[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.

                          ____________________