[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3349-S3361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 601. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
taking a child hostage in order to evade arrest; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  S. 602. A bill to provide a mandatory minimum sentence for State 
crimes involving the use of a firearm, impose work requirements for 
prisoners, and prohibit the provision of luxury items to prisoners; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


                           CRIME LEGISLATION

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills 
intended to protect innocent Americans from the violent will of 
criminals and fugitives. One need take only a quick review of recent 
statistics to realize the chilling scope of our nation's crime 
problems. For instance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 
11 million Americans were the victims of violent crime in 1994 alone. 
The Bureau of Justice Statistics also reports that approximately 3.5 
million Americans were accosted at gunpoint during that same year. 
These statistics should galvanize us all into taking concrete steps to 
protect innocent Americans against senseless victimization and turn the 
tide against criminals once and for all. My bills will help to do just 
that.

  The first bill I introduce today, the Crime Control Act of 1997, will 
ensure that an individual convicted of committing a violent crime or 
engaging in drug trafficking activities while in possession of a gun, 
will go to jail for 10 years, and not a day less. If an offender fires 
a gun while committing those crimes, that offender will go to jail for 
20 years. And should that criminal make the mistake of using a 
machinegun or a gun with a silencer to commit those crimes, that 
criminal will be incarcerated for 30 years. Once imprisoned, the Crime 
Control Act provides hardened criminals with no option for parole or 
reduced sentences that would allow them another chance to harm innocent 
citizens.
  Simply put, the passage of my Crime Control Act ensures that if you 
do the crime, you will most certainly do the time. And under my bill, 
that time won't be easy. A key initiative of the Crime Control Act is 
the creation of work programs for all able bodied prisoners by the 
Attorney General. In addition, my bill prohibits the government from 
providing any entertainment devices, like televisions, radios, or 
stereos, for use in individual prisoner cells. Federal prisons are not 
the place for entertainment. They are not intended to be fun. They are 
the places where individuals repay their debt to society and in the 
case of violent criminals, it is a very large debt indeed. My Crime 
Control Act makes sure that violent criminals pay that debt, and I hope 
my colleagues will join me in supporting this important and effective 
crime control measure.
  The second bill I introduce today applies directly to actions taken 
by fugitives who resist arrest. Over the past few years, America has 
witnessed an unfortunate trend involving standoffs between the U.S. 
Government and parties who reject its authority to enforce the laws of 
this land--specifically, the incidents in Waco, TX; Ruby Ridge, ID; and 
Garfield County, MT. Thankfully, the episode involving the Freemen did 
not escalate to violence or bloodshed. Regrettably, this does not hold 
true for Waco or Ruby Ridge, where there was a tragic loss of life to 
civilians and Government agents alike.
  Each of these situations jeopardized children's lives--innocent 
children who had no choice in the role they played in these standoffs. 
In Waco, 25 young children under the age of 15 died in the blaze that 
spread throughout the compound. These deaths occurred despite the 
repeated efforts by Federal agents to encourage Branch Davidians 
leaders to allow children to leave the compound.
  At Ruby Ridge, a 14-year-old died after being caught in gunfire. And 
during the Freeman standoff, Americans across the Nation held their 
breath--praying that violence would not erupt. Once again, the lives of 
children were placed in jeopardy. But thankfully, this time, the 
children--and adults--emerged unharmed.
  As we have seen, tragedy can occur in these very tense situations. 
Above all else, we need to ensure that children are kept out of these 
situations in the future. People who arm themselves after failing to 
comply with warrants or because they seek to avoid arrest must realize 
that, whether or not it is intended, children are implicated in these 
standoffs. We cannot allow this to continue any longer. We cannot allow 
another child's life to be endangered in this manner.
  This bill seeks to protect children from harm in these standoff 
situations. My bill would make it a crime to detain a child when two 
conditions are met: if a person is trying to evade arrest or avoid 
complying with a warrant, and that person uses force, or threatens to 
use force, against a Federal agent. Any person convicted of violating 
this act would be imprisoned for 10-25 years. If a child is injured, 
the penalty would be increased to 20-35 years. If a child is killed, 
the penalty would be life imprisonment.
  No law can ever assure that children will be kept free from harm. But 
this legislation will help assure that children do not become 
inadvertent, innocent pawns when violent situations arise. It will 
provide a deterrent to involving a child in any standoff--and severe 
penalties for those who ignore the law.
  Both of the bills I introduce today are aimed at protecting the 
innocents in our society, and I urge my colleagues to support them. 
America needs to be a place where innocent citizens do not have to fear 
for their life

[[Page S3350]]

because gun-toting criminals and drug pushers linger on the streets. It 
needs to be a place where children are not the captives of adults 
intent upon resisting arrest. Freedom from violence and captivity are 
basic tenets of our society, which most Americans enjoy and respect. 
Those among us who don't share our respect for the laws of our society 
must realize that their actions are criminal, and that in America, 
criminal actions have repercussions. The passage of these bills will 
make sure that they do.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 603. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to collect and 
disseminate statistically reliable information from milk manufacturing 
plants on prices received for bulk cheese and to provide the Secretary 
with the authority to require reporting by such manufacturing plants 
throughout the United States on prices received for cheese, butter, and 
nonfat dry milk; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
      By Mr. SPECTER:
  S. 604. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
require the Secretary of Agriculture to use the price of feed grains 
and other cash expenses as factors that are used to determine the basic 
formula price for milk and any other milk price regulated by the 
Secretary; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                        agricultural legislation

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
two pieces of legislation which will respond to a very serious problem 
on the falling prices of milk which have occurred in Pennsylvania, 
especially in northeastern Pennsylvania, and across the country.
  In introducing this legislation, I am pleased to have a chance to 
address this issue in the presence of the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas, who was the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and is 
making quite an addition to the U.S. Senate. It is not inappropriate to 
note that Senator Roberts is from Kansas, as I am a native of Kansas. I 
was born in Wichita, grew up in Russell, and worked on a farm as a 
teenager and have some appreciation of the problems of the farmers.
  During my tenure in the U.S. Senate, I have been on the Agriculture 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. There are more people 
living in rural Pennsylvania than live in the rural part of any State 
in the Union. Mr. President, my colleague from Kansas, we have 2\1/2\ 
million people living in rural Pennsylvania. When I last looked, which 
is a while ago, there were not 2\1/2\ million people living in all of 
Kansas, let alone 2 million people--slightly reduced--when I moved into 
Pennsylvania. So I approach this issue with some due regard for the 
expert presiding over the U.S. Senate. Having discussed this issue with 
him before, I am not sure he agrees with me on all aspects.
  I am of the firm opinion that something needs to be done to help the 
milk farmers. I say that because the price of milk has fallen 
precipitously from almost $16 per hundredweight down to $11 per 
hundredweight. It has gone back up a little, but not a great deal.
  In responding to that problem, I asked the distinguished Secretary of 
Agriculture, Dan Glickman, also a Kansan, to accompany me to 
northeastern Pennsylvania, which he did, on February 10. We met a crowd 
of approximately 500 to 750 angry farmers who complained about the 
precipitous drop in the price of milk.
  During the course of my analysis of this pricing problem, I found 
that the price of milk depended upon a number of factors, one of which 
was the price of cheese. For every 10 cents the price of cheese was 
raised, the price of milk would be raised by $1 per hundredweight. Then 
I found that the price of cheese was determined by the National Cheese 
Exchange in Green Bay, WI. At least according to a survey made by the 
University of Wisconsin, there was an issue as to whether the price of 
cheese established by the Green Bay exchange was accurate or not. The 
authors of the report used a term as tough as manipulation. Whether 
that is so or not, there was a real question as to whether that price 
was accurate.
  Since this controversy has arisen--perhaps it brought the matter to a 
head, perhaps not; perhaps it would have happened anyway--it has been 
announced that the Green Bay exchange will close and will be replaced 
by a new commodity market on May 1. In any event, in my discussions 
with Secretary Glickman, I found he had the power to raise the price of 
milk unilaterally by establishing a different price of cheese.
  This subject was aired during the course of his testimony when he 
came before the appropriations subcommittee. It is a very good time to 
find a more-agreeable-than-usual Cabinet officer when a Cabinet officer 
comes in for the appropriations process for his Department's budget.
  During the course of that hearing, we could not explore fully the 
issue of the price of milk and the price of cheese, so our 
distinguished chairman, Senator Cochran, agreed to have a special 
hearing, which we had a couple of weeks later. At that time, Secretary 
Glickman said that they had ascertained the identity of 118 people or 
entities who had cheese transactions that could establish a different 
price of cheese. He told me they had written to the 118 and were having 
problems getting responses. I suggested it might be faster to telephone 
those people.

  Secretary Glickman provided my staff and me with the list of people, 
and we telephoned them and found, after reaching approximately half of 
them, that the price of cheese was, in fact, 16 cents higher by those 
individuals than otherwise.
  I have been pressing Secretary Glickman since. If he has C-SPAN2, or 
if he knows someone who has C-SPAN2 or if he talks to someone who has 
C-SPAN2, my staff has been exhorting his staff daily to act on it, and 
I am going to send him a fax letter before the day is up to try to get 
a determination on this issue, because I am on my way to northeastern 
Pennsylvania again next Monday on a routine trip to the Wilkes-Barre/
Scranton area. The Presiding Officer knows what that is like. There 
will be people who want answers to questions, and I shall answer with 
due diligence, which I think I have. I hope the Secretary of 
Agriculture will note this different price of cheese and act 
accordingly to raise the price of milk.
  The legislation which I am introducing today goes to two points. One 
is to amend the Agriculture Market Transition Act to require the 
Secretary to use the price of feed grains and other cash expenses in 
the dairy industry as factors that are used to determine the basic 
formula for the price of milk and other milk prices regulated by the 
Secretary.
  Simply stated, the Government should use what it costs for production 
to establish the price of milk, so that if the farmers are caught with 
rising prices of feed and other rising costs of production, they can 
have those rising costs reflected in the cost of milk.
  The second piece of legislation would require the Secretary of 
Agriculture to collect and disseminate statistically reliable 
information from milk manufacturing plants on prices received for bulk 
cheese and provide the Secretary with the authority to require 
reporting by such manufacturing plants throughout the United States on 
the prices for cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk.
  Frankly, I am reluctant to impose this obligation anywhere, but I 
think it is a fair request to make since the Secretary told the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Appropriations Committee that the 
Secretary could not get this information on a voluntary basis. People 
would not comply. My staff found that corroborated when we telephoned 
the individuals who had these transactions. Burdensome as it is, I 
think it is fair to give the Secretary the authority to require this 
reporting.
  Mr. President, I am authorized to say that the distinguished Senator 
from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, wishes to cosponsor the piece of 
legislation requiring the information to be collected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full 
text of the bills be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 603

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

[[Page S3351]]

     SECTION 1.

       (1) Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall collect and disseminate, on a weekly 
     basis, statistically reliable information, obtained from 
     cheese manufacturing areas in the United States on prices 
     received and terms of trade involving bulk cheese, including 
     information on the national average price for bulk cheese 
     sold through spot and forward contract transactions. To the 
     extent practicable, the Secretary shall report the prices and 
     terms of trade for spot and forward contract transaction 
     separately,
       (2) The Secretary may require dairy product manufacturing 
     plants in the United States to report to the Secretary on a 
     weekly basis the price they receive for cheese, butter and 
     nonfat dry milk sold through spot sales arrangements, forward 
     contracts or other sales arrangements.
       (3) All information provided to, or acquired by, the 
     Secretary under subsections (1) and (2) shall be kept 
     confidential by each officer and employee of the Department 
     of Agriculture except that general weekly statements may be 
     issued that are based on the information and that do not 
     identify the information provided by any person.
                                                                    ____


                                 S. 604

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

     SECTION 1. BASIC FORMULA PRICE.

       Section 143(a) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act (7 
     U.S.C. 7253(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Basic formula price.--In carrying out this subsection 
     and section 8c(5) of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 
     U.S.C. 608c(5)), reenacted with amendments by the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, the Secretary 
     shall use as factors that are used to determine the basic 
     formula price for milk and any other milk price regulated by 
     the Secretary--
       ``(A) the price of feed gains, including the cost of 
     concentrates, byproducts, liquid whey, hay, silage, pasture, 
     and other forage; and
       ``(B) other cash expenses, including the cost of hauling, 
     artificial insemination, veterinary services and medicine, 
     bedding and litter, marketing, custom services and supplies, 
     fuel, lubrication, electricity, machinery and building 
     repairs, labor, association fees, and assessments.''.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce with the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, a bill which attempts to 
address problems in the dairy industry stemming from the lack of 
adequate price discovery in manufactured dairy product markets.
  There has been a great deal of controversy surrounding the National 
Cheese Exchange [NCE], currently located in Green Bay, WI. The NCE is a 
small cash market that trades less than 1 percent of all bulk cheese 
sold nationally, has few traders, short trading periods, and infrequent 
trading sessions. Those characteristics make this exchange vulnerable 
to price manipulation. Trading on this exchange would not be a concern 
if it did not have such tremendous influence over cheese prices 
nationally. However, because the Cheese Exchange is the only source of 
cheese price information in the country, it acts as a benchmark or 
reference price for most off-exchange cheese sales. There simply is no 
other reliable source of information, no other source of price 
discovery, available for buyers and sellers in this industry to use as 
an indicator of market conditions. Because the price for cheese 
directly and indirectly affects the price of milk, dairy farmers are 
justifiably concerned about the lack of adequate cheese price 
information and the influence of the NCE on prices they receive for 
milk.
  Concern about the Cheese Exchange among dairy farmers, while on-going 
for many years, heightened late last year when cheese prices at the 
exchange fell dramatically in just a few weeks, causing record declines 
in milk prices paid to farmers. While milk prices have recovered 
slightly, they are expected to fall again next month as a result of 
further price declines at the National Cheese Exchange.
  While the National Cheese Exchange is closing its doors at the end of 
this month, a new but nearly identical cash market for cheese is 
opening at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. It is expected that this 
new market, which appears to share a number of the flaws of the Cheese 
Exchange, will serve as the reference price for cheese throughout the 
country. It is unclear whether this market will be capable of providing 
adequate price discovery for the dairy industry.
  That is why the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, and I are 
introducing this bill today. This legislation requires the Secretary to 
collect and disseminate statistically reliable cheese price information 
collected from cheese manufacturing plants throughout the country--a 
provision also included in my bill, S. 258, which I introduced in 
February. A price series of this type will not only provide more price 
information, it will provide more reliable information based on 
transactions throughout the country rather than on one thinly traded 
cash market.
  Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman has already begun this process. 
Last August, I asked the Secretary to use his existing administrative 
authority to initiate a weekly price survey of cheese plants to improve 
cheese price discovery and lessen the influence of the small but 
powerful National Cheese Exchange on milk prices. Secretary Glickman 
graciously agreed to conduct such a survey, which formally began this 
January on a monthly basis, and became a weekly survey last month. I 
have been very pleased with the Secretary's response to the concerns 
about cheese pricing and effect of the National Cheese Exchange on 
farm-level milk prices and I appreciate his efforts on this matter.
  Since that survey is relatively new, it is still unclear whether it 
will produce prices which reflect market conditions. That depends upon 
the voluntary participation of those manufacturers reporting prices as 
well as on the integrity of the data reported.

  On March 13, both Secretary Glickman and I testified before the 
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Committee about the problem of the 
Cheese Exchange and the lack of reliable price information in the dairy 
industry and the potential for this new price series to address that 
problem. At that time, the Secretary indicated that if participation by 
cheese manufacturers in his new survey was inadequate, the Department 
may need to consider requiring participation in that survey. However, 
under current law, the Secretary has only very limited authority to 
require cheese price reporting by manufacturing plants.
  The bill we are introducing today requires the Secretary to continue 
his cheese price collection and reporting activities and provides him 
with broader authority to require participation by cheese manufacturers 
in that survey. I want to make clear that this bill does not mandate 
that the Secretary require participation in the cheese price survey, 
but merely provides him with the authority to do so if it is necessary 
to ensure the new cheese price survey is statistically reliable. Under 
the current survey procedures, many cheese manufacturers are already 
participating voluntarily, so this new Secretarial authority may not be 
necessary.
  Mr. President, it is essential that dairy farmers have some 
assurances that cheese prices, which have such a dramatic impact on the 
price of milk, are reflective of market conditions and not vulnerable 
to manipulation. By improving price discovery, the new USDA cheese 
price survey implemented by Secretary Glickman may help accomplish that 
goal. If mandatory price reporting is necessary to produce accurate 
survey data, our bill provides the Secretary with the authority to 
require participation. However, I am hopeful that participation in the 
survey will continue to be high so that mandatory reporting never 
becomes necessary.
  I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for working with me to devise 
legislation that might effectively improve price discovery in the dairy 
industry and I welcome his interest in this important issue. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 605. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to provide 
emergency assistance to producers for cattle losses that are due to 
damaging weather or related condition occurring during the 1996-97 
winter season, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


             AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my State has been hit by one of the most 
remarkable series of events ever in the history of our State.
  First we had the greatest snowfall in our State's history, over 100 
inches of snow. Then the last of eight major blizzards hit. The eighth 
and final blizzard

[[Page S3352]]

was the most powerful winter storm in 50 years. It included almost 2 
feet of snow as well as major ice storms, then followed by 70 mile-an-
hour winds that were devastating--80,000 people lost their electricity, 
many of them for a week. The economic devastation is truly remarkable.
  Now in the last 12 hours even more disaster is occurring. I am going 
to read just briefly from the major newspaper in my State, which is in 
the largest city of our State, Fargo, ND.
  The article begins this way:

       At 12:15 a.m. today, the flood of 1997 officially became 
     the worst in Fargo-Moorhead's history.
       The National Weather Service said a reading taken at that 
     time put the Red River's level at 39.12 feet. That exceeds . 
     . . the river level measured in the flood of 1897--until this 
     morning, the worst ever.
       That also means the Red [River] has hit the 500-year flood 
     level.
       Speaking on [a local] radio [station] at 1:15 a.m., city 
     Operations Manager Dennis Walaker struck an ominous note.
       Walaker said, ``We are at river stages that exceed the 1897 
     level. No one has ever seen this much water in the Fargo 
     area, ever. All we can do is react.''

  I just talked to the mayor, and I just talked to Mr. Walaker. He 
tells me they have 15 square miles of water headed for Fargo, ND. This 
on top of the river which is 20 feet above flood stage. There is just a 
mass scramble to try to deal with this extraordinary flood threat.

       The crest is not expected to be much higher than [about 
     39.5 feet] but officials will reevaluate the situation this 
     morning. . . .
       Iced-over farm fields liquefied. Shelterbelt snowdrifts 
     shrank. Drainage ditches whooshed into coulees and merged 
     with rivers.
       In rural Cass County . . . winter turned into water.
       By noon, sheets of melted snow rolled toward the Red River. 
     Water that couldn't fit into engorged rivers, particularly 
     the Wild Rice River, took off over land. The overland flows 
     crossed I-29--

  The major north-south Federal highway--

       near the Horace exit and threatened homes in southwest 
     Fargo.
       At midmorning, [the mayor] warned residents of approaching 
     overland flooding. He suggested people leave work and check 
     their property if they live in--

  Certain residential areas.

       By midafternoon, some students were leaving [schools] 
     because of the flood threat.
       The situation was even more urgent next to the Red River. 
     Fargo-Moorhead homeowners who hadn't lost the battle Tuesday 
     asked for more sandbags and sandbaggers. North Dakota State 
     University canceled classes so students could help in the 
     fight.

  I will not go further, Mr. President, other than to say this is 
absolutely an extraordinary time. One of the areas in which we have 
been hit the hardest is cattle death losses. The number of cattle 
losses are at least 112,000 head at this point. North Dakota Farm 
Service Agency reports that nearly 80,000 of them are from the weekend 
storm of April 4 through 6 alone, a storm that is being called Blizzard 
Hannah. I fear, Mr. President, that many more calves may die.
  This is such an extraordinary set of events. These pictures depict 
some of the situations and scenes that we are seeing across the State 
of North Dakota. Here, one cow is nuzzling a calf with a dead cow 
alongside. What happened in this storm, which was so powerful, is that 
not only did cattle freeze to death, but many suffocated because the 
winds were so intense that compacted snow was blown up into their 
nostrils and they suffocated.
  Mr. President, this next picture shows what we are seeing all too 
often. Here a farmer is coming down the road to inspect the herd. Here 
is a cow dead in a ditch. All across North Dakota, carcasses are 
littered after this devastation.
  Here is an all-too-often sight. This is a cow frozen in a snow bank. 
It is not just a snow bank, it is actually ice and snow together. 
People report that these snow banks are like concrete. There was first 
this heavy snowfall, then the ice, then these incredible winds. These 
cattle did not have a chance.
  For that reason, today I am introducing legislation that will provide 
for an indemnification payment. I hope that this legislation will be 
enacted. I hope that my colleagues will understand the massive economic 
loss in my State.
  Under this legislation, producers who have experienced a 5-percent 
loss of their cattle herd or calf crop would receive indemnity payments 
of $200 per head, up to 200 of lost livestock. In some cases, losses 
will be covered by private insurance. In these instances, producers 
will be able to receive indemnity payments under my program, but the 
total payments of private insurance and Government indemnity cannot 
exceed the expected value of a cow.
  I have been working with my colleagues from the Dakotas, Senator 
Dorgan from North Dakota, and Senator Daschle and Senator Johnson from 
South Dakota to implement assistance to livestock producers in North 
Dakota and South Dakota. We will continue working to provide 
meaningful, comprehensive relief.
  Cattle producers in my State have asked for something simple and 
something that will help them overcome these overwhelming difficulties. 
My legislation accomplishes those goals, and I call on my colleagues to 
offer this assistance to livestock producers.
  I understand I have a colleague standing by who would like to have 
time as well, so I do not want to extend this, other than to send the 
legislation to the desk and ask it be appropriately referred. I 
introduce it on behalf of myself and my colleague from North Dakota, 
Senator Dorgan. I urge my colleagues' close attention to it.
  Again, Mr. President, we are faced with what I call a slow-motion 
disaster, because it is a circumstance in which you do not have the 
flood come and leave. In this circumstance, the flood has come, and it 
is staying. In addition to that, we have all of these other severe 
weather factors to cope with.
  I, again, hope that we will move expeditiously with the supplemental 
disaster legislation so that we can fund the programs necessary to help 
in the recovery that is so urgently needed, not only in my State but in 
the States of Minnesota and South Dakota as well.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 608. A bill to authorize the enforcement by State and local 
governments of certain Federal Communications Commission regulations 
regarding use of citizens band radio equipment; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


              CB RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE LEGISLATION

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation designed 
to provide a practical solution to the all too common problem of 
interference with residential home electronic equipment caused by 
unlawful use of citizens band [CB] radios. This problem can be 
extremely distressing for residents who cannot have a telephone 
conversation, watch television, or listen to the radio without being 
interrupted by a neighbor's illegal use of a CB radio. Unfortunately, 
under the current law, those residents have little recourse. The bill I 
am introducing today will provide those residents with a practical 
solution to this problem.
  Up until recently, the FCC has enforced its rules outlining what 
equipment may or may not be used for CB radio transmissions, how long 
transmissions may be broadcast, what channels may be used, as well as 
many other technical requirements. FCC also investigated complaints 
that a CB radio enthusiast's transmissions interfered with a neighbor's 
use of home electronic and telephone equipment. FCC receives thousands 
of such complaints annually.
  Mr. President, for the past 3 years I have worked with constituents 
who have been bothered by persistent interference of nearby CB radio 
transmissions in some cases caused by unlawful use of radio equipment. 
In each case, the constituents have sought my help in securing an FCC 
investigation of the complaint. In each case, Mr. President, the FCC 
indicated that due to a lack of resources, the Commission no longer 
investigates radio frequency interference complaints. Instead of 
investigation and enforcement, the FCC is able to provide only self-
help information which the consumer may use to limit the interference 
on their own.
  In many cases, residents implement the self-help measures recommended 
by FCC such as installing filtering devices to prevent the unwanted 
interference, working with their telephone company, or attempting to 
work with the neighbor they believe is causing

[[Page S3353]]

the interference. In many cases these self-help measures are effective.
  However, in some cases filters and other technical solutions fail to 
solve the problem because the interference is caused by unlawful use of 
CB radio equipment such as unauthorized linear amplifiers.
  Municipal residents, after being denied investigative or enforcement 
assistance from the FCC, frequently contact their city or town 
government and ask them to police the interference. However, the 
Communications Act of 1934 provides exclusive authority to the Federal 
Government for the regulation of radio, preempting municipal ordinances 
or State laws to regulate radio frequency interference caused by 
unlawful use of CB radio equipment. This has created an interesting 
dilemma for municipal governments. They can neither pass their own 
ordinances to control CB radio interference, nor can they rely on the 
agency with exclusive jurisdiction over interference to enforce the 
very Federal law which preempts them.
  Let me give an example of the kind of frustrations people have 
experienced in attempting to deal with these problems. Shannon Ladwig, 
a resident of Beloit, WI has been fighting to end CB interference with 
her home electronic equipment that has been plaguing her family for 
over a year. Shannon worked within the existing system, asking for an 
FCC investigation, installing filtering equipment on her telephone, 
attempting to work with the neighbor causing the interference, and so 
on. Nothing has been effective. Shannon's answering machine picks up 
calls for which there is no audible ring, and at times records ghost 
messages. Often, she cannot get a dial tone when she or her family 
members wish to place an outgoing call. During telephone conversations, 
the content of the nearby CB transmission can frequently be heard and 
on occasion, her phone conversations are inexplicably cut off. Her TV 
transmits audio from the CB transmission rather than the television 
program her family is watching. Shannon never knows if the TV program 
she taped with her VCR will actually record the intended program or 
whether it will contain profanity from a nearby CB radio conversation.

  Shannon did everything she could to solve the problem and a year 
later she still feels like a prisoner in her home, unable to escape the 
broadcasting whims of a CB operator using illegal equipment with 
impunity. Shannon even went to her city council to demand action. The 
Beloit City Council responded by passing an ordinance allowing local 
law enforcement to enforce FCC regulations--an ordinance the council 
knows is preempted by Federal law. Earlier this year, the Beloit City 
Council passed a resolution supporting the legislation I am introducing 
today, which will allow at least part of that ordinance to stand.
  The problems experienced by Beloit residents are by no means isolated 
incidents. I have received very similar complaints from at least 10 
other Wisconsin communities in the last several years in which whole 
neighborhoods are experiencing persistent radio frequency interference. 
Since I have begun working on this legislation, my staff has also been 
contacted by a number of other congressional offices who are also 
looking for a solution to the problem of radio frequency interference 
in their States or districts caused by unlawful CB use. The city of 
Grand Rapids, MI, in particular, has contacted me about this 
legislation because they face a persistent interference problem very 
similar to that in Beloit. In all, FCC receives more than 30,000 radio 
frequency interference complaints annually--most of which are caused by 
CB radios. Unfortunately, FCC no longer has the staff, resources, or 
the field capability to investigate these complaints and localities are 
blocked from exercising any jurisdiction to provide relief to their 
residents.
  The legislation I am introducing today attempts to resolve this 
dilemma by allowing States and localities to enforce existing FCC 
regulations regarding authorized CB equipment and frequencies while 
maintaining exclusive Federal jurisdiction over the regulation of radio 
services. It is a commonsense solution to a very frustrating and real 
problem which cannot be addressed under existing law. Residents should 
not be held hostage to a Federal law which purports to protect them but 
which cannot be enforced.
  This legislation is by no means a panacea for the problem of radio 
frequency interference. My bill is intended only to help localities 
solve the most egregious and persistent problems of interference--those 
caused by unauthorized use of CB radio equipment and frequencies. In 
cases where interference is caused by the legal and licensed operation 
of any radio service, residents will need to resolve the interference 
using FCC self-help measures that I mentioned earlier.
  In many cases, interference can result from inadequate home 
electronic equipment immunity from radio frequency interference. Those 
problems can only be resolved by installing filtering equipment and by 
improving the manufacturing standards of home telecommunications 
equipment. The electronic equipment manufacturing industry, represented 
by the Telecommunications Industry Association and the Electronics 
Industry Association, working with the Federal Communications 
Commission, has adopted voluntary standards to improve the immunity of 
telephones from interference. Those standards were adopted by the 
American National Standards Institute last year. Manufacturers of 
electronic equipment should be encouraged to adopt these new ANSI 
standards. Consumers have a right to expect that the telephones they 
purchase will operate as expected without excessive levels of 
interference from legal radio transmissions. Of course, Mr. President, 
these standards assume legal operation of radio equipment and cannot 
protect residents from interference from illegal operation of CB 
equipment.
  This bill also does not address interference caused by other radio 
services, such as commercial stations or amateur stations. Mr. 
President, last year, I introduced S. 2025, a bill with intent similar 
to that of the bill I am introducing today. The American Radio Relay 
League [ARRL], an organization representing amateur radio operators, 
frequently referred to as ``ham'' operators, raised a number of 
concerns about that legislation. ARRL was concerned that while the bill 
was intended to cover only illegal use of CB equipment, FCC-licensed 
amateur radio operators might inadvertently be targeted and prosecuted 
by local law enforcement. ARRL also expressed concern that local law 
enforcement might not have the technical abilities to distinguish 
between ham stations and CB stations and might not be able to determine 
what CB equipment was FCC-authorized and what equipment is illegal.
  Over the past several months, I have worked with the ARRL 
representatives and amateur operators from Wisconsin to address these 
concerns. As a result of those discussions, the bill I am introducing 
today incorporates a number of provisions suggested by the league. 
First, my legislation makes clear that the limited enforcement 
authority provided to localities in no way diminishes or affects FCC's 
exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of radio. Second, the bill 
clarifies that possession of an FCC license to operate a radio service 
for the operation at issue, such as an amateur station, is a complete 
protection against any local law enforcement action authorized by this 
bill. Amateur radio enthusiasts are not only individually licensed by 
FCC, unlike CB operators, but they also self-regulate. The ARRL is very 
involved in resolving interference concerns both among their own 
members and between ham operators and residents experiencing problems.
  Third, my legislation also provides for an FCC appeal process by any 
radio operator who is adversely affected by a local law enforcement 
action under this bill. FCC will make determinations as to whether the 
locality acted properly within the limited jurisdiction this 
legislation provides. FCC will have the power to reverse the action of 
the locality if local law enforcement acted improperly. And fourth, my 
legislation requires FCC to provide States and localities with 
technical guidance on how to determine whether a CB operator is acting 
within the law.
  Again, Mr. President, my legislation is narrowly targeted to resolve 
persistent interference with home electronic equipment caused by 
illegal CB operation. Under my bill, localities cannot establish their 
own regulations on CB

[[Page S3354]]

use. They may only enforce existing FCC regulations on authorized CB 
equipment and frequencies. This bill will not resolve all interference 
problems and it is not intended to do so. Some interference problems 
need to continue to be addressed by the FCC, the telecommunications 
manufacturing industry, and radio service operators. This bill merely 
provides localities with the tools they need to protect their residents 
while preserving FCC's exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over the 
regulation of radio services.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 608

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

     SECTION 1. ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS REGARDING CITIZENS BAND 
                   RADIO EQUIPMENT.

       Section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     302) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a State or 
     local government may enforce the following regulations of the 
     Commission under this section:
       ``(A) A regulation that prohibits a use of citizens band 
     radio equipment not authorized by the Commission.
       ``(B) A regulation that prohibits the unauthorized 
     operation of citizens band radio equipment on a frequency 
     between 24 MHz and 35 MHz.
       ``(2) Possession of a station license issued by the 
     Commission pursuant to section 301 in any radio service for 
     the operation at issue shall preclude action by a State or 
     local government under this subsection.
       ``(3) The Commission shall provide technical guidance to 
     State and local governments regarding the detection and 
     determination of violations of the regulations specified in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(4)(A) In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, 
     a person affected by the decision of a State or local 
     government enforcing a regulation under paragraph (1) may 
     submit to the Commission an appeal of the decision on the 
     grounds that the State or local government, as the case may 
     be, acted outside the authority provided in this subsection.
       ``(B) A person shall submit an appeal on a decision of a 
     State or local government to the Commission under this 
     paragraph, if at all, not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which the decision by the State or local government 
     becomes final.
       ``(C) The Commission shall make a determination on an 
     appeal submitted under subparagraph (B) not later than 180 
     days after its submittal.
       ``(D) If the Commission determines under subparagraph (C) 
     that a State or local government has acted outside its 
     authority in enforcing a regulation, the Commission shall 
     reverse the decision enforcing the regulation.
       ``(5) The enforcement of a regulation by a State or local 
     government under paragraph (1) in a particular case shall not 
     preclude the Commission from enforcing the regulation in that 
     case concurrently.
       ``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     diminish or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission under this section over devices capable of 
     interfering with radio communications.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dodd, 
        Mr. Harkin, Mr. Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Boxer, Ms. 
        Moseley-Braun, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Ford, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 609. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act and Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to require that group and 
individual health insurance coverage and group health plans provide 
coverage for reconstructive breast surgery if they provide coverage for 
mastectomies; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


           RECONSTRUCTIVE BREAST SURGERY BENEFITS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Reconstructive 
Breast Surgery Benefits Act of 1997. An identical bill is being 
introduced by Representative Anna Eshoo in the House of 
Representatives. Our purpose in introducing this legislation is to 
improve the lives of thousands of women who suffer from breast cancer.
  Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in American women, 
affecting one woman out of every nine. Nearly three million American 
women are living with the disease, and 46,000 die from it each year. 
Over 180,000 more women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, 
and nearly half of the women will suffer the loss of one or both 
breasts in order to survive.
  Reconstructive surgery or use of a prothesis can help women cope with 
the consequences of this deadly illness. Every woman deserves the 
opportunity to have these important options available if breast cancer 
strikes. It is also a distressing fact that some women avoid early 
detection procedures, for fear that it may result in the loss of a 
breast if cancer is detected. For these women, breast reconstruction 
surgery should be available as a part of treatment, since its 
availability can alleviate fears about the disease and encourage life-
saving early detection and treatment.
  Many insurers classify this important medical procedure as cosmetic, 
however, and deny coverage for it. In addition, as many as 25 percent 
of women who undergo breast cancer treatments are affected by 
lymphedema, a complication resulting from mastectomy. Many insurers 
also refuse to cover treatment and management of this condition. This 
legislation will end these types of discrimination.
  Currently, 12 States have laws that require coverage for breast 
reconstruction following mastectomy. Nine States require coverage for 
prosthesis. This legislation will extend these protections to all 
women.
  This bill will amend the Public Health Service Act and the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act in order to accomplish the following 
important actions:
  It requires insurers and companies that provide coverage for 
mastectomy to provide coverage for reconstructive breast surgery, 
prosthesis and other treatments which may be necessary as a result of 
surgical complications, including lymphedema;
  It prohibits monetary payments or rebates that encourage a woman to 
accept less than the minimum medical protection available; and
  Finally, it prohibits insurers using penalties or incentives to 
encourage providers to furnish levels of care inconsistent with this 
legislation.
  This bill has been endorsed by major national organizations involved 
in the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, including the American 
Cancer Society, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the National 
Women's Health Network, and the national medical and nursing groups 
concerned with this disease.
  Our goal is to end the cruel and arbitrary practice that unfairly 
discriminates against breast cancer patients and their needs. I look 
forward to early action by Congress, and I hope that it will receive 
the overwhelming bipartisan support it deserves.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Biden):
  S. 610. A bill to implement the obligations of the United States 
under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, 
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, known 
as ``the Chemical Weapons Convention'' and opened for signature and 
signed by the United States on January 13, 1993; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


       THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I introduce, by request, on behalf of 
Senator Biden and myself, the Chemical Weapons Convention 
Implementation Act.
  The Chemical Weapons Convention was signed by the United States on 
January 13, 1993, and was submitted by President Clinton to the United 
States Senate on November 23, 1993, for its advice and consent to 
ratification.
  The Chemical Weapons Convention contains a number of provisions that 
require implementing legislation to give them effect within the United 
States. These include: international inspections of U.S. facilities; 
declarations by U.S. chemical and related industry; and establishment 
of a ``National Authority'' to serve as the liaison between the United 
States and the international organization established by the Chemical 
Weapons Convention and States Parties to the Convention.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this Implementation Act 
that we are introducing at the request of the administration be printed 
in the Record together with the transmitted letter to the President of 
the Senate from ACDA Director John D. Holum.

[[Page S3355]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 610

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Chemical Weapons Convention 
     Implementation Act of 1997.''

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Congressional findings.
Sec. 4. Congressional declarations.
Sec. 5. Definitions.
Sec. 6. Severability.

                      TITLE I--NATIONAL AUTHORITY

Sec. 101. Establishment.

 TITLE II--APPLICATION OF CONVENTION PROHIBITIONS TO NATURAL AND LEGAL 
                                PERSONS

Sec. 201. Criminal provisions.
Sec. 202. Effective date.
Sec. 203. Restrictions on scheduled chemicals.

                          TITLE III--REPORTING

Sec. 301. Reporting of information.
Sec. 302. Confidentiality of information.
Sec. 303. Prohibited acts.

                         TITLE IV--INSPECTIONS

Sec. 401. Inspections pursuant to Article VI of the Chemical Weapons 
              Convention.
Sec. 402. Other inspections pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention 
              and lead agency.
Sec. 403. Prohibited acts.
Sec. 404. Penalties.
Sec. 405. Specific enforcement.
Sec. 406. Legal proceedings.
Sec. 407. Authority.
Sec. 408. Saving provision.

     SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Chemical weapons pose a significant threat to the 
     national security of the United States and are a scourge to 
     humankind.
       (2) The Chemical Weapons Convention is the best means of 
     ensuring the nonproliferation of chemical weapons and their 
     eventual destruction and forswearing by all nations.
       (3) The verification procedures contained in the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention and the faithful adherence of nations to 
     them, including the United States, are crucial to the success 
     of the Convention.
       (4) The declarations and inspections required by the 
     Chemical Weapons Convention are essential for the 
     effectiveness of the verification regime.

     SEC. 4. CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATIONS.

       The Congress makes the following declarations:
       (1) It shall be the policy of the United States to 
     cooperate with other States Parties to the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention and to afford the appropriate form of legal 
     assistance to facilitate the implementation of the 
     prohibitions contained in title II of this Act.
       (2) It shall be the policy of the United States, during the 
     implementation of its obligations under the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention, to assign the highest priority to ensuring the 
     safety of people and to protecting the environment, and to 
     cooperate as appropriate with other States Parties to the 
     Convention in this regard.
       (3) It shall be the policy of the United States to 
     minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
     administrative burden and intrusiveness of measures to 
     implement the Chemical Weapons Convention placed on 
     commercial and other private entities, and to take into 
     account the possible competitive impact of regulatory 
     measures on industry, consistent with the obligations of the 
     United States under the Convention.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, 
     the definitions of the terms used in this Act shall be those 
     contained in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Nothing in 
     paragraphs 2 or 3 of Article II of the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention shall be construed to limit verification 
     activities pursuant to Parts X or XI of the Annex on 
     Implementation and Verification of the Convention.
       (b) Other Definitions.--
       (1) The term ``Chemical Weapons Convention'' means the 
     Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, 
     Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their 
     Destruction, opened for signature on January 13, 1993.
       (2) The term ``national of the United States'' has the same 
     meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)).
       (3) The term ``United States,'' when used in a geographical 
     sense, includes all places under the jurisdiction or control 
     of the United States, including (A) any of the places within 
     the provisions of section 101(41) of the Federal Aviation Act 
     of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. Sec. 40102(41)), (B) any 
     public aircraft or civil aircraft of the United States, as 
     such terms are defined in sections 101(36) and (18) of the 
     Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. Secs. 
     40102(37) and 40102(17)), and (C) any vessel of the United 
     States, as such term is defined in section 3(b) of the 
     Maritime Drug Enforcement Act, as amended (46 U.S.C. App. 
     Sec. 1903(b)).
       (4) The term ``person,'' except as used in section 201 of 
     this Act and as set forth below, means (A) any individual, 
     corporation, partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, 
     public or private institution, any State or any political 
     subdivision thereof, or any political entity within a State, 
     any foreign government or nation or any agency, 
     instrumentality or political subdivision or any such 
     government or nation, or other entity located in the United 
     States; and (B) any legal successor, representative, agent or 
     agency of the foregoing located in the United States. The 
     phrase ``located in the United States'' in the term 
     ``person'' shall not apply to the term ``person'' as used in 
     the phrases ``person located outside the territory'' in 
     sections 203(b) and 302(d) of this Act and ``person located 
     in the territory'' in section 203(b) of this Act.
       (5) The term ``Technical Secretariat'' means the Technical 
     Secretariat of the Organization for the Prohibition of 
     Chemical Weapons established by the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention.

     SEC. 6. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or the application of such 
     provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the 
     remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision 
     to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it 
     is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby.

                      TITLE I--NATIONAL AUTHORITY

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT.

       Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article VII of the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention, the President or the designee of the 
     President shall establish the ``United States National 
     Authority'' to, inter alia, serve as the national focal point 
     for effective liaison with the Organization for the 
     Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and other States Parties to 
     the Convention.

 TITLE II--APPLICATION OF CONVENTION PROHIBITIONS TO NATURAL AND LEGAL 
                                PERSONS

     SEC. 201. CRIMINAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) In General.--Part I of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by--
       (1) redesignating chapter 11A relating to child support as 
     chapter 11B; and
       (2) inserting after chapter 11 relating to bribery, graft 
     and conflicts of interest the following new chapter:

                    ``CHAPTER 11A--CHEMICAL WEAPONS

``Sec.
``227. Penalties and prohibitions with respect to chemical weapons.
``227A. Seizure, forfeiture, and destruction.
``227B. Injunctions.
``227C. Other prohibitions.
``227D. Definitions.

     ``SEC. 227. PENALTIES AND PROHIBITIONS WITH RESPECT TO 
                   CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     whoever knowingly develops, produces, otherwise acquires, 
     stockpiles, retains, directly or indirectly transfers, uses, 
     owns or possesses any chemical weapon, or knowingly assists, 
     encourages or induces, in any way, any person to do so, or 
     attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both.
       ``(b) Exclusion.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     retention, ownership or possession of a chemical weapon, that 
     is permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention pending the 
     weapon's destruction, by any agency or department of the 
     United States. This exclusion shall apply to any person, 
     including members of the Armed Forces of the United States, 
     who is authorized by any agency or department of the United 
     States to retain, own or possess a chemical weapon, unless 
     that person knows or should have known that such retention, 
     ownership or possession is not permitted by the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention.
       ``(c) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction by the United 
     States over the prohibited activity in subsection (a) if (1) 
     the prohibited activity takes place in the United States or 
     (2) the prohibited activity takes place outside of the United 
     States and is committed by a national of the United States.
       ``(d) Additional Penalty.--The court shall order that any 
     person convicted of any offense under this section pay to the 
     United States any expenses incurred incident to the seizure, 
     storage, handling, transportation and destruction or other 
     disposition of property seized for the violation of this 
     section.

     ``SEC. 227A. SEIZURE, FORFEITURE, AND DESTRUCTION.

       ``(a) Seizure.--
       ``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Attorney 
     General may request the issuance, in the same manner as 
     provided for a search warrant, of a warrant authorizing the 
     seizure of any chemical weapon defined in section 227D(2)(A) 
     of this title that is of a type or quantity that under the 
     circumstances is inconsistent with the purposes not 
     prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention.
       ``(2) In the exigent circumstances, seizure and destruction 
     of any such chemical weapon described in paragraph (1) may be 
     made by the Attorney General upon probable cause without the 
     necessity for a warrant.
       ``(b) Procedure for Forfeiture and Destruction.--Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2) of subsection (a), property seized 
     pursuant to subsection (a) shall be forfeited to the United 
     States after notice to potential claimants and an opportunity 
     for a hearing.

[[Page S3356]]

     At such a hearing, the Government shall bear the burden of 
     persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. Except as 
     inconsistent herewith, the provisions of chapter 46 of this 
     title related to civil forfeitures shall extend to a seizure 
     or forfeiture under this section. The Attorney General shall 
     provide for the destruction or other appropriate disposition 
     of any chemical weapon seized and forfeited pursuant to this 
     section.
       ``(c) Affirmative Defense.--It is an affirmative defense 
     against a forfeiture under subsection (b) that--
       ``(1) such alleged chemical weapon is for a purpose not 
     prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; and
       ``(2) such alleged chemical weapon is of a type and 
     quantity that under the circumstances is consistent with that 
     purpose.
       ``(d) Other Seizure, Forfeiture, and Destruction.--
       ``(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Attorney General may request the issuance, in the same 
     manner as provided for a search warrant, of a warrant 
     authorizing the seizure of any chemical weapon defined in 
     section 227D(2) (B) or (C) of this title that exists by 
     reason of conduct prohibited under section 227 of this 
     title.
       ``(2) In exigent circumstances, seizure and destruction of 
     any such chemical weapon described in paragraph (1) may be 
     made by the Attorney General upon probable cause without the 
     necessity for a warrant.
       ``(3) Property seized pursuant to this subsection shall be 
     summarily forfeited to the United States and destroyed.
       ``(e) Assistance.--The Attorney General may request 
     assistance from any agency or department in the handling, 
     storage, transportation or destruction of property seized 
     under this section.
       ``(f) Owner Liability.--The owner or possessor of any 
     property seized under this section shall be liable to the 
     United States for any expenses incurred incident to the 
     seizure, including any expenses relating to the handling, 
     storage, transportation and destruction or other disposition 
     of the seized property.

     ``SEC. 227B. INJUNCTIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The United States may obtain in a civil 
     action an injunction against--
       ``(1) the conduct prohibited under section 227 of this 
     title;
       ``(2) the preparation or solicitation to engage in conduct 
     prohibited under section 227 of this title; or
       ``(3) the development, production, other acquisition, 
     stockpiling, retention, direct or indirect transfer, use, 
     ownership or possession, or the attempted development, 
     production, other acquisition, stockpiling, retention, direct 
     or indirect transfer, use, ownership or possession, of any 
     alleged chemical weapon defined in section 227D(2)(A) of this 
     title that is of a type or quantity that under the 
     circumstances is inconsistent with the purposes not 
     prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention, or the 
     assistance to any person to do so.
       ``(b) Affirmative Defense.--It is an affirmative defense 
     against an injunction under subsection (a)(3) that--
       ``(1) the conduct sought to be enjoined is for a purpose 
     not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention; and
       ``(2) such alleged chemical weapon is of a type and 
     quantity that under the circumstances is consistent with that 
     purpose.

     ``SEC. 227C. OTHER PROHIBITIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     whoever knowingly uses riot control agents as a method of 
     warfare, or knowingly assists any person to do so, shall be 
     fined under this title or imprisoned for a term of not more 
     than ten years, or both.
       ``(b) Exclusion.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to members 
     of the Armed Forces of the United States. Members of the 
     Armed Forces of the United States who use riot control agents 
     as a method of warfare shall be subject to appropriate 
     military penalties.
       ``(c) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction by the United 
     States over the prohibited activity in subsection (a) if (1) 
     the prohibited activity takes place in the United States or 
     (2) the prohibited activity takes place outside of the United 
     States and is committed by a national of the United States.

     ``SEC. 227D. DEFINITIONS.

       ``As used in this chapter, the term--
       ``(1) `Chemical Weapons Convention' means the Convention on 
     the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling 
     and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, opened 
     for signature on January 13, 1993;
       ``(2) `chemical weapon' means the following, together or 
     separately:
       ``(A) a toxic chemical and its precursors, except where 
     intended for a purpose not prohibited under the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention, as long as the type and quantity is 
     consistent with such a purpose;
       ``(B) a munition or device, specifically designed to cause 
     death or other harm through the toxic properties of those 
     toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (A), which would be 
     released as a result of the employment of such munition or 
     device; or
       ``(C) any equipment specifically designed for use directly 
     in connection with the employment of munitions or devices 
     specified in subparagraph (B);
       ``(3) `toxic chemical' means any chemical which through its 
     chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary 
     incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This 
     includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of 
     their method of production, and regardless of whether they 
     are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere. (For 
     the purpose of implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, 
     toxic chemicals which have been identified for the 
     application of verification measures are listed in Schedules 
     contained in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention.);
       ``(4) `precursor' means any chemical reactant which takes 
     part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a 
     toxic chemical. This includes any key component of a binary 
     or multicomponent chemical system. (For the purpose of 
     implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, precursors 
     which have been identified for the application of 
     verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in 
     the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons convention.);
       ``(5) `key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical 
     system' means the precursor which plays the most important 
     role in determining the toxic properties of the final product 
     and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or 
     multicomponent system;
       ``(6) `purpose not prohibited under the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention' means--
       ``(A) industrial, agricultural, research, medical, 
     pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;
       ``(B) protective purposes, namely those purposes directly 
     related to protection against toxic chemicals and to 
     protection against chemical weapons;
       ``(C) military purposes not connected with the use of 
     chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic 
     properties of chemicals as a method of warefare; or
       ``(D) law enforcement purposes, including domestic riot 
     control purposes;
       ``(7) `national of the United States' has the same 
     meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
       ``(8) `United States,' when used in a geographical sense, 
     includes all places under the jurisdiction or control of the 
     United States, including (A) any of the places within the 
     provisions of section 101(41) of the Federal Aviation Act of 
     1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. Sec. 40102(41)), (B) any public 
     aircraft or civil aircraft of the United States, as such 
     terms are defined in sections 101(36) and (18) of the Federal 
     Aviation Act of 1958, as amended (49 U.S.C. Secs. 40102(37) 
     and 40102(17)), and (C) any vessel of the United States, as 
     such term is defined in section 3(b) of the Maritime Drug 
     Enforcement Act, as amended (46 U.S.C. App. Sec. 1903(b));
       ``(9) `person' means (A) any individual, corporation, 
     partnership, firm, association, trust, estate, public or 
     private institution, any State or any political subdivision 
     thereof, or any political entity within a State, any foreign 
     government or nation or any agency, instrumentality or 
     political subdivision of any such government or nation, or 
     other entity; and (B) any legal successor, representative, 
     agent, or agency of the foregoing; and
       ``(10) `riot control agent' means any chemical not listed 
     in a Schedule in the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention, which can produce rapidly in humans 
     sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which 
     disappear within a short time following termination of 
     exposure.

     Nothing in paragraphs (3) or (4) of this section shall be 
     construed to limit verification activities pursuant to part X 
     or part XI of the Annex on Implementation and Verification of 
     the Chemical Weapons Convention.''
       (b) Clerical Amendments.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) in the item for chapter 11A relating to child support, 
     redesignating ``11A'' as ``11B''; and
       (2) inserting after the item for chapter 11 the following 
     new item:

``11A. CHEMICAL WEAPONS......................................227.''....

     SEC. 202. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall take effect on the date the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention enters into force for the United States.

     SEC. 203. RESTRICTIONS ON SCHEDULED CHEMICALS.

       (a) Schedule 1 Activities.--It shall be unlawful for any 
     person, or any national of the United States located outside 
     the United States, to produce, acquire, retain, transfer or 
     use a chemical listed on Schedule 1 of the Annex on Chemicals 
     of the Chemical Weapons Convention, unless--
       (1) the chemicals are applied to research, medical, 
     pharmaceutical or protective purposes;
       (2) the types and quantities of chemicals are strictly 
     limited to those that can be justified for such purposes; and
       (3) the amount of such chemicals per person at any given 
     time for such purposes does not exceed a limit to be 
     determined by the United States National Authority, but in 
     any case, does not exceed one metric ton.
       (b) Extraterritorial Acts.--
       (1) It shall be unlawful for any person, or any national of 
     the United States located outside the United States, to 
     produce, acquire, retain or use a chemical listed on Schedule 
     1 of the Annex on Chemicals of the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention outside the territories of the States Parties to 
     the Convention or to transfer such chemicals to any person 
     located outside the territory of the United States, except as 
     provided for in the Convention for transfer to a person 
     located

[[Page S3357]]

     in the territory of another State Party to the Convention.
       (2) Beginning three years after the entry into force of the 
     Chemical Weapons Convention, it shall be unlawful for any 
     person, or any national of the United States located outside 
     the United States, to transfer a chemical listed on Schedule 
     2 of the Annex on Chemicals of the Convention to any person 
     located outside the territory of a State Party to the 
     Convention or to receive such a chemical from any person 
     located outside the territory of a State Party to the 
     Convention.
       (c) Jurisdiction.--There is jurisdiction by the United 
     States over the prohibited activity in subsections (a) and 
     (b) if (1) the prohibited activity takes place in the United 
     States or (2) the prohibited activity takes place outside of 
     the United States and is committed by a national of the 
     United States.

                          TITLE III--REPORTING

     SEC. 301. REPORTING OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Reports.--The Department of Commerce shall promulgate 
     regulations under which each person who produces, processes, 
     consumes, exports or imports, or proposes to produce, 
     process, consume, export or import, a chemical substance 
     subject to the Chemical Weapons Convention shall maintain and 
     permit access to such records and shall submit to the 
     Department of Commerce such reports as the United States 
     National Authority may reasonably require pursuant to the 
     Chemical Weapons Convention. The Department of Commerce shall 
     promulgate regulations pursuant to this title expeditiously, 
     taking into account the written decisions issued by the 
     Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and may 
     amend or change such regulations as necessary.
       (b) Coordination.--To the extent feasible, the United 
     States National Authority shall not require any reporting 
     that is unnecessary, or duplicative of reporting required 
     under any other Act. Agencies and departments shall 
     coordinate their actions with other agencies and departments 
     to avoid duplication of reporting by the affected persons 
     under this Act or any other Act.

     SEC. 302. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

       (a) Freedom of Information Act Exemption for Certain 
     Chemical Weapons Convention Information.--Any information 
     reported to, or otherwise obtained by, the United States 
     National Authority, the Department of Commerce, or any other 
     agency or department under this Act or under the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention shall not be required to be publicly 
     disclosed pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (b) Prohibited Disclosure and Exceptions.--Information 
     exempt from disclosure under subsection (a) shall not be 
     published or disclosed, except that such information--
       (1) shall be disclosed or otherwise provided to the 
     Technical Secretariat or other States Parties to the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention in accordance with the Convention, in 
     particular, the provisions of the Annex on the Protection of 
     Confidential Information;
       (2) shall be made available to any committee or 
     subcommittee of Congress of appropriate jurisdiction upon 
     the written request of the chairman or ranking minority 
     member of such committee or subcommittee, except that no 
     such committee or subcommittee, or member thereof, shall 
     disclose such information or material;
       (3) shall be disclosed to other agencies or departments for 
     law enforcement purposes with regard to this Act or any other 
     Act, and may be disclosed or otherwise provided when relevant 
     in any proceeding under this Act or any other Act, except 
     that disclosure or provision in such a proceeding shall be 
     made in such manner as to preserve confidentiality to the 
     extent practicable without impairing the proceeding; and
       (4) may be disclosed, including in the form of categories 
     of information, if the United States National Authority 
     determines that such disclosure is in the national interest.
       (c) Notice of Disclosure.--If the United States National 
     Authority, pursuant to subsection (b)(4), proposes to publish 
     or disclose or otherwise provide information exempted from 
     disclosure in subsection (a), the United States National 
     Authority shall, where appropriate, notify the person who 
     submitted such information of the intent to release such 
     information. Where notice has been provided, the United 
     States National Authority may not release such information 
     until the expiration of 30 days after notice has been 
     provided.
       (d) Criminal Penalty for Wrongful Disclosure.--Any officer 
     or employee of the United States or former officer or 
     employee of the United States, who by virtue of such 
     employment or official position has obtained possession of, 
     or has access to, information the disclosure or other 
     provision of which is prohibited by subsection (a), and who 
     knowing that disclosure or provision of such information is 
     prohibited by such subsection, willfully discloses or 
     otherwise provides the information in any manner to any 
     person, including person located outside the territory of the 
     United States, not entitled to receive it, shall be fined 
     under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not 
     more than five years, or both.
       (e) International Inspectors.--The provisions of this 
     section on disclosure or provision of information shall also 
     apply to employees of the Technical Secretariat.

     SEC. 303. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to 
     (a) establish or maintain records, (b) submit reports, 
     notices, or other information to the Department of Commerce 
     or the United States National Authority, or (c) permit access 
     to or copying of records, as required by this Act or a 
     regulation thereunder.

                         TITLE IV--INSPECTIONS

     SEC. 401. INSPECTIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE VI OF THE CHEMICAL 
                   WEAPONS CONVENTION.

       (a) Authority.--For purposes of administering this Act--
       (1) any duly designated member of an inspection team of the 
     Technical Secretariat may inspect any plant, plant site, or 
     other facility or location in the United States subject to 
     inspection pursuant to the Chemical Weapons Convention; and
       (2) the National Authority shall designate representatives 
     who may accompany members of an inspection team of the 
     Technical Secretariat during the inspection specified in 
     paragraph (1). The number of duly designated representatives 
     shall be kept to the minimum necessary.
       (b) Notice.--An inspection pursuant to subjection (a) may 
     be made only upon issuance of a written notice to the owner 
     and to the operator, occupant or agent in charge of the 
     premises to be inspected, except that failure to receive a 
     notice shall not be a bar to the conduct of an inspection. 
     The notice shall be submitted to the owner and to the 
     operator, occupant or agent in charge as soon as possible 
     after the United States National Authority receives it from 
     the Technical Secretariat. The notice shall include all 
     appropriate information supplied by the Technical Secretariat 
     to the United States National Authority regarding the basis 
     for the selection of the plant site, plant, or other facility 
     or location for the type of inspection sought, including, for 
     challenge inspections pursuant to Article IX of the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention, appropriate evidence or reasons provided 
     by the requesting State Party to the Convention with regard 
     to its concerns about compliance with the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention at the facility or location. A separate notice 
     shall be given for each such inspection, but a notice shall 
     not be required for each entry made during the period covered 
     by the inspection.
       (c) Credentials.--If the owner, operator, occupant or agent 
     in charge of the premises to be inspected is presented, a 
     member of the inspection team of the Technical Secretariat, 
     as well as, if present, the representatives of agencies or 
     departments, shall present appropriate credentials before the 
     inspection is commenced.
       (d) Time Frame for Inspections.--Consistent with the 
     provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, each 
     inspection shall be commenced and completed with reasonable 
     promptness and shall be conducted at reasonable times, within 
     reasonable limits, and in a reasonable manner. The Department 
     of Commerce shall endeavor to ensure that, to the extent 
     possible, each inspection is commenced, conducted and 
     concluded during ordinary working hours, but no inspection 
     shall be prohibited or otherwise disrupted for commencing, 
     continuing or concluding during other hours. However, nothing 
     in this subsection shall be interpreted as modifying the time 
     frames established in the Chemical Weapons Convention.
       (e) Scope.--
       (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection 
     and subsection (f), an inspection conducted under this title 
     may extend to all things within the premises inspected 
     (including records, files, papers, processes, controls, 
     structures and vehicles) related to whether the requirements 
     of the Chemical Weapons Convention applicable to such 
     premises have been complied with.
       (2) To the extent possible consistent with the obligations 
     of the United States pursuant to the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention, no inspection under this title shall extend to--
       (A) financial data;
       (B) sales and marketing data (other than shipment data);
       (C) pricing data;
       (D) personnel data;
       (E) research data;
       (F) patent data;
       (G) data maintained for compliance with environmental or 
     occupational health and safety regulations; or
       (H) personnel and vehicles entering and personnel and 
     personal passenger vehicles exiting the facility.
       (f) Facility Agreements.--
       (1) Inspection of plants, plant sites, or other facilities 
     or locations for which the United States has a facility 
     agreement with the Organization for the Prohibition of 
     Chemical Weapons shall be conducted in accordance with the 
     facility agreement.
       (2) Facility agreements shall be concluded for plants, 
     plant sites, or other facilities or locations that are 
     subject to inspection pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article VI 
     of the Chemical Weapons Convention unless the owner and the 
     operator, occupant or agent in charge of the facility and the 
     Technical Secretariat agree that such an agreement is not 
     necessary. Facility agreements should be concluded for 
     plants, plant sites, or other facilities or locations that 
     are subject to inspection pursuant to paragraphs 5 or 6 of 
     Article VI of the Chemical Weapons Convention if so requested 
     by the owner and the operator, occupant or agent in charge of 
     the facility.
       (3) The owner and the operator, occupant or agent in charge 
     of a facility shall be notified prior to the development of 
     the agreement relating to that facility and, if they so

[[Page S3358]]

     request, may participate in the preparations for the 
     negotiation of such an agreement. To the extent practicable 
     consistent with the Chemical Weapons Convention, the owner 
     and the operator, occupant or agent in charge of a facility 
     may observe negotiations of the agreement between the United 
     States and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical 
     Weapons concerning that facility.
       (g) Sampling and Safety.--
       (1) The Department of Commerce is authorized to require the 
     provision of samples to a member of the inspection team of 
     the Technical Secretariat in accordance with the provisions 
     of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The owner or the 
     operator, occupant or agent in charge of the premises to be 
     inspected shall determine whether the sample shall be taken 
     by representatives of the premises or the inspection team or 
     other individuals present.
       (2) In carrying out their activities, members of the 
     inspection team of the Technical Secretariat and 
     representatives of agencies or departments accompanying the 
     inspection team shall observe safety regulations established 
     at the premises to be inspected, including those for 
     protection of controlled environments within a facility and 
     for personal safety.
       (h) Coordination.--To the extent possible consistent with 
     the obligations of the United States pursuant to the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention, the representatives of the United States 
     National Authority, the Department of Commerce and any other 
     agency or department, if present, shall assist the owner and 
     the operator, occupant or agent in charge of the premises to 
     be inspected in interacting with the members of the 
     inspection team of the Technical Secretariat.

     SEC. 402. OTHER INSPECTIONS PURSUANT TO THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS 
                   CONVENTION AND LEAD AGENCY.

       (a) Other Inspections.--The provisions of this title shall 
     apply, as appropriate, to all other inspections authorized by 
     the Chemical Weapons Convention. For all inspections other 
     than those conducted pursuant to paragraphs 4, 5 or 6 of 
     Article VI of the Convention, the term ``Department of 
     Commerce'' shall be replaced by the term ``Lead Agency'' in 
     section 401.
       (b) Lead Agency.--For the purposes of this title, the term 
     ``Lead Agency'' means the agency or department designated by 
     the President or the designee of the President to exercise 
     the functions and powers set forth in the specific provision, 
     based, inter alia, on the particular responsibilities of the 
     agency or department within the United States Government and 
     the relationship of the agency or department to the premises 
     to be inspected.

     SEC. 403. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       It shall be unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to 
     permit entry or inspection, or to disrupt, delay or otherwise 
     impede an inspection as required by this Act or the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention.

     SEC. 404. PENALTIES.

       (a) Civil.--
       (1) (A) Any person who violates a provision of section 203 
     of this Act shall be liable to the United States for a civil 
     penalty in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for each such 
     violation.
       (B) Any person who violates a provision of section 303 of 
     this Act shall be liable to the United States for a civil 
     penalty in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each such 
     violation.
       (C) Any person who violates a provision of section 403 of 
     this Act shall be liable to the United States for a civil 
     penalty in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each such 
     violation. For purposes of this subsection, each day such a 
     violation of section 403 continues shall constitute a 
     separate violation of section 403.
       (2)(A) A civil penalty for a violation of section 203, 303 
     or 403 of this Act shall be assessed by the Lead Agency by an 
     order made on the record after opportunity (provided in 
     accordance with this subparagraph) for a hearing in 
     accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code. 
     Before issuing such an order, the Lead Agency shall give 
     written notice to the person to be assessed a civil penalty 
     under such order of the Lead Agency's proposal to issue such 
     order and provide such person an opportunity to request, 
     within 15 days of the date the notice is received by such 
     person, such a hearing on the order.
       (B) In determining the amount of a civil penalty, the Lead 
     Agency shall take into account the nature, circumstances, 
     extent and gravity of the violation or violations and, with 
     respect to the violator, ability to pay, effect on ability to 
     continue to do business, any history of prior such 
     violations, the degree of culpability, the existence of an 
     internal compliance program, and such other matters as 
     justice may require.
       (C) The Lead Agency may compromise, modify or remit, with 
     or without conditions, any civil penalty which may be imposed 
     under this subsection. The amount of such penalty, when 
     finally determined, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, 
     may be deducted from any sums owing by the United States to 
     the person charged.
       (3) Any person who requested in accordance with paragraph 
     (2)(A) a hearing respecting the assessment of a civil penalty 
     and who is aggrieved by an order assessing a civil penalty 
     may file a petition for judicial review of such order with 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia Circuit or for any other circuit in which such 
     person resides or transacts business. Such a petition may be 
     filed only within the 30-day period beginning on the date the 
     order making such assessment was issued.
       (4) If any person fails to pay an assessment of a civil 
     penalty--
       (A) after the order making the assessment has become a 
     final order and if such person does not file a petition for 
     judicial review of the order in accordance with paragraph 
     (3); or
       (B) after a court in an action brought under paragraph (3) 
     has entered a final judgment in favor of the Lead Agency;

     the Attorney General shall recover the amount assessed (plus 
     interest at currently prevailing rates from the date of the 
     expiration of the 30-day period referred to in paragraph (3) 
     or the date of such final judgment, as the case may be) in an 
     action brought in any appropriate district court of the 
     United States. In such an action, the validity, amount and 
     appropriateness of such penalty shall not be subject to 
     review.
       (b) Criminal.--Any person who knowingly violates any 
     provision of section 203, 303 or 403 of this Act, shall, in 
     addition to or in lieu of any civil penalty which may be 
     imposed under subsection (a) for such violation, be fined 
     under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more 
     than two years, or both.

     SEC. 405. SPECIFIC ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States 
     shall have jurisdiction over civil actions to--
       (1) restrain any violation of section 203, 303 or 403 of 
     this Act; and
       (2) compel the taking of any action required by or under 
     this Act or the Chemical Weapons Convention.
       (b) Civil Actions.--A civil action described in subsection 
     (a) may be brought--
       (1) in the case of a civil action described in subsection 
     (a)(1), in the United States district court for the judicial 
     district wherein any act, omission, or transaction 
     constituting a violation of section 203, 303 or 403 of this 
     Act occurred or wherein the defendant is found or transacts 
     business; or
       (2) in the case of a civil action described in subsection 
     (a)(2), in the United States district court for the judicial 
     district wherein the defendant is found or transacts 
     business. In any such civil action process may be served on a 
     defendant wherever the defendant may reside or may be found, 
     whether the defendant resides or may be found within the 
     United States or elsewhere.

     SEC. 406. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

       (a) Warrants.--
       (1) The Lead Agency shall seek the consent of the owner or 
     the operator, occupant or agent in charge of the premises to 
     be inspected prior to the initiation of any inspection. 
     Before or after seeking such consent, the Lead Agency may 
     seek a search warrant from any official authorized to issue 
     search warrants. Proceedings regarding the issuance of a 
     search warrant shall be conducted ex parte, unless otherwise 
     requested by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency shall provide 
     to the official authorized to issue search warrants all 
     appropriate information supplied by the Technical Secretariat 
     to the United States National Authority regarding the basis 
     for the selection of the plant site, plant, or other facility 
     or location for the type of inspection sought, including, for 
     challenge inspections pursuant to Article IX of the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention, appropriate evidence or reasons provided 
     by the requesting State Party to the Convention with regard 
     to its concerns about compliance with the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention at the facility or location. The Lead Agency shall 
     also provide any other appropriate information available to 
     it relating to the reasonableness of the selection of the 
     plant, plant site, or other facility or location for the 
     inspection.
       (2) The official authorized to issue search warrants shall 
     promptly issue a warrant authorizing the requested inspection 
     upon an affidavit submitted by the Lead Agency showing that--
       (A) the Chemical Weapons Convention is in force for the 
     United States;
       (B) the plant site, plant, or other facility or location 
     sought to be inspected is subject to the specific type of 
     inspection requested under the Chemical Weapons Convention;
       (C) the procedures established under the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention and this Act for initiating an inspection have 
     been complied with; and
       (D) the Lead Agency will ensure that the inspection is 
     conducted in a reasonable manner and will not exceed the 
     scope or duration set forth in or authorized by the Chemical 
     Weapons Convention or this Act.
       (3) The warrant shall specify the type of inspection 
     authorized; the purpose of the inspection; the type of plant 
     site, plant, or other facility or location to be inspected; 
     to the extent possible, the items, documents and areas that 
     may be inspected; the earliest commencement and latest 
     concluding dates and times of the inspection; and the 
     identities of the representatives of the Technical 
     Secretariat, if known, and, if applicable, the 
     representatives of agencies or departments.
       (b) Subpoenas.--In carrying out this Act, the Lead Agency 
     may by subpoena require the attendance and testimony of 
     witnesses and the production of reports, papers, documents, 
     answers to questions and other information that the Lead 
     Agency deems necessary. Witnesses shall be paid the same fees 
     and mileage that are paid witnesses in the

[[Page S3359]]

     courts of the United States. In the event of contumacy, 
     failure or refusal of any person to obey any such subpoena, 
     any district court of the United States in which venue is 
     proper shall have jurisdiction to order any such person to 
     comply with such subpoena. Any failure to obey such an order 
     of the court is punishable by the court as a contempt 
     thereof.
       (c) Injunctions and Other Orders.--No court shall issue an 
     injunction or other order that would limit the ability of the 
     Technical Secretariat to conduct, or the United States 
     National Authority or the Lead Agency to facilitate, 
     inspections as required or authorized by the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention.

     SEC. 407. AUTHORITY.

       (a) Regulations.--The Lead Agency may issue such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement and enforce this 
     title and the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, 
     and amend or revise them as necessary.
       (b) Enforcement.--The Lead Agency may designate officers or 
     employees of the agency or department to conduct 
     investigations pursuant to this Act. In conducting such 
     investigations, those officers or employees may, to the 
     extent necessary or appropriate for the enforcement of this 
     Act, or for the imposition of any penalty or liability 
     arising under this Act, exercise such authorities as are 
     conferred upon them by other laws of the United States.

     SEC. 408. SAVING PROVISION.

       The purpose of this Act is to enable the United States to 
     comply with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons 
     Convention. Accordingly, in addition to the authorities set 
     forth in this Act, the President is authorized to issue such 
     executive orders, directives or regulations as are necessary 
     to fulfill the obligations of the United States under the 
     Chemical Weapons Convention, provided such executive orders, 
     directives or regulations do not exceed the requirements 
     specified in the Chemical Weapons Convention.
                                                                    ____

                                             U.S. Arms Control and


                                           Disarmament Agency,

                                   Washington, DC, March 27, 1997.
     Hon. Richard G. Lugar,
     Committee on Foreign Relations,
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Senator Lugar: On behalf of the Administration, I 
     hereby submit for consideration the ``Chemical Weapons 
     Convention Implementation Act of 1997.'' This proposed 
     legislation is identical to the legislation submitted by the 
     Administration in 1995. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) 
     was signed by the United States in Paris on January 13, 1993, 
     and was submitted by President Clinton to the United States 
     Senate on November 23, 1993, for its advice and consent to 
     ratification. The CWC prohibits, inter alia, the use, 
     development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, 
     and direct or indirect transfer of chemical weapons.
       The President has urged the Senate to provide its advice 
     and consent to ratification as early as possible this year so 
     that the United States will be an original State Party and 
     can continue to lead the fight against these terrible 
     weapons. The CWC will enter into force, with or without the 
     United States, on April 29, 1997. if the United States has 
     not ratified by that time, we will not have a seat on the 
     governing council which will oversee implementation of the 
     Convention and U.S. nationals will not be able to serve as 
     inspectors and in other key positions. Here at home, the U.S. 
     chemical industry could lose hundreds of millions of dollars 
     and many well-paying jobs because of CWC-mandated trade 
     restrictions against non-Parties. As Secretaries Albright and 
     Cohen have recently underscored, ratifying the CWC before it 
     enters into force is in the best interests of the United 
     States.
       The CWC contains a number of provisions that require 
     implementing legislation to give them effect within the 
     United States. These include: carrying out verification 
     activities, including inspections of U.S. facilities; 
     collecting and protecting the confidentiality of data 
     declarations by U.S. chemical and related companies; and 
     establishing a ``National Authority'' to serve as the liaison 
     between the United States and the international organization 
     established by the CWC.
       In addition, the CWC requires the United States to prohibit 
     all individuals and legal entities, such as corporations, 
     within the United States, as well as all individuals outside 
     the United States, possessing U.S. citizenship, from engaging 
     in activities that are prohibited under the Convention. As 
     part of this obligation, the CWC requires the United States 
     to enact ``penal'' legislation implementing this prohibition 
     (i.e., legislation that penalizes conduct, either by 
     criminal, administrative, military or other sanctions).
       Expeditious enactment of implementing legislation is very 
     important to the ability of the United States to fulfill its 
     obligations under the Convention. Enactment will enable the 
     United States to collect the required information from 
     industry, to provide maximum protection for confidential 
     information, and to allow the inspections called for in the 
     Convention. It will also enable the United States to outlaw 
     all activities related to chemical weapons, except CWC 
     permitted activities such as chemical defense programs. This 
     will help fight chemical terrorism by penalizing not just the 
     use, but also the development, production and transfer of 
     chemical weapons. Thus, the enactment of legislation by the 
     United States and other CWC States Parties will make it much 
     easier for law enforcement officials to investigate and 
     punish chemical terrorists early, before chemical weapons are 
     used.
       As the President indicated in his transmittal letter of the 
     Convention: ``The CWC is in the best interests of the United 
     States. Its provisions will significantly strengthen United 
     States, allied and international security, and enhance global 
     and regional stability.'' Therefore, I urge the Congress to 
     enact the necessary implementing legislation as soon as 
     possible.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection to the submission of this proposal and its 
     enactment is in accord with the President's program.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John D. Holum,
                                                         Director.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
  S. 612. A bill to amend section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 to prevent the avoidance of corporate tax on prearranged sales of 
corporate stock, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


             CORPORATE ACQUISITION TRANSACTIONS LEGISLATION

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
joint statement by the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator 
Moynihan, and myself, be inserted in the Record at this point, along 
with the text of a bill we are introducing today.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 612

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

     SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF SECTION 355 TO DISTRIBUTIONS 
                   FOLLOWED BY ACQUISITIONS AND TO INTRAGROUP 
                   TRANSACTIONS.

       (a) Distributions Followed by Acquisitions.--Section 355 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to distribution 
     of stock and securities of a controlled corporation) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e) Recognition of Gain Where Certain Distributions of 
     Stock or Securities Are Followed by Acquisition.--
       ``(1) General rule.--If there is a distribution to which 
     this subsection applies, the following rules shall apply:
       ``(A) Acquisition of controlled corporation.--If there is 
     an acquisition described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) with respect 
     to any controlled corporation (or any successor thereof), any 
     stock or securities in the controlled corporation shall not 
     be treated as qualified property for purposes of subsection 
     (c)(2) of this section or section 361(c)(2).
       ``(B) Acquisition of distributing corporation.--If there is 
     an acquisition described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii) with respect 
     to the distributing corporation (or any successor thereof), 
     the controlled corporation shall recognize gain in an amount 
     equal to the amount of net gain which would be recognized if 
     all the assets of the distributing corporation (immediately 
     after the distribution) were sold (at such time) for fair 
     market value. Any gain recognized under the preceding 
     sentence shall be treated as long-term capital gain and shall 
     be taken into account for the taxable year which includes the 
     day after the date of such distribution.
       ``(2) Distributions to which subsection applies.--
       ``(A) In general.--This subsection shall apply to any 
     distribution--
       ``(i) to which this section (or so much of section 356 as 
     relates to this section) applies, and
       ``(ii) which is part of a plan (or series of related 
     transactions) pursuant to which a person acquires stock 
     representing a 50-percent or greater interest in the 
     distributing corporation or any controlled corporation (or 
     any successor of either).
       ``(B) Plan presumed to exist in certain cases.--If a person 
     acquires stock representing a 50-percent or greater interest 
     in the distributing corporation or any controlled corporation 
     (or any successor of either) during the 4-year period 
     beginning on the date which is 2 years before the date of the 
     distribution, such acquisition shall be treated as pursuant 
     to a plan described in subparagraph (A)(ii) unless it is 
     established that the distribution and the acquisition are not 
     pursuant to a plan or series of related transactions.
       ``(C) Certain acquisitions not taken into account.--If--
       ``(i) a person acquires stock in any controlled corporation 
     by reason of holding stock in the distributing corporation, 
     and
       ``(ii) such person did not acquire the stock in the 
     distributing corporation pursuant to a plan described in 
     subparagraph (A)(ii),

     the acquisition described in clause (i) shall not be taken 
     into account for purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii) or (B).
       ``(D) Coordination with subsection (d).--This subsection 
     shall not apply to any distribution to which subsection (d) 
     applies.
       ``(3) Definition and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) 50-percent or greater interest.--The term `50-percent 
     or greater interest' has

[[Page S3360]]

     the meaning given such term by subsection (d)(4).
       ``(B) Distributions in title 11 or similar case.--Paragraph 
     (1) shall not apply to any distribution made in a title 11 or 
     similar case (as defined in section 368(a)(3)).
       ``(C) Aggregation and attribution rules.--
       ``(i) Aggregation.--The rules of paragraph (7) of 
     subsection (d) shall apply.
       ``(ii) Attribution.--Section 318(a)(2) shall apply in 
     determining whether a person holds stock or securities in any 
     corporation. Except as provided in regulations, section 
     318(a)(2)(C) shall be applied without regard to the phrase 
     `50 percent or more in value' for purposes of the preceding 
     sentence.
       ``(D) Statute of limitations.--If there is an acquisition 
     to which paragraph (1) (A) or (B) applies--
       ``(i) the statutory period for the assessment of any 
     deficiency attributable to any part of the gain recognized 
     under this subsection by reason of such acquisition shall not 
     expire before the expiration of 3 years from the date the 
     Secretary is notified by the taxpayer (in such manner as the 
     Secretary may by regulations prescribe) that such acquisition 
     occurred, and
       ``(ii) such deficiency may be assessed before the 
     expiration of such 3-year period notwithstanding the 
     provisions of any other law or rule of law which would 
     otherwise prevent such assessment.
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of 
     this subsection, including regulations--
       ``(A) providing for the application of this subsection 
     where there is more than 1 controlled corporation,
       ``(B) treating 2 or more distributions as 1 distribution 
     where necessary to prevent the avoidance of such purposes, 
     and
       ``(C) providing for the application of rules similar to the 
     rules of subsection (d)(6) where appropriate for purposes of 
     paragraph (2)(B).''
       (b) Section 355 Not To Apply to Certain Intragroup 
     Transactions.--Section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986, as amended by subsection (a), is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Section Not To Apply to Certain Intragroup 
     Transactions.--Except as provided in regulations, this 
     section shall not apply to the distribution of stock from 1 
     member of an affiliated group filing a consolidated return to 
     another member of such group, and the Secretary shall provide 
     proper adjustments for the treatment of such distribution, 
     including (if necessary) adjustments to--
       ``(1) the adjusted basis of any stock which--
       ``(A) is in a corporation which is a member of such group, 
     and
       ``(B) is held by another member of such group, and
       ``(2) the earnings and profits of any member of such 
     group.''
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to distributions after April 16, 1997.
       (2) Transition rule for distributions followed by 
     acquisitions.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
     not apply to any distribution after April 16, 1997, if such 
     distribution is--
       (A) made pursuant to a written agreement which was (subject 
     to customary conditions) binding on such date and at all 
     times thereafter,
       (B) described in a ruling request submitted to the Internal 
     Revenue Service on or before such date, or
       (C) described on or before such date in a public 
     announcement or in a filing with the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission required solely by reason of the distribution.

     This paragraph shall not apply to any written agreement, 
     ruling request, or public announcement or filing unless it 
     identifies the acquirer of the distributing corporation or 
     any controlled corporation, whichever is applicable.
                                                                    ____



       JOINT INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT OF SENATORS ROTH AND MOYNIHAN

                               Background

  Several recent news reports describe corporate acquisition 
transactions in which one corporation distributes the stock of one--or 
more--of its subsidiaries to its shareholders--in a so-called spin-
off--and, pursuant to a pre-arranged plan, either the distributed 
subsidiary or the old parent corporation is acquired by another, 
unrelated corporation. Often, the corporation that is to be acquired 
borrows or assumes a large amount of debt incurred prior to the spin-
off, while the proceeds of such indebtedness are retained by the other 
corporation.
  For Federal income tax purposes, the initial distribution generally 
is tax free pursuant to section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code and 
the subsequent acquisition is tax free pursuant to one of the various 
reorganization provisions described in section 368. Such positions are 
consistent with the holding in the case of Commissioner v. Mary Archer 
W. Morris Trust, 367 F.2d 794 (4th Cir. 1966) and published IRS 
rulings.
  Congress did not intend that section 355 apply to insulate these 
transactions from tax. Section 355 was intended to permit tax free 
restructurings of several businesses among existing shareholders, with 
limitations to prevent the bail-out of corporate earnings and profits 
to the shareholders as capital gains. The recent transactions that 
raise concerns have very little to do with individual shareholder tax 
planning. Rather, they are pre-arranged structures designed to avoid 
corporate-level gain recognition. In essence, these transactions 
resemble sales.
  Today's introduced legislation is intended to treat transactions 
occurring after April 16, 1997, the general effective date of the bill, 
as sales at the corporate level.
  A technical explanation of the legislation is provided below. This 
legislation affects complex transactions and additional or alternative 
legislative changes also may be appropriate. For example, it may be 
appropriate to amend or repeal present-law section 355(d), and to treat 
certain asset acquisitions as stock acquisitions. Written comments on 
the issues raised by this bill are welcome.


                        Description of Proposal

  Acquisitions of distributing or controlled corporations pursuant to 
                                  plan

  The proposal would adopt additional restrictions under section 355. 
Under the proposal, if pursuant to a plan or arrangement in existence 
on the date of distribution, either the controlled or distributing 
corporation is acquired, gain would be recognized by the other 
corporation as of the date of the distribution.
  Whether a corporation is acquired would be determined under rules 
similar to those of present-law section 355(d), except that 
acquisitions would not be restricted to purchase transactions. Thus, an 
acquisition would occur if a person--or persons acting in concert--
acquired more than 50 percent of the vote or value of the stock of the 
controlled or distributing corporation pursuant to a plan or 
arrangement. For example, assume a corporation (``P'') distributes the 
stock of its wholly-owned subsidiary (``S'') to its shareholders. If, 
pursuant to a plan or arrangement, either P or S is acquired, the 
proposal would apply to require gain recognition by the corporation not 
acquired. It is anticipated that certain asset acquisitions would be 
treated as stock acquisitions.
  Acquisitions occurring within the 4-year period beginning 2 years 
before the date of distribution would be presumed to have occurred 
pursuant to a plan or arrangement. Taxpayers could avoid gain 
recognition by showing that an acquisition occurring during this 4-year 
period was unrelated to the distribution.
  In the case of an acquisition of the controlled corporation, the 
amount of gain recognized by the distributing corporation would be the 
amount of gain that the distributing corporation would have recognized 
had the stock of the controlled corporation been sold for fair market 
value on the date of distribution. In the case of an acquisition of the 
distributing corporation, the amount of gain recognized by the 
controlled corporation would be the amount of net gain that the 
distributing corporation would have recognized had it sold its assets 
for fair market value immediately after the distribution. This gain 
would be treated as long-term capital gain. No adjustment to the basis 
of the stock or assets of either corporation would be allowed by reason 
of the recognition of the gain.
  The proposal would not apply to a distribution pursuant to a title 11 
or similar case.
  The Treasury Department would be authorized to prescribe regulations 
as necessary to carry out the purposes of the proposal, including 
regulations to provide for the application of the proposal in the case 
of multiple distributions.

          Treatment of distributions within affiliated groups

  Except as provided in Treasury regulations, section 355 would not 
apply to a distribution of stock of one member of an affiliated group 
of corporations filing a consolidated return to another member. In the 
case of a distribution of stock within an affiliated group, the 
Secretary of the Treasury would be instructed to provide appropriate 
rules for the treatment of the distribution,

[[Page S3361]]

including rules governing adjustments to the adjusted basis of the 
stock and the earnings and profits of the members of the group.


                             Effective Date

  The proposal would be effective for distributions after April 16, 
1997, unless the distribution is: First, made pursuant to a written 
agreement with an acquirer which was (subject to customary conditions) 
binding on or before such date and at all times thereafter; second, 
described in a ruling request that identifies the acquirer and is 
submitted to the IRS on or before such date; third, described in a 
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') filing made on or before 
such date, to the extent such filing was required to be made on account 
of the distribution and identifies the acquirer; or fourth, described 
in a public announcement that identifies the acquirer on or before such 
date. The exceptions for written agreements, IRS ruling requests, SEC 
filings, and public announcements would not apply to distributions of 
stock within a consolidated group of corporations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself and Mr. FRIST):

  S. 613. A bill to provide that Kentucky may not tax compensation paid 
to a resident of Tennessee for certain services performed at Fort 
Campbell, KY; to the Committee on Finance.


                 FORT CAMPBELL TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
provide much-needed tax relief to the residents of my State who are 
employed as civilians on Fort Campbell, KY. These Clarksville area 
Tennesseans are hard working citizens who, I believe, are being taxed 
unfairly by the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
  Fort Campbell is the home of the Army's famous 101st Airborne 
Division. This installation straddles the border between Tennessee and 
Kentucky. In fact, 80 percent of it lies within the State of Tennessee. 
But because the post office is located on the Kentucky side of the 
base, it is best known to most people as Fort Campbell, KY.
  Civilian residents of both Tennessee and Kentucky are employed by the 
Federal Government to perform important nonmilitary functions at Fort 
Campbell. Approximately 2,000 of the Tennesseans who work on post are 
employed on the Kentucky side in the schools, at the post office, at 
the post exchange, and on the primary airfield. Unfortunately, these 
Tennesseans are forced to pay income tax to the Commonwealth of 
Kentucky of up to 6 percent of their wages, in addition to the sales 
and excise taxes they pay to their home State of Tennessee.
  Because the State of Tennessee does not have an income tax, 
Kentuckians employed on the Tennessee side of Fort Campbell do not pay 
income tax to the State of Tennessee. Nor are Kentuckians required to 
pay Tennessee sales tax on Fort Campbell. All of the facilities on the 
Tennessee side of Fort Campbell to which Kentuckians have access, the 
KFC and the Taco Bell, for example, are exempt from State sales tax. It 
is only when a Kentucky resident leaves post that he or she becomes 
subject to Tennessee sales tax on purchases made in the State.
  Mr. President, I believe it is unfair of Kentucky to impose income 
tax on Tennesseans, because Tennesseans who work on the Kentucky side 
of Fort Campbell do not consume any services provided by the 
Commonwealth. Fort Campbell is a Federal installation. All emergency 
fire, police, and medical services on post are provided by the Federal 
Government, not the Commonwealth of Kentucky. All roads on Fort 
Campbell, both on the Kentucky and the Tennessee side, are maintained 
by the Federal Government. Water and sewer services are paid for by the 
Federal Government. If a Tennessean who worked on the Kentucky side of 
Fort Campbell were laid off, he or she would not be eligible to 
obtain unemployment benefits from Kentucky, despite the fact that he or 
she had been paying income tax to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 
Finally, Tennesseans have no voice in the Kentucky legislature to 
affect change to this law. Tennesseans are being unfairly taxed without 
the benefit of representation--a principle anathema to this country. As 
I see it, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is receiving free money from 
residents of Tennessee who work on a Federal installation that happens 
to border their State.

  And although Kentucky likes to argue that the residents of 
Clarksville are not forced to work on the Kentucky side of Fort 
Campbell, employees are often moved on the base where a change of 
buildings means a change of State. A Tennessean forced to move into a 
Fort Campbell job across the border takes an automatic pay cut of up to 
6 percent--just for moving across the street. This situation has been 
the cause of significant morale problems at Fort Campbell. According to 
Kentucky, however, those employees can escape paying the income tax by 
quitting their jobs. I find this alternative an unacceptable one. It is 
for this reason that I am introducing legislation to prohibit Kentucky 
from imposing its income tax on these Tennesseans employed either by 
the Federal Government or by a contractor with the Federal Government 
at Fort Campbell. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator 
Frist. Congressman Ed Bryant has introduced the similar legislation in 
the other body.
  Let me provide some history on this issue. According to legislation 
enacted by Congress in 1940, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is permitted 
to impose its income tax on Federal employees working in the State. 
This legislation, the Buck Act, repealed a prior law prohibiting States 
from imposing income tax on individuals who live or work on Federal 
property. However, Congress has also granted exemptions from State 
income tax to classes of Federal employees based on their obvious 
special circumstances: military personnel and Members of Congress and 
their employees. In addition, Congress enacted legislation in 1990 to 
exempt Amtrak employees from State taxation in the States in which they 
do not reside but through which they travel while working. Congress 
intended these exemptions to provide relief from inequitable 
situations. The Tennesseans employed at Fort Campbell also merit an 
exemption.
  Mr. President, I firmly believe that a State has the right to raise 
revenue in whatever manner its residents believe is most appropriate. 
In the case of Tennessee, residents have chosen sales and excise taxes 
to fund their cost of government--only one of six States in the United 
States without an income tax. But it should be noted that Kentucky has 
entered into reciprocal tax agreements with surrounding income tax 
States to ensure that Kentuckians are treated fairly. Unfortunately, 
Kentucky has refused to negotiate any type of reciprocal tax agreement 
with Tennessee, because it knows it has Tennesseans over a barrel. 
Prohibiting the Commonwealth of Kentucky from taxing Tennesseans 
working on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell is the best way to 
resolve this inequitable situation.
  During this week in April Americans are reminded of their obligations 
to government. I believe that Americans are willing to pay their fair 
share of taxes, but citizens should not be expected to pay tax to a 
government from which they receive nothing and in which they have no 
voice.

                          ____________________