[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 161 (Wednesday, October 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15290-S15292]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1330. A bill to make available without fiscal year limitation the 
offsetting collections of the Federal Communications Commission for 
electromagnetic spectrum auctions; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


      the spectrum auction offsetting collection availability act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Spectrum 
Auction Offsetting Collection Availability Act. This bill is simple and 
would save a fiscal problem currently being faced by the Federal 
Communications Commission [FCC].
  The FCC currently must expend funds in order to conduct spectrum 
auctions. When such auctions occur, the Commission is authorized to 
retain from the auction proceeds to offset the overhead costs of 
conducting the auction. This plan is logical and clearly benefits all 
concerned--especially the taxpayers.
  However, it has been brought to my attention that when an auction is 
conducted late in the fiscal year, and the revenues come in too late to 
be expended during that fiscal year, the Commission does not have the 
authority to use the funds collected. This creates an unintentional 
monetary crisis at the collected. This creates an unintentional 
monetary crisis at the FCC. Clearly, the FCC should be able to keep 
this money for more than 1 year in order to support spectrum auctions.
  Currently there is much debate as to whether we should cut the FCC's 
funding or not. That is a debate for another 

[[Page S 15291]]
day and quick passage of this bill should not be interpreted by any as 
an indication as to a Member's view on overall FCC funding levels. This 
bill simply allows the FCC to continue to conduct its auctions in a 
manner that does not require the use of appropriated funds.
  Similar language has already been added to both H.R. 1869, the FCC 
Authorization Act of 1995 and the proposed House Reconciliation bill. 
It is not controversial and makes common sense.
  I would hope that it would be passed by the Senate in the very near 
future or that it could be added to the first appropriate legislative 
vehicle moving on the Senate floor. I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill appear in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1330

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Spectrum Auction Offsetting 
     Collection Availability Act''.

     SEC. 2. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FROM SPECTRUM AUCTIONS.

       Section 309(j)(8)(B) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(B)) is amended by inserting after the second 
     sentence the following new sentence: ``Such offsetting 
     collections shall remain available until expended.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1331. A bill to adjust and make uniform the dollar amounts used in 
title 18 to distinguish between grades of offenses, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                    TITLE 18 UNIFORMITY ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Title 18 
Uniformity Act of 1995 and urge my colleagues' support for this bill.
  This bill makes technical adjustments to make uniform the dollar 
amounts used in title 18 to distinguish between grades of offenses.
  This bill raises the dollar threshold that triggers more severe 
punishment of certain unlawful acts. This change allows the punishment 
to better fit the crime by raising the threshold to a reasonable level 
before the extended imprisonment option becomes effective. This bill 
furthers our interest in applying equal justice and better utilization 
of incarceration space. I urge its passage.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1333. A bill to clarify the application of certain Federal 
criminal laws to territories, possessions, and commonwealths, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


 THE POSSESSIONS AND TERRITORIES CRIMINAL LAW CLARIFICATION ACT OF 1995

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Possessions 
and Territories Criminal Law Clarification Act.
  This law, which is purely technical in nature, is needed to clarify 
an ambiguity in a number of Federal statutes as to their coverage of 
crimes occurring in the territories, possessions, and commonwealths of 
the United States. This ambiguity arises because these statutes contain 
references to State law, without any indication of whether they are to 
be applied to territories or other entities which are not States.
  My bill would clarify that these ambiguous Federal criminal statutes 
apply to the territories, possessions, and commonwealths of the United 
States, as well as to the 50 States. I ask my colleagues to support 
this legislation, and urge its swift approval.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 1333. A bill to provide for a reduction of sentence for providing 
useful investigative information, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


     the substantial assistance clarification amendment act of 1995

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Substantial 
Assistance Clarification Amendment Act of 1995. This amendment to 
Federal sentencing procedures clarifies the procedures by which the 
Government may move that the court sentence a defendant below a 
statutory minimum sentence based on the defendant's cooperation with 
the Government.
  My bill removes the requirement that a substantial assistance 
reduction be based on information relating to a particular person being 
investigated or prosecuted. Instead, under my bill, such a reduction 
could be given in exchange for substantial assistance in the 
investigation or prosecution of any offense, even if the defendant is 
unaware of the specific person or persons involved.
  My bill will assist Federal prosecutors in their task of bringing 
criminals to justice by giving them additional leverage with which to 
uncover needed evidence. It will also provide incentives to defendants 
to come clean, and mitigate their crimes by cooperating with the 
prosecution.
  This bill does nothing to lessen the punishment for truly culpable 
defendants who deserve the full measure of punishment the law provides. 
It simply strengthens a tool in the prosecution's toolbox. It furthers 
the interests of justice, and I urge its passage.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 1334. A bill to amend chapter 28 of title 35, United States Code, 
to provide for noninfringing uses of patents on medical and surgical 
procedures; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


        the medical procedures innovation and affordability act

 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that will address what I believe is a growing problem in 
the medical community. It may come as a surprise to my colleagues in 
the Senate, to health care consumers, and even to some physicians, that 
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues patents for purely medical 
procedures.

  Most physicians are unaware that patents can be issued for medical 
procedures, and even if they were, few would seek to limit the ability 
of other physicians to use the most up-to-date and effective procedures 
in providing health care. Yet, an alarming trend of obtaining and 
enforcing medical procedure patents is on the rise in the medical 
community, and I strongly believe that a legislative solution is 
necessary.
  Mr. President, for most of our history, advancements in medical 
procedures, independent of a new medical device or pharmaceutical, were 
not considered patentable. In 1954, the Patent Office reversed its 
prior rulings and issued a decision which has been interpreted to 
provide broad authority for the issuance of medical method patents. The 
increasing incidence of the issuance of these patents is in conflict 
with broader health policy goals.
  Mr. President, advances in health care are encouraged and fostered in 
an atmosphere where professionals share their research and publish the 
results of their work. Physician specialties conduct annual meetings to 
discuss the latest techniques, and important discoveries are published 
and subject to the critical peer review process. There is simply an 
element of unfairness if doctors are allowed to claim ownership of 
procedures which were developed based on years of cooperative clinical 
experience and research.
  A recent lawsuit, and increasing demand for the payment of royalties 
on patented medical procedures, has caused a growing concern that the 
issuance of medical method patents will increase the cost of health 
care, and quite possibly, keep physicians from providing the best 
treatment available. For example, in 1993, Dr. Samuel Pallin, an 
Arizona ophthalmic surgeon, sued Dr. Jack Singer, a Dartmouth Medical 
School professor of ophthalmology, for patent infringement involving a 
technique for stitchless cataract surgery. Dr. Pallin sought a patent 
on the technique, even though many ophthalmic surgeons, including 
Dartmouth's Dr. Singer, were using this technique before Dr. Pallin 
sought his patent.
  And this is not an isolated example. Medical method patents issued in 
recent months include patents relating to implanting a knee prosthesis, 
closing an incision in muscle tissue, calculating the risk of coronary 
heart disease, using donor plasma for ear infections, diagnosing 
Alzheimer's disease, treating rheumatoid arthritis, performing laser 
surgery without damaging nearby tissue, treating bone disorders, 
treating aneurysms, and the list goes on and on. Obviously, doctors and 
others have begun to realize that if the practice of granting and 
enforcing medical method patents continues to spiral, they must protect 
themselves 

[[Page S 15292]]
by seeking patents on procedures they use. That prospect is 
frightening.
  Mr. President, the practice of enforcing medical patents against 
physicians and other health care providers has profoundly negative 
implications for the entire health care field. And that is why I am 
introducing legislation that would provide an exception from the 
definition of patent infringement for medical and surgical procedures. 
With this approach, physicians and others will still be entitled to 
seek and obtain a medical method patent, but there will be no 
infringement if the procedure is used by other physicians or other 
licensed health care practitioners. And because the legislation does 
not impose a ban on the issuance of medical method patents, there 
should be no concern that the legislation would prohibit biotechnology 
companies from enforcing their patent rights against commercial users 
with respect to any patentable advancements in areas such as gene 
therapy, cell therapy, or with respect to new uses for well-known 
drugs. Additionally, Mr. President, there is an explicit exemption for 
the commercial manufacture of drugs, medical devices and any other 
products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration, which should 
also provide substantial protection for the biotechnology industry.
  Mr. President, more than 80 nations, including Japan, Germany, Great 
Britain, and France, prohibit the issuance of medical method patents. 
Increased enforcement of medical method patents will increase health 
care costs, limit access to quality health care, and ultimately put 
patient privacy at risk. The legislation I am introducing will limit 
the enforcement of medical method patents against physicians, while 
preserving the rights of the biotechnology industry. I believe this 
legislation is both balanced and necessary, and I urge my colleagues to 
support its passage.

                          ____________________