[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11887-S11892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S11887]]

Senate


(Legislative day of Friday, October 2, 1998)

          DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2281), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by all of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of October 8, 1998.)
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
Conference Report on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (H.R. 2281). 
In my view, we need this measure to stop an epidemic of illegal copying 
of protected works--such as movies, books, musical recordings, and 
software--and to limit, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the 
infringement liability of online service providers. The copyright 
industry is one of our most thriving businesses. But we still lose more 
than $15 billion each year due to foreign copyright piracy, according 
to some estimates.
  And foreign piracy is just out of control. For example, one of my 
staffers investigating video piracy on a trip to China walked into a 
Hong Kong arcade and bought three bootlegged computer games--including 
``Toy Story'' and ``NBA '97''--for just $10. These games, combined, 
normally sell for about $100. Indeed, the manager was so brazen about 
it, he even agreed to give out a receipt.
  Illegal copying has been a longstanding concern to me. I introduced 
one of the precursors to this bill, the Motion Picture Anti-Piracy Act 
(in the 101st Congress), which in principle has been incorporated into 
this measure. And I was one of the cosponsors of the original proposed 
WIPO implementing legislation, the preliminary version of this 
proposal.
  In my opinion, this bill achieves a fair balance by taking steps to 
effectively deter piracy, while still allowing fair use of protected 
materials. It is the product of intensive negotiations between all of 
the interested parties--including the copyright industry, telephone 
companies, libraries, universities and device manufacturers. And 
virtually every major concern raised during that process was addressed.
  Unfortunately, however, the Conference dropped what I believe were 
crucial protections for databases. It is my understanding, though, that 
the Committee will be ``fast tracking'' consideration of database 
protection next Congress. I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch 
to move forward on this matter early next year.
  In sum, Mr. President, I am confident that this bill will reduce 
piracy and strengthen one of our biggest export industries. It deserves 
our support and the President's signature.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 2281, a bill to implement the World Intellectual 
Property Organization copyright treaties. I am pleased that the final 
product of the many months of negotiations has produced a bill of 
appropriate scope and balance, and reflects many of the priorities I 
established through the introduction of my own bill to implement the 
WIPO copyright treaties, to begin updating the Copyright Act for the 
digital era, and to address the potential problem of on-line servicer 
liability.
  First, with respect to ``fair use,'' the conferees adopted an 
alternative to section 1201(a)(1) that would authorize the Librarian of 
Congress to selectively waive the prohibition against the act of 
circumvention to prevent a diminution in the availability to individual 
users (including institutions) of a particular category of copyrighted 
materials. As originally proposed by the Administration and adopted by 
the Senate, this section would have established a flat prohibition on 
the circumvention of technological protection measures to gain access 
to works for any purpose, and thus raised the specter of moving our 
Nation towards a ``pay-per-use'' society. Under the compromise embodied 
in the conference report, the Librarian of Congress would have 
authority to address the concerns of libraries, educational 
institutions, and other information consumers potentially threatened 
with a denial of access to categories of works in circumstances that 
otherwise would be lawful today. I trust that the Librarian of Congress 
will implement this provision in a way that will ensure information 
consumers may exercise their centuries-old fair use privilege to 
continue to gain access to copyrighted works.
  Second, the conferees made an important contribution by clarifying 
the ``no mandate'' provision of the bill. Because the conference report 
is silent, I thought that I should explain this provision in some 
detail. As my colleagues may recall, I had been very concerned that S. 
2037 could be interpreted as a mandate on product manufacturers to 
design products so as to affirmatively

[[Page S11888]]

respond to or accommodate technological protection measures that 
copyright owners might use to deny access to or the copying of their 
works. To address this potential problem, I authored an amendment 
providing that nothing in the bill required that the design of, or 
design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer 
electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a 
response to any particular technological protection measure. The 
amendment reflected my belief that product manufacturers should remain 
free to design and produce the best, most advanced consumer 
electronics, telecommunications, and computing products without the 
threat of incurring liability for their design decisions. Creative 
engineers--not risk-averse lawyers--should be principally responsible 
for product design. As important, the amendment reflected the working 
assumption of all of my colleagues that this bill is aimed 
fundamentally at so-called ``black boxes'' and not at legitimate 
products that have substantial noninfringing uses.

  As my colleagues know, there had been some concern expressed that the 
``so long as'' clause of section 1201(c)(3) made the provision appear 
to be circular in its logic. In other words, there was concern that the 
entire provision could be read to provide in essence that manufacturers 
were not under any design mandate to respond to technological measures, 
as long as they ``otherwise'' designed their devices to respond to 
existing technological measures. I never shared that perspective. To 
eliminate any uncertainty, the House Commerce Committee simply deleted 
the ``so long as'' clause. As I explained on the floor in September, 
that change merely confirmed my original conception of the amendment. 
Now that the conferees have adopted a provision requiring certain 
analog videocassette recorders to respond to certain existing analog 
protection measures, the ``so long as'' clause has a meaning that all 
should agree is logical: Manufacturers of consumer electronics, 
telecommunications, and computer products are not under a design 
mandate generally, but they are otherwise subject to a single, very 
limited, and carefully defined mandate to design certain analog 
videocassette recorders to respond to existing analog protection 
measures. Quite importantly from my perspective, this provision is 
limited so as not to impair the reasonable and accustomed home taping 
practices of consumers recognized in the Supreme Court's Betamax 
decision.
  It thus should be about as clear as can be to a judge or jury that, 
unless otherwise specified, nothing in this legislation should be 
interpreted to limit manufacturers of legitimate products with 
substantial noninfringing uses--such as VCRs and personal computers--in 
making fundamental design decision or revisions, whether in selecting 
certain components over others or in choosing particular combinations 
of parts.
  Third, I am pleased to see that the conferees have addressed the 
device ``playability'' problem. As I pointed out in my floor speech 
just prior to final passage of S. 2037, ``playability'' problems may 
arise at two levels. Technological measures may cause noticeable and 
recurring adverse effects on the normal operation of products, and thus 
adjustments may be necessary at the factory levels to ensure consumers 
get what they expect. In addition, adjustments to specific products may 
be necessary after sale to a consumer to maintain their normal, 
authorized functioning. Subsequently, I was pleased to see that the 
Commerce Committee's report explicitly reaffirmed my interpretation.

  I also was pleased that the conferees shared my perspective on 
encouraging all interested parties to strive to work together through a 
consultative approach before new technological measures are introduced 
in the market. As the conferees pointed out, one of the benefits of 
such consultations is to allow the testing of proposed technologies to 
determine whether they create playability problems, and to have an 
opportunity to take steps to eliminate or substantially mitigate such 
adverse effects before new technologies are introduced. As the 
conferees recognized, however, persons may choose to implement a new 
technological measure (or copyright management information system) 
without vetting it through an inter-industry consultative process, or 
without regard to the input of the affected parties.
  Whether introduced unilaterally or developed with the input of 
experts in the field, a new protection technology coming to market 
might materially degrade or otherwise cause recurring appreciable 
adverse effects on the authorized performance or display of works. 
Given the multiplicity of ways in which devices might be 
interconnected, some playability problems may not be foreseeable. I was 
thus pleased that the conference report unambiguously provides that 
manufacturers and persons servicing popular consumer electronics, 
telecommunications, or computing products who make product adjustments 
solely to mitigate a playability problem--whether or not taken in 
combination with other lawful product modifications--shall not be 
deemed to have violated either section 1201(a) or section 1201(b). 
Having heard directly from a major trade association representing 
professional servicers, I am pleased we could include such strong 
language so that they can go about their business without fear of 
facing crippling liability.
  Fourth, the conferees adopted specific provisions making it clear 
that the bill is not intended to prohibit legitimate encryption 
research or security systems testing. As my colleagues know, Senators 
Burns, Leahy, and I have lead the effort in the Senate to ensure that 
U.S. business can develop and export world-class encryption products. 
by explicitly fashioning an affirmative encryption research defense, 
the conferees made an important contribution to our overall efforts to 
ensure that U.S. industry remains at the forefront in developing secure 
encryption methods. In addition, by including a security system testing 
amendment, the conferees have confirmed that professional consultants 
and other well-established, responsible corporate citizens can survey 
and test IT security systems for vulnerabilities.

  Finally, the conferees built on my efforts to ensure that this 
legislation would not harm the efforts of consumers to protect their 
personal privacy by including two important amendments proposed by the 
House Commerce Committee. The first amendment would create incentives 
for website operators to disclose whenever they use technological 
measures that have the capability to gather personal data, and to give 
consumers a means of disabling them. The second amendment strengthened 
section 1202 of this legislation by making explicit that the term 
``copyright management information'' does not include ``any personally 
identifying information about a user of a work or a copy, phonorecord, 
performance, or display of a work.'' In my view, these amendments will 
help preserve the critical balance that we must maintain between the 
interests of copyright owners and the privacy interests of information 
users.
  We should all be gratified that so much has been done to 
appropriately calibrate the WIPO copyright treaties implementing 
legislation. Each of us, working alone, would undoubtedly have produced 
a different bill. But we have a good bill, perhaps one more balanced 
and limited in scope than might have been thought possible at times 
throughout the debate. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote in favor 
of the conference report.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for 
the Conference Report to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As one 
of the conferees, I believe this bill represents a fair compromise 
between the House and Senate versions of this most significant 
legislation.
  Intellectual property is an increasingly important part of the 
American economy. This bill recognizes the significance of our 
copyright laws as America and the world have become increasingly 
computerized. The Internet is rapidly changing our lives, and our 
copyright laws must keep pace.
  This legislation implements the WIPO treaties to help protect the 
property rights of the creative community in our global environment. It 
also clarifies the liability of on-line and Internet service providers 
regarding their liability for copyright infringement and permits fair 
use of works. Together, these provisions do a great deal

[[Page S11889]]

to accommodate the interests of the owners of copyrighted works with 
those who use or facilitate the use of those works in the digital age.
  A final title of the bill is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. 
Although it was not part of the Senate version of the legislation, it 
was accepted at conference. I share Senator Hatch's concerns about this 
controversial title. It contains not only industrial design protection, 
which itself has created controversy in the past because of its impact 
on consumers and others, but it protects functionality of vessel hulls 
in addition to aesthetic aspects. It is my understanding that 
functionality is protected from copying through patent, and this title 
is a significant departure from that principle, although for a specific 
narrow area.
  Also, I wish to note that although data base protection is not 
included in this bill, I think it is important that we make every 
effort to address this significant issue next year.
  In closing, I wish to thank the Chairman of the conference, Senator 
Hatch, and all of the other members of the conference for their 
cooperation in resolving this matter. I am very pleased with the 
outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  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.

[[Page S11890]]

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, America's founders recognized and valued 
the creativity of this nation's citizens to such an extent that 
intellectual property rights are rooted in the Constitution. Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution states that

       The Congress shall have power . . . [t]o promote the 
     progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited 
     times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their 
     respective writings and discoveries.

  The Continental Congress proclaimed,

       Nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his 
     study.''

  Protecting intellectual property rights is just as important today as 
it was when America was a fledgling nation.
  It is for this reason I am pleased that the Senate has today passed 
the Conference Report on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 
H.R. 2281.
  Title I of the DMCA will implement the two World Intellectual 
Property Organization (WIPO) copyright treaties. These treaties will 
fortify intellectual property rights around the world and will help 
unleash the full potential of America's most creative industries, 
including the computer software, publishing, movie, recording and other 
copyrighted industries that are subject to online piracy. By insuring 
better protection of the creative works available online, the DMCA will 
also encourage the continued growth of the Internet and the global 
information infrastructure. It will encourage the ingenuity of the 
American people, and will send a powerful message to intellectual 
property pirates that we will not tolerate theft.
  I should note that there are provisions in Title I that address 
certain technologies used to control copying of motion pictures in 
analog form on video cassette recorders which were not part of either 
the original Senate or House DMCA bills. These provisions establish 
certain requirements only for analog videocassette recorders, analog 
videocassette camcorders and professional analog videocassette 
recorders. It is my understanding that these provisions do not 
establish any obligations with respect to digital technologies, 
including computers or software.
  It is also my understanding that the intent of the conferees is that 
these provisions neither establish, nor should be interpreted as 
establishing, a precedent for Congress to legislate specific standards 
or specific technologies to be used as technological protection 
measures, particularly with respect to computers and software. 
Generally, Congress should not establish technology specific rules; 
technology develops best and most rapidly in response to marketplace 
forces.
  Title II of the DMCA will limit the infringement liability of online 
service providers. This title is intended to preserve incentives for 
online service providers and copyright owners to cooperate to detect 
and address copyright infringements that occur in the digital networked 
environment.
  Title III will provide a minor, yet important, clarification in 
section 117 of the Copyright Act to ensure that the lawful owner or 
lessee of a computer machine may authorize an independent service 
provider, a person unaffiliated with either the owner or lessee of the 
machine, to activate the machine for the sole purpose of servicing its 
hardware components.
  Title IV will begin to update our nation's copyright laws with 
respect to library, archives, and educational uses of copyrighted works 
in a digital environment. It includes provisions relating to the 
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and the Register of Copyrights, 
and clarifies the role of the Copyright Office. It also addresses the 
assumption of contractual obligations related to the transfer of rights 
in motion pictures. Finally, this title creates a fair and efficient 
licensing mechanism to address the complex issues facing copyright 
owners and users of copyrighted materials as a result of the rapid 
growth of digital audio services.
  Title V, the ``Vessel Hull Design Protection Act,'' creates a new 
form of sui generis intellectual property protection for vessel hull 
designs. By adoption of this title, however, the Conferees wisely took 
no position on the advisability or propriety of adopting broader design 
protection for other useful articles. Indeed, when broad industrial 
design legislation was considered by the Congress in the late 1980s and 
early 1990s, a number of legitimate concerns were raised about the 
effects such legislation would have, particularly on the cost of auto 
repairs. Establishing narrow protection for vessel hulls in the 
conference report should not be interpreted as signaling support, or 
setting a precedent, for broader design protection that could 
negatively affect the ability of consumers to obtain economical, 
quality auto repairs.
  The Senate today is passing a balanced and important package. Certain 
issues that the House had included in the version it passed on August 
4, 1998, were eliminated to allow consideration of the rest of the 
package in a timely manner.
  One of the issues dropped was that of database protection. Title V of 
the House passed DMCA bill created a new federal prohibition against 
the misappropriation of databases that are the product of substantial 
investment, with both civil remedies and criminal penalties. The 
argument for enhanced database protection is that legal rulings and 
technological developments have eroded protections against database 
theft. Companies may be able to copy significant portions of 
established databases and sell them, avoiding the substantial cost of 
creating and verifying the databases themselves. I appreciate that the 
threat to U.S. databases has been magnified because database protection 
laws recently implemented in European Union countries will not be 
available to U.S. publishers unless comparable legislation is enacted 
in the U.S.

[[Page S11891]]

  I have therefore been and continue to be supportive of legislation to 
provide database producers with adequate protection from database 
piracy.
  I am also sensitive, however, to the concerns about the House-passed 
database bill that were raised by the Administration, the libraries, 
certain educational institutions, and the scientific community. The 
Department of Justice, in a memorandum dated July 28, 1998, concluded 
that the House passed database bill, H.R. 2652, which was later 
incorporated in Title V of the House DMCA, raised difficult and novel 
constitutional questions.
  The Department of Commerce has also advised me that while the 
Administration supports legal protection against commercial 
misappropriation of collections of information, the Administration has 
a number of concerns with H.R. 2652, including that the Constitution 
imposes significant constraints upon Congress' power to enact 
legislation of this sort.
  Just this week, the Department of Commerce told me in a letter that:

       Given the critical importance of implementing the WIPO 
     treaties, and the short time remaining in the Session, we 
     urge the Conferees to focus on issues germane to these 
     treaties, rather than unrelated matters.

  Although there was not enough time before the end of this Congress to 
give this important issue due consideration, it is my hope that the 
Senate Judiciary Committee will promptly commence hearings on the issue 
and move expeditiously to enact further legislation on the matter at 
the beginning of the 106th Congress. The work that the Committee did 
this year on the issue should be viewed as a beginning, and we are 
committed to making more progress as quickly as possible.
  The legislation that the Senate passed today is the culmination of 
several years' work, both domestically and internationally, to ensure 
that the appropriate copyright protections are in place around the 
world to foster the enormous growth of the Internet and other digital 
computer networks.
  Much of the credit for this legislation is due to the hard work and 
dedication of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Hatch. This is another example of when we work together, we get good 
things done. It was also a pleasure to serve on the Conference with 
Senator Thurmond, former Chairman the Senate Judiciary Committee and a 
force in his own right.
  The Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee--
Chairman Hyde and Congressman Conyers--and the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property--
Chairman Coble and Congressman Frank--deserve particular recognition 
and praise for their fine work. Although Congressman Frank was not on 
the Conference Committee, his tremendous efforts on behalf of the WIPO 
implementing language as well as on the other matters in the DMCA are 
very much appreciated. Congressman Goodlatte and Berman also 
contributed considerable time and talent to the benefit of all who 
participated in the process.
  Although I had not previously had the pleasure of working on WIPO 
with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Commerce Committee--
Chairman Bliley and Congressman Dingell--or the Chairman of the 
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, 
Chairman Tauzin, I would like to acknowledge their significant 
contributions to the final package.
  The staff of all of the Conferees deserve special recognition. Manus 
Cooney, Edward Damich, Troy Dow, Garry Malphrus, Mitch Glazier, Debbie 
Laman, Robert Raben, Bari Schwartz, David Lehman, Ben Cline, Justin 
Lilley, Andy Levin, Mike O'Rielly, and Whitney Fox spent countless 
hours on this bill, when it was pending in Committee, on the floor and, 
finally, in conference. Without their labor and talent, we would not be 
here today considering the DMCA.
  The DMCA also reflects the recommendations and hard work of the 
Copyright Office. Specifically, Marybeth Peters, Shira Perlmutter, 
David Carson, Jesse Feder, Carolina Saez, Sayuri Rajapakse, Rachel 
Goslins and Jule Sigall were invaluable on this legislation. The 
Copyright Office was there at every step along the way--from the 
negotiation of the WIPO treaties to the negotiations and the drafting 
of the implementing legislation and the other issues in the DMCA. Given 
their expertise in copyright law, they will play a significant role in 
the implementation of the legislation, particularly with regards to the 
rulemaking on the circumvention of technological measures that 
effectively control access to a copyrighted work and the studies 
mandated by the bill.
  The Clinton Administration deserves praise for the role it played in 
making this legislation a reality. I would especially like to thank 
Secretary Daley, Andy Pincus, Ellen Bloom, Jennifer Conovitz and Justin 
Hughes of the Department of Commerce, as well as Brian Kahin and Thomas 
Kalil for all of their hard work on the DMCA.
  From my perspective, those who deserve the most thanks are my 
Judiciary Committee staff who have assisted me during the hearings, 
debates, negotiations, and conference on this bill. Bruce Cohen, Beryl 
Howell and Marla Grossman have worked tirelessly to ensure that this 
bill was well crafted and lived up to its promise.
  This legislation is an important step for protecting American 
ingenuity and creative expression. It addresses the needs of creators, 
consumers and commerce in the digital age and well into the next 
century. I am proud that the Senate has passed this legislation today.
  Mr. President, so Senators will know, the distinguished senior 
Senator from Utah and I spent enormous amounts of time on this piece of 
legislation working to get us to this point. We both share great 
concerns about the database part. We understood that we would not be 
able to get the bill passed had that stayed in the bill.
  The distinguished Senator from Utah and I will work between the time 
we go out and the time we come back in January to put together database 
legislation. There will be a strong effort, I know, on my side of the 
aisle, as there will be on his. We hope the Senate will be able to vote 
on that and the House, too, early next year. I say this because I do 
not want anybody to think that this has now disappeared because the 
rest of the legislation has gone through.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference 
report to implement the WIPO treaties. I also strongly support the 
copyright term extension legislation that we recently passed by voice 
vote.
  While I would like to congratulate the conferees and their staff for 
working out a consensus on so many controversial provisions, I feel it 
is necessary to express my disappointment that we are unable to pass 
some form of database protection this year. It is unfortunate that a 
consensus could not be reached on an issue that is so vital to so many 
people in our country. Agricultural databases, for example, are relied 
upon by our farmers and by others in our farming supply industry. While 
computers and the Internet make access to information available at our 
fingertips, we need to provide adequate protection for those who 
compile that information in such a user friendly format. Such easy 
access is essential to health care workers, for example, who need to 
have fast access to accurate information about which drugs have adverse 
reactions to other drugs or which antidotes are most effective in 
counteracting certain poisons.
  I see my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, is on the floor, and I would like to ask if he 
would agree that Congress should pass database legislation as early as 
possible next year to ensure that those who invest their time, money 
and effort in compiling and updating databases are protected from 
having their work pirated both domestically and internationally? Would 
the Senator from Utah agree that without such protections, database 
creators may decide that the risk of loss from piracy outweighs any 
potential gains from creating or updating databases.
  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

[[Page S11892]]

think everyone understands that. The Senator from Ohio has my assurance 
that I will continue to work with him on this issue.
  Mr. DeWINE. I again commend the Senator from Utah and the other WIPO 
conferees and their staff, especially Senator Leahy, for their tireless 
efforts to reach consensus on so many complex issues. I would simply 
like to ask my friend from Utah to work with those of us on the 
Judiciary Committee to introduce and seek passage of legislation early 
next year that protects our databases.
  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. DeWINE. I thank the Senator from Utah for his comments.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Without losing my right to the floor.
  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. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend, the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. HATCH. Will my colleague yield for 1 other minute? I promised I 
would yield to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona, provided I do not lose my right of recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________