[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 103 (Monday, July 21, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7768-S7776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAMS (for himself and Ms. Moseley-Braun):
S. 1038. A bill to provide for the minting and circulation of one
dollar coins, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
the efficient currency act of 1997
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today Senator Moseley-Braun and I are
introducing the Efficient Currency Act of 1997. The bill calls for a
newly designated, golden-colored $1 coin to replace the Susan B.
Anthony dollar coin.
The argument for a $1 coin is simple: it saves money. According to
estimates of the General Accounting Office and the Federal Reserve,
replacing the $1 bill with a coin saves the Government $2.28 billion
during the first 5 years it circulates. As we consider plans to balance
the budget and eliminate Government waste, I believe that carrying a $1
coin along with $2 bills is a relatively painless option compared to
the alternatives of raising taxes or cutting important programs.
A public opinion poll conducted in May 1997 reveals that 58 percent
of the American public favors replacing the $1 bill with a coin when
informed that such a change would save the Government $456 million
annually.
I want to stress that the Efficiency Currency Act of 1997 does not
call for a phase out of the $1 bill until 1 billion $1 coins authorized
under this legislation are in circulation. If the public rejects the
new coin, the phase-out will not occur.
Unless this legislation is approved in the near future, the U.S. Mint
will begin the process of minting more of the unpopular Susan B.
Anthony coins by 1999. The supply of Anthony coins in Government
inventories fell by a total of 137 million coins in 1995 and 1996. Only
146 million remains as of May 30. The inventory has been falling at the
rate of about 5 million per month, because Anthony dollars are used at
hundreds of vending locations, by more than a dozen major transit
systems, and by the U.S. Postal Service. Contrary to reports by
opponents of the dollar coin, the U.S. Postal Service has no plans to
discontinue the use of the Anthony dollar in their self-service
operations. The timeframe for a decision by Congress is short, because
the U.S. Mint has stated that it needs 30 months to design and
fabricate a new $1 coin.
I think one of the most compelling reasons to replace a $1 bill with
a $1 coin is the cost savings. First, the Treasury Department will save
money. A $1 coin lasts about 30 years while costing about 8 cents. A $1
bill is significantly more expensive, as it lasts only 1 year and 1
month at a cost of 4 cents per bill.
Second, the private sector will save money. A $1 coin is easier to
process than a $1 bill. Paper money received on buses must be hand-
straightened at a cost of over $20 per 1,000, or about 2 cents for each
dollar. Coins can be processed for less than one-tenth of the cost. The
change to a $1 coin is estimated to save the mass transit industry $124
million annually.
Furthermore, vending operators could avoid placing dollar bill
acceptors, which cost between $300 and $400 each, on each vending
machine. The additional cost of these machines eventually must be
passed on to customers. In addition, bill acceptors frequently do not
work and are more expensive to maintain than coin mechanisms.
Another benefit is that many consumers will actually have less, not
more, change in their pocket. Instead of having to use 4, 8, or 12
quarters to pay for mass transit, parking meters, phone calls, and car
washes, they will use dollar coins weighing a fraction the weight of
many quarters.
The visually impaired support the introduction of a $1 coin because
the $1 bill can be confused with bills of higher denominations. A
useable $2 coin will permit them to complete small transactions without
ever having to use paper money.
This legislation is called the Efficiency Currency Act because
passage would bring efficiencies to the private sector as well as to
Government. This commonsense approach to modernizing our currency is
not an original idea. In fact, the United States is the only major
industrialized country that does not have high denomination coins.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that both a copy of the
Efficient Currency Act of 1997 and a summary of its contents be entered
into the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1038
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 ``Efficient Currency Act of
1997''.
SEC. 2. ONE DOLLAR COINS.
(a) Color and Content.--Section 5112(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by striking ``dollar,''; and
(2) by inserting after the fourth sentence, the following:
``The dollar coin shall be golden in color, have a
distinctive edge, have tactile and visual features that make
the denomination of the coin readily discernible, be minted
and fabricated in the United States, and have similar
metallic, anticounterfeiting properties as United States clad
coinage in circulation on the date of enactment of the
Efficient Currency Act of 1997.''.
(b) Design.--Section 5112(d)(1) of title 31, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the third sentence, by striking ``the dollar, half
dollar,'' and inserting ``half dollar''; and
(2) by striking ``The eagle'' and all that follows through
``Anthony.'' and inserting the following: ``The Secretary of
the Treasury, in consultation with Congress, shall select
appropriate designs for the reverse and obverse sides of the
dollar coin.''.
(c) Effective Date.--Before the date on which the
Government inventory of Susan B. Anthony $1 coins is
depleted, the Secretary of the Treasury shall place into
circulation $1 coins authorized under section 5112(a)(1) of
title 31, United States Code, that comply with the
requirements of subsections (b) and (d)(1) of that section
5112 (as amended by this section). The Secretary may
include such coins in any numismatic set produced by the
United States Mint before the date on which the coins are
placed in circulation.
(d) Increase Capacity.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
increase capacity at United States Mint facilities to a level
that would permit the replacement of $1 Federal Reserve notes
with $1 coins minted in accordance with section 5112 of title
31, United States Code, as amended by this Act.
SEC. 3. CEASING ISSUANCE OF ONE DOLLAR NOTES.
(a) In General.--Federal Reserve banks may continue to
place into circulation $1 Federal Reserve notes in accordance
with section 5115 of title 31, United States Code, until
Susan B. Anthony coins and coins minted in accordance with
this Act and the amendments made by this Act total
1,000,000,000 coins in circulation, at which time no Federal
Reserve bank may order or place into circulation any $1
Federal Reserve note.
(b) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the
Secretary of the Treasury shall produce only such number of
$1 Federal Reserve notes as the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System orders from time to time to meet the
needs of collectors of that denomination. Such notes shall be
issued by 1 or more Federal Reserve banks in accordance with
section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act and sold by the
Secretary, in whole or in part, under procedures prescribed
by the Secretary.
SEC. 4. REGULATORY AUTHORITY.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall issue appropriate rules
and regulations to carry out this Act and the amendments made
by this Act.
____
Summary of the Efficient Currency Act of 1997
New and Unique Coin: Section 2(a) of the bill authorizes
production of a new dollar coin that (1) is golden in color,
(2) has a distinctive edge, (3) has tactile and visual
features that make the denomination of the coin readily
discernible, and (4) has similar metallic anti-counterfeiting
properties of U.S. clad coinage. This will make the dollar
coin easily distinguishable from a quarter.
Images on the Coin: Section 2(b) authorizes the Treasury
Department to select new designs, in consultation with
Congress, for the obverse and reverse sides of the dollar
coin.
Timetable for Circulation: It is expected that the mint
will have to issue new Susan
[[Page S7769]]
B. Anthony coins by September 1999. Section 2(c) of the bill
requires that the Treasury Department must replace the Susan
B. Anthony dollar coin with a new (and more usable) dollar
coin before the mint's inventory of Susan B. Anthony coins
are depleted.
Termination of $1 Bill: The Efficient Currency Act
effectively lets the public decide whether the Treasury
Department should retain or terminate the dollar bill.
Section 3(a) states that if the use of the new dollar coins
dramatically increases so that there are at least one billion
coins in circulation, then the dollar bill shall be
terminated.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 1039. A bill to designate a commercial zone within which the
transportation of certain passengers or property in commerce is exempt
from certain provisions of chapter 135, of title 49, United States
Code; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The New Mexico Commercial Zone Act
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the New Mexico
Commercial Zone Act of 1997. This legislation will establish a much
needed zone in New Mexico to facilitate the trade and transportation of
raw materials and merchandise across our border with Mexico.
Mr. President, now that America is witnessing the economic benefits
of the North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] and trade with
Mexico is growing at a record pace, it has become clear to New Mexico
that we must establish a commercial zone to take full advantage of the
economic possibilities available to border States.
Mr. President, this legislation has the support of New Mexico's
Governor, Gary Johnson, the State Economic Development Department, the
New Mexico Border Authority, the United States-Mexico Chamber of
Commerce, the New Mexico food processing industry, the New Mexico Motor
Carriers Association, and the Cities of Las Cruces and Deming.
In the past, commercial zones were created by the Interstate Commerce
Commission in numerous States to facilitate local border trade and
transportation activities. They also serve to control movement and
uphold American vehicle safety requirements for foreign vehicles
operating within the United States.
It is within the limits of these zones that commercial vehicles of
either Mexican or Canadian registry are authorized to deliver products
from their country to a United States distribution point or warehousing
facility. In addition to permitting these vehicles to pick up loads of
products which are destined for export into their respective countries.
Mr. President, commercial zones similar to the one I propose today
have been established in the States of: New York, South Carolina, West
Virginia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Washington, Illinois, Colorado,
Kentucky, Minnesota, California, Texas, Arizona, and the District of
Columbia.
Since the passage of NAFTA, these zones have been very important to
border States because they are serving as the transition boundaries for
all Mexican commercial traffic.
Mr. President, it is clear that if we do not establish a commercial
zone in New Mexico, my State will remain at a tremendous disadvantage
to other border States. We will continue to be one step behind in
attracting NAFTA-related businesses and building upon our current trade
relationship with Mexico.
Despite the fact that New Mexico does not yet have a commercial zone,
we are taking steps to increase trade with our neighbors. We have began
to put the necessary border infrastructure in place and are laying the
foundation for a winning partnership with Mexico.
We have moved to develop a state-of-the-art Port of Entry at Santa
Teresa which will facilitate efficient border crossings and will soon
begin construction on a intermodal transportation center. This center
will help expedite international cargo transfers not only for New
Mexico, but for the rest of the country once its construction has been
completed.
Since the passage of NAFTA, New Mexico has witnessed its exports to
Mexico increase by over 1,000 percent--a percentage which represents
one of the largest explosions in exports by any State in the Nation.
Unfortunately, New Mexico still lags behind 35 other States in the
amount of exports being sent to Mexico. It is becoming
increasingly clear to the people of New Mexico that one component is
still missing. The establishment of a New Mexico commercial zone.
Mr. President, this dilemma will not be more apparent than late this
summer when the Mexican chili crops are ready for harvest. Because
without a commercial zone, these farmers will not be able to process
their chili crops in the many food processors located in southern New
Mexico.
For a Mexican farmer to sell chili to our food processors, that
farmer must transport the chili crop to the border station, unload the
cargo, and then reload it onto an American carrier to travel the
remaining 30 miles to the processing plant.
Mr. President, this is clearly not an economic incentive for
conducting business with New Mexico food processors.
Mr. President, we passed NAFTA to begin creating new jobs and
business opportunities for American businesses.
Unfortunately, what we are seeing in New Mexico, is one of the first
opportunities for new business, just slip through our finger tips--
because we do not have a commercial zone.
Mr. President, this issue will not only affect the owners of these
processors, but also the 3,000 New Mexicans who work at these plants
and rely on that income to survive.
The apprehension among these workers is growing everyday because if
Congress does not resolve this issue, there will not be enough work to
go around this summer in southern New Mexico.
Mr. President, I believe that by establishing this commercial zone we
will not only be helping New Mexico but also the American consumer.
Because as trade with Mexico continues to increase, so will the demand
for more efficient border crossings. And if you have ever traveled to
any of the busier border crossings, you would quickly notice the long
lines of commercial trucks sitting idle and waiting for hours to cross
into the United States.
By establishing this commercial zone in New Mexico, we can help
alleviate some of this traffic and make the process more efficient.
Mr. President, this is the economic reality we are facing in New
Mexico unless this legislation is passed. I believe New Mexico has laid
the foundation for developing a winning trade partnership with Mexico.
Simply put, this legislation puts New Mexico on a level playing field
with other border States so that we can continue our efforts to make a
brighter future for New Mexico residents.
In closing, I have three letters supporting this legislation, and I
would ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
M.A. & Sons,
Chile Products,
Derry, NM, June 9, 1997.
Senator Pete Domenici,
Building D, Suite 1,
Las Cruces, NM.
Dear Senator Domenici: We are writing to thank you for your
leadership in working to resolve the D.O.T. enforcement of
the ``Commercial Zone'' at the Port of Columbus, New Mexico.
Your sponsorship of legislation to address this problem is
very much appreciated and will ensure that the Port of
Columbus will remain a viable Port of Entry for New Mexico.
We, as importers of red chile from Mexico for processing,
need the Port of Columbus ``Commercial Zone'' to be expanded
as your legislation is proposing in order to remain
competitive and continue to employ people in the State of New
Mexico at our chile processing plant. We have found the Port
of Entry at Columbus to be efficient and able to provide the
service that we need. We want to continue to use this Port
instead of other Ports of Entry that are located further away
from the origin of the chile in Mexico. Using other Ports of
Entry would add time and money to the product and this can be
avoided by using the Port of Columbus.
Thank you again for your leadership in this issue that is
important to us and the State of New Mexico. If you need any
additional information please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mary Alice Garay,
Owner.
____
State of New Mexico,
Economic Development Department,
Santa Fe, NM, June 18, 1997.
Senator Pete V. Domenici,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: The New Mexico Economic Development
Department and the New Mexico Border Authority wish to
express their
[[Page S7770]]
support for a Southern New Mexico Border Commercial Zone.
The establishment of a commercial zone to cover portions of
two counties (Dona Ana and Luna) will encourage warehouses
and manufacturing plants in New Mexico's border areas. The
historical means of establishing Commercial Zones has been to
use a population formula which does not work for sparsely
populated Southern New Mexico. New Mexico is poised for
industrial and commercial growth in the border area, and
needs a Commercial Zone to avoid being at a competitive
disadvantage with other border states. Of particular and
immediate interest is the use of a Commercial Zone for
produce from Mexico moving to food processing plants in New
Mexico.
We strongly applaud your efforts to establish a New Mexico
Commecial Zone.
Sincerely,
Gary D. Bratcher,
Cabinet Secretary.
____
United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, Camara de
Comercio Mexico-Estados Unidos,
Washington, DC, July 9, 1997.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC,
Dear Senator Domenici: The United States-Mexico Chamber of
Commerce is happy to hear of your sponsorship of the New
Mexico Commercial Zone Act of 1997. The legislation will
certainly benefit the economic development of your state
while supporting jobs on both sides of the border. Regional
prosperity is crucial to an economically and environmentally
stable border region.
Until NAFTA's cross-border trucking provisions take effect,
the extension of commercial zones at the state level is both
commercially and politically viable. In the case of New
Mexico, it is especially crucial because it does not have the
same ``twin city'' arrangements as other border states and,
therefore, cannot take advantage of existing commercial
zones. Economic development and jobs in Las Cruces and Deming
are left vulnerable to transportation inefficiency.
As NAFTA continues to benefit its three signatory nations,
it would be unfortunate to keep regions, states or cities
from enjoying its full benefits. Current trucking provisions
amount to non-tariff barriers. The Chamber supports removal
of those barriers and we support your initiative.
Sincerely,
Albert C. Zapanta,
President.
______
By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Helms):
S. 1040. A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic
opportunity for families by reducing the power and reach of the Federal
establishment; to the Committee on Finance.
THE FREEDOM AND FAIRNESS RESTORATION ACT OF 1997
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, although the tax reconciliation bill
promises to cut taxes by approximately $76 billion over 5 years and
$238 billion over 10 years, it should be viewed as only a small step
forward in providing tax relief to the American people.
I remind my colleagues this afternoon that we must not forsake our
broader agenda to seek comprehensive reform of our tax system.
Piecemeal tax cuts are not, and I want to say it again, are not a
substitute for broad-based tax reform. Therefore, I rise today to offer
the Freedom and Fairness Restoration Act which will scrap the entire
Income Tax Code as we know it and replace it with a system that taxes
all income once and only once at one low, flat rate of 17 percent.
A flat tax, I believe, will correct the vast and pervasive problems
of the current system. As illustrated before here, the complexity of
Federal tax laws costs taxpayers approximately 5.3 billion hours to
comply with the current Internal Revenue Code. The Tax Code is so
complicated that even the IRS doesn't understand it.
In 1993, the IRS gave 8.5 million wrong answers to taxpayers seeking
assistance, and the IRS sent out 5 million correction notices which
turned out to be wrong.
In 1996, this past year, taxpayers spent a staggering $225 billion
trying to comply with the Tax Code. Think about it--$225 billion in
America spent by the taxpayers trying to comply with the Tax Code. This
is a deadweight loss to the economy that is, as the Presiding Officer
knows as a member of the Armed Services Committee, about equal to our
national defense budget.
We live in a society that accepts the notion that some level of
taxation is necessary to finance the cost of Government, but it is
important that it does no more harm than is necessary to achieve the
stated goal. The current Tax Code is the product of a 40-year
experiment with social engineering that has hampered the effort of the
American people to be free, bear the fruit of their labor and
ultimately live the American dream.
Recently, the bipartisan national commission on restructuring the IRS
came out with a report laying out their vision for a new and improved
IRS. One of the key recommendations of this commission that was made
was that simplification of the tax law is necessary to reduce taxpayer
burden and to facilitate improved tax administration.
We need to address significant tax policy changes that will not only
provide taxpayers with relief, but will simplify and equalize the tax
collection in this country. Taxation is bad enough without
administering that tax through the inefficient, inequitable, and
oppressive tax system that we have today.
Rather than wading through stacks of complicated IRS forms and
instruction manuals, under a flat tax taxpayers would file a simple,
postcard-size return. When fully phased in, the family allowance would
be $11,600 for a single person, $23,200 for a married couple filing
jointly and $5,300 for each dependent child.
These allowances will be indexed to inflation under our bill. For a
family of four, this will mean that their first $33,800 of income would
be exempt from taxation by the Federal Government, which will assure a
progressive average rate for low-income households.
The flat tax, I believe, will restore fairness to tax laws by
treating everyone alike, regardless of what business they are in,
whether or not they have a lobbyist in Washington or how much money
they make. If you earn more, under the flat rate tax, you would pay
more. Under the current system, one taxpayer may pay little or no taxes
because they have paid an accountant or tax attorney to figure out the
Tax Code for them. At the same time, another person with the same exact
income but who does not have the professional assistance may pay much
more in taxes. I say that is not fair.
Under a flat tax, this would end. People would not have to hire an
accountant or tax attorney simply to comply with the law. Everyone
would fill out the same simple, postcard-size return. Everyone will be
taxed at the same rate. And, yes, everyone will pay their fair share.
Furthermore, the flat tax will eliminate the double taxation of
savings and promote jobs and higher wages in this country. Because the
flat tax applies a single low rate to all Americans, I feel it is the
best replacement of the current system. I do not think that Americans
should have to jump through hoops just to keep the money they have
earned through their hard work. The current Tax Code basically says you
can keep your money only if you do what we think you should do. This is
not freedom; it is serfdom. The flat tax does away with Government
micromanagement of people's personal lives and allows them to spend
their hard-earned money as they see fit.
But perhaps the most important virtue of the flat tax is that it
supports the basic value of work, savings, and individual liberty. It
has been a commitment to these principles that has made America the
most successful economy in the world. In recent years, we have watched
as the private sector has streamlined itself. I think it is now time
for us to streamline the Tax Code.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 1041. A bill to amend section 5314 of title 49, United States
Code, to assist compliance with the transit provisions of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
THE ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION ACTION ACT OF 1997
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Accessible
Transportation Act of 1997. This legislation will continue the progress
we have made improving access to transportation services for
individuals with disabilities.
There are 25 million Americans with disabilities who are transit
dependent. Access to transportation for these Americans is the critical
factor that determines whether they can pursue opportunities in
employment, education, housing, and recreation. I believe that assuring
access to transportation is critical to promoting maximum independence
and achieving
[[Page S7771]]
meaningful integration for persons with disabilities.
In 1987, Congress created Project Action to promote transportation
accessibility and to enhance cooperation between transit providers and
the disability community.
In 1990, Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] to
ensure that every American has access to transportation, buildings and
other necessary locations, services, and activities which are essential
to lead an active life. The ADA guarantees equality of accessibility
for all Americans regardless of the challenges that their disabilities
present.
In order to facilitate the implementation of the transportation
provisions included in ADA, I sponsored the Accessible Transportation
Action Act of 1991 which was included in the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. This legislation authorized
funding of $2 million each year for the Easter Seals Society to
undertake a national program of research, demonstrations, and technical
assistance to provide new solutions to the problems of providing
transportation for persons with disabilities. Project Action has become
the Nation's foremost resource for information and guidance on
implementing the transportation provisions of ADA.
The National Easter Seals Society has administered Project Action and
has assisted in building strong working relationships between transit
operators, disability organizations, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation in order to find cost-effective ways to promote
transportation accessibility.
Project Action has developed an impressive resource center of
informational materials for a wide variety of transit and disability
community audiences on the nature and progress of ADA implementation.
It has initiated consumer campaigns to insure that people with
disabilities are aware of their rights.
The positive effects that have developed from Project Action
activities have been impressive. Nationwide bus fleet accessibility has
grown. Rail station access has increased. Paratransit services have
improved and expanded. And the disability and transit communities have
learned how to work together to promote accessible transportation.
However, there are a number of challenges which remain in order to
assure that the disabled have full access to transportation services.
The chief concern is how to insure the implementation of ADA in the
most cost-effective manner. Paratransit costs are high and resources
are limited. At the same time, overall Federal assistance for
transportation and mass transit has been limited. America needs Project
Action to continue to find innovative ways to allow every disabled
person to gain equal access to our Nation's public transportation
systems.
Therefore, I am today introducing legislation which will continue the
Project Action for the next 5 fiscal years to continue the vital
process of implementing the transportation facets of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Graham and Mr. Johnson):
S. 1042. A bill to require country of origin labeling of perishable
agricultural commodities imported into the United States and to
establish penalties for violations of the labeling requirements; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
THE IMPORTED PRODUCE LABELING ACT
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator
Graham, to introduce the Imported Produce Labeling Act of 1997.
For the past 67 years, since Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1930,
almost everything imported from abroad has been labeled as to its
country of origin. Guidelines now exist for products of virtually every
kind--from clothing and toys to prepared food. Pick up almost anything
in your local supermarket or department store and you're likely to see
its country of origin clearly displayed.
This is sound trade policy, which has served our Nation well. It is
now time, Mr. President, to extend these same labeling requirements to
imported produce.
Currently, containers carrying imported produce from abroad are
required, by the same Tariff Act of 1930, to be labeled as to where
that produce was grown and packed. This information makes it possible
for American importers, shippers, and retailers to know the produce's
country of origin. However, that information is never revealed to the
consumer.
What this legislation would require, Mr. President, is for this
important information, already in the hands of our retailers and
shippers, be passed on to those who ultimately purchase and consume the
imported produce. We're asking, quite simply, for retailers to let the
American consumer know what they're eating and where it was produced.
The United States imports approximately 1.7 billion dollars' worth of
fruit and vegetables every year. Almost all of this produce is
purchased and consumed by unsuspecting shoppers who have no idea where,
or under what conditions, it was grown.
While some might claim these new labeling requirements are unfair or
burdensome, these claims are simply not true, and aim to distract the
real issue: the consumer's right to know.
I would point out to these critics, Mr. President, that most of our
international trading partners already require such labeling. While I
won't take the time to read the names of all these nations now, I would
like to draw your attention to two of those with the strictest labeling
requirements, Canada and Mexico--our two closest trading partners.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of countries which
currently require country of origin labeling for produce to be printed
in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Produce Labeling Requirements Abroad
(From the National Food and Agriculture Policy Project/Arizona State
University)
Countries which require country of origin labeling on all
produce, including bulk produce: Bulgaria, Canada, Costa
Rica, Egypt, Germany, Greece, India, Ireland, Malaysia,
Mexico, Romania, Spain, Tunisia, and the United Kingdom.
Countries which require country of origin labeling only on
prepackaged products: Austria, Brazil, Ecuador, Hong Kong,
Israel, Iraq, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland, and
Venezuela.
Countries where country of origin labeling is an industry
practice, though not required: Denmark, Finland, Italy,
Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and Sweden.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, it is about time we start giving American
consumers the same information granted in these other nations.
Likewise, this legislation is not overly burdensome. The bill
provides for a wide variety of labeling options, any number of which
might be easily employed by American retailers to display information
they already know.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to consider this legislation
seriously. It is time to close the gap of knowledge that currently
exists relative to where imported produce is grown. American consumers
have the right to know where their food came from and, given the
opportunity, will use that information to protect and provide for their
families.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
will both support our national agricultural industries and bolster the
abilities of American consumers to make educated choices about the
fruits and vegetables that they purchase for their families: the
Imported Produce Labeling Act of 1997.
This important legislation extends our current country-of-origin
labeling laws--enacted as part of the Tariff Act of 1930--to require
country-of-origin labeling of imported produce at the final point of
sale, which for most Americans is the grocery store. It would bolster
food safety, give consumers more information, and allow American
growers to achieve some benefit from the heavy investment they make in
complying with health, labor, and environmental laws.
Mr. President, country-of-origin labeling is not a new idea. For
decades, European nations, Japan, and Canada have informed consumers
about the origins of the produce available for purchase.
One need only to walk through a supermarket in Paris to notice the
international nature of the produce sold. Shoppers can purchase apples
from the United States, tomatoes from Holland, grapes from Spain, pears
from France,
[[Page S7772]]
peaches from Italy, and oranges from Israel.
Our American supermarkets also carry agricultural products from a
wide range of exporting nations. Why, then, do our consumers lack the
advantage that their French, Japanese, and Canadian counterparts enjoy:
the ability to make informed choices about the food they feed to their
families?
It doesn't have to be that way. For 18 years, Florida grocery store
customers have enjoyed the benefits of a law very similar to what I am
proposing today.
In 1979, during my first term as Governor, the Florida State
Legislature enacted the Produce Labeling Act, a law that is now
administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services.
The law has been implemented with almost no additional regulation and
at extremely small cost to Florida taxpayers.
Extra supermarket inspections are not required. Department of
Agriculture inspectors verify compliance with the law as a part of
their already planned, routine inspections of all retail food stores in
the State.
Florida's policy also expends limited time and money. A standard
inspection takes approximately 15 minutes, the time needed to review
displays and document discrepancies. And enforcement costs are
estimated to be less than $40,000 annually for the department's
inspection of over 23,000 retail food establishments.
While costs are low, the benefits that Floridians have enjoyed as a
result of this policy are significant.
Most importantly, consumers are armed with important information
about the products upon which they spend their hard-earned paycheck.
Here's what that means:
The ``Made In The USA'' label can draw more customers to domestic
produce, thus supporting American farmers and the U.S. economy as a
whole.
Consumers have the ability to seek out foreign produce that is known
for its high quality.
Shoppers have the information needed to boycott products from
countries that exploit workers with low pay, poor working conditions,
or child labor.
American families can protect their own health from products
subjected to unsafe or unsanitary produce-handling practices.
The Florida Department of Agriculture reports that the State's
labeling law has been both well-received and cost-effective. It costs a
store only $5 to $10 per week to implement, and the estimated industry
compliance costs statewide are less than $200,000 annually.
In plain terms, this means that for less than $200,000, consumers in
a State that has 14 million residents and each year welcomes over 30
million visitors have the basic information regarding the origins of
the produce on their supermarket shelves. That's a small price to pay
for the ability to make educated choices in the marketplace.
It is my goal--and that of my cosponsors, Senator Craig of Idaho and
Senator Johnson of South Dakota--to ensure that all American consumers
are armed with the same ability to make informed choices as their
counterparts in Florida, Europe, and Japan.
We are introducing this legislation because the changing nature of
the agriculture market demands changes in our Nation's trade policy.
Sixty-seven years ago, when the Tariff Act of 1930 was enacted, fresh
fruits and vegetables were exempt from labeling laws.
The Tariff Act dictates that items are required to be labeled with
their country of origin only on their outermost container. In the case
of fresh fruit and vegetables, the outermost container is the shipping
container, from which produce is removed long before it ever reaches
the consumer.
Obviously, the consumer market has changed dramatically since 1930.
Whereas imported produce was once almost nonexistent in the United
States, it now constitutes a $1.7 billion industry. In fact, 60 percent
of our winter fruits and vegetables come from Mexico alone.
As imports have become a fixture in the domestic marketplace, our
growers and their associations have argued for country of origin
labeling. But this is an issue that unites producers and consumers.
Research has shown that an overwhelming number of American consumers
would like to know where their produce is grown--and they want that
information made readily available.
Our bill is not cumbersome. It simply says that a retailer of a
perishable agricultural product imported into the United States shall
inform consumers as to the national origins of that product.
Nor is it designed to give American products an unfair advantage in
the marketplace. In fact, foreign growers who believe that they grow a
superior product to ours see this legislation as a prime opportunity to
sell more of their goods in American supermarkets.
And finally, this bill does not suppress free trade or the free
market system. It simply seeks to level the regulatory playing field.
Shoppers in the European Union and Canada benefit from a county-of-
origin labeling requirement. American consumers should have access to
the same kind of information.
The Imported Produce Labeling Act constitutes one of the most
important agriculture trade initiatives that will come before us during
this Congress. It is a vital part of efforts to bolster one of the most
critical elements of our free-enterprise system: informed choice. I
urge its speedy passage.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 1044. A bill to amend the provisions of titles 17 and 18, United
States Code, to provide greater copyright protection by amending
criminal copyright infringement provisions, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE CRIMINAL COPYRIGHT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce on behalf of
Senator Kyl and myself, the Criminal Copyright Improvement Act of 1997.
This bill would close a significant loophole in our copyright law and
remove a significant hurdle in the Government's ability to bring
criminal charges in certain cases of willful copyright infringement. By
insuring better protection of the creative works available online, this
bill will also encourage the continued growth of the Internet and our
national information infrastructure.
This bill reflects the recommendations and hard work of the
Department of Justice, which worked with me to introduce a version of
this legislation in the 104th Congress. I want to commend the
Department for recognizing the need for action on this important
problem. This bill was noted with approval in the September, 1995
``Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights,''
chaired by Bruce Lehman, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, and
has been cited by the Business Software Alliance as one of its major
legislative priorities.
For a criminal prosecution under current copyright law a defendant's
willful copyright infringement must be ``for purposes of commercial
advantage or private financial gain.'' Not-for-profit or noncommercial
copyright infringement is not subject to criminal law enforcement, no
matter how egregious the infringement or how great the loss to the
copyright holder. This presents an enormous loophole in criminal
liability for willful infringers who can use digital technology to make
exact copies of copyrighted software and other digitally encoded works,
and then use computer networks for quick, inexpensive and mass
distribution of pirated, infringing works. This bill would close this
loophole.
United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994), is an
example of the problem this criminal copyright bill would fix. In that
case, an MIT student set up computer bulletin board systems on the
Internet. Users posted and downloaded copyrighted software programs.
This resulted in an estimated loss to the copyright holders of over $1
million over a 6-week period. Since the student apparently did not
profit from the software piracy, the Government could not prosecute him
under criminal copyright law and instead charged him with wire fraud.
The district court described the student's conduct ``at best * * * as
irresponsible, and at worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lacking
in any fundamental sense of values.''
[[Page S7773]]
Nevertheless, the Court dismissed the indictment in LaMacchia because
it viewed copyright law as the exclusive remedy for protecting
intellectual property rights. The Court expressly invited Congress to
revisit the copyright law and make any necessary adjustments, stating:
Criminal as well as civil penalties should probably attach
to willful, multiple infringements of copyrighted software
even absent a commercial motive on the part of the infringer.
One can envision ways that the copyright law could be
modified to permit such prosecution. But, ``[i]t is the
legislature, not the Court which is to define a crime, and
ordain its punishment.''
This bill would ensure redress in the future for flagrant, willful
copyright infringements in the following ways: First, serious acts of
willful copyright infringement that result in multiple copies over a
limited time period and cause significant loss to the copyright
holders, would be subject to criminal prosecution.
The bill would add a new offense prohibiting willful copyright
infringement by reproduction or distributing, including by electronic
means, during a 180-day period of 10 or more copies of 1 or more
copyrighted works when the total retail value of the copyrighted work
or the total retail value of the copies of such work is $5,000 or more.
The bill makes clear that to meet the monetary threshold either the
infringing copies or the copyrighted works must have a total retail
value of $5,000 or more. The penalty would be a misdemeanor if the
total retail value of the infringed or infringing works is between
$5,000 and $10,000, and up to 3 years' imprisonment if the total retail
value is $10,000 or more.
By contrast, the penalties proposed for for-profit infringement are
much stiffer. Specifically, under the existing 17 U.S.C. section
506(a)(1), for-profit infringements in which the retail value of the
infringing works is less than $2,500, would constitute a misdemeanor;
and, if the retail value of the infringing works is $2,500 or more, the
penalty is up to 5 years' imprisonment. As discussed below, this bill
would change the monetary threshold amount for felony liability under
section 506(a)(1) from $2,500 to $5,000.
The monetary, time period and number of copies thresholds for the new
offense, under 17 U.S.C. section 506(a)(2), for not-for-profit
infringements, combined with the scienter requirement, would insure
that criminal charges would only apply to willful infringements, not
merely casual or careless conduct, that result in a significant level
of harm to the copyright holder's rights. De minimis, not-for-profit
violations, including making a single pirated copy or distributing
pirated copies of works worth less than a total of $5,000, would not be
subject to criminal prosecution.
This bill would require that at least 10 or more copies of the
infringed work be made, which is a quantity requirement that was not
present for the new not-for-profit infringement offense in the version
of the bill introduced in the 104th Congress. Thus, it would not be a
crime under the bill to make a single copy of a copyrighted work, even
if that work were very valuable and worth over $10,000. Such valuable
intellectual property, whether or not copyrighted, that is stolen could
be protected under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, if it is a trade
secret, or under the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act
of 1996, which Senator Kyl and I sponsored, if the means used to
complete the theft involved unauthorized computer access.
Second, the bill would increase the monetary threshold for the
existing criminal copyright offense, which makes it a misdemeanor to
commit any willful infringement for commercial advantage or private
financial gain, and a felony if 10 or more copies of works with a
retail value of over $2,500 are made during a 180-day period. The bill
would increase the monetary threshold in this offense from $2,500 to
$5,000 for felony liability.
Third, the bill would add a provision to treat more harshly
recidivists who commit a second or subsequent felony criminal copyright
offense. Under existing law, repeat offenders who commit a second or
subsequent offense of copyright infringement for commercial advantage
or private financial gain are subject to imprisonment for up to 10
years. The bill would also double the term of imprisonment from 3 years
to 6 years for a repeat offense for noncommercial copyright
infringement. Such a calibration of penalties takes an important step
in ensuring adequate deterrence of repeated willful copyright
infringements.
Fourth, the bill would extend the statute of limitations for criminal
copyright infringement actions from 3 to 5 years, which is the norm for
violations of criminal laws under title 18, including those protecting
intellectual property.
Finally, the bill would strengthen victims' rights by giving
victimized copyright holders the opportunity to provide a victim impact
statement to the sentencing court. In addition, the bill would direct
the Sentencing Commission to set sufficiently stringent sentencing
guideline ranges for defendants convicted of intellectual property
offenses to deter these crimes.
Technological developments and the emergence of the national
information infrastructure in this country and the global information
infrastructure worldwide hold enormous promise and present significant
challenges for protecting creative works. Increasing accessibility and
affordability of information and entertainment services are important
goals that oftentimes require prudent balancing of public and private
interests. In the area of creative rights, that balance has rested on
encouraging creativity by ensuring rights that reward it while
encouraging its public availability.
The Copyright Act is grounded in the copyright clause of the
Constitution and assures that ``contributors to the store of knowledge
[receive] a fair return for their labors.'' Harper & Row ``The Nation
Enterprises'', 471 U.S. 539, 546 (1985). I am mindful, however, that
when we exercise our power to make criminal certain forms of copyright
infringement, we should act with ``exceeding caution'' to protect the
public's first amendment interest in the dissemination of ideas.
Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, 221 (1985). I look forward to
continuing to work with interested parties to make any necessary
refinements to this bill to insure that we have struck the appropriate
balance.
I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be placed in the
Record together with the bill and a sectional summary.
There being no objection, the bill and summary were ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1044
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 ``Criminal Copyright
Improvement Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.
(a) Definition of Financial Gain.--Section 101 of title 17,
United States Code, is amended by inserting after the
undesignated paragraph relating to the term ``display'', the
following new paragraph:
``The term `financial gain' includes receipt of anything of
value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.''.
(b) Criminal Offenses.--Section 506(a) of title 17, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a
copyright willfully either--
``(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private
financial gain; or
``(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 10 or more
copies, of 1 or more copyrighted works, and the total retail
value of the copyrighted work or the total retail value of
the copies of such work is $5,000 or more,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title
18.''.
(c) Limitation on Criminal Proceedings.--Section 507(a) of
title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking
``three'' and inserting ``five''.
(d) Criminal Infringement of a Copyright.--Section 2319 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``subsection (a) of this section'' and inserting ``section
506(a)(1) of title 17'';
(B) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by inserting ``including by electronic means,'' after
``if the offense consists of the reproduction or
distribution,''; and
(ii) by striking ``with a retail value of more than
$2,500'' and inserting ``which have a total retail value of
more than $5,000''; and
(C) in paragraph (3) by inserting before the semicolon
``under this subsection''; and
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e) and
inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Any person who commits an offense under section
506(a)(2) of title 17--
[[Page S7774]]
``(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 3 years, or fined
in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the
offense consists of the reproduction or distribution,
including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of
10 or more copies of 1 or more copyrighted works, and the
total retail value of the copyrighted work or the total
retail value of the copies of such work is $10,000 or more;
``(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year or fined in
the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense
consists of the reproduction or distribution, including by
electronic means during any 180-day period, of 10 or more
copies of 1 or more copyrighted works, and the total retail
value of the copyrighted works or the total retail value of
the copies of such works is $5,000 or more; and
``(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 6 years, or fined
in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the
offense is a second or subsequent felony offense under
paragraph (1).
``(d)(1) During preparation of the presentence report
pursuant to rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to
submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim
impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense
and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by
the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the
offense on that victim.
``(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements
shall include--
``(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by
conduct involved in the offense;
``(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such
works; and
``(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers,
and holders.''.
(e) Unauthorized Fixation and Trafficking of Live Musical
Performances.--Section 2319A of title 18, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections
(e) and (f), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
``(d) Victim Impact Statement.--(1) During preparation of
the presentence report pursuant to rule 32(c) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, victims of the offense shall be
permitted to submit, and the probation officer shall receive,
a victim impact statement that identifies the victim of the
offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss
suffered by the victim, including the estimated economic
impact of the offense on that victim.
``(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements
shall include--
``(A) producers and sellers of legitimate works affected by
conduct involved in the offense;
``(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such
works; and
``(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers,
and holders.''.
(f) Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services.--Section
2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (f) and
transferring such subsection to the end of the section;
(2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (d); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (d) (as redesignated by
paragraph (2) of this subsection) the following:
``(e)(1) During preparation of the presentence report
pursuant to rule 32(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, victims of the offense shall be permitted to
submit, and the probation officer shall receive, a victim
impact statement that identifies the victim of the offense
and the extent and scope of the injury and loss suffered by
the victim, including the estimated economic impact of the
offense on that victim.
``(2) Persons permitted to submit victim impact statements
shall include--
``(A) producers and sellers of legitimate goods or services
affected by conduct involved in the offense;
``(B) holders of intellectual property rights in such goods
or services; and
``(C) the legal representatives of such producers, sellers,
and holders.''.
(g) Directive to Sentencing Commission.--
(1) In general.--Under the authority of the Sentencing
Reform Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat. 1987) and
section 21 of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-182;
101 Stat. 1271; 18 U.S.C. 994 note) (including the authority
to amend the sentencing guidelines and policy statements),
the United States Sentencing Commission shall ensure that the
applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a
crime against intellectual property (including offenses set
forth at section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, and
sections 2319, 2319A and 2320 of title 18, United States
Code)--
(A) is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime;
(B) adequately reflects the additional considerations set
forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection; and
(C) takes into account more than minimal planning and other
aggravating factors.
(2) Implementation.--In implementing paragraph (1), the
Sentencing Commission shall ensure that the guidelines
provide for consideration of the retail value of the
legitimate items that are infringed upon and the quantity of
items so infringed.
____
Criminal Copyright Improvement Act of 1997--Summary
Sec. 1. Short Title. The Act may be cited as the ``Criminal
Copyright Improvement Act of 1997.''
Sec. 2. Criminal Infringement of Copyrights. As outlined
below, the bill adds a new definition for ``financial gain''
to 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101, and amends the criminal copyright
infringement provisions in titles 17 and 18. The bill also
ensures that victims of criminal copyright infringement have
an opportunity to provide victim impact statements to the
court about the impact of the offense. Finally, the bill
directs the Sentencing Commission to ensure that guideline
ranges are sufficiently stringent to deter criminal
infringement of intellectual property rights, and provide for
consideration of the retail value and quantity of the
legitimate, infringed-upon items and other aggravating
factors.
(a) Definition of Financial Gain. Current copyright law
provides criminal penalties when a copyright is willfully
infringed for purposes of ``commercial advantage or private
financial gain.'' The bill would add a definition of
``financial gain'' to the copyright law, 17 U.S.C. Sec. 101,
and clarify that this term means the ``receipt of anything of
value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.''
This definition would make clear that ``financial gain''
includes bartering for, and the trading of, pirated software.
(b) Criminal Offenses. The requirement in criminal
copyright infringement actions under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)
that the defendant's willful copyright infringement be ``for
purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain,''
has allowed serious incidents of copyright infringement to
escape successful criminal prosecution.
For example, in United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp.
535 (D. Mass. 1994), the defendant allegedly solicited users
of a computer bulletin board system on the Internet to submit
copies of copyrighted software programs for posting on the
system, and then encouraged users to download copies of the
illegally copied programs, resulting in an estimated loss of
revenue to the copyright holders of over one million dollars
over a six week period. Absent evidence of ``commercial
advantage or private financial gain,'' the defendant was
charged with conspiracy to violate the wire fraud statute, 18
U.S.C. Sec. 1343. The district court described the
defendant's conduct as ``heedlessly irresponsible, and at
worst as nihilistic, self-indulgent, and lacking in any
fundamental sense of values,'' but nevertheless dismissed the
indictment on the grounds that acts of copyright infringement
may not be prosecuted under the wire fraud statute.
The bill would add a new criminal copyright violation to
close this loophole in circumstances where no commercial
advantage or private financial gain may be shown. New section
17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(2) would prohibit willfully infringing
a copyright by reproducing or distributing, including by
electronic means, during any 180-day period, 10 or more
copies of 1 or more copyrighted works when the total retail
value of the copyrighted works or of the copies of such works
is $5,000 or more. The penalty would be a misdemeanor if the
total retail value of the infringed or infringing works is
between $5,000 and $10,000, and up to 3 years' imprisonment
if the total retail value is $10,000 or more.
Not-for-profit willful infringement would thus be subject
to similar threshold requirements as for a felony offense of
willful infringement for commercial advantage or private
financial gain under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(1), which
requires that 10 or more copies of copyrighted works with a
total retail value of more than $5000 be made during a 180-
day period. The penalties applicable to an offense under 17
U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(1) are more stringent than for the new
offense under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(2). Specifically, under
17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(1), if the retail value of the
infringing works is less than $5,000, the penalty is a
misdemeanor; and, if the retail value of the infringing works
is $5,000 or more, the penalty is up to 5 years'
imprisonment.
The monetary, timing, and number of copies prerequisites
for the new offense under 17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(2), combined
with the scienter requirement, insure that merely casual or
careless conduct resulting in distribution of only a few
infringing copies would not be subject to criminal
prosecution. In other words, criminal charges would only
apply to not-for-profit willful infringements of 10 or more
copies during a limited time period resulting in a
significant level of harm of over $5,000 to the copyright
holder's rights. De minimis violations would not be subject
to criminal prosecution.
The offenses under Sec. 506(a)(1) and (a)(2) would
overlap. For example, someone selling 10 or more copies of a
copyrighted work during a 180-day period may violate both
provisions if the value of those copyrighted works is $5,000
or more. The key, however, is that the new provision in Sec.
506(a)(2) requires that the infringement involve, at a
minimum, harm in the amount of $5,000. By contrast, any
offense, regardless of value, involving private financial
gain or commercial advantage constitutes at least a
misdemeanor, and the crime reaches felony level under the
bill once the retail value of the copyrighted or infringing
material exceeds $5,000.
The new crime would also require that at least 10 or
more copies of the infringed work be made. It would not be
a crime under the bill to make a single copy of a
copyrighted work, even if it were very valuable and worth
over $10,000. Such valuable intellectual property, whether
or not copyrighted,
[[Page S7775]]
that is stolen could be protected under the Economic
Espionage Act of 1996 (if it is a trade secret), or under
the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of
1996, if the means used to complete the theft involved
unauthorized computer access.
(c) Limitation on Criminal Procedures. The bill would amend
17 U.S.C. Sec. 507(a) to extend the statute of limitations
for criminal copyright infringement actions from three to
five years. A five year statute of limitations is the norm
for violations of criminal laws under Title 18, including
those that relate to protecting intellectual property. See,
e.g., 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2319A (Unauthorized fixation of and
Trafficking in sound recordings) and Sec. 2320 (Trafficking
in counterfeit goods or services).
(d) Criminal Infringement of a Copyright. The bill would
amend the penalty provisions in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2319 to
comport with the proposed amendments to 17 U.S.C. Sec.
506(a), and would also add a new subsection providing for a
victim impact statement.
First, under current law, willful copyright infringement
for commercial advantage or private financial gain is a
felony punishable by up to five years' imprisonment only when
the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution
during a 180-day period of ten or more copies with a retail
value of over $2500. Willful infringements for commercial
advantage, which do not satisfy the monetary threshold or
quantity requirement during the statutory time period, are
misdemeanor offenses. The bill would modify the felony
penalty provision for willful copyright infringement for
commercial advantage or private financial gain to cover
reproductions or distributions ``including by electronic
means''. The bill would also change the monetary threshold
from $2,500 to $5,000.
Second, the bill would provide a new penalty in 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2319(c) for the new offense in 17 U.S.C. Sec.
506(a)(2) of willfully infringing a copyright by reproduction
or distribution, including by electronic means, during a 180-
day period of 10 or more copies of copyright works when the
total retail value of the copyrighted work or of the copies
of such work is $5,000 or more. Violations would be
punishable by up to 1 year imprisonment and fine if the total
retail value of the infringed or infringing works is between
$5,000 and $10,000, and by up to 3 years' imprisonment and a
fine if the total retail value is $10,000 or more.
The penalty structure under the bill is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infringed work values-- Under $5,000 $5,000 to $10,000 Over $10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willful infringement for Misdemeanor.......... FELONY (up to 5 years), if FELONY (up to 5 years),
commercial advantage/private 10 or more copies within if 10 or more copies
financial gain [17 U.S.C. Sec. 180-day period. within 180-day period.
506(a)(1)].
Willful infringement by No criminal liability Misdemeanor, if 10 or more FELONY (up to 3 years),
reproduction or distribution of copies within 180-day if 10 or more copies
works with value over $10,000 for period. within 180-day period.
any reason [17 U.S.C. Sec.
506(a)(2)].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the bill would add a provision to treat more harshly
recidivists who commit a second or subsequent felony offense
under new 18 U.S.C. 2319(c), which refers to new 17 U.S.C.
Sec. 506(a)(2). Under existing law, 18 U.S.C. 2319(b)(2),
recidivists are subject to up to ten years' imprisonment and
a fine for a second felony offense for willful copyright
infringement for commercial advantage or private financial
gain. The bill would double the penalty to up to six years'
imprisonment and a fine for a second felony offense under new
17 U.S.C. Sec. 506(a)(2) for not-for-profit willful
copyright infringement.
Finally, the bill would add new subsection Sec. 2319(d),
requiring that victims of the offense, including producers
and sellers of legitimate, infringed-upon goods or services,
holders of intellectual property rights and their legal
representatives, be given the opportunity to provide a victim
impact statement to the probation officer preparing the
presentence report. The bill directs that the statement
identify the victim of the offense and the extent and scope
of the injury and loss suffered, including the estimated
economic impact of the offense on that victim.
(e) Unauthorized Fixation and Trafficking of Live Musical
Performances. The bill would add new subsection 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2319A(d) requiring that victims of the offense,
including producers and sellers of legitimate, infringed-upon
goods or services, holders of intellectual property rights
and their legal representatives, be given the opportunity to
provide a victim impact statement to the probation officer
preparing the presentence report. The bill directs that the
statement identify the victim of the offense and the extent
and scope of the injury and loss suffered, including the
estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.
(f) Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services. The bill
would add new subsection 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2320(e) requiring
that victims of the offense, including producers and sellers
of legitimate, infringed-upon goods or services, holders of
intellectual property rights and their legal representatives,
be given the opportunity to provide a victim impact statement
to the probation officer preparing the presentence report.
The bill directs that the statement identify the victim of
the offense and the extent and scope of the injury and loss
suffered, including the estimated economic impact of the
offense on that victim.
(g) Directive to Sentencing Commission. The Sentencing
Commission currently takes the view that criminal copyright
infringement and trademark counterfeiting are analogous to
fraud-related offenses, and that appropriate sentences are to
be calculated according to the retail value of the infringing
items, rather than of the legitimate copyrighted items which
are infringed. This may understate the harm. The bill would
direct the Sentencing Commission to ensure that applicable
guideline ranges for criminal copyright infringement and
violations of 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2319, 2319A and 2320 are
sufficiently stringent to deter such crimes, provide for
consideration of the retail value and quantity of the
legitimate, infringed-upon items, and take into account more
than minimal planning and other aggravating factors.
______
By Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Murkowski, Mr.
Kempthorne, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Gorton):
S.J. Res. 35. A joint resolution granting the consent of Congress to
the Pacific Northwest Emergency Management Arrangement; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENT
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
grant congressional consent to the Pacific Northwest Emergency
Management Arrangement entered into between the States of Alaska,
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington and the Provinces of British Columbia and
the Yukon Territory.
Mr. President, I am pleased that so many of my colleagues from the
Pacific Northwest have joined me in cosponsoring this important
legislation.
This agreement, negotiated and signed by the Governors of the four
Pacific Northwest States and their colleagues in Canada, would
significantly improve multi-State and binational cooperation during the
response phase of natural disasters in the Northwest. In addition, it
would provide for region-wide civil defense coordination and guarantee
residents of each State emergency services. The agreement does this
while protecting the individual sovereignty of each State and Province.
Mr. President, given the impact of recent natural disasters across
the Pacific Northwest, my colleagues can easily understand why this
measure is so important. I hope the Senate will act quickly in seeing
this measure approved without delay.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 35
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress Assembled.
SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.
Congress consents to the Pacific Northwest Emergency
Management Arrangement entered into between the State of
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and the Province of
British Columbia and the Yukon Territory. The arrangement is
substantially as follows:
``PACIFIC NORTHWEST EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENT
``Whereas, Pacific Northwest emergency management
arrangement between the government of the States of Alaska,
the government of the State of Idaho, the government of the
State of Oregon, the government of the State of Washington,
the government of the State of the Providence of British
Columbia, and the government of Yukon Territory hereinafter
referred to collectively as the `Signatories' and separately
as a `Signatory';
``Whereas, the Signatories recognize the importance of
comprehensive and coordinated civil emergency preparedness,
response and recovery measures for natural and technological
emergencies or disasters, and for declared or undeclared
hostilities including enemy attack;
``Whereas, the Signatories further recognize the benefits
of coordinating their separate emergency preparedness,
response and recovery measures with that of contiguous
jurisdictions for those emergencies, disasters, or
hostilities affecting or potentially affecting any one or
more of the Signatories in the Pacific Northwest; and
``Whereas, the Signatories further recognize that
regionally based emergency preparedness, response and
recovery measures
[[Page S7776]]
will benefit all jurisdictions within the Pacific Northwest,
and best serve their respective national interests in
cooperative and coordinated emergency preparedness as
facilitated by the Consultative Group on Comprehensive Civil
Emergency and Management established in the Agreement Between
the government of the United States of America and the
government of Canada on Cooperation and Comprehensive Civil
Emergency Planning and Management signed at Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada on April 28, 1986: Now, therefore, be it is hereby
agreed by and between each and all of the Signatories hereto
as follows:
``advisory committee
``(1) An advisory committee named the Western Regional
Emergency Management Advisory Committee (W-REMAC) shall be
established which will include one member appointed by each
Signatory.
``(2) The W-REMAC will be guided by the agreed-upon Terms
of Reference-Annex A.
``principles of cooperation
``(3) Subject to the laws of each Signatory, the following
cooperative principles are to be used as a guide by the
Signatories in civil emergency matters which may affect more
than one Signatory:
``(A) The authorities of each Signatory may seek the
advice, cooperation, or assistance of any other Signatory in
any civil emergency matter.
``(B) Nothing in the arrangement shall derogate from the
applicable laws within the jurisdiction of any Signatory.
However, the authorities of any Signatory may request from
the authorities of any other signatory appropriate
alleviation of such laws if their normal application might
lead to delay or difficulty in the rapid execution of
necessary civil emergency measures.
``(C) Each Signatory will use its best efforts to
facilitate the movement of evacuees, refugees, civil
emergency personnel, equipment or other resources into or
across its territory, or to a designated staging area when it
is agreed that such movement or staging will facilitate civil
emergency operations by the affected or participating
Signatories.
``(D) In times of emergency, each Signatory will use its
best efforts to ensure that the citizens or residents of any
other Signatory present in its territory are provided
emergency health services and emergency social services in a
manner no less favorable than that provided to its own
citizens.
``(E) Each Signatory will use discretionary power as far as
possible to avoid levy of any tax, tariff, business license,
or user fees on the services, equipment, and supplies of any
other Signatory which is engaged in civil emergency
activities in the territory of another Signatory, and will
use its best efforts to encourage local governments or other
jurisdictions within its territory to do likewise.
``(F) When civil emergency personnel, contracted firms or
personnel, vehicles, equipment, or other services from any
Signatory are made available to or are employed to assist any
other Signatory, all providing Signatories will use best
efforts to ensure that charges, levies, or costs for such use
or assistance will not exceed those paid for similar use of
such resources within their own territory.
``(G) Each Signatory will exchange contact lists, warning
and notification plans, and selected emergency plans and will
call to the attention of their respective local governments
and other jurisdictional authorities in areas adjacent to
intersignatory boundaries, the desirability of compatibility
of civil emergency plans and the exchange of contact lists,
warning and notification plans, and selected emergency plans.
``(H) The authority of any Signatory conducting an exercise
will ensure that all other signatories are provided an
opportunity to observe, and/or participate in such exercises.
``Comprehensive Nature
``(4) This document is a comprehensive arrangement on civil
emergency planning and management. To this end and from time
to time as necessary, all Signatories shall--
``(A) review and exchange their respective contact lists,
warning and notification plans, and selected emergency plans;
and
``(B) as appropriate, provide such plans and procedures to
local governments, and other emergency agencies within their
respective territories.
``Arrangement Not Exclusive
``(5) This is not an exclusive arrangement and shall not
prevent or limit other civil emergency arrangements of any
nature between Signatories to this arrangement. In the event
of any conflicts between the provisions of this arrangement
and any other arrangement regarding emergency service entered
into by two or more States of the United States who are
Signatories to this arrangement, the provisions of that other
arrangement shall apply, with respect to the obligations of
those States to each other, and not the conflicting
provisions of this arrangement.
``Amendments
``(6) This Arrangement and the Annex may be amended (and
additional Annexes may be added) by arrangement of the
Signatories.
``Cancellation or Substitution
``(7) Any Signatory to this Arrangement may withdraw from
or cancel their participation in this Arrangement by giving
sixty days, written notice in advance of this effective date
to all other Signatories.
``Authority
``(8) All Signatories to this Arrangement warrant they have
the power and capacity to accept, execute, and deliver this
Arrangement.
``Effective Date
``(9) Notwithstanding any dates noted elsewhere, this
Arrangement shall commence April 1, 1996.''.
SEC. 2. INCONSISTENCY OF LANGUAGE.
The validity of the arrangements consented to by this Act
shall not be affected by any insubstantial difference in
their form or language as adopted by the States and
provinces.
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.
The right to alter, amend, or repeal this Act is hereby
expressly reserved.
____________________