new War on Tobacco. But legal scholars have also cautioned that those restrictions must be drafted in a manner which is constitutionally permissible--which, by the way, this bill is not. As chairman of the Judiciary Committee and as someone who has been concerned about constitutional principles during my tenure in office, I must caution that unless this bill is changed in some very fundamental aspects, we will wind up in 10 years of litigation over a variety of issues, not the least of which will be constitutional issues that will literally cause more problems than anyone ever envisioned. During each of those years, one million more kids will become addicted to tobacco and will die prematurely because the Congress is pursuing a constitutional collision course which could ultimately render substantial parts of the Commerce bill null. It is important to note that, while the tobacco companies voluntarily agreed to the $368.5 billion amount, they have refused to agree to the Commerce bill's $516 billion price tag. We have all seen estimates that the Commerce bill will add $1.10 to the price of a pack of cigarettes in the next five years. What that Treasury estimate does not take into account are any increases due to State excise taxes, wholesaler or retailer markups, attorneys fees, reductions in volume due to increases in black market sales, or imposition of ``look-back'' penalties. Let us be real. The manufacturers, for instance, added 5 cents per pack solely because of just one State settlement, the Minnesota settlement. The $1.10 figure is a myth. During the course of 10 hearings on the tobacco issue, the Judiciary Committee heard an abundance of evidence on this issue. We had three financial analysts testify at our hearings, each of whom did independent analyses, using very detailed economic models, and none of them concurred with an estimate as low as $1.10. Their estimates ranged as high as $2.50 to $3.00, for a total cost of about $5.00 per pack. If that happens, there will be a raging black market. It will be even worse than it is now. We have received testimony that one out of five cigarette packs sold in California today is contraband. Can you imagine what is going to happen if this bill forces tobacco prices up to between $4.50 and $5.00 per pack? There is an additional implication that, with the exception of our colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, and our colleague from Illinois, Senator Moseley-Braun, no one is focusing on. Who will bear the brunt of these increased costs, of these new payments intended to curb youth smoking? It is adults at the lower end of the economic spectrum. For example, almost one-third of people with incomes below $10,000 per year are smokers. It would be better to bring this agreement into some perspective where we can get the tobacco companies on board, however reluctantly. I would like nothing more than for them to pay $1 trillion per year. But the practical reality is that that will not happen. They will either move offshore or go bankrupt first, and they will be totally beyond our control. If we design a program which does not have their open opposition, which is modeled on their voluntary agreement of June 20, 1997, we will have effective accountability, because we will have look-back provisions that are constitutional. We will have an effect ban on advertising provisions, because without their compliance Congress cannot enact stringent advertising restrictions. In short, without the reluctant agreement of the tobacco companies, we will not have the comprehensive program that many of us want. Having said that, I have listened carefully to my colleague from South Carolina. It is well known that I have been an advocate for legal reforms. It is well known that I am supportive of product liability reform. It is well known that I have not been someone who just is a rubber stamp for the trial lawyers of America, even though I have been one myself. It is well known that I think there are excesses in the law. But I think we go a long way toward being excessive as a Congress if we start setting fees for professionals in our society, professionals who are not directly participating in a government program. If we allow ourselves to start dictating what fees have to be paid to certain professions in our society, however tempting, then I think we are starting down a dangerous road. How can conservatives support setting fees in a free market system? That is as bad as setting prices. I have extensively examined the tobacco issue. One thing has become evident. We would not be here today debating this legislation were it not for the Castano attorneys. The distinguished Senator from South Carolina has made some very telling points. Yes, there are excesses. Yes, there are things we can criticize. Yes, we know that many of the trial lawyers have been associated with one political party. That irritates some people, and rightly so. But the fact of the matter is that he is right. It has been the contingent fee system that has allowed people who do not have any money to be able to defend themselves, to assert their rights, and to obtain verdicts in their best interests. And without the attorneys being willing to take cases on a contingent fee basis, many of the wrongs in our society would not be righted. Frankly, I have been on both sides. I started out as an insurance defense lawyer. I tried medical liability defense cases. I know what it is like to have people, plaintiffs lawyers, bringing lawsuits, some of which are trumped up. But I have also been on the other side where people who were humble, without money, had no recourse other than to hope they could find an attorney who would take their case on a contingent fee. This meant that if I didn't win the case, I didn't get paid. If I won the case, then I got somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of the verdict. I never had a case where my client got less as a result of the contingent fee paid to me than they would have gotten by a settlement before a verdict--never, at least not to my recollection. On this particular issue, Senator McCain and those who have written this bill--basically the White House, if you will--inserted a reasonable provision. That provision says that, for the purposes of awarding attorneys' fees and expenses for those actions, the matters of issue shall be submitted to arbitration before a panel of arbitrators. In other words, they are not going to give the trial lawyers a free ride here. They are going to require them to submit their fees to arbitration. They are going to have to come in and justify those fees. In any such arbitration, the panel shall consist of three attorneys, one of whom will be chosen by the Castano plaintiffs' litigation committee, that is, the plaintiffs' attorneys who were signatories to the June 20, 1997 settlement agreement. It seems to me that our distinguished Senator from Arizona did a good job in putting this provision in. A similar provision is in the legislation I filed on November 13. This represents a reasonable approach to the problem. The fact of the matter is that I have devoted a lot of study to the Castano group. And, yes, most of them are Democrats. Most of them are liberal Democrats at that. But there are a number of them who are Republicans, a very small percentage of them. The fact of the matter is that politics should not play a part in this. Without the Castano group, we would not be debating this issue; we would not have been able to bring national debate to the point of considering a bill which penalizes the tobacco industry anywhere between $368.5 billion and estimates as high as $800 billion over 25 years. I believe that members of the Castano group alone have spent somewhere between $20 million and $40 million in basic time alone. That is a lot of money. Some have argued that this figure could approach $100 million. This has been going on for years, in State after State. It has been going on at the expense of the attorneys, without whom we would not be having this opportunity to start a whole new national War on Tobacco. I have to admit, at times my angst over the trial lawyers' support for one side or another shows at times. That is true for most Senators. And the trial bar has brought a lot of this criticism upon itself, to be fair. They seem to be looking out only for their interests sometimes, which is not unusual in the business community. But we should not allow that to cloud the facts on this issue. We should think twice before we move toward having the Congress of the United States set attorneys' fees. What is it going to be next? Accounting fees? What is it going to be? Private doctors' fees? Our public attempts at rate setting already have proven how government interference can distort the marketplace. But I agree with the Senator from South Carolina--this is the last bastion of freedom there is. Whether you like the trial lawyers or not, they take cases that nobody else will take. They do it at their own expense many times. Yes, they make a lot of money, if they are good enough. But the fact of the matter is they play a very significant and important role in our society. It is just that simple. I agree with many of my colleagues on the other side. Large hourly legal fees are a concern. That is why the bill sets up an arbitration panel which will examine fees based on set criteria such as the time spent and the complexity of the case. Attorneys should have to justify their fees; I don t disagree with that position. I cannot condone legal fees which approach $1,000 per hour. But that is not the real issue. When we start setting attorneys' fees, whether they are $100, $250, $500, or $1,000, it is a very serious matter. Privilege of the Floor I ask unanimous consent that Bruce Artim and Marlon Priest of my staff be permitted privileges of the floor throughout this session.

Mr. HATCH. Is the Senator aware that there are all kinds of viewpoints about this bill?

Mr. HATCH. On both sides of the floor. Is the Senator aware that, frankly, there is no way of getting voluntary protocols under this bill that would resolve the constitutional issues involved in this bill, especially with regard to the look-back provisions, the ban on advertising, and other issues?

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. I have to tell the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma that we had constitutional experts come in and say there is no way that look-back provision is constitutional. They are also saying that, of course, they tried to cure the advertising restrictions by adopting the FDA regulation. But we have top-flight, from the left to the right, constitutional experts saying that is unconstitutional. Then, last but not least, we have a section 14 on here that basically talks about the other advertising restrictions that almost everybody agrees are essential if we want to do something about teen smoking, and, by gosh, those other advertising provisions have got to have a voluntary protocol, have to have the tobacco companies on board in order to be effective, or they are unconstitutional. What are we going to do? Vote for an unconstitutional bill, or work on it, and work, as the Senate should, on a bill that could amount to as much as close to $900 billion?

Mr. HATCH. Let me close with this. I am very sympathetic to the motivation of this amendment and to the arguments that the Senator from North Carolina has made. However, there are a number of reasons that I have given here that this amendment is flawed and, in fact, is unlawful. As much as I dislike this Commerce Committee bill, and as much as I think it is a piling on, the approach it uses to resolve the attorneys' fees issue is far more preferable than an arbitrary price cap. For Congress to interfere retroactively with private contracts would be, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Congress should not break private contracts. The June 20, 1997, settlement recognized that a private agreement between a plaintiff and his or her attorney is a legally enforceable contract with which we should not unilaterally interfere, however well- intentioned our motives are. Such interference by capping a contractual fee might very well constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court cases clearly say that the Federal Government cannot confiscate money or interfere with a lawful contract. Under any view of federalism, there is no justification whatsoever for Congress, entering the field of pure State activity to alter the rights and remedies of private parties and then dispensing, with no due process, protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Regulation of attorneys' fees properly belongs in the domain of the States. Such usurpation of State prerogatives may very well violate the Tenth Amendment. Recent court opinions such as New York v. United States and Prinz v. United States have made the Tenth Amendment a shield against Federal imposition on the sovereign authority of the States. State courts have already shown a willingness to step in and prevent unreasonable and excessive fees in tobacco settlements. For example, in the Florida case, the Court threw out a contingency fee arrangement where it was found to be clearly excessive. This shows that the State courts will be best equipped to address this issue by utilizing the arbitration clause of the Commerce Committee bill. I think we must also examine the precedent we are setting here in having the U.S. Congress consider singling out any profession for a cap on their earnings. We do not do this for corporate CEOs, although we have tried in the past. We don't do it for sports figures or entertainers, for that matter. Should we consider capping Jerry Seinfeld's pay because he makes tens of millions of dollars a year, or my dear friend Karl Malone because he makes millions of dollars every year as one of the greatest basketball players who ever lived? No, we don't do that, and we should not be doing it here, even though I do have some sympathy for what motivates the distinguished Senators on the other side of this issue. I compliment my friend from South Carolina in his statements here today. They are fair statements for the most part, arguing that, without the trial lawyers being able to take contingent fee cases and to be able to uphold the rights of the downtrodden and those who don't have any money and those who can't afford any attorneys, we would not have nearly the justice ideal we have today. I also compliment my colleagues from Alabama and North Carolina, who have argued very forcefully and potently for this amendment. They make a number of compelling arguments. I know I have taken too long and I apologize to my colleagues. I feel deeply about this. I recognize I have irritated just about everybody in the debate. I haven't meant to. It isn't my desire. I feel very deeply we need to pass a strong anti-tobacco bill which is constitutionally sound and which will not be litigated for years. The best way to do this is to model it after the agreement reached last year between all the parties. That, I believe, would be in the best interests of our children. I cannot tolerate the fact we are going to have 10 years of litigation because we are considering faulty legislation. We should be pulling the companies in, albeit kicking and screaming, and making them be active participants. I want them to be part of the solution. Some may view that as naive, but I am optimistic. The fact that we are considering legislation with such obvious flaws bothers me terribly. I am also bothered by the fact that we will go so far as to start setting professional fees here in the Congress of the United States. Having said that, I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, the Senate is today considering The American Competitiveness Act of 1998, a modest, balanced, and critical change in our immigration laws. The bill does three very important things: (1) it raises the limit on the annual number of temporary visas allowed for highly skilled foreign born professionals for a five-year period; (2) it increases enforcement and penalties to ensure the program works as intended; and (3) it increases the opportunities for American students and workers to fill the shortage of skilled high tech workers. As we approach the 21st century, Mr. President, we face a critical challenge with respect to our workforce. The challenge concerns whether and how America's businesses and America's educational institutions are preparing the potential workforce for the 21st century. It is estimated that about ten percent of this country's current information technology jobs are vacant and that this critical shortage of programmers, systems analysts, and computer engineers will increase significantly in the next decade. In few places is this shortage more acute than in my own state of Utah where the high tech industry grew by 12 percent in 1996 and where our 1,900 high tech companies plan to add almost 20,000 jobs annually in the next three years. The primary potential impediment to our state's growth is the shortage of skilled workers. Frankly, as I see it, we are only facing a real crisis if we fail to respond. For now I view it as an opportunity and a challenge; perhaps the greatest challenge of the next century. This challenge is to match the needs of high tech employers with the preparedness of and opportunities for the American worker. Meeting this challenge effectively will demand the attention and commitment of businesses large and small; of our educational system at every level; of government, principally at the state and local level; and of parents and students as well. All of these entities must be working in partnership. Just weeks ago, Mr. President, a new comprehensive international study listed American high school seniors as among the industrial world's least prepared in mathematics and science. Further, in advanced subjects like physics and advanced math not one of the countries involved scored lower than the U.S. If we ever needed a wake-up call, this is it. It is in everyone's individual interests, as well as in the overall interests of this country, to enter the next century with a well- trained workforce that will help keep American companies competitive in the global economy. Admittedly, as the grandparent of 17 young children who will be entering the workforce in the next century, I am enthusiastic that technology has opened so many tremendous opportunities. It remains clear that human capital is still the greatest asset this country has. Without human know-how, the most sophisticated of computers is just a dumb machine. Given that, there is no reason for any individual in our society who is willing to work should be left behind--not women, minorities, or the disabled. Responding aggressively and intelligently to the need to educate, train, and retrain the potential pool of high tech workers in the next century is the kind of affirmative action that can ensure that all individuals have the opportunity to work hard and prosper in the next century. It is, however, an unfortunate reality that this kind of long term solution is insufficient to meet our most immediate needs. Thus, this legislation focuses on a limited short-term measure to raise the annual cap, currently at 65,000, for temporary visas for highly skilled workers. Notably, the cap for this year was reached last week! Mr. President, as I understand it, critics of this legislation have focused on two arguments. First, some argue that there is no real shortage in high tech workers. While this will be addressed in more detail in due course, let me just say that I think any member with doubts over which bureaucratic study to believe ought to check the help wanted ads in their Sunday home town papers. I think those long list of job vacancies for computer and engineering jobs tell the story. Further, critics argue that in exchange for this modest, five year increase in temporary visas, we need vast new bureaucratic requirements to protect American workers. Mr. President, we will debate this question in more detail later, but let me respond briefly now. First, I think the record is pretty clear that the temporary use of a limited amount of foreign talent--many of whom have attended U.S. universities and graduate schools--creates more, not fewer jobs for Americans. It also insures that American employers do not move to other countries with more and cheaper labor. Second, there are already important limits in the law to make sure this program is not abused and that these visas are not used to hire cheaper labor. This bill enhances both the limits and restrictions on the use of these visas. But at some point, Mr. President, you can go so overboard that a program becomes a bureaucratic nightmare of regulation and it is just not worth it, particularly for small and medium sized employers. I think that some of the alternatives proposed here--in response to a five year increase in temporary visas by about 25,000 a year--cross that line. Finally, as we debate these so-called ``labor protection'' provisions, I think we need a little perspective here on what aspect of our immigration policy really puts American jobs at risk. (A) We have hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants entering this country every year on top of the estimated 5 million illegal immigrants already here. (B) This Administration has a terrible record of failing to identify and deport criminal aliens who are released from prison and remain in this country. (C) We have a horrible situation of an inestimable number of smuggled immigrants being used as slaves and indentured servants. I think that these areas ought to be our principal focus if we want to protect jobs for American workers, not finding more bureaucratic hurdles for a small and limited program with a history and record of little abuse. I want to close for now, Mr. President, by recognizing the hard work and leadership of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on Immigration, Senator Abraham. I urge my colleagues to pass this important bill.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this week we have been commemorating Peace Officer's Memorial Week, in honor of those law enforcement and public safety officers who have died in the line of duty. As we remember those who have fallen in defense of the public safety, it is highly fitting that the Senate consider legislation to help save police officers' lives, and also to do all we can to comfort and assist the families and loved ones they have left behind. Thus, I am gratified by the Senate's action today in passing three bills to accomplish these goals. The first of these bills is S. 1605, the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act. This bill establishes a matching program to help States, units of local government, and Indian tribes to purchase armor vests for use by law enforcement officers. The lives of our law enforcement officers will be secured by ensuring that every police officer who needs a bulletproof vest receives one, providing an increased measure of protection to those who protect the public. The FBI estimates that nearly one third of the 1,182 law enforcement officers killed by a firearm in the line of duty since 1980 would be alive if they had worn a bulletproof vest. The FBI also approximates that the risk of fatality to law enforcement officers while not wearing an armor vest is 14 times higher than for officers wearing an armor vest. In addition, the Department of Justice estimates that nearly 150,000 State, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, roughly 25 percent, are not currently issued body armor. This piece of legislation will save officers' lives by helping get vests to those who need them. The second of these bills is the Care for Police Survivors Act of 1998, H.R. 3565. I was proud to introduce the Senate companion to this bill, S. 1985. This bill will strengthen programs available to the families of our slain police officers. For example, groups such as Concerns for Police Officers, more commonly referred to as COPS, will now be allowed to increase and improve their services to these families. Authority will be given to the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to spend no less than $150,000 out of the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program to support and enrich national peer support and counseling programs for families of police officers lost in the line of duty. This act will also expedite the process of handling cases pending before the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Office by allowing the expenditure of PSOB program funds on outside hearing officers. Currently, survivors of fallen police officers have to wait entirely too long to obtain an appeal hearing for denial of benefits. By enacting this bill, we will make the process of helping these families less burdensome. Finally, S. 1525, the Public Safety Officers Educational Assistance Act of 1998, will provide aid to the families of those federal law enforcement officers who are killed or totally disabled in the line of duty. By amending the Federal Law Enforcement Dependents Assistance Act, also known as the Degan Law, approximately $4,500 per year in college assistance will be awarded to participants--the children and spouses of these great officers. Under S. 1525, the current program will be expanded to cover state and local public safety officers as well. I am a proud supporter of this program that will both promote and fund education for the small number of families of those who have given their lives or health while protecting our communities. The Department of Justice estimates that approximately 55 persons would take advantage of this amendment at an additional cost of $330,000 per year. Neither the existing scholarship program nor the expansion are an entitlement, and the cost of the scholarships can be covered under the appropriation for the existing Public Safety Officers benefit program. What an incredible service this will provide. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has chosen Police Officers Memorial Day to pass these three bills. I believe that by passing this legislation, we can acknowledge a small measure of our tremendous gratitude and support for these heroes and their families. I thank my colleagues for their support of these bills.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy and myself, I yield the remainder of our time. The yeas and nays have been ordered.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are prepared to yield back the remainder of our time. First, I understand that the Senator from Illinois would like up to 2 minutes. We will yield that time to him, and then we will yield the remainder of the time and go to a vote.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me just praise my colleague from Missouri. Senator Ashcroft has been committed and has worked very, very hard to make this bill one that all of us can support. He has done a terrific job. He has worked on this OSP liability thing with us ad infinitum and added matters to this bill that made this a much better bill and strengthened the bill. I just could not feel better about somebody on my committee working on this bill than I do toward Senator Ashcroft. I just wanted to say he played a significant role in this legislation. I personally thank him. I yield the floor. Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. I yield the floor. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. HATCH. This is a technical amendment, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, S. 2037. The DMCA is the most comprehensive bill that has come before the Senate regarding the Internet and the digital world in general. The DMCA in Title I implements the World Intellectual Property (WIPO) treaties on copyright and on performers and phonograms, and in Title II limits the copyright infringement liability of on-line and Internet service providers (OSPs and ISPs) under certain circumstances. The DMCA also provides in Title III a minor but important clarification of copyright law that the lawful owner or lessee of a computer may authorize someone to turn on their computer for the purposes of maintenance or repair. Title IV addresses the issues of ephemeral recordings, distance education, and digital preservation for libraries and archives. Due to the ease with which digital works can be copied and distributed worldwide virtually instantaneously, copyright owners will hesitate to make their works readily available on the Internet without reasonable assurance that they will be protected against massive piracy. Legislation implementing the treaties provides this protection and creates the legal platform for launching the global digital on-line marketplace for copyrighted works. It will facilitate making available quickly and conveniently via the Internet the movies, music, software, and literary works that are the fruit of American creative genius. It will also encourage the continued growth of the existing off-line global marketplace for copyrighted works in digital format by setting strong international copyright standards. The copyright industries are one of America's largest and fastest growing economic assets. According to International Intellectual Property Alliance statistics, in 1996 (when the last full set of figures was available), the U.S. creative industries accounted for 3.65% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP)--$278.4 billion. In the last 20 years in which comprehensive statistics are available--1977- 1996--the U.S. copyright industries' share of GDP grew more than twice as fast as the remainder of the economy--5.5 percent versus 2.6 percent. Between 1997 and 1996, employment in the U.S. copyright industries more than doubled to 3.5 million workers--2.8 percent of total U.S. employment. Between 1977 and 1996 U.S. copyright industry employment grew nearly three times as fast as the annual rate of the economy as a whole--4.6 percent versus 1.6 percent. In fact, the copyright industries contribute more to the U.S. economy and employ more workers than any single manufacturing sector, including chemicals, industrial equipment, electronics, food processing, textiles and apparel, and aircraft. More significantly for the WIPO treaties, in 1996 U.S. copyright industries achieved foreign sales and exports of $60.18 billion, for the first time leading all major industry sectors, including agriculture, automobiles and auto parts, and the aircraft industry. There can be no doubt that copyright is of supreme importance to the American economy. Yet, American companies are losing $18 to $20 billion annually due to the international piracy of copyrighted works. But the potential of the Internet, both as information highway and marketplace, depends on its speed and capacity. Without clarification of their liability, service providers may hesitate to make the necessary investment to fulfill that potential. In the ordinary course of their operations service providers must engage in all kinds of acts that expose them to potential copyright infringement liability. For example, service providers must make innumerable electronic copies in order simply to transmit information over the Internet. Certain electronic copies are made to speed up the delivery of information to users. Other electronic copies are made in order to host World Wide Web sites. Many service providers engage in directing users to sites in response to inquiries by users or they volunteer sites that users may find attractive. Some of these sites might contain infringing material. In short, by limiting the liability of service providers, the DMCA ensures that the efficiency of the Internet will continue to improve and that the variety and quality of services on the Internet will continue to expand. Besides the major copyright owners and the major OPSs and ISPs (e.g., the local telephone companies, the long distance carriers, America OnLine, etc.), the Committee heard from representatives of individual copyright owners and small ISPs, from representatives of libraries, archives and educational institutions, from representatives of broadcasters, computer hardware manufacturers, and consumers--and this is not an exhaustive list. Title II, for example, reflects 3 months of negotiations between the major copyright owners and the major OSPs, and ISPs, which I encouraged and in which I participated, and which took place with the assistance of Senator Ashcroft. Intense discussions took place on distance education too, with the participation of representatives of libraries, teachers, and educational institutions, and with the assistance of Senator Leahy, Senator Ashcroft, and the Copyright Office. As a result, the Committee took substantial steps to refine the discussion draft that I laid down before the Committee through a series of amendments, each of which was adopted unanimously. For example, the current legislation contains: (1) a provision to ensure that parents will be able to protect their children from pornography and other inappropriate material on the Internet; (2) provisions to provide for the updating of the copyright laws so that educators, libraries, and achieves will be able to take full advantage of the promise of digital technology; (3) important procedural protections for individual Internet users to ensure that they will not be mistakenly denied access to the World Wide Web; (4) provisions to ensure that the current practice of legitimate reverse engineering for software interoperability may continue; and (5) provisions to accommodate the needs of broadcasters for ephemeral recordings and regarding copyright management information. These provisions are in addition to provisions I had already incorporated into my discussion draft, such as provisions on library browsing, provisions addressing the special needs of individual creators regarding copyright management information, and provisions exempting nonprofit archives, nonprofit educational institutions, and nonprofit libraries from criminal penalties and, in the case of civil penalties, remitting damages entirely when such an institution was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a violation. Consequently, the DMCA enjoys widespread support from the motion picture, recording, software, and publishing industries, as well as the telephone companies, long distance carriers, and other OSPs and ISPs. It is also supported by the Information Technology Industry Council, which includes the leading computer hardware manufacturers, and by representatives of individual creators, such as the Writers Guild, the Directors Guild, the Screen Actors Guild, and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. The breadth of support for S. 2037 is reflected in the unanimous roll call vote (18-0) by which the DMCA was reported out of Committee. Mr. President, the United States started the Internet, and remains its most significant hub. No country comes close to the United States in creative output. In these areas, we are the undisputed leaders. This bill will help us maintain this edge in an increasingly competitive global market. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote favorably for S. 2037. This bill has such important ramifications for the continued prosperity of the U.S. as we enter the next millennium and has such powerful support that it should be enacted immediately. Finally, I would like to particularly pay tribute to the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy. I don't know of anyone who has more interest in the Internet, more interest in computers, more interest in copyright matters than Senator Leahy, unless it is myself, and I don't think I have more. He has done a great job on this committee. It is a pleasure to work with him. It has been a wonderful experience throughout the 22 years I have been on the committee to work with him on technical and difficult issues. I personally thank him before everybody today for his good work. Without his help, we wouldn't be this far, and we all know it. I thank him. I would also like to thank Manus Cooney, Edward Damich, Troy Dow, and Virginia Isaacson of my staff for their long hours of hard work on this issue. And I want to commend the hard work and cooperation I received from Bruce Cohen, Beryl Howell, and Marla Grossman of Senator Leahy's staff, and Paul Clement, and Bartlett Cleland of Senator Ashcroft's staff. Amendment No. 2411 (Purpose: To make technical corrections)

Mr. HATCH. I ask that time not be charged to the present act.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask this time not be charged.

Mr. HATCH. I would like to yield to the distinguished Senator from Arizona for an amendment that he has to take care of.

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

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Authorization Act of 1998. This bill recognizes the outstanding record of achievements of this outstanding organization and will enable NCMEC to provide even greater protection of our Nation's children in the future. As part of the Missing Children's Assistance Act, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has selected and given grants to the Center for the last 14 years to operate a national resource center located in Arlington, Virginia and a national 24-hour toll-free telephone line. The Center provides invaluable assistance and training to law enforcement around the country in cases of missing and exploited children. The Center's record is quite impressive, and its efforts have led directly to a significant increase in the percentage of missing children who are recovered safely. In fiscal year 1998, the Center received an earmark of $6.9 million in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations conference report. In addition, the Center's Jimmy Ryce Training Center received 1.185M in this report. This legislation directs OJJDP to make a grant to the Center and authorizes appropriations up to $10 million in fiscal years 1999 through 2003. The authorization would, of course, be subject to appropriations. The bill thus continues and formalizes NCMEC's long partnership with the Justice Department and OJJDP. NCMEC's exemplary record of performance and success, as demonstrated by the fact that NCMEC's recovery rate has climbed from 62% to 91%, justifies action by Congress to formally recognize it as the nation's official missing and exploited children's center, and to authorize a line-item appropriation. This bill will enable the Center to focus completely on its missions, without expending the annual effort to obtain authority and grants from OJJDP. It also will allow the Center to expand its longer-term arrangements with domestic and foreign law enforcement entities. By providing an authorization, the bill also will allow for better congressional oversight of the Center. The record of the Center, described briefly below, demonstrates the appropriateness of this authorization. For fourteen years the Center has served as the national resource center and clearinghouse mandated by the Missing Children's Assistance Act. The Center has worked in partnership with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Treasury, the State Department, and many other federal and state agencies in the effort to find missing children and prevent child victimization. The trust the federal government has placed in NCMEC, a private, non- profit corporation, is evidenced by its unique access to the FBI's National Crime Information Center, and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). NCMEC has utilized the latest in technology, such as operating the National Child Pornography Tipline, establishing its new Internet website, www.missingkids.com, which is linked with hundreds of other websites to provide real-time images of breaking cases of missing children, and, beginning this year, establishing a new CyberTipline on child exploitation. NCMEC has established a national and increasingly worldwide network, linking NCMEC online with each of the missing children clearinghouses operated by the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In addition, NCMEC works constantly with international law enforcement authorities such as Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, France, and others. This network enables NCMEC to transmit images and information regarding missing children to law enforcement across America and around the world instantly. NCMEC also serves as the U.S. State Department's representative at child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. The record of NCMEC is demonstrated by the 1,203,974 calls received at its 24-hour toll-free hotline, 1(800)THE LOST, the 146,284 law enforcement, criminal/juvenile justice, and healthcare professionals trained, the 15,491,344 free publications distributed, and, most importantly, by its work on 59,481 cases of missing children, which has resulted in the recovery of 40,180 children. NCMEC is a shining example of the type of public-private partnership the Congress should encourage and recognize. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which would help improve the performance of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and thus the safety of our Nation's children. I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me yield to my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. I am pleased that this bill is being acted upon today. Enactment of this bill will implement the underlying purpose of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 by establishing uniform standards governing private securities litigation. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provided a ``safe harbor'' for forward-looking statements in order to encourage companies to make voluntary disclosures regarding future business developments. This objective was important to provide an environment in which companies could provide more information to potential investors without undue risk of litigation. Since passage of the 1995 Act, however, actions are often filed in state courts in order to circumvent these very protections. The resulting threat of frivolous lawsuits and liability under state law discourages corporate disclosure of forward-looking information to investors, eroding investor protection and jeopardizing the capital markets that are so important to the productivity of the fast-growing sectors of our economy. Uniform liability standards eliminate this threat and the drag on our economy which it causes. The enactment of this bill will, I believe, be a great impetus for new businesses, especially those in the rapidly growing high-tech and bio-tech fields of our economy. This bill thereby creates a business atmosphere that encourages, rather than inhibits economic growth. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting passage of S. 1260, the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1968.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Authorization Act of 1998. This bill recognizes the outstanding record of achievements of this outstanding organization and will enable NCMEC to provide even greater protection of our Nation's children in the future. As part of the Missing Children's Assistance Act, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has selected and given grants to the Center for the last 14 years to operate a national resource center located in Arlington, Virginia and a national 24-hour toll-free telephone line. The Center provides invaluable assistance and training to law enforcement around the country in cases of missing and exploited children. The Center's record is quite impressive, and its efforts have led directly to a significant increase in the percentage of missing children who are recovered safely. In fiscal year 1998, the Center received an earmark of $6.9 million in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations conference report. In addition, the Center's Jimmy Ryce Training Center received 1.185M in this report. This legislation directs OJJDP to make a grant to the Center and authorizes appropriations up to $10 million in fiscal years 1999 through 2003. The authorization would, of course, be subject to appropriations. The bill thus continues and formalizes NCMEC's long partnership with the Justice Department and OJJDP. NCMEC's exemplary record of performance and success, as demonstrated by the fact that NCMEC's recovery rate has climbed from 62% to 91%, justifies action by Congress to formally recognize it as the nation's official missing and exploited children's center, and to authorize a line-item appropriation. This bill will enable the Center to focus completely on its missions, without expending the annual effort to obtain authority and grants from OJJDP. It also will allow the Center to expand its longer-term arrangements with domestic and foreign law enforcement entities. By providing an authorization, the bill also will allow for better congressional oversight of the Center. The record of the Center, described briefly below, demonstrates the appropriateness of this authorization. For fourteen years the Center has served as the national resource center and clearinghouse mandated by the Missing Children's Assistance Act. The Center has worked in partnership with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Treasury, the State Department, and many other federal and state agencies in the effort to find missing children and prevent child victimization. The trust the federal government has placed in NCMEC, a private, non- profit corporation, is evidenced by its unique access to the FBI's National Crime Information Center, and the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS). NCMEC has utilized the latest in technology, such as operating the National Child Pornography Tipline, establishing its new Internet website, www.missingkids.com, which is linked with hundreds of other websites to provide real-time images of breaking cases of missing children, and, beginning this year, establishing a new CyberTipline on child exploitation. NCMEC has established a national and increasingly worldwide network, linking NCMEC online with each of the missing children clearinghouses operated by the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. In addition, NCMEC works constantly with international law enforcement authorities such as Scotland Yard in the United Kingdom, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon, France, and others. This network enables NCMEC to transmit images and information regarding missing children to law enforcement across America and around the world instantly. NCMEC also serves as the U.S. State Department's representative at child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. The record of NCMEC is demonstrated by the 1,203,974 calls received at its 24-hour toll-free hotline, 1(800)THE LOST, the 146,284 law enforcement, criminal/juvenile justice, and healthcare professionals trained, the 15,491,344 free publications distributed, and, most importantly, by its work on 59,481 cases of missing children, which has resulted in the recovery of 40,180 children. NCMEC is a shining example of the type of public-private partnership the Congress should encourage and recognize. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which would help improve the performance of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and thus the safety of our Nation's children. I ask for unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the bill.