A bill to amend the International Center Act to authorize the lease or sublease of certain property described in such Act to an entity other than a foreign government or international organization if certain conditions are met.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the International Center Act to make it clear that Intelsat can continue to lease the land on which its headquarters building is located.

Congress created Intelsat when it passed the Communications Satellite Act in the 1960s, intending it to be an international organization charged with establishing the world's first global satellite system. In 2000, Congress passed the ORBIT Act, which essentially mandated that Intelsat become a private company. The purpose of the ORBIT Act was to promote a fully competitive global market for satellite

communication services for the benefit of consumers. Congress inadvertently overlooked some important changes that were required to complete this transformation and, as a result, had to make technical changes to correct these oversights.

One technical correction still needs to be made, however: the International Center Act, ICA, must be amended to ensure that Intelsat's lease of the land on which its headquarters is located comports with the law. The U.S. Government owns this land. The State Department and Intelsat entered into a long-term lease for the land on which Intelsat built its headquarters many years ago. Intelsat constructed and fully owns the building. The lease was originally entered into pursuant to the ICA and has been amended several times over the years, most recently in 2006. The ICA, however, limits leases of this property to foreign governments and international organizations. At the time Intelsat leased the property and built its headquarters building, it was an international organization.

When Congress mandated in the ORBIT Act that Intelsat privatize, it created a problem regarding Intelsat's land lease. Once Intelsat was no longer an international organization, it technically no longer satisfied the requirements of the ICA. In other words, Congress' action requiring Intelsat to privatize has left the company's right to continue to lease the land in question. But it was never the intent of the ORBIT Act to create this uncertainty with respect to the legality of Intelsat's land lease.

The bill I am introducing amends the ICA to eliminate this uncertainty that the ORBIT Act created regarding the lease. It is necessary to ensure that the now privatized Intelsat can continue to lease the land. My bill would in no way alter the rights or obligations of the parties or any of the lease terms or conditions. It in no way expands any of Intelsat's rights under the existing lease. Nor does it change in any way the rights or powers that the State Department currently has under the lease. The Secretary of State will continue to have the same right to prohibit any use, development, occupancy, lease, or sublease as is currently authorized under the existing lease. My bill makes no substantive change in the relationship between the State Department and Intelsat. It merely eliminates the inconsistency between the lease and the ICA that was caused by Intelsat's privatization-- which Congress required when it passed the ORBIT Act.

The State Department has approved this legislation to amend the ICA. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, too, and act on it expeditiously.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to amend the International Center Act to make it clear that Intelsat can continue to lease the land on which its headquarters building is located.

Congress created Intelsat when it passed the Communications Satellite Act in the 1960s, intending it to be an international organization charged with establishing the world's first global satellite system. In 2000, Congress passed the ORBIT Act, which essentially mandated that Intelsat become a private company. The purpose of the ORBIT Act was to promote a fully competitive global market for satellite

communication services for the benefit of consumers. Congress inadvertently overlooked some important changes that were required to complete this transformation and, as a result, had to make technical changes to correct these oversights.

One technical correction still needs to be made, however: the International Center Act, ICA, must be amended to ensure that Intelsat's lease of the land on which its headquarters is located comports with the law. The U.S. Government owns this land. The State Department and Intelsat entered into a long-term lease for the land on which Intelsat built its headquarters many years ago. Intelsat constructed and fully owns the building. The lease was originally entered into pursuant to the ICA and has been amended several times over the years, most recently in 2006. The ICA, however, limits leases of this property to foreign governments and international organizations. At the time Intelsat leased the property and built its headquarters building, it was an international organization.

When Congress mandated in the ORBIT Act that Intelsat privatize, it created a problem regarding Intelsat's land lease. Once Intelsat was no longer an international organization, it technically no longer satisfied the requirements of the ICA. In other words, Congress' action requiring Intelsat to privatize has left the company's right to continue to lease the land in question. But it was never the intent of the ORBIT Act to create this uncertainty with respect to the legality of Intelsat's land lease.

The bill I am introducing amends the ICA to eliminate this uncertainty that the ORBIT Act created regarding the lease. It is necessary to ensure that the now privatized Intelsat can continue to lease the land. My bill would in no way alter the rights or obligations of the parties or any of the lease terms or conditions. It in no way expands any of Intelsat's rights under the existing lease. Nor does it change in any way the rights or powers that the State Department currently has under the lease. The Secretary of State will continue to have the same right to prohibit any use, development, occupancy, lease, or sublease as is currently authorized under the existing lease. My bill makes no substantive change in the relationship between the State Department and Intelsat. It merely eliminates the inconsistency between the lease and the ICA that was caused by Intelsat's privatization-- which Congress required when it passed the ORBIT Act.

The State Department has approved this legislation to amend the ICA. I hope my colleagues will support the bill, too, and act on it expeditiously.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007. Congress is charged ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts,'' and part of promotion is protection. This legislation will enhance existing intellectual property enforcement laws, provide more resources to combat infringement, and harmonize copyright and trademark laws. I thank Senator Cornyn for joining me in this effort, which is a high priority of mine, and also of the creative communities and industries across the country.

Each year, counterfeiting and copyright infringement cost the U.S. economy billions of dollars. The International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition estimates that counterfeiting and piracy cost American businesses $250 billion a year, and hundreds of thousands of jobs as well. Clearly, IP theft is big business, and that can devastate small businesses. No one knows this better than Vermont companies such as Hubbardton Forge, Vermont Teddy Bear Company, and Burton Snowboards. Each of these companies, and many others like them across the Nation invests time, money, and effort in the development of new products. When their products are infringed, it devalues the product and threatens the company.

Senator Cornyn and I have heard from a myriad of interested parties about the importance of protecting intellectual property, and have seen many enforcement proposals. The legislation we introduce today will serve as the core of our legislative effort this year. It will start the process of considering how to ensure that our enforcement laws are up to the task, and that the necessary resources are in place to enforce them. Other Senators have introduced legislation to address these issues, and the Department of Justice and others have suggested legislative language. These are all helpful to the debate, and I expect there will be more to come. Introduction of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007 is the beginning of this important effort.

The centerpiece of the bill we introduce today gives the Department of Justice the ability to bring civil actions against copyright infringers. Punishment should fit the crime, and a civil action is often more appropriate to the wrong being done in such cases than is criminal prosecution. This concept has passed the Senate on three separate occasions, as the PIRATE Act. Next, this bill adds resources for agents to combat infringement. It does not matter how strong our laws are, if there are not enough agents, or if our agents do not have the proper expertise to investigate and prosecute crimes, piracy will flourish and harm our economy. Third, this bill allows for ``harmless errors'' on copyright registration forms. Copyright registration should not be voided by innocently checking the wrong box or misspelling a word on a form. Finally, this bill harmonizes the forfeiture provisions in the copyright and trademark statutes.

By enacting well-balanced enforcement laws, we can protect both the creators and the consumers of intellectual property. It is impossible to put a price tag on creativity, but we must do all we can to protect the fruits of creative labor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Organ transplantation is one of the most remarkable success stories in the history of medicine. No longer is it considered experimental. Today, transplants are accepted as the best treatment for certain diseases, including End Stage Renal Disease. Approximately 28,000 organ transplants were performed last year in the U.S. The vast majority of transplants are provided to patients in need of a kidney.

Our Medicare system provides health care to millions of aged and disabled Americans, as well as those living with ESRD, each year. Thousands of Americans receive a Medicare-covered kidney transplant each year through the Medicare ESRD Program, which also covers dialysis, immunosuppressive drugs, and other medically important services.

Unfortunately, there are long waiting lists for people who need an organ. Today there are over 98,000 individuals waiting for a transplant. For those lucky enough to receive one, the next challenge is to obtain coverage for immunosuppressive drugs--medications that organ transplant recipients must take every day for the life of their transplant to reduce the risk of organ rejection.

In 2000, Congress wisely eliminated the 36-month time limitation for Medicare-aged and Medicare-disabled beneficiaries who had Medicare status at the time of transplant. Today, for an older or disabled person on Medicare, coverage for immunosuppressive drugs is covered for the life of the transplant.

However, we still have an unfair and unrealistic gap in coverage for people with ESRD who are neither disabled nor elderly. For those transplant recipients, coverage for immunosuppressive drugs ends 36 months after transplantation. For example, Medicare would pay for a 26- year-old woman

living with ESRD to have lifelong dialysis at $50,000 per year. Medicare would cover the cost of a transplant for her at $100,000 per transplant operation. But, the immunosuppressive drugs she would need to ensure the organ is not rejected by her body are only covered by Medicare for 36 months, even though the drugs cost the Government only $15,000 per year.

This is economically inefficient and morally wrong. Without regular access to immunosuppressive drugs to prevent rejection, many patients find themselves back in a risky and frightening place--in need of a new kidney. This senseless cycle of care costs taxpayers a lot of money and puts thousands of lives on the line.

I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Thad Cochran, the Comprehensive Immunosuppressive Drug Coverage for Transplant Patients Act. This legislation would alleviate the disparity between coverage for immuno-suppresive drugs among Medicare beneficiaries. It is time to provide lifetime coverage for immunosuppressive drugs through Medicare. We will reduce the need for dialysis and kidney re-transplants and provide reliable, sustained access to critically important, life-saving medications for thousands of Americans. In the long run, we will save money and lives.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.