[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 129 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11451-S11455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1121. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to improve the 
control of outdoor advertising in areas adjacent to the Interstate 
System, the National Highway System, and certain other federally 
assisted highways, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                     billboard control legislation

 Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill 
that will strengthen the Federal law that regulates billboards on our 
Nation's highways and scenic byways. My bill will close the loophole in 
the 1965 Highway Beautification Act that permits billboards in unzoned 
areas, a fact that clearly violates the spirit of the 1965 act.
  I have been a strong supporter of strict billboard controls even 
since I represented Rutland County as a Vermont State senator. During 
my tenure as a State senator, I served as vice chair of the special 
committee that wrote Vermont's law banning billboards from our Federal 
highways and rural routes, and as state attorney general, I 
successfully defended the law in the Federal courts.
  New billboards are being constructed along the U.S. Federal aid 
interstate and primary highways at record rates. In fact, based on 
estimates by the Congressional Research Service, one billboard is 
erected every 30 minutes all year long--a total of 15,000 to 16,000 
annually--along Federal aid highways.
  Currently, the Highway Beautification Act allows new billboards to be 
constructed in zoned and unzoned commercial and industrial areas. In 
theory, this limits billboards to areas with substantial bona fide 
commercial or industrial activity. In practice, however, this means 
that wherever there is any industrial or commercial use--for example, a 
single gas station--several bill billboards may be erected. Many of 
these signs have messages that are not even related to the adjacent 
business.
  Mr. President, by bill will close this legal loophole by only 
allowing billboards to be constructed in those areas that are zoned for 
commercial or industrial use.
  Mr. President, my bill will also require that the Federal Highway 
Administration keep track of the number of billboards on our Nation's 
highways. In 1991, the Congressional Research Service estimated that 
there were between 425,000 and 450,000 billboards in existence on 
Federal aid roads, but admitted that no one really knew how many 
billboards were along these roads.
  Right now States are only required to report to the Federal 
Government the number of illegal and nonconforming billboards on their 
roads. Decent public policy cannot be made in the absence of 
information. My bill will require that States and the Federal Highway 
Administration track the number of conforming billboards along Federal 
aid highways and scenic byways.
  Finally, Mr. President, my bill will prohibit the removal of trees 
and other types of vegetation for the sole purpose of improving 
billboard visibility. The idea that publically owned trees, many 
planted with public beautification funds, should be destroyed to enrich 
billboard owners is ludicrous. What is worse is that many of these 
billboards are nonconforming and are required by law to be removed 
anyway.
  Mr. President, my bill will move the 1965 Highway Beautification Act 
closer to its original intent of preserving the public's investment in 
our highways by protecting scenic areas and natural resources and 
giving Congress the information it needs to make well-informed public 
policy. I urge my colleagues to become cosponsors of this 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 1122. A bill to amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United 
States Code, to provide greater copyright protection by amending 
criminal copyright infringement provisions, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page S 11452]]



             the criminal copyright improvement act of 1995

 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce on behalf 
of Senator Feingold and myself, the Criminal Copyright Improvement Act 
of 1995. This bill would close a significant loophole in our copyright 
law and encourage the continued growth of the National Information 
Infrastructure by insuring better protection of the creative works 
available online.
  This bill reflects recommendations and hard work of the Department of 
Justice. I want to commend the Department for recognizing the need for 
prompt action on this important problem.
  Bruce Lehman, Commissioner of Patent and Trademark and chair of the 
Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights of the President's 
Information Infrastructure Task Force, recognizes the critical role of 
copyright protection as we move forward with the NII. The preliminary 
draft of the report of the working group, explained:

       The potential of the NII will not be realized if the 
     information and entertainment products protectable by 
     intellectual property laws are not protected effectively when 
     disseminated via the NII. Owners of intellectual property 
     rights will not be willing to put their own interests at risk 
     if appropriate systems--both in the U.S. and 
     internationally--are not in place to permit them to set and 
     enforce the terms and conditions under which their works are 
     made available in the NII environment. Likewise, the public 
     will not use the services available on the NII and generate 
     the market necessary for its success unless access to a wise 
     variety of works is provided under equitable and reasonable 
     terms and conditions, and the integrity of those works is 
     assured. All the computers, telephones, fax machines, 
     scanners, cameras, keyboards, televisions, monitors, 
     printers, switches, routers, wires, cables, networks and 
     satellites in the world will not create a successful NII, if 
     there is not content. What will drive the NII is the current 
     moving through it.--Intellectual Property and the National 
     Information Infrastructure, July, 1994, p. 6.

  The copyright Act, which is grounded in the copyright clause of the 
Constitution, assures that ``contributors to the store of knowledge 
[receive] a fair return for their labors.'' Harper & Row The Nation 
Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 546 (1985). I am mindful, however, that when 
we exercise our power to make criminal certain forms of copyright 
infringement, we should act with ``exceeding caution'' to protect the 
public's First Amendment interest in the dissemination of ideas. 
Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 221 (1985).
  For a criminal prosecution under current copyright law a defendant's 
willful copyright infringement must be for purposes of commercial 
advantage or private financial gain. Not-for-profit or noncommercial 
copyright infringement is not subject to criminal law enforcement, no 
matter how great the loss to the copyright holder. This presents an 
enormous loophole in criminal liability for willful infringers who can 
use digital technology to make exact copies of copyrighted software and 
other digitally encoded works, and then use computer networks for 
quick, inexpensive and mass distribution of pirated, infringing works. 
This bill would close this loophole.
  United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994), is an 
example of the problem this criminal copyright bill would fix. In that 
case, an MIT student set up computer bulletin board systems on the 
Internet. Users posted and downloaded copyrighted software programs. 
This resulted in an estimated loss to the copyright holders of over one 
million dollars over a 6-week period. Since the student apparently did 
not profit from the software piracy, the Government could not prosecute 
him under criminal copyright law and instead charged him with wire 
fraud. The district court described the student's conduct ``at best . . 
. as irresponsible, and at worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and 
lacking in any fundamental sense of values.''
  Nevertheless, the Court dismissed the indictment in LaMacchia because 
it viewed copyright law as the exclusive remedy for protecting 
intellectual property rights. The Court expressly invited Congress to 
revisit the copyright law and make any necessary adjustments, stating:

       Criminal as well as civil penalties should probably attach 
     to willful, multiple infringements of copyrighted software 
     even absent a commercial motive on the part of the infringer. 
     One can envision ways that the copyright law could be 
     modified to permit such prosecution. But, ``[i]t is the 
     legislature, not the Court which is to define a crime, and 
     ordain its punishment.''

  This bill would ensure redress in the future for flagrant, willful 
copyright infringements in the following ways: First, serious acts of 
willful copyright infringement that cause significant loss to the 
copyright holders would be subject to criminal prosecution.
  The bill would add a new offense prohibiting willful copyright 
infringement by reproduction or distributing copyrighted material with 
a total retail value of $5,000 or more. Under the new offense, it would 
be a misdemeanor to make even a single copy of a copyrighted work with 
a total retail value of between $5,000 and $10,000, and a felony if the 
total retail value of the infringed upon item or items was over 
$10,000.
  These monetary thresholds, combined with the scienter
   requirement, would insure that criminal charges would only apply to 
willful infringements, not merely casual or careless conduct, that 
result in a significant level of harm to the copyright holder's rights. 
De minimis, not-for-profit violations, including the distribution of 
pirated copies of works worth less than $5,000, would not be subject to 
criminal prosecution.

  Second, the bill would increase the monetary threshold for the 
existing criminal copyright offense, which makes it a misdemeanor to 
commit any willful infringement for commercial advantage or private 
financial gain, and a felony if 10 or more copies of works with a 
retail value of over $2,500 are made during a 180-day period. The bill 
would increase the monetary threshold in this offense from $2,500 to 
$5,000 for felony liability.
  Third, the bill would expressly prohibit willfully infringing a 
copyright by assisting others in the reproduction or distribution, 
including by transmission of an infringed work. This would further 
ensure coverage of activities such as those of alleged in LaMacchia.
  Fourth, the bill would add a provision to treat more harshly 
recidivists who commit a second or subsequent felony criminal copyright 
offense. Specifically, repeat offenders would be punished by 
imprisonment for up to 10 years rather than 5 years for a first felony 
offense. Such a calibration of penalties takes an important step in 
ensuring adequate deterrence of repeated willful copyright 
infringements.
  Fifth, the bill would extend the statute of limitations for criminal 
copyright infringement actions from 3 to 5 years, which is the norm for 
violations of criminal laws under Title 18, including those protecting 
intellectual property.
  Finally, the bill would strengthen victims' rights by giving 
victimized copyright holders the opportunity to provide a victim impact 
statement to the sentencing court. In addition, the bill would direct 
the Sentencing Commission to set sufficiently stringent sentencing 
guideline ranges for defendants convicted of intellectual property 
offenses to deter these crimes.
  Technological developments and the emergence of the National 
Information Infrastructure in this country and the Global Information 
Infrastructure worldwide hold enormous promise and present significant 
challenges for protecting creative works. Increasing accessibility and 
affordability of information and entertainment services are important 
goals that oftentimes require prudent balancing of public and private 
interests. In the area of creative rights, that balance has rested on 
encouraging creativity by ensuring rights that reward it while 
encouraging its public availability.
  I look forward to continuing to work with the Department of Justice 
and other interested parties to make any necessary refinements to this 
bill to insure that we have struck the appropriate balance.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
          Criminal Copyright Improvement Act of 1995--Summary

       Sec. 1. Short Title.--The Act may be cited as the 
     ``Criminal Copyright Improvement Act of 1995.''
       Sec. 2. Criminal Infringement of Copyrights.--The bill adds 
     a new definition for ``financial gain'' to 17 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 101, and 

[[Page S 11453]]
     amends the criminal copyright infringement provisions in titles 17 and 
     18. The bill also ensures that victims of criminal copyright 
     infringement have an opportunity to provide victim impact 
     statements to the court about the impact of the offense. 
     Finally, the bill directs the Sentencing Commission to ensure 
     guideline ranges are sufficiently stringent to deter criminal 
     infringement of intellectual property rights, and provide for 
     consideration of the retail value and quantity of the 
     legitimate, infringed-upon items.
       (a) Definition of Financial Gain. Current copyright law 
     provides criminal penalties when a copyright is willfully 
     infringed for purposes of ``commercial advantage or private 
     financial gain.'' The bill would add a definition of 
     ``financial gain.'' The bill would add a definition of 
     ``financial gain'' to the copyright law, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101, 
     and clarify that this term means the ``receipt of anything of 
     value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'' 
     This definition would make clear that ``financial gain'' 
     includes bartering for, and the trading of, pirated software.
       (b) Criminal Offenses. The requirement in criminal 
     copyright infringement actions under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a) 
     that the defendant's willful copyright infringement be ``for 
     purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain,'' 
     has allowed serious incidents of copyright infringement to 
     escape successful criminal prosecution.
       For example, in United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 
     535 (D. Mass. 1994), the defendant allegedly solicited users 
     of a computer bulletin board system on the Internet to submit 
     copies of copyrighted software programs for posting on the 
     system, and then encouraged users to download copies of the 
     illegally copied programs, resulting in an estimated loss of 
     revenue to the copyright holders of over one million dollars 
     over a six week period. Absent evidence of ``commercial 
     advantage or private financial gain,'' the defendant was 
     charged with conspiracy to violate the wire fraud statute, 18 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1343. The district court described the 
     defendant's conduct as ``heedlessly irresponsible, and at 
     worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lacking in any 
     fundamental sense of values,'' but nevertheless dismissed the 
     indictment on the grounds that acts of copyright infringement 
     may not be prosecuted under the wire fraud statute.
       The bill would add a new section 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(2) 
     to prohibit willfully infringing a copyright by reproducing 
     or distributing copyrighted material, which has a total 
     retail value of $5,000 or more. This monetary threshold, 
     combined with the scienter requirement, insures that merely 
     casual or careless conduct resulting in distribution of only 
     a few infringing copies would not be subject to criminal 
     prosecution. Criminal charges would only apply to willful 
     infringements resulting in a significant level of harm to the 
     copyright holder's rights. De minimis violations would not be 
     covered.
       By contrast to the offense in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(1), 
     which requires that 10 or more copies be made during a 180-
     day period for a felony penalty, the new proposed offense in 
     Sec. 506(a)(2), does not contain a numerical threshold or 
     requisite time period during which the infringement must 
     occur. Instead, criminal sanctions would attach under 
     Sec. 506(a)(2) if only a single copy were made of a 
     copyrighted work with a total retail value of over $5,000. 
     The criminal offense would be a misdemeanor if the total 
     retail value of the infringed-upon items was between $5,000 
     and $10,000, and a felony if the total retail value was over 
     $10,000.
       Court decisions have indicated that intangible property, 
     such as intellectual property rights, may not be protected 
     under traditional theft or fraud statutes. See Dowling v. 
     United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) (``bootleg'' phonorecords 
     that infringed copyrights not subject to interstate 
     transportation of stolen property statute); United States v. 
     Brown, 925 F.2d 1301, 1308 (10th Cir. 1991) (intangible 
     property such as source code not protected by interstate 
     transportation of stolen property statute); United States v. 
     LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994) (violation of 
     copyright holder's rights cannot be prosecuted under wire 
     fraud theory). The copyright statute may be the only remedy 
     available to protect copyrighted works, such as computer 
     programs, from infringement by electronic copying. This is 
     exceptionally important because a copyright attaches, 
     automatically, when an original work is fixed in a tangible 
     medium. Thus, any work embodying source code or any other 
     literary work may be protected against unauthorized 
     reproduction by uploading or downloading, if at all, by the 
     copyright statute.
       Under the bill, unauthorized reproduction or electronic 
     ``theft'' (which is, essentially, a reproduction and 
     distribution) of source code or other items worth $5,000 or 
     more are subject to criminal penalties, and the theft of more 
     valuable copyrighted material worth more than $10,000 is 
     punishable at felony level. In sum, since cases reflect that 
     intellectual property rights may not be protected by general 
     criminal statutes, the bill would amend the copyright law to 
     ensure such protection exists.
       The offenses under Sec. 506(a)(1) and (a)(2) would overlap. 
     For example, someone selling 10 or more copies of a 
     copyrighted work may violate both provisions if the value of 
     those copyrighted works is $5,000 or more. The key, however, 
     is that the new provision in Sec. 506(a)(2) requires that the 
     infringement involve, at a minimum, $5,000, and felony 
     provisions do not attach until the value of the copyrighted 
     works reaches $10,000. By contrast, any offense, regardless 
     of value, involving private financial gain or commercial 
     advantage constitutes at least a misdemeanor, and the crime 
     reaches felony level under the bill once the retail value of 
     the copyrighted material exceeds $5,000.
       The bill would also expressly prohibit willfully infringing 
     a copyright by ``assisting others'' in the reproduction or 
     distribution of an infringed work. This would make clear that 
     individuals who aid and abet a criminal copyright violation 
     could not escape criminal liability by claiming that they 
     were not responsible for the reproduction or distribution 
     because they merely enabled others to engage in such conduct.
       (c) Limitation on Criminal Procedures. The bill would amend 
     17 U.S.C. Sec. 507(a) to extend the statute of limitations 
     for criminal copyright infringement actions from three to 
     five years. A five year statute of limitations is the norm 
     for violations of criminal laws under Title 18, including 
     those that relate to protecting intellectual property. See, 
     e.g., 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2319A (Unauthorized fixation of and 
     Trafficking in sound recordings) and Sec. 2320 (Trafficking 
     in counterfeiting goods or services).
       (d) Criminal Infringement of a Copyright. The bill would 
     amend the penalty provisions in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2319 to 
     comport with the proposed amendments to 17 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 506(a), and would also add a new subsection providing 
     for a victim impact statement.
       First, under current law, willful copyright infringement 
     for commercial advantage or private financial gain is a 
     felony punishable by up to five years' imprisonment only when 
     the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution 
     during a 180-day period of ten or more copies with a retail 
     value of over $2500. Willful infringements for commercial 
     advantage, which do not satisfy the monetary threshold or 
     quantity requirement during the statutory time period, are 
     misdemeanor offenses. The bill would modify the felony 
     penalty provision for willful copyright infringement for 
     commercial advantage or private financial gain to cover 
     reproductions or distributions ``by transmission'' and to 
     cover those individuals ``assisting others in such 
     reproduction or distribution.'' The bill would also change 
     the monetary threshold from $2,500 to $5,000.
       Second, the bill would provide a new penalty in 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2319(c) for the new offense in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(2) 
     of willfully infringing a copyright by reproduction or 
     distribution of 1 or more copies of copyright works with a 
     total retail value of $5,000 or more. This new offense would 
     be punishable by a fine and up to 5 years' imprisonment if 
     the total retail value of the legitimate, infringed work 
     exceeded $10,000. If the value of the infringed work is 
     between $5000 and $10,000, the offense would be a misdemeanor 
     punishable by not more than 1 year and a fine.
       The penalty structure under the bill is as follows:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Infringed work                                                        
      values          Under $5,000     $5,000-$10,000     Over $10,000  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willful            Misdemeanor......  Felony, if 10 or  Felony, if 10 or
 infringement for                      more copies       more copies    
 commercial                            within 180-day    within 180-day 
 advantage/                            period.           period.        
 financial gain                                                         
 [17 U.S.C. Sec.                                                        
 506(a)(1)].                                                            
Willful            No criminal        Misdemeanor.....  Felony.         
 infringement by    liability.                                          
 reproduction or                                                        
 distribution of                                                        
 works with value                                                       
 over $5,000 for                                                        
 any reason,                                                            
 including                                                              
 commercial                                                             
 advantage/                                                             
 financial gain                                                         
 [17 U.S.C Sec.                                                         
 506(a)(2)].                                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Third, the bill would add a provision to treat more harshly 
     recidivists who commit a second or subsequent felony offense 
     under 18 U.S.C. 2319(a), which refers to 17 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 506(a) Under the bill, such recidivists would be 
     punished by up to ten years' imprisonment and a fine.
       Finally, the bill would add new subsection Sec. 2319(e), 
     requiring that victims of the offense, including producers 
     and sellers of legitimate, infringed-upon goods or services, 
     holders
      of intellectual property rights and their legal 
     representatives, be given the opportunity to provide a 
     victim impact statement to the probation officer preparing 
     the presentence report. The bill directs that the 
     statement identify the victim of the offense and the 
     extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered, 
     including the estimated economic impact of the offense on 
     that victim.
       (e) Unauthorized Fixation and Trafficking of Live Musical 
     Performances. The bill would add new subsection 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2319A(d) requiring that victims of the offense, 
     including producers and sellers of legitimate, infringed-upon 
     goods or services, holders, of intellectual property rights 
     and their legal representatives, be given the opportunity to 
     provide a victim impact statement to the probation officer 
     preparing the presentence report. The bill directs that the 
     statement identify the victim of the offense and the extent 
     and scope of the injury and loss suffered, including the 
     estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
       (f) Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services. The bill 
     would add new subsection 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2320(d) requiring 
     that victims of the offense, including producers and sellers 
     of legitimate, infringed-upon goods or services, holders of 
     intellectual property rights and their legal representatives, 
     be given the opportunity to provide a victim impact statement 
     to the probation officer preparing the presentence report. 
     The bill directs that the statement identify the victim of 
     the offense and the extent and scope of the injury 

[[Page S 11454]]
     and loss suffered, including the estimated economic impact of the 
     offense on that victim.
       (g) Directive to Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing 
     Commission currently takes the view that criminal copyright 
     infringement and trademark counterfeiting are analogous to 
     fraud-related offenses, and that appropriate sentences are to 
     be calculated according to the retail value of the infringing 
     items, rather than of the legitimate copyrighted items which 
     are infringed. This may understate the harm. The bill would 
     direct the Sentencing Commission to ensure that applicable 
     guideline ranges for criminal copyright infringement and 
     violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2319, 2319A and 2320 are 
     sufficiently stringent to deter such crimes and provide for 
     consideration of the retail value and quantity of the 
     legitimate, infringed-upon items.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 1123. A bill to limit access by minors to cigarettes through 
prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in vending machines and the 
distribution of free samples of tobacco products in Federal buildings 
and property accessible by minors; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


    legislation banning tobacco vending machines on federal property

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 4 years ago, I introduced a bill to ban 
tobacco vending machines in Federal buildings and on Federal property 
accessible to children. Two years ago, I reintroduced the bill, and it 
passed the full Senate by voice vote as an amendment to the fiscal year 
1994 Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill. I rise today to 
reintroduce my bill for three simple reasons:
  First, in 1993, after the Senate passed my amendment to ban tobacco 
vending machines on Federal property, the conferees failed to retain 
the legislative language, opting instead for the following statement in 
the fiscal year 1994 Treasury-Postal appropriations conference report:

       . . . [elimination of the provision] does not signal a lack 
     of concern for the health and safety of minors. The conferees 
     agree that locating cigarette sales vending machines in areas 
     accessible to minors poses a serious problem as their 
     presence increases the availability of products which 
     otherwise may be prohibited from sale to minors. Therefore, 
     the conferees direct the Administrator to eliminate vending 
     machines in areas which are accessible to minors.

  Despite this directive, tobacco vending machines remain on federal 
property and many are fully accessible to children.
  Second, more substantively, vending machines are extremely difficult 
to monitor. Not surprisingly, they are one of the chief sources of 
cigarette purchases among children and teenagers.
  Third, finally, every State in the country has enacted a law to 
prohibit the sale or distribution of cigarettes to minors.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to talk about each 
of the points I have listed.
  As I mentioned, the congressional directive contained in the fiscal 
year 1994 Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill was issued almost 
2 years ago. In those 2 years, more than 2 million children and teens 
in this country took up smoking. One-third of them--more than 600,000 
children--will later die of tobacco-related causes. Let me repeat that: 
more than 600,000 children will die because sometime over the past 2 
years, they started to smoke. And we cannot even get a few cigarette 
vending machines out of some Federal buildings.
  Mr. President, these statistics are not exaggerations. The facts are 
well known and widely acknowledged:
  First, more than 420,000 people died each year from tobacco-related 
causes, making cigarette smoking the single most preventable cause of 
death and disability in the United States.
  Second, every day, more than 3,000 children and teenagers start to 
smoke. More than two-thirds of all adult smokers had their first 
cigarette before the age of 14, and 90 percent began smoking by age 18.
  Third, every year, minors consume 516 million packs of cigarettes, at 
least half of which are sold illegally to children and teens.
  Five hundred sixteen million packs of cigarettes consumed by minors 
annually. Three thousand children starting to smoke every day. And 
every State in this country has a law prohibiting the sale of tobacco 
products to minors.
  Clearly, something is not working. It is time for a new course of 
action. Some experts argue that the wisest, most effective course of 
action would be to take the tobacco industry up on its voluntary plan 
for reducing underage smoking and try to hold the industry to its 
commitment. Others argue that we should use this opportunity to give 
the Food and Drug Administration broader regulatory authority of 
tobacco products. The President is currently grappling with these tough 
issues, and we expect an announcement of his decision at any time.
  For several years, I have sponsored legislation that would 
specifically give the FDA the authority to regulate nicotine-containing 
tobacco products. For a number of years, the Department of Health and 
Human Services has urged States and localities to take greater 
responsibility by, among other things, banning cigarette vending 
machines.
  In recent years, other Federal officials, including President Clinton 
and former President Bush, have joined the Department's appeal to 
States and localities. In its Healthy People 2000 Report, the Public 
Health Service encourages Indian Tribal Councils to ``similarly enforce 
prohibitions of tobacco sales to Indian youth living on reservations'' 
because Indian nations are sovereign and exempted from State laws.
  I agree with the Department's previous advice. I sincerely hope that 
over the next few days or weeks the President will take a tough stand 
on the issue of Federal regulation of tobacco products. I hope he will 
go much farther than this modest bill. At the same time, I would 
caution the President and my colleagues in the Senate not to forget the 
powerful message that leading by example can convey.
  Mr. President, over that past several years, while the Federal 
Government has been urging every other political body in the country to 
ban cigarette vending machines, pack after pack are loaded into--and 
purchased out of--vending machines every day in Federal buildings. 
Those buildings include the Senate and House Office Buildings and the 
Old Executive Office Building, next door to the White House.
  It is long past time for the vending machines to go. It is time for 
the Federal Government to lead by example. I believe that if we expect 
States, localities, Indian Tribal leaders, schools, parents, and even 
the tobacco industry itself, to take steps to protect our children from 
tobacco, then we in the Federal Government should join the effort. We 
should lead the effort. We can begin with passage of this legislation, 
which I ask to be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks. Thank you.
                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 304

  At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] was added as a cosponsor of S. 304, a bill to 
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the transportation 
fuels tax applicable to commercial aviation.


                                 S. 413

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. Kerrey] was added as a cosponsor of S. 413, a bill to amend the 
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage rate 
under such Act, and for other purposes.


                                 S. 428

  At the request of Mr. Roth, the name of the Senator from Maryland 
[Mr. Sarbanes] was added as a cosponsor of S. 428, a bill to improve 
the management of land and water for fish and wildlife purposes, and 
for other purposes.


                                 S. 448

  At the request of Mr. Grassley, the names of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] and the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] 
were added as cosponsors of S. 448, a bill to amend section 118 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for certain exceptions from 
rules for determining contributions in aid of construction, and for 
other purposes.


                                 S. 560

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. Exon] was added as a cosponsor of S. 560, a bill to amend section 
6901 of title 31, United States Code, to entitle units of general local 
government to payments in lieu of taxes for nontaxable Indian land.

[[Page S 11455]]



                                 S. 833

  At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Vermont 
[Mr. Jeffords] was added as a cosponsor of S. 833, a bill to amend the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to more accurately codify the depreciable 
life of semiconductor manufacturing equipment.


                                 S. 851

  At the request of Mr. Johnston, the name of the Senator from Utah 
[Mr. Bennett] was added as a cosponsor of S. 851, a bill to amend the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reform the wetlands regulatory 
program, and for other purposes.
                                 S. 960

  At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Texas 
[Mr. Gramm] was added as a cosponsor of S. 960, a bill to amend title 
18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law 
enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of 
concealed handguns, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1086

  At the request of Mr. Dole, the names of the Senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Smith], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], 
and the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] were added as cosponsors 
of S. 1086, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
a family-owned business exclusion from the gross estate subject to 
estate tax, and for other purposes.


                                S. 1117

  At the request of Mr. Daschle, the name of the Senator from New York 
[Mr. Moynihan] was added as a cosponsor of S. 1117, a bill to repeal 
AFDC and establish the Work First Plan, and for other purposes.


                       Senate Joint Resolution 6

  At the request of Mr. Thurmond, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Inhofe] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 6, a 
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States relating to voluntary school prayer.


                         Senate Resolution 146

  At the request of Mr. Johnston, the name of the Senator from Hawaii 
[Mr. Akaka] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 146, a 
resolution designating the week beginning November 19, 1995, and the 
week beginning on November 24, 1996, as ``National Family Week,'' and 
for other purposes.


                         Senate Resolution 149

  At the request of Mr. Akaka, the names of the Senator from South 
Dakota [Mr. Daschle], the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas], the 
Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kerry], the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], and the Senator 
from Washington [Mrs. Murray] were added as cosponsors of Senate 
Resolution 149, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate 
regarding the recent announcement by the Republic of France that it 
intends to conduct a series of underground nuclear test explosions 
despite the current international moratorium on nuclear testing.


                          ____________________