Kay Hutchison

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to speak against the Lieberman-Leahy amendment. The Lieberman-Leahy amendment will finish this bill once and for all.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question and comment? I just wish to say that I did not mention this because I was talking about the level playing field of all of the competitors, but the other element here that the chairman and the ranking member have worked so hard on is the protection of our cities and our State regulatory boards. Our cities have rights-of-way that they must control, and that is something that we worked very hard to make sure was not encroached on. We would have chaos if someone came in and said, Well, I now have the right to dig a hole in the middle of your street, without the city maintaining that control. So I wish to say that that is another element of this bill that is protected, [[Page S8432]] and the cities of America owe a great debt of gratitude to the chairman and the ranking member. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, the intent of the subsection to which you refer, which authorizes fees in lieu of franchise fees, does not apply to the direct-to-home satellite industry. However, nothing in section 203 is intended to affect whether direct-to-home satellite services are otherwise subject to other taxes or fees under current law.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader I would like to say that the leader time has been reserved this morning, and there will be a period of morning business until the hour of 9:30 a.m. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 652, the telecommunications bill. At that time the Senate will begin 20 minutes of debate on the Feinstein amendment. Following that debate, at approximately 9:50, the Senate will begin a series of three consecutive rollcall votes. The first vote will be on or in relation to the Feinstein amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Gorton amendment, to be followed by a vote on invoking cloture on S. 652, the telecommunications bill. Further rollcall votes can be expected throughout the day in hope of completing action on the telecommunications bill this evening. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate so much the Senator from South Carolina. I hate to differ with him, but on this issue I do. The reason is because I sat on the committee and I saw how difficult it was to get to the goal of deregulation and to try to take the harassment off the businesses that we are trying to encourage to come into the marketplace rather than add yet another hurdle that they must jump before they can get into the marketplace to provide the competition that gives the consumers the best choices for the lowest prices. This amendment is a gutting amendment. That is why I think it is so important that we stick with the FCC and not add one more layer of the Department. We have made the decision that the FCC is the one that must protect the diversity of voices in the market. We have said the FCC can be the one that knows when there is competition at the local level so that we can go into long distance. It is that agency that has the expertise, that we have given the expertise. There is no reason to come in and add another layer. Antitrust will be taken care of if we increase competition. That is what this amendment will stop from happening. The committee labored not hours, not days, not weeks; the committee has labored for years to try to level the playing field among all the competitors that want to be in the telecommunications business. What we have found are some very strong competitive companies that want to jump into local service, to long distance service. We are trying to create that level playing field. We are trying to take the regulators out of the process so that our companies can compete and give consumers the best prices and the best service. If we stick with the committee, that is what we will have: more competition, easier to get into the competition. We will not put up more hurdles in the process. This is a deregulation bill, not a reregulation bill. That is why it is very important for my colleagues, as they look at these choices, to know that the committee has done the work, the committee has worked for years to try to create this level playing field. I have voted for the long distance companies in some instances. I have voted for the Bells in some instances, to try to make sure that that balance is there. The committee has struck the balance. I thank the Senators who have worked so hard, the distinguished chairman of the committee, the distinguished ranking member. On this one, I think we must stick with the committee that has done so much work. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to have printed in the Record a resolution of the 74th Legislature of the State of Texas regarding the mission of the Johnson Space Center [JSC] and the United States' leadership in space technology and exploration. Recently, NASA undertook an extensive review to identify $5 billion in budget savings. I commend NASA for conducting this painstaking and conscientious review. However, I was alarmed when this review team preliminarily recommended moving the shuttle, orbiter, and space station engineering division out of JSC. NASA additionally proposed moving JSC's Shuttle Program Management Office and Orbiter Project Management Office. However, after thorough examination of these proposals, NASA concurred with many in the space community--including former astronauts--and found these transfers neither cost-effective nor in the best interests of NASA's space exploration mission. The combination of engineering, operations, and flight personnel at JSC has proven its value. The crew of Apollo 13 owes their lives to their own courage and skill--and to the team at JSC that was able to find a way out of a critical spacecraft failure and implement that life-saving solution in real-time. It was the synergies, efficiencies, and problem-solving abilities of this combination of capabilities that lead NASA to designate JSC as host center for the space station 2 years ago. Maintaining the JSC model, with some budgetary streamlining, will yield necessary program savings while preserving much-needed stability in [[Page S8122]] NASA's research and development mission. With essential human spacecraft engineering functions preserved in combination with mission operations, I am confident that NASA will be able to respond to the complexities--budgetary, scientific, and operational--that are inherent to human exploration of space in the next century. The material follows: House Concurrent Resolution 188 Whereas, Texas is proud to be home to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Johnson Space Center and is a state where thousands of Texans have taken part in NASA's goals, vision, missions, and accomplishments in furthering space exploration; and Whereas, The approach of an integrated design and development team concept implemented at Johnson Space Center has a proven record of accomplishment in the Mercury, Gemini, Appolo, and Shuttle programs, and the International Space Station program was purposely located at Johnson Space Center to take advantage of the integrated product team concept that has been so successful in previous NASA programs; and Whereas, The human space integration mission at Johnson Space Center, including spacecraft engineering, space shuttle operations program management, the shuttle orbiter project, and science programs, are vital to NASA's human space program; and Whereas, A proposed plan developed by NASA to consolidate operations portends an action that would severely impact Johnson Space Center and the Texas economy; and Whereas, If the proposal is implemented, Texas stands to lose thousands of primary and secondary jobs associated with the aerospace industry and Johnson Space Center, thousands of secondary, retail, and support jobs, and a significant share of investment opportunities and associated investment benefits; and Whereas, Texas was affected negatively as a consequence of NASA's 1994 restructuring, downsizing, and space station redesign at Johnson Space Center; and Whereas, Texas support the general goal of reducing government waste and jobs; how the goal is achieved in the case of NASA's proposed reorganization is a key point that needs clarification; now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the 74th Legislature of the State of Texas respectfully urge the Congress of the United States to review fully NASA's proposed reorganization plan and to analyze the cost/benefit of the plan, including proposed mission transfers and relocations, with the purpose of preserving and protecting the United States' leadership in space technology and exploration; and, be it further Resolved, That the Texas secretary of state forward official copies of this resolution to the administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to the President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President of the Senate of the United States Congress, and to all members of the Texas congressional delegation with the request that it be officially entered in the Congressional Record of the United States of America.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I just want to finish, before my colleague from Maine sums up this tribute, by thanking the Senator from Maine for doing something very thoughtful. As we go through our workdays and we do not stop to think of some of the important milestones that happened in the world, in the United States, in the Senate, the Senator from Maine has done something very special, and that is to point out that there are so many women, now, in the Senate that we could take 45 minutes from the business day to pay tribute to the first woman who led the way for us. I think, as we heard the remarks that were made, that each person is following in some way a wonderful lead that was given to us by the great service that Margaret Chase Smith gave to our country; that is, to lead with dignity, with class, with continuity through four terms. I think the tribute today is a wonderful thing to show the first woman, in fact, made it possible for eight women to follow her and to have in our own right a voice at the table on the Armed Services Committee or in our respective States. I think it was wonderful for the Senator from Maine to make this time possible.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to extend, for 5 minutes, morning business.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do want to thank my colleague from Maine who followed in Margaret Chase Smith's great footsteps. I appreciate the fact that she has set aside this time for Members to pay tribute to the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate in her own right. I am really proud to follow women who actually knew Margaret Chase Smith, because when I was growing up, I certainly never thought of running for the Senate. However, I remember people talking about Margaret Chase Smith, not as anything unusual, but as a fine Senator, respected in her own right. ``One tough hombre,'' as we would say in Texas. I think the fact that she served so well as an early woman Senator made it much easier for those woman Members who would follow in her footsteps. ``Mr. President, I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a U.S. Senator. I speak as an American.'' Mr. President, although any one of my speeches could have started in that way, those words came, in fact, from a speech more profound than any comments I have ever made on this floor. These are the words with which Margaret Chase Smith started her ``Declaration of Conscience'' in 1950. I rise to pay homage to a woman who embodied clarity of conscience and strength of character during her 24 years in this Chamber. As my colleague from Maine has said, Margaret Chase Smith led seven other Republican Senators in their condemnation of Joseph McCarthy's tactics in accusing numerous Americans of Communist actions. Although opposed to Communists in America and abroad, she objected to the scope of Senator McCarthy's investigation when it began to harm the reputations of many innocent Americans. A true leader, Mr. President, she did this at a time when she only had 1 year of experience in the U.S. Senate. She was quick to go to the forefront. She led her colleagues against Senator McCarthy's inaccuracies when they became clear. Senator Smith's commitment to truth and justice made her transcend partisan considerations, to stand up for what she believed was right. In order to reflect her distinguished career properly, we should also remember Senator Smith's many other accomplishments. Throughout her four terms, one of her primary interests was military readiness of our Nation. She was the first woman to serve on the Armed Services Committee. Women in the Armed Forces will always remember her as the mother of WAVES--the women's branch of the Navy. Like many of the senators on this side of the aisle, she worked to protect our technological advantage in the cold war by voting against the Test Ban Treaty of 1963. In an age when men dominated politics, she was a leader at bringing women into the political process. Senator Smith became the first woman placed on the ballot for nomination for President by a major political party. At the Republican National Convention of 1964, she received 27 votes on the first ballot. Margaret Chase Smith was a role model. She led the way for others to follow. She left her mark. She was, in fact, an architect of the Nation's cold war defense. She was a credit to the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, as the only other woman to serve on the Armed Services Committee, I hear many stories about the great Margaret Chase Smith and her time on that committee. I hope to live up to the high standards that she set. I honor her service. I offer my condolences and those of all Texans to the family and friends of Margaret Chase Smith. May she rest in peace.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to provide fairness to our Nation's inventors. As the law is now written, inventors whose patents are taken for use by the Federal Government have only one recourse to obtain compensation--they are compelled by statute to bring a lawsuit against the Government. Under court interpretations, they are forced to bear all costs of the lawsuit, even when they win their case. This bill would permit patent holders whose claims are upheld to be reimbursed, as well, for their reasonable costs. In 1982, when the U.S. Claims Court was created, the Congress made significant improvements in the existing law concerning claims against the Government. It did not, however, give consideration to the fairness of the existing statutes that require payment of compensation to persons whose patent rights are taken for national defense or other purposes. The Congress simply carried over the existing provisions of section 1498(a) of title 28, requiring ``reasonable and entire compensation'' for the taking of patent rights. Those provisions--fair on the surface--dated from the time of World War I. In the years since World War I, however, the statutory language has been applied by the courts in a manner that produces a serious inequity. The problem arises most frequently in cases involving an inventor whose rights have been infringed by a defense contractor. In such a case, the statute provides that the inventor's only remedy is an action in the U.S. Claims Court against the Government--the beneficiary of the defense contractor's infringement--on the theory that, indirectly, the Government has taken the patent rights for public use. The Government is authorized to take private property, for the benefit of the public, under the power of ``eminent domain.'' It may do so, however, only upon paying the ``just compensation'' required by the fifth amendment to the Constitution. The principle applies to the taking of intellectual property--like patents--as well as tangible property. Statutory application of this principle to the taking of patent rights is found in the part of section 1498(a) of Title 28 that provides: Whenever an invention . . . covered by a patent . . . is used . . . by . . . the United States without a license of the owner . . ., the owner's remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Claims Court for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use. . . . It might logically be supposed that the constitutional requirements of ``just compensation'' and the statutory requirements of ``reasonable and entire compensation'' would assure that an inventor will not suffer a loss when the Government takes his invention for public use. Unfortunately, logic and practice do not always keep pace with one another. The inventor does suffer loss--the costs of his lawsuit--and that loss can be significant. The current situation may be summarized as follows: In order to obtain any compensation at all under section 1498, an inventor must initiate a lawsuit against the Government. After succeeding in such a suit, he becomes entitled to receive ``reasonable and entire compensation.'' But the inventor then finds that, under current court interpretations, he cannot recover any of the expenses, including the witnesses' travel costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, that he incurred as a result of having to pursue the civil action. The expenses are, in effect, deducted from that sum established to be fair compensation. In short, Government requires the victim of its taking to sue to recover his losses, forces him personally to bear all his costs in undertaking the suit, and leaves him with compensation that represents less than the true value of the property taken. This result is less than ``just'' and certainly is less than ``reasonable and entire.'' The courts have generally taken the position that if Congress had intended to include reimbursement of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees within the term ``reasonable and entire compensation'' it should have said so specifically. That is what this bill does--it says so specifically. It would authorize expressly the recovery of reasonable costs by an inventor who is forced by statute to litigate against the Government in order to obtain compensation. It would permit the inventor to recover all his reasonable costs--including witnesses' fees and travel costs, attorneys' fees, charges by accountants and other experts, costs of employee time in reviewing records and otherwise preparing for the suit, court costs, and all related expenditures incurred as a result of bringing the lawsuit. The costs in each case would be scrutinized by the Claims Courts to assure that they were reasonable, of course, but to the extent they were reasonable they could be recovered. This problem should have been corrected long ago--when it first became apparent that court interpretations would not permit inventors to obtain a complete recovery. To continue this inequity would be a serious disservice to some of our most productive inventors, and to some of our best companies in important industries. We need to be fair with those inventors and companies in order to encourage innovation and make our country more competitive. This bill would help assure the necessary fairness.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that will overturn an expensive and unnecessary regulatory burden that contributes significantly to the high cost of health care. In 1988, Congress passed the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act, as a reaction to reports about laboratories that inaccurately analyzed PAP smears. CLIA 1988 was intended to address the quality of laboratory test performance. Unfortunately, the Federal regulations that flowed out of the CLIA 1988 legislation do not reflect the intent of the act and have not resulted in any documented improvement in lab results and health care. What these new regs have done is add a huge new paperwork burden on doctors. This unhappy result is a classic case of out-of- control regulations driving up medical costs. A recent Texas Medical Association study pegs the annual cost of just the paperwork and administrative overhead added by the CLIA at an average of $4,435 per physician. This is in addition to the cost of registration, labor controls, proficiency testing, and inspection or accreditation. At a time when the entire health care industry is under pressure to control health care costs, the CLIA regulations not only subject physicians to increased administrative costs but also decrease the amount of time devoted to patient care. Dr. McBrayer from the Texas panhandle described his experience with the CLIA inspection process as follows: We were written up for such monumental things as the fact that I had not signed the procedure manual for one of our lab machines. Therefore, everything done on that machine, including the training, was out of compliance. The fact that the manufacturer's rep had come and trained the staff was to no avail. Everything was out of compliance because I didn't sign it. It didn't matter that (my lab staff) had learned how to use it. That was irrelevant. Dr. McBrayer's experience is not unique. CLIA regulations that pile on paperwork and silly penalties do not help the patient or the doctor; they simply create lots of unnecessary busywork for Government regulators. The CLIA amendments I am introducing will reduce the burdens on physicians who perform laboratory tests in their offices, and thereby free up resources and time to dedicate to patient care. In Texas alone, of the physicians who provided testing services in their offices prior to CLIA, 27 percent have closed their office labs, and another 31 percent have dropped some types of testing, as a direct result of the CLIA 1988 reforms. Reduced availability of testing labs has measurably affected the health care of a number of rural areas of Texas. Many physicians are concerned about the possible consequences to patients caused by the decreased access to testing or the delay in obtained results. Rather than promoting better health care quality, the regulations promulgated pursuant to the 1988 CLIA legislation have had the perverse result of diminishing quality and increasing the costs of health care delivery. Mr. President, the CLIA 1995 amendments will not jeopardize the quality of laboratory testing. The CLIA amendments I am introducing today are aimed at ensuring that essential laboratory testing performed by physicians remains a viable diagnostic option for physicians and their patients--without the excessive rules and administratively complex requirements that currently exist. It will roll back health care cost increases caused by overregulation and protect patients in rural areas who are losing access to necessary testing and care. I hope that all my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Six-and-a-half minutes remaining for the Senator from Maine?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. How much time is remaining on our side?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we yield back the remainder of our time.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Virginia. I agree with him wholeheartedly. I think when we are here on the floor debating some of the toughest decisions that we are ever going to make in our lifetime, that these things, like the defense budget that lost today on the floor, will be coming back. We will be able to continue to debate the role of defense, and I think when we finish this bill that we will see a little shifting of the priorities towards stronger national defense for just the reasons that the Senator from Virginia states, that we have things coming up that were unforeseen that are not put in the budget, like the need for American troops to help with the U.N. evacuation of Bosnia, which seems to be a possibility on the horizon. But the point is that these things are going to happen, and we are going to have to budget in a way that allows for those eventualities and those emergencies. So, I think the point here is that we are here tonight talking about some of the toughest decisions that we are ever going to make. We are trying to do the responsible thing. I appreciate the Senator from Virginia and his leadership in the national defense area. I appreciate his coming out tonight to talk about those priorities. So, I thank the Senator.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Senator from Virginia. I am very pleased to have him in support. I want to yield the floor to the Senator from the State of Washington because I know he has been very active in the budget debate trying to save the Medicare system for the people of this country. That is what we are doing. That is what we have been doing this week and what we are going to be doing in the next few days. We are going to be doing the things that are necessary to save the Medicare system so that when our future generations need this care, it will be there because we have done the responsible thing this week in the Senate. So I am happy to yield to the Senator from Washington. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would thank the freshman from Wyoming, the freshman Senator, for adding to this debate. He has really been there through all these days, talking about the important issues that we are facing and the tough decisions that we are going to have to make. I appreciate the fact that he has just hit the ground running in the U.S. Senate, and I am pleased he stayed tonight along with his wife, to make the remarks that he did. We appreciate it very much. Now I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa for 10 minutes.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Missouri. He was a former Governor, so he is one of the experts that we are going to have in this body when we deal with the very, very tough issue of choices as we reform the welfare system. I think it is really appropriate that he has taken a leadership role in this. Once again, what we are showing tonight is the tough decisions that must be made to balance the budget, which the people of America asked us to do. So I appreciate the Senator waiting for so long and giving that great talk about the bill he introduced today and the choices that we are going to face today and tomorrow.

Mrs. HUTCHISON

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in recess as under the previous order.